Abrams: Star Trek Not For The Fans Alone [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: Star Trek Not For The Fans Alone [UPDATED] April 21, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: 1-18-08/Cloverfield,Abrams,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

While JJ Abrams is out doing promotional interviews for the upcoming DVD release of Cloverfield (which he produced) some Trek talk is slipping through. Even though last week Abrams touted the respect for Roddenberry’s vision, in some new interviews the Star Trek director made it clear that his new Trek is going to be ‘realer’ than ever before and targeting a whole new audience.

Abrams on Trek’s audience

The audience we’re making this movie for is people who love movies, not people who love Star Trek movies. … I’m not saying we’re not honoring what’s come before, (but) if we made this movie for them alone, we would be limiting our audience like crazy.

Based on sales of the last two Trek films and ratings for Enterprise, it is clear why Abrams (and Paramount) are targeting a larger audience. However, with these latest interviews you can see how Abrams is really trying to thread the needle between honoring past Trek and Trek fans, while making it clear to the mainstream movie going audience (and press) that Star Trek is for them too.

UPDATE: More on Trek from Abrams

The challenge of (“Star Trek”) is to take something that — despite the baggage of what came before — was imaginative and unreal and make it feel as real as possible

On what defines Abrams films and TV series

If there is a through-line in the stuff I’ve been able to work on, it is taking stories that are out there and combining them with people who are us

Abrams on Cloverfield and sequel
In another interview, Abrams talked about his ‘less is more’ approach to Cloverfield

It becomes more effective to have fewer money shots, like ‘Alien’ and ‘Jaws.’ When you’re not actually seeing things but anticipating them, it can be much more terrifying. We really tried to take the position that less is more. There are definitely shots where you see the whole thing, but we didn’t want to make something where you felt it was becoming overdone.

But regarding a possible Cloverfield sequel, Abrams was his usual enigmatic self

There’s no commitment to doing a follow-up. Unless there was something that really inspired us.

Cloverfield comes out on DVD tomorrow and, with salesman perfection, Abrams lets you know why you need to buy it:

The thing about this movie — probably more than any I think — is that it is better on DVD than in the theater. Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor

More at Chron.com and Canadian Press and Reuters

Comments

1. bgiles73 - April 21, 2008

Any way I’ll be glad when May 09 gets here.

2. CmdrR - April 21, 2008

Just noticing that the mystery in Cloverfield that was so much a part of the viral campaign and the studio trailers… is shot to s*$% in the DVD promotions. You see the monster. No mystery. It’s a monster, folks. Good clear view. Monster. (I know, we’re never sure if it’s a space monster or a sea monster or an A-bomb mutant monster, but still…) If Cloverfield’s appeal was suspense, that’s gone baby, gone.

3. Tim GER - April 21, 2008

It´s Logical

4. CmdrR - April 21, 2008

Is it just me or does this photo of JJ look like the poster from Disney’s “The Producer Wore Tennis Shoes.” (He looks like a teenaged Kurt Russell.)

5. Negotiator - April 21, 2008

JJ better not apply his “less is more” approach to the Enterprise.

6. trekkie1415 - April 21, 2008

I felt very uncomfortable while watching Cloverfield. I love suspense movies and I love action movies and horror movies, but something about Cloverfield really got to me.

I’m defiantly going to buy the DVD someday, but I’m not in a hurry. I’m still detoxing from watching it 2 nights in a row in theaters, and its been 3 months.

7. Green-Blooded-Bastard - April 21, 2008

#2 CmdrR

It’s a space monster… End of the movie when they flashback to the two kids on the ferris wheel, you can see the thing fall out of the sky and into the ocean behind them like a huge comet.

8. Phil - April 21, 2008

Yoo hoo. Good to see that I’m not the only one who spotted that.

9. CmdrR - April 21, 2008

Dammit! One more part of the mystery spoiled!

I just mean that DVD promotions are even less respectful of the material than theatrical trailers, and that’s going some!

There’s also that $100 action figure of the space monster out there.

Could still be a fun flick on DVD.

10. hitch1969© - April 21, 2008

Me thinks me main geezah Sir JJ™ be all caught up in studio talk wif dem bosses, aiiight? The fact that it is a Star Trek movie defines it as for the fans alone.

SO let’s assume there are 3 main factions out there. The fans, those who totally hate it, and the last one let’s call the indifferent. No Star Trek story is going to be for anyone other than the fans. The hataz are never coming around. So you hope to pull in the indifferents.

How you do that is not the story so much as making this an event. Which Kirk Russell and dem blokes is doing. So it’s not just “the next” star trek movie, for the hardcore fans. I mean come on are there, or were there prior to, any “Cloverfield” or even “Lost” fans?

Its a difficult relationship once you cultivate it. Sir JJ certainly has created it with the Lost. He does Lost, right? Anyway… My point is this, as it always is. It’s like that dude, Warren Beatty. How does you keep Annette Bening married to you, yet you still go out like a playa and hits it all around?

You expect her to be faithful. You have to cheat, by nature, but she can’t. You’re a man, you’re a man, that’s all you am. Think about the instincts here. Think about what’s happening in nature with the animals on the most primitive levels. It’s total cake and eat it too. But dudes let’s be honest. That’s the way we is wired.

The movie is for the fans alone. The story is for the fans alone. The greatness of this will be for everyone. THAT is what dat Kirk Russell be telling you. Trust me. You heard it from old h69 first. Here at trek movies dot com.

BEST!!

=h=

11. BrF - April 21, 2008

The “This isn’t just for the diehard fans” line gets trotted out for every new Star Trek film. (For the reissued collectible figures, no. But for the films, yes.) Who knows if it’s what the studios believe or what they hope or what they just feel obligated to say? But it’s simply an reflexive defensive gesture. They *have* to say it. I don’t know if it really means anything one way or the other.

12. Dennis Bailey - April 21, 2008

I don’t know anyone who went to “Cloverfield” who didn’t know going in that it was a big ol’ “Godzilla” monster. So that’s no spoiler.

What it looked like was pretty much unknown.

13. AJ - April 21, 2008

JJ has to tow the corporate line. He is given a set of boundaries by a Corporate Affairs Dept. for when he interviews, and because the outlay is vast to make Trek, and the message to shareholders is “we’ll deliver the goods.”

Shareholders probably always ask, well “Trek tanked on big and small screen, so why is this different.?” JJ has Cred with Lost , and his association with Cloverfield. And he’s saying “Trust Me.”

14. Green-Blooded-Bastard - April 21, 2008

Ha! Sorry CmdrR.

I personally didn’t like Cloverfield at all, however, given JJ Abrams reputation and body of work, I really believe him able to pull off a spectacular Star trek. He makes the kind of movies that make you want to pay to go see them.

15. Anthony Thompson - April 21, 2008

10. hitch1969

Are you hoping for a hiphop soundtrack for the movie? Now THAT would bring in a new audience!

16. Denise de Arman - April 21, 2008

Abrams has many interviews do to between now and May 2009. Let him cast his nets and reel in the fish.

17. I Love My Moogie - April 21, 2008

“Based on sales of the last two Trek films and ratings for Enterprise, it is clear why Abrams (and Paramount) are targeting a larger audience”

Enterprise (seasons 1-3) & TNG movies tanked because they stunk, not because there wasn’t a core fanbase. Berman chased us away.

Now that the film is in the can, JJ’s most recent interviews are shifting away from honoring/rebooting & towards reinventing TOS for those who never had interest in it before. He just did an interview for the LA Daily News where he notes preference for Star Wars over Trek, which he never noted before & during production.

To change the core TOS doesn’t make sense, if someone isn’t a fan they are not going to be swayed, though I fear for myself, this revisioned TOS will sway me in the opposite direction.

I’m not saying this to be negative, but this direction is chasing me, a 42 year fan, away from the franchise. TOS was about great writing & acting—not FX, action & CGI sets.

As I’ve been made aware, some here disagree with me, but I hope you will respect my sincerity on this subject just as I respect your enthusiasm for this film.

18. hitch1969© - April 21, 2008

re 15. Anthony Thompson

Nah dude, I’m a purist like JC™. It’s gotta be the standard orchestrated stuff. I thought even STIV was pushing it a bit to include the punk stuff, even given the time travel story.

And let me go on record here for a sec to say that just because we talk about it in theory here, it ain’t cool to step out on your lady. I want all of the impressionable children who may read this to know that old h69 does not condone adultery or any of the other major commandments being broken. I was also raised to believe that it’s not cool for men to hit women, although I can see where SHA KA REE comes from when he says an open handed slap might be proper to keep a babbling hen in line. Again, I’m not saying that it is right. I merely make commentary on the nature of things as they are happening in mother nature.

I’ve got Discovery HD now. Those nature shows are awesome. I never have to leave Colorado now… it’s all there in HD. You can do it all, go anywhere. Man I love dat techMology!

BEST!!

=h=

19. Battletrek - April 21, 2008

they are making kirk into indiana jones for this, something to think about

20. Dennis Bailey - April 21, 2008

No, “Enterprise” and the Trek movies tanked because the “core fan base” isn’t big enough to support the Franchise – that’s just a fact.

Trek did well when people other than Trekkies would make some time or pay some money to watch it – and those people get bored after a while. You have to give them something new and different to bring them back.

21. Todd Rivers - April 21, 2008

Wasn’t this Abrahms tidbit already covered in a previous news item? We already know it’s not just for the fans but people that may have never have seen Trek before.

22. Captain Robert April - April 21, 2008

Never let it be said that Dennis ever passed up an opportunity to rag on the fanbase. Somebody should write a paper on his particular brand of self-loathing.

The fact of the matter is that the “hardcore” fanbase has different levels of hardness, and those levels respond differently.

If the quality if good, that fanbase swells to incredible numbers, but when the quality suffers, when the producers start making snarky remarks about the fans, more than a few layers of that fanbase onion are more than willing to take their Parises Squares gear and go home, to wait until things turn around. The hardest of the hardcore, that will gleefully lap up anything with a Star Trek label and put up with whatever abuse TPTB sling their way, yeah, those members of the “Get a Life” club don’t constitute the numbers to float the franchise, and thank the gods for that! Otherwise, season four of Enterprise would’ve been even more of the same undiluted crap Berman and Braga had been peddling for the previous ten years, going back to the dive down the mediorcity rabbit hole that was Voyager.

So, yeah, there are more than enough dedicated Star Trek fans to make or break this film. Thankfully, most of them are not blindly loyal sheep who’ll show up no matter what manner of drek is flung on the screen.

23. Brian - April 21, 2008

How ironic I thought with the last 2 films and Enterprise they were trying to appeal to a broader audience and not just the fans. Someone go ask Berman how that worked out for them and his career

24. Teleportation Girl - April 21, 2008

Leonard Nimoy sounded pretty genuine about liking the script, the acting and the movie so far as a whole. And Quinto mentioned that he was amazed at the set design – sets like he’s never seen before, is what he said. JJ says he respects Roddenberry’s vision. Plus, Abrams is a creative, energetic interesting director. That is all enough to make me feel hopeful.

as for cloverfield, the monster is supposed to be a baby monster that got separated from it’s mother and had a case of separation anxiety (i’m not kidding) while it was in NYC. the next movie is supposed to be the mother- monster. slusho is supposed to be a deep sea experiment that went wrong that created these things, although i don’t understand the connection with the monster falling out of the sky. i’m just reporting what i’ve read. :)

even tho cloverfield made me nauseous, i plan to get my slusho and wait in line for the next one, just for curiousity’s sake.

25. Cyberghost - April 21, 2008

May 2009, thats a long way off. How many of the same interviews is he going to do. It will be like having one of your favorite cd’s put on repeat for about 400 days, over and over.

But I am sure it will be worth the wait, and at least hopefully we will not have to wait as long for ST12.

26. Bussani - April 21, 2008

#7 Green-Blooded-Bastard

Apparently that isn’t the case, but you have to go through the viral marketing to figure that out.

What falls out of the sky at the end of the film is a satellite belonging to the Tagruato Corp, which was a deep sea drilling corporation if I remember right. Either the satellite falling or the search to recover it is what awakened the monster, which had been sleeping on Earth for millions of years, according to Mr Abrams.

That still doesn’t tell us if it’s an alien, a mutant or something natural, but whatever it is it didn’t arrive recently.

27. Chris Roberts - April 21, 2008

There Is little news here.He has long said this Is for both established fans
and new filmgoers.He has said he was more Into Star Wars at Comic Con.We know some liberties will be taken while other things fit Canon.
They are doing something to please fans while appealling to the blockbuster film fans as well.Their work on Alias and Lost shows
they can do It.

28. AJ - April 21, 2008

17: Any show is about hitting its financial targets, and a great genre show like Trek also had set the standard when it came back out in 1987 after 4 successful movies to that of the top in TV FX.

The TV shows were that standard, spending $1m per episode. The ensemble actors are fixed in the budget, and they were always good, but VOY and ENT just couldn’t keep us interested.

I think, in DS9, the Dominion War was getting long-winded, and they brought in Worf to attract more crossover business from TNG. After all the excitement, they killed off Sisko, and shut down the Alpha Quadrant.

They then sent a small ship into unknown territory (VOY), and lost all fans of Klingons, Romulans, and Federation politics, etc. Like Joey from Friends moving to LA. WTF?

The FX were great, and the ensemble worked well, but nothing interesting happened until they did the Borg to the point of overkill. ENT was dead from its first minute on TV because none of the existing lore outside of one film was usable.

29. Jeff - April 21, 2008

OK, people, stop obsessing!

Point 1: EVERYONE knows that Cloverfield has a monster in it, even people who don’t want to see it. There’s no surprise left, instead it’s a matter of getting people who didn’t see it to think “That looks cool!” and picking up or renting the DVD.

Point 2: Stop wasting your time deconstructing every syllable that anyone associated with the new movie speaks. Really. There’s a whole freakin’ year until it comes out, go do something else. And you know what? It’s really, really annoying. Read a book!

Jeff

P.S. I visited Vasquez Rocks today! Whoo hoo!

30. Viking - April 21, 2008

‘The thing about this movie — probably more than any I think — is that it is better on DVD than in the theater. Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor.’

I’ll reserve judgement, J.J., but I’ll give you an after-action report, soonest: our Netflix copy will be here tomorrow. Here’s to hoping you’re spot-on.

31. Jack - April 21, 2008

marry me, Jeff.

32. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator - April 21, 2008

I want spoilers, dammit, not more of this wishy-washy “Yeah we’re staying true to the enigmatic Roddenberry vision while still making it accessible to non-Trekkies” garbage. Personally I don’t see how Roddenberry’s “vision” isn’t accessible to non-Trekkies in the first place, but whatever. It’s just their way of secretly saying that they don’t think Roddenberry’s ideas are good enough for people anymore.

I want JJ to back up his flimsy words with some real photographic evidence of how much he’s sticking to established Trek.

Gimme spoiler pics, dammit! lol…

33. diabolk - April 21, 2008

The truth is, he could alienate all of us hardcore fans, but have it be a hit with the general audience, and the B.O. would never feel it. So we should hope for a film that is attractive to the non-Trekker audience, and be glad that JJ is still thinking of us also.

Trek needs a shot in the arm, or a zap to the chest, to bring it back to life, and not be a fan-thinkg only. I want it to be a hit for a large audience, and this will in turn bring more fans into the fold who start watching the Remastered Trek. It is now ready for them.

34. SteveinSF - April 21, 2008

I agree with #17– In my humble opinion…
Enterprise was boring and did not do good job as a prequel. Too much of Bergman influence. The only movie worth a damn from the TNG was First Contact–and even that was silly at the end with the Vulcan speaking prefect English and giving a the Vulcan salute ( I know, universal translator….blah blah). The other TNG movies were just damn boring for me. Even the TOS movies –I am a hard core fan of the TOS–they weren’t all that good but were fun to watch ( ok, not #5 so much).

I am interested in seeing what Abrams is going to do and how he fits Nimoy into this whole thing.

35. Denise de Arman - April 21, 2008

Ooh, Jeff, did you stand squinting up at the peak of the highest outcropping, holding your breath and wondering if Spock just might walk out donned in his Vulcan hippy regala? Or at least spot a Gorn…

36. angry but i'll get over it - April 21, 2008

booo…still will see it, tho

37. Robert - April 21, 2008

That’s what I like to hear. That movies are not just for the fans, but for everyone.

38. Chirs M - April 21, 2008

I’ll be happy if Star Trek is a great movie which I think and hope it will be and if it succeeds in brining in new fans then that is all the better for us Trekkies and the furture of the Star Trek Franchise!

39. I Love My Moogie - April 21, 2008

“The challenge of (”Star Trek”) is to take something that — despite the baggage of what came before”

Baggage? 79 episodes & six films of canon are now baggage? This is no longer my Star Trek, so knowing when the party is over I believe it’s now time to move on from Trek, something I never imagined ever doing.

To everyone here, whether we agreed on the issues or not, I bid you farewell with my highest respect. You are a terrific group! Live Long & Prosper.

40. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - April 21, 2008

“The thing about this movie — probably more than any I think — is that it is better on DVD than in the theater. Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor.”

Great. Now you tell me. Good thing I spent $27 so the three of us could see it.

41. Dennis Bailey - April 21, 2008

#22 :”Never let it be said that Dennis ever passed up an opportunity to rag on the fanbase. Somebody should write a paper on his particular brand of self-loathing.”

Have you ever written a paper?

Here’s a hint – it’s not “self-loathing”… Don’t think much of you, though. :)

42. Steve Short - April 21, 2008

Is the Star Trek trailer in the Cloverfield DVD also?

43. kmart - April 21, 2008

#41

Given how much effort April has put into trek-related stuff, I image he HAS written and published papers, and I sure as hell know I have. But whether anybody could pay me enough to justify writing a paper on YOUR toadying to Paramount or any other aspect of your web-behavior … well, I just dunno.

Bailey, you’ve done more to chase coherent thought away from trekbbs than any number of the more illiterate numbnuts, and it is because you have a shred of credibility that you are so dangerous. If there was ever a case of the emperor having no clothes, man you’re the one with all the empty hangers in his closet.

Enterprise MIGHT have worked if they’d tried to do a mature job of storytelling, but I guess that’s based on the talent pool (remember these are the guys who couldn’t handle Ron Moore contributing to their other mess, VOYAGER.) ST 10 might have worked if it was not NEMESIS, but then again, when you’ve got a star messing with the creative end of the franchise (see INSURRECTION), the end is clearly in sight.

44. Dennis Bailey - April 21, 2008

That’s quite a bit of typing there, kmart.

As far as trying to equate drawing pictures of spaceships with the ability to do academic research, though… you fail. :)

45. Windsor Bear - April 21, 2008

#39 – I Love My Moogie – “This is no longer my Star Trek, so knowing when the party is over I believe it’s now time to move on from Trek, something I never imagined ever doing.”

Don’t leave buddy. The whole new Star Trek movie is really very simple….
Let’s compare it to Burger King burgers… Original Star Trek is the Whopper… and this new Star Trek movie is whatever the featured burger of the month is.

The new burger is different with a tangy new sauce and topped with heaven knows what. Everybody flocks to it when it first comes out. Then, little by little everybody tires of it and slowly goes back to buying the Whopper. Why? Because the Whopper was the “original”. It has credibility and just tastes better. Soon, the new burger disappears from the menu and people start to forget about it. Meanwhile, the Whopper lives on.

You think I’m kidding??? We’ll find out about six months after the release of the movie.

46. Green-Blooded-Bastard - April 21, 2008

#26 Bussani

If I have to go through “viral marketing” to help me understand that it’s a satellite and there’s an deep-sea drilling corporation that is searching for it and it wakes up a monster and all this back story, it’s no wonder I get sick of going to the movies. I don’t want to have to use secret decoder rings or internet searches to help me figure out what I’m watching in the theater, especially after I pay $9 to see the movie. I take a face value what I’m watching, just like most human beings do at the theater. If your average Joe Blow walks into a movie and watches a “thing” fall out of the sky after watching 90 minutes of a monster rip up Manhattan, it leaves one to believe that’s the impression the director wanted a person to leave the theater with…Something fell out of the sky, crawled up out of the ocean and destroyed New York. If there’s more, stick it in the film so I have a beginning, middle and end. The director and writers might think it’s cool and artsy, but it just annoys the heck out of me.

This is why I download movies. I hate paying for half a story. I certainly won’t go see a Cloverfield II.

47. Xai - April 21, 2008

19. Battletrek – April 21, 2008
they are making kirk into indiana jones for this, something to think about”

Good attempt at humor or just trying to stir up the crowd? Either way you know that’s not true.

48. Denise de Arman - April 21, 2008

kmart#43- Why the personal attack? Can’t we all just get along?

49. Xai - April 21, 2008

39. I Love My Moogie – April 21, 2008
“The challenge of (”Star Trek”) is to take something that — despite the baggage of what came before”

Baggage? 79 episodes & six films of canon are now baggage? This is no longer my Star Trek, so knowing when the party is over I believe it’s now time to move on from Trek, something I never imagined ever doing.”

Completely overboard to the nth degree on the nitpick scale. He said baggage… so what?

50. Xai - April 21, 2008

32. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator – April 21, 2008
“I want spoilers, dammit, not more of this wishy-washy “Yeah we’re staying true to the enigmatic Roddenberry vision while still making it accessible to non-Trekkies” garbage. Personally I don’t see how Roddenberry’s “vision” isn’t accessible to non-Trekkies in the first place, but whatever. It’s just their way of secretly saying that they don’t think Roddenberry’s ideas are good enough for people anymore.

I want JJ to back up his flimsy words with some real photographic evidence of how much he’s sticking to established Trek.”

–I am sure after all those compliments you’ve just thrown into that tirade they will upload tons of spoilers and pics and likely will get you invited to the premiere.

51. Robert April - April 21, 2008

I really liked the new Battlestar Galactica’s realism when the vipers would launch and all you would hear was a very dramatic NOTHING. TV and movie sci-fi has always dictated that you need a “wooooosh” or some other sound. But in space, no one can hear spaceships scream. . .

Now transpose that idea to Trek.

Imagine a new minimalist transporter visual effect (maybe just a faint distortion like what was seen when the alien would cloak in the Predator movies) that has no accompanying sound – save for the air popping as the person on the pad disappears ? Might really be cool.

J.J. You might want to think of this during post.

Best regards,
RA

52. Xai - April 21, 2008

Star Trek DOES need it’s fans, hardcore and softcore, to see this film. That’s why the production team (remember Roberto Orci?) kept tabs in here. Recall him saying he reads everything? They DO care about what we want to see in this movie.
But Trek, to thrive and prosper, also needs the non-fans and yet-to-be fans. So it has to attract those people as well. JJ and his people know this and are trying appeal to both.
There’s a fine line he has to walk on these interviews, and he’s not trying to insult us, the fans. He just wants to get people interested and come fill the seats.
Is it for money?…sure, but I believe he, his staff and the actors feel they worked on something special, they are proud of it and want to show it off when it’s the right time. I’d want to keep the wraps on it for as long as possible too. Whines and demands for “proof” he did it right don’t show us in the best light and won’t do any good anyway.

53. Robert April - April 21, 2008

52. Xai “. . .I believe he, his staff and the actors feel they worked on something special, they are proud of it and want to show it off . . .”

Very well said Xai.

The fact they spend so much time reading these messages is proof of that. Roberto Orci’s comments always come across as if he is “one of the fans.”

54. Xai - April 21, 2008

53. Robert April – April 21, 2008

“Very well said Xai.”

Thanks.

55. Xai - April 21, 2008

#22 and #43
I don’t think Dennis said anything in this thread to deserve an attack. I saw the logic and truth in it… If anything his statement was incomplete in my opinion.

DB–“No, “Enterprise” and the Trek movies tanked because the “core fan base” isn’t big enough to support the Franchise – that’s just a fact.”
And I’d add the core fan base in some cases couldn’t see Enterprise because UPN wasn’t available in all markets.

56. Shatner_Fan_2000 - April 21, 2008

#40 “Great. Now you tell me. Good thing I spent $27 so the three of us could see it.”

Yup. Now way in Hades JJ would’ve made that particular comment while the movie was still in theaters! I’m beginning to see why everyone refers to that guy as a “genius”…

57. Garovorkin - April 21, 2008

It would be nice to once in a while have a frank discussion on trek and the up coming movie that didn’t degenerate into Cannon shooting match.

58. Izbot - April 21, 2008

“…his new Trek is going to be ‘realer’ than ever before…”

I hope one of things they do to make it ‘realer’ is to get rid of all those ridiculous Christmas lights on every piece of technology. I never could stand that bit of shorthand logic: “if it has blinky lights it’s futuristic!” Oh wait, I’m thinking of the 24th century not the 23rd. Anyway, those damn blinky lights have got to go.

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

45. Windsor Bear – Great analogy.

And furthermore: Folks, we have to realize that this is a whole new era of media hype. Its persuasive, extensive, multi-faceted, layered. Marketing now wants to sell the big flicks to EVERYONE. So that causes some seemingly and sometimes actual contrary points. Movies come with several trailers now. Each tweaked to aim for a diff audience demographic. On Lifetime they will accentuate the romance, on Spike the action, and so on. I saw six different trailers for X-Men 3. One action filled, one on the Bobby/Rogue romance, one on the mutie kids and one on the villains and so on.

So you have to take with a grain of salt some things JJ or others may say to certain mags and shows. He is just trying to sell the movie to as many people as possible so they can make more big budget Trek after this one.

And c’mon. If he is ultimately successful and we end up with a Trek movie that out performs a Star Wars movie? How feel good would that be? LOL

60. Sebastian - April 21, 2008

#Agreeing with the last few posts her, namely Xai and Robert April; the producers don’t HAVE to give us any spoiler photos. And we as fans should not be so pushy. They’ve done a lot of interviews and press, and I’m sure there is a LOT of apprehension on their part regarding how their work will be received ( I can’t blame them; I’d be sweating bullets too; we Trek fans are not known for always being relaxed and lenient types). And yeah, I’d LOVE to see some pictures of the bridge, the uniforms, etc. To quote Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka, “The suspense is terrible…I hope it lasts!” But I really have no basis to DEMAND to see them. I do trust the producers and writers want this to appeal to a broad fan base, and no doubt they WILL disappoint some of the faithful out there (can’t please everybody; sorry). But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for now, until they give us a substantial reason not to (not counting third-hand rumors and innuendo). With all the money riding on this, I’m pretty sure they will try not to alienate the opening week fan base! Until May 2009, let’s just live long and….wait.

61. steve623 - April 21, 2008

“Bailey, you’ve done more to chase coherent thought away from trekbbs than any number of the more illiterate numbnuts, and it is because you have a shred of credibility that you are so dangerous. If there was ever a case of the emperor having no clothes, man you’re the one with all the empty hangers in his closet.”

I really think that’s unfair. Just because Dennis hasn’t had a script produced in 18 years doesn’t mean he isn’t just as smart and clever as he obviously thinks he is.

62. Ice Nine - April 21, 2008

Canon in Star Trek? There were countless differences in “canon” in the first series, not to mention the other four shows and all the movies. I laugh at this whole idea of canon. It is the argument of the ignorant.

What anybody really means when they say “canon” is that they don’t care for a particular detail or approach, because Star Trek was always changing details and its own history for the sake of story. How the heck do you preserve “canon” with over 700 episodes and ten movies? Give me a break.

We will never see Star Trek the way it once was. That approach burned out after hundreds of episodes of TV. It SHOULD be done differently now. It MUST be done differently. I think it’s sad to see that some people can’t accept this. I think it’s doubly sad when they get all ugly about it.

63. Xai - April 21, 2008

61. steve623 – April 21, 2008

“I really think that’s unfair. Just because Dennis hasn’t had a script produced in 18 years doesn’t mean he isn’t just as smart and clever as he obviously thinks he is.”

And how is your script going?

64. xizro345 - April 21, 2008

Either Abrams decides to say something real, or there’s little point in listening to his continous PR speech.
He has repeated this concept several times, there’s no need to say it again.

65. Xai - April 21, 2008

then I guess when it’s reported… don’t read.

66. Katie G. - April 21, 2008

#12. Dennis Bailey

Um, I didn’t know. But then I didn’t actively seek out info on the movie.

#29. Jeff

“Point 2: Stop wasting your time deconstructing every syllable that anyone associated with the new movie speaks. Really. There’s a whole freakin’ year until it comes out, go do something else. And you know what? It’s really, really annoying. Read a book!”

Sorry, dude. We’re not going anywhere and that is what some folks do here. Discuss and deconstruct syllables. We’re a veritable Syllable Deconstruction Site. So guess you’ll have to read the book if you don’t like this website. Apologies…

kg

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

64. xizro345: And what is JJ supposed to say when the Duluth entertainment reporter asks him the same question? Or the one from Newark? or Albuqergue? Entertainment Tonight? Extra? The Times?

68. Boborci - April 21, 2008

Believe me. You’re going to hear the same thing from us again and again for a while when it comes to main stream press. Think we want to say the same thing again and again? And saying no comment is boring and pretentious and a missed opportunity to reach one more person who might come help us make this work who otherwise might not have. Doesn’t mean what JJ’s saying is not true. If it was true when you first heard it, it’s still true 100 times later.

69. Thomas - April 21, 2008

Thank you, Boborci, for reiteratng that. Sometimes I think we as fans can be somewhat short-sighted. You and everyone here wants this to be a success, but we fans tend to forget that this isn’t just for us anymore, it’s for whoever wants it.

70. MattJC - April 21, 2008

JJ will tell anyone, fan or not, what they want to hear just to get them to come see this farce.

71. Anthony Pascale - April 21, 2008

if this film is to succeed it is going to have multiple marketing messages to multiple audiences. Check out this month’s Vogue magazine…there is a picture of Gwyneth Paltrow leaning on an Iron Man helmet. Imagine a year from now we see Zoe Saldana on Vogue with a phaser in her hand…do you think the VOGUE article is going to be full of references to the Kobyashi Maru and Captain Pike? How about the Teen magazine stories on Anton Yelchin or the GQ mag issue on Pine and Quinto…or Beer Drinkers Quarterly with Simon Pegg.

At TrekMovie.com we will bring you all of these things, but bear in mind that true tentpole movies have multi-pronged marketing efforts with multiple messages. And Abrams is smart enough to know that when he is talking to USA Today or the Houston Chronicle, it is not the same thing as talking to TrekMovie or AICN or even Entertainment Weekly.

72. Anthony Pascale - April 21, 2008

matt
final warning for trolling

73. Wrath - April 21, 2008

No wonder Star Trek fans get a bad name. They are jumping all over these comments from JJ because they aren’t tailor made for the geek.

These people should go listen to Nick Meyer’s commentary on WOK.

74. Boborci - April 21, 2008

MattJC – April 21, 2008
JJ will tell anyone, fan or not, what they want to hear just to get them to come see this farce.

A: I’ll tell you why that’s not exactly true. In business school (which I have never attended) it’s called “buyer’s remorse.” You don’t want to get someone to be your customer based on a lie because then they’ll never come back. You are right that we will try and find the words to get as many people into the theater as possible, but we will only choose words which reflect things we actually believe. No point otherwise.

75. S. John Ross - April 21, 2008

I don’t care how they market it as long as the film rocks. The marketing is just a blip in time, and in the long run it’s only a footnote. The film is for the long haul; the film is the thing I hope to watch, and hope to watch again and again and show to friends … IhopeIhopeIhope! Nowadays we’re seeing a very strange phenomenon where some movies are “enjoyed” in absentia for months as a cloud of pre-release marketing buzz … only to vanish, forgotten, after just a couple of weeks in the theater (the “Snakes on a Plane” syndrome).

And that’s just freaky. It’s like the art of marketing a movie has begun to outpace the art of making one. Here’s to sincere hopes that Star Trek is a movie that can endure, not just entertaining “fans” and “non-fans” however we might define those terms, but entertaining folks who had _no idea_ they were Star Trek fans, until some magic moment in the dark, in a movie theater in 2009.

76. SirBroiler - April 21, 2008

Thanks for chiming in Bob – but unless you guys are going to show us something new…something to get us excited…you all might as well just keep it quiet. The more you say about nothing, the more you are alienating not only the hardcore fans, but also the “regular audience” that wants nothing to do with Trek.

Don’t tell us this movie is going to be appealing to everyone – show us.

We saw the first official pic of Heath as the Joker more than one year before the Dark Knight release – and it only created more excitement. Same thing with early pics of Ironman, Watchmen – and the buzz couldn’t be bigger. The longer you hold back, the more the fans will lose faith – and no matter what Paramount says, without real Trek fans on board, this flick is going to flop.

The out of context spy pics, the endless run of rumors, they’re doing nothing but killing the buzz for Trek. Nothing says “we have faith in our movie” more than a release of some official media. – A kick ass video production blog would suffice.

Enough of the cryptic interviews already. Let’s see the ship. Let’s see the crew. Let’s see some serious action.

77. Boborci - April 21, 2008

SirBroiler – April 21, 2008
“Thanks for chiming in Bob – but unless you guys are going to show us something new…something to get us excited…you all might as well just keep it quiet.”

As you wish…

78. Ice Nine - April 21, 2008

Good Lord, the whining has become too loud. I leave this discussion, embarrassed once again to be a Star Trek fan.

79. Teleportation Girl - April 22, 2008

you rock orci

80. Bussani - April 22, 2008

#46 Green-Blooded-Bastard

That’s a fair enough point. Mr Abrams likes to make things that are more than TV shows or movies, a larger experience using many different mediums. But that’s not for everyone, of course. The way I look at it, so long as the movie can be -enjoyed- regardless, whether the person knows what dropped at the end doesn’t matter. If the person -does- want to learn more though, the information is out there.

As for the Trek movie, I have faith in it so far. With all the people, especially Nimoy saying that they like the script and everything, it sounds like it’ll be good.

81. Teleportation Girl - April 22, 2008

SirBroiler, just relax guy. what is up with starting something with bob? i don’t get it. he is nice enough to show up here and interact with the fans. what do you want him to do? say, ok sirbroiler, we’ll put out a special trailer just because you have no patience?

The Dark Knight is no comparison, either. Why? Because we already KNOW who the joker is, what he does, how he does it, his whole damned story line from beginning to end. What sells THAT movie is the new look, feel, and ACTOR, who has a very interesting in depth take on the Joker. So yes, they need to show us there is something unusual in store instead of the same tired old Batman again.

Star Trek is a whole different animal. I for one am happy that there is not too much information out there. I want to actually go to the theater and get sucked into a movie again that has real entertainment value.

82. Bussani - April 22, 2008

81. Teleportation Girl – April 22, 2008

“SirBroiler, just relax guy. what is up with starting something with bob? i don’t get it. he is nice enough to show up here and interact with the fans. ”

Good point. It’s rare for a film crew to interact with the fans as much as these guys have. Don’t go faulting them for it.

83. jabba the hut - April 22, 2008

come back Bob, come back!!

84. Teleportation Girl - April 22, 2008

thanks for back up Bussani.

seriously…let’s not bite the hand that feeds. i’m fine with taking a spin on the Abrams Mystery Ride for this one. The impact will be great next spring.

85. Battletrek - April 22, 2008

How good can this new movie be anyways? Everything is a retread because everything has been done, especially when it comes to Trek.

86. Teleportation Girl - April 22, 2008

guess you’re not a trekkie, huh

87. Mark Lynch - April 22, 2008

The ignorance of some supposed Star Trek fans makes me quite sad and mad sometimes. Given that the general portrayal of a Star Trek is one of above averabe intelligence.

Yes, I am talking about you SirBroiler and anyone else that can’t keep a civil tongue in their head. You want to disagree with something reported or said here? Fine. But the anonymity of the Internet makes people think it is all right to attack others with a vehemence they would never use face to face. A point for you, it is not.
Try treating others how you would wish to be treated.

One of the things about being a real fan of Star Trek is acceptance and tolerance of others, especially if they are different to you. Obviously we cannot always meet such lofty ideals. But it seems to me that some of you that are the loudest detractors of just about anything here, claiming to be the purest of the pure when it comes to Star Trek are nothing of the sort.

As for Mr. Orci, I sometimes wonder why he bothers commenting at all, given how some of you lot react.

88. Mark Lynch - April 22, 2008

Obviously meant average not averabe. Sorry. Get things spelt wrong when I am cross.

89. Sebi - April 22, 2008

If this is how they decide to do the marketing: Fine by me! Something different = couldn’t be bad for the franchise.

I’m excited and have faith that this will be a good movie, although I must admit I heard those “appealing to a bigger, new audience” before from Berman/Braga and we know how that went. I also don’t give anything about cast comments like “this is so special”, “sets are so great” and so on. You can hear those comments on every interview special on every DVD of every mediocre movie so that doesn’t count…

Anyway, I think this time it will be different because the whole approach just feels different. It just has to be or ST is dead. And the fact that Bob visits this page on a regular basis shows that he cares, so LEAVE HIM ALONE!

90. Mark Lynch - April 22, 2008

For what it is worth Mr. Orci, I enjoy every time I see you post a comment. Whether I agree with it or not.

I think it is an amazing thing to have opportunity of direct interaction with someone who is making a major motion picture of my favourite show.

Just one question, how much longer until we get to see some ship and cast pictures? :)

91. AJ - April 22, 2008

Maybe some of us are simply too old to appreciate this marketing approach to the film by its producers. I don’t understand it myself, and it could backfire.

We’ve been following Indy IV for years, and everyone will see it. The plot’s out there and the marketing is flaunting nostalgia. JJ’s team is more interested in making it new and real. However, the parents of the kids who go see it hope they will be catered to as well.

As for flaming Bob, Sirbroiler is in no way representative of the general population of these boards who look forward to his pop-ins. So, Bob, hope to see you again!

92. Paulaner - April 22, 2008

If Abrams is faithful to himself I tink that we will never see neither the full Enterprise nor the bridge in trailers. Maybe some brief glances, but nothing more.

93. the dude - April 22, 2008

to be honest, i’m not afraid that they screw up star trek xi but i fear that they do it with star trek xii :-)

94. Battletrek - April 22, 2008

i seriously doubt orci is going to quit showing up here, he’s got a film to pimp for a whole year no less!

95. Petey - April 22, 2008

You know… I sometimes think that the headline says a lot…

“Abrams: Star Trek Not For The Fans Alone” is just the kind of thing to make excitable viewers skip the article and just troll their way through the comments. Maybe if it were “Star Trek for ‘people who love movies'” or something less aimed at a reaction.

I’ve noticed three things tend to set off trolls – canon, Mr. Abrams, “realism”. Ah, who am I kidding. The trolls get excited about everything that they don’t like to hear.

96. HamburgCaptain - April 22, 2008

Why does it always have to be like: “Oh I love this and that Trek show but all the other ones … OK it´s just too much fun! I guess it would be interesting to have the poll with the favourite post rod Trek show again!!

97. Wrath - April 22, 2008

Bob, please do not “just keep it quiet”. I for one greatly enjoy the interaction you provide us here, and most of us understand why you need to be vague and not too spoiler-ific.

98. Iowagirl - April 22, 2008

Moogie, please stay with us. I feel the same about Abrams’ statements and the course of action so far, and so do others. Baggage is flawed wording, but there’s a lot of interviews and marketing going on at the moment, and we’re all aware of TOS iconic status, and that nothing and no one has the capacity to paint it over! We shouldn’t feel discouraged by Abrams’ somewhat insensitive statement in this regard, and we shouldn’t stop advancing our opinions on something that important to us. We’re stronger with you than without you. :)

99. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

I think Abrams is doing the best he can to make a movie that satisfy as many people as possible,thats obviously the goal here. Is he going to make everyone happy? The answer is no, he can’t and he knows it so he should not try because simply put ,the surest path to failure in anything is trying to please everyone. I think that is what the baggage statement is trying to convey more then anything else. He is not disrespecting Trek’s past ,that the other thing he has to deal with is that everyone is measuring every word he says and that to me is fair. And please Moogie do stay I enjoy our little arguments and disagreements

100. diabolk - April 22, 2008

If they were doing one for “just the fansa alone” it could go right to DVD with no theatrical release. I’m glad it will be a mass-appeal thing. Even TOS was never “made for the fans.”

101. AJ - April 22, 2008

Garovorkin:

Well the baggage he may be dropping is all 24th Century series lore because the events haven’t yet happened. That’s a lot.

One example, Klingons are ruthless conquerors and killers of innocents in Kirk’s time, not the cartoonish drunks they became in DS9. No Borg or Ferengi, etc. Lots for the newer post-TOS fans to contemplate.

Spock may not live in the perfect Rick Berman 24th Century either.

102. Devon - April 22, 2008

“Thanks for chiming in Bob – but unless you guys are going to show us something new…something to get us excited…you all might as well just keep it quiet.”

Your right. An interviewer asking questions and the interviewees remaining quiet. Yeah that’s REALLY good stuff for their press organization.

103. Devon - April 22, 2008

Sorry, that should be “You’re right…”

104. Diabolik - April 22, 2008

Folks, to the masses, “baggage” is the right word. They want ST they can enjoy without knowing all the hundreds of episodes. And a prequel will do that. There is so little known about the pre-TOS years that it’s a perfect starting place.

105. j w wright - April 22, 2008

the motion picture business is, thats right; a business. in order to continue producing trek, trek must be profitable.

if the movie going public were composed of trek fans, that would be one thing, but it’s not. fan films are for the fans, which are amusing but nothing the general public would be interested in seeing for free, let alone paying for.

the bar of expectation for this movie has been raised considerably, in light of this article, it seems to me. i hope the finished product delivers the goods.

a side note, i’m not a monster movie fan, i loved the old monster pictures for their camp value (better if viewed through minds of the mst3k gang!) but i liked cloverfield alot, much to my surprise. i cant bear to sit through episodes of ‘lost’ (an appropriate name for that series!) and heros looks like a mildly grittier re-boot of x-men… yawn. i expected cfield to be more of the same, i was delighted to be so wrong, and have a good feeling about the new trek.

which only makes may 9 seem that much farther away….

106. Xai - April 22, 2008

SirBroiler, great… picking fights with a writer that has treated us very well.

Want to rethink that?

107. Trek Nerd Central - April 22, 2008

I knew this thread would eventually zero in on his infelicitous and impolitic use of the word “baggage.” (Let’s coin a word: “baggage-gate.”)

Folks, all he’s saying is this: that he wants to put a new spin on the old show for potential new viewers. I’m okay with that, as I’ve said repeatedly. The film may stink or it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I won’t decide myself until I see it. And I can’t wait to see it.

Finally, I would just like to add that while I can’t understand a &*^ thing that Hitch1969 posts here, I truly enjoy enjoy reading his comments. He sounds like a character in a later Heinlein novel.

108. KennyB - April 22, 2008

76. SirBroiler—way to go jackass. We have a forum that allows us to bend the ear of THE creative minds that put this film together and you act like a spoiled brat to him. Nice move.

Boborci–If you are still anywhere around these parts–I know the release date changing really threw a wrench into things but–when do you think we might see some new stuff? (viral sites, stills etc.?) The thing that excites me the most is how much care was given to treating the original cast members with respect………and for the most part it seems they are all very pleased with the work you guys were doing.

109. star trackie - April 22, 2008

JJ said:

“The challenge of (”Star Trek”) is to take something that — despite the baggage of what came before — was imaginative and unreal and make it feel as real as possible”

While the tern “baggage” certainly has a negative conotation, I understand where he is coming from. While some of the Berman Trek absolutely qualifies as “baggage” in my opinion, one of the main calling cards of TOS was it’s imagination. It was about very real people like you and I who were facing the unknown at every turn. Because they were explorers, they sought out the unknown and were met with everything from Planet Killers to the Greek god Apollo. It’s these very unusual encounters that showed us just how “real” this crew was.

So, yes, the challenge remains, as it did in the 60’s, to make these characters as real as possible, so you can then proceed to turn their world upside down. THAT is what makes TOS so engaging and so much fun.

Real people are one thing, but their enviroment along with the the dangers they encounter need to be alien and wildly creative, otherwise we might as well be watching Law and Order. I’m 99% sure that JJ’s film is going to deliver the goods, I just hope the “realism” he infuses isn’t at the expense of TOS’s legendary “imagination. For Trek to be Trek, they must both share the spotlight.

110. SirBroiler - April 22, 2008

Come on, folks! That entry was no way a personal attack of Bob Orci, or anyone else. It was a fair and legit criticism of the approach that the producers of this movie and the studio are taking when it comes to selling this movie – both to fans, and non-fans alike.

If you’re all satisfied with the same song and dance until we see a trailer – good for you. But as a fan (yes, I’m a Trek fan) I think I’m well within my rights to “pop in” and say whatever I want, when I want on this or any other board.

And I think Bob is a big boy and can handle it.

87 – As for my being ignorant – not being civil??? I seen my share of F***s and Sh**s and all kinds of stuff mean-spirited stuff over this site. I thought my words were a pretty civil, yet passionate plea for some real news about this movie – and not the same studio spin we’ve heard about every other Trek bomb that’s been dropped out there. And, calling someone ignorant – where’s the civility in that?

Look a little closer, and you’ll see that I’ve shared my views before – many positive, and some negative – and I’m holding out hope that this is a great Trek adventure. But it’s fair to say that release date changes, the super secretive approach and the droning-on about mass appeal would give even a die-hard fan a troublesome feeling. I guess it’s just not okay to talk about it openly here.

Save your daggers for the folks still crying about Shatner not being in the movie, or the nacelles being to large, or the Enterprise not being built in space, etc. They’re the fans who turn off the “general audience” more than anyone else.

111. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

# 101 A J. I am not entirely convinced on that score, but we’ll have see what Abrams comes up with.

112. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

A lot has changed since the 1960’s and the truth is that Trek has to change with the times, that doesn’t mean disgard everything, but it also means don’t be slavishly wedded to the past either .Science fiction tends to take the present society with its trends, events and technology and telescope it in the future. But it is a future projection based on the times that it was created, not a blueprint of how it going to turn out because the world quickly diverges from that projection as time moves into the future. The New Trek film is being produced now, in the 21st century ,will be a reflection?projection from our own time. thus it will still be Star trek in spirt , but it will be a trek film with a 21st century prospective projection. It simple cannot reflect the values and world of 60’s, nor should it try to and that s what some of the hardcore fans want, to turn back the clock, and you can’t for a lot of obvious reasons. Abrams is trying to make Trek relevant, and I expect a lot of flak for these statement s, be my guest.

113. AJ - April 22, 2008

Orci, by the way, is not the “go to guy” for releasing stills or advanced marketing material. He’s already off the project. JJ et al know we want stills, etc. And they are all under contract to spew the party line through the launch of this film on DVD, and if they remain apart of the re-booted trilogy.

If he came out, and said, “screw this guys, here’s the beef,” there will be some penalty clause in his contract he’d rather not have to endure. Even Cawley signed it..

He’ll spew the party line, and when it changes, it’s because it’s now the new party line.

114. Robert April - April 22, 2008

110 “Save your daggers for the folks still crying about Shatner not being in the movie…”

Is this when I am supposed to try and derail this thread?

:-)

115. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

re 107. Trek Nerd Central™

So shines a good deed in a weary world….

Trek Nerd Central™… my boy… You won! You did it! You did it! I knew you would; I just knew you would! Oh, Trek Nerd Central™, forgive me for putting you through this. Please, forgive me. I had to test you, Trek Nerd Central™. And you passed the test. You’ve won!

BEST!!

=h=

116. Dennis Bailey - April 22, 2008

#61:”Just because Dennis hasn’t had a script produced in 18 years doesn’t mean he isn’t just as smart and clever as he obviously thinks he is.”

Believe it or not, there’s a close correlation with not having chosen to pitch a story in 18 years.

I’m exactly as “smart and clever” as I think I am – which is a good deal “smarter and cleverer” than you appear to be. :)

117. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

D-Russ B-Flav™ keeps his pimp hand strong!!!

aiiiiiiiiiiiight?

=h=

118. star trackie - April 22, 2008

!112 ” It simple cannot reflect the values and world of 60’s, nor should it try to and thats what some of the hardcore fans want, to turn back the clock, and you can’t for a lot of obvious reasons. ”

The ideas and imagination of Star Trek has nothing to do with beehives and go go boots (which, by the way, ARE in this movie) So, sure, you can turn back to clock for the very basic formula that made TOS work. Action, drama with a sense of the fantastic, sprinkled with a bit of sex and romance and just a dab of social commentary. Staying true to those elements and having strong characters have nothing to do with being “slavish” to the 1960’s values, or 60’s ideas. It’s simply about being true to the source material. It’s about knowing TOS and know what worked and why it worked…..and why the latter Treks like Nemesis and Enterprise did not.

And you folks who are getting tired of hearing the same thing need to just not read these stories. It’s only going to get worse as they acturally start to promote the movie. All the reporters ask the same questions and actors give the same answer over and over again. If I was asked 100 times how much is 2+2, my answere would be 4…100 times. That’s just the nature of the promotion-publicity beast.

119. Dennis Bailey - April 22, 2008

#117:”D-Russ B-Flav™ keeps his pimp hand strong!!!

aiiiiiiiiiiiight?”

Thanks, but watch this: it was a mistake to start a sentence online with “Believe it or not.” It’ll give lamebrains a free, thoughtless cheap shot.

120. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

#118 Trek was produced in the 60s by people living in the 60’s so as apiece of pop culture the stories and themes are going to reflect those things. I did not say that Trek was obsolete . trek produced now in the 21st century need to be a reflection of now.And yes the same things over and over again are getting tedious and yes its things are going to only get worse as premeir time approaches in say 525,600 plus minutes from now.
#116 Denis I am curious what shows have you produced scripts for , because I admit I am not at all familiar with your work. No malice or insult of any kind is intended by this question

121. Odradek - April 22, 2008

I think you should give SirBroiler a little more credit. I belive it’s more valuable and insightful for Mr Orci to hear from fans who disagree with him than just get @$$kissed.
I appreciate that Mr Orci shows up here and I’m sure he still will do so, even if someone dares to have a different view.

122. Robert April - April 22, 2008

#61 & #116

[Robert April sits back to enjoy the ping pong match.]

123. captain_neill - April 22, 2008

I hope he respects all of Star Trek.

Saying he is making it realer is implying he found the old Star Trek rather silly. I hope this is not the case.

I still hope this has the lush photography of Trek and not a gritty documentary shooting style. it works great for the new BSG but its not the Star Trek style

To me Star Trek is one of the best Sci Fi shows ever. With this movie Im excited about seeing new Trek but nervous that it wont be the same Trek that I watched all my life.

That said I am more excited about the movie now.

Cant wait for the Vegas con this year.

124. Boborci - April 22, 2008

Odradek – April 22, 2008
I think you should give SirBroiler a little more credit. I belive it’s more valuable and insightful for Mr Orci to hear from fans who disagree with him than just get @$$kissed.
I appreciate that Mr Orci shows up here and I’m sure he still will do so, even if someone dares to have a different view.

A: Agreed. I was just causing trouble last night. Criticism is very instructive. We are almost upon the one year and counting mark, and I think that will be a natural time for us to start the marketing machine up again. No hard feelings Sirbroiler, and sorry we can’t shut up!

125. Boborci - April 22, 2008

aptain_neill – April 22, 2008
I hope he respects all of Star Trek.

Saying he is making it realer is implying he found the old Star Trek rather silly. I hope this is not the case.

A; All we are saying is that we have never had the technology and the budget to do what we are doing, not have audiences ever been closer to the future that is portrayed in Trek. All have cell phones now. Things like that alone will make it feel more real, not any deficiency on the part of what’s come before.

126. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

The OrcSter™ keeps his pimp hand strong!!!

BEST!!

=h=

127. AJ - April 22, 2008

112: I thought of that as well, after I posted.

I really hope part of the movie is a wake-up to actually go into space, and create self-regenerating lithium. and have some fun exploring. And to value friendship and diversity.

The old GR allegories no longer apply. I believe the Roms were the “Red” Chinese, and the Klingons the Soviets, and the Feds were the West.

But today, the West is still at war. Russia and China are not. So That part doesn’t change from the sixties. JJ also is looking to widen the fanbase, so he can’t be too preachy. Picard yelling at Q in Oliver North’s costume? Now THAT was preachy.

128. Nelson - April 22, 2008

I just saw the Abrams update. I’d be interested to know what he views from TOS as unreal. Maybe Mr. Orci can elaborate?

I believe that Mr. Roddenberry and the team in 1964 also wanted and strived for it to be real and believable. But what I think Mr. Abrams is saying is that by today’s standards, the things that were done in 1964-1969 were a reflection of the times and tastes and limited resources. Things like the way the sets were lit with colored gels were a stylistic choice to help give an other worldly feel to the look of the show. It was a brilliant choice at the time and of course to help sell color TV’s.

And the reason the sets were brightly colored with primary colors were again to sell color TV’s. Like the first pilot, the Cage and Star Trek The Motion Picture, I bet the new sets are more metallic in feel and color. Again like the modern Sci-Fi shows and films are doing.

Perhaps the costumes are another area he refers. They were also stylistic and for that time, looked futuristic. I can see the mindset of that time, what would cloths be like in 200 to 300 years from now. Would they still have buttons, how would they close? (I never saw the tunics as cheap velour) While they looked futuristic then, perhaps it was felt over time a modern audience would see that as quaint. I can understand this and why the new costumes probably have a more Battlestar Galactica feel.

But that’s just window dressing when you look past that and look at the heart of the stories and relationships of the main characters. And in thinking of all the past Star Trek films, what I always thought is an unfortunate by-product of them is that the character relationships suffer. Something you can grow and nurture with a weekly series.

It should be very interesting to see how all these issues are tackled in the film.

129. Captain Pike (really for sure) - April 22, 2008

Well I’m not sure we’re hearing anything new here. The truth is the movie is they hope the movie is for everybody with enough money their pocket for a movie ticket. Can it draw enough from the general audience to offset the number of “hardcore” fans who won’t go to see it? Probably.

130. fro - April 22, 2008

Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis tanked becuase the “core” audience wasnt even watching them. My friend Ray has been a Star Trek fan since he was a kid in the 70’s and he hasnt watched any since he saw the preview for Insurrection and was like, no thanks. So I hope J.J Abrams comes up with something that my friend Ray and I will enjoy and hopefully bring Ray back to Star Trek so I can get him to watch my DS9 and Voyager dvd’s

131. CW - April 22, 2008

I have no problem making a movie for fans and non-fans alone. Heck, that’s the best way to go about doing it.

I just hate it when filmmakers flat out say that the fans don’t matter and that those same fans- who made said property hot enough to justify making a film of- can go screw off.

Like Transformers.

132. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - April 22, 2008

It gets harder and harder to say anything new about this movie at this point. All the comments do have a “I have heard this before” feeling.

That is why, after thinking it over, I may just have to agree with SirBroiler’s sentiments, if not his execution. For those of us who have been following this movie as closely as possible from it’s announcement over two years ago, this has been a long time to comment on rumors. I feel the frustration myself. One peek at the Captain’s Lounge here will show you that most of the regulars are spending more time talking to each other about a number of things and rarely venture off into Trek. The comments section has been seen a noticable absence of “old-timers” and has been replaced by many newcomers. Which is a good thing, because we were starting to run out of fresh input.

I hate to sound greedy, but I want more, also. This year is going to be long. And I am still anticipating this movie.

133. Kev-1 - April 22, 2008

I expect there to be more physical action, soap opera scenes, explosions, probably more sexy stuff in the name of “realism”. Adding that will not make this movie different than any other action sci-fi movie out there. It could still be good or bad, but I think the days when a Star Trek film had its own kind of style and identity (for good or bad) may have passed. I’m a fan of Lost , which is pretty imaginative, though gritty and violent in a way not suited to most Trek.

134. British Naval Dude - April 22, 2008

arrrrr…
I worry too that the writers of Transformers wrote dis…

Uh, oh… them culd be fightin’ words… look out fur me left hook hand, mates…

I think it’s all so hush hush cuz tha’ film is gunna feature dancin’ midgets and tha’ uniforms are all gunna be red cuz JJ got confused and started havin’ everyone pull off their skin ta’ reveal lizard flesh whilst a robot cautioned aboot danger and some rather hefty gent eats all tha’ Tribbles on a beach…

wuz I long-winded, pointless, and boring? per me usual…
I’m gunna ‘go rent Cloverfiled but I’ll likely empty out me popcorn bucket to use it as me seasick tub…

arrrrr…

135. HamburgCaptain - April 22, 2008

#133: “Star Trek had its own kind of style and identity” Yeah, that´s definitely true. I really love the “Roddenberry Charakters” as the ones we know from TOS and TNG. They were no postmodern, broken heroes that always struggle with their own past and identity. Sisko was the first postmodern Star Trek hero they established and the same thing happend to Picard in Generations (death of his family) and First Contact.
On the other hand the producers failed to recreate Roddenberry like characters on Voyager. They were just two-dimensional (nevertheless I enjoyed watching the show). So I hope the new team manages to bring back the unique style of characterization that made us all believe in the greatest vision of the future !!

136. John from Cincinnati - April 22, 2008

By targeting this movie for a larger audience they are actually going to make a movie every Trekker has been craving for. Somewhere along the line, it (the movies) got lost and I don’t know if they were making them for us (trekkers) in mind, but it is not what I have been wanting to see from Trek. I wanted to see someone take Trek to an epic level and with a “real” tone for years. I think the early TOS episodes had that tone, “The Cage” and “Where no man has gone before”, along with most of the TOS episodes. Some got corny, but for the most part that how I saw those episodes. Finally, I am feeling good about this movie.

137. Xai - April 22, 2008

Thanks for hanging around Bob. We do appreciate it even if we show it in “unusual” ways.

138. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

#136 with JJ Abrams at the Helm you might just get your wish on this one. I predict that this film is going to be not only the most successful Star trek film , but one of the top 10 grossing films of all time. It will be an unstoppable juggernaut not only in the box office but in merchandizing as well. It will make superstars of all the casts and thy all get their stars on the Hollywood Walk of fame Including JJ Abrams. They will hail him as the man that saved Star trek from Oblivion. I know im getting ahead of myself and theresis the possibility that this might not happen but you never know.

139. Spockanella - April 22, 2008

134: Whew…a welcome breath of…dare I say it…humor? Perspective?

Don’t shoot, Treksters. I’m kidding!

140. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 22, 2008

Wow, I go out of town for a few days and all hell breaks loose. In the words of George C. Scott (as George S. Patton), “An entire world at war…and I’m left out of it? God will not permit this!”

Playing multiple sides in a marketing campaign is just good business. That’s all there is to it. If they were aiming only toward established ST fans in their comments to the press, they would be missing the big picture. I have a feeling that this is just the beginning.

Bob, not all of us are lost in the clouds. You guys can have my ticket money right now…

141. Iowagirl - April 22, 2008

Although I understand and respect Mr. Orci’s answer in this regard (125), I still think that “unreal” was very bad and insensitive wording, too. To make something feel real, you don’t need sophisticated technology and a big budget, as TOS demonstrated in the most conclusive way.

142. Dennis Bailey - April 22, 2008

Honestly, there’s no way for the producers to be sufficiently “sensitive” in their wording to avoid offending *some* fans.

143. kmart - April 22, 2008

141,

While I agree with you, I don’t know that most folks will. To support ‘our’ point of view, I could cite Joe Jennings, who was an art director on TOS and PHASE II, then production designer on TWOK. Mike Minor quoted Jennings (on the subject of the Eden/Genesis Cave in TWOK) as saying it is bad science fiction to postulate a whole new environment but then just show a lush fancy earth environment (this was in response to the idea of shooting the cave in Hawaii or someplace lush.) So instead Minor designed an ambitious matte shot, which was done pretty badly by ILM, so the sequence failed in a different way.

But if we ignore Jennings and go for a kneejerk notion of real vs unreal, shooting that location outside would have been a lot more convincing for most viewers, who wouldn’t notice trails and mlld signs of human habitation till the 14th viewing. WITH THAT IN MIND … the Abrams stuff Ive seen seems to suggest they are going for as much scale in-camera as possible, which is probably what they mean by ‘real’ vs unreal. By the same token, SFS considered shooting Genesis planet in Hawaii and (!!!) on active volcanic areas, which would have had all those earmarks of human habitation, but still would have sold the scene much more convincingly than the stagebound mess that is Genesis throughout much of SFS (until the sun comes up and the planet cracks, it all looks very GREEN ACRES to me.)

I gotta grudgingly concede that having a big two-thirds foreground of the starfleet academy with live-action in the Abrams and just the top-third being fx has the potential for being much more convincing than some of the stuff in the TOS flicks, like Federation HQ in TVH, which is just a couple guys on a tarmac and a lot of matte painted buildings. It may not be as imaginative, but most folks will respond to the Abrams approach as more real, just like STARSHIP TROOPERS and parts of GALAXY QUEST seem more real, because they are using large real expanses which are only slightly embellished (if at all) by vfx.

I definitely agree about not needing the higher tech to be convincing though …. I think the spaceship stuff would definitely benefit from large, well-photographed miniatures for beauty shots in addition to cg ships for wide shots and fleet views, instead of the whole-cloth cg approach that always seems to fail in the money shots. Older tech is sometimes better, maybe not cheaper, but sometimes much much better.

144. Paulaner - April 22, 2008

Wow, I think that the waiting will drive us crazy. Come on guys, this is just a movie! Let’s relax. We have gone through Nemesis, things can only get better ;-)

145. Battletrek - April 22, 2008

i agree iowagirl, reality will not make this a good movie, besides whats wrong with using your imagination?
reality is boring and why later berman trek got so boring and mundane.

146. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 22, 2008

#145–“…reality will not make this a good movie…”

I don’t think anyone said it would. Added realism is but one element, and one which might sound more attractive to the average movie goer, moreso than people who have loved TOS all along. JJ’s comments (in that interview) were directed at people who, for whatever reason, have never given Star Trek a chance—not to the people who peruse trekmovie.com! That’s good business and good politics (knowing your audience). I would have thought that ST fans would be smart enough to see that. As someone involved in product marketing on a daily basis, I would not give it a second thought. But that’s just me.

147. Dr. Image - April 22, 2008

#6 trekkie1415
Cloverfield had an effect on me like probably no other movie ever has. It cut directly into the fight or flight response built into all of us.
I think it was brilliant. Sometimes, bizzare shit happens. There are no happy endings, and you’re left to deal with things.
In the most recent Cinefex, there’s an excellent “making of” article. EVERY frame of it was carefully considered and assembled in post- far from the hap-hazard method many assume was used.
Hats off again to JJ.

148. Myrth - April 22, 2008

#141 With all due respect to you and TOS, it was about as far from real as the teletubbies. It was insightful in its moralities, fun in its adventure, warm in its characterizations and interactions where friendship and tolerance were espoused, and wonderous in its stated potents for the future of humanity, but the gapping plot holes and logic jumps, the cobbled together science and blatant inacuracies and inconsistencies, and the low production budget menat that it is anything but real.

149. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

“You’re So Vain” is a song written and performed by Carly Simon released in December 1972. The song is a critical profile of a self-absorbed lover. There has been much debate over whom exactly the song is about.

In 2004, Simon told Regis Philbin, “If I tell it, it’s going to come out in dribs and drabs. And I’ve given out two letters already, an “A” and an “E.” But I’m going to add one to it. I’m going to add an “R,” in honor of you.” (If Simon was not being flip, then Warren Beatty is the only potential candidate).

Recently, Beatty admitted that he in fact believes he is the subject of the song, saying: “Let’s be honest. That song was about me.” Simon has yet to confirm Beatty’s statement.

You walked into the party like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror as you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they’d be your partner
They’d be your partner, and….

BEST!!

=h=

150. Teleportation Girl - April 22, 2008

well yeah, 141, but having a bigger budget will help in the fx dept. Maybe that cave shot in TWOK was a budget decision/bad planning/poor choices. Sure, it could have been better, but then that would have required more original art, money, time. When I saw it in the theater as a teen I was completely blown away. It had a huge impact on me then, so the shots worked.

151. AJ - April 22, 2008

138: Garovorkin:

JJ saved Star Trek? There’s a queue:

He’s number 3 behind George Lucas and Nick Meyer

152. Iowagirl - April 22, 2008

#148
– It was insightful in its moralities, fun in its adventure, warm in its characterizations and interactions where friendship and tolerance were espoused, and wonderous in its stated potents for the future of humanity. –

That’s a spot-on definition of real as far as I‘m concerned, and it’s obviously congruent with the definition of the millions who regard TOS, and Kirk and Spock as the icons they are today. All I’m saying is that nothing of that deserves the term unreal.

A for the “cobbled together science” – granted it was quite fragmentary and inconsistent (those were the 60‘s, folks), and not only has science developed, but the filmmakers nowadays most definitely have a wider range of possibilities. But GR had some astrophysical knowledge, and he got much advice from experts such as Asimov. So, it wasn’t actually “cobbled together”. But I think what’s much more important is that despite their limited sources, Roddenberry & Co. were able to turn imaginations and ideas such as transporters, recorders, communicators, phasers, etc. into cinematic practice, in such manner that they have become part of our culture. Nothing of that deserves the term unreal, either.

However, as far as unreal relates to scifi in general and ST in particular, to having a vision for our future, transporting today’s people into strange faraway worlds, giving them exploration and adventure, a universe in which Humans and Vulcans can become friends, and in which different colors and religions don‘t matter anymore – well, then TOS was indeed “unreal“ in the best sense. If Abrams now wants to make his film “realer“ – more power to him.

153. Anthony Thompson - April 22, 2008

That TWOC cave should be remastered! : )

154. Anthony Thompson - April 22, 2008

149 hitch (if I may call you that)

Are you implying that trekmovie.com has it’s own Warren Beatty? : )

155. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

#151 A. J It could happen.

156. Anthony Thompson - April 22, 2008

No, not The Wrath of Chan. TWOK has a better ring to it.

157. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

re: 154. Anthony Thompson

aka Tony Tommy™. First of all, thank you for the response which utilized the hitch brand name. Much appreciated. May you lay down with many many promiscous woman.

Second of all, to answer your question. Of course this site is mega enough on the interwebs that it is truly possible that Warren Beatty himself is posting here under what they call a psuedonym. But in refrenz to the defrenz, speaking in more glandular common terminology, what I mean is this. Ever see the Tao of Steve™ and the whole Steve™ thing?

Those dudes were totally right but wrong. I’m talking about The Tao of Warren®. It’s most the dudes that post here from what I can see – they all have it. And what is it? Sir, it is a gigantic MacIntosh computer directly stuffed in the trouser area – Mac In The Pants™, we used to call it – walking loud and proud down the street with not a care in the world and a lady on each arm. A chick in every port, 3 ports every chick.

It’s about timeslots and peripheral devices, how they intercourse the exchanges of data. And most importantly, how we respond to that. How does Sir JJ respond to that? Clouds in my coffee?

Well, you’re where you should be all of the time
And when you’re not you’re with
Some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend
Wife of a close friend, and….

=h=

158. Trek Nerd Central - April 22, 2008

#115 hitch1969

Hitch,

I’m glad I brought joy into your life. And thank you for attaching a TM to my name. I didn’t realize I was trademarked!

159. Papa Jim - April 22, 2008

I didn’t realize that “what came before” was baggage.
Hmmmm
Red Flag #1?

160. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 22, 2008

149. hitch1969© – April 22, 2008:

Gotta love how Carley is working it. However, I think you are presumptuous to jump to the conclusion it is for certain Beatty,. The two other major candidates are James Taylor and Mick Jagger. All have an A, E and R. :)

Trick Carley, tricky. LOL.

161. Teleportation Girl - April 22, 2008

i have no problem, hitch or anyone else here, with Abrams marketing tactics. I think it’s great. There is a big marketplace out there with a myriad of trailers, all of which look the same for the most part. they even have the same voice over guy.

what i love about Abrams’ style is that he’s come up with a new way to generate interest that is pretty clever and stands apart from other campaigns. i think by keeping the fans in the dark, the intention is to stir up MYSTERY. Mystery is Abrams trademark. Like it or not, it is what it is.

162. Myrth - April 22, 2008

#152 In my defination, and i’m guessing JJ’s as well, real in a production gives the illusion of possibility. obviously its all fantasy and movie / TV magic, but if a production is grounded in consistant self reference, consistant scientific reference when the current knowledge permits(No millions of light years, im looking at you Spock), belivable visual suroundings, and plot points and character actions grounded in how real humans go about real tasks, then it is striving for realism. This does not mean that productions that do not strive in these areas are bad. Sin City and 300 were both excelent examples of ignoring all of the above and were great, but they were not realistic in any way shape or form. TOS, while having all the wonderful qualities that I listed, thoes qualities does not make it a realistic production. it was neither consistant with itself or its science and astronomy, the sets were not believable as anything but a cheap set, and its plots and character actions were contrived so that 8 people do every thing important out of a crew of 400. For many people that rout into the theatrical fantasy is perfectly fine, however it was a big distraction for me and many I know when watching TOS to constantly have to look past thoes things. Hopefully JJ can keep all the great things about TOS and inject, in my opinion, a much needed grounding of the environment and story telling in believability.

163. Robert April - April 22, 2008

149
“In 2004, Simon told Regis Philbin, “If I tell it, it’s going to come out in dribs and drabs. And I’ve given out two letters already, an “A” and an “E.” But I’m going to add one to it. I’m going to add an “R,” in honor of you.” (If Simon was not being flip, then Warren Beatty is the only potential candidate).”

Hmmmmm, and all this time I thought it was Mick J*gg**.

164. DesiluTrek - April 22, 2008

Star Trek was and is about as “real” as something could get for an optimistic prediction of life 300 years from now made as pop culture entertainment.
Frankly, climate change has altered the equation to the point where I now believe, sadly, that we won’t have anything close to the Earth Star Trek depicts.

A big part of Trek is supposed to be “unreal.” It’s Gene Roddenberry’s optimism, reflected in his idealized humans who are better than we are because they’ve learned from our mistakes. That’s why on the original show they spent most of their time going around solving other people’s social problems without having too many of their own, and that’s a big part of how Kirk could justify breaking the Prime Directive. Why set the show in the future at all if the people would be exactly like us? That’s the point Berman & Braga never got — every time they butted heads against it they would cry “it’s hard to write for Gene Roddenberry’s humans.”

165. Xai - April 22, 2008

149. hitch1969© – April 22, 2008
“You’re So Vain” is a song written and performed by Carly Simon …

And this pertains how?

166. Sebastian - April 22, 2008

Bob Orci, you are a gentleman. Your species is endangered lately! And I for one (and I’m sure I write for many here) think it is uncommonly cool of you to offer your inside perspectives on this site (even the non-specific stuff; we still get your passion for the project through the lines). Perhaps it is the waiting that makes some of us Trek fans crazy! Like a bunch of overgrown kids on Christmas Eve. Except ‘Christmas’ is a year away, and some of us may whine and write stupid things in the meantime. Please, forgive us in advance! I, for one, look forward to the movie (as do many others). And I don’t care if the uniform insignias are not quite the same size, or the phasers don’t quite look like the 1960s TV props. If you captured the spirit of Star Trek, it’ll be terrific. Trek needed an infusion of new blood about now, and regarding the work of yourself and Alex Kurtzman, well…to quote Leslie Nielson in AIRPLANE!, “Just want to say good luck to you both. We’re all counting on you.”

167. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

re 165. Xai

read my post #10. That’s what you get for scrolling!!!!

BEST!!

=h=

168. Anthony Thompson - April 22, 2008

157.

hitch: To be very frank, why is a cool guy like you hanging out with us nerds? We are not worthy! And, BTW, I don’t want to lay down with just *any* promiscuous woman. She has to be green.

Tony Tommy(TM)

169. Anthony Thompson - April 22, 2008

165. Xai

You just don’t “get it”.

170. Anthony Thompson - April 22, 2008

Baggage. Well, Star Trek DOES have baggage. How about the entire third season? How about six TOS movies which rarely surpassed mediocre quality and really didn’t aspire to be anything more than glorified episodes? Where was the vision of an epic Star Trek story? Every one of those movies had scenes which made me squirm. That is baggage. And that is why Star Trek took a back seat to Star Wars in the minds of many. JJ has to overcome the apathy and disinterest which followed from that. Baggage.

171. Viking - April 22, 2008

[Robert April sits back to enjoy the ping pong match.]

If anyone’s interested in joining me, I brought beer, kettle corn, and a few stadium chairs for the whole damn thread……LOL

172. steve-o - April 22, 2008

All we keep hearing from the people involved with this movie is the same recycled few lines. i am getting tired of not hearing anything new

173. MattJC - April 22, 2008

Abrams and his pals are a bunch of filty liars only out for money. They don’t care one way or another about Star Trek.

174. Viking - April 22, 2008

That’s gonna leave a mark.

175. Viking - April 22, 2008

#168 Anthony – I’ve known Hitch online for years. He hangs where he wants to hang. Speaking of which – yo, Hitch, WTF happened to my Hitchworld login? It says I’m persona non grata and won’t even let me re-register……..I used to be able to piggyback in from Sarge’s site.

176. Brian - April 22, 2008

#45

How about no one watched Enterprise because the stories sucked worse than William Shatner’s acting skills

177. The Vulcanista - April 22, 2008

I see the trolls are out tonight. Such a shame, seeing as how it’s such a lovely evening.

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

178. Anthony Pascale - April 22, 2008

MattJC,
warned multiple times, even got a personal message from a writer of the movie…yet went into uber/troll/flamer mode

goodbye

179. Robert April - April 22, 2008

I suspect MattJC may be heading off soon to do an interview with Sean Connery.

( http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sha_Ka_Ree )

180. Robert April - April 22, 2008

Boy, that was fast. . .

181. Xai ∞ - April 22, 2008

167. hitch1969© – April 22, 2008
re 165. Xai

“read my post #10. That’s what you get for scrolling!!!!”

My apologies and salutations to you, the Hitchster™. In my haste I raced past your prose. My Universal Hitch Translator® is currently under repair and I was kept in the dark to your always wise words.

Kindest regards from the land all holy, Iowa! Where the voyage to the final frontier began..(begins?)

182. Xai ∞ - April 22, 2008

Thanks Anthony

183. Viking - April 22, 2008

Yup. That left a mark.

184. Viking - April 22, 2008

Bob, far be it from me to speak for anyone else here, but apologies for the .001% of the rabble that comes here and busts your chops over things out of your control. The fact that you’re magnanimous enough to come here and hang out with us is appreciated more than you know – Anthony generally wields a quick flyswatter against the rare peckerhead with no agenda other than to stir the pot.

185. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

Dear The OrcSter™,

Very late in the thread, so you’re probably not going to read this. It’s like me main geezah, Viking, from the Diamond David Lee Roth Army, tells us:

“but apologies for the .001% of the rabble that comes here and busts your chops over things out of your control. The fact that you’re magnanimous enough to come here and hang out with us is appreciated more than you know ”

However the flip side of that is that we see YOUR appreciation in OUR interest in what you are doing for a living. And I would never go so far again, as I once did, to make the accusations against AP that I once did at my site when I was frustrated. I was wrong to say the things that I did and have apologized in kind. I’ll spare you the rod johnson and spoil my childishness in what was posted by me in anger. Paraphrasing, minus the language… and my oh my HOWS I LOVES THA LANGUAGE… we loves the “language” at hitchworld…. well, without language, where’s the communication? You start limiting the language, you limit the communication – lest we find more creative words to express the ideas. Perhaps thats the point. In either event, what I said over there was a criticism to the degree that “Anthony Pascale… playing the ultimate censor on a “fan based” forum, getting rid of the unsightly and only allowing what HE DEEMS ****ing lob-question to ingratiate himself to the current powers that be regarding Star Trek.”

http://hitchworld1969.com/CIRCLEofTRUST/topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=1706

It’s sort of embarassing these days, being in the running for the editor here of the FanMade editor job, AP being my “Boss” now, theoretically and all. I was really out of line, on the whole deal. I return in humility.

I suspect that perhaps the arrogance of Warren Beatty made me do it. I must admit that with every post, I have one eye in the mirror as I watch myself gavotte. Let’s be honest. That song was about me.

You and /or Viking are more than welcome to hit me up on the exclusive, private, personal email address that only AP, JC, and perhaps a few others I cannot recall, have:

supermodeldoug@aol.com

SON OF A GUN!!

=h=

186. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

ok AP the spam filter is hard at work again???

187. hitch1969© - April 22, 2008

um….. maybe no.

sorry about the Xerox copies, sir.

thank you drive thru.

188. Mark Lynch - April 22, 2008

#170
What about ST:TMP? that had a pretty much epic look and feel to it. I think the ship never looked so grand and majestic. Also we had a story that was thoughtful and did not need Kirk sleeping with as many female aliens as possible or McCoy saying “He/She/It’s dead Jim” innumerable times. All the characters had more depth and were played better than many of the original episodes. Something which I attribute to Robert Wise, a great director.

My personal take is that this was a ‘grown up’ Trek and what Roddenberry always wanted to do. Perhaps not originally, but after he had time to reflect on the series after having finished the original run.

Certainly blew me away as a spotty 15 year old anyways.
Go and read the novelisation, that’s pretty good too.

As always, these are my opinions (such as they are) your mileage may vary.

189. Mark Lynch - April 22, 2008

#110
Actually I was not calling you ignorant SirBroiler. I did however think your comments were somewhat rude. What I actually said in reference to you was
“Yes, I am talking about you SirBroiler and anyone else that can’t keep a civil tongue in their head.”

The ignorance complaint was about the real meatheads around here.

If I offended you, it was not meant and apologies are offered.

Looking back over your original post, it is not as bad as I actually felt it was. But I definitely had a bad day back then and it must have showed in my more animated than usual reaction.

Although I do stand by the spirit of what I said. Especially the vehemence/anonymity part.

190. Iowagirl - April 23, 2008

Not attacking, but I’m really starting to wonder what made some of you guys actually watch and like Trek all those years…

191. hitch1969© - April 23, 2008

re 190. Iowagirl

absent fathers… products of the first major divorce generation. Have you not seen “Free Enterprise”?

What do you know of Warren Beatty?

=h=

192. hitch1969© - April 23, 2008

spam filter ????

again?

193. Iowagirl - April 23, 2008

hitch1969©, would you mind telling me what you like about Trek? I’m interested. You may accept it or forget it. You know where to find me.

194. xizro345 - April 23, 2008

#71

Didn’t have time to read this till now.

First of all, I do not consider myself “a fan”. Canon violations and the likes are not my issues.
However, I simply totally dislike ANY, and I mean ANY means of hyping. PR makes the opposite effect on me. The more PR, the less I’m likely to listen.
While I’m curious, the continous repeats ad nauseam of the same concept aren’t really helping my interest for the movie.
I’m not saying Trekmovie shouldn’t cover this, however I see this as minor news that hardly has an impact. And, IMO, should be treated like that.

195. Just this last time (trekkie1415) - April 23, 2008

Wow… I didn’t check this thread for a couple of days, and not only do we as fans insult one of the only people who give a crap about Star Trek, all of a sudden just because this movie isn’t just for FANS we’ve all got to go up in arms?

I’m seriously ashamed to call myself a trekkie today…

196. King Anthony - April 23, 2008

Not just for fans, eh?

Hmmm.

From what I’ve seen, it ain’t for much of anyone else either.

Still, it has its merits. The only good thing about Eric Bana being in it is that he won’t be in the upcoming Hulk sequel, thank God.

Winona Ryder. Didn’t she learn her lesson from the last Alien sequel? Apparently, Dina Meyer was [wisely] unavailable, I suppose.

Tyler Perry. My brother, my brother. Will Madea make an appearance?

Kirk is the new Indiana Jones, according the actor [and I use the term loosely here] portraying him. That’s deep, huh? I mean, golly, why not take inspiration. from uh, like–CAPTAIN KIRK??? Real genius, huh?

Don’t even get me started about the writing team behind the script. You know, the ones who gave us that stellar drama called Transformers not long ago? Now, here they come up with–well, never mind.

I guess those folks foolish [or reckless enough] to show up opening week will find out the hard way, and it’ll end up, ultimately, following in the same tradition as many of its more ill-fated predecessors, and rightly so.

Star Trek, I barely knew ye.

197. King Anthony - April 23, 2008

195-

Ashamed? Pro or con, debate, conviction, these essential things that constitute who and what we are, and how we express ourselves, isn’t for the timid or faint-hearted. I like what I like, and the fact that others disagree to any extent, hardly shakes my resolve. Rather, it often reinforces it in certain respects.

If this alone make you doubt your committment as a fan, then I suspect you would probably be better off not being one.

198. startrekfan1415 - April 23, 2008

-197

Ashamed, yes. In regards towards the debate thing, shouldn’t we be off debating about a whole lot of other things going on in the world right now. NOT about a movie? Shouldn’t we care more about whats going on in the real world? Instead of some spat about CGI vs Styrofoam and cardboard sets?

I’m very ashamed of what has happened here. Non-Trekkies who here this stuff from Star Trek fans will just continue to think were are losers who can’t live in the real world. And that are only friends are the crew of the USS Whatever (who never even existed in the first place) instead of realizing that most of us actually do function and are very intelligent.

Oh, and you keep your definition of ‘what is a fan’ to yourself. I’m fine where I’m at thanks.

199. hitch1969© - April 23, 2008

The IowaGirl has taken me to task, questioning my Street Cred™, and I suppose that’s fair enough. Old hitch1969 doesnt look or feel the stereotypical trekker or trekkie – whatever you kewl kids have designated the proper nomenclature these days – so it seems a valid inquiry.

You know I can’t sum it all up, all the reasons that I love Star Trek. And I believe it to be a sum of reasons, not just one. Maybe it was when I was 4, and had the Meego Enterprise and the action figures, or when I was 7 or 8 and had the blue communicator walkie talkies. Remember the 70s? Happened right before the 80s. Think of the phonograph and 8-track techMology – years before 1980s Commodore 64 VicModem techMology.

Maybe it was in grade school, running home every day after getting out of school at 3:30 to catch the repeats on KCNC channel 4 of Denver. It also could be in the mid 1980s when I wrote that same station a letter asking them to put Star Trek on after Johnny Carson and thereby bumping a late night newbie David Letterman back one hour – which they did, and I still have the letter from them.

What was it about the show that drew me to it? I simply don’t know. Let’s just call that magic, that we keep in a lockbox – a riddle never to be solved. A Medusa of thought that will blind you if you stare too closely. I don’t know the answer and I don’t want to analyze it. If I figured it out, it might taint (uh huh uh huh I said taint) it.

IowaGirl®, these are questions for the elders that have been passed down through the ages. Lettuce not speak of them again… in both our best interests. And YOU know where to find ME.

supermodeldoug!!

=h=

200. Dennis Bailey - April 23, 2008

I’m embarrassed for the folks who rant against the filmmakers and launch into predictions of doom for the film (a year in advance) but not ashamed myself – because I don’t acknowledge kinship with them. :lol:

“Transformers” was hugely successful. This is a good sign for “Star Trek.”

201. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 23, 2008

#196—“Not just for fans, eh?”

With a $150 million budget, it better not be.

“Kirk is the new Indiana Jones, according the actor …”

I hate to question your reading comprehension skills, but Pine never said that. He simply said that he was inspired by Ford’s approach to acting in an action-hero role.

“Don’t even get me started about the writing team behind the script. You know, the ones who gave us that stellar drama called Transformers not long ago? Now, here they come up with–well, never mind.”

Considering that it was a film based upon a toy and a 1980’s cartoon, Transformers was exactly what it was supposed to be–a mindless explosion flick. What were you expecting—The Godfather Part II? It was also largely successful. My younger sons enjoyed it very much, and if I’m not mistaken, they were the target audience. I think Star Trek offers Orci and Kurtzman quite a bit more to work with. It certainly was enough to lure Mr. Nimoy out of retirement, and without proof that it is lacking, that is enough for me right now. I prefer to refrain from judging art until it is made available to the world.

“I guess those folks foolish [or reckless enough] to show up opening week will find out the hard way,…”

You mean spending ten dollars and a couple of hours of my time? I think I’ll take my chances…

202. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 23, 2008

194. xizro345

You might want to seek some consuling on that whole extreme reaction to hype. :) I mean, what do you expect people to do? Just float the movie out there? Show it and they will come?. To paraphase. It’s illogical to expect them not to sell their product. And yes some sell harder than others.

I have a friend who despises commercials. He has tried all kinds of ways to avoid them and gets truly irate when he has to sit through them. I of course point out that he wouldn’t have the program he was watching or any of the others he has enjoyed over the years without him. Doesn’t make a dent. But thats the way of irrationality.

203. trekkie1415 - April 23, 2008

-200

Dennis, you are right… as much as it does irritate me what some people say, I’m still a Star Trek Fan and a Trekkie. =D

I am sorry, I just got a little heated.

204. King Anthony - April 23, 2008

198-

Case dismissed.

205. King Anthony - April 23, 2008

200-

Dennis, Denis…nice seeing the USS Exeter still had a few escape pods left functioning.

That being said, apples and apricots,

206. Xai - April 23, 2008

196. King Anthony – April 23, 2008
“Not just for fans, eh?

From what I’ve seen, it ain’t for much of anyone else either.”
— You’ve not seen or read anymore than we have… amazing that you have pronounced it a poor movie already. And the actors too it seems…

“The only good thing about Eric Bana being in it is that he won’t be in the upcoming Hulk sequel, thank God.

Winona Ryder. Didn’t she learn her lesson from the last Alien sequel? Apparently, Dina Meyer was [wisely] unavailable, I suppose.

Tyler Perry. My brother, my brother. Will Madea make an appearance?

Kirk is the new Indiana Jones, according the actor [and I use the term loosely here] portraying him. That’s deep, huh? I mean, golly, why not take inspiration. from uh, like–CAPTAIN KIRK??? Real genius, huh?”

—And the writers…
“Don’t even get me started about the writing team behind the script. You know, the ones who gave us that stellar drama called Transformers not long ago? Now, here they come up with–well, never mind.”

“I guess those folks foolish [or reckless enough] to show up opening week will find out the hard way, and it’ll end up, ultimately, following in the same tradition as many of its more ill-fated predecessors, and rightly so.”

— Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you another critic… before the fact.

The facts arrive in about 13 months… then judge. And if you care so little, please vote with your dollars and see another movie. Your seat will be used by someone else.

Enjoy the show. I, like posters above me here, will go foolishly to that “other” movie.

207. Iowagirl - April 23, 2008

#199

Thanks a lot for your answer, hitch1969©.

See, I was just wondering about what people actually like about Trek after reading some of the “baggage“ comments on this thread. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, no doubt about that, but if I read that some of the guys here just seem to sneer at almost everything about good ol‘ Trek, I start to wonder…That‘s all.

– I simply don’t know. Let’s just call that magic, that we keep in a lockbox – a riddle never to be solved. –

Looks like you have a good point here. There‘s definitely magic involved, a riddle we may never be able to solve, but we can always marvel at. And that‘s what *I* love about Classic Trek.

Alright, today you have found me, and I (hopefully) have found you. Who needs spam filters if you can have communication?

208. King Anthony - April 23, 2008

206-

I was wondering when you’d decloak. As usual, your phasers are without charge, your shields are minimal, and your warp drive has no antimatter.

That being said….

Folks, [non-Trekkers], there you have it. Need I say more?

Mr. Xai, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity do you?

Case closed.

209. xizro345 - April 23, 2008

#202

The fact is, the movie is out in more than a year now, there’s no way you can keep the interest doing PR like this. I’m personally neutral on Abrams, I don’t see him as the devil or as a savior, but it doesn’t help if he reiterates the same thing for the nth time. I’m not expecting floods of info, but something more substantial would help. I suppose some interviews had been already decided/planned before the change of plans but it’s hard to discuss when the people involved just emit CO2 8P
And no, I just hate PR since a long time 8P I prefer facts over rumors/PR speeches.

210. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 23, 2008

209. xizro345: Well he has managed to keep Lost a hot show by not telling anyone a damn thing. LOL. As you say, a year is a long time and its a bit early yet.

But by your comments there seems to be some fine line needed for JJ and them to do right. What they are doing now is too little, but then you admit that too much is not good.

Actually what would be wrong with being surprised at the movie theater with how the ship, uniforms and sets look? :)

211. xizro345 - April 23, 2008

#210 I actually don’t like the Lost kind of TV shows 8P Even if they managed to make last as they intended, there’s usually no guarantee you’ll ever see the end.

I honestly don’t have any expectations on the movie. TOS was a smart decision business-wise, personally I’m not a fan of it though so I’m keeping my wait-and-see approach.

212. Cosettrekker - April 23, 2008

#196—”Not just for fans, eh?”

With a $150 million budget, it better not be.

“Kirk is the new Indiana Jones, according the actor …”

I hate to question your reading comprehension skills, but Pine never said that. He simply said that he was inspired by Ford’s approach to acting in an action-hero role.

“Don’t even get me started about the writing team behind the script. You know, the ones who gave us that stellar drama called Transformers not long ago? Now, here they come up with–well, never mind.”

Considering that it was a film based upon a toy and a 1980’s cartoon, Transformers was exactly what it was supposed to be–a mindless explosion flick. What were you expecting—The Godfather Part II? It was also largely successful. My younger sons enjoyed it very much, and if I’m not mistaken, they were the target audience. I think Star Trek offers Orci and Kurtzman quite a bit more to work with. It certainly was enough to lure Mr. Nimoy out of retirement, and without proof that it is lacking, that is enough for me right now. I prefer to refrain from judging art until it is made available to the world.

“I guess those folks foolish [or reckless enough] to show up opening week will find out the hard way,…”

You mean spending ten dollars and a couple of hours of my time? I think I’ll take my chances…

#208—“Case closed…”

I don’t think so. No one has seen anything yet. If you don’t want to see the movie, don’t. Why do you care if others are interested?

213. hitch1969© - April 23, 2008

I think that we can wrap this one up. It’s clear that no matter what anyone is saying now… we’ll all be in the theaters come May 2009. That much is certain. Sir JJ, just consider this thread another 213 tickets at 10 bucks a head. That’s pre-sale, over a year before you release the thing. OH MY the box orafice will be massive, aiiiiiight????

BEST!!

=h=

214. Garovorkin - April 23, 2008

# 213 Hitch1969 I really doubt this one will ever be wrapped up to anyones satisfaction. Even even after the film the debate will continue for a long time to come.

215. hitch1969© - April 23, 2008

Personally, I’m excited to finally see some tasteful nudity and swearing in a Star Trek film. Other than some token “double dumb ass” stuff in IV, these are the things that have been lacking in the Trek movies. It’s a more realistic approach, this new movie. I mean how many of us in our real lives have swearing and nudity? Of course we do. OUR Star Trek should reflect those things, not the standards and practices of a 1960’s television network. It just always seemed a little fakey.

Some things in the course of the human condition will never change. Personally, I never totally bought into Roddenberry’s idealized future where theres no hunger or crime and all that. Let’s face it – things like racism and hatred are a part of the human condition that will never go away. Right now, we do alot of the double talk about how bad and socially unacceptable these things are but how do we really live that?

The transporter splits Kirk into 2 people, one good, one evil. That was probably one of the wisest shows in the series. The conclusion that in order to fix it you had to transport these two back into the person he was – the good part needed the evil part. Just brilliant storytelling and what a lesson. If I didn’t know better I’d think they shoplifted that out of the greatest blueprint for humanity there is – The Bible™. Like I always say – “The Bilbe™ – check into a Motel 6 and steal one today!”

That book has got some good stuff in it. Words to live by.

BEST!!

=h=

216. Xai - April 23, 2008

208. King Anthony – aka Perry Mason, April 23, 2008

“Mr. Xai, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity do you?

Case closed.”

Huh? What case? All you are showing is a bias and being close-minded to this movie. Your “case” has no substance.
In about 13 months, I wish you well in the theater next door to Trek, watching some lame comedy with a cliche title. Ask nice and I’ll by your popcorn.

217. Garovorkin - April 23, 2008

#215 Hitch thats exactly my point Trek should reflect those kinds realties.

218. Xai - April 23, 2008

You use “Hitch” and “reality” in the same sentence..

Sorry Hitch, My Tourrette’s Syndrome is really bad today.

;-)

219. hitch1969© - April 23, 2008

re 217. Garovorkin

Yo, Kervorkian™… I am glad that we are on the same page. I knew that if I explained myself in just the right way… listen, I know that I don’t “get through” to all the people all the time. Because of that I am often misunderstood like Pink®. However, when I see the once and awhile feedback that I’ve “clicked” with someone… perhaps just one, perhaps no one, perhaps a few… whatever the case may be.

And why do we spend our times doing what we do? It’s simple. It’s a shared love. A passion if you will. It can be conflicting and devisive at times… but when it comes together, BLAMMO! It’s like cashews on your pizza. You ever had that, dude? Doesn’t it sound completely wrong?

There’s a place here in town that serves a pizza called the “Nutty Idea™” and that’s just what it is. You wouldn’t BELIEVE how wrong your initial reaction to that pizza is – it’s simply wonderful!

=h=

220. Garovorkin - April 23, 2008

#219 Hitch what it is that some fans have a fixed idealized notion of what trek should be. the same unchanging concept. Kirk Spock and McCoy forever in one place living out the same adventures over and over .Neither fluxing or withering or changing its form. Stagnation, fixed in amber fossiled in one place in one time and thats it. But that said there is nothing wrong watching and enjoying those classic trek stories or the movies of TOS and even appreciating and revering these episodes and the goo that they brought to us all .As critical of trek as I am I still enjoy TOS .I also applaud James Cawley’s the new voyages which does to some degree succeed in keep relevant the concept of TOS ,they are new episodes in a sense of the old series. But the truth is that for me the old adage you cant go home again is the case. As is true of all science fiction is always the product of the time that it was created in and science fictiion, all science fiction gets old. Trek has gotten old and It can’t be faulted for that and iand criticism aside I really can’t the fans who passionatly defend the old Trek the way that they do. Some of its message like tolerance and optimism of the future are still timeless. But what changes is the times and the realities of the world that we live in and all science fiction created must keep up with the times or it cease to be relevant and it fades away. I know people are going to argue, well trek is Pop Icon they never fade away. Well actually they do in time because they get supplanted by other things. Trek is like a Hollywood superstar sat as it gets older it has to re invent itself for a whole new generation. This is why I support Abrams and what he is doing,I look forward to seeing what new spin he does on the franchise, I think more then Likely Gene Roddenberry would approve of the choice of Abrams and he most likely be on board with what Abrams is doing.

Oh Hitch ever read Jack London’s The Star Rover? Its his only fantasy novel about a guy in a straitjcket on death row Who can astral project into his past live at will. It on project Gutenberg. This book is one Im passonate about. You’ll love it its weird and wonderful and unknown by most people

221. Iowagirl - April 23, 2008

#220
– what it is that some fans have a fixed idealized notion of what trek should be. the same unchanging concept. Kirk Spock and McCoy forever in one place living out the same adventures over and over . –

Garovorkin, I respectfully disagree. I think they just want TOS, which is actually a closed system in which the same adventures happen over and over again (thank goodness), be treated with due respect and awareness. TOS was and will always be first, the foundation – despite its frailties, or maybe just because of them. And yes, it has gotten old, and instantly recognizable, with characters that have become archetypal in a way that modern people still vote TOS and the characters into their all-time Top 20. Those people obviously are capable of winnowing some of the naturally dated statements and dated special effects from the overall conclusive and lasting basic statements, and the wonderful characters which emanated from that series.

Certainly, Abrams must apply a different concept for XI, and I don’t think anyone would want his young ones to re-live the iconic adventures of TOS. That wouldn’t make sense. But I think we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that if it hadn’t been for TOS we wouldn‘t be here, nor would XI be in the making.

222. Captain Robert April - April 24, 2008

Two items might go along way towards keeping the fans’ interest up and anger level at least placated:

1) Cast photo in uniform

2) A picture of the ship

We all know everyone has to be in their proper place and the ship has to be all right by the end of the flick, so this would not be considered spoiler material. (After all, this isn’t a reboot, right? RIGHT!?!) So what possible harm could it do to give us, the loyal, long-suffering fans who will, like it or not, will either have to carry the water on this sucker or decry the producers as heretics, what harm would it cause to give us a peek at the cast, who we already know about, and the ship in its final form, which, logically, should be like it was in the series, only better looking?

There’s no reason we shouldn’t see what the ship looks like, is there?

IS THERE!?!

223. King Anthony - April 24, 2008

216-

As typically usual, you proceed from a false assumption. Close-minded? Biased? I was trekking long before you were born, and by God, when doing so meant something. Do not presume to lecture me on any aspect of it thereupon, because it’s an argument you’ll lose, and lose quite spectacularly. Wisely, leave it at that and move on.

Your crude assessment aside, let me make siomething perfectly clear here: It makes no difference to me whether this film succeeds or not, or whether not anyone involved either in its production, or expectant in its release thereof finds my views all that diplomatic or controversial, is of little or no concern of mine

I’m not here to curry favor with the great or near great, nor am I the least bit intimidated by the fact that they post here frequently, at all. Believe it. If any of them have an issue with what I say, I’m certain, given my 20 years of being in the biz , they [or their publicists] would hardly be content to remain silent, given my opinions on the issues before us, without addressing them quite openly and hastily.

If they feel the need, I’m here now and again; and you, among others here can cease and desist from acting as self-appointed surrogates to argue the status quo on their behalf, unwarranted and unbidden, and stick to your own grievances.

My assessments of this movie remain unchanged. I remain undaunted, as you might imagine. That movie’s a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode, given what I’ve seen, and that’s being diplomatic., right in the vein as Wing Commander:, Battlefield:Earth, Starsghip Troopers and you can pick your own after that.

Now, about Leonard Nimoy’s involvement. I hate to tell you this, but: He’s an actor. They act. Offer the right terms, plenty of money, and they will, as John Carradine once said: “l’ll do Shakespeare in a dog food commercial if they pay me enough,” unquote. Do not use thiis as any measure of possible success, lest you end up about eleven inches short of a foot.

You want to see it, go right right ahead. Who is trying [or, would want to] to stop you? Go ahead? Warp out already. Your money, your time. My money, my time. Your views, my views.

IDIC, remember?

King Anthony

224. hitch1969© - April 24, 2008

The Conscience of The King Anthony®,

I couldn’t help but sense your pain. Release it to me!

BEST!!

=h=

225. King Anthony - April 24, 2008

224-

Hmmm.

A few teeth, at least…

Still…

Don’t bury yourself in the part.

226. Captain Robert April - April 24, 2008

How about it?

Is there some reason we shouldn’t get a peek at a ship we’ve grown familiar with for the past forty-odd years?

227. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 24, 2008

226. Captain Robert April: Just because. Or as our Mom’s used to say “Because I said so” :)

228. Xai - April 24, 2008

223. King Anthony – April 24, 2008

“As typically usual, you proceed from a false assumption. Close-minded? Biased? I was trekking long before you were born, and by God, when doing so meant something. Do not presume to lecture me on any aspect of it thereupon, because it’s an argument you’ll lose, and lose quite spectacularly. Wisely, leave it at that and move on.”

I read this post this afternoon and it’s had me snickering all afternoon. Trekking since before I was born? You shouldn’t assume on that or anything else.
If you are here to impress… you didn’t. But I think you like playing the “all-knowing” shadow, don’t you. I recognize your posting style

The king is a sockpuppet.

229. Garovorkin - April 24, 2008

I can see that my spiel about what was best fro trek came to naught, ah well such is the fortunes of great dramatic pleas on behalf of Abram’s trek.

230. hitch1969© - April 25, 2008

Kervorkian™, don’t be so defeatist in attitude.

Remember that there are many many many other people who have read these comments yet not commented.

this site gets like 3 gazillion bong hits a day dude.

=h=

231. King Anthony - April 25, 2008

228-

You never cease to disappoint. Thank you for admirably filling the post of court jester, Mr. Xai.

Now, put a “sock” in it and go home already.

::snickering::

232. Xai - April 26, 2008

King Anthony
Nice try… it takes far more than a 2nd rate troll to get the kind of real reaction from me that you seem to need to make your day. These posts and others from your alter-egos have yet to add anything worthwhile to these threads other than your need for attention and grandeur.
If you’ve got something more than that, then join in as an equal.

233. Anthony Pascale - April 26, 2008

xai, anthony
please end the bickering

And yes it appears that Anthony did used to post here under the name shadow, and i generally dont like to see people post under multiple names so pick a name and stick with it.

and FYI…using multiple names within a specific thread = instant permaban, that is sockpuppeting…sockpuppetting is also posting in a thread where the article is about you, but pretending you are a 3rd party. As if someone who was related to something we covered and posted as a third party saying ‘that product/person/movie/etc is great’…something that has happened here before…that is sockpuppetting

234. Xai - April 26, 2008

233 Anthony.

Understood,

235. King Anthony - April 26, 2008

233-

Despite Mr. Xai’s obvious distortions, names aside, I never pretended otherwise as to who I was/am. It was quite obvious who I was given my history and posting style.

That aside, I shall end the bickering in the interests of fostering amity.

Your board’s coming along quite nicely. Keep up the good work.

236. Anthony Pascale - April 26, 2008

253
i said stop with the sniping and dressing it up with compliments to me doesnt make it any different
banned for a week

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