JJ Abrams: Star Trek Never Given This Kind Of Treatment | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Star Trek Never Given This Kind Of Treatment May 1, 2008

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

Last Saturday, JJ Abrams was a presenter at the Hollywood Life Magazine Young Hollywood Awards and AP caught up with him to talk a little Trek. As per usual, the Star Trek director wasn’t talking plot details beyond saying “It’s a chance to see what Kirk and Spock would look like done now,” but was keeping up the mainstream media message that the film is a new kind of Trek for both the fans and for non-fans.

JJ Abrams (a big Star Wars fan) on why he took on Star Trek:

It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world to sound crass, a franchise and treat it in a way that made it something that I wanted to see. To take the characters, the thoughtfulness, the personalities, the sense of adventure, the idea of humanity working together, the sense of social commentary and innovation, all that stuff. To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling.

On the audience for the film (and how Bob Orci is keeping it real for the fans):

The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of `Star Trek,’ necessarily. If you’re a fan, we’ve got one of the writers who’s a devout Trekker, so we were able to make sure we were serving the people who are completely enamored with `Star Trek.’ But we are not making the movie for that contingent alone. You can’t really make a movie for them. As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you’re in trouble. You have to make the movie in many ways for what you want to see yourself, make a movie you believe in. Then you’re not second-guessing an audience you don’t really have an understanding of.

On how this is a new kind of Star Trek:

I feel like this is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the `Star Trek’ you’ve seen. At the same time, it’s being true to what’s come before, honoring it, I can say the effects for `Star Trek’ have never, ever been done like this. … I can only tell you the idea of the universe of `Star Trek’ has never been given this kind of treatment.

Source: AP: `Star Wars’ kid Abrams aims to reinvent `Trek’ world

Abrams rewards Reeves
JJ Abrams was at the 10th Annual Hollywood Life Magazine Young Hollywood Awards to present the “Hottest New Filmmaker” award to director Matt Reeves who directed the Abrams produced monster movie Cloverfield. Here are pics from the event.

Abrams presenting Reeves’ Award (Wire Image)

Abrams with Reeves (Wire Image)


1. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008

Great story!

2. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008

It sounds like they will take Trek into the mainstream, which is a good thing!

3. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

Cast those nets, JJ, and pull in the fish. And as much as we love you, darling, you must put some styling creame in your hair… titter… giggle..

4. Nelson - May 1, 2008

What’s with JJ’s hair? : )

It’s an interesting dance they have to do with the marketing. They have to be careful of how they speak to gain the mainstream audience, yet make us long time fans feel good too.

What goes through my mind when reading this artile is what it was like for Gene Roddenberry in 1964. He was also shooting for a mainstream audience. It just speaks to the massive world that grew out of all the films and series that created this entity with elements that people like to malign.

5. Stuart Baird is great ;) - May 1, 2008

That’s nice JJ, but isn’t it about time we got a little peek?

6. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

If you can’t see the wrinkles in the paper pictures in the viewscreens, then it’s not canon! There will be a revolt.

Go, JJ!

(Aren’t some Trekkies always revolting?)

7. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

#5- The Vegas con, the Big One (next to Comic Con), is only three months away. Methinks there will be some major news for the fans which will be unveiled there. It is hinted such will be the case on the Creation site.

8. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

#6- Let us revolt together, CmdrR. Can you think of something good to revolt against?

9. Brian - May 1, 2008

Looks like JJ has been taking hairstyle advice from David Lynch :-).

Looking forward to the film….just wish we didn’t have to wait another year. I hope they throw us a bone soon in the form of a proper trailer.

10. 'Beach of Inthanity - May 1, 2008

Yeah! Revolt against the Man! Yeah!


What were we talking about…?


My Queen…

11. ensign joe - May 1, 2008

#8- How about revolting against revolting?

Ahhhh!! Sterilize! S t e r i l i z e!

12. me - May 1, 2008

o-oh…. it seems like me that the fish is begining to stink… BADLY!

13. John from Cincinnati - May 1, 2008

Trekkers are just as mainstream as everyone else. I have been waiting for this treatment my entire life and always wondered why it hasn’t happened.

14. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

Beach and Denise — let’s get our backs against the wall and revolt.
(Or we could take turns, which would be more fun.)

15. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

I revolt against there being no sexy ST outfits for the female fan contingent. Mirror universe women’s uniforms should be plentiful and readily available for all Trek ladies, thighhigh boots and daggers included. As a matter of fact, when the ST fan hoards descend on the Hilton in August, every woman should receive a complimentary sexy ST outfit of her choosing. Do I hear a second?

16. shat hands - May 1, 2008

I want to see the enterprise please

17. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

CmdrR- LOL!

18. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008

Did someone say canon?


19. 'Beach of Inthanity - May 1, 2008

Hear hear…Seconded.

Yer gonna kill a LOTTA fanboys….

20. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008

15 Second!

21. Cato the Llama - May 1, 2008

I’ve been optimistically skeptical of Abrams so far . . . but I’ve got to give him credit for making a good point here. You can’t make a movie just to please Trekkies. We all are passionate about our show, but we’re still all pretty divided about which parts of it we like and don’t like If you try to please Trekkies, there are too may ways to go wrong. What makes one Trekkie happy and excited makes another very angry. :P

We Trekkies are kinda like people that way. ;)

His approach to bring in a new audience might be a better idea than I previously gave him credit for. One way or another, I have a feeling that plenty of us are going to love this movie, and plenty are going to hate it. When everyone likes Trek for different reasons, it’s impossible to please us all with a single movie. So even if, in the end, I end up being one of the people who dislikes the movie . . . I do have to give the man credit for trying to do something great with it.

22. 'Beach of Inthanity - May 1, 2008

Me first! But be gentle…

23. Cato the Llama - May 1, 2008

Sexy outfits . . . ok ok. Forget my last comment. There really IS something all Trekkies can agree to love. ;)

24. Sean4000 - May 1, 2008

“””So even if, in the end, I end up being one of the people who dislikes the movie . . . I do have to give the man credit for trying to do something great with it.”””

My feelings exactly. JJ certainly will do something better with Trek compared with Baird.

25. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

#23- LOL!

26. 'Beach of Inthanity - May 1, 2008

I’d like to see a modern-day designer take on the Mirror uniforms and this time do them right. No offense to the Theiss-man, of course…I mean, you know, go all Victoria’s Secret on them and sh_t…

27. Garovorkin - May 1, 2008

Hey Im looking forward to this film and Im not going to do the how many minutes in a year countdown any more, that joke is getting tedious even to me. Still it is year away, but hopefully the time will pass real quick. Then after the film we really have things to discuss, wont we?

28. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

#26- Interesting concept, Beach – hmm… perhaps I can find someting out of a VS catalog and refine it…

29. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

Like what, mate?

arrrrr… let’s put tha’ film off ta 2010 so I don’t havta brush up on me geo-political news and economic trends so soon….

30. John from Cincinnati - May 1, 2008

Hey- It’s not the fans faults there have been bad Trek movies made. Trekkers are just consumers, and aren’t involved in the creative process. J.J. is right when he says just make a good movie and don’t try to get into the minds of trekkers and what one thinks they want to see. I think that has been the problem for the last 25 years. Just make a good movie, and everything else will take care of itself. The notion of making a movie geared for Trekkers offends me.

31. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

Hi, BritDude! By-the-by, think you could go AWOL from Her Majesty’s ship and come to Vegas? Kira will be there, and I am sure she will make it worth your while (as long as Honey Bligh keeps Odo busy…).

32. StarTrekkie - May 1, 2008

I would pay big money to see JJ and Berman together talking Trek (after the movie comes out)

33. Jack - May 1, 2008

jj’s actually sporting the crew’s new hairdo.

34. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

#33- LOL!

35. T2 - May 1, 2008

if it all works out and this movie sweeps in an entirely new, expanded audience…perhaps Trek XII can be for the fans? The fans of old and the new Trek XI fans…that would be cool…not sure how different it would be from what we’re going see…a film for the fans as opposed to a film for movie fans…either way it’s Star Trek and so many involved over its existence have given it a thumbs up and their support for it. All the original cast visits to the set, etc, have returned positively. Good luck, J.J.

36. Paul - May 1, 2008

#2 – a GOOD thing? Seen any mainstream lately? It is nigh unwatchable these days. Take LOST for an example: it’s a contrived, needlessly protracted farce. I’d love to see it made by Britons or Russians back in 60s-70s, they would make it a decent, tightly written 12-episode series, which would be well worth watching. With no shaky handheld camera at all! :D

37. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008


arrrrr…. Denise
Me out in tha’ desert? Get sand in me underwear band.

Bonny invite, however. Thanke fur that.

Hmmmm…. or mayhaps I could dress as me favourite nude Starfleet officer…


38. Mike P - May 1, 2008

Great story. This makes me more hopeful that, for all the talk of the film being within Trek continuity, it will actually be more of a reboot, which is what the franchise desperately needs.

39. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008

36 James T. Kirk…Intergalactic Man of Mystery!

40. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008

37 Tuvok or Troi?

41. cd - May 1, 2008

Sounds like JJ has the right idea. One of the original guiding principles of making Star Trek was that science fiction follows the same rules of storytelling that any other genre does. If you aim to make it different because it is science fiction: you get garbage like Voyager and temporal cold wars and aliens in World War II and iguana pituitary glands put in dogs. If you treat science fiction like any other genre, you can get things like Battlestar Galactica or Firefly. If this is how JJ is going to treat Star Trek, it will be true to Star Trek, and if executed properly, it will be very very good.
I hope.

42. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

BritDude- I am sure, since it IS Vegas, that you would not even get an eyebrow lift as you stand in the Hilton lobby, dressed as a nude Starfleet officer, depositing your quarters into the new Star Trek slot machines…

43. Garovorkin - May 1, 2008

#29 British Navel Dude I have no specifics on that one I do but know us, we’ll find something. In Trek there does not seem to be such a concept as absolute consensus on anything. Thats half the fun right there arguing the finer points of all things Trek and i would not have it any other way.

44. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

If I did both, it’d be a site ta’ see… and not no dream sequence nor lobey lad’s transporter…. more like I wuz from Cheron then but without all the hatey-hate… only love, mate…. arrrrr…

Wit’ no pockets, you’d havta hold onto me quarters fur me then…

45. Jackson Roykirk - May 1, 2008

#36 —

Star Trek fans need to get off their high-horse when it comes to regarding “mainstream” as a dirty word. “Mainstream” does NOT mean that it only appeals to the lowest common denomenator, it simply means that it will appeal to a wide range of audiences.

Take a look at the last five “Best Picture Oscar” winners: No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, and LOTR: Return of the King…These were all quality films that were aimed at — and appealed to — mainstream movie audiences (granted, there are many poor quality mainstream films, too).

I’m not saying Abrams’ Star Trek will win an Oscar, but what I AM saying is that calling a film “mainstream” is not necessarily a description of its quality. In Star Trek’s case, appealing to a range of audiences IS a good thing.

46. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

wait… thar arrrr no pockets in Trek… just velcro…

29 sure enough, mate

47. demon barber of starfleet - May 1, 2008

….To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling.

Doesn’t Trek already feel genuinely thrilling? Or does it really have to be Star Wars-ified to fit the bill?

48. Green-Blooded-Bastard - May 1, 2008

Pictures! P I C T U R E S!!!! NOW!!!!

49. Garovorkin - May 1, 2008

#45 Thats the impression that I get Abrams that he wants to mainstream Trek and in all honesty, that what he should be trying to do this film. I agree the bigger the audience the better for both the film and the franchise. The more more money the film generates, the better.

#47 yes i think it is thrilling so thilling in fact ,I want to See now!!. May 9th of 2009 God it seems so far away. How many many other people share this sentiment of desperation, please raise you hands! LOL

50. The Quickening - May 1, 2008

As a person, I never got STAR WARS, nor am I into the over-the-top, dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience type comic book movies, made today. I’m just not that excited or sure it’s a good idea to try and turn TREK mainstream. STAR TREK has always been cerebral and about ideas–great science fiction usually is, and don’t know if these kinds of movies can, or will ever be mainstream.

I’ll take the last few “bad” TREK movies any day or the last 4 STAR WARS movies, THE PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, etc. All I require of a movie is to develop theme, character and at least have a serviceable plot, none of which STAR WARS or a host of these silly production design oriented, cartoon based, juvenile escapist movies today have. It frightens me that Abrams and company as so enamored with STAR WARS and not, say, BATMAN BEGINS or LORD OF THE RINGS, which are way better films than STAR WARS.

51. hitch1969© - May 1, 2008

The Tao of Beatty™.

I toljaso, aiiiiiight!!



52. Rumpleforeskin - May 1, 2008

In the new movie I can do without the bad 60’s special effects, the overacting, bizarre pseudo homosexual outfits of the guest stars or supporting actors, the over predictably of the plots, political commentary, weak stories that aren’t fleshed out or completed, inconsistency in special effects/plot etc…

What I would like them to keep or add:
The likable characters (crew, aliens etc), the humor, the great theme and background music, the adventure, the suspense with actual risk involved, better effects/stories, more sci-fi, the crew uniforms, the enterprise, accuracy of Trek history (canon within reason), making it worth sequels…

I can’t wait.

53. Rumpleforeskin - May 1, 2008

47. demon barber of starfleet

It doesn’t need to be Star Wars influenced but it should have more genuine suspense where the ship/crew etc… could actually end and not just some minor threat that was never a threat in the 1st place. This was the case too much in TOS. Too many predictable situations where the whole focus of stories that I could get out of while drunk and getting a hummer from a cheap hoe…

54. SirBroiler - May 1, 2008

Same as it ever was.

Same as it ever was.

Same as it ever was.

Same as it ever was.

Tell me something new, please. Trek for everyone. Yeah, yeah. We’ve heard it JJ.

Can we get some real news about this movie now.

55. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

This revolt could rage against the machine, if they’d just show us the dang machine.

And… I’m always gentle, Beach. Gentle as a tribble’s caress.

56. diabolik - May 1, 2008

Star Trek might finally be moving into the mainstream. This could be the biggest thing for Star Trek ever. A New Genesis.. “life from lifelessness.”

57. diabolik - May 1, 2008

#52… a we talking about TNG here?

58. Rumpleforeskin - May 1, 2008

57. diabolik


That was crap.

Come on Picard?! A Shakespearean englishman playing a frenchman?! WTF?! TNG is not TREK like rap is not music.

I’m talking about TOS era TREK without the bad 60’s special effects, the overacting, bizarre pseudo homosexual outfits of the guest stars or supporting actors, the over predictably of the plots, political commentary, weak stories that aren’t fleshed out or completed, inconsistency in special effects/plot etc…

The re-mastering project addressed some of those things: bad 60’s special effects & inconsistency in special effects/plot etc…

But they need to do a little more tweaking with the stories/plots and actors to make this film right…

They may have done so and I can’t wait to see

59. Sid - May 1, 2008

Bringing in outsiders who know how to make movies = Star Trek II
Trek insiders making movies = Star Trek: Insurrection

Any questions? I’d rather see a good movie set in the Trek universe than a crap movie that’s “true to canon” or whatever.

60. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - May 1, 2008

Sometimes I am good. I posted the following to the Cho article just prior to this article. \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

I think an Excelsior series would be moving backwards. I’d wager that if you were to ask anyone who wasn’t a Trek fan who the captain of the Excelsior was, they would look at you and say “The what?”. Unfortunately for the Excelsior fans, those would be the same people you would need to watch the show. I have now come to realize that in order for Star Trek to continue, it has to be a new, fresh approach. I look back on TOS with a lot of fondness, but even TMP was a departure from it’s origins. TNG was a further departure. All the spinoffs stayed basically in the same vein with the exception of Enterprise, by which time I think the fanbase had become a bit blase. The style of storytelling has changed. The age of the core audience is getting older. The new fans want something that is more in step with their tastes. I think there is a way to honor the old while giving Star Trek a fresh start. I think if time has proven anything, it’s that the core fanbase will be loyal to Trek for a great deal of time no matter what was being aired. But even that will eventually show diminishing returns. I love TOS. And I love TNG, just not quite as much. The rest I could take or leave to be quite honest. And maybe I am not the only one. Time for fresh starts but with the familiar setting. Time for TOS, but with a young crew. Time to move forward with familiar characters.

I am so ready for this. In just over a year.

61. Rumpleforeskin - May 1, 2008

59. Sid

Good point

Star Trek II was like having older TOS crew etc with plenty of action, suspense, decent acting, the music and effects. They need to do that with early TOS in this movie. That would be worth a few quality sequels and a rebirth of TREK. I hope & bet that is what we’ll see.

62. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

CmdrR#55- LOL!

63. Dennis Bailey - May 1, 2008

#36:”Seen any mainstream lately? It is nigh unwatchable these days.”

Seen a lot. Your experience as described is not my experience.

64. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

I still think they have to get this whole prequel crap out of the way quickly. I can’t imagine 3 movies of the Kirk boys in a Corvette. The fact is that if this is only a prequel, there are still 2 movie deals left on paper. The prequel has to run into the same time frame as TOS. Really, it has to run over it. It must respect it, but it can’t forever reference incidents many viewers don’t know or care about. JUST TELL GOOD STORIES ABOARD THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE.

Please. Don’t over think this. It’s good.

65. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

Said another way, they’re still making movies about WWII and D-Day, but “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers” didn’t feel it necessary to acknowledge story-specific events in “The Longest Day.”

66. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

61- I’ve been lookin’ fur you fur years! At last… now onto tha’ plastic surgoen wit’ ye and me!

64 – “Prequel crap” …. yup.
Whilst eager fur tha’ film to see, and surely Parry-Mont needs familiar characters to be profitable… I truly (confession time) hate tha’ idea of a prequel. Yuckers.
Now, some have been done well, a burny bamm.

Har’s hopin’, mate. I think all the positivity shown really does get me excited it’ll all be well…. as soon as I get past tha’ baby Spock, toddler Kirky boy and I suppose the embryonic Chekov…

Wait and hope.


67. non-belligerency confirmed - May 1, 2008

“bizarre pseudo homosexual outfits”
um, perhaps you’re projecting a bit there. i would suggest that the costumes are a bit of a rorschach to you and then ask if you’ve been having some feeling towards men that are making you uncomfortable.

uh, no. trek has not been thrilling or even interesting for some time IMO. and “star wars” is hardly an adjective. if you’re suggesting that jj’s film will look or feel anything like lucas’ work then i don’t think you’ve been listening to what is being said about intent. jj, orci and kurtzman are clearly aware of your brand of contempt for the project. it’s really quite a simple thing to have vision with the talent they’ve assembled. why do you need to assume you’ve seen it all before when you haven’t seen it at all yet?

68. Eric Cheung - May 1, 2008

58. A Shakespearean Englishman playing a Frenchman? I think he did a brilliant job. So he didn’t have a French accent. Maybe he spent a lot of time in Britain, maybe he’s second generation (maybe his mum moved from England and married a Frenchman taking his name and she made sure they knew her native tongue). Maybe he’s talking through a UT and it took away his French accent. Stewart certainly gave off the credibility of someone who knew France like a genuine native.

TNG is definitely Trek, even if it’s not Trek you like. It’s Trek just because it says it is. Like all art, you can choose to acknowledge it or ignore it or interpret it however you want, but you can’t choose to remove its title from it.

By the same token, rap is definitely music, if only by virtue of the fact that the lines between rap and R&B and rock and punk and pop have all been blurred over the past 30 years. It’s not for all tastes but that doesn’t make it not music. Even if it wasn’t music, good rap certainly has value as art because it grew out of the angst of an era. It’s an artform that provides a unique way to provide social commentary.

And it’s that very social commentary that was the reason Star Trek exists in the first place. If we are to believe Gene Roddenberry, the sci-fi stuff was just a canvas onto which he and other writers could paint. Science fiction in general provides another venue to provide a voice for those that don’t have one. It’s a way to subvert from within. If it weren’t for the social commentary we wouldn’t be able to argue over whether or not Gary Mitchell should be in the movie.

And it is social commentary, not political commentary anyway. Political commentary would be if the Enterprise went back in time to visit the Democratic National Convention in 1968 Chicago and assigned yeomen to talk about it on Meet the Press the following Sunday morning.

Also, I’m not sure I know what you mean by homosexual outfits. I don’t know what makes an outfit prefer a particular gender over another. I always thought clothing reproduced asexually.

69. sebimeyer - May 1, 2008

Orci: “As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you’re in trouble. ”

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

That’s precisely what was wrong with Trek in the last 10 years. Insurrection was supposed to be “like ST 4,” Nemesis “like STII.”

How about just making a good movie, telling a good story? Seems to me that’s all these guys are trying to do.

70. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

Hey- boyos… watch what ye be sayin’ about me uniforms thar! So what if thye be tight in tha’ holggamazoo.

At tha’ risk o’ trying to understand tha’ statement all I gotta say is lookee here at tha’ links- would this be yer source fur the Uniform commentary? Yikes… another person duped by yon photo-shoppe… fur shame…



71. Eric Cheung - May 1, 2008

Heh, the second photo looks like it’s been in the window of a comic book store too long.

72. Cato the Llama - May 1, 2008

#52 Pseudo Homosexual Outfit? Girlfriend, please. They’d never show those on Queer Eye for the Straight Vulcan. And besides, the big issue we’re missing here is those way cool hairstyles from the 60s. ;)

All kidding aside, and for the record . . . whether they are goofy or not, I like the old uniforms. Maybe I’m just being nostalgic.

And either way, on the subject of mainstream . . . we’re polarizing things too much here. It seems that people are taking the word “mainstream” too far and translating it to mean “absolutely non-cannon” where as the opposite is “really really canon.”

And besides, Star Trek started out as appealing to the Mainstream. Back then, the Mainstream was Western shows. Gene took a new idea and made it appeal to what was then a mainstream audience. A wagon train to the stars, as it was called.

Not that I’m suggesting that it become TOO mainstream, though. I’d hate to see Star Trek meets American Idol. Maybe Star Trek meets Family Guy, though. :)

73. Cato the Llama - May 1, 2008

#70. *In Chris Crocker voice* Leave Sulu alone! Please! He’s a human being. I mean it! Leave Sulu alone!

74. captain_neill - May 1, 2008

Great bloodly great. JJ is going to ruin by using all this mainstream crap. It is in the mainstream culture. The way he is talking this new ‘mainstream audience’ will not be getting the Star Trek we all grew up with.

He is implying that Star Trek has been wrong all these years and whoa Im JJ Abrams and I can do anything even reimagine Star Trek and piss off all the fans. There is nothing wrong with Trek.

Oh I hope I eat these words and really enjoy this movie. I will support the movie as I am a huge Trek fan, got all the episodes and movies on DVD. I just don’t trust Abrams at all and I won’t trust him until I see proof he is respecting this show that we all love.

By making it more mainstream means changing all the stuff we like by changing the uniforms and making the bridge look different than it looked and this means it will be alien to me. I hope he respects Roddenberry’s vision.

To me everyone is singing JJ Abrams praises and to me where’s the proof, he is overrated for doing a show which bored the hell out of me after 9 episodes (Yes Im talking about LOST). His marketing plays are frustrating, they work but as a Star Trek purist I want to see stuff to prove he has not screwed us trekkies and trekkers.

I hope Im wrong and that this feels like the Trek I know and adore with a passion.

75. captain_neill - May 1, 2008

And GOD he’s a Star Wars fan

I thought he was a Star Trek fan

I will be starting the Bring Back Rick Berman camapign at this rate.

76. captain_neill - May 1, 2008

Vegas is going to be amazing. I ‘ll be there this year and I am looking forward to seeing what fans are thinking about this movie. I will gladly approve the film if it feels right and all that

Just dont expect me to like these new actors over the originals. I will always prefer the originals. I also liked Star Trek getting actors for acting ability rather than star name, to me F Murray Abraham is a much better actor than Eric Bana. Kapesh

77. Picard's missing French accent - May 1, 2008

64. CmdrRAgree on pequel.

that element should be short and sweet leading into the great adventures of exploring space on the Enterprise… We all know the prequel stuff is going to dominate at least 45 minutes of the new movie.

The two sequels will be more standard fair aboard the E etc…

78. OneBuckFilms - May 1, 2008

74, I think his instinct is correct. Make a good film first, and don’t try and guess what Trek fans want.

There is enough diversity among Trek fandom that it would drive you crazy giving Fans everything you think they would want.

Make a good film FIRST, and keep true to what Star Trek is.

Trek II is a good movie, irrespective of it being a Star Trek movie.

75, He is more of a Star Wars fan, but he also loves Star Trek as well.

This is good, because then he can look at Star Trek with a more critical eye, and look at what is REALLY god about it.

What works? What doesn’t? Why?

He’s not saddles with being so immersed that he can’t see the wood for the trees.

79. captain_neill - May 1, 2008

if what Nichelle says is true and this ends at the start of the Five year mission then should there be sequels? can we try and give TNG a proper send off?

80. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - May 1, 2008


AP will probably warn you to not be a spamming troll, so I won’t bother. It would be good if you read the whole article though. Or comprehend what he was saying in the interview. If you are indeed a purist, Trek died for you at the end of Star Trek VI. In other words, it can’t be ruined and you can’t be screwed. You shouldn’t allow yourself to be bothered by all this new stuff.

81. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

I loves Sulu… arrrrr… see?


82. captain_neill - May 1, 2008

I am not a troll that thing is for sure, I apologise if that is how I sounded. The truth of the matter is I want this film to be a hit. If JJ gets it right I will sing his praises but I wont do it until I see proof this is still the same Star Trek that we all grew up with.

I guess having a writer who is completley shaking up the show you love is exciting but all his secrecy is getting me worried. I love all five Star Trek shows (yes I loved Enterprise)

I get what Abrams is saying but saying this wont be like the Trek wee seen before is very scary as although I like to see it looking cool and updated it has to feel like the show I grew up with, if the new bridge looks more advanced han the Enterprise D then its harder to put into canon.

83. DJ Neelix - May 1, 2008

I love Star Trek because of TNG, DS9 and VGR. That was the golden age of Trek, the very height of its popularity. You simply cannot compare the quality of acting and chemistry between the characters in this era with TOS. TOS is very unmoving, cold and sterile if you ask me. It’s a funny space show, that’s all. Nothing but entertainment, with some exceptions.

Therefor, in my book, the Star Trek I knew is dead.

84. captain_neill - May 1, 2008


I agree it works to have a more critical eye. He might be able to get it out of the rut that people claimed Berman put it in. I for one want this to take chances Berman never took but I want it to feel like the same show at the same time.

To me I dont hate Rick Berman, the guy tried his best to keep the show fresh after 18 years. To me the show suffered from franchise fatigue

Bottom line is I am supporting the film and understand Abrams but I guess the truth is its never going to be the same and the Trek I grew up with is gone

85. star trackie - May 1, 2008

83 “Therefor, in my book, the Star Trek I knew is dead.”

Yessiree. Sorry, but personally, I’m delighted. Bring on JJ and let the wonder and adventure of TOS begin… again!

86. John from Cincinnati - May 1, 2008

To me Star Trek is all about diverse professionals and their comraderie for each other. As long as they keep that, they’re good as gold.

What I was saying about Trekkers being mainstream too is that we all love good stories, humor, drama, action & adventure along with some intelligent insights. Good movies have that whether or not they are Star Trek or mainstream.

87. Lore - May 1, 2008

#11 I couldn’t agree with you more. Why are Trekkies designated as geeks and weirdo outsiders of the mainstream. Now, if you’ll excuse me I need to beam out, my newborn son Spock is crying and my dog Sulu needs walking. Kirk Out!

88. Lore - May 1, 2008

Sorry I meant #13 on that last posting, Sensers are being disrupted by particle beams of unknow origin. Kirk Out….again

89. Jack - May 1, 2008

my pseudo-homosexual outfit is itchy

90. Commodore Lurker - May 1, 2008

Defracking . . .
Hey everyone lay off JJ’s hair. That’s a $5000 supergeek stylish hairdoo in Hollyland.

My fair Denise, CmdrR, and SandyInsanity — I’m just as revolting as you are. I just hope I’m not revolting next May.

Denise, on the ultrasexy Mirror chicks with daggers, I raise my … my … my flag, yea flag, and salute you! }:-D>

Where was BND depositing his what in where !???????!

On the above article, I found myself repeating: “Ut-oh” (see: Rut-Row).

I have preached “LOVE ALL That IS TREK” here many times.
But, I don’t know if I can love Trek presented with a Star Wars gross market appealing level of mentality.

Gettin’ nervous again.
Recloaking (maybe for a long time).

91. newman - May 1, 2008

somebody get Abrams a haircut. Quick.

92. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

so me mates, what have we all learned from this thread?

1. JJ is aware of what makes up mainstream appeal, much to our chagrin as well ta’ perhaps our curiousity

2. What’s old be new again

3. Starfleet uniforms can be worn by drag-queens with little alterations but sexy woman had difficulty findin’ unis right fur them.

4. I can carry loose change in me bum.

5. We need to start oratin’ on WW 2 films for awhile


6. Rumpleforeskin is a good name for a baby boy.

93. Dr. Image - May 1, 2008

#59 Sid-
Outsiders making Trek also = NEMESIS, so there.
At the time, getting a quality Trek film made like TWOK was a stroke of luck.
And I’ll still maintain Insurrection was and IS very underrated.

We need some leaked pix, dammit.

94. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

So, BND, you’re saying Rumpleforeskin makes the cut?

and don’t forget:

7) In space no one can hear you scream for mousse.

95. British Naval Dude - May 1, 2008

92 add 94

96. 'Beach of Inthanity - May 1, 2008

Yep, when in doubt, build it yourself!!!!

97. DJ Neelix - May 1, 2008

#93 wrote:
“And I’ll still maintain Insurrection was and IS very underrated.”

I hear you brother! :-D

98. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

They need to remaster Insurrection with much better ships and trim some of the dull part towards the end. And digitally mask the bottom of the fakey lights in Picard’s ready-room. And edit out Data’s floatation scenes. PLEASE. Otherwise, it’s ok.

99. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator - May 1, 2008

Abrams is talking out his ass…he doesn’t even know enough about TOS to know that TOS fans are “Trekkies,” not “Trekkers.” Wow, JJ, I’m REALLY confident in what you’re doing.

Let’s see him back up his flimsy words with substance, not more of this wishy-washy garbage. HOW is he allegedly “honoring what came before?”

100. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

BritDude#92- Once again… laughing.. too.. hard..cannot..breathe..

101. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

Nichelle Nichols insisted it is Trekkers when I met her.
I’ve tried to stick to that, but so many others say Trekkies, it’s difficult.
JJ may be listening to cast members.

102. Eric Cheung - May 1, 2008

Trekkie vs. Trekker? I believe the canon answer is in the episode “Assignment Earth” when the crew are watching an episode of Star Trek on the viewscreens. In it, Chekov mentions to Sulu that there was a whole subculture of fans that worshipped the show in the late 20th Century. Sulu asks if that’s around when the Eugenics Wars were. Chekov replies that those people are called Augments, but are not relevent to the discussion at hand. No, he would say, Star Trek fans are are called–

At that moment Spock checks the database to see how the crew survives this episode and goes back to the 23rd century. At this point Sulu muses on how meta everything has gotten. Chekov then attributes post-modernism to Russia and laments the fact that Assignment Earth didn’t get spun off of Star Trek so that there’d be more cool international spy stuff that might show his home country on TV.

103. Kirk's Girdle - May 1, 2008

The old-school “Trekkies” is considered derogatory and the mid-1980s pc replacement term “Trekkers” was considered more sensitive (for what reason, I don’t know).

104. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

No matter what you call me, I’ve been called worse.

So, Trekkies, Trekkers … have at it.

105. Xai - May 1, 2008

99. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator – May 1, 2008
“Abrams is talking out his ass…”

I had all sorts of ways to answer you on that one, but it’s far too easy. And I don’t agree with you and all the reasons why can be found on this site.

You always this much fun?

106. S. John Ross - May 1, 2008

Dear JJ Abrams: The hair, dude. Have someone see about the hair.

Re Trekker/Trekkie: I’m a Trekkie, but if someone calls me a Trekker, it doesn’t bother me any. I think “Trekkie” just has a brighter, snappier feel to it, and it wears a comforting patina of tradition.

107. That One Guy - May 1, 2008

I get called all sorts of crap every day. Such is the way of college life. I wonder how many times I’m going to hear the words “douche,” “dude,” “queer,” and “paleontological genetic research studies” tomorrow.

I hate college life sometimes…

J.J., make it so that my life doesn’t totally suck come next May, because I’m tired of hearing “dude… I was SOOO wasted last night.” I know that this movie won’t make it go away, but it will at least mask it for a period of 2-3 hours.

108. Camaro 09 - May 1, 2008

The movie will feel half baked with Nimoy and not Shatner.

I don’t care what their reason is. They dropped the ball not having William Shatner in a new Star Trek film.

Let’s just hope he is the big surprise ending.

109. That One Guy - May 1, 2008


The “Big Surprise Ending” will be when someone says something stupid like “Oh…right… so I’m supposed to believe that the self-destruct code for a huge ship is something as simple as ‘Zero zero zero destrust zero?'”

Then the Enterprise bursts into flames and crashes into a planet.

110. Captain Robert April - May 1, 2008

It seems to be some folks, both on the creative team and in the peanut gallery, are confused about what it means to make a film “for the fans.”

After all, it’s not like the fans only like utter bilge. We like quality film making, just like any of the mundanes out there.

No, the danger is when you take a property like Star Trek, and in this mad quest to attract “the general audience” (which is complete crap; everyone’s a fan of something, or they’ll just stay home and read the Wall Street Journal for kicks) don’t take into account the already existing fanbase. Or worse, take the fanbase for granted (“they’ll come no matter what crap is thrown up on the screen”) and in some cases, put stuff in to deliberately tick off the fans.

To put it simply, a franchise that disrespects its fans has begun a process of extended suicide.

Yes, I’m stretching this point to include any attempted redesign of the ship.

As I’ve said before, the ship is an important character in this ensemble, and she’s being shown in time periods that, except for alleged alternate timelines, are already established, as is the look of the ship throughout that timeline. Monkey with that, and you not only screw around with the established continuity, you also insult the intelligence of the long suffering fanbase, along with those attentive non-fans, who, while probably wouldn’t be able to tell you the differences in the ship between the two pilots and regular production, will certainly be able to pick up on the fact that the ship suddenly doesn’t look like it did on tv, when simple logic demands that it does.

And that is a recipe for nothing short of disaster.

So, on that note, how about easing our fears AND SHOWING US THE DAMN SHIP ALREADY!?!

111. Bruce - May 1, 2008

All talk, no action …

112. PICTURES PLEASE! - May 1, 2008


or a trailer would be nice….

113. That One Guy - May 1, 2008


I tend to agree on the aspect that it CAN kill a franchise, to tamper with the fundamentals. Some franchises shouldn’t bother TRYING with movie (i.e. The Fantastic Four).

With all the successful restarts in the last few years, I think that we should let down our guard for just a bit when it comes to the Enterprise. The Enterprise is the same ship no matter what. We’ve seen the Classic 1701 model, its refit, its replacement after it was destroyed, the regal Excelsior-class B, a brief shot of the bulky Ambassador-Class C, the even-bulkier D, and the sleek and elegant E. Not to mention there was the industrial-looking NX and the thin and refined J.

The Enterprise is a ship that is known for its mission, not by the way it looks. Everyone will still recognize the Big E, because… well… it’s the ENTERPRISE. Almost every single person on Earth knows what the old-fashioned Constitution-Class U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC-1701 looks like.

Same ship, same name, new look. We’ve seen almost a dozen different incarnations of it, and it still remains the same: it’s the ENTERPRISE. The first Space Shuttle was named after it, for God’s sakes. It’s a global name. Simply changing the look of it isn’t going to affect the way that people feel about it.

Batman has had several incarnations, now. I guarantee you that there are people who still don’t like the newer look, especially that of the new Joker (R.I.P. Heath Ledger). It’s still the same, just… new. Superman got an update into the 21st century, Speed Racer is getting a new look, Harrison Ford is dropping in again as Indiana Jones, and Goku is finally entering the Third-Dimension.

Updates aren’t ALL bad. I think that we should trust everyone who’s working on this movie. These are the pros. I’m scared, too, but I’m still willing to release my anal-retentiveness and let them take care of it. It’s better than if Tom Paris were working on it, because he’d design it with all sorts of new fins and decals.

The Enterprise will always have the following designations:
and as we all know: NCC-1701

I think when we see it, we’ll all quote Chekov in disbelief when he said to Kirk of the comm: “Sir… it’s the Enterprise.”

114. CmdrR - May 1, 2008


115. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

Who’s got your back, 112, eh?

116. Jack - May 1, 2008

oh no, are we starting on the shatner thing again. good grief. it’s enough to make my hair stand on end. get it? get it? jj’s hair is…. sigh. maybe i should have tried a shatner toupee joke.

117. That One Guy - May 1, 2008

CmdrR… what the hell is that?

Please elaborate.

118. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

112 asked, and I quote:


or a trailer would be nice….”

So… it’s pictures OF trailers.

119. That One Guy - May 1, 2008

Oh… trailer… gotcha…. funny…

I’m slow today.

120. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

Thank you, thank you.
I’ll be here all week.

121. That One Guy - May 1, 2008

And apparently so is my computer. Thank you Inspiron 1200 for updating me when I need to NOT look like a jackass in front of an online forum. You have one month to live… then I’m going to start sleeping with your brother, XPS m1330.

122. That One Guy - May 1, 2008

This goes to further my point that sometimes old things need to updated. Some things a bit more urgently than others. The E will retain its same structure, size, shape, etc.

Have faith in the heart!

123. M33 - May 1, 2008

Right on, JJ! Exactly the kind of explanation of the type of film this will be! (I’m still thinking that this is about Spock and the Romulan Bad-guy going back in time and messing up the timeline just prior to the original series, therefore creating a whole new Star Trek realm to explore. My thinking on this is Bob Orci’s statement about taking a lot from the episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise”.)

124. CmdrR - May 1, 2008

JJ’s E does look a lot like TOS. It even looks as though the dome lights up at some point. I do wish we’d get just a few real pics of her.
But then again, I wish Zoe would model her uni for me in a private VIP room. Such are the dreams of the everyday househusband…

125. That One Guy - May 1, 2008

JJ’s E does indeed look like the TOS model, something along the lines of the a combo of the show and the movies.
But then again, I with that Zach Quinto would model his tight jumpsuit for me in a private VIP room. Such are the dreams of the everyday gay college biologist (I want to study his anatomy).

126. Xai - May 1, 2008

111. Bruce – May 1, 2008
“All talk, no action …”

Yes, that’s the way it works when your movie is not out yet.

127. Len Krieger - May 1, 2008

I think many of you need to Listen to the Purists out there. It is the pure Star Trek Fan that has Kept Star Trek Alive. It has been said the Old Star Trek Fans are dying off and that Star Trek Need New Blood to keep the franchise alive. From my standpoint, You are either a Fan or your not. You either like what has been done or not. No One movie is suddenly gonna change your mind and you wake up One day and Say, Wow Star Trek Is Cool.
The Purists a sounding a warning and need to be listened to, Not Pandered to. If JJ is doing what we hope, then we will sing his praises. If Paramount ends up with their gums bleeding over this movie, they will not want to hear the words Star Trek again. If JJ fails by launching some “New Fresh Approach” and this movie Tanks at the Box Office then We All Lose!

I say stop with the Fluff. Stop with the show piece articles on how this actor or that actress has given there blessing. Stop with the tiresome rhetoric of JJ is Honoring Star Trek Canon. All this back and forth Fluff, “JJ is Honoring Star Trek Canon” “JJ is making a film that honors the fans and reaches for mass appeal.” Is pointless and talk is cheap! Its time for a peek at your brainchild and let the Fans decide. What are you afraid of?
I know I am gonna see comments like “well they can’t give it all away and ruin the movie” But I would like to see more of the Ship and the Sets, (ahem the Bridge) Wouldn’t all of you reading my words like to see some more?

128. Dr. Wh-at now?! - May 1, 2008


Nothing mainstream to see here, move along home!

Canon anyone?


129. That One Guy - May 1, 2008


You’re right, if this movie fails, then it’s most likely the end of Trek, at least for a good long time. But if it succeeds, it could launch a whole new era that none of us have ever dreamed of.

We need to have a little bit of faith that it won’t tank. If WE as Trek Fans don’t have faith, then who in the hell will?!

There has to be someone, at least ONE person out there who still carry on the memories of the good old days, while still looking towards the future. That IS what Trek is all about, isn’t it? Moving forward, ahead, always innovating and breaking into new frontiers? If we don’t ever do that, then we’ll never be able to reach Mars, cure cancer, or break the light barrier.

Just because we move forward doesn’t mean that we forget our past. Do you think that any of us will forget the 9/11 tradgedy when the new building is completed? Do you think that we’re just going to leave New Orleans in shambles? Or India after the Tsunami?

So a new Trek movie isn’t exactly a global emergency. Purists need to have faith that people know what they’re doing. Everything undergoes refits at some point. Sometimes more violently than others, as exampled above. It’s the same old Trek, with a new door hiss, and a few new knobs. Nothing more, nothing less.

No matter what, Trek WILL live long and prosper.

130. That One Guy - May 1, 2008


DS9 and Voyager weren’t known extensively for great continuity. Sometimes people change ranks in the same scene. It’s quite funny.

One minute you’re a commander… the next…. a lieutenant.

“Feirie magic!” -The People of Fair Haven

131. Mike T. - May 1, 2008

I feel bad for Mr. Abrams, he has to keep this dance up with reporters and fans for a whole year until Trek comes out. They should have released it this summer.

He should mess with people and release little teaser clips or photos like Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels and show wierd shots like a extreme close up of a nacelle or the arm of the Captains chair. People want pictures, give em pictures they have to work to figure out…

132. Xai - May 1, 2008

127. Len Krieger – May 1, 2008
I don’t think it’s up to you to define who’s a fan and who’s not. I am nearly 50 and have watched from the beginning but that doesn’t mean I am more of a fan than the guy down the street that started watching later.
And while you think you are sounding a warning, I am curious what you are sounding a warning about and where IS the information you are basing this warning on? You seem to think this is all fluff and smoke. JJ directed the movie and while he may be biased, where’s the opposite informed opinion that knows the movie, the script and has seen the dailies? No one involved with production has raised a flag and said “Hey! Wait…”
Yes, the movie could bomb…. any movie can. Do you think seeing a few pictures and a teaser you can step back and say this stinks or shines?
As for the interviews that Anthony runs in here… that’s part of his site’s coverage. People talk, people get interviewed..it happens. Yes, talk is cheap… and complaining without merit is easy.
The film’s in the can and they are in postproduction… what is it you need that you truly think you can get?

133. Stanky McFibberich - May 1, 2008

I have been more than skeptical from the beginning as to this being something I want to see. I check in here to hopefully see something that might change my mind. With every interview and “news report” that comes out, it becomes more of a case that I just don’t care at all anymore.

134. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

That Guy#125- LOL! Man, you SO need to save your college pennies and take a roadtrip to Vegas for the con. I have a feeling Quinto will be showing up for that, even though he is not as yet scheduled. DeLancie will be there as well… and you and I could hang together causing all sorts of mischief…

135. Battletrek - May 1, 2008

The prequels ruined Star Wars because they were inconsisent with what came before.
I don’t see how a Trek prequel won’t end up making the same mistake.
Prequels are dangerous business.

136. Xai - May 1, 2008

#133 Stanky… as you wish

137. demon barber of starfleet - May 1, 2008

I’m not saying that they shouldn’t make it new and fresh. Not am I saying that recent Trek has been thrilling. Nemesis for example is crap. But the way Star Trek used to be, the spirit in the original series movies for example, hardly needs enhancing.

What I’m saying is simply that Star Trek is thrilling WITHOUT mainstream-ization. But the franchise in general does need reinvigoration.

138. Xai - May 1, 2008

110. Captain Robert April – May 1, 2008

Where did the interview dis the fans? It didn’t.
And are you worried this might garner NEW fans? I couldn’t follow that. And how can you judge a film before it’s premiere?

Let’s try this.
Go see it a year from now and if you don’t like it… pretend it didn’t happen and the franchise, at least in your mind, will be exactly where it was 2 years ago.

139. That One Guy - May 1, 2008


Unfortunately I’m flat-broke without a job. I might start teaching bassoon and trombone sometime, though. And after this comes Grad school, and we all know how THAT goes…

DeLancie is also my hero. I once wrote a 10-page paper about how the phrase “All good things must come to an end” changed my perspective on life. As for the mischief, unless you’re a Q, it’s not good enough.

Prequels are indeed a risky business. They can always come out in a few ways:

1. Massive success
2. The can have Jar Jar Binks
3. Failure because of Jar Jar Binks

The Star Wars prequels were NOT a bad concept, they were just carried out in the worst fashion possible:

E I: Jar Jar Binks. Need I say more? It was also too much of a kid’s movie.
E II: The romance and dialogue is repulsive. Way too much lovey-dovey crap to make it any good. Tried too hard to make it like Shakespeare.
E III: The humor was good. The romance exponentially increased, making this one a doozy to watch. The only good part was seeing Anakin shirtless in bed, plus the lightsaber battles, and the beginning fight sequence.

The continuity in Star Wars is amazingly accurate. It carries down to the point where the lightsabers are the same as in the original trilogy. Anakin’s lightsaber is the same one given to Luke in “A New Hope” and Obi Wan’s is the same design that he uses as an old man in the original. Though, the minor things such as “Naboo” never being mentioned and Jar Jar never showing up. There was also the matter that Anakin built C-3P0, which is…. interesting.

If Trek can keep this level of continuity, but without the bad dialogue, we’ll be safe.

140. That One Guy - May 1, 2008


2 years ago, you mean, dead in the water after the enormous failure of Nemesis and Enterprise?

We ALL want that to happen…

141. Xai - May 1, 2008

140. That One Guy – May 1, 2008

“We ALL want that to happen…”

Ya Think?!

Read the whole post and see where I am heading, k?

142. sean - May 1, 2008


DS9 was actually pretty tight on continuity. Sure, all TV shows make their mistakes, but compared to TOS & TNG, it was golden. I agree Voyager was a bit wishy-washy (Why they suddenly changed Tuvok’s rank halfway thru the first season always baffled me).

143. Denise de Arman - May 1, 2008

ThatGuy#139- Mischief…hm..mm.. I was speaking of misceivous pranks, perhaps following Quinto around, stalking DeLancie, drinking in the bar, uh, nothing more than that, Guy. Just disregard prior message.

144. sean - May 1, 2008

As for all the talk about JJ – fact is, he’s got it right. The last few TNG movies tried to ‘appeal to the fans’, and look how badly off course those were. Nicholas Meyer wasn’t worrying about what Trek fans would like when he participated in Treks 2,4 & 6. He just wrote good stories. The original Trek writers weren’t losing sleep every night worrying about fans. This concern over ‘pleasing fans’ seems to have cropped up more in recent years, and I don’t think it should take precedent over good storytelling. I think that’s all he’s trying to convey.

145. PICTURES PLEASE! - May 1, 2008

For this movie to succeed it MUST appeal to as many people as possible and not just then fans…if only the fans go and watch the movie then it will bomb…if the greater movie going public go and see it then it will succeed and we will get sequels.

146. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - May 1, 2008

Jesus Lord in heaven, this place sure does attract a lot of idiots.

Xai, I envy the patience you have. Some of these people are the most myopic “fans” on the planet. As ignorant and closed-minded as some of you are, you should be ashamed to call yourselves Star Trek fans. Maybe I’ve been here too long, or maybe I’m having a bad day, but I have yet to read a positive comment from a select few who shall remain nameless about this movie. Enough already. We get it. Quit bashing and being so negative. Give it a rest. This is a fan site. It’s called TrekMOVIE.com. That would imply that it’s focus is on fans of the new movie, or the thought that a new movie was being made. Go to AICN. They seem to celebrate negativity. Your bile and dislike of anything that doesn’t fit into your neat, little Star Trek box should be welcomed. As for me, your act has grown tired. Sing a different tune, or at least learn to sing this one more intelligently.

147. Teleportation Girl - May 1, 2008

I have to agree THX.

i was sitting here reading all these posts, when a totally cool idea struck me: let’s all just enjoy the movie and watch the ride that Abrams will take us on from now until next may!

I had to catch my breath for a second. *phew!* Now I can sit back and actually enjoy one more layer of my life! A NEW Star Trek movie, directed by JJ Abrams, 2 Spocks…MY GOD


148. Gary Seven - May 1, 2008

#133- Stanky,

Since there is no heavy machinery available here (to pry open a closed mind), may I suggest Ace Hardware?

149. The Last Maquis - May 1, 2008

#83. DJ Neelix “The Golden Age of Trek?” What the hell do you know? Your what 18? Listen here, Son “The Original Series”, that’s Star Trek. Get outta Here. It’s Past your Bed time, Ain’t it?

150. The Realist - May 1, 2008

I agree with Xai, who the heck has the right to decide what makes a fan a fan! I hate Season 3 of TOS, love Season 2 of TOS, I love all of ENT and DS9, love most on TNG and alot of VOY, does that make me a fan? I hope so or I have pissed alot of money down the drain over the years!

The problem with Purisists, from my point of view is this, you only see Trek as it was, you can not see what it can become, you want everything to be just right, you want Trek to remain how it was in the 60’s, you don’t want anyone else to have input on it. Times change, heck change was a theme in TREK! Rodenberry wanted TNG to be completely different to TOS as the times had changed!

149. The Last Maquis – May 1, 2008 – Anthony, why don’t you reprimand this guy?! Are not all people welcome here? Maquis I’m 25 and I grew up with TNG to me that is my Trek, TOS was your Trek, should I go to bed?

151. Anthony Pascale - May 2, 2008

I am happy to see so many who can see what Abrams is trying to convey and understand that when he talks to AP it is different than talking to AICN or TrekMovie. Bob Orci has also dropped by to say the same thing. Remember that AP gets picked up by CNN, Yahoo, TV stations and of course newspapers and more…so it is as mainstream as you get.

Also on 127
Any regular comment reader here should know that one thing above all other things bothers me….people who declare they are better fans than other people…and those who decide who is and is not a fan. Everyone who visits this site is a fan, by definition. You are no better than anyone else.

152. Anthony Pascale - May 2, 2008

and for 149/Last Maquis…and everyone else
settle down and stop getting personal

153. Paulaner - May 2, 2008

“As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you’re in trouble. You have to make the movie in many ways for what you want to see yourself, make a movie you believe in.”

That’s the key for a good movie. Showing what you think fans want to see would be fanboyish (see many fan productions). I want Abrams to show me something different, to be surprised and amazed.

154. DJ Neelix - May 2, 2008

@149. The Last Maquis – May 1, 2008:

Hoho, actually I’m 25 but thanks for complementing me on my younger looks!

“It’s Past your Bed time, Ain’t it?”

It might have been, yeah. We probably live in different time zones.

155. Len Krieger - May 2, 2008

132. Xai –

I am trying to make a point that “making a movies for the masses” is a Paramount issue to draw in more dollars at the box office. The point is it is the fans and Not the couch potatoes that will go to this movie. It is the fan that wil spell success or failure for this film. I am 45 and have seen Star Trek from the beginning.

I am not declaring who is a fan and who is not. But what I am trying to say is that re-enginneering the franchise will not alone have a person reach an epiphany, that wow star trek is cool. I say that re-enengineering will not automatically bring in the Couch or armchair fan.

The warning I say the purists are sounding is there deep concern of how much truely JJ and the other RESPECT and will carry on what has been done. I have sat at this computer and read, people posting concern after concern about Paramount and JJ respecting Canon. And have those same people boo-ed and label “Purist”

156. I Love My Moogie - May 2, 2008

Between the hair & glasses, I think JJ strongly resembles Harold Lloyd.

157. Wrath - May 2, 2008


This is great news. Trek needs the paddles and it needs new fans to survive. Trek fans need to chill. Meyer did this in 82, Roddenberry in 87. Trek will change but it’s core is safe.

158. Bryan with Pointy Nacelles and a large Dish - May 2, 2008

To make this movie congeal and succeed is JJ’s adherance to people, places and things spoken about before in TOS (little blond technician, Finnegan, Pike, Ruth) peppered in with new stuff that seems credible to Trek’s universe.
I’m an original 1966-69 Trekker and I want this to succeed more than you know.
I hope that the Shat pops up at least in a cameo.
Come on boys, Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Takei, Nichols, Doohan, and Koeing IS Star Trek: The Original and BEST Series.

159. star trackie - May 2, 2008

#158 “Come on boys, Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Takei, Nichols, Doohan, and Koeing IS Star Trek..”

true dat.

160. SoMuchCoolerInPerson - May 2, 2008

CmdrR. – Hmmm….if I remember correctly, you’re from Atlanta, you’re married to a Chinese lady & you’re a househusband…gawd, your initials aren’t CM by any chance, are they?

161. I Love My Moogie - May 2, 2008

Remember the teaser for TUC back in 1991? Christpher Plumer states how TOS crew have been your friends for 25 years as clips from the series & movies desolve into the Enterprise going into warp. Friends cannot be replaced or revisioned. The emotions I feel every time I see that teaser secures in my heart this crew were more than mere characters to recast. Those actors created Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Chapel & Rand. They gave them life & souls. They ARE the characters just as the characters are Shat, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan & Co.
I’m glad the Indiana Jones creators remembered revisiting old friends should be a reunion—-not a re-introduction to strangers!

162. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - May 2, 2008

#74–“He is implying that Star Trek has been wrong all these years and whoa Im JJ Abrams and I can do anything even reimagine Star Trek and piss off all the fans.”

He is speaking to the mainstream media. Obviously, with this kind of budget, the film MUST attract some of those who (for whatever reason) have not given Trek a chance before. Abrams’ words are much different when speaking to established fans.

“There is nothing wrong with Trek.”

That is an interesting statement, considering it is no longer on the air. Established Trek fans apparently can no longer sustain it. It must grow…or die.

#75—Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer were not Star Trek fans either when they made their contributions to the franchise. In this instance, the writers ARE Trek fans.

#155–Even if we (established fans) see this film ten times apiece, I find it hard to believe we will make the studio their money back. It HAS to appeal to more mainstream audiences. I predict more of the same (these kind of comments from Abrams) as the premeire draws nearer. They would be negligent otherwise.

#161—Moogie, Moogie, Moogie…I wish you had something nice to say. Your negativity saddens me. No one is being replaced. The characters are simply being expanded upon. Your friends remain secure aboard your DVD shelf I’m sure…Nothing the new team does will change that.

163. Duncan Idaho - May 2, 2008

JJ comes off as exceptionally insulting and condescending to us casual to hardcore Trek fans. I’ll go see the movie, but I’ll probably feel the same way that I felt about the Star Wars prequels: hogwash. In fact, I will say that I dismiss the SW prequels as blasphemy against ep. 4-6.

164. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - May 2, 2008

#163–The whole world is condescending to Trek fans, and most have never given it a chance. That is why JJ must change ST’s image. If you had the pressure of justifying a $150 million budget on a film whose established fanbase is only about 2.5 million people, you’d think about courting some new fans too. It’s split marketing. You’re taking it way too personally. Like a good politician, Abrams will paint one picture for a particular audience, and yet another for fans like us. He wasn’t exactly talking to trekmovie.com!

165. Xai - May 2, 2008

163. Duncan Idaho – May 2, 2008
“JJ comes off as exceptionally insulting and condescending to us casual to hardcore Trek fans.”

Sorry , I don’t see it… can you show me a quote?

166. I Love My Moogie - May 2, 2008

Mr Poopey,
My friend, this is without question an issue that will continue to divide the core of ST fandom. JJ has to realize he is creating heated debates in this forum everytime he makes these ‘trying to please both sides’ statements.

This reminds me of Peter Jackson & King Kong. Mr Jackson proclaimed the original Kong his favorite film & childhood inspiration (which I fully agree with). Yet, he remade it less as the tribute he promised & more as his ‘new’ mainstreamed revision. I personally found it to be a painfully bloated vanity movie with a few hoaky nods to the original. I think many fans fear that same line between honoring & reimagined being crossed.

People keep referring to Bennett & Meyer because though they themselves weren’t fans, they understood the core audience and made TWOK as a love letter to the fans. I personally keep getting the feeling that JJ is saying to non-fans if they hated Trek in the past, STXI is a totally different & that scares a lot of Trekkers, myself included.

With that said, I respect your excitement for the movie & your thoughtful responses.

167. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - May 2, 2008

I’m with Xai again. The naysayers should be more specific. What did Abrams say that was condescending? Shatner has said things that WERE condescending, and yet he get’s a free pass. Meyer has said that he wasn’t making TWOK for the fans and he is lionized as well. I think that for the most part, the negative attitudes stem from the desire to hate this movie. The more mature and logical thing to do would be to give it a chance and then form an opinion. I guess it’s up the commenters to decide what kind of person they choose to be, thoughtful and curious, or irrational and illogical.

168. Bill Peters - May 2, 2008

I don’t think JJ is trying to make Trek into Star Wars, I think he is just giving it a little more action then we are used to, also I think that we should have faith in JJ and Co. tell we see what they gave us. The post here are mostly instiful, I also think that it is a good Idea to make Trek for more then just the fans, because for the movie to be sucessful we have to reach out to more then our core group.

169. Lore - May 2, 2008

When JJ has been part of the Star Trek universe long enough to need a “piece” and a girdle, we’ll cut him some slack, until then…..damn the torpedos……..maximum warp, target his hair and glasses only…..fire!

170. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - May 2, 2008

Star Trek has long deserved this kind of treatment, particularly the production a film of such epic proportions and the superior budget commitment necessary to do so. However, it can be the greatest film of the year and still fail if people who previously held preconceived notions about Trek or gave up on its movies in the late 80’s do not come out to see it. If all you know about Star Trek, for instance, is the result of flipping channels and seeing the likes of Wesley Crusher, Quark, Neelix, or Phlox on television, or that some people dress up like aliens called Klingons and go to sci-fi conventions, you might need a little coaxing to spend money to see this movie. That coaxing will likely be in the form of the suggestion that “this Star Trek is different”. It isn’t insulting to me. Considering its recent failures, it does need a new treatment. It needs broader appeal. It needs its most recognizable characters and iconic figures to have younger faces and better special effects. Of course, its vision should remain intact.

“It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world to sound crass, a franchise and treat it in a way that made it something that I wanted to see. To take the characters, the thoughtfulness, the personalities, the sense of adventure, the idea of humanity working together, the sense of social commentary and innovation, all that stuff. To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling.”

Sounds like Star Trek to me. Abrams has a pretty good idea of what appeals to huge audiences. He is making a pretty good living at it right now. Trek’s vision and mainstream appeal do not have to be mutually exclusive. It sounds to me as though JJ is aiming for both. That’s good. If he hits the target it will be fantastic for the franchise. If he doesn’t, the studio may lose money, but the franchise can hardly be worse off than it is. If you love it, great. If you don’t, you can always watch your dvd’s and pine (no pun intended) for the good ole days of toasting the marshmelon and sing alongs with Mr. Spock around the campfire (sorry, it’s been awhile since I took a shot at The Great Trek Turd, aka STV). Seriously, no matter what, I will not enjoy my classic Trek any less when it’s done, so I don’t see the point of the negativity toward these guys and their movie that no one has seen yet. I’m excited. Can I buy my ticket now?

171. Len Krieger - May 2, 2008

162. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) – May 2, 2008

#155–Even if we (established fans) see this film ten times apiece, I find it hard to believe we will make the studio their money back. It HAS to appeal to more mainstream audiences. I predict more of the same (these kind of comments from Abrams) as the premeire draws nearer. They would be negligent otherwise.

It is the core fans that will Talk up this movie if it is everything we hope it to be. It wil be the core fans that wil talk to others and broadcast it virtues of what a great film it is.And that will bring in that mass appeal. Without the core what do you have? A House divided.

172. Cosettrekker - May 2, 2008

#171–Opening weekend is what matters, as always. The first two days have an enormous impact. Mainstream movie goers have to be convinced that they have a reason to see it early. Like it or not, that means alot more talk about how “this is not your Daddy’s Trek”, etc. in interviews given to mainstream media outlets. I don’t understand why geeks are so offended. It can be true to the ST vision and bring something different to the table that will interest different kinds of moviegoers, and that is exactly how the filmmakers are describing it. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Believe me, “talking up a movie” is a better strategy for Sundance and Cannes. We are talking about a $150 million project and a well thought marketing strategy. They have even commented here about it–warning us that there would be this kind of talk to certain media sources. Some are criticising them for being good marketers who know their audience. I deal in marketing on a regular basis. We do not run the same ad in magazines with certain target audiences as we do in others, nor do we market our product the same way in every region. It is the same principle.

173. General Order 24 - May 2, 2008

Couldn’t come up with his own thing so he’s got to retool somebody elses idea and do a 90210 take on it. Hey Eraserhead! It ain’t my Trek, never will be no matter how slick you make it. Go ahead and make it for the mainstream and converted it to a video game. My generation will always have the ORIGINAL. nuff said.

174. Xai - May 2, 2008

173. General Order 24 – May 2, 2008
“Couldn’t come up with his own thing so he’s got to retool somebody elses idea and do a 90210 take on it. Hey Eraserhead! It ain’t my Trek, never will be no matter how slick you make it. Go ahead and make it for the mainstream and converted it to a video game. My generation will always have the ORIGINAL. nuff said.”

Completely off base… and if you don’t want to watch it… don’t.
You’ve obviously NOT read much on what’s up or just don’t believe anyone but the voices in your head.

175. Xai - May 2, 2008

171. Len Krieger – May 2, 2008

You are again being very defining on “Fan”.
My kids, both in their 20’s, are not “core” fans, but saw the trailer and are intrigued and will be there on premiere weekend.
JJ’s done nothing to alienate most fans… it’s just a few that feel that the bridge rails must be #502 RED and can accept nothing else. JJ must talk it up in different ways depending on who he’s talking to. It IS a film that (most) core fans can embrace with little tidbits of info thrown in AND a general appeal film. IT has to be to prosper.

176. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - May 2, 2008

Again, the naysayers say a lot but don’t back up what they say. If JJ Abrams alienates all the Trek fans but somehow manages to create a hit with all the moviegoers who aren’t Trek fans, this movie would be a hit by virtue of sheer numbers alone. There are way more non-fans than fans. But that’s not what he is saying. He is making a film that he believes the fans will like AND appeal to the general movie going audience. And yes, it is about making money. It has been since 1966. Gene Roddenberry didn’t pitch Star Trek to the network out of the charity of his heart. He didn’t get approached by the studio to make TMP just for the fans. It was for the money. Star Trek died because it had stopped making money. Now is the chance to bring it back to life and the naysayers are putting it down because of JJ’s haircut? Because the Kirk character is dead and so was not figured into the movie? Because the production and design team decided to make the sets a bit more futuristic and a little less brightly colored (ala TMP)? No. The complaints are coming from the idea that if this version of Star Trek somehow becomes popular, there is a fear that it will supplant TOS. Look deep inside yourselves and see why it is that you don’t like the idea of a new Trek movie with JJ at the helm. Who should be at the helm? This is the hand you and I and all the rest of us are dealt and I think it’s a good one.

177. M33 - May 2, 2008

176. You said it right. JJ can only do this series justice. He understands it and Roddenberry would be proud.

178. captain_neill - May 2, 2008

At this rate with all JJ is saying to offend the fans by saying it wont be like the Trek we know it is making me want Rick Berman to come back.

I agree Trek needs to survive but I dont want the sacrifice to be a Star Trek we dont recognise just to appeal to mainstream audiences. New fans need to know that Shatner IS Kirk and that Pine will only be playing Kirk

179. captain_neill - May 2, 2008

My problem is JJ comes across as too arrogant about his importance to Star Trek. I want proof that Trek is in safe hands with him.

Simon Pegg doing all these interviews does not confirm it is in safe hands, I want pics of sets and characters.

I just dont trust Abrams. I want to, I really do but its very hard.

180. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - May 2, 2008

#178 and 179

What have you seen that you don’t recognise? When you say it won’t be like the Trek you know, just what are you specifically talking about? You’re trying to put Trek in that neat little box that I was talking about. Shatner is Shatner. He did a great portrayal of Kirk, but Pine is NOW playing the the young Kirk. Maybe Shatner will be in the next one. And what has Abrams said that is arrogant? Roddenberry could be arrogant and stubborn too (at least according to some of the things I have read about the making of TWOK and the films that followed). Shatner himself isn’t exactly the picture of humility. The only proof you’re going to get about Trek being in safe hands will come in May 2009.

And I am a fan of Star Trek. I have not been offended by one word that JJ has said. I go back to my point that I think you feel that this version of Star Trek will replace the 1960’s series. I feel sorry that you can’t enjoy a truly exciting time in Trek history.

181. Xai - May 2, 2008

179. captain_neill – May 2, 2008
My problem is JJ comes across as too arrogant about his importance to Star Trek. I want proof that Trek is in safe hands with him.”

He hired Trek fans to write the script. He’s a fan himself. He went to each of the primary cast and spoke to them about Trek and his plans. He and his production team have worked hard on carefully updating the show while holding on to what’s dear to us. His writers sit and talk with us here. They have asked us questions… what do you want?
Re-read THX and closettreker, they said it well. It doesn’t have to be your favorite, but try giving it a chance.

182. captain_neill - May 3, 2008

I have so much love for Star Trek. But I want to make sure this is Star Trek.

Oh I will be giving it a chance and I will probably love it . It is new Star Trek movie after all. Believe it or not I am looking forward to this film, I may sound critical about a few things but I just want to hope that Star trek will still be the same with this film. My friend hates whats happening that he is dreading seeing the film. I don’t dread it and am eager to see the film but the changes to appeal to a mainstream audience have got me worried, I just dont want this to be unfamiliar to us fans. As mainstream implies dangers.

I will problaby end up loving what JJ Abrams will bring to the franchise and after hearing that the experience may close down I want more people to see this and like it to make sure it doesn’t close in Vegas.

Its a dark time for us Trek fans but hopefully this movie will bring Star Trek back out of its rut. JJ Abrams keeping it all in secret is annoying at times and recasting these Iconic characters is something I thought would never happened. I always loved the fact that the Trek movies kept the same casts from the TV shows. Yes Im glad that JJ got the approval of the Original cast members.

I find it weird with George Takei being referred to a the Original Sulu, to me he IS Sulu. Its implying that the original actors will be forgotten by the studio to be making way for these new actors who just won’t be the same. To me in Trek its not just the characters it the actors who played them who made them.

That said I will be a good film. I’m just saying I won’t sing JJ@s praises until I see the film. I want proof as to me personally his show lost is so overrated.

Off to watch some classic TNG

183. captain_neill - May 3, 2008

There are actually some things I am looking forward to seeing in this movie hat have been talked about in the past, like seeing Kirk cheat the Kobayashi Maru. Will they have Finnegan taunt him as well and Gary Mitchell?

If he keeps Roddenberry’s values then I will be happy. What I liked about Roddenberry was he was against the networks and made some great commentary under the noses.

JJ Abrams is the latest chain in Star Trek, not the owner of Star Trek franchise.

Please understand if he does a great job and this feels like Trek I will applaud him.

184. Xai - May 3, 2008

Captain Neill
I can appreciate your concerns if nothing less.
I don’t think JJ considers himself the Owner, just the latest torch bearer (my words).
The proof or failure comes in a year, but I believe it will oh so fun!
And Trek’s dark days are gone…

185. Iowagirl - May 3, 2008

#178 ff. captain_neill

I understand very well what you’re saying, but if you wanna have fun with XI, have fun. No one can force you to actually regard the re-casts as Kirk, Spock & Co. For me, and for many others, the original actors will always be the “real” characters, no matter what, and the re-casts will only be playing them for a certain time. The new, young audience will decide for themselves what they’ll do, they won’t listen to us anyway.;-) But a 40 year legacy won’t vanish into thin air just because of XI, and just as well as Abrams was asking whether it was really worth living in fear of fans of a television show, I think it’s about time to ask whether it was really worth living in fear of a film…:)

186. Duncan Idaho - May 3, 2008

“It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world to sound crass, a franchise and treat it in a way that made it something that I wanted to see.”

At what point did the world become “maligned?” TNG? DS9? For most casual to hardcore Trek fans, the fictional universe that they have followed through the many series and movies is perpetual and a worthwhile place to explore. As much as I dislike Berman and how he’s steered the franchise, if we are to believe in the Trek universe, then we must at least accept what has come after Kirk and his crew, including Berman. The fact that JJ is “reimagining” the show from TOS suggests that everything afterward is not really his cup of tea. Sure, there’s been a lot of bad Trek, but there was a lot of excellent work, too. My personal opinion is that Trek peaked at DS9. Anyone who watches BSG will recognize the quality of writing in that show and can see it in the best DS9 episodes. I would speculate that JJ, like many others, do not appreciate TNG and everything afterward as much as TOS. The casual to hardcore Trek fans stayed with the show after TOS and TNG, hoping for something better to emerge. To say that this world was “maligned” is insulting.

However, I am very open minded about Trek XI and I will see the movie. I am simply commenting on JJ’s lack of appreciation for the entirety of the Trek universe. He is subtle about it, but I still see it as condescending.

And, Lucas dragged out his crappy prequel scripts to make a buck.

187. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - May 3, 2008

#186–“To say that this world was “maligned” is insulting.”

The truth often is. Look, Star Trek fans could not even sustain ENT on television. Nemesis was a disaster. Many Trek fans tuned out on VOY. TNG-era Trek ran out of steam. For those reasons, ST is maligned. You seem to want to shoot the messenger!

” I would speculate that JJ, like many others, do not appreciate TNG and everything afterward as much as TOS.”

Actually, Bob Orci (the writer)is a TNG fan above all else. He has said so on this site. However, even the most avid TNG fans must recognize that the characters never reached the iconic status of their predecessors. Even Jonathan Frakes admitted that. Kirk, Spock, McCoy. That just sells.

Personally, I’ve never bothered to pay to see a TNG movie in the theater. The only reason I will be there opening day is that it is a film about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, and Checkov. Yes, I’m older, but that’s the Star Trek I get excited about. No holodecks, ship’s counselors, children running around the Enterprise, artificial officers, or Klingons in Starfleet. That’s just not my brand. Give me Captain Kirk fistfighting and fornicating. Give me Spock. Give me Bones. I completely understand that it is all Star Trek, but recasting the original characters is what I have been waiting for over the past 20 years.

188. captain_neill - May 3, 2008

The Star Trek world was never Maligned, I dont like how Abrams used this word.

I agree that under Berman that Trek suffered from Franchise fatique but Rick Berman did produce some great episodes. To me TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT are all part of canon and each one adds to the universe.

I don’t think going back to TOS is Abrams choosing not to accept the spin offs but trying to get back to the era which started it. I read that the writer Roberto Orci has put 24th Century references in the script.

The film could succeed brilliantly or it could fail spectaculary, it depends on how Abrams does this film. I hope it’s the former, its new Trek and I will support it.

189. I Love My Moogie - May 3, 2008

The fact authentic Spock is in it & because the Romulans are a story factor, TNG’s Unification backstory has to play some role.

But, if the timeline is changed/retooled/re-imagined/whatever—then TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY & the first 10 movies never happened. The moment, as Xai put it, the bridge rails are no longer #502 red, 42 years of history is wiped for Abrams new vision. There is no longer a reason to watch our DVDs because they never happened. A bloody Trek novel would have more canon value than the 79 episodes or TWOK.

Also, in the PC world we live in today, does anyone believe the era of Kirk telling a society “your way stinks, mine is better so I’m going to blow up your computor” is remaining intact? The bare fist style of TOS will meet the all-too-correct TNG/VOY 24th century. Like Janeway said to Harry, Kirk & Spock would be booted out of her present day Starfleet. What did Picard condescendingly the TOS era? Oh, yes..cowboy diplomacy.

190. Middleman - May 3, 2008

I take exception to anyone saying Enterprise was a failure. It was a well done series that, unfortunately, was just badly timed. Enterprise got me back to watching Star Trek (in re-runs) after not watching for 16 years.

I hope this movie is a success and is able to get this wonderful franchise out of its CBS induced coma. I just hope the future of Star Trek is not limited to a continuation of the Kirk / Spock sagas.

191. snake - May 3, 2008

IMO Trek has been on a downward spiral since Trek VI in 1991

Before 91 Trek was ALL about the original cast…TOS obviously…animated show..books..novels etc..rumours about their return throughout the 70s…their big movies in the 80s..The Rodenberry created sequel to TOS – TNG – in the late 80s…could it ever be as good as the original? that all ended with trek VI

In 1991 Trek was at one of its all time high points…you had the 25th anniversary celebrations..the sixth and final movie with the original cast which was a great one – esp after the last one..plus TNG was going great – it had come into its own in the third season and by the fifth in 91 they even had Nimoy appearing (‘Unification’ not just in the episodes title but in star trek itself – TNG finally deemed not so much of a sequel to TOS but more of an equel..)

after Trek VI trek went downhill..

you had the final two season of TNG which were ok..nothing as great as season 3 or 5 though..

DS9 in 93 – awful

Generations in 94 – a so so movie…in fact at the time it was the second to worst movie – just in front of Trek V

Voyager in 95 – BO-RING

First Contact in 96 – ok i admit FC was great…but in the scheme of things was just a 2 minute blip on a flatliner

Insurrection in 98 – worst film in the movie series

Enterprise in 01 – first couple of seasons were as bad as anything that DS9/Voy could churn out

Nemesis in 02 – Trek movie series flatlines..movie series dead

Ent cancelled in 05 – ironically the final season was pretty good…but that was mainly due to it finally foreshadowing TOS..(which it shouldve been doing all along instead of acting like more of a prequel to TNG)

so really ever since the original crew hung up their boots in 1991 Trek has just been on a downward spiral (bar First Contact) until its demise on the big screen in 2002 and tv in 2005..

Trek had really just been coasting along in a Berman induced haze for 14 years..

so it makes sense that its the original crew thats being brought back for the new film to give birth to a new berman free era in Trek…

If its a big hit i hope Paramount concentrates on the movie series ALONE for the upcoming years (like they did with the original cast Trek movies) and not get greedy and do loads of lame pointless spin offs on tv..

The TNG movies were produced by guys who were working flat out on about 3 different tv shows at the same time..no wonder they were pretty awful and there was never really that sense of thrill/OMG feeling when a TNG movie came out (trailers, photos etc ) like there was when there was a new TOS movie….well maybe Generations to an extent as Kirk was in it and it looked to be a crossover movie but any sense of awe soon disipated when you watched the movie..

it was always a big deal when an TOS movie came out (yeah even Final Frontier)..plus they all felt like PROPER event movies…not extended episodes flung out on the big screen by berman and co almost as an afterthought whilst working on DS9/Voy/Ent

It’ll be great to get back to that TOS movie feel next year…it’ll have been 18 years…thats longer than the star wars wait…

192. Stop stealing others work & make your own - May 3, 2008

I wonder if JJ would mind me Reinventing Lost? Yea I can see it now.

From the team that brought you hits like Cop Rock & Glitter comes the NEW Lost movie!

Hilarity ensues in this poorly written Musical /Drama when the survivors of a doomed airliner crash lands on an island infested with killer muppet bunnies. We will throw in a little X-Files conspiracy about the planners of the 911 hoax & how it was the Cows man The cows!

I can’t wait this will ROCK man it’s gonna RULE!!!!!!!

193. Stop stealing others work & make your own - May 3, 2008

If JJ wanted to impress both the fans & bring more non fans into the franchise there is TONS of Roddenberry Trek that has NOT been produced.

Why not simply begin at the beginning… The TOS version of the Earth- Romulan War would be very boring. However reboot it with Daedalus type ships & have Capt. Robert April commanding the Yorktown. At the end of the film roll out the TOS Enterprise. Replace the wrinkled paper with real video & other FX updates that while still keeping it Classic Trek but do it as if they had a billion dollar budget back in the 60s.

Put in more TOS era ships. Leave the Kirk era alone & deal with the April era. Now that would be far more exciting than reinventing the wheel & reimagining the Kirk Era.

Some of you may like being told what you like & that JJ knows more about what you want to see than you do (they did that with Batman & Robin, Glitter, & all the other flops) I do not.

I’ll prolly just do what I did with Cloverfield. Download it, Watch it & most likely save my money for the 2050 release of the next Trek movie.
If JJ wants to make a Trek like movie then do something original in Hollywood & go create your own & stop stealing other people’s works.

I HOPE Lucas has something legal down that says Star Wars IV-VI can NOT be remade or reimagined or rebooted. If not expect someone to come along & make a NEW Star Wars I-VI rather than add to it.

194. snake - May 3, 2008

193 – Before the whole Abrams thing and back when Berman was preping his movie prequels about the very early days of the federation i thought that if Paramount were fixed on doing a prequel it should be about Capt Pike (e.g. Ray Liotta or Jim Caveizal – yeah due to the Hunter/Jesus thing..) and his final mission on the NCC 1701…that would allow it to be just near to but not slap bang in the actual TOS era so it wouldnt infringe on any of it…and would intergrate all the stuff familier to but just prior to TOS ..Ship..uniforms (Cage/WNM style)..phasers..transporter rooms..bridges.. etc..

at the end Pike would ‘hands over the keys’ to the new captain…..cue a 1960s version of Shatner (via old footage and cgi like Forrest Gump/DS9 Tribulations/XMen3) in the WNMHGB uniform….and then Spock appears (1960s Nimoy – yeah i know Spock served under Pike but i figured that ud have to keep him for the end like Kirk/Shatner as i thought recasting would be implausable and a CGI 1960s Nimoy couldnt be used throughout the film..so it could be explained that he was on Vulcan or earth for Pikes final mission)…. the ship sails of the mushroom spacedock as Pike watches..Kirk records the ‘Space the final frontier..’ log entry with Spock by his side…Courage score kicks in for the first time…the Ent warps away….’Star Trek Begins’ as it were – then everyone could go home and watch WNMHGB like the way seeing Revenge of the Sith in the cinema made you want to go home and watch A New Hope straight after..

or they could have done a Pike trilogy and had that shatner scene at the end of the final film..the first film would be about Pikes 1st mission on the Ent…the second somewhere near ‘The Cage’ and the third the final mission…(Spock wouldve had to have been recast i guess..although the whole idea about going the Pike route was really born out of the notion that it would be impossible to recast Kirk and Spock etc..but not so difficult with Pike, No 1 etc)

Anyway something even better than that has happened with this film…

195. Xai - May 3, 2008

192. Stop stealing others work & make your own – May 3, 2008

You were slightly more believable when you kept your other handle.
If someone were to read and believe what you just said, they’d swear JJ Abrams is the anti-christ.
You are right on one thing.
You “prolly” should just download it sometime in the future. Most movie goers don’t want someone sitting next to them making comments, rolling their eyes and scoffing at every little thing they see as “wrong”
And you know why you are wrong? For the one thousandth time, you can’t critique anything before it’s seen. Find a person that’s seen the dailies, read the script and found it lacking.
I’ll be here.

196. Xai - May 3, 2008

189. I Love My Moogie – May 3, 2008

You assume a lot based on very little evidence, if any.

197. Xai - May 3, 2008

(sigh) Let’s tear it apart word by word.
Today’s word is “maligned”.
A few weeks ago was the phrase “not your daddy’s Trek”

First we love it then we think Berman destroyed it and now JJ’s going to rebuild it again so he can destroy it. His evil plan is finally out. He, with the dreaded Paramount, are planning to make this movie and spend millions doing it… and then ruin it…JUST to spite Trek fans everywhere.

Give me a break. For every word you point out that’s bad, I can find three he uttered praising the past work, the original actors, Gene and all.

Now we are down to sour grapes. I’d say pass the wine, but I see it has been.

198. I Love My Moogie - May 3, 2008

#197: “His evil plan is finally out”

Xai, no one is accusing JJ of being The Master (Dr Who villain) but he has to be aware everytime these ‘mainstreaming Trek/not your daddy’s ST/ST never given this kind of treatment before’ statements are made the TrekMovie.com factions go into canon wars .

A few images & details to define for us what’s ‘actually’ in store can calm these debates, or at least open some fresh ones.

199. Ethan Shuster - May 3, 2008

Ya know, I’m really going to be very tired of all the talk, interviews, hype, etc about this movie by the time it comes out… a year from now! I really wish this flick wasn’t moved to next summer, because this stuff is gonna drive me crazy before then.

200. Xai - May 3, 2008

198. I Love My Moogie – May 3, 2008

“Xai, no one is accusing JJ of being The Master (Dr Who villain) but he has to be aware everytime these ‘mainstreaming Trek/not your daddy’s ST/ST never given this kind of treatment before’ statements are made the TrekMovie.com factions go into canon wars .”

Then you haven’t read well.
And a picture or two WON”T calm a thing and that’s why I am against it, other than the fact I want a surprise.
JJ doesn’t really need anyone’s OK before the premiere and after it opens, then we see what’s what. The fans may howl a little bit and threaten, but they will still go.

201. non-belligerency confirmed - May 4, 2008

read up, you long suffering purists and jj bashers. your condition is understood:

“Fantasies whose core is constituted by the notions of “someday” and “if only” are ubiquitous in human psyche. In severe character pathology, however, these fantasies have a particularly tenacious, defensive, and ego-depleting quality. The “someday” fantasy idealizes the future and fosters optimism, and the “if only” fantasy idealizes the past and lays the groundwork for nostalgia. The two fantasies originate in the narcissistic disequilibrium consequent upon the early mother-child separation experiences, though the oedipal conflict also contributes to them. Both can be employed as defenses against defective self and object constancy as well as later narcissistic and oedipal traumas. “Hopeful nostalgia”, in it’s most basic form (a return to an imagined childhood perfection) becomes pathological in it’s unbending obsessiveness when the patient can no longer accept normal development and will begin to compare a normal contemporary reality to a nostalgic one, and then become angry. The pathological nostalgic feels that nothing is “a good as it used to be”.

i’m calling this ‘red rail’ syndrome.

202. Mr. Bob Dobalina - May 4, 2008

Just watched TOS last night. Ya know, the reason I LOVE these characters isn’t because of the clever dialog, but the way these actors delivered the lines. DC said that the writers would pick up on things that the actors were bringing to the roles, then start to write that type of behaviour into the characters. So yes, Shatner IS Kirk. Nimoy IS Spock, etc.etc. These characters were nothing but words on a page until these actors brought them to life with manerisms, Kirk’s dramatic pauses, Sulu’s deep voice, Spock arching an eyebrow. The characters live and are who they are because of the actors.

The new characters cannot and will not ever replace the originals. They are simply playing the same characters but at an earlier age. It’s no different that if Kirk has stumbled, hit his head during an original episode, and then had a “dream” where we saw him as a boy. Shatner is still Kirk…but so is the young boy playing Kirk. This movie is the same thing. We are introduced to these characters in JJ’s Trek through Leonard Nimoy as Spock, therefore these are the same characters but younger and possibly in a different timeline. That makes it all work without that danger of trying to do the impossible and replacing or re-imagining the characters. Quite ingenius actually.

203. I Love My Moogie - May 4, 2008

You cannot change what was! TOS has a definitive canon & is not open for reinterpetation. The bridge rails were red for a reason & it’s not for others to re-hue, or on the grander scale, wipe our 42 year reality clean.

It’s not about nostagia, it’s about preserving our own existence. Once we replace our extended family aboard the USS Enterprise, who’s next, Nana because she too is ‘outdated’?

If you seek a bold new STXI, I respect your opinion as I ask you to respect mine, and to reframe from the amateur psychobabble.

204. Denise de Arman - May 4, 2008

Poopey#187- Hear, hear – I second that! And along with the fistfighting and fornicating, a ripped shirt or two would fit in nicely.

205. non-belligerency confirmed - May 4, 2008

but i do, i do respect your opinion! i think it’s a really neat, and totally honest pathology! especially when it becomes so very, well, PERSONAL, like: “it’s about preserving our own existence”. that stuff is genuine. please don’t stop talking about your feelings. they may be your best defense against reality!

and, er, i’ll try and “reframe” things whenever i sort out what that might mean, but if adam phillips is “amateur” the nimoy must be “hack”.

206. I Love My Moogie - May 4, 2008

STXI, as with any ‘Brave New World’, will see history rewritten. If you desire a revisionist Trek & content to see yesterday not as they remember it, then it’s your personal choice and as earlier noted, I respected it. I choose to weep as TOS is forever erased from the timeline & ask for the same respectful courtesy in return, there is no need for sarcasm.

207. non-belligerency confirmed - May 4, 2008

forever erased from what timeline? the one in your head? the original TOS eps will forever be there, and i was trying to demonstrate, forever available to the neurotically nostalgic among us.

perhaps i have confused your intent. do a.) wish the new film not be made at all, as you (correctly) believe that it will not adhere mindlessly to the production values of a different time and media? or do you b.) imagine the film should be made, with strict adherence to those aesthetics? if so, wouldn’t that be a little tricky, never mind the rail paint, what with all the dead and aging actors to contend with?

calling my post ‘amateur psychobabble’ didn’t exactly radiate ‘respect for my opinion’ btw. and i’m not being sarcastic when i suggest your argument against the film has no basis in reality. i really mean it. i wasn’t specifically talking about you anyway. but if upsets you that much, then by all means go ahead and imagine i was.

208. Xai - May 4, 2008

No one is erasing the original TOS. What nonsense. the 79 or 80 original eps stand, as do all 700+ hours of all Trek. Your tapes and DVD’s will not dissolve overnight.
I may be wrong, but I view this new movie as an addition, not a replacement. And if it is Kirk, Spock and the original crew in a universe just one door over from the original TOS…cool! The total Trek universe just got bigger!
Either way… I wait patiently.. life’s to big and important to worry this much, even over Trek.

209. I Love My Moogie - May 4, 2008

If, as the spoilers indicate, the timeline will be forever changed in STXI, then upon it’s release the TOS voyages beginning with The Cage through TUC will cease to exist which makes watching the DVDs pointless since none of it ever happened.

And yes, I believe deeply the movie should have strictly honored ALL that became before it. It’s doesn’t matter now, it’s all moot.

210. non-belligerency confirmed - May 4, 2008

“If, as the spoilers indicate, the timeline will be forever changed in STXI, then upon it’s release the TOS voyages beginning with The Cage through TUC will cease to exist which makes watching the DVDs pointless since none of it ever happened.”

wow. i am tiptoeing towards the door now.
that is about the most freaky thing i’ve ever read here.
it is, however, very funny to think of you writhing in outrage at the very thought of “a timeline change” in a science fiction film.
good luck with that.

211. Xai - May 4, 2008

Moogie, you are the viewer, the observer and uneffected if there are changes. You and your DVD’s remain intact.

“And yes, I believe deeply the movie should have strictly honored ALL that became before it. It’s doesn’t matter now, it’s all moot.”

And you haven’t seen it yet…. no way of knowing your fears or cheers yet, bud.

212. That One Guy - May 4, 2008


I could DEFINATELY go for some celeb-stalking. Following Quinto is always fun.

213. Battletrek - May 4, 2008

It’s all about the writing which is why TNG got dull as it went on. Those characters are still viable but the way they were written has soured the taste in peoples mouths.
They could sill be done excitingly it just depends who’s writing.

214. sean - May 4, 2008

One thing I find fascinating (pardon the pun) in these discussions of TOS vs TNG, etc., is that people conveniently omit the fact that Trek was at the absolute top of its popularity during TNG’s run. Over 10 million people were tuning into the final year of TNG (and even the first few years of DS9). Star Trek was EVERYWHERE. Generations was being featured on the cover of Time magazine. TV Guide printed a special edition about it. Entertainment Weekly dedicated an entire issue to it. Wayne Campbell told us sparkling white wine was like TNG – “Ah yes, it’s a lot like “Star Trek: The Next Generation”. In many ways it’s superior but will never be as recognized as the original.” Star Trek became omnipresent thanks to TNG. Modern Trek didn’t truly enter into decline until after First Contact and the blandness that was Insurrection and seasons 1-3 of Voyager.

TOS lost its primary slot when they derailed with TFF. It was just their bad luck that it happened to coincide with Season 3 of TNG, which completely wiped the floor with that movie. Even though I love TUC, the TOS crew never regained their footing with the general public after that. Whether you liked TNG or not, they earned their stripes.

The thing with Trek is that it moves in peaks and valleys. The last 8 years or so have just been an incredibly big valley. But I suspect we’re on the cusp of a considerable peak right now.

215. Mr. Bob Dobalina - May 6, 2008

#214 “.Even though I love TUC, the TOS crew never regained their footing with the general public after that. ”

uh…there was nothing to regain. That was their farewell. Their 25 year long reign ended in 1991 by design. Ending after a 25 year run on a high note and by design is a lot different from ending because no one is interested any more. TNG was popular, I agree, but it just hasn’t been able to withstand the test of time.

216. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - May 7, 2008

#214—Although I am no particular fan of TNG (I am a huge TOS-era fan, however), I have to agree with Sean. While it is true that the original crew’s farewell was entirely by design, it had gotten stale. The original film series, IMO, peaked from 1982-1986. In retrospect, I would rather have seen Kirk and co. disappear into warp at the end of TVY and that have been the end of it. TFF was an abomination of a ST feature film. While TUC did its best to recover, the damage was done. Our heroes had become self-caricatures on screen.

I couldn’t stand TNG in the 80’s, and although my stance has cooled since, I still do not watch it in reruns (with the exception of “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, which I find to be an exceptionally well-written story).

I would have preferred to have the original characters recast in the 90’s, or the storyline advanced on television as it should have been, with original characters moving on and new ones added each additional season as needed. Guest appearances by original cast members from time to time would have been great.

Instead, I got holodecks, ship’s counselors, Klingons in Starfleet, artificial beings and children on the bridge, a bland captain, and “away teams”…Yuk.

217. sean - May 7, 2008


I think you’re missing my point. I’m aware TUC was the swansong, but it wouldn’t have been had TFF not stumbled in such an extraordinarily bad way. Far fewer people turned out for TUC than should have. The fact is, TFF left such a sour taste for Trek that the general public (the folks that actually make a Trek movie sink or swim, not us fans as we’re so fond of thinking) wrote the film franchise off. TNG didn’t help the film part of the franchise either (aside from First Contact), but it also bore little resemblence to its TV incarnation – probably a big reason why it didn’t connect with audiences.

The only point I was making was that Trek was at the height of its popularity with TNG, whether TOS fans liked it or not. The show gained considerable mainstream popularity, and had a higher public profile than it ever did before or since. It just happened to coincide with TOS’ biggest fumble – TFF.

218. Jim Nightshade - May 7, 2008

“CAn’t we all just get along?(lil doggie)” It grieves ME heart to see how divided Star Trek Fans are. Some of the strongest opinions reflected here show LITTLE of Star Treks real humanity, and family of characters that started with TOS and expanded with TNG and every series after. No series was perfect, but all WERE and ARE Trek whether or not you personally loved it. All were the Human Adventure Beginning…ALL respected IDIC Enjoying our differences and celebrating them. There is room in this Trek Universe for all of us to enjoy what we like and what others like too. Every single series from TOS to Enterprise had individual stories and moments that left me awestruck and just as good as the best of any and all the series before it. JJ will bring HIS stamp to our TOS Trek Universe and more power to him. If he can make it grander, bolder, more entertaining and exciting let him. I dont care if the Enterprise’s measurements are 3/4 of an inch off….in fact I look forward to their designers visions….I hear it is a near perfect blending of classic looking trek with newer up to date tek. It CANT look like the old series. Its a NEW Movie….iT IS STARTING OVER! If you dont like the idea, I have a feeling everyone including fans new and old are going to be blown away by this restart, so give it a chance. Likewise fans of NG give it a chance…They are all related…IDIC….IDIC!!! (that almost looks like IDIOT! HEHEH)
Oh yeah and all those going to the vegas convention..I am jealous…I went 2 years ago, can’t afford to do it again….I will be there in spirit so Denise put on a sexy star trek uniform for me, take a pix and let us see! AHAHAH
Damn, I am so bummed out about THE EXPERIENCE in VEGAS probably closing;. SIGH….

219. landscaping - March 6, 2011

Extremely helpful information specially the last part :) I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.

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