Another example: My first professional art job was in comics (I did very few before moving to FX). And in comics they’ve been changing artists and writers on iconic characters for years — after all, Superman was created in 1938 — Batman ‘39. Some of these artists and writers did a lousy job, some were brilliant. And Shakespeare’s plays have been being reinterpreted for hundreds of years. I look at this change of creative control in the same light.

I sincerely wish for the best. I like good movies and I like Star Trek.

But now let my continuity-squid side appear — why is Chekov in this movie? Shouldn’t he be a good ten years away? After all, if Kirk is a Lt., he’s been out of the first round of the academy for 2 to 4 years (as he would have been an ensign upon graduation) and now has gone back for officer’s training — hence the KM test. Chekov came on board the Enterprise as an ensign in Kirk’s second (at least it season 2 of the show) year as Captain, which means he’s got to be a young kid of about 12 to at most 16 at the time of this movie.

And, yes, before anyone asks, I did have problem with Khan recognizing Chekov in STII. It should have been Sulu.

I know, I know — I’m being picky. I HAVE admitted that I’m a squid.

Bucking the trend of showing trailer after trailer, clip after clip to the point that we know almost everything about a movie before it comes out (ala The Dark Knight) – Abrahms is using every tool in the book to keep Star Trek XI under wraps. Hell it doesn’t even have a title yet!

Always leave ‘em wanting more? – Abrahms keeps us wanting ANYTHING!

Genius.

Being professionally and appropriately attired has absolutely nothing to do with feeling threatened or hindered by one’s sexuality. (Sounds like a man’s argument to justify eye candy beyond it being well, eye candy.) I don’t see women running around in the Army, Navy or Air Force in miniskirt uniforms today. It’s unrealistic for EITHER sex simply due to the nature of the job. In the 60s the miniskirt did represent sexual freedom for women, however, it still was silly to see Uhura and the other women running around with their rears hanging out in the context of a military vessel. I think it takes a truly secure woman TO wear a uniform — to go without the very things that society deems feminine.

First of all, I don’t think JJ intended to use the word “Kitsch” to mean what you have obviously interpreted it to be. I think he meant that his Star Trek would not be formulaic or tastelessly imitative. I think he meant that this movie will be unlike any Star Trek we have seen, and something that even geekless souls might enjoy.

#138—” it’s just a way to show some leg and appeal to the young male fans. Sure, women wear short skirts today, but they are civilians. Starfleet is a quasi-military organization and it’s silly to have women running around in them. ”

You know, maybe…just maybe…women in the 23rd Century no longer feel hindered, and even threatened, by their own sexuality…I look forward to it.

“My question is this: why make a film about the original characters, if you are going to take away from the original feel? Why make a Star Trek film at all? He could just make a new Sci-Fi story for a new generation, separate from Star Trek.

Or does JJ’s creative genius not include the ability to make his own characters, create his own universe, etc? If he has to take well-established characters and time-honoured themes and replace them with *his* version . . . well . . . this begins to sound like a piece of Fan Fic, but with a ton of financial and legal backing. ”

JJ Abrams did not write a Star Trek movie, nor did he ask Orci and Kurtzman to do so. Bob and Alex wrote a script and asked JJ if he would be willing to direct it. With that in mind, is your question really for JJ, or is it for Orci and Kurtzman?

Furthermore, there has been no indication that he has “replaced” well-established characters with his own. He is directing a film which tells stories about them that we have either not heard at all or no very little about.
Nor is he “creating his own universe” or changing “time-honored themes”. My impression is that he is doing what Star Trek has always attempted to do—make their stories relevant to the present. He hopes to make Star Trek more relevant than it has ever been before.

You can wish that they had simply moved forward from the Star Trek that has already been done, but this old-school TOS-era fan has been waiting for decades for the iconic original characters to be recast (since The Great Trek Turd of ‘89 and my disappointment with 24th Century Trek) and for Star Trek to return to the 23rd Century. I don’t need a nostalgic 1960’s feel, and I don’t need Shatner’s over-the-top dialogue delivery. I want Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in their primes. I want Scotty to save the ship in a pinch. And most of all, I want my kids to buy all of this the way I did decades ago.

Star Trek, IMO, has needed to go back to its roots for the last 20 years. It has never been as good to me as it was circa 1982, and moving forward has made it more and more stale. By the time Paramount really built up the guts to do something different (ENT) and return Star Trek to frontier-feeling starship adventures, even the Berman fans were suffering from VOY burnout, and younger and potentially fresh audiences had far too many preconceived notions about recent Trek for anyone to even bother to watch. Even many of us who would have watched couldn’t because it was on a network with limited access, and many Berman-era fans who did were not really prepared to accept something so different, and couldn’t even get past the theme song.

Now, here we are. For the first time since since the 1970’s we have had a significant period of time without any Star Trek in the works. Fans have been worried that Star Trek might be dead, and I will finally get my wish. Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, Checkov, and Uhura have been recast. Star Trek WILL return to its roots, as it should be. It’s not JJ Abrams who will resurrect the franchise. It’s the iconic original characters being introduced to a whole new generation (without holodecks, children, artificial people, and Klingons on the bridge) that will breathe life back into the Universe I fell in love with, and later grew apart from.

My question is this: why make a film about the original characters, if you are going to take away from the original feel? Why make a Star Trek film at all? He could just make a new Sci-Fi story for a new generation, separate from Star Trek.

Or does JJ’s creative genius not include the ability to make his own characters, create his own universe, etc? If he has to take well-established characters and time-honoured themes and replace them with *his* version . . . well . . . this begins to sound like a piece of Fan Fic, but with a ton of financial and legal backing.

Star Trek, despite its flaws, was always able to build off of itself and soldier on. It even made fun of its own kitsch. DS9’s Trials and Tribbelations is a good example — it embraced the corny side of Trek, we all had a laugh, and in the end there was a great episode. But now we have someone who comes along with a hubris that could rival Shatner himself, and he claims that he cares about Trek, and then basically suggests that it sucks and his new movie with a “real” feel will be better.

The modern prequel story where they explain how everybody met and came together has become quite kitsch, I think. It’s overly used, and overly predictable. I wonder how many people out there really felt Star Trek would be just so much better if we got to see how the crew came together all at once . . . But then again, this is *his* Trek.