Comic Con 08: Exclusive Interview – Lindelof Gives A Star Trek Production Update | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Comic Con 08: Exclusive Interview – Lindelof Gives A Star Trek Production Update July 29, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,ST09 Creative,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof was at Comic Con to promote Lost as well as participating a couple of other panels. TrekMovie caught up with the prolific writer/producer after he finished moderating the Always Sunny in Philadelphia panel and he gave us a breakdown on where things are with Trek and also talked about the film’s humor, the appeal to TNG era fans, Nero’s ear, and more.

 

Comic Con 2008 Interview with Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof

TrekMovie.com: So Damon, can you give us a production update? Where are you on your timeline?

Damon Lindelof: We are still cutting the movie, getting effects from ILM, and we are going to show the movie to the brass at Paramount, probably by the end of the month. We are really, really, really excited about what we got. I think the movie really works. Then I think we are just going to be putting effects shots in. It is one of those things where we have stayed on the schedule to get the movie ready for Christmas, so we are going to be sitting on it for a while.

TrekMovie.com: JJ [Abrams] said his first cut is almost done, but [executive producer] Bryan [Burk] says very few effects shots are done. So the next five months is all about the effects? 

Damon Lindelof: I think the thing about an effects shot and Trek, in terms of all the elements that are going on, yeah some effects shots are partially done, so if you are looking at a viewscreen you see space out there. But it is not fully rendered space, nor are there any elements, the planets are only — it is like every iteration is sort of like you are watching Michelangelo sculpt David. It is a block, then it is slightly starting to take human form, then ‘oh my god.’ It is just that nothing is ‘done done’ because of the sheer size of it — it is why you didn’t see the robots in Transformers until six weeks before the movie came out.

TrekMovie.com: At the TCAs JJ talked about how this movie is ‘real’, and he said it was ‘not kitschy’ and I think one of the actors recently said it was ‘not cheesy’ or something like that. So does that also mean ‘not funny?’

Damon Lindelof: No, not at all. I think when we use a word like ‘cheesy,’ the Original Trek series was bound by certain budgetary limitations, so it looked silly at times. The sets were unrealistic, the costumes, there is a fine line between a well-executed episode of Trek and one that is cheesy on a production level. But "Trouble With Tribbles," which should be cheesy, just given what they look like, is actually a Trek classic. I think the reason that is, is because it is funny. It doesn’t feel like they are poking fun at themselves. The movie has a real sense of humor. I think Kirk has a great sense of humor. I think Bones has a great sense of humor. Every scene with that [Simon] Pegg is in is laugh-out-loud funny. But the stakes are real. The fact of the matter is that these guys are in a version of the military, so they take their jobs very seriously. So you to find the humor as organically as you can.  

TrekMovie.com: I know you are a huge Next Gen fan. By the way, I loved "The Constant" which you told me was your homage to the Next Gen finale, and in fact I emailed both Brannon [Braga] and Ron Moore that quote from you and they got a kick out of it….

Damon Lindelof: …oh good, I always plead guilty to wholesale thievery.

TrekMovie.com: So as a big Next Gen fan–you know that some fans prefer the Next Gen era shows–so is this film for them too, even if they don’t like The Original Series?

Damon Lindelof: I think for us, it is mostly about capturing the world of Trek. A world in which there is a Federation of Planets. The characters are sort of interchangeable in that world. For me, I would get into a very lengthy debate with someone who says ‘I love The Next Generation, but I hate The Original Series.’ Why is that? Both of those shows function in the same universe, abide by the same rules, are set in a future that is optimistic and adventurous, and they are exploration shows. So I would have hard time saying to them ‘if you liked Deep Space Nine, you probably won’t like our movie, but if you liked Voyager you will like our movie.’ You can’t separate the shows out as far as I am concerned. I have seen more Next Gen episodes than I have seen of The Original Series, just because I was more into it and when I was growing up Next Gen was on.

TrekMovie.com: So the question of the week is, since you put out those new posters, what is up with Eric Bana’s ear?

Damon Lindelof: Oh the piece that is missing? You will see in the movie.

 


Lindelof shows his Trek cred at Comic Con 2008

 

Bonus Video: Lindelof Talks Time Travel (on Lost)
[Lost Spoilers] As mentioned above, the last time TrekMovie talked to Damon, he said that he thought the TNG episode "All Good Things" was the best series finale of all time, and that this season’s episode of Lost "The Constant," was an homage to "All Good Things." That episode of Lost firmly established time travel as a story element within the world of Lost. The subject of that episode and time-travel came up during a panel discussion with a number of TV showrunners earlier at Comic Con. Below is video of Lindelof (and co-showrunner Carlton Cuse) talking about hard it was putting "The Constant" together and how he feels there can’t bee too much time-travel on TV.

 

Comments

1. Petey - July 29, 2008

All this post Comic-Con hype is driving me crazy. I’m SO glad they’re still effectively doing a slow-burn for their publicity machine.

I wouldn’t be able to last till May otherwise.

Thanks Anthony!

2. KenJ - July 29, 2008

Confirmation!
Someone went Mike Tyson on Nero!!!
LOL

3. Gary Seven - July 29, 2008

I wish he had at least seen all the episodes of TOS before becoming producer of the Star Trek film, which is about TOS. Troubling.

4. Xai - July 29, 2008

I think we are very lucky that these men are fans and not only care about Trek, but also the product they are putting out.

5. Gibnerd - July 29, 2008

take all the time you need getting those effects right , guys. if the story, script & film is everything they say it is AND the TrekEffects make us all wanna build model Enterprises after seeing it, then you are solid gold.

On a side note, thoufh I love all Trek, I am a TOS man. that being said, I am currently watching the last 10 or so episodes of DS9 and dang DANG are they good. I almost forgot how amazing they were.

6. Dennis Bailey - July 29, 2008

Nah. There are about ten or fifteen TOS episodes that are reasonably necessary.

7. MDSHiPMN - July 29, 2008

I did it.

8. MDSHiPMN - July 29, 2008

Directed at #2 BTW.

9. Jamziz - July 29, 2008

I trust this guy. He knows his trek – and he knows what audiences want as well. He’s perfect to bridge the gap between you’re every day trekkie and you’re every day movie going consumer.

Perfect.

10. Jamziz - July 29, 2008

damn it – *your

11. Denise de Arman - July 29, 2008

Dennis#6- Sacrilege! You must go to the Guardian of Forever and ask forgiveness, or no decent Orion slavegirl will want to be seen with you.

12. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine - July 29, 2008

Yankee hat. Not good.

In the words of Seinfeld, “If you have character, you root for the Mets. If you need character, you root for the Yankees.”

Anyway, I’m sure he’s good.

13. Trek Nerd Central - July 29, 2008

#5. I’m a TOSer myself, and I always liked DS9. They were a messier bunch of folks than on TNG. That whole crew was too spic-n-span for me.

14. SPB - July 29, 2008

“I have seen more Next Gen episodes than I have seen of The Original Series, just because I was more into it and when I was growing up Next Gen was on.”

This quote is obviously going to make some die-hards wet their pants, but remember two things: As others have stated, Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett weren’t huge fans of TOS to begin with either, and they both did rather nicely with the movie material, regardless.

And point 2: How do we know that someone didn’t simply steer Lindelof away from the lousier episodes? Maybe he just focused on the classic and near-classic episodes only?

15. Adam E - July 29, 2008

So it is confirmed that there is something missing from Nero’s ear. It is not just disfigured.

16. Max - July 29, 2008

I guess I’d like the militaristic aspect to be de-emphasized. I prefer the seeking out new life and new civilizations part of ‘Star Trek’.

17. James R. Kirk - July 29, 2008

More military.

18. sebimeyer - July 29, 2008

I trust this guy mainly because The Constant had me in tears. He knows a good story on Lost, why wouldn’t he know one in the Star Trek world?

19. Green-Blooded-Bastard - July 29, 2008

Something definitely happens to Nero in regards to his ear, however, we only see one ear in the photo. If he actually has only one disfigured ear, odds are it was lost in a fight or accident somehow. However, if both are missing, I’d guess self mutilation.

20. Andy Patterson - July 29, 2008

I always liked the fact that TOS felt less military. As if we’d grown beyond that in the future.

11

Agreed. That’s a bit of an extreme statement.

21. Tholianhata - July 29, 2008

While Lindelof hasn’t seen all of TOS, he does reference one of the best stories by its full title. That’s more than many folks could do, including some, I’m sure, who were involved in the production of previous Trek. Clearly he’s familiar with some of the good stuff.

22. Martin Lightband NZ - July 29, 2008

But the stakes are real. The fact of the matter is that these guys are in a version of the military,,,

What ever happened to the five year mission of,,”seek and Explore”

We come in peace,,,(shoot to kill men)

:-Z

23. Brian - July 29, 2008

Lindelof is a very, very talented guy whose career will only grow bigger with time. Once I heard that he and JJ were sheparding this film, I felt completely comfortable. I’m not worried in the least.

Since I’m more of a TOS guy(though I loved TNG) I’m very pleased they chose to go back to where it all started.

24. Alex Rosenzweig - July 29, 2008

I liked that Mr. Lindelof demonstrates an appreciation of Star Trek as an overall fictional world in which the various series take place. His comment about the movie being, in part, about “capturing that world” is rather reassuring. Good stuff!

25. Trek Nerd Central - July 29, 2008

Also meant to say – “The Constant” is one of the best hours of TV I’ve seen in forever. I was a total wreck at the end. Those of you who don’t watch “Lost” absolutely must.

26. Jeffries Tuber - July 29, 2008

DS9? Seriously? How can you compare the Ferengi and friggin Odo to Klingons & Spock and Borg & Data? I welcome the flamers when I declare DS9 is only barely canon.

Take that!

27. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - July 29, 2008

#26

I can understand it if DS9 is not your cup, but be honest; how much of it did you watch? And if you watched it, could you please fill us in on the basis of your undefined character comparison? That statement is roughly like saying “Bebop? Seriously? How can you compare The Jazz Messengers and friggin’ Sonny Stitt to Led Zepellin & Zappa and Yes & Santana?”

28. Jovan - July 29, 2008

Your grab for attention… is most illogical.

29. Beam Me Up - July 29, 2008

DS9 was okay. The show was pretty war happy there at the end. I’m glad TNG didn’t feel the need to destroy the entire universe every episode.

30. ValJean - July 30, 2008

DS9 just wanted to show a realistic aspect to the trek universe.
Just because everyone was best friends and there was never much threat of war in TOS doesn’t mean it couldn’t of happened.

I think the Dominion War was a necessary story arc that showed how far the federation was willing to go in order to preserve its ideals and values. If the federation had “grown beyond being military” it would NEVER have survived past the solar system!

31. Beam Me Up - July 30, 2008

The thing that was lame about DS9 was Sisko becoming the prophet at the end. It didn’t really add anything to the story. Dukat and Sisko wrestled. Dukat’s dieath was anticlimatic. Now, if Sisko became a prophet and saved Earth and the Federation, the story would have been a lot better because the focus was on Sisko becoming a hero for Bajor and DS9.

32. Devon - July 30, 2008

Some of you guys think one dimensional and don’t consider all sides or possibilities to what they mean, especially with the term “military.” It’s possible this an alternate timeline, that Starfleet perhaps IS a military, or he was using the term loosely, etc. Just best not to take every little single thing so literal and try to over analyze it in the face of little context. Perhaps some forgot J.J.s comments about hope, etc?

Some could even tell you the military offers opportunities like what Starfleet did, and some joined the military because of Star Trek, namely engineers, etc.

33. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#3—Did you say that about Bennett too, or just Lindelof?

#29—No it did not, but it sure could bore me to tears.

You Know, Starfleet had many functions. One of its more important ones was defense. It was all well and good to consider it primarily the Federation’s exploration arm, that is, until a D-7 Battlecruiser showed up or a Romulan BOP started wiping out Earth outposts with a deadly plasma weapon. Let’s not be quite so “revisionist” in what Starfleet was in the beginning. Starfleet had military characteristics from top to bottom—in its command structure, its terminology, traditions, discipline, and much of its purpose. Like the European ship masters of the 15th and 16th Century, Starfleet captains were explorers, diplomats, and soldiers.

While Orci and Lindelof have both confessed to being bigger TNG-era fans, they are also smart enough to come to the realization that a movie of this scale could only be centered around the iconic TOS characters. It still might not garner enough interest from the mainstream moviegoers to justify its budget, but the only way it has a chance to is by featuring Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, and the other classic characters. Say what you will, but the characters never again got that good, and the writers and the guys at Bad Robot are smart enough to get that.

34. Jeff - July 30, 2008

Gary Seven…what do you mean he needed to see ALL the episodes of TOS? Great, let’s insist he watch space hippies, idiot barbie dolls who steal Spock’s brain, and attorney Melvin Belli attempting to act.

35. Sxottlan - July 30, 2008

I was hoping we’d learn when the next trailer will debut. That’s what I’m most concerned with (well that and hearing how the execs like their screening next month).

Perhaps the next trailer will be with David Fincher’s next film for Paramount?

36. DIGINON - July 30, 2008

You people are aware that there are only 79 episodes of TOS, while there are about 100 more of TNG, are you?
So even if he’d seen every single episode of TOS there’d be a good chance he’s seen more TNG, simply because there are more episodes available.

37. NOTBOB - July 30, 2008

What’s wrong with the military?

The shows always had something of a military feel. There is a chain of command, people can and are Court Martialed. They hold Navy rank. There is a lot of “yes sir,” “no, Sir,” etc. being said. They all have regulation uniforms. They have regulation haircuts. And from time to time, the have been involved in wars. There was never any mention of the Marine Corps (sorry, for mentioning them first. I’m biased) or Army, etc.

They are a form of the future military. And there isn’t anything wrong with that, in my book. Grant it, they are in a very, very relaxed military. (or else we would probably know very few first names. And every officer higher in rank would simply be called sir. Never by their rank to their face.)

A future without a military of any kind is not my idea of a wonderful, hopeful future. That’s just living in a unrealistic world. Because no matter how many races they meet, and are friends with, there is always aliens like the Borg.

What concearns me–not really that much though, is that Damon Lindelof says he doesn’t see a major difference between TOS and the spin offs. There is a huge difference. That’s why I like TOS and don’t care for TNG and most of Voyager. DS9 was alright. And I am probably one of a few who likes Enterprise. Even when they went to war.

38. Jackson Roykirk - July 30, 2008

Jeff said: “Great, let’s insist he watch space hippies, idiot barbie dolls who steal Spock’s brain, and attorney Melvin Belli attempting to act.”

LOL. I’m a huge TOS fan, but yeah, some of the TOS shows are, umm, less good than others. Yaaaaay, brother! But really, what other ’60s sci-fi shows stand up as well as TOS? Lost in Space? Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? Time Tunnel? Land of the Giants? (Yes, I’m so old that I saw all those on first run. In black and white. On a CRT with vacuum tubes.)

The best sci-fi, though it’s sometimes set in the future, is usually an extrapolation of current culture. It reflects the society from which it came. TOS was produced in the ’60s so we got hippies, mini skirts, and women more or less trapped in their traditional gender role with varying amounts of clothing. And more than a little cold war paranoia.

The new movie will need to connect the early 21st century audience to the 23rd century in a meaningful and entertaining way. I’m sure J.J. and crew will be able to do that.

39. Holger - July 30, 2008

37. There’s nothing wrong with the military. But Starfleet is an organization of exploration as well as of defense, so it’s not comparable to today’s navies. In TNG, Picard and Riker emphasized several times that the primary mission of the Enterprise is exploration, not defense. But we’ve also seen other ships which were primarily on patrol duty.
So Starfleet is for exploration and defense and it has a military structure, like if you were to fuse NASA (congrats again) and the US Navy.

I prefer to see the science and exploration of Starfleet, simply because there’s so much military SF around, and it’s all basically the same stuff, but I like to watch something that is exceptional, not “enemy battle cruisers detected, fighters launched” over and over again.

40. Cervantes - July 30, 2008

#38 Jackson Roykirk

Sadly, the Movie will probably refelect our ‘terroristic’ times no doubt….rather than the exploration of the mysteriously, inexplicably ‘unknown’….but I’m sure it will still be dramatic.

However, It looks like they’re keeping the mini skirts, which is good.

41. CaptainRickover - July 30, 2008

I never had the impression, TOS was much about the military, nor was TNG. Starfleet was shown more like the Royal Navy in 1805 (the era the Hornblower adventures takes place). It’s military, but it is nothing like Starship Troopers or BSG. Starfleet is for exploration and defence and not only for defence and even first strikes like our present day navys.

Starfleet’s ships are not called battleships, carriers, cruisers or destroyer. Only the USS Defiant in DSN was called a “warship”.

The stuipid and unnecessary things like haircut regulations came first up with TWOK and later with VOY (the episode Tuvok tries to make some Maquis into starfleet officers.)

I guess, Lindelof just mean with military, that Kirk & Co takes their job serious as officers and not sail out for making some fun in space.

42. Eric Cheung - July 30, 2008

6. & 14. If he only saw episodes recommended to him by other, bigger, fans then he’d get a sense of the best of that universe at that particular point. But it is good to have bigger, more obsessed fans like Orci on board to serve as sort of a check and balance in this Supreme Court. That way he can have an idea for something, but if Orci says, “No in ‘For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky’ McCoy said X so we can’t do that,” then everything’s cool.

43. Cervantes (a Scot who's still apprehensive about 'Scotty'....) - July 30, 2008

Oh, I meant to say – “Every scene that [Simon] Pegg is in is laugh-out-loud funny.”

EVERY scene? Lord, I hope they haven’t made ‘Scotty’ into a total buffoon in this reboot, with (English Brit) Simon wearing a kilt, getting drunk, and fighting with anyone who complains!

I hope there’s a BIT of moderation where the ‘Scotty’ character is concerned, as he also commanded great respect where his leadership qualities were concerned, throughout the originals….as well as conveying a necessary seriousness at times. I sure hope those were some of the episodes that Damon, and some of the others involved, watched….

Fingers crossed, as I certainly aint sure at this point.

44. RuFFeD_UP - July 30, 2008

#9 People thought the same thing about John Logan at one point and look what happened to Nemesis, it disgraced the greatest crew in this franchise.

45. Eric Cheung - July 30, 2008

The other thing is I do believe that the Royal Navy metaphor doesn’t preclude Starfleet from being very “military.” “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” was very much about the tension between military objectives and scientific exploration, and I think “Star Trek” shares some of those themes.

TOS was certainly like that. In some episodes Kirk and Scotty were more often interested in the military and tactical applications of a particular thing whereas Spock and McCoy were interested in the social and scientific aspects of a particular adventure.

Of course I’m exaggerating the dichotomy to make a point, it was a much more blurry line between the two (for example Scotty was probably more interested in technical journals as in “The Trouble with Tribbles,” and Kirk really did want to help people overall though he did tend towards an arrogant belief that his was solution to solving the problems of a planet he was only familiar with over the span of a week, while Spock and McCoy were capable of feeling either cold or vengeful), but that’s also part of my point. All of these characters were flexible regarding that tension because they had to be. It was part of being a Starfleet officer. It was part of the mission of that branch of the UFP.

46. The Underpants Monster - July 30, 2008

Gary #3 – I might be concerned if the writer or director hadn’t seen all the TOS canon, but I’m willing to cut some slack to the producer.

Captain Rickover, always the voice of reason.

47. star trackie - July 30, 2008

Well the important thing is this, JJ and Nimoy CAN tell the difference between TOS and TNG. The differences are there and they are huge. Nimoy liked the script and JJ, a big fan of TOS, not to mention the classic Twilight Zone, is running the show.

So, despite Mr. Lindeof’s preference for TNG, I don’t think he’s blind to the fact that 24th century Trek and it’s repetiveness is the very era that ran the franchise into the ground. I’m not worried.

Although he really should watch more TOS, the costumes designs of Bill Theiss are classic and part of the of the series’ signature style and aesthetic.

48. Eric Cheung - July 30, 2008

43. Why would having every scene with Scotty be in it be hilarious mean that Scotty’s a buffoon? Isn’t a sense of humor a sign of intelligence? Maybe the way he copes in emergency situations is to make wisecracks or to find an unconventional solution to a problem. Ingenuity in engineering has been a hallmark of film comedy, especially in the silent era with stuff like Buster Keaton’s “The Electric House.”

Besides, characters like Han Solo, Indiana Jones, all of Simon Pegg’s characters, and hell, both Maxwell Smarts all were hilarious characters that were certainly no dummies, they just thought differently.

49. TroubledTribble - July 30, 2008

Just an idea about Nero’s ears…. I have a hunch that he self mutilated himself. Sort of a rejection of his Vulcan heritage kind of thing. Wouldn’t it be interesting if that is something that all Romulans have to do… a rite of passage.

50. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#43—-Mr. Scott always had a sense of humor about him. He was always funny, just not in the way STV and TNG “Relics” (buffoon funny) portrayed him as being. It was more sarcastic, if not downright intelligent humor. He could wisecrack with the best of them.

There is no reason to believe he will be portrayed as buffoonish.

51. ByGeorge - July 30, 2008

One of the reasons TOS is so enduring is that they could do so many different types of shows, from comedy to romantic tragedy to a war drama. You never knew what to expect from week to week. The Enterprise should be used for whatever they want to enable the writers the biggest scope for writing different genre of interesting stories.

In TOS the Enterprise was used for training, testing new computers & inventions, scientific research & exploration, cultural exploration and exchange, transportation of medicine and ambassadors, rescue missions, spy missions, defense & war, policing and capturing interstellar criminals and trying them, political excursions etc. etc. It never got boring in part due to its fascinating characters but also because they were allowed to use the Enterprise for just about anything the writers needed to make great story. IMO this format was the best for developing the best stories and I wouldn’t confine the ship to any one type of duty over another.

52. TroubledTribble - July 30, 2008

41. I was under the impression that the TOS Enterprise was a Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser. And that the Enterprise B is an Excelsior class Dreadnought. Court martials, Dress Uniforms, M-5 war games, midshipmen, neutral zones (DMZ), etc. I would say that Star Trek is very much about military. Agreed that it is, in true Star Trek fashion, a very optimistic, exploration based mission that they are on. But they are one Romulan/Klingon incident away from being a straight up war-time navy.

53. sean - July 30, 2008

#43

Did you stop reading the interview there? Because immediately after saying that he qualifies it with “But the stakes are real. The fact of the matter is that these guys are in a version of the military, so they take their jobs very seriously. So you to find the humor as organically as you can.”

I don’t think they’ll be treating Scotty like an idiot.

54. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 30, 2008

Anthony, I had no idea that was you! I walked up just as your interview was concluding. I’m the one who, in response to the ear question, told you, “I don’t want to hear any spoilers!”

Then I got to chat with Damon for awhile after you walked off. Pretty cool!

55. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#52—Technically, there is nothing within actual canon to suggest that the Enterprise was classified as a “heavy cruiser”. It is consistently referred to a simply a “starship”. However, you are otherwise correct. Anyone who thinks that labeling Starfleet as “military” is a mistake, is not really paying attention.

Even today, the military has many other functions aside from defense—disaster relief, infastructure building, general construction, humanitarian aid, etc.

Who were the explorers and frontier diplomats of the 15th and 16th Century? Spanish, English, Portugese and Dutch naval personnel…

Beyond the fact that everything about the structure, tradition, and discipline of Starfleet is military in nature, defense is also one of its more important functions. Its most idealistic purpose is exploration and diplomacy, and that is fine…that is, until Kor shows up in a D-7 Battlecruiser or a Romulan BOP starts destroying Earth outposts and murdering Federation personnel with a high-energy plasma weapon.

56. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#54—I take it you had a great time after all. That makes me happy. Tell us all about it, from a fan perspective…What did you and Damon talk about?

57. The Underpants Monster - July 30, 2008

“43. Why would having every scene with Scotty be in it be hilarious mean that Scotty’s a buffoon?”

Exactly. To draw a TNG parallel, Worf ALWAYS had the zinger lines, the ones that made you involuntarily yell, “HAAAA!” And I certainly never thought of him as a buffoon. Sitr, I protest! He is not a merry man!

I remember a paragraph from the introduction to the TNG manual that summed up the military thing nicely. i can’t remmeber exacty how it went, but it was something like, “Although Starfleet owes a lot to navies of Old Earth, the fundamental difference is that the *primary* function of Starfleet officers isn’t war.”

58. Ali - July 30, 2008

He’s seen more TNG than Trek? Hasn’t he seen all TOS?

59. beerwriter - July 30, 2008

I think Gene Roddenberry once described Capt. James Kirk as — at least partially — a future version of the Royal Navy’s Capt. James Cook, and the starship Enterprise and her missions under Kirk’s command as comparable to the explorations by HMS Endeavour under Capt. Cook?

I think that’s in the TOS “Bible”. My copy has vanished somewhere through the years so maybe somebody who has a copy can check and confirm that.

There’s certainly a very familiar flavor to Cook’s 1766 log entry that he intended to travel not just “farther than any man has been before me, but as far as I think it is possible for a man to go.”

60. Dr. Image - July 30, 2008

#58- That is problematic. And to belittle DS9? Not good.
My confidence in the film has dropped several notches.

61. Buckaroohawk - July 30, 2008

Starfleet has always, from the original Trek pilot, been structured as a military organization. The numerous examples mentioned in above posts confirm this. Throughout the years, Starfleet has been shown to be more or less “militaristic” as storylines needed it to be. Even in the original series, some stories focused on the exploratory side, while others focused more on Starfleet’s war footing or conflict resolution.

All the subsequent movies and TV series have dealt with these aspects of Starfleet quite consistently. TMP was less about military conflict and more about exploration. TWOK, on the other hand, had a much stronger military feel, mainly because director Nicholas Meyer felt that aspect resonated with the story he wanted to tell. Some may feel that he may have went a little too far with it (he himself has been quoted as saying he “laid it on with a trowel” when it came to all the military anecdotes), but the fact remains that Starfleet has always been, for lack of a better term, as military as it needed to be. TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT all used this template to serve the stories they were telling.

Even though Starfleet’s primary mission is exploration and diplomacy, it’s internal structure is definitely military in nature. This is extremely well-established, so there’s no reason to believe the current production team will make any radical changes to that aspect of Trek.

62. Trekkie16 - July 30, 2008

The Constant was a brilliant episode and the fact he basde it off of a Star Trek episode is a very good sign. He “gets’ Star Trek and that is what you need to make a good movie.

63. mj - July 30, 2008

#55 – I’d need to check but I think it’s in TWOK or maybe SFS where the Enterprise is shown on the computer monitors as a “Class 1 Heavy Cruiser” (I think was the exact wording) – Which probably came from Nick Meyer who tried to make it quite naval.

As for the military thing, in Tomorrow is Yesterday when Kirk was explaining to Captain Christopher about Starfleet he did explain that Starfleet are a “combined services” – as opposed to a dedicated air force or navy

64. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#60—How is it problematic? Harve Bennett was not even a fan of the show, and he prodduced some pretty good ST films. And how exactly did he belittle DS9?

I’m afraid you lost me.

About a year ago, there was an article here about how the “Supreme Court” researched several key episodes of TOS. I don’t think you need to see “Spock’s Brain” or “The Way To Eden” to “get” what TOS was all about. Moreover, it is far more important for the writers to be familiar with such material than it is for the film’s producer.

65. Gorandius - July 30, 2008

Still, if you watch the TNG episode Conspiracy, Data specifically identifies the Horatio as an Ambassador Class Heavy Cruiser, and Lt. Worf identifies the other two ships in orbit as Frigates, which are clearly military designations for starfleet vessels.

66. The Underpants Monster - July 30, 2008

IMO, DS9, with its dismal, negative view of human(oid) nature and dystopian outlook on life and society in general was a lot further away from TOS than TNG was.

That’s probably only natural, given the time and circumstances of its inception, but if any of the post-TOS shows are going to be a stronger influence than the others, I feel better if it’s not DS9.

67. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#63—-Additionally, you have David Marcus’ characterization of Starfleet as “the military” (which is a term even more prevalently used in the novelization) in TWOK.

“I knew it. All along the military wanted to get their hands on it!”—DM

“Starfleet has kept the peace for over a hundred years! I cannot, and will not subscribe to your interpretation of this event.”—CM

That is not exactly a “correction” of David’s view of Starfleet as an organization. Starfleet is, to me, simply a 23rd Century military organization. That may mean something far different from what it does today. In fact, it may more closely resemble the way the old European navies of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries functioned.

Starfleet’s primary purpose is exploration and scientific discovery, but no one can deny that it also functions toward defense, diplomacy, enforcing the law, humanitarian aid, terraforming, and countless other purposes—not unlike the military arms of past and even present (as a US Marine, I did far more in the way of humaitarian aid and infastructure building than I did in actual combat operations).

Anyone who has served in the miltary would recognize enough in Starfleet to agree that this is perhaps the most accurate characterization of it as an organization.

Roddenberry established Starfleet this way. Ironically, most of this “offense-taking” at Lindelof’s comment probably stems primarily from GR’s revisionist views in later life (like his criticism of Nick Meyer) of Star Trek and the imaginary “utopia” he thought he had created.

“A military is an organisation authorised by its nation to use force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its independence by repulsing actual or perceived threats. As an adjective the term “military” is also used to refer to any property or aspect of a military. Militaries often function as societies within societies, by having their own military communities, economies, education, medicine and other aspects of a functioning civilian society.”

Sounds like Starfleet to me…

68. JL - July 30, 2008

#64

Absolutely.

69. British Naval Dude - July 30, 2008

Oh man oh, man… you all have totally lost sight o’ me favorite Trek seriesss… why, thar’ be Odo and Neelix squabblin’ in Star Trek: Benson and Decker marries tha’ marine biologist in Star Trek: 7th Heaven…

Surely some o’ tha’ best Trek moments lie in those… and if Lindolf didda not see them, then he may just go take a runnin’ leap right off tha’ white cliffs o’ Dover, tha’ bangy kroo pilated plopper! ….

Other than that, he seems quite OK…

Arrrrrr…

70. M.C. - July 30, 2008

- It’s a very strange thing..the most popular trek shows..outside U.S. where T.N.G. and D.S.-9..and i personally i don’t understand this new fashion..to take as standard for the new creations old things, just because they are so old..c’mon people.. TOS is the most silly sci-fi show ..except maybe…both versions of BSG…but , ofcourse ..this is just my opinion…as a fan..

71. The Underpants Monster - July 30, 2008

“Additionally, you have David Marcus’ characterization of Starfleet as “the military” (which is a term even more prevalently used in the novelization) in TWOK.”

I’ve thought about that, and I wonder if some of that simply comes from David’s own persective? His biggest fear seems to be that Genesis will be misused, possibly as a weapon. So, I think it’s possible that David is just *focusing on* the military aspect of Starfleet because that’s his particular concern, rather than taking the multifunctional nature of the organization into account.

72. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#71—I understand that, and certainly David’s perspective is a little bit colored. But the truth is, that military organizations ARE multifunctional in nature. Whether you are talking about Capt. Cook, Cortez, Commodore Perry, multilateral peacekeepers, or the Army Corps Of Engineers, military organizations have functioned in much the same way as Starfleet throughout history—as ambassadors, humanitarians, builders, explorers, curers (and bearers) of diseases, etc.
At the very least, Starfleet is an exploratory, scientific, and diplomatic agency which serves as a well-organized militia (like our National Guard) in time of need. But think for a moment about the word, “militia”, and what it is derived from.
There is no escaping Starfleet’s military function, IMO. Like traditional “militias”, combat is not their primary function (they have other jobs which take precedence in peacetime)… but it is a function nonetheless.

73. M.C. - July 30, 2008

- Hmmm…’militia’ is just the comunist word for “police”.. is just a masked extremist army force wich mentains the control over a state ..Federation is more like an ‘ Galactic federal community’ so it seems normal to have a president , ambassadors..secret sevices , army forces like Starfleet..

74. The Underpants Monster - July 30, 2008

Closet – I wasn’t trying to escape it, merely to point out that it’s usually not portrayed as the PRIMARY function.

75. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#73—“- Hmmm…’militia’ is just the comunist word for “police”.. is just a masked extremist army force wich mentains the control over a state.”

That is a perversion of the term, not unlike “People’s Republic”…That is not what the word actually means.

A militia is a group of citizens who might be called for in time of emergency or defense, who otherwise have some other purpose in society on a daily basis. The National Guard is an organized form of militia, for instance. Its members might be shopkeepers, doctors, attorneys, factory workers, laborers, etc., and in time of emergency, may be called upon to perform a military function.

76. beerwriter - July 30, 2008

Starfleet uses a military style command structure; or, perhaps it’s better to say a MARITIME command structure. Even in non-military vessels, the orders of superiors are (with exceptions in rare and complicated situations) to be obeyed without question.

77. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#74—I understand, and I did not mean to come off as if I was attacking your position. I only meant to add something else to the discussion.

I actually agree with your analysis of David’s state of mind in that scene, and that defense is not Starfleet’s ideal or primary purpose. Rather, it is a reluctantly prepared for function which unfortunately never seems to outgrow its usefulness.

Let us not forget that the comment on the part of STXI’s producer which set off this discussion was merely this—

“The fact of the matter is that these guys are in a version of the military, so they take their jobs very seriously. ”

My only contention was that Lindelof’s comment was not at all incorrect. Starfleet is indeed a “version” of the military, which happens to have other priorities beyond the defense of the Federation against potential enemies.

78. Malac - July 30, 2008

# 75 -Your definition is just theoretical..i came from an ex-comunist state..with a militia..so please try to find another word to describe the National Guard..

79. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#78— I am sorry to sound insensitive, but your former country’s abuse of language is hardly my fault or the fault of the authors of my nation’s constitution. They (the communists) simply misused the word “militia” to disguise their actions under the illusion of a well-intentioned organization.

To Americans, the word “militia” has also recently been corrupted (being used by paramilitary organizations with alterior motives), but it has always also been associated with the Colonial Militia, citizen soldiers who left their farms and fought against the British Empire in the War For American independence. As you can probably guess, it has a much closer meaning to its originally intended one for us. It is ingrained in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and I’m sorry to say, not likely to be given up so easily. It is that amendment which gives us “the right to form a militia”, and that translates directly into the creation of each state’s National Guard units.

80. TroubledTribble - July 30, 2008

The real answer to this ‘military or not’ conversation really lies in one of the most fundamental themes of the franchise: “Space… the final frontier.” The reason that we are more inclined to compare Starfleet to 16th and 17th century navies is beacuse that is EXACTLY what their role is. The modern navies that we know have no frontier left to explore. There is no far reach of the world that we have left to find that might yield a new ally, or enemy, possibly more advanced than us. All that remains for modern military forces to do is protect the interests of their states. Frontier exploration, in this case, space, changes all of that. You have to be careful how far you stray from home or which tree you rattle. You can’t just blindly send a ship full of science nerds out into uncharted territory without providing for their, and your, security. So all navies that operate in a frontier role have to be equipped, and trained, to deal with any situation that may arise because you truly have no idea what you may be getting yourself into. So the Naval ofiicers become the scientists, diplomats, explorers and yes, warriors. And those that are not in the service, have to catch a ride with the navy, or travel under the umbrella of their influence. I think that not only does this idea not hinder the Star Trek concept, it ties it to our past in a way that makes them a natural progression of our own world and history, something I think JJ is trying to accomplish. (ex. the dialouge in the teaser trailer, “making it more real”)

81. mj - July 30, 2008

Militia is nothing to do with communism. Just because communist states had militia doesn’t make it anything to do with it. The word militia is from the 16th Century

militia – noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
[Origin: 1580–90; < L mīlitia soldiery, equiv. to mīlit- (s. of mīles) soldier + -ia -ia]

The first definition describes perfectly the National Guard, and reservists in other countries.

82. Anthony Pascale - July 30, 2008

Not only did he say ‘a version of the military’ which is pretty hard to deny with the ranks and the weapons, but he also said (which seems to be totally ignored) “Both of those shows function in the same universe, abide by the same rules, are set in a future that is optimistic and adventurous, and they are exploration shows.”

So maybe relax a bit.

And to slam a guy who is clearly a huge Trek fan because he said he has seen more TNG than TOS…did you ever consider that there are a lot more TNG episodes than TOS episodes?

83. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 30, 2008

#56 Yes, thank you. It was quite an experience! I still would’ve loved for there to be an actual Trek panel, of course, but at least I got all 4 of the new movie posters. :-)

In addition to Damon Lindelof, I also saw JJ and Anton Yelchin in person. Lindelof and I talked a bit about LOST, he posed for a pic with me, then I gave him props for the casting of ZQ as Spock. I told him that I was unsure what to expect from Pine, since I’ve never seen any of his work. Damon recommended that I watch Smoking Aces for a demonstration of Pine’s ability, even though the role was “not Kirk-like.” He assured me the kid would do fine. Lindelof couldn’t have been a more easy going guy.

The other great Trek-related part of my trip was going to the SD Air & Space Museum to Star Trek the exhibition. I got pics of myself sitting in the big chair on the TOS bridge, standing on the transporter, and leaping through the Guardian of Forever! Whee! :-)

84. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#83—” I got pics of myself sitting in the big chair on the TOS bridge, standing on the transporter, and leaping through the Guardian of Forever! Whee! :-)”

That’s cool…I have to say I am envious. I’d like to do that sometime.

85. Lore - July 30, 2008

#31 You obviously didn’t follow the whole series. The prophets and the religion of of Bajor were what really set DS9 apart from the typical “Ship Show”. It was the foundation for the whole show, the wormhole discovered by Sisco which turned out to be the dwelling of the Prophets worshiped by the Bajorians. If its not your thing, thats OK. But some of us really got into it.

86. Andy Patterson - July 30, 2008

Every time “The Way to Eden” is used a benchmark low point example of the show the 12 yr old in me wants to defend it. I never considered it the best but it was always so much fun. Ah well, to each his own.

87. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#86—It is fun, Andy. Even the worst of TOS is still TOS. When I referenced it earlier in Lindelof’s defense, I only meant that whether he saw that episode or not is not crucial to determining his level of understanding as to what TOS was all about. I think “Spock’s Brain” is much worse. “The Way To Eden” is just more dated than any other episode, IMO.

If I had to determine which episodes were most important to watch (let’s say 15) in order for a person to have a strong feel for TOS, it would go as follows (and aside from WNMHGB, in no particular order):

“WNMHGB”
“Balance Of Terror”
“Amok Time”
“Errand Of Mercy”
“COTEOF”
“Arena”
“Journey To Babel”
“Friday’s Child”
“The Trouble With Tribbles”
“Space Seed”
“The Ultimate Computer”
“Assignment: Earth”
“The Enterprise Incident”
“The Tholian Web”
“The Doomsday Machine”

It would be easy for me to get carried away, but I did say 15…I almost feel guilty about leaving some off that list!

88. Andy Patterson - July 30, 2008

87

To paraphrase Harry Shearer’s character from the closing credits in “Spinal Tap”…that’s my childhood up there every time I see it. Maybe that’s part of why I was against re-mastering anything of it.

Good for you. You mentioned “Assignment: Earth”. Aye ladd. I’m with ya.

89. LoyalStarTrekFan - July 30, 2008

“For me, I would get into a very lengthy debate with someone who says ‘I love The Next Generation, but I hate The Original Series.’ Why is that? Both of those shows function in the same universe, abide by the same rules, are set in a future that is optimistic and adventurous, and they are exploration shows. So I would have hard time saying to them ‘if you liked Deep Space Nine, you probably won’t like our movie, but if you liked Voyager you will like our movie.’ You can’t separate the shows out as far as I am concerned.”
-Damon Lindelof (in TrekMovie interview)

I completely agree. While TNG is my favorite Trek series I love all of Trek, all the shows and all the movies. I think that Trek is better than anything that has come along before or since. A great interview and I look forward to more great interviews by TrekMovie.

90. Closettrekker - July 30, 2008

#88—I can understand the psychology of being somewhat protective over your childhood, but personally, I like that it is still getting some kind of significant attention. And it’s not as if the old standard format episodes will no longer be viewable. If nothing else, it gives people like you and I a reason to talk about each episode (good or bad) one more time.

For me, my experience with TOS was love at first sight….or sound, actually.
I remember watching “Amok Time” as a very young child of about 5 or 6(it was already in syndication) and being captivated immediately by the thrilling score accompanying the action in the Kundit-Khalifi (and I have no earthly idea how that should be spelled, so that’s just a wild stab at it).
By the time I was 10 or so, I was, without fail, in front of the television after school watching an episode a day, and spending much of my modest allowance on blank videotapes so that I could watch them again and again.
My first trip to the movies without a parent was to see TWOK at the Grandview Cinema in Odessa, Tx. in 1982. To this day, I have probably seen that movie more times than any other. I tell people that my favorite film is The Godfather, Part II, but I’m not sure that is entirely truthful. The two are probably neck and neck.
I was initially excited by the (then upcoming) premiere of TNG, but was immediately disappointed. It was not the same to me, and never became anything more than a sorely lacking substitute for a good old fashioned Kirk/Spock/Bones rerun…

As far as I am concerned, remastering them gives me an excuse to say to my wife, “But Babe, I’m actually watching this one for the first time…sort of.”

Maybe in 5 or 10 years, they’ll remaster them again for me!

91. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 31, 2008

#90 Just out of curiosity, do you ever watch the remastered episodes on Channel 55 The Tube? I sometimes catch them on saturdays before going out. I dig having TOS back in syndication, and in a way I haven’t seen it before. The best one they’ve done so far, IMO, was The Doomsday Machine. That one came out great.

92. Closettrekker - July 31, 2008

#91—Absolutely. It is on my TiVo season pass list. It’s funny, because I have all 3 seasons on dvd (plus several episodes repeated on the “collective” sets). I never thought I would watch TOS again with commercials, but I record the remastered episodes from channel 55 on Directtv and find time to watch them on Monday (my usual day off). The worst things about channel 55 are that it is the one channel that does not always come in clearly for me, and they seem to have some difficulty advertising the episode they actually show. For instance, it might say “Turnabout Intruder” in the guide, but then show you “The Empath”.

Anyway, it will probably be awhile before I go out and buy TOS-R, but I am enjoying seeing it on Saturdays. I missed the airing of several episodes I would like to have seen, including “The Doomsday Machine” and “WNMHGB”, so I hope they continue to syndicate TOS-R. Once I decide what format I want to commit to long term-wise, you can be sure my wife will know what I want for Christmas.

I can hear that end of the conversation right now….

“But you already have those.”

“Not exactly, Dear.”

I will blame my love for Trek if I end up having to pay for my wife’s eye surgery (she may eventually roll them out of her skull) somewhere down the road.

93. Andy Patterson - July 31, 2008

88

“If nothing else, it gives people like you and I a reason to talk about each episode (good or bad) one more time”

I agree.

“Grandview Cinema in Odessa, Tx. ”

And did you go eat at the Barndoor afterwards for dinner?

94. Closettrekker - July 31, 2008

#93—lol… I’m not sure. It could have been “Dos Amigos” with the folks…Maybe “The 39 Cent Hamburger Place”…”Texas Burger” or “Taco Villa”! In any case, I was very upset at the time knowing that my favorite Star Trek character was dead. That was very difficult for a 7 year old to swallow. My parents could have fed me popscicles for dinner and I probably still wouldn’t remember.

95. squadron commander - July 31, 2008

As a vet (USAF) who was the crew chief of a multi-engine jet and travelled the world after leaving the farm in the midwest, let me put in my two cents worth:
1. The United Federation of Plantets can be most accurately described as analogous to the United States–because the member planets are united for the common welfare of all. (The members of the United Nations are not; they are competing for the redistribution of political power.)
2. The Starfleet is to the Federation what the US military is to the United States: it uses armed vessels to maintain order in the space between star systems. It also use them to explore–not just in the interests of science, but to claim territory for the UFP, similar to what the United States did on the North American continent with the Lewis and Clark expedition, a.k.a. the Corps of Discovery, which was a military operation led by an Army officer. As they travelled up the river, they would put delegations ashore to make contact with the various native groups they encountered. US Army cavalry posts across the western U.S. also carried out a “starfleet” -like function in the 1800’s, assisting in the transport and settlement of groups of people in newly explored territory. Remember the phrase “wagon train to the stars” and you see the idea…
3. So if you keep that in mind, imagine this as a new movie scenario: unknown to the young Federation, alien infiltrators are in the process of staging a “Pearl Harbor”-like attack on earth to eliminate a future enemy force, including the key persons that orchestrate their future defeat…let’s say that one or more of these “aliens” have had their pointy ears altered in order to fit in with earth society… these aliens (Romulans?…) happen to have been defeated in a war with earth a generation ago; sort of like a world war 1 / world war 2 scenario. Meanwhile, The Federation has been experiencing a “post-war galactic boom” with new systems joining up, new ship designs bursting from the drawing boards, and young citizens sailing off into space to make their fortunes…on “wagon trains to the stars”. But for those who are not wealthy enough, like farm boys from Iowa, the only way to chase that dream is to do a hitch in the military (I know what THAT’s like), so here comes young Jim Kirk…did good in school, and got recommended to the Academy…I could go on and on, setting up character histories in such a story.
How’s that for a movie plot?

96. Did I mention posters? at Serenity - July 31, 2008

[...] seen and heard producer Damon Lindelof at Comic Con, I’m a bit more excited about this project.  How can I not be?  Not only is it Star Trek, [...]

97. Notbob - August 1, 2008

As I said in my post above,I have no problem with the military aspects of the show. Like I said in my earlier post, they are not as strict as the military and they certainly do some things that the military would probably not do– I don’t think the bridge crew would be going on all of these missions on the planets. They do this for the show. And it is fiction, so they can do whatever they want– but Star Fleet certainly has something of a military feel about them from the start.

Someone said that the haircuts did not come until the Wrath of Kahn. That’s why all the men on TOS had the pointy sideburns and no man had long hair in TOS. They didn’t show them as military like as, say, the new Battlestar Galactica or Aliens (they botched their potrayal of Marines in Aliens, in my honest opinion. Apone has Army stripes on his sleeve–and he’s a Marine! The rank shows that he’s an E-7. Yet everyone calls him “sarge.” Gunny would be the right thing. Call a Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt “Sarge” and he’ll set you right. They all wear Army covers too. Man, Aliens botched it. I love the movie, but as a stickler for detail it still bugs the hell out of me. They also call them “soldiers.” Soldiers! They’re Marines…..not soldiers!) But I digress—I’m good for that if you haven’t noticed.

They carry torpedoes and phasers. In a recent episode of TOS on T.V. Land, Scotty made the comment that the Enterprise had enough power to destroy a planet. Does this sound like a exploratory civilian group to anyone? Not me. Who would give civilians this weaponry and expect them all to play by the laws?

The Next Generation seemed to have made some changes on the military aspect, I guess. Or at least one writer did. Someone quoted someone (Picard?)from TNG as saying they were primarily a group for exploration. But TNG had, in my opinion, a lot of unrealistic ideas like no poverty and, if I recall right, no form of pay. Sounds nice on paper, and I would love it if it were a realistic goal, but that doesn’t take human nature into consideration. If there was no poverty and everyone had everything they could ever want, why do anything? Just stay home and have fun in your holodeck. If there is no pay, why is there a chain of command? Do enlisted men get something less than officers?

Maybe there was a writer on the TNG who thought this up, but they did not think it through. DS9 certainly had a military feel more than TNG, so I can only assume that at least one TNG writer did not think it through. Nor did they pay attention to TOS and their mention of credits for payment, etc. But like I said, TNG was always too optimistic and snooty to me.

98. squadron commander - August 1, 2008

Well said, notbob. I submit that TOS was a masculine view of the future; TNG was a feminine view of the future. So you have lots of combat, war, exploration, etc. in TOS, with a slogan of “improvise, adapt, overcome” (as embodied in Scotty)– with plenty of young, attractive females….

By contrast, there’s lots of negotiation in TNG and the females are MUMS (middle-aged upwardly mobile Starfleet) professional officers; the men are metrosexuals and their slogan is “can’t we all just get along?”. For comic relief they had two token retrosexuals (throwbacks), Riker and Whorf.

Can you picture a female officer in TNG running off with Khan the way it happenend in TOS? Can you picture Spock being kidnapped by an effeminate con man and ordered to run around naked in the captor’s ship the way Data was? I don’t think so.

Their “cashless, moneyless” society sounds suspiciously like universal communism–all wealth has now been eliminated, and they really do live “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs”. Talk about missing human nature by a mile! Because regardless of money, all things and ideas have their own value relative to others, and cannot be had without providing something of like value in exchange. Money is just the civilized way to do that. Marx was wrong.

I agree completely, that 90+% of movies get the military wrong. The uniform is wrong, the behavior is wrong, the way they talk is wrong, the worldview is wrong, etc. but what can you expect from non-military minded college grads with movie degrees?

And that was the basic difference between TOS and TNG…TOS was written and acted by lots of people from the WWII generation, like James Doohan who was wounded in the Normandy invasion, and it’s philosophy was like the Corps of Exloration, or the military outposts in Antarctica. TNG was more of “the tenured college professor and a bunch of graduate students go off to explore the galaxy”.

I guess my bias is obvious. But I did like TNG. If only TOS had had the budget and production values of TNG! And the best TNG movie (1st Contact, a.k.a. “the wrath of borg”) had primarily TOS values: improvise, adapt, overcome–peace thru superior firepower.

99. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 1, 2008

#94 … I always imagined you being older. From your most recent comments, it seems you and I are about the same age! And I’ll bet the similarities end there! :-)

100. NOTBOB - August 2, 2008

squadron commander

Actually, you said it with more eloquence than I did. I was toying with the idea of using the word “communism” in my original post, but I thought too many people might just protest me expressing my using the word.

I just want to go on the record as saying that I can’t fault the writers on everything. Ronald Moore has done great work and I respect him as a writer and creator and for showing many differing points of view–and he never says that anyone is right or wrong. This is very smart way to do a show, in my opinion. Some have said he states who is right in spite of what he says; but I actually think that the viewer is the one who sees what they want and interprets it all in their own mind. Again, I digress.

I should also go on record as saying that there are a few episodes of TNG that are good. But too many of them have the aren’t we superior? We have no poor, no hungry. We have no war. We explore and never invade. Unless if it’s your emotions because we have a woman who will read your every thought without giving you a heads up. And I’ll be honest, I like a good fight scene. There were far too few. The only character I thought was really interesting was the Chief and they did little on him on TNG. The DS9 was less sunshine and aint we better than you. The only thing I did not like about that show was when they focused too much on the comical Quark. Voyager….I didn’t see many of those. I liked Enterprise because they got closer to the focus of three main characters (the Captain, Trip and the Vulcan) which was a lot more like TOS, but there still were hints of preaching to the audience–especially in the first season. I didn’t mind the war episodes, myself, over all. I did not like the time traveller issues causing the war. I much rather it have been some race just hit Earth. I did not care for the overly simplistic way it was resolved. I also think it would have been far wiser if it was not done so much in a way to reflect 9/11. I say this because when they did that season, so close to 9/11, it seemed to be too close to the time we were in and it honestly kind of trivialized things. I think it would have been wiser to wait for that story, change the attackers to Romulans and had the Romulan–Earth War done in an interesting way that did not feel so much like a reflection of September 11th for a season finale.

However, I think as the time goes by, that that season may prove to be easier to watch and enjoy when a newer generation sees them and doesn’t realize they were talking about 9/11. But I did like Enterprise and I don’t mind retcons, so maybe that’s part of the reason why I liked that show.

101. Rabble Rouser - August 2, 2008

#97

Be a fan. Listen to commentaries. A post-economic future was Roddenberry’s concept — and a deeply cherished one at that.

#98

Be a human. Learn things. Read Das Kapital. Find the reality outside of your head.

102. Lindelof diz como anda a pós-produção de Jornada « Startrekbr’s Weblog - August 2, 2008

[...] do ComicCon, o co-produtor do filme de Jornada nas Estrelas, Damon Lindelof, disse ao site Trek Movie como encontra-se agora o trabalho de pós-produção e efeitos especiais do filme. Ele também [...]

103. EA - August 2, 2008

You know what? I’m really tired of these new to Star Trek dudes calling the original series cheesy. I am 35 years old and have been watching it since I was 5. It they were doing their movie back then, they too would have had limitations. I never looked at the show as cheesy because what stood out were the great characters, and the message and creativity in each episode. Frankly anyone that would even bring up a “cheese” factor is missing the whole point of Star Trek, and shouldn’t even be involved in it. Those original actors and characters are so embedded into pop culture, there is no way any new actor can even compare to the originals, and frankly, they shouldn’t even try to remake/recast Kirk and Spock, etc. Hollywood has been suffering too much from the “we’ve run out of ideas, let’s try to remake something familiar to ensure a hit but not try to piss original fans by adding familiar elements, yet not seem so obviously lame by saying it’s a different take” syndrome. Shatner could have at least played Kirk’s father or something, it’s disrespectful not to include him considering his contribution to the character, and what the character means to people. I think the movie will look cool, but it’s going to suck. William Shatner is James Kirk, Leonard Nimoy is Spock, Deforest Kelly is McCoy, etc., etc. The good thing is that it will bring some more attention to the franchise, but painting highlights on the Mona Lisa’s hair, and changing her skin tone is asking for trouble.

So, if anyone calls the original series cheesy again, they’ll have to answer to me!;)

104. Notbob - August 3, 2008

101. Rabble Rouser – August 2, 2008
#97

Be a fan. Listen to commentaries. A post-economic future was Roddenberry’s concept — and a deeply cherished one at that.

I am a fan—of the original.

I also read Das Kapital. It goes against human nature and doesn’t work. It is a load of crap.

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