Pegg: Star Trek Not A Remake | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Pegg: Star Trek Not A Remake August 26, 2008

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: ST09 Cast,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

There has often been much debate about terms like remake, reboot, etc as they apply to JJ Abrams new Star Trek movie. Simon Pegg (the new Scotty for Star Trek), a self-described geek who knows the difference, addressed this issue in the latest issue of Starlog Magazine.

 

Simon Pegg, who has previously appeared on the new Doctor Who, talks about how Who relates to the new Star Trek.

The weird thing–and I think this goes for both Star Trek and Doctor Who–is that neither of them are remakes. I often see Star Trek being referred to as a remake, and it really isn’t. It’s another Star Trek film; it’s another movie in the series. It’s the continuing mission. Doctor Who is like that as well. And because of the nature of how Doctor Who evolves, you become part of that tradition rather than a re-handling of it. Both of those are perfect examples of taking the spirit of the [original material] and entirely maintaining it.

So what is it?
Pegg’s point has been backed by the filmmakers of Trek who have often said it ‘fills a gap’ in Star Trek history. However, this issue of labeling has been a sticky one for the new film. TrekMovie asked co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci about this in a previous interview, here is the exchange:

TrekMovie.com: You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?

Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.

So there you have it. Although it is always tempting to slap a label on films to define them one way or another, the new Star Trek film may defy simple labels. 

Much more from Pegg at Starlog.com and in the current issue of Starlog Magazine.


Simon Pegg, attending a party at the Cannes Film Fest in May,
looks ready to continue the Star Trek mission (WireImage)

Comments

1. Austin Rhodes - August 26, 2008

Is that it? Accurate assessment…but a bit nit picky.

Is that the meat of the interview???

2. Vorus - August 26, 2008

There! I’ve been saying it for months. Now maybe people will start believing me.

3. Spockanella - August 26, 2008

IMO, so far Simon Pegg has had the best understanding of what this film is and what it should be. Or maybe he’s just more articulate than JJ Abrams, who speaks only in adjectives, and Zachary Quinto, who speaks only in evasions. Simon Pegg still isn’t giving anything away, but he does somehow manage to be reassuring. For me, this is good news since I was initially very skeptical about him being cast as our beloved Scotty. Now, I’m thrilled. I like his viewpoint that Dr. Who and Star Trek share some similarities in the way they can move forward while still maintaining the core of what they are. Of course, die-hard fans of the original iteration of Dr. Who may disagree strongly, so no offense meant there!

4. John Trumbull - August 26, 2008

Just as long as they don’t call it by that stupid Hollywood non-word “re-imagining.”

5. Vorus - August 26, 2008

@4:

Gotta agree there. I’m glad I’m not the only one tired of hearing every new product, commercial, etc advertised as a re-imagining of something.

6. Robert - August 26, 2008

In science-fiction, though, a reboot or remake can STILL be a continuation within the same series when one considers alternate timelines, alternate universes, etc. This doesn’t really tell us much….

7. Danya Romulus - August 26, 2008

I, for one, am sick of the stigma that’s gotten attached to the word “remake.” I am very remake-positive. Personally I like thinking about the new film as a remake, I think that makes it sound more dramatic, and frankly, would give license to more non-fans to get into it if they feel like it’s a completely new thing (while still honoring the original, of course). If you think of it as “just one more film in the series” as Pegg does, I think that runs the risk that only fans, who have been familiar with all the films in the series, will be very interested.

8. Danpaine - August 26, 2008

#7 – No disrespect intended, but if I had the time right now, I could name dozens of “remakes” which were absolute pieces of utter crap and total wastes of time over just the past two years or so, as opposed to MAYBE two or three decent ones.

Gotta disagree with you there.

9. bill hiro - August 26, 2008

So its a continuation, with an entirely new cast, with a lot of things changed, and a changed look to everything, and some backstory is being kept and some is being thrown out. Okay. If you want to call that a continuation, feel free. It sounds like a re-something to me. If “reboot” makes some people uncomfortable, how about we call it a “re-shoe” or a “re-slipper”?

10. hitokirivader - August 26, 2008

I just have to say, that is perhaps the most badass photo of Pegg I’ve seen. :)

11. Kirk here - August 26, 2008

The new Battlestar Galactica is a re-make. It may be a “re-imagining”, too, but it’s still a remake. Sci-Fi Channel “The Andromeda Strain” was a remake (lousy, I heard). Sci-Fi Channel “Dune” was a remake (and way better than the original film). The same story had been made into a movie before.

How could ST XI be a remake? There has never been a production of the story about the how the Original Series crew came to be on the Enterprise, so how can it be ‘re-made”?

12. Televixen - August 26, 2008

The word remake has had a lot of negative connotations lately. I personally always thought the movie was more of a prequel than an outright remake. With that being said, it can’t just be another movie in the series. Star Trek would be dead if it was just another movie in the series. It won’t be just based on who’s behind this project. Fresh talent=fresh ideas. I am sure the movie will honor the others, but thank God somebody is breathing new life into the franchise. You can’t attact a new audience by just thinking of it as another movie in the franchise. As Peg mentions, there’s got to be a balance between the evolution and the maintenance.

13. Adam Shepherdson - August 26, 2008

Star Trek has always changed backstory (when needed to further the plot, ie TWOK – Chekov did not meet Khan in the original, however in TWOK Khan says he always remembers a face..). Also, characters have changed as well (Saavik and Quarks mother being played by two seperate actors, among others). Also sets have been re-designed (The bridge of the E between Star Trek IV and V, 1701D’s bridge between the television series and Generations, etc) What Simon said is probably true, and by the way, if any star trek fans want MORE star trek in the future, you better all go to the movie and make it a success or else this may in fact be where the journey ends.

14. Timelord - August 26, 2008

I agree hitokirivader, a kick ass pic of Mr. Pegg indeed.

I don’t know why the word “prequel” would be wrong but re-invigoration or re-vitalization is ok. The words are not opposites of each other. If it is not a remake then it has to be canon of current films and that means it’s a prequel, in the same way Enterprise is a prequel of the other series.

15. Marshall McMellon - August 26, 2008

I like to call it the “DJ Double-J Dance Re-mix”

16. subatoi - August 26, 2008

There really were “mixing signals” about this issue, from day one of the reports of the new movie. But reading this quote from a trekkie actor calms things a little.
I always remember Orci in one of the talkbacks here, saying something like “every change you’ll see in the movie will be for a reason”.

As I wrote that day – I don’t care is the Enterprise will be pink at the openning, as long as it will have the right colour at the end of the movie.

17. Joe Schmoe - August 26, 2008

Just make a good movie. Don’t care if it’s called a prequel, a remake, a reboot, a reinvigoration, a retread.

You can call it a rebootalicous remade reinvorated prequel. Or you can call it just a Star Trek movie. Doesn’t matter what you call it, if the movie is good then that’s all that matters. If it’s crap, then oh well.

I’m not going to hate on the movie if it’s well made, but Scotty has 123,432 less hair follicles than he should so therefore the movie stinks.

It’s just a movie. Next year at this time you’ll be thinking about buying it on DVD in a few weeks.

18. Joel - August 26, 2008

7, I completely agree with you. If we look at how many “remakes” and “re-imaginings” (for lack of a better word) there have been of classic plays, we’d quiet down. Film is still such a new medium.

Like what Pegg has to say. Bringing him onboard for PR alone may have been a good idea.

19. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#13—-I agree in general with what you are saying, but not based upon the example of TWOK. Just because Chekov is not seen in season one of TOS (and specifically, in “Space Seed”), does not mean he was not there. He simply is not depicted as the Enterprise’s primary navigator until later. Since Khan obviously remembers him, the notion that he was aboard the Enterprise is actually canon. He could easily have been working the “graveyard shift” on the bridge (logical, since he was a junior officer), or simply not on the bridge at all. Remember that Khan absorbed much of the Enterprise files from its computer library during his convalescence in sickbay. Perhaps he absorbed its non-classified personnel files as well.

20. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#16—Actually, the quote was:

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”

But your point is well taken. There was really no reason to define STXI as a “remake” in the first place. The story will depict events which have not been visited on screen before, so the very definition of the term “remake” was actually never applicable.

With that said, there may very well be some artistic liberties taken with regard to the asthetics of the period depicted. However, if we are to take Mr. Orci’s comment literally, then those subtle changes in asthetics will be canonically explained (presumably through minor changes in the timeline as a result of some rogue Romulan group’s interference).

I think I understand Pegg’s take on it quite well.

21. Thibodaux Trekker Frost - August 26, 2008

# 18 Thinking about buying the DVD?

Ill be losing sleep in anticipation and this is after I have seen it several times in theaters@!

PS This is my first post. Iv been reading trekmovie for 2 years now!
Hello Everyone

22. CmdrR - August 26, 2008

Pictures. I need pictures of the new E. And Zoe. Actually, just send me Zoe.

23. mike - August 26, 2008

Its a reboot. They just don’t want to call it that and panic us fanboys because they know we’re freakin’ NUTS!

24. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

Maybe a better way to explain this movie is that it is a part of canon, but made in a way that if the Original Series had a modern movie budget, the sets, the costumes, the special effects would all look better and of higher quality, while adhering to the original designs as closely as possible.

25. British Naval Dude - August 26, 2008

And now it be time fur “Tea-Time Chat wit’ British Naval Dude”:

BND: Hello thar’! Me guest today be Mr. Simon Pig…

PEGG: Pegg.

BND: What? Oh, sorry, mate. Well, let’s be off then… so, what do ye’ think o’ this new film herein called “Debbie Does Liverpool”?

PEGG: It’s another movie in the series

BND: So, it’s more of this tart goin’ around shagging people indiscrimant-like, eh?

PEGG: It’s the continuing mission.

BND: Weren’t ye’ in it fur a brief bit? I mean, how did it feel ta’ be part o’ this franchise?

PEGG: You become part of that tradition rather than a re-handling of it.

BND: You sure yer’ not just getting re-handled a little bit again and again?

PEGG: Perfect example of taking the spirit of the [original material] and entirely maintaining it.

BND: Well, thank ye’ fur joining me Mr. Pug…

PEGG: Pegg.

BND: Yeah, well, get yer own bloody show and ye’ can call yerself whatever ye’ want ta’… I mean, I may just be a depraved and irresponsible knerk bent on me own selfish personal gain and guiltless destructive pleasures, but I gots me own show.

PEGG: Doctor Who is like that as well.

BND: And now fur me next guest from the Council of Antiquitties in Egypt, Mr. Zawi Hawass ta’ discuss why tha’ new monument they unearthed on tha’ Gaza plain is not at all a Stargate…

Arrrrrr…

26. subatoi - August 26, 2008

#20
The quote is even better than what I remembered :)

27. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#21—Is that Thibodaux, La. (my wife is from there)?

28. Mark Lynch - August 26, 2008

#24
That is a great way to look at it…. :-)

29. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

I like the fact Simon Pegg and Karl Urban are in this movie. I respect the hell out of both those actors. Additionally, after hearing Quinto speak at the Las Vegas Con a couple weeks ago, I sincerely believe he has invested himself emotionally in this franchise. It is in good hands.

Now if we can get the OTHER actors from Star Trek XI at these conventions, maybe we can all start feeling the same way about them too.

30. rehabilitated hitch1969© - August 26, 2008

Dukes of Hazzard was a remake. Brady Bunch Movie was a reimagining, reboot. What Star Trek is going to be is unique. Whereas Dukes of Hazzard completely ignored the past… and the Brady Bunch winked to it through cameos… this is a continuation of the previous 10 movies that goes back in time to be an origins story. Which somehow, according to Sir JJ, leaves that future wide open once again, while keeping the Trek history that we know intact. Figure that one out. Whatever you call it, it’s going to be unique and it’s going to be compelling and it’s going to wake up the franchise on a big time scale.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

31. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#24—I would have no problem with that. But again, if you take Orci’s comment on the subject literally, even those subtle changes will be canonically explained.

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.

That is, of course, assuming that costumes/asthetics are (in Orci’s mind) a part of canon. It is obvious that many fans feel that way (although it is not my definition).

32. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

21, Wecome to the Asylum ;-)

I think there are two kinds of Canon involved here.

1. Visual Canon (what the ship looks like, the look of Starfleet Academy, Uniforms, sounds etc.)

2. Story Canon.

If we look at the whole of Star Trek on screen as a depiction of “History”, then we have to accept that some things are not going to be quite 100% correct.

I believe that creative license may be taken, within reason with the Visual Canon, however the Story Canon is less likely to vbe violated.

The Enterprise may look different, but the characters should remain the same (ie established facts and traits), though depicted by different actors.

In 1979, Star Trek fandom was asked to accept a completely different look and feel for the style and drama of Star Trek.

And the same happened, in a slightly different way, with Star Trek II.

What united them with the original series is the STORY making sense within continuity.

I don’t mind if the Enterprise looks a little different, or that shuttles, technology, uniforms etc. are different in appearance.

This is an origin story for the Original Series, told on a broader canvas than they could afford in 1966.

33. eagle219406 - August 26, 2008

I wouldn’t exactly call it a prequal because that was “Enterprise.” I would say more of a gap filler. I also heard that it takes place between “THe Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” So that couldn’t be accurate. I have heard that it is basically the 2 hour premier that TOS never got. All Star Trek Series had a 2 hour premier that basically introduced everybody and told how the adventure began, except TOS. They are basically giving it one.

34. Izbot - August 26, 2008

“…in the latest issue of Starlog Magazine.”

They’re still publishing that thing?

35. Alex Rosenzweig - August 26, 2008

#32 – Good summation. That’s been my thinking about this, as well.

36. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

I believe now that JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, the actors and everyone involved in the production of this movie are sincerely wanting to make a high quality and successful movie and all Trekkers should be happy about it and not nit-pick everything to death. I have been guilty of nit-picking before so I know what I’m talking about. The nit-picking comes from a source of love, a love for a franchise, so it’s not misplaced, but rather misguided. The nit-picking takes the joy out of everything for everyone. I am happy and I can’t wait to SEE THIS MOVIE!

JJ – Please give us some screen shots!!!!

(I still think they could’ve found a way to include Shatner, but perhaps the story will explain why they couldn’t. I’m witholding my opinion on that until I see the movie)

37. cd - August 26, 2008

It IS a reimagining: it just a matter of how severe it will be, and much it will matter.
The uniforms are different and it appears the sets are different, and the ship will probably different. I personally want these to be very similar, especially the ship.
It is yet to be shown whether the known and accepted sequences of events in the characters’ lives will be different or not. That will probably be the major area of contention.
My concern is that it might become too derivative, for example if everyone knew each other long before they did in TOS, and that the events, and therefore the relationships, will be different than in TOS. For example, it is rumored there will some sort of conflict between Kirk and Spock in Starfleet Academy over the Kobayashi Maru test. That sounds very contrived, and hope it is not the case.
But in any case, from the evidence we already have, for good or bad, it is a reimagining.

38. Marian Ciobanu - August 26, 2008

- I , personally like the fact that this movie isn’t a remake..but..i don’t want to see the same mistakes that i saw in ENTERPRISE.. like making romulans and kligons just simple stupid marauders…vulcans being just another impulsive race…the ships with wrong design..for example..romulan ships are looking more like klingon ships and klingon ships have that simple design of romulan ships…
But first of all ..i want to see a good movie..

39. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

37 – Actually, a conflict between Kirk and Spock would make sense in that context.

Spock would not condone cheating, since it may to him invalidate the purpose of the test.

Kirk’s cheating on the test is not “logical”, but emotional.

This wouild work to establish the different ways of thinking that will eventually complement and balance each other.

40. Bart - August 26, 2008

So, what happens when they will reach the point of the beginning of the Original Series? Or in twenty years, they will be in the timeline of the movie-era. What happens then? Not much gaps to fill I guess…

41. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

37. I agree with you, but also, it has to be a reimagining. Look at TOS, made in 1966 for a small screen. Now jump ahead to 2009, a big screen and an audience that is used to high definition. If they put the exact same costumes and sets up on that movie screen everyone will be laughing. You’re right in that it will all come down to how drastic things are being changed. But you know what, they’re making this movie respectfully from what I’ve been reading so far, and I also believe with some love, from Orci and Kurtzman’s writings. So the right motivations are there. It’s not like it’s CBS back in 1965 that picked Roddenberry’s brain on how to produce a science fiction series, didn’t pick up the show Star Trek and then used Roddenberry’s ideas to make a rival show (Lost in Space). Times have changed for the better and I believe CBS Paramount really want to make a fantastic product, for the fans and for everyone to enjoy.

You bring up good points on story continuity, and I only hope, they stay as close as possible to the original on those issues. The only way this movie will disappoint me is if it’s an alternate timeline we see and basically setting out to erase everything we’ve seen in TOS, starting over.

42. MikeyPikey - August 26, 2008

oh my god, seriously its time for something from this movie, trailer!!

43. Timelord - August 26, 2008

The best part of re-whatevering Star Trek is the admission that all the Next Generation films sucked. I am so sick of seeing behind the scenes footage of movies like Nemesis and seeing the man I watched play the Captain of the Enterprise brilliantly for 7 years say how this movie is so great and the scope is “huge” and then it’s a big steaming pile of tribble poodoo.

44. star trackie - August 26, 2008

#32 “In 1979, Star Trek fandom was asked to accept a completely different look and feel for the style and drama of Star Trek.
And the same happened, in a slightly different way, with Star Trek II.
What united them with the original series is the STORY making sense within continuity.”

I agree. I think we, as fans, accepted it because it made logical sense in the timeline of that universe. We saw Pike’s Enterprise. Set years before Kirk’s command, it was notably different. As was the Enterpriseof Kirk’s early command as witnessed from Where No Man Has GOne Before. Now we go further into the 5 year mission (which I speculate started 2 years into it, the 3 seasons being the last 3 years of the mission.) Again, thigns have changed. Uniforms, the bridge, the Enterprise itself all changed with the span of time.

Now it’s 10 years later. We get a new movie. We’ve already been accustomed to change, so we accept the “refit” with little resistance. The a change of uniforms in Trek 2. Still, no problem, time marches on, they get new uniforms.

All that is easy to accept. Going BACK prior to Kirk’s 5 year mission with an tricked out TMP style enterprise and a bridge straight out of Steve Job’s mind is a little more of a stretch to wrap the continuity-minded brain around. Having said that, I think JJ and company have created the perfect safety net with the “altered timeline” angle. This allows things to change…drastically, yet still be acceptable because, while it takes place prior to the 5 year mission, it takes place in a totally different place and a time(line). It gives the filmakers incredible freedom without jeopardizing anything that has come before.

I’m as pure a TOS fan as they come, but even I can wrap my brain around this angle and accept it as a fascinating look at “what if?” But the bottom line is Kirk Spock and McCoy. The on-screen magic between those 3 characters and the chemistry between Pine, Quinto and Urban is vital. If they get that wrong, all the real steel and plexiglass in the world won’t matter.

45. LarryL - August 26, 2008

#25 BND- would that be the predecessor of the M5 computer, AKA the IBM iSeries AKA IBM i5 AKA IBM AS/400?

46. Timelord - August 26, 2008

I’m as pure a TOS fan as they come, but even I can wrap my brain around this angle and accept it as a fascinating look at “what if?”

Of course the problem with this logic is that Leonard Nimoy is in the movie. What else could this movie be but a prequel to TOS and the six movies if old Spock is there to talk about it?

47. Adam Shepherdson - August 26, 2008

Closettrekker – The Khan thing non-withstanding. Your explanation shows that there is a way to explain almost anything in the Trek universe. What I was getting at is, as long as fans go into this open minded, we will be able to accept this for what it is. I admit, I was bad during the Nemesis years, and I did not see that in the theater. During the Enterprise run on TV, I skipped many of the shows, and only picked it up again halfway through fourth season (which I ended up buying on DVD). My point was, and still is, Star Trek needs its fans to enjoy it, and go and watch it, to survive. We all know we love to pick apart everything (cough cough, who else owns one of the nitpickers guides), but for the sake of the show, lets watch the movie, give it a chance, be open minded. Because if we don’t, we are liable to lose Trek forever.

48. British Naval Dude - August 26, 2008

45
Whatever it be, it’s got sand in places it really shouldn’t…

Arrrrrr…

49. Timelord - August 26, 2008

I agree Adam, and I think the fans will be there no matter what they may say. The problem with the Trek franchise as a whole is that I have never seen a studio who, not only ignores its’ fanbase, but blatently spits in their face time and time again. Kirk dies from a rusty old bridge collapsing? A Borg Queen? The Defiant but no one from DS9 other than the always happens to be around the Enterprise crew during the time of the movies” Worf? Insurrection was a halfway decent episode but brushing over Troy and Riker’s wedding when it is the only good thing about the whole movie? Oh but we did get to see Janeway in a new uniform so I guess that forgives the horrible plot and villain.

I read a treatment for First Contact before it came out that involved Sisko and the crew of DS9 for a few pages in the beginning. It was a small part but it was something. Every single movie after Undiscovered Country was made to get non-trek people to like a Trek movie. All I want is (like many of you have already said) is for this movie to be good. A good story, good effects and maybe a slight nod to someone who has seen anything Star Trek related before XI. I hope this is not too much to ask.

50. Trekkie16 - August 26, 2008

What worked back in the 60’s was the technology, the stories and the social commentary that reflected what was going on in the world.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In the 60’s it was the cold war and Vietnam and today it is terrorists and Iraq.

Star Trek has kept on going like the energizer bunny for over 40 years because the message it sends is as relevant today as it was in 1966.

Star Trek painted a picture of hope and a bright future during a time of war and unrest which is where the world is today. I feel the things they struck a chord with the generation of the 60’s will once again strike a chord with todays generation.

It isn’t about reinventing or reimaging. It is about sticking with what worked back then which will work again today; a great story and cool special effects.

51. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#47—-I never saw any of the TNG-era films in the theater. I was never that interested in TNG at all, and never found the characters to be feature-film worthy. It is the revisitation of the TOS-era characters that has me interested in this project. I know many others who stopped paying to see ST movies when the franchise went in another direction as well. If you look at the dollar intake of the ten feature films (and obviously adjust for inflation), you can easily see that the TOS-era characters had much more appeal at the box office, and certainly the most “crossover” appeal of any Star Trek incarnation.
While the established fans going to see this movie is important, it is much more important that the film justify its budget by attracting non-traditional fans to the theaters. JJ Abrams is definitely the man to do this, IMO. Paramount is smart to bring its Star Trek A-team (Kirk, Spock, McCoy) to the party, and they have hired a director who brings his own, much more mainstream audience to the table as well.
There are Star Trek fans who will try to convince you that they will boycott this movie….but we all know that is a crock of sh__! They will all be there bright and early, but it will be the newer and younger audiences (attracted by the promise of never before seen effects and phrases like “not your father’s Star Trek”) that STXI will target in its anticipated hype machine (around Christmas to opening weekend) which will ensure the future of the franchise for another generation.

52. Joe Schmoe - August 26, 2008

My guess is that at the end of the movie we will be left with the question, “Did what just happened in this movie change the timeline, or is this the actual timeline?” And there will be no right or wrong answer.

That gives the writers a whole lot of wiggle room if they end up doing future movies. You could have half a dozen movies under that premise, and still not really know if this is the “real” timeline or not.

The only thing that would confirm it one way or another is if a major character dies at some point before they are supposed to.

53. Xai - August 26, 2008

I am calling it several things.

… something to look forward to… a new TREK movie!
… a puzzle and a mystery…love them.
… potentially…FUN!

to hell with labels… let’s have fun. I wish some of you would join me.

54. Aran - August 26, 2008

So far we have re-boot, Re-imagining, re-invigoration, re-imagining… etc. but the filmmakers of the new Trek keep avoiding these and saying it ‘fills a gap’.

Well, a slew of Disney sequels “filled a gap” in the framework of their original films and they weren’t called any of the above. They were called Midiquels. So since Trek 11 isn’t a prequel, or completely a re-anything… could it possibly be a Midiquel instead? :-)

I can’t help but think about the Klingon ridges arguement. There are fans who said that Klingons were supposed to always have ridges and we should just imagine the ridges on the TOS Klingons. (To paraphrase) I keep thinking that although we are going to see changes in this movie we’re supposed to take the same tact and assume that these subtle changes were always apart of the series. Or maybe not…

55. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#54—ENT made the non-ridged Klingons’ existence in the TOS-era canon. Any changes in the asthetics of this film, as compared to TOS, will likely be canonically explained as well.

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”–Orci.

56. Adam Shepherdson - August 26, 2008

Aran,
The Klingon ridge issue was resolved with Enterprise. It is a genetic mutation that human genes helped cure. They said it would take approximately 100 years for the ridges to be restored. Saying that, we have to assume Kang and Kor got facial reconstruction surgery to look like modern Klingon warriors for their appearance(s) in DS9.

57. LarryL - August 26, 2008

48 LOL. I only mentioned it because the name and location you used was mentioned in an article that I read only a few hours earlier!

http://mid-deranged.com/2008/08/15/egyptians-more-advanced-than-earlier-believed/

58. Daoud - August 26, 2008

It’s a PREMAKE. :)

59. Holger - August 26, 2008

Thank you, Simon Pegg, for your clear words. I love it. Thank you, Roberto Orci, for your fascinating semantical sophistry.

60. cd - August 26, 2008

58- preimagining. >;>}

61. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

Sorry, but special effects were not what made Star Trek great. What made Star Trek great was comraderie among heroes venturing off through the final frontier together. Showing humanity in situations that show off the greatness and flaws of being human and commenting on the issues of our times.

62. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

61 – Visual effects should be there to help tell the story. You are absolutely correct.

63. Scott Xavier - August 26, 2008

Reboot- would be a retelling with no regard to ncanon…
Prequel- would mean it is the adventures before what we saw.

Reinvigoration- an alternate reality/universe.

64. Paulaner - August 26, 2008

IMO this movie will have a strong “suspension of disbelief” feeling. Having the bridge of the E different, not having buttons, not having analog gauges, not having cheesy stuff will not be a canon violation, because it is clear that in the future starships will *not* have those 60s features. The Enterprise can have many incarnations but it will be the *same* Entterprise. We just have to *believe* it. No canon violation. Just good sense.

65. Alex Rosenzweig - August 26, 2008

#40 – “So, what happens when they will reach the point of the beginning of the Original Series? Or in twenty years, they will be in the timeline of the movie-era. What happens then? Not much gaps to fill I guess…”

Nah, plenty of room. They say they’ve planned for a trilogy, right? So here we have the origin-story, the “how they came together” piece. Then they do a story from the middle of the 5-year mission, maybe sometime after the end of the Original Series, but not yet up to the Animateds. (Since TOS was episodic, that could be done relatively easily without disrupting things.) And they conclude the trilogy with the final adventure of the 5-Year Mission, and the ship coming home, which we *also* never saw. :)

Now, let’s say things have gone tremendously well and they want to do *more* movies. Well, there’s 13 unseen years between TMP and TWOK. Lots of room for more films without ever disrupting what’s come before!

#63 – “Reinvigoration- an alternate reality/universe.”

Or just simply putting new energy and drive into the existing one. No need to invent new meanings for words which are already pretty well-defined. :)

66. Paulaner - August 26, 2008

#40 “So, what happens when they will reach the point of the beginning of the Original Series?”

That point can never be reached, if the writers want to.

67. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

I don’t agree with an alternate timeline story and here’s why:

An alternate timeline entirely throws out TOS, TAS, all the Movies, TNG and VOY. Thanks but no thanks to Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Bob Justman, DC Fontana, Harlan Ellison, Rick Berman, Michael Piller, William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, James Doohan, DeForest Kelley, George Takei, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis, Kate Mulgrew, etc, for all your hard work but it’s meaningless now.

68. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#65—“Now, let’s say things have gone tremendously well and they want to do *more* movies. Well, there’s 13 unseen years between TMP and TWOK. ”

A maximum of 7.5 years, actually, assuming that Kirk has not seen Khan in 15 years prior to the events of TWOK, the 5-year mission ended 2.5 years prior to the events of TMP, and the events of “Space Seed” took place in the first year of the 5-year mission.

But I concur. A sequel set in between TMP and TWOK, and another set between TFF-TUC (5 years, presumably with Kirk in command of the Enterprise-A).

69. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

There are plenty of stories to be told from the final 2 years of the original 5 year mission. Seasons 1-3 totalled 79 episodes, or an average of 24 episodes per season. That’s 48 stories to be told in the final 2 years of the mission!

70. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

68 – Actually, an adventure between TOS/TAS and TMP would be interesting.

If this movie leads to a Trilogy, it would be a good way to end the trilogy with the end of the 5-year mission.

As a nod to fans, seeing the Enterprise park up in Spacedock for a refit, and seeing a young Decker in TMP uniform watching through a window (possibly from behind, looking out at the Enterprise, so that a different actor could play him) would end the films nicely, with the first strains of Jerry Goldsmith’s TMP march.

Okay, enough idle dreaming and “what-if”s.

I’d like to see how this movie turns out first ;-)

71. star trackie - August 26, 2008

#64 “Having the bridge of the E different, not having buttons, not having analog gauges, not having cheesy stuff will not be a canon violation, because it is clear that in the future starships will *not* have those 60s features. ”

Sorry to disappoint 64, from all previous reports and a picture posted on this very site during the fabulous “on set” Q and A, there will be buttons and knobs. Remember this is the 23rd century, not the Bermanverse.

72. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

Too much speculation due to too little facts.

73. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

72 – It’s allways fun to speculate about the unknown ;-)

74. Marshall McMellon - August 26, 2008

60 & 58:

Pre-Boot?

75. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#69—“There are plenty of stories to be told from the final 2 years of the original 5 year mission. Seasons 1-3 totalled 79 episodes, or an average of 24 episodes per season. That’s 48 stories to be told in the final 2 years of the mission!”

Let’s examine that for a minute…

Even if you do not consider the 22 episodes of TAS, 79 “story-worthy” adventures in 260 weeks (5 years) is alot. That means that every 23 days, something worthy of an episode happened to that Captain and crew. That is not much downtime for a ship supposedly travelling through and exploring space, and that is not even factoring in the fact that many of these “adventures” actually occur over more time than just a single day.

If you count TAS, then you are talking about every 18 days (again, without taking into account that the stories take place often over more time than a single day).

I do not see a great deal of room for more stories set in the 5 year mission, mathematically that is.

It makes much more sense to use the 7.5 years of lost time between TMP-TWOK, and the 5 years between TFF-TUC as the settings for two more films (assuming that any timeline changes resulting from STXI leave those events intact much as they were) involving the crew of the NCC-1701.

76. Paulaner - August 26, 2008

#71 “Sorry to disappoint 64, from all previous reports and a picture posted on this very site during the fabulous “on set” Q and A, there will be buttons and knobs. Remember this is the 23rd century, not the Bermanverse.”

There will be some clear nod the 60s design, but I don’t think that the E will be the same.

77. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

75. “It makes much more sense to use the 7.5 years of lost time between TMP-TWOK, and the 5 years between TFF-TUC as the settings for two more films (assuming that any timeline changes resulting from STXI leave those events intact much as they were) involving the crew of the NCC-1701.”

Let’s examine this for a second. JJ Abrams re-cast Star Trek with younger actors, to replace the originals. As of this moment, Chris Pine and Zach Quinto are younger than when Shatner and Nimoy did TOS. Yet, you want them to make their next movie between TMP and TWOK which would age them 15-18 years, and then add another 7-9 years on to them to film a movie that takes place TFF-TUC. Hmmmm. Really?! That would mean you’ve got actors in their early to mid 30’s playing characters that are 55+. Why?

Why age the actors when we have them set up perfectly starting the original 5 year mission? JJ has already said this next movie ends with them embarking on the original 5 year mission.

I say more movies, more missions, from the original 5 year mission. Bring on the Orions and Andorians, Tellarites and Romulans! An throw in a Talosian or two.

78. Spock with a Crowbar - August 26, 2008

Don’t all send me hate mail at once, but an alternate timeline would mean an entire lifetime of new material for TOS crew… just saying.

79. jr - August 26, 2008

Why not call it Star Trek: Take 2.

80. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#77—“Why age the actors when we have them set up perfectly starting the original 5 year mission? JJ has already said this next movie ends with them embarking on the original 5 year mission.”

For exactly the reason stated above. It is implausible to add more to the 5-year mission, given that there is already an average of less than 18 days between “story-worthy” adventures involving those characters.

“Yet, you want them to make their next movie between TMP and TWOK which would age them 15-18 years…”

TMP takes place only 2.5 years from the end of the 5-year mission. If Pine is playing a 34 year-old Kirk at the start of the 5-year mission, then 3 years from now (in a potential sequel), he would be playing a Kirk who has aged only 7.5 years (not 15-18, check your math) from the end of STXI in order to place him at the end of TMP. That is certainly not beyond the capabilities in Hollywood.

“…and then add another 7-9 years on to them to film a movie that takes place TFF-TUC.”

The events of TWOK-TVH take place about 15.5 years after the start of the 5-year mission. Kirk would be 50 at the end of TFF, and presumably, a potential STXIII would be around 6 years from now. Again, that is certainly within the capabilities of Hollywood today. In 6 years of added age to the actor from the end of principle photography in STXI, the character would have aged 16 years. We’ve seen much more than that from an actor in a single film. It isn’t much of a stretch at all to see it in 3 films over 6 years.

81. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#78—Potentially, perhaps, but that depends upon the extent of the “damage” to the timeline we know now to be correct. I would assume (for now) that Nimoy’s Spock is at least partially successful in preventing Nero from doing what he is trying to do in the past. I expect only subtle changes in the timeline, and not to the extent that it actually alters the outcome of previous adventures we have seen in live action Trek on television and in films.

82. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

78. Well, Pegg has already said this is a fill in the gap movie, meaning there has to be a prior story and a later story established in order to have a gap to begin with. An alternate reality would not be a fill in the gap, but rather a new beginning.

83. Mark Lynch - August 26, 2008

My understanding is that Kirk was celebrating his 50th birthday at the beginning of TWOK.

84. stop the clocks - August 26, 2008

It’s a reboot/prequel. It’s a re-quel.

85. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#83—That is never stated in the film to my knowledge, but if it were, it would be a continuity error in chronology (albeit a minor one, since TFF is a mere matter of months from TWOK in story time).

86. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

80. “TMP takes place only 2.5 years from the end of the 5-year mission.”

I don’t know where you get that from? Kirk was obviously older in TMP than simply 2.5 years since season 3 of TOS. TMP was 10 years after TOS ended. Maybe you are thinking TMP is 7.5 years after the end of the original 5 year mission.

TWOK took place 15 years after season 1 of TOS. Kirk – “There is a madman out there who I haven’t seen in 15 years who wants to kill me”.

The time elapsed in the movies corresponds to the time elapsed from TOS. Therefore, you would be having Pine and Quinto playing 55+ Kirk and Spock.

I for one, would like to see some adventures from the remaining 2 years of the original 5 year mission, and that would include the coming home party and celebration, promotion of Kirk, etc.

87. Beam Me Up - August 26, 2008

IT WILL BLOW YOUR MINDS!!!!!

88. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#86—“I don’t know where you get that from.”

Kirk says that he has been Chief of Starfleet Operations for 2.5 years. Decker also says that Kirk hasn’t logged a single “star hour” in that same amount of time. That implies that TMP takes place 2.5 years after the end of the 5-year mission, and there has never been any canon contradiction to that.

“TMP was 10 years after TOS ended. Maybe you are thinking TMP is 7.5 years after the end of the original 5 year mission.”

There is nothing in canon which suggests that. There is nothing in any filmed Trek which contradicts Decker and Kirk’s inference in TMP that only 2.5 years have passed since the end of the 5 year mission. Watch it again.

“Therefore, you would be having Pine and Quinto playing 55+ Kirk and Spock”

Again, there is nothing to support that. The TWOK-TVH extended storyline takes place 15 years from the first year of the 5 year mission, and there is a 7.5 year gap between TMP and TWOK. Even if TFF is 16 years after the start of the 5 year mission, that would make Kirk 50 (He is 34 in the first year of the 5-year mission).

89. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

86 – This would be good.

First Film – Origin Story for the crew and audiences new to the movies.
Second Film – An Epic Adventure that sends the crew on a mission truly into the unknown. Something completely new.
Third Film – An adventure that brings about an end to the 5 year mission, and sets up the characters going their different ways for Star Trek TMP.

Character arcs that could be portrayed:

– McCoy could have something happen so dreadful that he’d leave Starfleet and become a private physician.
– Spock would reach a state where he needs to progress, and makes the decision to go through the Kholinar. What pushed him to make this decision?
– Sulu might have a relationship with a fellow crew member, or someone on another deck that would eventually lead to his daughter, Demora.
– Kirk gets offered a promotion because of the notoriety of the 5 year mission, and his leadership.
– Scotty could display his love of the Enterprise by choosing to stay on board when her refit is planned. He could be planning many aspects of the Refit during the films.

The point is, the two sequels could serve to plant the seeds of what we later see in the movies, and the friendships could be built upon.

90. section9 - August 26, 2008

By the way, kids, there was this interesting thread that I got into on the Trek BBS.

Someone had been mentioning that Tom Cruise had dropped by the set more than a few times during principal production. So, I did some basic deduction and wondered, since this was story was an “origins” story, if JJ wasn’t going to spring Tom Cruise on us as “Gary Mitchell” for a couple of Cameo’s.

WNMHGB takes place, obviously, in Year One of the Five year mission. However, as the crew is being slapped together, Mitchell could be hold the position of Helmsman left over from Captain Pike.

Just a thought, ominous though it may be.

91. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

88. “Kirk says that he has been Chief of Starfleet Operations for 2.5 years. Decker also says that Kirk hasn’t logged a single “star hour” in that same amount of time. ”

You are assuming Kirk went straight to Chief of Starfleet Operations immediately following the end of the 5 year mission. There is nothing to back that up. The fact that he hasn’t logged a star hour in 2.5 years doesn’t mean his prior star hours were from the Enterprise in TOS. Kirk could have been logging star hours elsewhere.

“and there is a 7.5 year gap between TMP and TWOK.”

There is nothing to support such a time difference in any movie or subsequent movie.

92. Bart - August 26, 2008

Whatever happens, how good the story may be, we all know the characters are going to be fine. No-one will die or leave. That takes a lot of the excitement and uncertainty away…

93. Bart - August 26, 2008

For example, what would have been the fun to know in advvance that Spock was going to be resurrected or even worse, when we would know Picard was going to survive his assimilation as Locutus. The suspence and drama come from the fact that we didn’t know.

94. eagle219406 - August 26, 2008

Many people are talking about the final 2 years of the original 5 year mission. Well Watch Star Trek: Phase 2/new voyages. That is the final 2 years being made.

95. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

94. I don’t think those are considered canon.

89. We think alike. I know the actors signed 3 year options on their contracts but that doesn’t necessarily mean they HAVE to only do 3 movies. XI would be the origin story, then a few more “new adventures”, then the final film with this current cast would be the “coming home” and end to the 5 year mission.

96. eagle219406 - August 26, 2008

#55. Actually, ENT didn’t make That canon, they just explained it. What made it canon was DS9. The episode “Trials and Tribbleations.” There was a scene they heard that Klingons were on the station and they asked where. A waitress pointed them out and they were like, “Those are Klingons?” They asked Worf about it and he said it was something they didn’t discuss with outsiders.

97. Brett Campbell - August 26, 2008

Ever since Tim Burton’s absolutely dreadul “re-imagining” of “Planet of the Apes” it seems that Hollywood is now much more reluctant to use this buzz non-word (very apt coinage #4). At least let’s hope that’s the case — especially when such “re-imaginings” are so unimaginative and, in Dr. Zira’s words, “so damned ugly.”

98. eagle219406 - August 26, 2008

One I would like to see is a movie about the Romulan wars. And I guess I’m alone in this but I like the TNG movies. And for the one who complained about Kirk Dying from a rusty bridge, They were originally going to have him shot in the back, which would you rather have? The only thing I was a bit angry about in Nemesis was that they killed off Data. But what softened the blow on that was that at least his death counted for something, unlike Tasha Yar.

99. Dave R - August 26, 2008

Watching the ‘American Idol’ Beatles week with my kids a couple of things occurred to me. The Beatles and Star Trek are actually pretty similar. Both are icons of the 20th century that have lived beyond their 1960’s roots. Both are ingrained into the minds of those of us over 40. We know those original Beatles songs so well that any time we hear a cover of one it almost invariably falls way short of the original classic by John, Paul, George & Ringo. Same with Star Trek, we all knows those original episodes so well that any attempt at a cover version would almost invariably fall way short of the original, ‘The Naked Now’ anyone??

While Star Trek has had four TV show spin-offs and 10 movies, no one has gone back and done a ‘cover’ of the original. JJ Abrams new Star Trek movie is really the first time anyone has gone back and tried to take classic Trek and re-done it.
(You could make an argument that James Cawley and his fan produced webisodes and even the Animated Star Trek has in fact done a ‘cover’ version of original Star Trek but budget, distribution and intent of those productions probably negates that argument)

JJ has done a lot to prove his ability as a writer, director and creator of great ideas, ‘Alias’ and ‘L O S T’ being his two biggest examples. As a over 40 year old who grew up watching Trek and knows them by heart I am truly hoping that he is going for more than just a ‘cover’ version of classic Trek.

Using the Beatles song analogy look at four different types of how an artist re-records a song,
the cover version,
the samples version,
the magnified version,
the re-interpretation.

The cover version. ‘No Doubt’ did a cover version of the song ’It’s my life’ by Talk Talk. They did nothing to enhance the song, it was a carbon copy with updated instruments and production values but still the exact same song. To me this is a wasted effort. Why not just play the original? No Doubt’s version was just a rip off . There are sadly many many further examples of this ‘cover’ approach

The Sampled version. Here a musician will use a riff, chorus or part of the original song and build up from there to create a totally different song often with a completely different message, tempo or idea.
“Set Adrift On Memory Bliss” (Richie Rich MIx) by P.M. Dawn Is one such example. Attrell & Jarett Cordes sampled a riff from ‘True’ by the group Spandau Ballet. P.M. Dawn’s song was a totally different song than Spandau Ballet in tone, beat and meaning and yet the basic underlying track from ‘True’ was obviously present in the finish song. This is a perfect example of taking a piece of something and creating a totally different end product. The original piece is still present but it has no relation to its origin and only serves to create a completely different experience.

This takes much more talent and imagination that a mere cover version. It does not however bring anything new to the original and as a result diminishes the original however slightly.

The Magnification version. Magnification is more than a cover of the original, but less than a reinvention. it is as the name implies, a multiplication of what is there to begin with. Whatever the original elements are they are multiplied making a richer, fuller and more powerful experience but still completely recognizable to the original.

A perfect example of this is the Spiderman theme. The 1967 cartoon’s theme song is a classic. 27 years later Michael Buble did a cover for the Spiderman 2 movie. It was everything the original was – only more. More horns, more beats, more power, more overblown, it was a movie version of the TV version and a home run in terms of redoing the song.

Lastly is the re-interpretation of an original. Some thing that takes the basic elements and keeping them in tune with their original meaning but presents it in a fashion that is new and fresh. Watching the American Idol singers trying to cover something as iconic as the Beatles really drove home this point. The most successful was Chjkezie’s version of ‘She’s a Woman’. It was presented in a totally new fashion and style but was still completely recognizable. It made a song I have heard 1000 times new and fresh. This is the riskiest because if the re-invention is off, then you miss big time but if you hit it than it is a totally new experience.

So which version will JJ Abrams do with Star Trek? The 40 year old in me hopes it will be a Magnification, taking the 1960’s TV show and make it epic in scope and content. The kid in me hopes it will be something more daring though, the re-invention. Taking something I have seen 1000 times and presenting it in a new way, where the original is still recognizable but fresh.

Cover –

“It’s My Life” Talk Talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvAVJTQeFiQ

“It’s My Life” Gwen Stefani, No Doubt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEAzxDMYrWU

Sample –

“True” Spandau Ballet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYb83KM4at4

“Set Adrift On Memory Bliss” (Richie Rich MIx) – P.M. Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMpmW68VnaE

Magnification

Spiderman Theme – original
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o29VoxtsFk

Spiderman Theme – Michael Buble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1AuWZFGng4

Re-Interpretation –

“She’s A Woman” – The Beatles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s70eUqZIbP8&feature=related

“She’s a Woman” – Chikezie (American Idol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK7P3fEnDZs&feature=related

100. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#91—Actually, there is more than that.

In Kirk’s quarters, he tells Decker that he has “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”.

Decker responds by saying, “With all due respect, Sir, you haven’t logged a single star hour in 2.5 years”.

Put the two statements together, and what other conclusion is there to draw?

There is no room for debate there…That places TMP chronologically 2.5 years after the end of the 5-year mission. That is canon.

The 7.5 year gap is between TMP and TWOK, not the end of the 5-year mission and TMP. That makes Kirk’s comment in TWOK about not having seen Khan in 15 years consistent.

101. cd - August 26, 2008

99 – wow. those last two have already been pulled for copyright violation!
And I prefer The Ramones version of Spider-Man >;>}
I just hope, whatever they do, it’s not comparable to Kid Rock’s bad ripoff of “Sweet Home Alabama” called “All Summer Long.”
I would prefer a magnification, by your terms, but not a reinvention. Reinvention in movie terms these days often becomes deinvention.

102. weeharry - August 26, 2008

54, 58, 60, 74

In a recent review i read in the paper for the new star wars cartoon, it was described as an “in-betweenquel”

103. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

100. Your conclusions are not canon and are subject to debate.

Again, show me some irresputable proof of the 7.5 year gap between TMP and TWOK. It is never mentioned in a movie or a series. In, TWOK Kirk was celebrating his 50th birthday, as you said, Kirk was 34 in season 1 of TOS and TWOK was 15 years later, do the math. He was 49 and his 50th birthday was coming up.

So again, I’d rather see the actors in their prime, portraying the characters in their prime, instead of slapping makeup on them to age them 15-20 years.

104. Richard Daystrom - August 26, 2008

Just have Vulcans in every theater giving complimentary mind melds telling us to forget instead of remember and it will all be all right… Wait a minute… they don’t really exist?? Crap!!!

105. Denise de Arman - August 26, 2008

eagle#98- Re your question “which would you rather have – Kirk being shot in the back or falling off of a rusty bridge” – both death scenerios, as well as the entire script, were best left in the writers’ office nearest trashcan. Nimoy and Kelley both refused to appear in the film because of poor character dialogue and zero character development. Nimoy warned Shatner not to let his character be killed off. Nimoy was offered the job as director for the film and refused unless the script was entirely reworked. Ron Moore has admitted on several occasions in interviews that the script did not turn out the way they imagined, etc. The basic Trek details involving TOS characters in the film appear to have been written as caricaturish as possible, almost to the point where they could have substituted CGI stick figures and the film premise would not have suffered any more. I think it is safe to say that any fan who really knew and appreciated the original series characters was stunned by the casual way in which the Generations writers disposed of the iconic character of Captain Kirk.

106. gord - August 26, 2008

I think saying the new Star Trek film is a remake of the Original Series would be a bit like saying that Batman Begins was a remake of the 1960’s TV show.

Not that I’m comparing original Trek to the Batman TV show though, but that’s kinda how I’m viewing it.

It’s a new version. Can’t we just call it that? A new interpretation of the same source material. You don’t go and see Patrick Stewart in Hamlet and say “Well, it’s not as good as the original”, do you?

107. Alex Rosenzweig - August 26, 2008

#68- “A maximum of 7.5 years, actually, assuming that Kirk has not seen Khan in 15 years prior to the events of TWOK, the 5-year mission ended 2.5 years prior to the events of TMP, and the events of “Space Seed” took place in the first year of the 5-year mission.”

A valid enough point, since the extra time inserted by the Okudas in the Chronology never did seem to come with any on-screen corroboration.

“But I concur. A sequel set in between TMP and TWOK, and another set between TFF-TUC (5 years, presumably with Kirk in command of the Enterprise-A).”

The only reason I might shy away from doing that is because then it’d have to weave thoroughly in and out among the other films that it might have to take exposition-time to catch folks up on movies they may not have seen. My thought was that, say, another trilogy sometime between 2274 and 2284 could again be told on its own terms, without requiring the audience to have seen the previous films.

And if *that* did so well that they went for a third, then why not drop it, again, between 2287 and 2293, and keep the necessity to reference “Trek IV” and “Trek V” to a few lines of exposition as to why the ship’s now got an -A in its number. ;)

And if all this has done so well that we’re getting *9* more movies out of the deal, by then somebody will have decided it’s time to do a spinoff, and away we roll with new characters again. ;)

108. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#103—Here is your proof, plain and simple. Pay attention…

TMP:
Kirk tells Scotty that “2.5 years as Chief Of Starfleet Operations may have made me a little rusty, but I wouldn’t consider myself untried”.

Kirk tells Decker that he has “5 years out there dealing with unknowns.”

Decker tells Kirk (in direct response to that), “…you haven’t logged a single star hour in 2.5 years”.

I challenge you to come up with one single bit of dialogue in a live action Trek production which suggests that TMP is anything but 2.5 years after the end of the 5-year mission. Otherwise, there is no room for real debate, and you are just “reaching” for the sake of not giving it up.

TWOK:

Kirk tells Carol Marcus that there is a man out there he hasn’t seen in 15 years who is trying to kill him. Since TMP is 7.5 years from the START of the 5-year mission, then there has to be 7.5 years in between TMP and TWOK.

Since you obviously cannot (since none exists) provide any canonical evidence which places the events of TMP at any other time period but 2.5 years after the end of the 5-year mission, there you go…The “irrefutable proof” is simple arithmetic.

5+2.5 =7.5

7.5+7.5 = 15

The point is made. The character of Kirk (if a sequel took place between TMP and TWOK) would only have to be a minimum of 7.5 years older than he was at the start of the 5-year mission, not the 15-18 years that you suggested earlier. Pine would be around 3 years older than he will be when he portrays Kirk in command of the Enterprise in STXI.

Shatner portrayed a 41.5 year old Kirk in 1979 when he was actually 14 years older than when he portrayed him as being 34 (1965–“WNMHGB”), so why would asking Pine to play him 7.5 years older than he was at the end of STXI (when Pine will be 3 years older than he was at the end of STXI’s principle photography) be more of a stretch?

109. Denise de Arman - August 26, 2008

If one starship left Alpha Centauri at seven-hundred hours going warp 9 and another starship left the Mars shipyards at thirteen-hundred hours going warp 7, who would reach the Psi 2000 planet before it blows up into subparticles and gives Spock a virus making him cry about never telling his mother he loved her…

110. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#107—“The only reason I might shy away from doing that is because then it’d have to weave thoroughly in and out among the other films that it might have to take exposition-time to catch folks up on movies they may not have seen. My thought was that, say, another trilogy sometime between 2274 and 2284 could again be told on its own terms, without requiring the audience to have seen the previous films.”

An equally vaild point…The only problem I have with that is the lack of potential for reconciling the notion that “Admiral” Kirk would be able to maintain command of the Enterprise for any reasonable length of time after the V’Ger incident. It seems to me that, to tell more than one more story in that time period, it would require someone else to be in command of the Big E (unless of course, STXII and STXIII were, in essence, one big story arc resolved in a very short period of time).

I am assuming only 3 films. The reason I suggest the TFF-TUC time period for the third is that at least Kirk holds the rank of Captain, and is in command of the Enterprise-A.

With all of this said, I still believe that all 3 films will (if there are indeed sequels) take place prior to TMP. I just have admittedly nitpicking problem with that—since TOS/TAS already suggests an average of less than 18 days between “story-worthy” incidents aboard the Enterprise during the 5-year mission. It just seems implausible to me that any additional “story-worthy” incidents would happen involving one single crew in a 5-year period.

Of course, if the effects of the timeline changes caused in STXI are more significant than I expect, all of that is a moot point anyway. Things might very well turn out all together differently within the 5-year mission. However, I find that unlikely. I think the best (but not most probable) course of action would be to fill in the aforementioned “movie-gaps” and leave the results of the 5-year mission alone and intact.

111. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#109—How far away is the Psi 2000 planet from Alpha Centauri and the Mars shipyards, and are they both on a direct course for the planet Psi 2000? Are those the maximum speeds those vessels are capable of maintaining on that course, and will their captains maintain maximum speed? Are there potential dangers for the vessel travelling at Warp 7 within the Sol system? Would Spock ever cry over failing to tell his mother he loved her?

That would all seem to be pertinent information to me to accurately answer that question, Denise….lol.

112. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

110. “It just seems implausible to me that any additional “story-worthy” incidents would happen involving one single crew in a 5-year period.”

So this is your own standard? 79 stories is your own personal limit? 80 stories is over the line? 79 are plausible but 80 or 81 are not? How do you defend that? Your arguing more stories set in the movie era and I’m arguing more stories set in TOS. We all know it was a 5 year mission. We all know the show only lasted 3 seasons. This sounds like a perfect opportunity to show the fans the 2 missing years, with a cast that is appropriately “aged” to fit that timeframe. If the second and third movies are used in this era, then that’s only two more stories added to the original 79. That doesn’t sound implausible to me. Especially since we are talking about a “legendary” crew, a history-making mission and the crew that led the adoption of their delta shields to be that of the entire Starfleet. Additionally, Deep Space Nine lasted 7 seasons and 176 stories. DS9 was by no size shape or form of any historical significance compared to the crew of James Kirk and the U.S.S. Enterprise yet they had 176 story worthy missions. I think Kirk and Spock are good enough and historical enough to deserve a few more stories from their original mission. TOS didn’t last as long as they wanted to tell their entire story, unlike TNG, VOY and DS9. The actors are primed and ready to show the fans what’s been missing and that’s years 4 and 5 of the original mission.

113. John from Cincinnati - August 26, 2008

Oh, and Gene Roddenberry said he never recognized TAS as official canon.

114. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#112—I don’t need to defend a personal preference. It is just that—a preference…

Your analogies are fascile, however. The Federation never imposed a 5-year limit on Sisko’s mission to expedite the assimilation of Bajor into the Federation and to protect UFP interests there, as was the case with the mission of the USS Enterprise under JTK’s command.

You act as if I am somehow opposed to seeing more stories involving my favorite characters, as that is certainly not the case. Regardless of what time period in which they are told, I very much want to see those stories. My preference is simply for potential sequels to fill in the two major gaps within the original film series, thus tying the Kirk/Spock/McCoy era completely together. I am not going to throw a fit if they do not. In fact, I think it is more likely that potential sequels will be told in the era for which you have indicated a preference.

What I want and what will happen are likely two very different things.

Any contradictory (canonical)evidence to the chronology of TOS to TMP yet?

I didn’t think so…

#113—Nor do I, except for those elements of TAS made legitimate by mention in live action Trek. With that said, I don’t put all that much stock in what GR said was canon or not. At one point, he said that he did not consider the 3rd season of TOS canon, nor any of the films outside of TMP. I take GR’s later “revisionist” comments regarding Trek over which he lacked some degree of control with a grain of salt, but I agree about TAS. However, there is some question about that since Paramount’s release of TAS on dvd. Some sources, including Memory Alpha, are placing TAS in a “canonically gray” area nowadays, whereas for years it was in the same category as novels, comics, and reference books in the eyes of most fans.

115. Alex Rosenzweig - August 26, 2008

#110 – ” #107—”The only reason I might shy away from doing that is because then it’d have to weave thoroughly in and out among the other films that it might have to take exposition-time to catch folks up on movies they may not have seen.
[snip]
An equally vaild point…The only problem I have with that is the lack of potential for reconciling the notion that “Admiral” Kirk would be able to maintain command of the Enterprise for any reasonable length of time after the V’Ger incident.”

Oh, I never had any trouble with that. I’m in the camp that always believed that Kirk took the ship out for another extended mission after TMP, so for me, Kirk commanding as a Rear Admiral is a non-issue. :)

“I am assuming only 3 films. The reason I suggest the TFF-TUC time period for the third is that at least Kirk holds the rank of Captain, and is in command of the Enterprise-A.

With all of this said, I still believe that all 3 films will (if there are indeed sequels) take place prior to TMP.”

Oh, my assumption was always that we’re first going to see a trilogy of films set in some way relative to the 5-year mission. I suggested the idea of the prelude, the middle, and the end of that mission because it seemed to have an appropriate story arc for a trilogy of films, and because that’d easily allow significant tales to be told that we haven’t yet seen and wouldn’t step on the toes of what’s already been seen. I doubt they’ll go into the “movie era” (post-TMP) unless there’s so much success that they opt to go beyond the currently-imagined trilogy.

“Of course, if the effects of the timeline changes caused in STXI are more significant than I expect, all of that is a moot point anyway. Things might very well turn out all together differently within the 5-year mission. However, I find that unlikely.”

As do I. Certainly, based on what most of the folks involved in the film have said (most recently Pegg and Saldana), it doesn’t seem like we’re looking at some sort of continuity-busting reboot.

“I think the best (but not most probable) course of action would be to fill in the aforementioned “movie-gaps” and leave the results of the 5-year mission alone and intact.”

I just worry that dropping new films in between the others would have the potential to be too confusing to an audience that hasn’t seen the others. I could be wrong, but my instinct says that’s too “inside” a viewpoint, and that a trilogy arced through the 5-year mission may be both easier to sell and easier to bring in new audience for.

But who knows? Nobody’s paying me a few million bucks to guide the Star Trek franchise. ;)

116. krikzil - August 26, 2008

I’m the one still not entirely sold on this new movie and yet I see that there are many stories that could still be told set during the original 5 year mission.

As for the films, I always thought they made a huge error with STTMP by setting it 3.5 years past the 5 year mission. It had been 10 years since the end of the show ’69-’79 and as good as they looked, the actors looked older. (And Shatner was older than his character to begin with.) I was glad that in TWOK they brought it back to a correct timeline with the 15 year thing and Kirk celebrating his 50th.

117. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#116—I recall it being 2.5 years, not 3.5, but no matter. I also would rather have had the door open for another 5-year mission under JTK’s command immediately following the first. And I think they made a clear effort to make the characters’ age look more in tune with the actors’ in the second film. However, TFF is set mere months after TWOK, and Shatner looks quite a bit older and much less physically fit to me in that film (he is, in fact, 7 years older). That, I suppose, is easier to reconcile though– since the events of those weeks/months (TWOK-TVH) were somewhat unusually trying and overly stressful to be sure.

In any case, the chronology is what it is.

118. eagle219406 - August 26, 2008

Just a question to CLosetrekker. You were wondering if there was anything in TMP that says anything about it not being 2.5 years after the original mission. BUt I ask you this: Where in TWOK does it say anything about it being 7.5 years between TMP and TWOK. Where is your proof of that?

119. OneBuckFilms - August 26, 2008

115 – Another thing to consider for a trilogy is production costs.

To set future movies during the Movie Era would require rebuilding the sets from the appropriate era, and it would fail to convince with it’s younger cast, even with the makeup.

To stay in keeping with the Trilogy, and keep them visually and conceptually cohesive, they would have to have the 2nd and 3rd movies visually consistent with the first.

Same sets, same or at most slightly updated costumes, same cast.

To me, it would make more sense from a production perspective to continue in, or end with the end of, the 5 year mission the first movie presumably kicks off.

If the production crew don’t have to redesign and rebuild as much with the Enterprise, it enables funding to be better spent on the new story elements demanded for films 2 and 3.

I can only conclude that a sequel would not make such a radical departure from film one with the permanent items established, since that would confuse the more casual audience and incur unnecessary costs, at greater risk to the rest of the production.

120. Pegg: ‘Star Trek’ Not A Remake | Sarkle - August 26, 2008

[...] Full article addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sarkle.net%2Fscifi%2F2008%2F08%2F27%2Fpegg-star-trek-not-a-remake%2F'; addthis_title = ‘Pegg%3A+%26%238216%3BStar+Trek%26%238217%3B+Not+A+Remake'; addthis_pub = ”; [...]

121. Buckaroohawk - August 26, 2008

Okay, chances are no one’s even still reading posts at this point, but I’ll toss my two cubits into this “re-whatever” topic anyway.

Based on all the info I’ve read about this film (largely gleaned from this site, naturally), here’s how I see it.
It’s not a reboot because, as far as I can tell, they aren’t discarding the characters or stories we’ve come to know in favor of a fresh start from Square One.
It’s not a remake because it isn’t a new rendition of a story we’ve seen before. This is a new story featuring characters we know (even if they may look a bit different).
The terms “re-imagination” or “re-invigoration” may apply because characters and locations are not going to look exactly the way they had before, but those terms do not necessarily mean there will be a wholesale change to every aspect of the Trek universe. A good comparison may be Shakespeare’s Hamlet. That play has been performed within a myriad of settings from original to modern to futuristic, but though them all, Hamlet remains Hamlet. The setting may have been “re-imagined,” but the play remains the same.

The best way I can describe what I believe this film will be isn’t easily encapsulated in a trendy catchphrase. What is seems to me the filmmakers are saying is this: The events you saw in TOS happened, but the world these characters inhabit doesn’t really look like that, it looks like this instead.

Now, this does not mean that they won’t be turning some of our pre-conceived notions about these characters inside out or filling gaps in their histories in ways we haven’t anticipated, but that in itself isn’t a bad thing. We all like to think we know these characters so well, but maybe we don’t. There’s been a great deal of complacency on both sides of Trek (the Production side and the Fan side) for a long time. Seeing these characters shaken up a bit, and having our perceptions of them challenged, may be just the thing that Trek needs.

I’m looking forward to seeing them inhabit a new world, one that’s familiar, yet with so many new things to experience. And I’m looking forward to seeing them say and do things that may well surprise and even shock me. The best Trek has always challenged our perceptions, and perhaps it’s time to have our perceptions about Trek itself challenged.

The countdown continues. We will know soon enough.

122. SChaos1701 - August 26, 2008

Who cares if it’s a remake, rebook, retreat, reimaging, ect or not. It doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not it’s a good movie.

123. Alex Rosenzweig - August 26, 2008

#118 – It’s mathematical. If we assume that TMP is between 2.5 and 3 years after the 5-year mission ends, then we can conclude it’s roughly 7-8 years after “Space Seed”, which was 1-2 years into said mission (4 years to finish the mission, plus, say, 3 years ’til TMP = 7 years). TWOK says that it’s 15 years after “Space Seed”. Subtract between 7 and 8 years from 15, and you’ve gt, roughly 7-8 years remaining, and the approximation of 7.5 falls in pretty well.

For reasons only the Okudas know, the OkudaChron ignored the 15 years line in TWOK in favor of setting the film in 2285 and the 3 seasons of the Original Series in 2266-69, resulting in an 18-19 year gap between “Space Seed” and TWOK. The OkudaChron’s dates have ended up being fairly widely accepted (though there are definable inaccuracies in certain parts of it, and others have been outdated by later canonical information), but it’s still the case that there are some contradictions between the book and canonical dialogue.

124. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#118—I’m not going to go over it again, step by step, but the “proof” you ask for is in the simple mathematics.

We have established that the dialogue in TMP indicates that the film takes place 2.5 years after the end of the 5-year mission. That means that TMP is 7.5 years from the START of the 5-year mission.

“Space Seed” is from the first season of TOS. The dialogue in TWOK indicates that TWOK is 15 years after “Space Seed”.

Do the math…If the events of TMP are 7.5 years after the start of the 5-year mission, then there is 7.5 years in between TMP and TWOK.

7.5+7.5=15

Like I said in post #108, the “proof” is in the math.

125. Closettrekker - August 26, 2008

#119—“To set future movies during the Movie Era would require rebuilding the sets from the appropriate era, and it would fail to convince with it’s younger cast, even with the makeup.”

I have to disagree with the last part of that statement.

Shatner was 14 years older in TMP(1979) than he was in “WNMHGB” (1965), yet his character had only aged 7.5 years from the start of TOS to TMP.

Asking Pine (2-3 years from now) to play a character who is 7.5 years older than he will be when Pine portrays him at the start of the 5-year mission in STXI will not even be as drastic as that. I think Shatner’s portrayal of a much younger man in TMP was much more of a stretch. Moreover, Shatner played a man who had only aged a matter of months (TWOK-TFF) later on, when he had actually visably aged 7 more years over that time. Being “convincing” was not a problem then (and for the much more difficult task of portraying a younger man), nor would it be now.

I have seen actors convincingly portray characters who age far more within a single story, so it is hardly a stretch to ask Pine to do it in two or three.

As far as the sets being rebuilt, aren’t we seeing (by all indications thus far) an Enterprise much more like the refit ship from TMP anyway? Who says the refit must appear that drastic this time around? Furthermore, the sets have almost always changed between the original films, so would that really be something new?

Again, I don’t think it will happen, but not because it would not be convincing. I think Paramount (since we cannot automatically assume JJ Abrams will direct any sequels) will keep it much simpler and stay within the 5-year mission for the benefit of the crossover audience they hope to attract to the franchise, as much as I personally want them to fill in the movie gaps with the sequels.

Like I said before, what I want and what will happen are likely two very different things…

126. Thomas - August 26, 2008

I think that the barometer for how interesting a particular Trekmovie.com article is, is that the thread will grow long enough for a pointless debate to emerge. It’s even better when the debate has little if nothing to do with the actual story. This thread, for example.

127. Wes - August 26, 2008

Make a TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT movie next time around, then we wont get into this crap! LOL!

128. Mark Lynch - August 27, 2008

Okay, I’m going to jump in again.

It is stated in TMP that Kirk completed the five year mission, as shown by his conversation with Decker in Engineering when he says he is assuming command.
Canon.

Decker says in Kirk’s quarters after the wormhole incident that Kirk had not logged a single star hour in 2.5 years.
Canon.

So we can infer that straight after the end of the five year mission, Enterprise came home and was immediately put into drydock for upgrade. I believe this was actually mentioned in the TMP novel.
Not canon, but good enough.

With TWOK, I will cede that it is not specifically mentioned that Kirk is celebrating his 50th birthday, but it may have been said in the novelisation. I think I read interviews that this was done so as to bring the characters in line with the actors ages. Because as good as Kirk and the others looked in TMP, there was no way they could continue to play 10 years younger than they are.
Again, not canon, but good enough.

So taking the above as fact, we have to infer that there were 7-8 years between TMP and TWOK. In fact enough time for the crew to go out on another 5 year mission. Somewhere for the new Trek movies to go perhaps?
This gives us the fifteen years between Space Seed and TWOK. And as Kirk says ‘There’s a man out there I haven’t seen in fifteen years, trying to kill me.’
Canon.

The maths is really rather simple and ultimately, irrefutable whether we like it or not.

But lets not get into the ‘mistake’ where Khan says that he was ‘a prince with power over millions’ just 200 years ago. A slip of the tongue perhaps, 200, 300. Meh. Actually that always niggled me in Space Seed as they said 200 years there. But still. ;-)

But it is fun to debate, is it not?

What were we originally talking about? :-)

129. captain_neill - August 27, 2008

as long as it does not retcon the last 42 years of Trek I think the movie will fit in well enough

Robert April busness is concerning me though

130. The Prophet - August 27, 2008

In the 24th Century Spock is called by the people of Talos ones again, to meet Captain Pike, who had not died yet.
During the Rendevous of that both characters, the were telling the history of Star Trek from their own point of view. Only those Parts that they have taken part in the beginning.

Nothing about a timetravel or something, that’s the story of the movie.

131. BK613 - August 27, 2008

128
Thanks for pointing out that inferences and conclusions about character dialog are not canon. Because there is no direct statement establishing that Kirk’s tenure aboard the Enterprise and Kirk’s tenure as CSO are contiguous, that “fact” is not canon. Even if it is the most reasonable explanation (although other elements of TMP imply more than 2.5 years: the technology advances and changes, the uniform changes, the change in dept colors, the implosion of the trifecta’s friendship and both Kirk’s jump from Captain to Admiral and his jump from starship commander to CSO.)

132. LorienTheYounger - August 27, 2008

As far as I can see, the basic gist = This movie is mostly set before the episodes of TOS, but it is not a “prequel” in the sense that it is trying to “tell the story of what came before” because it is basically bringing back a new version of TOS from a slightly earlier timeframe than the episodes.

133. star trackie - August 27, 2008

#124 “We have established that the dialogue in TMP indicates that the film takes place 2.5 years after the end of the 5-year mission.”

Not exactly. Having not “logged a star hour” doesn’t exactly equate to having not commanded a starship since her return of the 5 year mission. You can certainly make that jump to that conclusion, but you can also say he was ferrying moon shuttles for 5 years after he returned home. There is no right or wrong here, it’s all speculation.

134. captain_neill - August 27, 2008

My reaction to this movie is two fold one now. I was man enought to get Quinto’s autograph after he impressed me with his talk with Leonard. I am huge fan of Leonard Nimoy and the fact that he is involved gives me strong hope in this film.

I have met Leonard twice before, and got him to sign two of my DVDs. He is so wonderful.

I have been informed that there is a strong possibility that the hard core fans are going to be more likely to hate the movie because of the changes in canon. This comment has me a little worried though. Quinto told me that JJ has put in little nods to TOS which is nice

135. Jamesb3 - August 27, 2008

I for one am sick of the effort NOT to call this a remake. Same story, different actors, different and updated look, new beginning…it is a remake. I can buy the direction they are taking it, but stop insulting my intelligence by finding every other way of stating the obvious.

136. simonkey - August 27, 2008

starting the 5 year mission with updated universe thats it….simple.

137. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#131—“Because there is no direct statement establishing that Kirk’s tenure aboard the Enterprise and Kirk’s tenure as CSO are contiguous, that “fact” is not canon. ”

It is “canon” until some form of live-action Trek contradicts it. There is nothing in canon which currently suggests that Kirk did anything but go from Captain of the Enterprise to the Admiralty.

These are the facts:

Kirk has been COSFO for 2.5 years…

Kirk has “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”…

Kirk hasn’t “logged a single star hour in 2.5 years”…

#133—“Having not “logged a star hour” doesn’t exactly equate to having not commanded a starship since her return of the 5 year mission. ”

That’s reaching.

Kirk says to Decker that he has “5 years…out there dealing with unknowns.”

Decker responds directly to that comment by saying, “With all due respect, Sir, you haven’t logged a single star hour in 2.5 years.”

If he had commanded a starship since the 5-year mission, why does he only have “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”?

#135—“I for one am sick of the effort NOT to call this a remake. Same story, different actors, different and updated look, new beginning…it is a remake.”

Wrong. It is not the same story, and it is not a “new” beginning. The TOS-era crew has never had a “beginning”. There was never a story told depicting how the characters met. As the makers of this film have stated, the TOS-era crew never had an origin story. Therefore, we are not talking about a “remake”. This is simply a revisitation to the 23rd Century.

The term “remake” implies that events which have already been depicted on screen will be retold. That is not the case with STXI.

“Ocean’s Eleven” was a remake.

STXI tells a different story from any previous film.

138. Doug in Kabul, Afghanistan - August 27, 2008

#7: stigma of remakes:

it seems more often than not remakes are a pale comparison to its original… the original ‘KIng Kong’ was a great classic, the 1970s version not so much.

even though the 2005 version of ‘War of the Worlds’ boasted superior special effects, the 1953 version is perferrable (at least to me)… and I liked the new version.

‘Titanic’ doesn’t begin to capture the feel of that awful event as does ‘A Night to Remember.’

Now, all that said I am STILL waiting for a definitive movie (and in this case it would be a remake) of ‘When Worlds Collide.’ C’mon, Mr . Spielberg! you did announce in 2005 you’d be remaking this film…. and if so, I hope more faithful to the book than the 1950s version.

I’d be interested in hearing others’ ideas on remakes and if any are superior to their original.

139. Daoud - August 27, 2008

… it is the Trek that never ends…
… it just goes on and on, my friends…
… some people started retconning not knowing what it was…
… and they’ll keep on retconning it forever just because…
… it is the Trek that never ends…
… it just goes on and on…

So, on Kirk’s timeline would you guys drop a few fives and buy a Star Trek Chronology where Mike Okuda already figured all this out? It also works out better to realize that the first season (sans WNMHGB) wasn’t the literal first year of the 5YM, but a year into the mission. That puts Kirk’s original 5YM from 2265 to 2270, with each season being exactly 300 years after the production date. Or something like that.

140. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#139—I like Mike Okuda, but his “Chronology” is not canon. Only live action Trek on television and films is canon. You can place the 5-year mission in any year you like. It still does not affect the placement of TMP 2.5 years after the end of that mission, or TWOK being 7.5 years later. It is in the dialogue. It just takes a bit of addition and subtraction.

141. krikzil - August 27, 2008

>. I also would rather have had the door open for another 5-year mission under JTK’s command immediately following the first.

I’d like to see that end of the 5-year mission and the whole drama of Spock leaving Star Fleet and going back to Vulcan. But that’s just me. ;)

As for how Shatner looked. I always thought he looked younger than his actual age up until Generations. For the first time, he didn’t even bother to lose the weight. As much as I love Nimoy, he aged drastically to me from TOS to TMP. The whole Kolinahr thing and all that deprivation helped a bit but Nimoy was a smoker and that always wrecks your skin faster.

142. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#141—“. As much as I love Nimoy, he aged drastically to me from TOS to TMP.”

Yeah. Those 10 years really were not all that good to him.

143. Alex Rosenzweig - August 27, 2008

#139 – I’d built a detailed Trek timeline well before Mike and Denise did theirs. I was one of the people who shared mine with Mike (as is acknowledged in the book :) ). I think they did a fantastic job with their Chronology, but there are a few places where they and I disagreed, and I still stand by mine in such cases. (It’s all cool; there’s room for differing interpretations of the material.)

Mine also is deliberately different in style and approach, and they include material that I don’t, and I include material that they don’t. I’ve also continued to update mine with new material, both stuff from VOY and ENT while those series were on the air, and of course many novels, comic books, RPGs, tech books, etc. (It’s amazing how much really and truly fits nicely together, a credit to writers and editors over many years!) I’m looking forward to adding new stuff from “Star Trek (2009)”, too!

I’ve done a number of projects like this one, focused not on the specifics of one series or set of characters, but on the Trek world as a cohesive universe, with hundreds of stories told across many media. I guess it’s no wonder that I am fiercely protective of the idea of overall continuity. ;)

144. Alex Rosenzweig - August 27, 2008

#141 – “I’d like to see that end of the 5-year mission and the whole drama of Spock leaving Star Fleet and going back to Vulcan. But that’s just me. ;) ”

So would I, actually. It’s always seemed to me that there’s a story to be told about why Spock chose to do that. There have been various takes on it in the books, but never on film. That’s partly why I like the idea of a TOS trilogy of films, with the end of the 5-year mission being the third film. It would end, maybe, a bit somberly, with the characters splitting off and going their separate ways for a while, but of course we all know that they came back together again for new adventures, so there’d be that hopeful aspect, too.

I can only wonder if Bob Orci and the others are thinking about that, too, assuming that next year’s film does well and they get to continue storytelling. :)

145. EM - August 27, 2008

Canon is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends. And gets boring very quickly. I don’t need canon to enjoy Star Trek. It’s like hearing a cover song, I want it to be familiar, but different. Otherwise, why bother?

146. krikzil - August 27, 2008

>>So would I, actually. It’s always seemed to me that there’s a story to be told about why Spock chose to do that. There have been various takes on it in the books, but never on film.

Yes, exactly. Did Kirk go to the Admiralty willingly or did Spock’s departure upset him so much that it happened? Or was Kirk’s acceptance of the promotion the final straw for Spock, knowing it was a mistake for Kirk to do so? I like your Trilogy idea.

147. Daoud - August 27, 2008

Alex, sorry I didn’t see your earlier comments referencing the Chron.

I agree with you though… TWOK makes more sense in 2283, then the McCoy’s Romulan Ale bit with Kirk is funny. The ale, even unfermented completely, is already nasty. Do we all have Kirk born in 2233? Then it is indeed his 50th birthday… and just a few months beyond 15 years, making that statement work again.

Is your chronology online somewhere?

148. Holger - August 27, 2008

145: I don’t get it. Canon has nothing to do with new stuff being familiar, but with new stuff not contradicting the old stuff. This doesn’t prevent the new stuff from being original and unfamiliar.

149. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#147—I find the “Romulan Ale” bit amusing, as if a Romulan beverage would be dated by the Terran calendar.

In Romulan terms, 2283 could have been 500 years before…lol.

“I only use it for medicinal purposes”.

Many years ago, I had a roommate in college who once said that to campus police. It didn’t work.

150. eagle219406 - August 27, 2008

There is some debate here. I say season 1 was the first year of the 5 year mission, there is nothing in canon to prove otherwise.

151. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#150—Agreed.

Let’s look at it this way. There are around 1825 days in five years. If you only count TOS (and not TAS), there was an average of one story-worthy adventure less than every 23 days (not accounting exactly for those adventures which may have taken place over more than one day). That’s not alot of downtime on a starship exploring the galaxy as it is. If you make “WNMHGB” in the second year of the 5-year mission, that brings it to less than every 18 days. If you are one of the many fans who accept TAS as canon (I do not), that means that less every 14 days, something story-worthy happened to the crew. So the crew is never bored, huh?

It is much more reasonable to me to place the first season episodes in the first year of the 5-year mission. However, there is admittedly nothing in canon which suggests anything either way.

All of this talk about the Okudas and their book is fine, but it never amounted to a canon chronology. It is just what he (Michael Okuda) imagined in many cases.

152. BK613 - August 27, 2008

137
These are the facts:

Kirk has been COSFO for 2.5 years…

Kirk has “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”…

Kirk hasn’t “logged a single star hour in 2.5 years”…
———————-
And those three facts do not establish what you are claiming: that TMP MUST occur immediately after the five year mission. TMP could occur 10 years later and all of those statements could be true. Kirk will have still faced all those unknowns, he would still be CSO, and (apparently) his duties as CSO still wouldn’t require him to to log a single star hour*. And if moving the time of TMP around doesn’t falsify those three facts, then there isn’t enough information in those facts to be absolutely sure when TMP occurs. Oh we can make an educated guess but it is just that, a guess.

*(a lot of your argument seems to be based on the fact that you know what this star hour phrase means. In truth, we don’t really know what it means. Could mean “have not been in command for 2.5 years,” could mean “you’ve allowed your quals to lapse,” could simple be an idiom for “you’ve been planetside for 2.5 years.” Or any of a host of other reasonable meanings.)_

153. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#152—Are you still not wrapping your head around that?

The bottom line is this…There are three lines of dialogue which point to TMP being 2.5 years from the end of Kirk’s 5-year mission, and nothing at all to support anything else. In fact, you have to make up scenarios which tiptoe around the actual dialogue to come up with an alternative.

Ridiculous. Let it go…

154. John from Cincinnati - August 27, 2008

I agree with Alex. Dropping in movies to fill-in the gaps of the other movie era would be quite confusing. Especially knowing Abrams is going for a wider audience this time and potentially, new fans to the franchise. It would be neat and tidier to complete the original 5 year mission.

155. EM - August 27, 2008

#148 – Hi Holger,
I really have nothing against adhering (or not) to canon. I just don’t see the big deal about shaking things up.In fact, I appreciate shake ups. It is fiction and if the new team wants to change something I have no problem with that. I understand that there is a lot of unaccounted for time within which to create new stories that doesn’t tread on what came before. I just don’t care if it does.

156. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#154—Which is precisely what they are most likely to do, and for those specific reasons. The stated target audience is more on the side of those who are far less familiar with established canon than those of us who peruse this site, and has to be in order to justify the enormous STXI budget.

157. Marian Ciobanu - August 27, 2008

- If we’re still talking about trek mistakes..i want to give some examples..
1.- First contact.. with the vulcans seems so stupid in present days..although the movie was the best trek movie ever ….something more ‘officially ‘ is more suitable now..
2.Bajorans..are described in TNG as being a very wise race…but are actually worst than ferengi… a stupid and evil race…
3. ENTERPRISE describes the vulcans as a race having problems with touching things and with the clean…but that description is more suitable for romulans…
4. I never understood where disappeared the purple sky from Romulus with the two moons…wich is described in to a TNG episode as being the only thing known from Federation about Romulus
5. Why is Ds-9 so hated now..because is a show much better than VOYAGER and Enterprise ..actually

158. Cliff - August 27, 2008

I’ve know all along that their intention with this film is to honor and respect the material and at the same time tweak it so that it can become relevent and modern in today’s world.

I hope that they can completely disregard some of the undesirable elements of Star Trek such as nonsensical tech-babble, exploding consoles, restrictive sets, plot and logic holes and over used plot devices and move towards some more realistic and original ideas and concepts while still maintaining the core feel of the franchise.

I think they’ll do it right with this movie, I really do. The fact that they’re calling it a re-invigoration or re-vitalization is what leads me to believe that this movie will be the Star Trek we’ve all been waiting for.

I just wish that Enterprise and The Next Generation Crew could have been given the chance to have a proper send off. One more TNG movie with Abrams at the helm is what I would love to see.

159. BK613 - August 27, 2008

153
Oh I understand your POV i simply don’t agree with it. I think that you are teasing more information out than is actually presented in the dialog. That’s OK because that is your opinion. Your entitled to it same as I am mine.

Perhaps it is “ridiculous” from your POV, to try to see only the information that is presented without allowing any preconceived notations to color the meaning. It’s not from mine.

160. BK613 - August 27, 2008

157-some more…
6 retroconning the 22nd century into the 23rd.
7 The Ferengi in general
8 Monocultural aliens
9 The Constellation class kit-bash
10 The Kazon

161. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#159—“I think that you are teasing more information out than is actually presented in the dialog.”

Watch the movie and see for yourself. Those lines are in the dialogue.

Kirk tells Scotty aboard the shuttle that he has been COSFO for 2.5 years.

Kirk tells Decker in his quarters that he has “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”.

Decker immediately responds by pointing out that he hasn’t “logged a single star hour in 2.5 years”.

Are you suggesting that those lines of dialogue are not actually in the movie?

“Perhaps it is “ridiculous” from your POV, to try to see only the information that is presented without allowing any preconceived notations to color the meaning. It’s not from mine.”

That makes no sense. What I am doing is going strictly by the information in the dialogue, without inventing hypothetical scenarios which tiptoe around that dialogue. I don’t know exactly what you were trying to say there.

162. BK613 - August 27, 2008

Oh to return to the topic at hand. Don’t care what you call it. In fact I would have been happy, given the quality film-makers involved, if they had decided to draw a line in the sand between all that went on before and the new movie. New take on the characters. New take on the ship. New take on the ST universe. With none of the 42 years of baggage and cliches that goes with the ST franchise along for the ride.

163. AJ - August 27, 2008

Closettrekker:

Perhaps JTK had an assignment after the Five-Year Mission?

I haven’t read the whole thread, but there were fan rumblings years ago of a second 5YM after the one we saw in TOS.

Not an issue for me.

164. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#163—“but there were fan rumblings years ago of a second 5YM after the one we saw in TOS.”

That would directly contradict the dialogue. How could he have only “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”, if there were more than one 5-year mission under his command?

Personally, I wish there had been. That would leave all kind of room for more stories surrounding the Enterprise and its crew prior to the V’Ger incident. But, the chronology is what it is. If he had any assignment between the end of the 5 year mission and his promotion and ascention to COSFO, it would have had to be somewhere other than aboard a starship, and I just don’t see any advantage to that–storywise.

165. Of Bajor - August 27, 2008

Pegg’s casting as Scotty is a stroke of pure genius!

166. BK613 - August 27, 2008

161
apparently you and I are both passionate about ST. no doubt about that. :-)

your saying:

all I’m saying is

(gaps totaled = about 10 years)

the dialogue isn’t invalidated by either interpretation so IMO there isn’t enough information to say with absolute certainty that one or the other is canon. There is no dialogue saying that time passed between the 5YM and the 2.5 years but there also is no dialogue that explicitly states that Kirk went straight into his CSO position upon completing the 5YM. The viewer is left to interpret the amount of time between the 5YM and TMP and viewer interpretations are not canon. IMO.

There is certainly possibilities for Kirk in the intervening gap (assuming that it happened) that have precedence: Promotion to Fleet Captain like Chris Pike before him. Command of a starbase like Commodores Stone or Mendez. Command of a task force like Commodore Wesley. More likely IMO than leap-frogging from starship commander to admiral…without stopping at the established ranks along the way.

167. BK613 - August 27, 2008

grrr ate my ASCII art so none ASCII art version

5YM I 2.5yrs I TMP I 7-8years I TWOK

5YM I gap I 2.5 yrs I TMP I gap I TWOK

insert those under your saying i’m saying

168. eagle219406 - August 27, 2008

124: “I’m not going to go over it again, step by step, but the “proof” you ask for is in the simple mathematics.”

Here is another mathmatical equasion that you never considered. TMP could have taken place 5 years after the 5YM with TWOK taking place 5 years after that. 5+5+5=15. There was nothing to say that TWOK took place 7.5 years after TMP. Also the 2.5 years line could mean anything. He could have been doing an inspection tour of a ship where he was forced to take temporary command, hence logging a star hour.

169. Closettrekker - August 27, 2008

#168—Of course I have considered that, but you obviously haven’t been reading my posts, nor do you remember the dialogue in TMP, apparently.

“…5 years out there dealing with unknowns”.

If there were two 5-year missions, he would have said, “10 years out there…”. He didn’t. He said 5.

5+2.5=7.5 (amount of time between the start of the 5-year mission and TMP).

7.5+7.5=15 (amount of time between “Space Seed” and TWOK)

Even if you concoct a hypothetical scenario (one that tiptoes around the dialogue) which leaves a bigger gap, it cannot involve Jim Kirk in command of a starship, especially for another 5 years.

The “2.5 year line” is reinforced by Kirk telling Scotty that he has been COSFO for 2.5 years. It is not just the “star hours”.

He only has “5 years out there dealing with unknowns”, hasn’t “logged a single star hour in 2.5 years”, and has been serving “2.5 years as COSFO”.

Sorry. Shoot that one down too…again. How many times are you guys going to suggest the same things which continue to contradict the dialogue? Just watch the movie and pay attention…

170. Alex Rosenzweig - August 27, 2008

#147 – “Is your chronology online somewhere?”

Actually, it isn’t right now, but drop me a line at alexr@tellurian.com and I’ll send it to you.

171. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 28, 2008

#169 … Ok, you’ve officially exceeded the nerd capacity of this thread. Time to get back out on the sales floor and sell some armoires! :-)

172. Closettrekker - August 28, 2008

#171—It was my understanding that this thread had “unlimited nerd capacity”. When did I exceed the “nerd limit”, and what is the fine for such an offense?

173. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 28, 2008

#172 … Anytime you’re using math to defend your position on Star Trek, it’s time to go outside and get some sun!

174. Closettrekker - August 28, 2008

#173—I walked outside a minute ago to empty my office trash. It’s friggin’ hot and humid. I’ll stay inside in the air-conditioning (I pay good money for it).

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