Lindelof: Star Trek Needed A Batman-like Reboot September 1, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Creative, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof is considered part of the ‘hardcore fan’ wing of Star Trek’s new ‘Supreme Court. In a new interview, Lindelof discusses the ’state of the union’ of Trek and also dives into the whole ‘Shatner in the movie’ debate.
Excerpts from the AMC SciFi Scanner Blog.
SciFi Scanner: You’ve said the episode of Lost where Desmond travels through time is an homage to Star Trek [in a TrekMovie interview]. Did you approach the upcoming film as a fanboy?
Damon Lindelof: I had a real reverence for the material, but more importantly, for the world and how special that world is, and how long it’s persevered. I watched a fair amount of the original and I really watched a lot of Next Generation. The first series of meetings we had were along the lines of: What is the State of the Union of Trek, and has it been brought to a place where people will resent our involvement because we’re coming from the outside? I think it’s like how with Batman, it got to the point where there was more press about the nipples on the Batsuit than there was about the characters, and the franchise needed a reboot.
SciFi Scanner: William Shatner has been very vocal about his displeasure in not having a place in the film. How did you react?
Damon Lindelof: Mr. Shatner created Kirk, so I understand and sympathize with his feelings about what his role — or lack of a role — in our movie was. That being said, Kirk died; he fell down a cliff face. That made it incredibly challenging for us to tell the story we wanted to tell and figure out a way for William Shatner, who is now several years older than Kirk was when he died, to be in the movie. It’s an incredibly ambitious movie on a technical scale. I can say with confidence that we achieved what we set out to achieve, and that’s all you can ask for.
From more from Lindelof on Trek, Lost, and other projects, see the AMC SciFi Scanner blog.
He used the R word! – Don’t panic
To date the Star Trek team have been careful in the terminology they use. Although many franchise fans use the word ‘reboot’ when talking about an approach to canon, ‘reboot’ is also used in terms of reintroducing a franchise to a new audience and also re-invigorating a franchise’s popularity. In fact, Lindelof has been known to call the film a ‘re-invigoration.’ From what TrekMovie has learned about the new film, it certainly is not a ‘reboot’ in terms of continuity the same way Batman Begins relates to the previous Batman films (if it were, would Lindelof care about the continuity of Kirk dying in Generations?). However, in discussions with various people involved in the new Star Trek film, Batman Begins is often held up as an example of how a franchise successfully came back after some unsuccessful outings.
Related: TrekMovie.com interviews with Damon Lindelof:
February 2008 Part 1, February 2008, Part 2
Lindelof at Comic Con
Loading ...
Comments»
deleted
If the new Star Trek is as good as Batman Begins, it will do very well indeed.
If Batman could pull back after ‘Batman and Robin,’ Trek can pull back from Nemesis.
At first glance I thought the headline said “Star Trek needed a Batman-like ROBOT”.
That would have been wicked cool…
;-)
It’s very risky going into something like this while comparing your movie to Batman Begins. Batman Begins, and Casino Royale for that matter, represents how well-done franchise reinventions can be (though, as we know, this one is different as it fits with canon). My only hope is that it is comparable to Batman Begins and Casino Royale, and not Rob Zombie’s abysmal Halloween reinvention.
#4: That’s exactly what I read, too. :)
See, I don’t get the Casino Royale thing. I thought that movie was HORRIBLY boring. They spent an hour and a half at a card game. The beginning and ending scenes were cool, though.
they should have done the x-men CGI thing with kirk and spock to make them look younger
@ yay blogs: Sorry, but that scene in X-Men 3 just looks wrong. I’m not talking story here. But when you watch that scene their faces just look wrong.
It’s even worse in that car ad where they de-age Sean Connery till he looks like he did in the Bond movies. I don’t know if that is running where you live but it looks extremely fake.
All of these younger folks involved with Trek cannot hurt at all. I think that a lot of people are going to totally dig the 2009 movie, but a few ‘purists’ are going to complain about stuff not being canon.
To me, it’s the heart behind the scenes and the interaction between the characters on-screen that really make or break a movie. If J.J. and gang preserve (and perhaps enhance) the character interaction we saw with Kirk, Spock and McCoy in TOS and the various films, plus infuse it with modern-day effects and some creativity, I think most of us will be in for a great piece of entertainment.
May 2009 can’t come soon enough for me. :-D
You know after watching the preview episode of the pilot called FRINGE by Writers J.J. Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci… All I can say is… that my original fear about having these people do Star Trek has just been amplified a thousand fold!!!
MI:III was dreadful! It was poorly written and not very original. Lost is good but then Lost isn’t J.J’s alone anymore… it’s just floating out there and slowly dying now, but it had an amazing run… I still love the show but the last season was just a slap in the face.
Back to this new series by the same writers who’ll bring us Star Trek 0. They did such a poor job on the script and dialogue that I fear what’s going to be in this new Trek movie.
They dialogue was horrible, very amateurish and sometimes childish. It was very think on writing on the nose on more than one occasion, all this and more made me really angry and afraid of them being in TOTAL control of the new Trek movie.
People may argue and say well the company supported them so it must be good. Correction they supported them on the basis that they had no idea what to do with Star Trek anymore since they were the reason Enterprise fell out of the skies. Further more they simply thought that J.J’s rep is so good he MUST be good. So they were sold on his vision but then since we don’t know anything about it, who knows just how good it really was??!!!!??
Second thing to remember is this, just cause the cast members and those working on the movie compliment it to the skies and beyond the afterlife, is quite simply because they WANT us to be hyped up enough to secure the DUMB box office money to spawn another movie.. hence more work for them. If enough people go in to watch it based on the hype it might actually bring back quite a lot of the investment to begin with.
Is this another Batman Begins? I doubt it… it’s simply because it’s got too many variables to live up to the hype. It’s probably going to boast of tons of eye candy.. sure, that’s always nice… and old Trek fans will get nostalgic and watch it anyway… much like people watched Star Wars I,II and III, even though we knew it was nothing like the originals.
So the big question is… will it be good enough to pull us in for a sequel?
And will we forgive them for their ‘brave’ new take on our favorite characters?
Then… will they ever work in Hollywood again if they ruin Star Trek? ;)
“That being said, Kirk died; he fell down a cliff face. That made it incredibly challenging for us to tell the story we wanted to tell and figure out a way for William Shatner, who is now several years older than Kirk was when he died, to be in the movie.”
That one quote shows that they are respecting canon in the movie, which makes me very pleased. My concerns about this film have been largely laid to rest by the recent comments by both the production staff and actors and the above quote is one of the many reasons why. I think that this movie is going to be great and if it revitalizes Star Trek like “Batman Begins” did for Batman then I’ll be extremely happy. Let’s hope May 2009 is a huge month for Star Trek!
Good good! So is this our first official clarification that it is a “reboot?” Or should it still be taken loosely?
Thanks Anthony!
…Gah, I’m going blind. First glimpse of that headline, and i thought it said “Star Trek Needed A Batman-like Robot”
[bangs head on wall]
Well, this interview just contradicts on so many levels. How can this movie be respectful to canon AND be a reboot at the same time? KirK’s death in GEN is definitely old stuff, this movie – if compared to CASINO ROYALE or BATMAN BEGINS must be a new timeline / new take! So and older Kirk may still be alive in this series’ future…
What bothers me: I could live with both, a genuine reboot OR a real prequel…but we’re obviously getting a little bit of everything. This can’t be good.
Obviously they just want to figure out general interested in the franchise. That’s why they’re offering us this two-headed creature of a movie:
If the movie works, they will instantly screw the prequel concept and start an entirely new run with TOS and all further Trek as a source material like comic books, but with an entirely new conuity. I bet we’re gonna see Kirk facing the Borg and the Q!
If the movie doesn’t really work out financially they’re gonna make it look like a genuine prequel to TOS with some SFX updates so that they can milk the remainders of the old franchise and market this one as some sort new introduction as if nothing has happened.
That’s their strategem. The only thing that brightens my view is in fact Nimoy’s appreciation of the script. He’s retired a long time ago. He wasn’t looking for a job and he did that just because he liked it! So maybe it isn’t that bad after all.
As for good old Trek, Phase II is most certainly the better option. I hope Paramount isn’t gonna pull the plug on this one as they produce far better instellaments these days than anything Voyager seasons 6+7 or Enterprise years 1+2 had to offer. Phase II is it! This movie may just be another step in the wrong direction. Hopefully it’s not!
I have added a note at the end. Reboot is a term that means different things to different people, I am fairly certain that Lindelof did not mean it in terms of the ‘throw out all the canon’ view.
#16: How many ‘reintroductions’ that don’t destroy the established canon are there? ONE! Doctor Who! And that’s set AFTER the original series so it doesn’t have to mess with the lore.
Now, there are dozens of R-productions that don’t care about canon at all. Just to name the most popular:
Ron Moore’s BSG
Batman Begins
Casino Royale
Rob Zombie’s Halloween
probably the new Superman movie
Sarah Connor Chr. erasing T3 and all subsequent movies
Transformers
Okay, there is the new Knight Rider, but that one at least screws Knight Rider 2000 and the aweful TKR series…
There is no reason to asume JJ or the writers really care about the old timeline no matter what they say in some interviews. And I wouldn’t either! But than they should go out and ADMIT that this is an entirely new start. Not clearyl labeling it as an outright reboot is far more unfair to the fanbase. I certainly won’t get my hopes up. This movie most certainly won’t fit into the old timeline and it’s sequels (should there be any) won’t fit FOR SURE!
Why caring about a 40 year old TV chronology anyway if they can milk and exploit some popular icons and assemble them into 3 or 5 blockbusters that could make billions of dollars? Come on, that origin story may work as both a prequel and a reboot but for a sequel, they really have to forget about the old canon! It may, if we are very lucky, still respect some IDEAS and PRINCIPLES but not the CANON!
This may be a good thing and may result in a far better product than TOS and the old movies all together. It will be far more condensed though. You may see a kick-ass Doomsday Machine, Klingons, Romulans and Tribbles in one gigantic movie. But it won’t fit with anything seen on TOS! It’s an entirely new version…get used to that thought!
Yankees?! oh paleeese….Go Sox!
The new movie will be different than what we are used to. No doubt about it.
It will be hard enough for us fans to swallow new actors in the iconic roles no matter how good the story and effects are. Reboots with new actors in iconic characters is always very difficult—and often more so when there are too many similarities. I had faith that Singer could pull-off the Superman reboot—until I saw the suit. Then there was the story…the wrong Lois….and character motivation issues. Playing a modified version of John Williams theme only served to remind me that I wasn’t looking at Christopher Reeve.
Ugghhhh. This is not going to be easy.
It’s beyond obvious that, in a fandom where people take minutae like whether or not the “delta” insignia was used throughout Starfleet or only on the Enterprise or exactly when first contact with the Klingons “occurred”, this film will not be reconcilable with the “Star Trek Universe” that has existed up until now.
The way this will work is: if people really like the film, they’ll decide on a gut level that they want it to be part of the continuity and they’ll construct elaborate explanations for each deviation. If they don’t like the film, they’re going to be livid at the liberties taken.
Will Spock now have rubber nipples???
#12 – You are so wrong. Lost is one of the most annoying shows in the history of television. Everything else that JJ has touched is golden. I hope they tear canon a new one. Bring in the characters only and shake up the history all to hell!!!!!!
#15 – Don’t worry. It will be all good.
Oh, no! Lindelof is a Yankees fan? BOO! Go Mets!
@11
It sounds like your whole post concerns your thoughts on Fringe, so let me go with that in my response.
Having seen that Fringe pilot, I agree that there were some rough elements to it. But it is just that, a pilot, and an incomplete one at that. Sure, the FX and editing seemed to be mostly in place, but the music was all looped in from other sources, mostly Michael Giacchino compositions (Lost being the main one). So who’s to say they didn’t reshoot or add some material for the final version next week? Even if they don’t change a frame though, things will solidify over the first few episodes. Most shows have to iron out little things at the start. See, oh, I don’t know, every Star Trek series to date. Or to get closer to a Fringe connection, how about the X-Files? The characters were solid out of the gate, but the whole alien conspiracy arc didn’t really become the major element of the show it was until the second season. So don’t just judge a show based solely on a leaked pilot. We don’t really know what’s around the corner yet for Fringe.
And you just lost me in the 2nd paragraph. M:I:iii was a pretty good movie. Solid action, great characterizations, and the whole thing wasn’t a big confusing mess the way M:I:ii was (or the crappy plot behind the first movie, but neither of those involved Abrams & co. so I’ll leave it at that). It was as much a movie version of Alias as it was an excellent homage to the original M:I series.
As for Lost. Are you sure you actually watched the 4th season and not a replay of the 2nd? It was the most consistent season of the show so far, and there’s a real drive to it now that it has an established ending point. Actually, come to think of it, the season was a slap to the face – that’s what I found myself doing to be sure it was actually happening!
And it wasn’t Paramount itself that had lost its way on Trek so much as Berman. He was a good leader in the early 90s, but his work on ENT shows just how stale things had gotten with him at the helm. Same reason Stargate TV has really faded in quality over the last few seasons; same people doing the same writing for far too long.
Trek has had plenty of issues with stale dialog and storytelling, particularly through the runs of VOY & ENT. I actually AM willing to consider reputation when it comes to Abrams & co. The real parting point for us seems to be what we judge that reputation to be. You see bad dialog and scripts; I see fine dialog and excellent scripts. They know how to tell stories worthy of the big screen, no matter what medium they’re in. It will certainly be an improvement for Trek, given how some of the movies are little grander than episodes.
I’m going to withhold any judgment on this film, however, until I see the next trailer and the final product.
I don’t think that this film will be a bomb, I see that people are having a hard time digesting the Idea that Trek might change a little, but I figure it is no big deal. I don’t think it will be a reboot in the sence that it will change everything…but it WILL breath new life into Star Trek. so if it goes off Cannon is OK with Me.
also GO CUBS!
CANNON, CANNON, CANNON!
there was next to no back story on the original series & the episodes were almost all entirly stand alone episodes so there is planty of wiggle room for a prequell & sequells- RELAX
I also think that Judgement should be held off until we see the movie!!!
That does it !!!
I’ll catch this movie on cable… If I have the time !
I thought MI:III was brilliant! It was engrossing, surprising and action packed. It totally fulfilled my expectations and I suspect Trek will as well.
I just wish we didn’t have to wait 9 months to see the movie!
The Insider (#11),
Just to flip the coin on your points of debate…
I like what I’ve seen of Fringe so far. The premise seems interesting and the characters have intelligence and wit. Of course, I’ll reserve final judment until I see the whole thing, but nothing so far has given me reason to complain.
MI:III is my favorite film of the series, and the one most like the original TV show. It’s fast-paced, but also reveals some great character moments. They’re not just just action figures going through the motions. There are reasons why they do what they do and many of their actions had unforeseen repercussions. The film also looks absolutely gorgeous, adding a cool visual style to the mix.
I don’t watch Lost, but I’m a big fan of Abrams’ previous show, Alias. That show foundered a bit when JJ stepped away from the day-to-day oversight, but jumped right back on track when he returned to the center seat. Everything I’ve seen of his work shows me he’s got what it takes to do this.
I also really enjoyed Transformers (written by Orci and Kurtzman), even though I was no fan of the toys or the cartoon. Again, it had incredible action, plus more genuine character moments than you find in most Michael Bay films.
I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. If you don’t like the filmmaking styles of the people involved, then the chances are you might not like this new movie. On the other hand, isn’t it possible, just possible, that the stars might be aligning for Trek and these guys might be able to do it justice? I like what I’ve seen these people do, so I’m more willing to believe they’ll get it right. That doesn’t make me right and you wrong. It simply means that we have different opinions. And the great thing about opinions is, they can change, if we keep an open mind.
Yeah, all the great stuff being said by the actors and crew must be taken with a grain of salt. There’s no way they’re going to badmouth a potential summer blockbuster. But I prefer to think that, if they didn’t like how the project was going, they’d keep their mouths shut instead of spinning yarns that will obviously come back to haunt them later. Try to keep an open mind, and judge for yourself this summer when the film hits theaters. All we can do is cross our fingers and hope for the best.
” … the franchise needed a reboot.”
Finally, somebody just said it for what it is.
And Rubber nipples
“I have added a note at the end. Reboot is a term that means different things to different people, I am fairly certain that Lindelof did not mean it in terms of the ‘throw out all the canon’ view.”
With all due respect, Anthony – and I mean that very sincerely – why are you always acting as an apologist for these guys? Every time there’s a new quote or interview from one of these people, you post a commentary that basically says they didn’t say what they actually said. “Oh he said reboot but I’m sure he really meant something else.” Sincerely, why are you taking that role upon yourself? Are you acting as their fan liason, officially or unofficially? Are you being remunerated? Do you feel you have to give them coverage in the best possible light to continue to have access to them? Or are you so supportive of the idea of this movie that you’ve taken it upon yourself to make things sound as good as possible to the persnickity TOS fans? Can’t you just be a reporter and report what they say, and let people draw their own conclusions? The guys making this movie, they are very savy people. They have been successful in a very competitive business and I’m sure they know wxactly what they’re saying, to whom they’re saying it, and why. Just let them speak for themselves and continue reporting that in the generally excellent way your site has been operating.
What’s the point of a reboot if it doesn’t jettison “Generations” from the canon?
It is all about context. If people draw the conclusion that this film deals with Trek canon the same way Batman Begins deals with past Batman films, that is an inaccurate conclusion. I know this as a basic fact. I am not ‘apologizing’ I am reporting the facts.
I like MI:III best of the three MI movies but I was not in love with it however that plays in JJ’s Star Trek. So after reading so much about this movie, I feel that we are in for a very good entertaining, action packed, movie that will probably do well.. I don’t expect a TOS look or feel nor an imitation of the original actors portraying the iconic characters. I expect some inconsistencies with established canon but not significant changes to canon. I have no reason to believe that JJ is misleading the fans in any way or out to overhaul canon or destroy what came before. I look at this movie as I do the classic Bond movies with Sean Connery and the modern Bond movies with Brosnan and Craig, very different in tone, the modern versions much more action, SFX filled.. and I appreciate viewing both versons and that’s how I approach this new Star Trek movie, I may appreciate a great deal while still appreciating the original series.. both can coincide in this universe..
Re #20: I’ll take it one step further, Dennis. Either the new movie will be so good that people will accept the new paradigm and sign on happily for sequels; or it will be so foreign/off-the-mark/bad that the general public will say, “whatever” and won’t come back for more, and the long-time fans will leave in a huff and go curl up with their Concordances and Trek DVDs, and (any potential new) Trek will fade away….
I’m hoping for the former myself.
Scott B. out.
4.cellojammer,
I thought the exact same thing about the headline. I had to give it a second look myself.
#26 – CANON CANON CANON – Jeez, if you’re gonna shout, can you at least use the right word? It’s kind of ironic that those who are most vocal about respecting tiny details tend to not spell the word correctly.
I just hope it’s a good, exciting, intelligent, emotional movie. I want my non-fan wife to love it. I think it would be foolish to make the nostalgic trappings unrecognizable, and hope that the sets, costumes and props evoke the original series. But no one should get worked up about the color of the knob on a phaser, or whether Gary Mitchell is there or not. If the writing and acting portray Spock, Kirk, and McCoy correctly, we’re 80% there.
I am so thrilled that there is new life being brought to the TOS world that I love so much that I don’t care if it is a REBOOT, or a REINTRODUCTION, or a REIMAGINATION…
…it’s better than having nothing but RERUNS to watch for the last 39 years… To me the terminology that they use is not that important.
Fact: JJ’s Trek is going to be different.
Fact: Everyone involved seems to love and respect Trek.
Fact: After many years of waiting… STAR TREK LIVES!
By the way, what movie COULDN’T use a Batman-like Robot? It would sell as many tickets as Batman AND Iron Man put together!
Come to think of it, J.J. could rebrand his company from “Bad Robot” to “Bat Robot”! That’s synergy right there, my friends.
Star Trek is Star Trek.
No matter what anyone does with the series or movies, we the fans are the ones who should not judge what is presented. Remember Spock’s Brain on TOS, The Game on STNG?
Did we leave the universe? No. Star Trek is a part of culture and a future that we would love to have happen, except for the Borg, I wouldn’t wish that on any race.
So, those that don’t like the poor episodes and movies, that’s ok. I’m one of the idiots that likes Star Trek V. Story is good and I wish that Paramount would let Shatner redo the movie with the ending that he wanted instead of what got shot.
I have been a huge Trek fan since I was 6, and I have no problem with Mr. Shatner not being in this movie. Spock is a very specific and defined character, as was said in another thread, so having Leonard Nimoy is not such a deal. To have Shatner in the film would have limited Chris Pine in ways that would have destroyed this film. He would have had to emulate the acting style, and it would have screamed “Cheese” louder than Billy Mays. :)
Dave
@30 BuckarooHawk – thanks for response to @11.
Saved me all that typing!
To reiterate the fourth season of Lost ROCKED!
Great answers Damon especially in regards to the Shat.
…the adventure continues…
He’s more of a TNG fan than a TOS fan – what does he care about it?
I’ve never understood their reasoning of “Shatner’s Kirk is dead so he can’t be in this movie.” Doesn’t the film jump from time period from time period? Whether or not someone’s dead is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to time travel stories. There’s no reason they couldn’t have the narrative “jump” to the Movie era and have Shatner play the character, even though I don’t like the movie era.
Their reasoning still doesn’t hold up for me.
#45 – Because Shatner didn’t want a small part or cameo…
Re: 41. Odkin -
” Come to think of it, J.J. could rebrand his company from “Bad Robot” to “Bat Robot”! ”
As long as he does not change the name to “Bad Reboot”…
;-]
24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 and …32(?)
I couldn’t agree with you more.
It seems to me that those who have decided that the new Trek movie will suck have made up their minds – even without giving the new film a fighting chance. If Star Trek ended-up being the best Trek Movie EVER, the the folks whose childhoods have been raped and pillaged by CGI, a new cast, different nacelles, CBS Digital, a different Enterprise and Dolby Digital 7.1 will find a way to HATE HATE HATE this movie. So what if The Fringe was shaky? So What if Lost wasn’t your cup of tea? So What if Cloverfield did sit well with you? This is Trek, a franchise that has been tweaked and reinvented several times, and has managed to draw an audience and make some money along the way. The ship has changed, and been blown-up…The crew has grown-old…died…and been resurrected…The stewardship of the brand has changed hands…and it is still Trek! If you think that this movie sucks before it’s release or that you know exactly what the storyline is based on a few photos and interviews, then good for you! There are always the untouched VHS (or beta) copies of TOS for you to watch over and over again, while the rest of us can sit back and enjoy some newfangled Star Trek on the big screen reinvigorated with a new cast, a familiar face and an even more familiar ship.
Reboot…reinvent..reinvigorate…whatever; a fresh dose of Trek is welcome thing to me, IMO.
“Is it possible that we two, you and I, have gotten so old that we have outlived our usefulness? Would that constitute a joke?”
—–Captain Spock, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Who cares what this guy thinks!!!! I want James Cawley as chief exec of the new film.
#21
spock always had rubber nipples, seven of them, just not where you could see them. so much of vulcan physiology remains unexplored. except by maybe trip, and he’s dead.
This movie will give “faith” back into Star Trek. I feel it. That ” faith” of “Where no man has gone before”. Anyways, I have faith that J.J. Abrams did his best to direct this “reboot” of Trek and at by the end of next May we’ll all see (By the way, I loved Mission Impossible III as well ;) )
I want a Batman-like Robot!
Star Trek is a fantasy universe created in another mans mind. It is the best and most hopeful science fiction model of what I think the world should be eventually, that I have ever seen. It’s not TOS or TNG. It’s not William Shatner or Zach Quinto. Star Trek is a fictional fantasy created by Gene Roddenberry. It grew so loved that some of the fans, have become a bit possessive. In some cases, fans tend to think its already real, and happening right now. Unless someone on this comment threat decides that they want to produce a new Star Trek movie, then why not just hear that someone as talented as J.J. is going to direct the new Star Trek movie. Love that its a prequel, or a reboot, or both, don’t hate it. How easily the franchises and movies that we love become the targets of our hate.
We should all feel lucky that Star Trek is still being made by anyone, after all, once upon a time, the show was canceled. The Star Trek dream was over.
We should consider ourselves lucky.
Peace and Long Life
To Paramount Pictures:
A few years ago you gave Robert Wise a chance to go back and do a Director’s edition of Star Trek The Motion Picture. Would you consider giving William Shatner the opportunity for Star Trek V? Upon watching the collector’s edition DVD, I realized Shatner’s story and vision was radically reduced by almost everyone involved in the production of that movie from writers to producers to special effects technicians to the guy who was supposed to make the rockman costume. I believe his idea for that movie, if done to his vision, could’ve resulted in one of the best Trek movies. I’m sure Shatner felt cheated to a degree, or maybe he should have, or maybe he is too classy to say so, because his movie was taken away from him. Maybe as redemption for not allowing him in the new movie, Shatner should be given a chance to go back, re-edit, shoot new effects, maybe some new shots, so the fans and he can see what he really intended, a truly wonderful and exciting Star Trek movie. I for one would love to see the first ending for that movie as written, as Kirk and crew find this “alien” it turns about to be the devil and demons come out of the bowels of the planet.
Thank you for your time.
#17 and others- Alternatate timeline theory….
Don’t forget- don’t *ever* forget that with the use of time-travel in the plot, the writers have an all-powerful ‘reset’ button. The ‘future history’ of all of our beloved characters can all be altered with just one glitch in the timeline. Nothing that comes after will have to happen as we ‘remember’ it. Canon then only becomes meaningful as a framework upon which ‘future’ concepts and storylines are based.
Clean slate. Same characters with nothing etched in canonical stone.
Ironically, then only ‘Enterprise’ is canon.
Star Trek V was interesting that it had to do with “God”. But Shatner was on a tight budget for that movie. Sometimes I wonder about Paramount.
If writing a way around Kirk’s death in Generations was the stumbling block, they didn’t try very hard.
#57
With the altered timeline theory I offered in comment 55, Shat could quite easily be written into the next movie.
If there is a next movie.
Well, the way it looks, this movie has to do with Spock and the Romulans. Plain and simple. The old Kirk isn’t there… cause he is DEAD! Everyone get over it. The old Kirk is dead (hence he died in Generations). Only Spock can come back from the 24th century.
If Shatner would do a cameo at the end of the movie when old Spock returns to his own time after Nemesis. Old Kirk could be alive he never fell over the cliff to his death. And it would be the right number of years after Generations for how old Shatner is now. The big surprise ending for us and Spock, so Spock gives his big smile to see his captain again. Some how Spock has changed the past and Kirk lives. It’s too late now the time as pasted Shatner.
# 56
Don’t get me started on how Paramount shortchanged Shat on Trek V. It was almost like they didn’t want him to succeed in the theaters; then they wouldn’t pony up a few extra bucks to allow him to try to repair the ending for the DVD version.
A little more visually generated suspense at the end of the movie would have garnered better word-of-mouth for Trek V when it was originally released theatrically- for certain.
It could be ‘fixed’ today for a fraction of the cost. Why didn’t the suits approve it? [Yeah, I know. Money, like always...] Maybe on Blu-Ray release?
I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation.
To me, steve short, ……… that doesn’t make sense!
To #61: Oh I know.. it could have been a better movie, but like you said it was short-changed.
49. TL –
“Who cares what this guy thinks!!!! I want James Cawley as chief exec of the new film.”
Go back to your fanfic and filk-singing, Trekkie.
Okay that was harsh.
For this movie to be successful and give potential to more ST movies in the future, more than the original fans are going to have to like it…..no if, ands or buts….who today would sit through and episode of TOS remade on that scale…I have too many young friends who talk about TNG, VOY and ENT but don’t like or really get TOS due to it’s style and age….I understand the purists wanting more of the original but I’m sorry to say, it’s not gonna happen…A reboot, re-invigoration, re-imagining…whatever the devil you want to call it is the best that we can hope for and we should be greatful this is even getting done in the first place…so, if you want to judge it before you even see it, then go ahead but you are really making it hard for lot’s of us to want to visit this sight anymore with the amount of negativity you spew….I guess IDIC means nothing to you if you can’t at least try to give some “diversity” a chance…I love Shatner “Denny Crane” but can’t really imagine him being “Kirk” anymore…it would seem to violate canon to see him older than when he died in Generations, and why does time travel have to alter what we are about to see in May as being an alternate universe? After watching ENT marathon this weekend, there was so much that seemed a direct violation of what we call canon…Please, give these writers and directors some Kudos for even attempting to do a movie like this and giving us a glimmer of hope that Trek is not dead and gone….
Mr. Nimoy was quoted as saying “I don’t know if I entirely understand this script”
Added to — Reboot, Re-Invigoration, Re-Imagining: The fact that those involved with this film have no idea how to define it – is concern enough for me.
#16 – That was soert of how I saw it, too, Anthony. I think he meant more like rebooting a computer: a restart, and one that gets rid of the gunk, but not something that completely changes the system.
#20 – “It’s beyond obvious that, in a fandom where people take minutae like whether or not the “delta” insignia was used throughout Starfleet or only on the Enterprise or exactly when first contact with the Klingons “occurred”, this film will not be reconcilable with the “Star Trek Universe” that has existed up until now.”
That may fall under the concept of visual canon vs. storytelling canon. I think we all realize on some level that beyond the gross generalities, the visual canon isn’t going to be matched up precisely with TOS. This film won’t be reconcilable in that sense. But will it hold to storytelling canon? The folks involved have seemed to imply that it will.
‘Course, there’s already visual evidence that the delta shield wasn’t exclusive to the Enterprise, and sourcebooks all the way back to Franz Joseph applied it to the whole StarFleet, so this film wouldn’t be the first to have that interpretation. ;) And as for all the rest, well, until I see a script, or the film (whichever comes first), I’ll have to reserve judgment on whether they’ve changed things enough to be irreconcilable.
‘Course, maybe I’m not the one to ask. I saw almost nothing irreconcilable about “Enterprise” vs TOS, for example, while some other folks thought it completely impossible that ENT and TOS could be in the same world. ;)
This movie will be successful because of the Abrams minions of the world. I’ve heard so many Lost fans say “I’m glad that Abrams is taking on Star Trek, something that’s really lame and played out and making it cool.”
As for what this is, I have a feeling this is both going to respect the timeline at first(since somehow it seems time travel is involved) and that somehow, the time travel aspect will then lead to an erasing of established events somehow. That way it is both fitting with the existing world but also a reboot.
That’s what I fear it is. If that’s what it is, at least they found a way to make it work for their own purposes. I, however, will just presume that Trek is MIA until someone ignores such a world… or maybe even writes a movie where-in some more time line repairs happen. Hey, maybe that’s what happens- this movie, they alter the timeline, then maybe 3 down the line they fix it so that these movies are essentially non-existent… or some such crap. Either way, I don’t think this movie will keep the “history” of Trek intact by its end.
We’ll see.
#68 – To be fair, though, what about cases where Trek’s canon itself was inconsistent? In the earliest days of TOS, while they were still figuring things out, there were different terms used in different episodes. Kirk’s middle initial was originally “R”. And so forth. If one is going to make a film set in that time period, one is going to have to decide what version of the facts one will follow. No matter what choice one makes, it’s going to contradict something.
The creative team on “Star Trek (’09)” understood that. I don’t know if I’ll agree with every one of their choices, but I respect that they have to make them, and in that sense, the “Supreme Court” analogy is an apt one.
#33
It’s called a preemptive strike. Having worked on this site for as long as he has, Anthony knows everyone will go apesh*t, and thus is trying to put some water on the fire before it explodes. Sadly, trying to put those future fires out just ends up starting new ones, so it’s kind of a wash. Besides, Lindelof didn’t call Trek a reboot, he was referring to Batman, so Anthony’s clarification based on the numerous interviews conducted before this one seems valid. Everyone on the film has made it clear continuity is a big deal to them.
#45
I’ll give you a pretty damned good reason – Shatner looks NOTHING like he did in the movie era. He’s 14 years older than when he died onscreen and not in the same physical condition. You really want them to jump to a Trek II-IV timeline and try to make us believe that’s the same guy at the same age? I don’t think so.
#54, 56, 61
Trek V was broken from the get go. Yes, the shite visual effects didn’t help, but that story was HIGHLY flawed from the start. A Director’s Cut is not going to fix the story problems and plot holes big enough to lose a starship in. And unless they can CGI the entire Planet of Galactic Peace subplot out of the movie along with Laurence Lukinbill, the least Romulan Romulan ever, Marshmellons and Uhura and Scotty gettin’ it on, it ain’t worth it. I don’t blame Paramount for being reluctant to spend one more dollar on Trek V.
70. sean
And let me add getting to the center of the galaxy in…what…a week or so? Through a Great Barrier of energy that packs all the punch of an anemic bank of fog?
Let’s not forget the “out of character” moments for the secondary cast. Their scenes were just silly. Totally unworthy of the characters.
Luckinbill did fine with the material he was given, but a brother of Spock coming completely out of left field just doesn’t ring true.
Did I read somewhere that Shatner actually wanted the adversary to be God Himself, and not just a masquerading alien? Yikes. That’s got disaster written all over it. No amount of CG rock men or demons would have saved this mess.
Keep in mind all this is coming from someone who quite liked and defended Trek V at first.
If the upcoming movie is a reboot, so be it. For the record, I believe it’s more of a “fill in the gaps” story. I can live with some alterations as long as they’re minor and make sense.
But whatever it is, BRING IT ON!
#20 – I completely agree.
I always wonder what the surprises in this movie will be.
We already know that it is some kind of prequel, that the crew of the Enterprise meets for the first time, that Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise, that old Spock and some Romulans travel back in time…
As this is a movie from JJ Abrams and it has been said that there are still many secrets we don’t know yet, what could those secrets be?
Cameo appearances? Clearly the most suprising appearance would be William Shatner as old Kirk, but Abrams said that he won’t be in the movie? Patrick Stewart als Picard?
I mean with what could Mr. Abrams suprise us the most which we don’t know yet?
Imagine JJ Abrams says: “Trek will be good”
Typical thread:
#1 Woo! First!
#2 He says Trek will be “good” but not “great”. I don’t think he has a lot of faith in this movie, otheriwse why be so lukewarm?
#3 Trek “will” be good? It’s already good! Just goes to show how much this new guy will respect the old show.
#4 I’m really concerned. To me “good” means the movie will be ‘nice’ and not have any of the character conflict that the old show had. I don’t want the characters to be bland and “good”. I want them to be real people.
#5 Abrams thought M:I3 was good and that sucked!
#6 How can it be good without Shatner in it?
…I’m just sayin’ ;-P
75. Nostromo,
Well, that rings pretty true. Excepting Shatner threads, of course.
#70-
#45
“I’ll give you a pretty damned good reason – Shatner looks NOTHING like he did in the movie era. He’s 14 years older than when he died onscreen and not in the same physical condition. You really want them to jump to a Trek II-IV timeline and try to make us believe that’s the same guy at the same age? I don’t think so.”
Take a look at the direct tv commercial! (2007)
“#54, 56, 61
Trek V was broken from the get go. Yes, the shite visual effects didn’t help, but that story was HIGHLY flawed from the start. A Director’s Cut is not going to fix the story problems and plot holes big enough to lose a starship in. And unless they can CGI the entire Planet of Galactic Peace subplot out of the movie along with Laurence Lukinbill, the least Romulan Romulan ever, Marshmellons and Uhura and Scotty gettin’ it on, it ain’t worth it. I don’t blame Paramount for being reluctant to spend one more dollar on Trek V.”
First there were alot of politics at Paramount against Shat. Laurence happens to be a friend of the family along with his wife, Lucy Arnaz. And I thought Laurence was good, it was Shat’s poor acting that pulled down the movie, and casting like Todd Bryant, Spice WIlliams, and whatever that Romulan Chick was. There is a fan version w/o the Scotty/Uhura thing, and the rest of the dumb attempts at comedy, which were forced upon the movie by Paramount because of Voyage Home
Dear Lindelof,
the kirk/spock era (Star Trek TOS and the first Six movies) do not need to be Rebooted.
the kirk/spock era (Star Trek TOS and the first Six movies) did not run it self into the ground like the 007 movies and batman movies did.
The thing in Star Trek that needs Rebooted is the TNG era things.
The TNG era things did run themself into the ground like the 007 movies and batman movies did.
I feel that A TNG era Reboot with a new crew and new ship is needed to save Star Trek right now, not a re-write of TOS history.
Is The Star Trek’s “new” Supreme Court is filled with soul-less money-whoring, Dumb-Asses?
I feel it is a yes on that one.
All this double-talk about the new movie being some sort of kind of a mild reboot, but not really, more like a reinvigoration, indicates that the movie IS a reboot. If else it were a real Star Trek movie, why would you bother with all that verbal hide-and-seek?
The best reinvigoration would simply be a great movie. And the stories leading up to TOS are detached enough from the complex Trek universe to be accessible to anyone. No need to mess with canon and no need to throw in all those R-words in that case!
Why would messing with canon reinvigorate the franchise, anyway? I don’t see it. Rebooting Star Trek makes about as much sense as rewriting Shakespeare!
But those interviews with the producers clearly indicate that something else is going on. Whatever it may be -and they won’t tell us- it is uncalled for and the movie could have been successful without it. I conjecture that it’s simply reboot-mania raging in Hollywood, like: It worked great for Batman, why not apply the principle anywhere else? (BTW, it didn’t work for Galactica, which is a terrible installment. I only watch it because Starbuck is so hot!)
#78
For “reboot” try substituting “fresh start” or “back to basics”. Personally I think that’s what Trek is crying out for and what I *hope* this film will represent.
It doesn’t strictly require a prequel movie to do that, but since recent attempts to reinvigorate the franchise on TV have been about as invigorating as reheated left-overs rinsed down with a sip of lukewarm water, a prequel movie is not a terrible option.
On the specific approach being taken by this film, including recasting, redesigning costumes and sets etc. I’m pretty agnostic. We’ll see.
The only thing that gives me a little concern is the fact that this guy is obviously more into TNG than TOS. But he didn’t write the film, and JJ is just the opposite so I cautiously retain the hope that, despite Lindelof’s preference, he is smart enough to realize that TNG-style “Trek” is the very mediocre standard that eventually buried the franchise. TOS and TNG are NOTHING alike in their conception or execution and there is really no place for TNG elelments in a TOS era based film.
70, 76-
Nowhere did I say this was a great movie or that it even could be- it could have been a better movie.
For all of the lame or slapstick humor, the swearing just for the sake of swearing, the rotten SFX- I felt cheated by nothing but the ending as I left the theater that fateful evening.
The beloved characters were all in place and all acted within previously established norms [although exaggerated at times.-that happened n TOS’ TV run too, especially Season 3.
Tha ashes of the movie would not have been quite as bitter in my mouth with a credible climax.
Armed with info like that- most everyone agrees the ending should have been bette- if I wore a Paramount Suit I’d greenlight a modest amount to allow Shat to fix the FX and the ending.
It probably could be brought in under a million if given to some small company on the rise. Look at what Cawley brings in using volunteers.
#79: “Back to basics” is something I would be very happy with. But if it were just that, why would JJ, Orci, Lindelof etc. constantly engage in their obscure verbal maneuvers?
#82: I suspect that it’s because things like the uniforms, the sets and the exterior of the starship won’t look like they did back in the day – they’re trying to stick to storytelling canon, but leave themselves wiggle room to update the ‘look’ to something a little more modern. That’s just my guess, though.
To the person who is juding FRINGE by the incomplete pilot that is ont he web, that is just not fair. As someone else pointed out it was a rough edit without fnal music, new scenes, etc. It was never meant to be seen by the public.
I did watch it and found even this rough cut very good, although obviously unfinished. I have no doubt the finished pilot and series will be first rate.
It sounds like a few just don’t care for JJ Abams work and for those few they will probably find a reason to dislike the new Star Trek.
I loved Alias, missed getting to watch the first few episodes of LOST so never started, and enjoyed MI III so I for one have a high level of cofidence in JJ Abrams and the writign team.
Any writing team that can take the premise of Transformers and turn it into a decent script is amazing in my book! I saw the “After Film School” interview with the writers and love their philosophy of making their stories stand up without the special effects on their own based on plot, character interaction, etc and then when you put that in the context of all of the action / effects it becomes wonderful. Big budget effects movies but with good stories.
I agree with Lindelof that Star Trek need a Batman-like reboot but this XI movie is more like Superman Returns then Batman. We have GCI Brando in SR and XI movie has Nimoy.
If Lindeof wanted a reboot he should have let young actor stand by themselves. No Nimoy or Shatner or any other actors from TOS should be in this movie. Personally i think it was stupid having Shatner & co in Generations.
# 76 wes
Can you confirm the name of this ‘Star Trek V’ fan edit you refer to, as I’m interested in trying to track it down.
Is it the one by Jack Marshall called ‘Star Trek Phase 2: In thy image’?
Thanks.
#45 (I’ve never understood their reasoning of “Shatner’s Kirk is dead so he can’t be in this movie.” Doesn’t the film jump from time period from time period? Whether or not someone’s dead is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to time travel stories. )
Exactly. This is just lame ascuse for producer and writers to exclude Shatner from this XI movie but have Nimoy. I think they are trying to avoid alienating Shat fans so they use Kirk death in GEN for that.
Shatnerfan asks Why cant Shat be in XI movie?
Producers & co answers because he had died in GEN
Shatnerfans says isent this another time travel movie why dont old Nimoy put mattress:) or something where Kirk landed to his death in GEN and save him.
Producer say uhhh INTERVIEW IS OVER.
I am so tired of all the raging and ranting against this new film!!!
What is it you all exactly want? A new movie with the few remaining crew members? For heavens sakes, all of them seventies and eighties? That would mean a movie with no McCoy and no Scotty? Well I don’t want that at all, I want to see my heroes in their prime and as much as I love the original actors they are way too old to play these characters again, all except for Nimoy who is perfect for the aged Spock, absolutely perfect.
I’m beginning to like the term “restart” because that’s exactly what Star Trek needs, a fresh start which will not only bring great joy to the current Star trek fans but will bring in a whole new generation of fans and unlike the Star Wars prequels I trust this creative team way more that Lucas to get it right. Don’t forget Bob Orci often visits this site and engages with the fans; that shows me that these people care about what the fans think even months after filming. Frankly how many other film makers can you say that about?
As I stated above, what is it you exactly want from this film? I just don’t get the bile and the spite. To me this is a second bite at a beloved Cherry and I for one am waiting in great anticipation for next may!
62# Agent731
The new Star Trek movie it starts with old Spock sometime after Nemesis he goes back in time to save young Kirk from the time traveling Romulans. Old Spock could tell young Kirk all about Generations maybe in a mind melt. Generations still happens but Kirk doesn’t die. Picard and Kirk stop Soran and Soran is the only one to die. We don’t know about this change until the end of the new Star Trek movie when old Spock returns home to his time after Nemesis and there he is old Kirk waiting for him. The number of years from the end of Generations to the end of Nemesis is about how much older Kirk would be and Shatner is now.
#89
So Kirk would be 146 years old.
is that how old William Shatner is now then?
The point about Shatner is that any means of bringing him back alongside an older Spock would require so much explicit explanation as to alienate a potential new audience. It’s exactly this burdensome weight of recent continuity that a fresh start is intended to side-step. I’m actually suprised they even put Nimoy in the film, for that reason.
It’s all very well to say that ‘it’s SF so they can do anything’, but bringing old characters back from the dead is a horribly over-used device in media SF, one that IMHO should be used sparingly if at all. To have already done it with Spock is bad enough. To add to that by doing it for Kirk simply so that he can have a cameo in a film that’s supposed to be a new beginning seems counter-productive. (At least as counter-productive as his role in Generations.)
If we end up with the film creating a new timeline, it’s perfectly possible Kirk will live in this version of history. Thing is, I don’t want to see Spock and Kirk played by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy in that alternate future. That’s a job for Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine many, many years from now. Leonard Nimoy belongs to the original continuity.
In effect, judging from all that’s been said, this movie draws a line under the old continuity and sets off a new history, where anything can potentially happen. With luck, we’ll get new-look familiar races and lots of outright new races. The ultimate fate of the new crew is now completely open and we can once again be excited about the unknown future for this incarnation of Trek! This makes it one of the few ‘in-canon’ reboots out there!
Now if they can just find a way to fit Arex and M’Ress into the sequel!
#41 Odkin-
You just made my day. I needed a good laugh! Or for those Aqua Teen fans, a Batman-like “Rabot.”
(As long as it has nipples, I’m there!)
I really wish those guys had checked out some DS9 eps too. An awful lot of TNG was pretty lame by comparison.
I’d just like to remind everyone that this is only a movie.
Shatnerless or Shatnerilious, rebooted or reimagined. Whatever. I only hope it’s a GOOD movie.
Nemesis wasn’t nearly as bad as Batman & Robin. The last Bond film before Casino Royale wasn’t that bad. So we can’t compare Nemesis and the new Star Trek with these examples. What we all want and need from a new Trek movie that we didn’t get from Nemesis (and Anthony knows what I think the problem there was) is a very very cool sci-fi adventure with Captain Kirk and The Enterprise kicking ass like we know they can.
Captain Picard and the Enterprise E should never have been bested in any kind of way on film. These characters and their starships are so bad that any hint of defeat will turn people off. What if Batman goes limping off into the distance uncertain off his future because his best friend is gone and the Batcave was beaten and destroyed? It would be a disa pointing movie. Captain Kirk will be alive again and the Enterprise will be again known for being the “don’t f–k with the E unless you want to die” starship that it’s Captains make possible. The new movie will be great and we will love it and TNG will come back too one day.
Izbot – September 1, 2008
49. TL -
“Who cares what this guy thinks!!!! I want James Cawley as chief exec of the new film.”
Go back to your fanfic and filk-singing, Trekkie.
Okay that was harsh
James Cawley on a zero budget is really trying to recreate Trek, all these new guys in the new film like to do is bash Shatner, bash the 40 years of Trek and think of themselves as the second coming. Sorry I don’t buy into the reboot idea. Also since many of the very good Trek episodes had outstanding writers why not tap into the incrediable talent instead of going with someone who brought us one of worst Mission Impossible movies ever made. I don’t want to see an episode of Lost disguising as Star Trek , I want to see a Trek movie made by people who brought us some of the best Trek in the past.
People, it’s obviusly that these people haven’t a clue about Trek (except mybe mr. Orci). They’ll turn Star Trek into some action piece of crap.
In that light, I recommend Paramount to hire Manny Cotto for ST XII, and try to make up for this sh**.
#91 “The point about Shatner is that any means of bringing him back alongside an older Spock would require so much explicit explanation as to alienate a potential new audience. ”
I disagree. Not unlike a re-designed bridge, new uniforms and a new Starship Enterprise, bringing Shatner back as Kirk in an altered timeline requires no explanation. Something happened that has set an alternate timeline in motion where things are familair but not the same. It simply is what it is. Just like Nimoy, Shatner,as Kirk can exist in that timeline with no problem what so ever.
Yeah, I’m sure that there will be someone who will be all ticked off because a weld joint on the Enterprise’s plating is .2134 centimeters to the left of where it SHOULD be.
It’s just a movie. Go and enjoy it. If you get all hot and bothered about these sorts of things, go find something real and meaningful to get all hot and bothered about. Take that passion and do something good with it.
#55: you’re right on target! With time travel, etc. possible in Sci Fi, your “reset button” comment is exactly what I thought all along. JJ and company have all the means necessary to create new ideas, new storylines, etc. and still respect canon. I also think Nimoy in the movie gives the story (whatever it will truly turn out to be) the needed guidepost that will help maintain an appropriate and realistic amount of canon.
99. This not just a movie. This ist tackling into 40 years of tradition.
If it was a reboot, having Nimoy there would be like Dirk Benedict getting sex-reassignment surgery and a facelift in BSG.
My janeway story:
When I was a kid, there was a chain of discount stores called “Jamesway.” It was kind of like where you went if you couldn’t afford K-mart. I was always a little unfairly prejudiced against Janeway because the association to third-rate goods was already subconsciously made for me.
101. Earl – September 2, 2008
99. This not just a movie. This ist tackling into 40 years of tradition.
—–
How is it that Trek has become so much holier than any other franchise? I grew up with it, I enjoy it, I collect some memorabilia…but it’s just something I do for amusement. It’s kind of sad that some make it out to be more than it is: entertainment.
I’m looking forward to this movie. I’m confident that it will fit right into the established Trek mythos. Well enough anyway, without breaking out an electron microscope. From all I’ve seen, I suspect it’s going to be wonderful. If it’s not, well it won’t be the first movie to disappoint me. I’ll live. And so will you.
People need to put this stuff in its proper perspective.
88.
I am so tired of all the raging and ranting against this new film!!!
What is it you all exactly want?
…..Shantner & Nimoy together again one last time (DUH ! )
and to correct Kirk’s death.
After all these posts you would think it would sink in.
Paramount, I hope you are reading this.
I highly doubt Leonard Nimoy would be a part of a project that would totally erase the TOS series with one stroke of the “alternate timeline” brush. Maybe part of the new movie takes place in an alternate timeline before Spock (old or new) restores it to it’s normal place.
- A…reboot of this kind seems to be a normal thing….personally , i think that the new BATMAN series is the best..because , anyway, BATMAN and ROBIN looks like a ‘JUSTICE LEAGUE’ movie ..and i think that the last STAR TREK movies and series don’t have a real ‘trek feeling’ anymore , the stories are leading the show in to a wrong direction..and that thing doesn’t mean that we hate the actors or something like that..it’s all about the relations with the fans and..about a little respect ..too..i think…
Trek nutcases can’t stand the idea of a reboot or canon/continuity inconsistencies because it reminds them that this is fantasy and science fiction not the real world. Most of them get the two confused and live in the fantasy world of Trek. No wonder Trek can’t appeal to the masses like it used to. Few people want to live in a fantasy world; most would rather just plain old great entertainment.
For those who thought that the title of this article read “ROBOT”… Well, Trek fans…how about it? I’ll ask it again…has anyone given any thought to the possibilitiy of a robot/robotics making an impact appearance on this new Star Trek film?
The reason Trek doesn’t appeal to the masses anymore is because the franchise strayed away from what made it popular to begin with by making it “darker” and supplanting it on a space station that didn’t go anywhere along with lackluster stories. The name of the franchise is Star TREK. Which means to venture out. I believe JJ already said he loved the idea of Kirk and crew being out on the edge of the frontier, being cut off from the rest of the Federation and I agree with him. Putting heroes with comraderie together and overcoming dangerous situations by showing the greatness and frailties of what it means to being human. It’s all about the human adventure. Space and aliens are only the backdrop.
#76
Let me clarify – I like Laurence Lukinbill and think he’s a fine actor. He’s just totally, completely, 100% a fish-out-of-water in Trek V. His character is a mess, and he seems like a good actor trapped in a very, very bad movie. I’ve liked him in almost every other thing I’ve ever seen him in, and have defended him in other threads about Trek V. Bad phrasing on my part.
As for the DirecTV commercial – are you serious? It looked okay for a 45 second spot, but even then he looked…well, unnatural. I’m of the mind that the opening segment of X-Men 3 was a stylistic choice that only worked as a foggy flashback. I don’t think that would be a legit way to bring Shatner back in, sorry. The entire time I’d be staring at the screen thinking to myself ‘The soft focus has taken over the film!’.
#81
If it can’t be a great movie, then what exactly is the point of a Director’s Cut? A DC of a turd is still a turd. The DC of Trek I was warranted, as there was still a good movie hiding underneath. I don’t see that in Trek V. And I can’t agree with you about the ‘beloved characters’. Those weren’t my beloved characters. They were goofy caricatures that seemed more like parody (very, very embarassing parody when it came to Kirk & Scotty, especially).
We live in a cynical, reality tv driven society and I for one get enough of that in everyday life. I pity those who surround themselves in it. Thank God for people like Gene Roddenberry who dreamed up a great escape for those of us that “get it”.
#104.
Star Trek indeed is hollier than any other franchise. That is only way to preserve it.
Another franchise which is worth of keeping is Stargate.
And for all of those who despise DS9, VOY and ENT. These series are more Trek than ST XI.
If I can’t get Shatner as Kirk, than I want Return of Emissary, or Romulan Wars with NX-01 crew.
These guys trying to diminish DS9, VOY and ENT, and for me, as fan of all Trek series it’s huge insult.
#99 and #104
I love Star Trek just as much as the next fan, and I also appreciate your passion for it.
But it is just a movie. Entertainment. Something to enjoy.
When a piece of entertainment becomes something that causes a person upset, dread, anger, etc., it’s time to put things in some perspective.
People suffering or dieing are things to get upset over. Injustice is something to get upset over. Or any other worthwhile cause for that matter.
But a Star Trek movie?
It’s been 40 plus years of great entertainment. Maybe the next movie will be entertaining, maybe it won’t be. There are over six billion people on this planet who could care less one way or the other. The world doesn’t stop if someone makes a good — or bad — Star Trek movie.
It’s just a movie. A fantasy or diversion from real life. Sure, there are lessons to be learned from this entertainment vehicle, and many of us can credit Star Trek for making each of us just a little better person. But even if the movie stinks, it takes nothing away from the previous 40 years.
And it takes nothing away from each of us as individuals, or for our love and/or interest in Star Trek.
And you know what — it might actually be a good movie. But some have already decided that it’s bad, even without seeing it. Judging something before even seeing it sounds kind of anti-Star Trekish in philosophy if you ask me.
#112
I’m glad he did too, John. But remember that same man didn’t like Trek V either! :)
I meant #101 and #104
113. Earl – September 2, 2008
#104.
Star Trek indeed is hollier than any other franchise. That is only way to preserve it.
_____
You still haven’t said *WHY* this is so. More enduring works like The Bible and Shakespeare have been re-interpreted with no harm done to the source material. Face it: Trek is nothing more than a bunch of TV shows and movies that we like a lot. That hardly makes it untouchable.
As far as preservation, well I’ve got shelves of tapes and DVDs of past Trek shows and movies that won’t disappear anytime soon, regardless of how this new movie pans out. So do a lot of people. Seems pretty well-preserved to me.
Bring on the new movie! If it’s a reboot or re-imagining, so be it. I don’t think it will be either, but as long as it’s entertaining, it’ll work for me!
115 Joe Schmoe
That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. High Five bro’!
Hey off subject…..but I just heard that Don La Fontaine is dead. He won’t be doing the voice over for the trailer of the Trek movie. Real shame. He was great.
116. I didn’t like Trek V either. I want to see what that movie could’ve been. It would be a nice olive branch from Paramount to Shatner.
I don’t see where Lindelof called STXI a “reboot”. However, he did (and rightfully so) call Batman Begins a reboot. My interpretation of that sentence was that Star Trek needed the same kind of reinvigoration of interest to the franchise that the “Batman reboot” provided for THAT franchise.
Lindelof has never stated that Star Trek XI is a reboot. In fact, since the term “reboot” implies that canon/continuity would be dismantled and given a “do over” treatment, such an implication would be contrary to everything the writers, director, and producers have told us up to this point. They have repeatedly told us that they intend for STXI to fit with the previous films and tv series. Bob Orci has assured us that this story will not violate canon, and that “anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”. Bob went on to say that seeing STXI would enhance future experiences of watching TOS. A “reboot” could not do such a thing, IMO.
Even if STXI creates an alternate timeline, that in itself is not a “reboot”. As an audience, we are not expected to pretend that none of the previously established canon ever took place, which was the case in Batman Begins.
Instead, that scenario would suggest that Romulan villains have changed the past (even if smewhat subtly). That is not exactly a precedent. One could make the argument that it was done in FC by the Borg (hence their appearance and discovery in ENT) and in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (resulting in the birth of a child born by Tasha Yar).
Timeline changes can be subtle, and in the case of STXI, I expect the changes to be purely asthetic. I think that Nimoy’s Spock will be at least partially successful in stopping Nero’s plan. I do not think the villains’ plan will succeed in altering the outcomes of major events. That, IMO, would suggest that Spock failed. There is no reason to believe that a group of Star Trek fans (Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, etc.) have conspired to erase the 5 year mission. That’s absurd…
Some people look for the slightest excuse to hit the panic button, and I see quite a bit of that here.
This whole thread has me exasperated. Too many folks want their cake and to eat it too. They say its sacreligious to recast Kirk and leave Shatner out of the film, they hate the idea of a reboot because somehow they think canon is being tossed out the nearest airlock *but* they want Shatner to return as Kirk to undo or ignore canon established in Generations!
And so many people bashing the new film before its even come out. How close-minded! “I ain’t fer it, I’m agin it!” example:
“114. Earl –
And for all of those who despise DS9, VOY and ENT. These series are more Trek than ST XI. ”
How do you that? Precognition? Time travel? Temporal causality loop? You speak like you’ve been to 2009 and seen the new film already.
I have to echo 118. cellojammer – “As far as preservation, well I’ve got shelves of tapes and DVDs of past Trek shows and movies that won’t disappear anytime soon, regardless of how this new movie pans out. So do a lot of people. Seems pretty well-preserved to me.”
Earl, please, if you have already judged a film that doesn’t even come out for another nine months go back to your collection of old episodes and stop being a doomsayer here. I’ve been gobbling up Trek for over thirty years and I’m excited at the prospect of revisiting the 23rd century. Did you say the same sort of crap in 1987 about TNG before it debuted?
It’s amazing how so many people already have this movie figured out and we haven’t really seen anything from this movie yet, not one word of dialogue. Amazing.
#97 Earl, how on earth do you know ithat the film “sh**” or an “action piece of crap” if you haven’t actually seen it? How do you know it’s fecally related at all?
Excuse me for asking, but it seems unfair to judge a film before seeing it .Just throwing that out there.
Come on Damon. What did you meet with Shatner for? to tell him he wasn”t going to be in the film? Didn’t he say it would be huge if Mr. Shatner wanted to be a part of the movie?
Come on Damon. What did you meet with Shatner for? to tell him he wasn”t going to be in the film? Didn’t he say it would be huge if Mr. Shatner wanted to be a part of the movie?
Come on Damon. What did you meet with Shatner for? to tell him he wasn”t going to be in the film? Didn’t he say it would be huge if Mr. Shatner wanted to be a part of the movie?
#123
Excellent post!!
sorry for the triple post
128. Tom –
“Come on Damon. What did you meet with Shatner for? to tell him he wasn”t going to be in the film? Didn’t he say it would be huge if Mr. Shatner wanted to be a part of the movie?”
From previous discussions I believe they wanted to figure out a way for Shatner to appear in the film, possibly as a different character (an uncle of Kirk’s appears in the film) but Shatner thought the role amounted to a cameo and he passed. Probably didn’t want to have such a small role in a film Leonard Nimoy plays a pivotal role in. They never considered Shatner appearing as an older version of Kirk since the Shat is some 15 years older than he was when Kirk died in Generations. I agree with their decision.
131 Izbot
That could be. They never mentioned that as being something considered. Usually Generations is the reason given as to his not being in the film. That is why I has always assumed that it was the role of Kirk is what they wanted him for.
It’s been a bit of a puzzle since Shatner continues to call the decision to exclude him from the film “poor business” but I think largely its because Nimoy would have a lot more screen time than him. Plus Shatner has written a half dozen Trek novels which undid Kirk’s death in Generations. One could argue he’s so attached to the role of Kirk that he’s reluctant to let go of it — certainly doesn’t want Kirk to ever die — or himself for that matter. Maybe he figures that if JJ and company want Nimoy as Spock they’d just have to want him as Kirk but that’s not the story JJ and the writers ever had in mind. Personally I think those two are way too long in the tooth to interest the general film-going public into seeing a movie in which they were the main stars. Sure, us old Trek fans would go but not many else. I got a little tired of watching these two senior citizens running and jumping like action heroes as far back as STV. Don’t get me wrong I love them but it was getting a bit difficult to suspend disbelief seeing them do the things they did at their age. Am I guilty of ageism? Maybe. But as Kirk said once, “Galavanting across the galaxy is a job for the young”.
Shatner doing karate chops on Priceline ads is pretty laughable. Can’t see him doing it for serious in a 2009 movie.
#132
Actually, JJ Abrams as well as Bob Orci have said Shatner didn’t want ‘a cameo’.
134. sean –
“#132
Actually, JJ Abrams as well as Bob Orci have said Shatner didn’t want ‘a cameo’.”
That’s what I just explained in #131.
#108 – “Trek nutcases can’t stand the idea of a reboot or canon/continuity inconsistencies because it reminds them that this is fantasy and science fiction not the real world.”
Wow… Contemptuous much, are we?
Sorry, I think the vast majority of people who enjoy Star Trek, including those who prefer continuity in Star Trek, know full-well that it’s fiction. And verisimilitude in fiction derives from consistency. IMHO, if I’m following fiction about a particular fictional world, that fiction is diminished if people have to throw out that world to tell the story.
“No wonder Trek can’t appeal to the masses like it used to. Few people want to live in a fantasy world; most would rather just plain old great entertainment.”
I think Trek started not to appeal to the masses when it became rote, when the storytelling lost its edge, and–perhaps most importantly–when two series in a row set out interesting premises and then avoided dealing realistically with them to go back to formulaic storytelling.
A lot of years ago, David Gerrold wrote about how a TV series begins to run out of steam when “format” devolves to “formula”. Star Trek’s world is incredibly versatile, so it took a long time, but it happened even to Trek in the end, and the last-minute attempts to pull it back out of those doldrums just came too late.
If Star Trek gets back to format, presented in a style the modern audience can identify with (instead of still doing 1980s style techniques in the 2000s), it can do just fine. With luck, the movie is an attempt to do just that. We shall see.
#123 – “They say its sacreligious to recast Kirk and leave Shatner out of the film, they hate the idea of a reboot because somehow they think canon is being tossed out the nearest airlock *but* they want Shatner to return as Kirk to undo or ignore canon established in Generations!”
In a way I feel bad for Mr. Shatner, but the simple truth is that he agreed to let his character be killed, and he now must accept the consequences. (I would have counseled him to refuse to do it, but that’s MHO.)
If the price of “Bring Back Kirk” is continuity abandoned, then it is too high, IMHO.
#57 agreed.
Why didn’t they just say at comic con July 2007 “William Shatner is not in this movie because we couldn’t figure out a way to put him in after Generations”!
Instead they teased us for at least 6 months, with Orci stretching it to 9 months.
Generations existed way before scripting. Teasing that Shatner was still a possibility throughout production was bad form if the reasoning for exclusion was always going to be Generations.
The more they comment in interviews, the more it seems they had no intention to have him in it at all.
137. Alex Rosenzweig –
“If the price of “Bring Back Kirk” is continuity abandoned, then it is too high, IMHO.”
I agree. And Shatner in the film as Kirk, as cameo or otherwise just for the sake of Shatner being in the film is mere gimmickry and I’m glad it’s not happening.
138. dalek -
If I remember correctly the writer’s stike was going on through the majority of filming. I think it was their hope that, if the writer’s strike had ended early enough, they may still have had the hope of writing Shatner in somehow while filming was continuing. But it didn’t end before filming was complete and any hope of Shatner being added late in the game evaporated. Even if they had written something that satisfied their own storytelling needs its doubtful it would be more than one scene and, again, Shatner had already declined to do a cameo — but if the hypothetical scene was impressive enough to sway Shatner he may have agreed to it after all.
Actually, it’s quite easy to judge the movie before seeing it. If a producer of director or actor has consistently failed to entertain with their product, it’s a pretty safe bet that this trend will continue.
J. J. Abrams is a lot like Hillary Clinton – you either love her or you hate her, there is no middle ground. “Alias” was just unbelievable, “Lost” is incomprehensible and from every angle (production, direction, and storytelling) “Cloverfield” (with the exception of VFX) is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen so pardon those of us who are a bit skittish at the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman triad mucking about with the greatest SF franchise in history.
Since this project was first announced, I have maintained three things:
1. A “prequel” in which Classic Trek characters are re-cast is a bad idea.
2. J. J. Abrams is not the person to be heading up a Star Trek vehicle.
3. By the time they get done re-booting/re-imagining/re-whatever they’re doing to Trek, Abrams will be remembered as the man who killed Trek or, at the very least, leaves it mortally wounded.
But I do sincerely hope he proves me wrong.
#141 Thou besmirches the name of “Lost” !! One of the best shows on broadcast TV ever, IMO.
#141 again. I also meant to ask: Does this mean Classic Trek should *never* be redone with a fresh cast, even after the original actors are long dead?
That seems extreme. This is a TV show, not a pagan cult. They’re actors, not demigods. This is literature, not a holy writ.
#114—”And for all of those who despise DS9, VOY and ENT. These series are more Trek than ST XI.”
Since you’ve seen STXI (obviously), why don’t you enlighten the rest of us?
I’d like to see it before I make the determination that bringing back the greatest characters in the 40+ year history of Star Trek is somehow “less Trek” than what we saw in some of the spinoff series.
“These guys trying to diminish DS9, VOY and ENT, and for me, as fan of all Trek series it’s huge insult.”
Where do you get that anyone is trying to diminish those shows with STXI? That is completely irrational.
The truth is, the only Star Trek characters worthy of feature film treatment (particularly at that budget) were the iconic originals. The numbers are there to prove it. The TNG-era films were never even close to being as successful as 5 of the 6 original films.
I liked some of DS9, and I really enjoyed ENT. However, nothing beats a good Kirk/Spock/McCoy story…..Sorry. Only Star Trek’s “A-Team” can rescue the franchise…
142/143
James Cawley does a fine job at it, and that’s OK for fan films. I don’t want to see it done by professionals.
Every new thing I hear about this picture makes me that much more antsy. “Time travel”… what an original idea — but I’m sure that’s the only way they could fit this mess into canon and I’m not convinced they really care about canon.
#145—”…I’m not convinced they really care about canon”
Bob Orci: “Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.
Sounds like they care about it to me…
#145. You keep saying you don’t want to see a new (professional) cast take over, but you haven’t said *why*.
So: why? Nostalgia? The gut conviction that the new film will suck (for reasons only you comprehend)? Why?
#146
Bob Orci: “Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.
Sounds like they care about it to me…
——
“Read my lips, no new taxes”
Saying it doesn’t make it so… Since Kirk is apparently just graduating from the Academy, who is playing Captain Garrovik of USS Farragut who, in Kirk’s own words, was his CO from the day he left there? There is nothing to indicate that Kirk ever set foot aboard Enterprise until he was her Captain.
The only way I see any of this working is to screw up the timeline, do a bunch of non-canon stuff (and probably a bunch of very un-Trek stuff), and then re-set the timeline so that none of it ever happened. I’m still very skeptical.
#135
Right, but then he turned around and said it was never mentioned. I was only pointing out that a number of the production team have mentioned both reasons several times in several interviews. Just backing you up.
145. WerewindleCincinnati
“James Cawley does a fine job at it, and that’s OK for fan films. I don’t want to see it done by professionals. Every new thing I hear about this picture makes me that much more antsy. “Time travel”… what an original idea — but I’m sure that’s the only way they could fit this mess into canon and I’m not convinced they really care about canon.”
“This mess”? What exactly about what you know about this film makes it a mess? Time travel? Time Travel is one of the major staples of Star Trek. Kirk and company time traveled all the time. “I don’t want to see it done by professionals.” I don’t even know how to respond to that statement. You don’t want Star Trek to be done by professionals? I’m floored by all these folks who constantly rant that the new writers don’t care about canon. They’ve stated over and over and over again that canon is very important to them — which is more than could be said about the writers of TNG who mostly ignored or avoided TOS canon altogether. The writers on VOY were often ignorant of previously-established Trek lore, too. But somehow that’s now all okay.
PS, JJ and company cast James Cawley in a small role in the new film. They respect his work. If they didn’t they wouldn’t've invited him to be a part of it — or they wouldn’t've even known who he is.
148. werewindlecincinnati –
“There is nothing to indicate that Kirk ever set foot aboard Enterprise until he was her Captain.”
There is nothing to indicate that he didn’t, either. Nothing. Not one word of dialogue in all of Trek canon.
148. werewindlecincinnati –
“Read my lips, no new taxes”
Saying it doesn’t make it so…”
Geez, again, why are you so convinced these guys are liars? Is it the secrecy? Why do you persist in making allusions to politicians (Bush Sr and Hillary Clinton) when talking about the new creative team?
#152
I happen to like politics… I could have just as easily quoted Joe Isuzu, and I’m not calling these men liars. As I stated previously, I have been completely underwhelmed by every last thing these three have produced and I am, therefore, concerned that my beloved Star Trek is in their hands.
Frankly, I have been concerned about Trek since Roddenberry died. To validate that concern, I need only say one word: “Nemesis”.
#148—-”Since Kirk is apparently just graduating from the Academy, who is playing Captain Garrovik of USS Farragut who, in Kirk’s own words, was his CO from the day he left there? There is nothing to indicate that Kirk ever set foot aboard Enterprise until he was her Captain.
The only way I see any of this working is to screw up the timeline, do a bunch of non-canon stuff (and probably a bunch of very un-Trek stuff), and then re-set the timeline so that none of it ever happened. I’m still very skeptical.”
Who says Kirk’s time aboard the USS Farragut is even depicted? I don’t think that we will see him aboard the Enterprise before that, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. We will apparently see Spock aboard her (under the command of Capt. Pike), but that has no bearing upon JTK.
“Saying it doesn’t make it so…”
Neither does you saying that they are lying make it so.
You have nothing whatsoever to base that upon.
#153—”To validate that concern, I need only say one word: ‘Nemesis’. ”
How does a crappy movie made by someone entirely different validate your “concerns” about Trek in the hands of Abrams, Lindelof, Burk, Orci, and Kurtzman?
“…and I’m not calling these men liars”.
So what else were you implying with this statement—
“Saying it doesn’t make it so…”?
#154
Apparently, from what I’ve read, we have scenes filmed that involve a protest at the Academy because JTK cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test. Unless we’re going to be popping from that point to another in time — a la Picard in “All Good Things…” — I cannot see how Kirk’s time aboard Farragut cannot be a part of this picture. Unless, of course, there is a crimp in the timeline and bunch of non-canon stuff happens, then the timeline is re-set so that JTK can later explain that Captain Garrovik was his CO from the time he left the Academy.
#153
As I said, I have been completely underwhelmed by every last thing these three men have done. I may be completely surprised by their product and wish that they had been doing Trek for the last fifteen years! The biggest problem here is the secrecy. As a previous poster has mentioned, it’s a MOVIE. Give the interested public something to go on and maybe these ridiculous debates will stop.
#153—”Frankly, I have been concerned about Trek since Roddenberry died”
So I guess you didn’t like TWOK, TSFS, TVH, or TUC either? Roddenberry had nothing to do with those films.
#156—”Apparently, from what I’ve read, we have scenes filmed that involve a protest at the Academy because JTK cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test. ”
I’d like to know where you read that.
Nothing like that has been confirmed by trekmovie.com, and until it is—it’s just a rumor, like so many others which never panned out as truth. All we know is that there will be scenes at SFA. Even the Kobiyashi Maru bit is not even confirmed as part of the storyline (it is merely assumed by most fans).
“Unless we’re going to be popping from that point to another in time — a la Picard in “All Good Things…” —
How could you expect anything less from a movie by JJ Abrams, the master of non-linear storytelling? Have you even seen LOST? Besides, Lindelof’s favorite TNG episode is “All Good Things…”. I don’t think you are as familiar with all of this as you think you are.
All indications thus far have been that the movie will likely do just that. We will see a young Kirk (as a boy), Kirk at the Academy, and Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise. There have been no indications to this point beyond that, as far as the progression of JTK’s career, and no mention of Captain Garrovick. I don’t think we see James Kirk as a Lt. If we do, he could also be an instructor at the Academy (”Where No Man Has Gone Before”). Some of his past has already been covered. They seem to wish to cover what has not been.
What you do know is that they have repeatedly stated that canon will be respected. Why not take them at their word on that until they have given you a real reason not to?
Rumors of a a protest in the movie came erroneously from AICN when one of them spotted a WRITER’S GUILD STRIKE outside a location where the movie was shooting and assumed it was part of the movie.
Bob
are you saying that the WGA were fine with Kirk cheating at the Academy? are you sure that is canon. Doesn’t the WGA have strict rules about cheating?
It’s good they are respecting canon, but what a lousy piece of canon to respect if the never-referred-to-again-Nexus-sized-loophole-rock-bashing death of Kirk in Generations prevented them from using Shatner as Kirk on last time (in a movie apparently involving time travel no less). And if that is the reason, what about all the comments about the possibility of trying to fit Shatner in, even as late as earlier this summer? I’d like to hear more of the backstory some day.
I hope the no-Shatner story does not dominate this film’s publicity between now and May, but suspect that it will.
I am “over it” but still sorry for the missed opportunity.
#158
Apparently, from what I’ve read, we have scenes filmed that involve a protest at the Academy because JTK cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test. ”
I’d like to know where you read that.
——————
I read it here
—————–
How could you expect anything less from a movie by JJ Abrams, the master of non-linear storytelling? Have you even seen LOST?
I believe I mentioned earlier that “Lost” is incomprehensible. It is bad television (I don’t care how many people like it). In fact, I find pretty much everything that has had the names Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman on it to be mediocre (I’m sorry I don’t share your enthusiasm for “Lost”).
Frankly, I think the prequel thing might have worked if it had simply dealt with the missing two years of the five-year mission(from TV).
But, riddle me this (as I’ve always wondered): How are Kirk and Spock roughly the same age, yet Spock was a bridge/science officer aboard Enterprise 15 years before Kirk was Captain of Enterprise during “Menagerie”.
90# Mr Lerpa
Kirk wouldn’t be 146 years old. Remember in Generations Kirk was 70 then was in the nexus and stayed 70. Then Picard and Kirk left the nexus to Picard’s time about 76 years in the future for Kirk but Kirk is still 70 at the end of Generations. Generations was made in 1994 and Nemesis was made in 2002 and the new movie is out in 2009 making it 15 years after Generations. So add 70 and 15 together you get 85 years old Kirk at the end of the new Star Trek movie. Kirk did his time travel to the future in Generations you just add 15 years with his 70 years to get 85 years old.
Yeah Bob, wouldn’t that constitute…a DISASTER? ;)
Thanks for jumping in and clarifying that little bit of subterfuge. That’s hilarious! I hope you guys put out a “The Making of” book when the film comes out — just covering rumor control and fan reaction (or overreaction) prior to the release would make interesting reading!
#156 – “I cannot see how Kirk’s time aboard Farragut cannot be a part of this picture. ”
Aww, that’s easy. We see Cadet Kirk at the Academy, maybe Ensign Kirk as a grad student at Command School (and/or on the Republic?), before he got that deep-space assignment on the Farragut, and we then jump forward to sometime between 2257 and 2264, after the events at Tycho IV happened and half the Farragut’s crew was killed. We don’t know that Kirk was on the Farragut all the way ’til he got command of the Enterprise. (Various non-canon sources suggest that he wasn’t, with theorized tours on the Constitution, Saladin, and Alexander, depending on your preferred source.) Either way, there’s about 7 years of as-yet-canonically-unaccounted-for time there, and the movie could easily focus on that period.
See? Simple. :)
But, riddle me this (as I’ve always wondered): How are Kirk and Spock roughly the same age, yet Spock was a bridge/science officer aboard Enterprise 15 years before Kirk was Captain of Enterprise during “Menagerie”.
—–
Where is this “roughly the same age” bit established? In Enterprise, T’Pol’s age is 60 or 80-something (can’t remember off the top of my head), yet she still retains a youthful appearance thanks to her Vulcan longevity. Spock could very well be much older than a full blooded human might estimate.
You’re just diggin’ for things to bitch about, aren’t you?
#159 That is pretty funny about the WG strike being mistaken for a scene in the movie. They have done a great job keeping the spoilers in (though I would be reading them if they were flowing, it can make the movie more fun to go in unspoiled).
I think it hurt Generations and Nemesis somewhat to have to scripts dissected online so far in advance of the film. They were enjoyable to read, but many people had set opinions by the time the films actually rolled, that gave the films less of a chance to stand on their own. Then again, a few more spoilers about Nimoy’s role would not hurt ;)
#166
I don’t dig for shit to bitch about… apparently it’s just bubbling out of the ground.
Canon (don’t you just hate that word– especially when someone comes on that can spell it correctly?) says that Kirk was born in 2233 and Spock in 2232. How was Spock a bridge officer under Pike and Kirk’s Science Officer in episode 1 if they were born one year apart?
#167
HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!
#167
Sorry… HERE! HERE!…
I can only reiterate #130V
All we can do is cross our fingers and hope for the best./Good job, 130.
Spock is 15 years older than Kirk. They are considered the same age when you take into account Spock’s Vulcan ancestry. Evidently, Vulcans (or Vulcanians?) age slower than humans.
Now, how about this to ruffle your canon feathers. The Federation wasn’t always called the United Federation of Planets. In one episode, (Tomorrow is Yesterday) , Kirk refers to it as the United Earth Space Probe Agency.
#166
I don’t dig for shit to bitch about… apparently it’s just bubbling out of the ground.
Canon (don’t you just hate that word– especially when someone comes on that can spell it correctly?) says that Kirk was born in 2233 and Spock in 2232. How was Spock a bridge officer under Pike and Kirk’s Science Officer in episode 1 if they were born one year apart?
_____
If canon is defined as having appeared onscreen, I’d sure appreciate a citation where this was shown. Even if it’s just small-print on a viewscreen somewhere, I’d be open to considering it.
172. John from Cincinnati –
“Now, how about this to ruffle your canon feathers. The Federation wasn’t always called the United Federation of Planets. In one episode, (Tomorrow is Yesterday) , Kirk refers to it as the United Earth Space Probe Agency.”
Yes, on ENT in the episode “Demons” a Starfleet logo is clearly visable reading “Starfleet Command, United Earth Space Probe Agency”. Apparently UESPA was an early name for Starfleet a la NASA.
168. werewindlecincinnati –
“Canon (don’t you just hate that word– especially when someone comes on that can spell it correctly?) says that Kirk was born in 2233 and Spock in 2232. How was Spock a bridge officer under Pike and Kirk’s Science Officer in episode 1 if they were born one year apart?”
The dates you cite are not canon they are conjecture. Yes, they come from the Star Trek Chronology which cites a lot of canonical facts but those that are ‘guesses’ (such as characters’ dates-of-birth) are clearly labeled “conjectural”. They are not written in stone. They are best guesses until confirmed or refuted within canon (i.e. in an episode or movie).
#172
Vulcans/Vulcanians… don’t get me started.
I have never had a problem with the UESPA… they atually show up as canon in that ENTERPRISE thing and I don’t mind them being there.
Actually, I just wonder why NOMAD didn’t come under the auspices of the UESPA
werewindlecincinnati / 168
OK you are crossing the line into trolling, dial it down
#162—”I read it here.”
If you read it here, then I guarantee that all you read was that a rumor was poated at AICN (erroneously, as Bob just pointed out in #159). Anthony would never confirm something like that here without
checking it out first. May I suggest not simply glossing over the articles, but actually reading them?
” How are Kirk and Spock roughly the same age, yet Spock was a bridge/science officer aboard Enterprise 15 years before Kirk was Captain of Enterprise during (’The Menagerie’).”
Spock was a junior science officer aboard the Enterprise under Pike’s command, and it was roughly 13 years prior to the first season (presumably year one of the 5 year mission) according to the dialogue. If Spock is only one year older than Kirk and, assuming he graduated at age 22 (not even neceesarily true), the Enterprise could have easily been Spock’s first assignment. If an ensign (Chekov) can serve as a bridge officer under Kirk’s command, what would preclude a young Spock from doing so under Pike?
And don’t get me started on trying to reconcile the dates and timelines presented in the first season of TOS. The “Supreme Court” of STXI will have to make some interpretive decisions regarding some of the things from early TOS. It will be no different from Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer determining that the TOS-era and the original films should take place in the late 23rd Century (one early first season episode even suggests that it was as late as the 28th Century), when it was always rather unclear to that point (and not official until 1982’s TWOK). I don’t understand how you justify holding these guys to higher standards.
#172—”Spock is 15 years older than Kirk.”
I don’t know where that would come from. Spock returns to the past 30 years (according to the dialogue in “Yesteryear”) when he is approximately 7 Earh years of age (if I am not mistaken). That makes him roughly the same age as Kirk 3 years into the five year mission. Although “Yesteryear” is a TAS episode, it is the one such feature which has been most legitimized by reference in live action Trek (TMP DE, DS9, and ENT). Most fans would consider “Yesteryear” (written by DC Fontana) to be canon.
#173—”If canon is defined as having appeared onscreen, I’d sure appreciate a citation where this was shown.”
No such direct reference exists in canon, but TAS “Yesteryear” suggests in its dialogue that they are indeed the same age. The overall canon gray-area of TAS is another issue, but I accept “Yesteryear” as canon since certain aspects have been referenced in live action Trek. Of course, you may have your own opinion of it.
addendum to post #178:
“The producers of later Star Trek series incorporated elements of “Yesteryear”’s backstory into canon: Spock’s desert journeys are mentioned by Sarek in TNG: “Unification I”, and T’Pol mentions her own kahs-wan in ENT: “The Catwalk”. In addition, Vulcan’s Forge is mentioned in DS9: “Change of Heart” and seen in ENT: “The Forge”. ”
That is from Memory Alpha…
I guess the thing I’m really interested in is exactly HOW the new movie will fit into the established timeline- like the one that was on display at The Experience (sigh…), for example.
If Orci says there’s a “canon” explanation for everything, then,
well, there shouldn’t be a problem, right?
The one thing that keeps me wary about explanations like the one Bob’s using is that following canon doesn’t mean, in the theoretical sense, a guarantee of staying in continuity. After all, episodes from “Yesteryear” to “Parallels” to “Twilight” have established that the idea of a multiverse is canonical to Trek.
This is why I keep asking Bob one simple, pointed question… Is the Star Trek Universe at the end of the film in the same continuum as it is at the beginning (or at least one so close that we can still say that what happened in the rest of Trek still happened)?
While I can appreciate that he doesn’t want to give plot points away, the fact that he (or any of them, really) has yet to answer that yes-or-no question is the main reason why I have yet to embrace the film completely. If I could just have that one bit of reassurance, that they’re not gonna change the fictional universe in the storytelling/history sense, I could be totally excited without having to worry about what the film might do to Trek.
#181–”…or at least one so close that we can still say that what happened in the rest of Trek still happened?”
That’s what I think…
182 posts. Wow. A lot of POVs here. I gave up reading them all at 120 or so.
BTW all those Batman-like robot posts–very funny. I had a good laugh. Bad Reboot, Bat robot—Funny and clever!! Someone should try to create a Batman-like robot for us to see.
Star Trek truly needed a reboot and finally Spock & Kirk era is back :)
A lot of people concerned with ‘canon’ out there…
Who cares about a new story and special effects and actually seeing Star Trek on the big screen again if all the obscure trivia isn’t included eh?
I’d just like to add to the completely worthless bits of nonsense, and say that if I don’t see Finnegan knock the books out of Kirks hands at Starfleet Academy then I think the movie is shot because Shore Leave was like the best eva and I’ve got a hankering for an over-the-top stereotype.
#136
I’m one of the few on this board who realizes that Trek needs to go more mainstream and appeal to the next generation . It has become a niche-fan franchise that is dwindling in numbers not simply due to oversaturation or rote story telling but because it has stopped being fun, entertaining, and exciting. I did not write this post, but understand where this person is coming from:
“I was too young/born to late to be able to be a Trekky/Trekker the first time around, so maybe I’ll be able to catch on with the reboot.
There is just too much to get into now, an endless amount of TV shows and many films is too overwhelming of a ‘franchise’ to try and enter now.
I’m a long time fan of JJ Abrams, and have always sort of wanted to get into Star Trek.
So yes, I’m completely up for this film…its one of my must see films of 2009, as of now.
I personally hoping that this and James Cameron’s Avatar can bring space oriented sci-fi back to its glory days, the Star Wars prequels sort of ruined ’space’ movies, but I think Star Trek and Avatar can save that genre.
And as far as Sci-fi as a whole, which has been sort of overshadowed by fantasy and comic book movies for quite a while, 2009 is the year for the genre.”
IMO Trek went for the fantasy, space/soap opera format instead of the science fiction & adventure format and some of us lost interest. Old TOS Trek had a broader more mainstream appeal that I believe my kids might like. Going to purchase the remastered hoping my kids will like it the way I did years ago. I can’t get my kids interested in more modern Trek. It just doesn’t appeal to them.
#183: YEAH!!!! I LOVE THE IDEA OF A BATMAN-LIKE ROBOT!!!! I’d die to see it!
You know, insanity is like gravity….all you need is a little push!!!
And now I’m going to built a Batman-like robot and bring it to next year’s Star Trek world premiere! Yes! Finally a purpose in life…:)))
#186 – Ahh, there’s that stereotype again… ;)
A desire for continuity does not equate to an insistence that every single scrap of trivia be included in every new story. (Well, not for most folks, anyway. ;) )
Now, I think it might be cute to see Finnegan hazing Kirk at the Academy for a scene in the new film, but I’m not gonna get all broken-up about it if we don’t. Ditto for seeing Gary Mitchell, ditto for seeing the Farragut, etc.
If the new film concentrates instead on timeframes and aspects we haven’t seen or heard about before, that’s fine with me. There’s plenty of that to cover in the years before the events of TOS! I’ll only start getting miffed if we’ve been explicitly (and consistently; in cases where TOS itself had told us different things, the folks now are gonna have to choose one, and that’s fine) told things in the past, and the new film just comes out and says, “Nope, we don’t care, forget what you knew, we’re gonna do it *differently*, because we feel like it!”
Here’s a quick and easy way to explain differences in appearance and sets without violating continuity.
The Original Trek Series was 23rd Century recreation of the Captain’s and First Officer’s Logs of the First Five Year Mission. They used actors to play the roles. The reason that the ship and it’s interior is (will be) so simple is that at the time of its production the tech was still classified.
The new movie is what the characters and sets really look like.
Simple, no?
If reboot means return to glory and set in the TOS era with modern may production values than I’m all for it. Just don’t mess with the 5 year mission.
#181 — You have made some real OUTSTANDING POINTS!!!
Hmm…. Sarah’s post was #186 when I replied to it. Now it’s 185. :)
And onward to the new 186! (Hi, ByGeorge!) ;)
“I’m one of the few on this board who realizes that Trek needs to go more mainstream and appeal to the next generation .”
I don’t think that’s at all true. You’re simply one of the few who thinks that going mainstream requires jettisoning everything that’s been built to date. I respectfully disagree.
“It has become a niche-fan franchise that is dwindling in numbers not simply due to oversaturation or rote story telling but because it has stopped being fun, entertaining, and exciting.”
The latter being a result of the former, as I see it. Once it devolved to “formula”, it ceased to be nearly as entertaining as it was early on. In addition, the shows were mostly filmed in very much the same way from the late 1980s through 2005, but the rest of how TV was being presented continued to evolve, and thus even new Trek was starting to “look old” to the general audience.
I’ll still argue saturation, too, because a lot of people tuned out on Trek so thoroughly that they didn’t even realize there was a fifth TV series (6th if you count TAS)!
“I did not write this post, but understand where this person is coming from:
‘I was too young/born to late to be able to be a Trekky/Trekker the first time around, so maybe I’ll be able to catch on with the reboot.
There is just too much to get into now, an endless amount of TV shows and many films is too overwhelming of a ‘franchise’ to try and enter now.’ ”
I can definitely understand that. I have no qualms with the approach the current team is taking, going back to the roots of it and giving us “Star Trek Zero”, as it were. There’s nothing wrong with telling a story that introduces the characters as though they were entirely new, and I think it’s a good move. But that doesn’t require scrapping the material that’s existed before; it just means that you don’t assume that your audience already knows it. Sure, that might mean that long-time fans will sit through “introductions” that we’ve already had, but I think that if they’re done in an entertaining way, nobody’s going to complain.
Like I said to Sarah, I think it’s completely wrong to assume that adhering to continuity means that one has to drag in reams of references to stuff that has nothing to do with the story at hand. Not contradicting something is not at all the same thing as making a bunch of gratuitous references.
“IMO Trek went for the fantasy, space/soap opera format instead of the science fiction & adventure format and some of us lost interest.”
I can understand that feeling. I didn’t mind the shift as much as some folks did, but I also enjoyed it more when it involved more solid science fiction and less of the fuzzy fantasy stuff. I did enjoy the larger arc stories, especially as running times per episode dropped, but they do have their disadvantages. I was, though, a huge fan of the approach Coto took in ENT Season 4, with “mini-arcs” of 2-3 episodes apiece.
“Old TOS Trek had a broader more mainstream appeal that I believe my kids might like.”
I think it also had something that, handled properly, can appeal to kids in a way that newer Trek didn’t: it had a sort of brute-force enthusiasm about the subject matter. The characters were out there doing stuff they loved! They embraced the spirit of adventure.
“Going to purchase the remastered hoping my kids will like it the way I did years ago. I can’t get my kids interested in more modern Trek. It just doesn’t appeal to them.”
I think the darker, angstier stuff made it hard for kids to embrace it. The sense of fun wasn’t there as much, and the enthusiasm that’s infectious for kids wasn’t there as much.
Hopefully the new team will recover more of that for the film.
But all that said, and we don’t really disagree on most of these points, I still don’t see recovering that spirit–that verve, if you will–as something that requires any sort of throw-out-the-continuity reboot. Especially with an origin story, which–as Bob and Alex said–had never been told before on film, there’s just not all that much continuity of which to run afoul in the first place. Additionally, the open, episodic nature of TOS makes it very easy to tell new stories that would allow people to just “jump in” (whereas the very heavily arced DS9 or VOY would have some problems in that respect). I guess maybe it’s that I don’t see re-infusing the TOS energy and style as being a continuity issue. I think it’s a writing and directing issue, really, and thus not at all incompatible with maintaining the basic continuity with TOS.
181. Alex Rosenzweig –
“This is why I keep asking Bob one simple, pointed question… Is the Star Trek Universe at the end of the film in the same continuum as it is at the beginning (or at least one so close that we can still say that what happened in the rest of Trek still happened)?”
I can see exactly why this has not been answered to your satisfaction: Telling us that everything is okay by the end of the movie removes the jeopardy from the film. If you already know going into a film that everything is gonna be alright by the end credits why bother going? That nullifies the threat introduced in the film’s premise. Romulans are going back in time to mess things up. Do they succeed? Are they stopped? All of Trek canon is at stake!
If Orci and Lindelof came out and said, “Don’t worry Trekkies, we’re not gonna mess around with things” where’s the jeopardy? Part of the controversy being stirred up among us (and keeping us very, very interested) is whether or not canon will be violated. Smart thinking for a potential reboot/reintroduction. Those fully invested in Trek’s past will want to see the film because the jeopardy is so palpable to them and new viewers will also want to know what all the fuss is about.
I predict both newcomers and us oldsters will both be pleased in the end. Canon will be openly threatened but I bet fully restored and respected in the end — and those oblivious to canon will get a fun ride and have their curiosity picqued.
185. Sarah –
“I’d just like to add to the completely worthless bits of nonsense, and say that if I don’t see Finnegan knock the books out of Kirks hands at Starfleet Academy then I think the movie is shot because Shore Leave was like the best eva and I’ve got a hankering for an over-the-top stereotype.”
I agree with Alex, seeing Finnegan and Gary Mitchell and every other little minor bit of trivia we know about Kirk’s past might be a wonderful easter egg for the fans but not at all neccessary to the film’s success. Sure Finnegan was remembered deep down in Kirk’s subconscious as a bully but putting him front and center is a bit predictable. It’s also like saying that Finnegan, while a thorn in Kirk’s side, comes to represent all of Kirk’s Academy experiences — which I’d hope is not the case. It’s like saying that one jerk who harrassed you in college was the biggest highlight of the four or so years you spent there. Same with Gary Mitchell. We all have lots of friends in those formative years so its unneccessary to insist that one that we know of be ever-present during the particular story the writers are trying to tell in this film.
I’ve been re-enjoying TOS since the remastered project cleaned them up, and it is remarkable how these stories hold their own in 2008.
Post TOS Trek, especially TNG, is starting to date quite seriously. I loved TNG when it came out, and I was in my twenties. Now in my forties, I see it as “touchy-feely” and too politically correct. No tension, sexual or otherwise, existed on the show. DS9 wanted grit, but it was just as bland. VOY even worse. ENT seemed to pull out of the mold in season 4, especially through Blalock’s T’Pol, but Archer was just too goofy to be taken seriously, especially when they “toughened him up” in season 3.
TOS has three characters who are just right together, and a supporting group which is terrific. I hope JJ catches that lightening in a bottle again, and allows them all to be real people with real emotions and real vices. This will be the best nod to canon there is.
192. Great points Alex! You have articulated everything I haven’t been able to. Kudos!
#193 – “181. Alex Rosenzweig -
“This is why I keep asking Bob one simple, pointed question… Is the Star Trek Universe at the end of the film in the same continuum as it is at the beginning (or at least one so close that we can still say that what happened in the rest of Trek still happened)?”
I can see exactly why this has not been answered to your satisfaction: Telling us that everything is okay by the end of the movie removes the jeopardy from the film.”
Oh, I can totally understand that. I guess I keep hoping that there’ll be a less time travel-dependent jeopardy in the film, but perhaps there won’t. ;)
“I predict both newcomers and us oldsters will both be pleased in the end. Canon will be openly threatened but I bet fully restored and respected in the end — and those oblivious to canon will get a fun ride and have their curiosity picqued.”
You may well be right, or as Closettrekker theorizes, it might be a variation close enough to retain the history, but just far enough to explain the differences in production design. (I dunno; in that case, I think I’d prefer that they just mke the design changes they feel are necessary and not try to explain them internally. But that’s just MHO.)
#196 – Thank you kindly, John!
181. Alex Rosenzweig –
“While I can appreciate that he doesn’t want to give plot points away, the fact that he (or any of them, really) has yet to answer that yes-or-no question is the main reason why I have yet to embrace the film completely. ”
While your reservations are understandable (we all feel like we have a part of ourselves at stake with this new ‘reboot’ or whatever) I still have to say I’m pretty pleased with everything the triad have told us since they started. They know canon, they respect canon. Imagine if instead this was what we were hearing:
Orci: We remember watching a few episodes of Star Track when we were kids and we realized we get it — Star Track is just like Lethal Weapon! Captain James R Kirk is the crazy Mel Gibson character, Dr. Spock is the black dude and Dr. Bones is Joe Pesci! After that it wrote itself. ‘Course we realized that we’d have to update it, make it sexier, so we thought “Hey! Why should Kirk always get the girl?” So we’ve got Carmen Electra in our movie as Dr. Spock’s casual love interest. We see Spock as like the guy who picks up chicks on each planet, has his way with ‘em then BAM! Drops ‘em cold cuz he’s like all serious all the time — like Tony Montana in Scarface! Dr. Bones is like their comedy relief and he’s being played by Seth Green. We have a really cool action film with lots of boobs and explosions, fighting aliens like the Romanians, Kardashians, Terminators and whatnot. But really it’s about the boobs.
#198—-”Captain James R Kirk is the crazy Mel Gibson character, Dr. Spock is the black dude and Dr. Bones is Joe Pesci! After that it wrote itself. ‘Course we realized that we’d have to update it, make it sexier, so we thought “Hey! Why should Kirk always get the girl?” So we’ve got Carmen Electra in our movie as Dr. Spock’s casual love interest. We see Spock as like the guy who picks up chicks on each planet, has his way with ‘em then BAM! Drops ‘em cold cuz he’s like all serious all the time — like Tony Montana in Scarface! Dr. Bones is like their comedy relief and he’s being played by Seth Green. We have a really cool action film with lots of boobs and explosions, fighting aliens like the Romanians, Kardashians, Terminators and whatnot. But really it’s about the boobs.”
LOL.
Sounds like the crux of the next big “spoof” flick:
“Star Trek Movie”…
#192
“Especially with an origin story, which–as Bob and Alex said–had never been told before on film, there’s just not all that much continuity of which to run afoul in the first place. Additionally, the open, episodic nature of TOS makes it very easy to tell new stories that would allow people to just “jump in””
The problem IMO is where do you go AFTER this origin story. The stories of the best characters have been told. We know they do a 5 year mission followed by what we see in the 6 movies. Now we have the origin story. Where are you going to throw in that TOS episodic story? I’d love to see more missions of the original 5 year mission, but how when continuity and canon mean so much to some?
Canon and continuity cripple the writers forcing them to write in an already written storyline. They gotta find a slot in the storyline or timeline lapse where a story might fit in. This of course, limits what they can write. An altered timeline provides for new missions with these original characters. It doesn’t revoke the original mission in the original timeline, it just gives another.
I could see that if my kids like this movie and it is a total reboot, it opens the possiblity for a new mission, new movies and new fates for the characters. It will also interest them in the old or orignal timeline mission which I’d love for them to watch on DVD. Giving us something new doesn’t eliminate the old. “Make new friends but keep the old….”
Bringing back Shatner’s Kirk will truly be a feat. I wonder how they will eventually manage such a miracle.
200. ByGeorge –
The problem IMO is where do you go AFTER this origin story. The stories of the best characters have been told. We know they do a 5 year mission followed by what we see in the 6 movies. Now we have the origin story. Where are you going to throw in that TOS episodic story? I’d love to see more missions of the original 5 year mission, but how when continuity and canon mean so much to some? ”
There’s plenty of room to tell stories without stepping on continuity and the main reason for that is the single episode aspect of TOS. You can watch any episode of TOS in any order (the only real exception being the Menagerie two-parter, of course) without ever having to see all the others because they are all self-contained.
Any number of movies can be made prior to the TOS episodes or inbetween episodes without having to worry about wrecking any timeline. And this is (potentially) the first of a series of movies that may only end up being three or four. It’s not a new TV series overlapping TOS continuity. I don’t see any problem like that.
201. K. M. Kirby –
“Bringing back Shatner’s Kirk will truly be a feat. I wonder how they will eventually manage such a miracle.”
It’s simple, really. Kirk is still trapped in the Nexus! He can go anywhere! And Guinan is there too! Plus I think we have DeForest Kelley’s DNA stored somewhere. Eventually we’ll just clone him in a Hollywood lab and raise him on old episodes of TOS and various westerns he starred in during the 50s and 60s. Leonard Nimoy is not a problem since he’s a Vulcan and will live for at least another century.
Agree 202
As long as they respect “cannon” (with some license) thru STIV I will be happy STV is a bad Kirk dream and while ST VI is a good movie it does have a few holes(i.e. if Checkov is #4 behind Kirk, Spock and Scotty why
does he need Lt. V to tell him about the phaser setting)
My fictional heroes are coming back
#200 – Izbot called it spot-on. See, I think there’d be a real problem if they were trying that in a series like DS9, for example, or even parts of ENT, which were heavily arced, and one show just led into the next. But TOS was so episodic that it was never even clear from what we saw on-screen how much time passed between episodes. It’d be very easy to drop a feature film right in between two episodes, without ever having to disrupt the way things were portrayed on-screen.
Or, assuming you’re not in the camp that thinks that TOS really covered all 5 years, why not simply do the next film in the 4th or 5th year? Then there were no live-action filmed stories to worry about.
As I’ve often said, I think a TOS-based film trilogy could end very neatly with the final mission of the 5 years and the ship coming home to dock. And guess what? That’s never been told on-screen, either! Once again, no prior continuity to crash into. :)
Admittedly, as Izbot said, an ongoing TV series overlapping that time period and set on Enterprise might be a bit tough, but for a trilogy of films, it really is that easy. I don’t see what the big complexity is here.
Closet.
what do you mean FRINGE has nothing to do with STX1?!? do you honestly mean that if it is as bad as the review suggests, that you wouldn’t be the least concerned about STX1, which they created concurrently… under a very strict deadline to beat the strike, with other demanding projects underway, with no ability to tweak on-set?!?
granted, Abrams has nothing but time now to shape the film in editing, but the shooting script – which could not be changed, not a word of it – was locked, and there’s only so many ways you can cut weak material.
so yes, the question is: how good WAS the shooting script as written by orci-kurtzman? we can only go by their previous efforts. i see nothing but legitimate red flags, and still you guys pummel, and demand my views be censored.
why?
frankly, the fact you guys continue to point out box-office as a final measure of success is disturbing. TOS barely survived the ratings battle, remember? or are you too young to remember the true genesis of the canon. Xai says that the ‘way of doing things’ of the great writers of the 50s and 60s – paddy chayevsky, harlan ellison, rod serling, etc. – doesn’t exist anymore. is that why we see, time and time again, derivative rehashes and mediocre sequels and yet more weak film and TV writing (which, to me, more or less is epitomized by orci-kurtzman)? i think so. if it makes me a lonely Guardian on the Edge of What Matters, so be it. as I’ve said repeatedly here, I defend first the FICTION in science fiction…. as in original ideas; great, compelling, fully formed characters; basic human conflicts; overarching thematic quandaries; the beauty of a short story well-told. that’s why i maintain that the top 25 TOS episodes are the best and purest parts of the ST canon.
and now, Abrams Et Al want to explain away the origin of the series, and leave no elegance as to the mystery of how the crew came together. the very fact they feel the need to do so, I happen to find vulgar, quite frankly. who are they to explain it all away? roddenberry never felt the need to. kirk and spock as boys? both sets of parents? carol marcus? gary mitchell? pike? it does begin to sound like the film will operate on the level of a soap opera where every relationship is thrown up so there’s no doubt left.
and here’s my point: they didn’t create these cherished relationships!!!! but have no problem rooting around, grab-handing the characters as if they’re dolls, shaking them like (well, childish) amateurs… “hey, let’s do THIS to them, have THIS guy pop up here, wouldn’t that be great?!” again: it’s presumptuous, and vulgar, in my opinion – even before seeing a frame. it’s my right to be skeptical. and given the mediocrity of DSN, Voyager, TNG and Enterprise, why aren’t YOU worried???
i suppose it’s this simple. Abram-Oci-Kurtzman wanted to play with Kirk Spock and McCoy because they, like berman and the others, couldn’t come up with something new that is excellent drama in its own right. well, that’s just too damn bad. yes, it’s hard to do. very hard to do. i had a secret suspicion this day would come. i wish it weren’t too late for someone to tell JJ and his Little Friends, “No. Please keep your grubby hollywood hands off, even if you are ‘hot’ coming off of dreck like “Transformers” and “Mission:Impossible 3″ and “Cloverfield” (with it’s Felicity-level boy-girl relationships). Just stay away.”
But it’s too late.
206. Decious -
Yikes.
“and given the mediocrity of DSN, Voyager, TNG and Enterprise, why aren’t YOU worried???”
Geez, I liked a lot of what those series had to offer. Didn’t Roddenberry create TNG? Was he then “rooting around” in his own sandbox when he came up with that?
If you haven’t liked any of the several hundred hours of Star Trek produced post-60s why does any of this still matter to you? I’d have shrugged and walked off decades ago rather than hang around and make life miserable for those of us still enjoying ourselves. I don’t see how it would ever be possible to please you with anything labeled Star Trek now that the Golden Age of Television has passed.
206 Decious
Too many assumptions and WAAAAYYY too much anxiety. Lots of anger too.
Yikes indeed.
#206—-”what do you mean FRINGE has nothing to do with STX1?”
It’s an entirely different project. As much as I love TOS and TMP, I never cared for anything else that Gene Roddenberry did. Even if I cannot stand Fringe, it will have no bearing upon my feelings for the potential of STXI.
“TOS barely survived the ratings battle, remember? or are you too young to remember the true genesis of the canon.”
It didn’t do so well with the “critics” either, since you mentioned it. The initial pilot, like the one “criticized” in the internet leak you pointed to, was also deemed a failure. And I am not quite so young.
“…I happen to find vulgar, quite frankly. who are they to explain it all away? roddenberry never felt the need to. kirk and spock as boys? both sets of parents? carol marcus? gary mitchell? pike? it does begin to sound like the film will operate on the level of a soap opera where every relationship is thrown up so there’s no doubt left.”
There is no indication that Marcus or even Mitchell are depicted in this film. You are speaking in conjecture again. And shouldn’t Pike be at Kirk’s official change of command ceremony? My experience as a Marine officer tells me that he should. And if Spock’s early years aboard the Enterprise are at all visited, should he not be there as well?
And if you really find it “vulgar”, then you are in need of new perspective, my angry friend.
“and here’s my point: they didn’t create these cherished relationships!!!! but have no problem rooting around, grab-handing the characters as if they’re dolls, shaking them like (well, childish) amateurs… “hey, let’s do THIS to them, have THIS guy pop up here, wouldn’t that be great?!” again: it’s presumptuous, and vulgar, in my opinion – even before seeing a frame. ”
Richard Donner didn’t create Superman/Clark Kent, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, Jor’El, or Lex Luthor, either. Yet still, 1978’s Superman:The Movie is a wonderful film which holds up superbly to this day. It is you who is being “presumptuous”, IMO. As you said, you have yet to see a single frame, but still do not hesitate to declare it as “vulgar”.
“it’s my right to be skeptical. and given the mediocrity of DSN, Voyager, TNG and Enterprise, why aren’t YOU worried???”
—Because not a single member of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” of STXI had anything whatsoever to do with the Berman/Braga era of Trek. It would make no sense to form a skeptical opinion based upon what I might see as mediocre work by someone else.
“i maintain that the top 25 TOS episodes are the best and purest parts of the ST canon.”
On that, we can agree. However…
IMO, STXI has the potential to bring the wonderful and iconic TOS characters to life for my children the way that they were brought to life for me.
Most importantly, though, whether STXI is good or bad, it does absolutely nothing to dilute the “purity” or quality of the 79 episodes of TOS. They will still be there for me to enjoy until the day you and I pass on into the “final frontier”. I do not feel threatened at all by STXI, or any potential for it being a disappointment, any more than I felt threatened by what I considered to be inferior Star Trek (TNG, which was created by GR, btw).
The best course of action for you seems to be to stay home in May. No matter how good it is, you will not be pleased. Pretend it does not exist. My children and I will continue to look forward to being entertained by it.
Decious – September 3, 2008
Closet.
what do you mean FRINGE has nothing to do with STX1?!? do you honestly mean that if it is as bad as the review suggests, that you wouldn’t be the least concerned about STX1, which they created concurrently… under a very strict deadline to beat the strike, with other demanding projects underway, with no ability to tweak on-set?!?
granted, Abrams has nothing but time now to shape the film in editing, but the shooting script – which could not be changed, not a word of it – was locked, and there’s only so many ways you can cut weak material.
so yes, the question is: how good WAS the shooting script as written by orci-kurtzman? we can only go by their previous efforts. i see nothing but legitimate red flags, and still you guys pummel, and demand my views be censored.
why?
frankly, the fact you guys continue to point out box-office as a final measure of success is disturbing. TOS barely survived the ratings battle, remember? or are you too young to remember the true genesis of the canon. Xai says that the ‘way of doing things’ of the great writers of the 50s and 60s – paddy chayevsky, harlan ellison, rod serling, etc. – doesn’t exist anymore. is that why we see, time and time again, derivative rehashes and mediocre sequels and yet more weak film and TV writing (which, to me, more or less is epitomized by orci-kurtzman)? i think so. if it makes me a lonely Guardian on the Edge of What Matters, so be it. as I’ve said repeatedly here, I defend first the FICTION in science fiction…. as in original ideas; great, compelling, fully formed characters; basic human conflicts; overarching thematic quandaries; the beauty of a short story well-told. that’s why i maintain that the top 25 TOS episodes are the best and purest parts of the ST canon.
and now, Abrams Et Al want to explain away the origin of the series, and leave no elegance as to the mystery of how the crew came together. the very fact they feel the need to do so, I happen to find vulgar, quite frankly. who are they to explain it all away? roddenberry never felt the need to. kirk and spock as boys? both sets of parents? carol marcus? gary mitchell? pike? it does begin to sound like the film will operate on the level of a soap opera where every relationship is thrown up so there’s no doubt left.
and here’s my point: they didn’t create these cherished relationships!!!! but have no problem rooting around, grab-handing the characters as if they’re dolls, shaking them like (well, childish) amateurs… “hey, let’s do THIS to them, have THIS guy pop up here, wouldn’t that be great?!” again: it’s presumptuous, and vulgar, in my opinion – even before seeing a frame. it’s my right to be skeptical. and given the mediocrity of DSN, Voyager, TNG and Enterprise, why aren’t YOU worried???
i suppose it’s this simple. Abram-Oci-Kurtzman wanted to play with Kirk Spock and McCoy because they, like berman and the others, couldn’t come up with something new that is excellent drama in its own right. well, that’s just too damn bad. yes, it’s hard to do. very hard to do. i had a secret suspicion this day would come. i wish it weren’t too late for someone to tell JJ and his Little Friends, “No. Please keep your grubby hollywood hands off, even if you are ‘hot’ coming off of dreck like “Transformers” and “Mission:Impossible 3″ and “Cloverfield” (with it’s Felicity-level boy-girl relationships). Just stay away.”
But it’s too late.
A: I actually love this post. You are in a wonderful position, D. If we truly drop the ball as you fear, then you will be proved correct and prescient and appropriately critical. If, on the other hand, we manage to pull it off and capture Star Trek again, you will be the most pleasantly delighted.
210. Boborci
A: I actually love this post. You are in a wonderful position, D. If we truly drop the ball as you fear, then you will be proved correct and prescient and appropriately critical. If, on the other hand, we manage to pull it off and capture Star Trek again, you will be the most pleasantly delighted.
———
Now THAT’S pure class. I obviously have not read the script nor seen any footage, but this alone GREATLY reinforces my positive impression of the people involved in this project.
If I may make a leap of faith of my own, I feel they’re going to get it right with a wonderful story that brings TOS into the 21st Century. It will be the real deal. I for one will not scrutinize every pixel in search of an “A-HA!” moment. My plan is to sit back and enjoy the ride!
One more thing:
If the fictional people on the make-believe spaceship don’t behave in a manner consistent with my desires…
If the look of the costumes and the hardware deviates from my preconceptions…
If the story goes in a direction that is at odds with my expectations…
…my generally happy life will still continue. And so will yours.
210# Boborci After the writers strike was over did JJ do any reshooting or redubbing of the movie of things he couldn’t chance when the strike was on?
210# Boborci
After the Writers Strike was over did JJ do any reshooting or redubbing of the movie of things he couldn’t change when the strike was on?
#206—-”Abram-Oci-Kurtzman wanted to play with Kirk Spock and McCoy because they, like berman and the others, couldn’t come up with something new that is excellent drama in its own right. ”
“…they didn’t create these cherished relationships”
If that is the case, what’s the difference between them and Harve Bennett/Nicholas Meyer?
They “played” with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy too. They didn’t “create” those relationships either. Were they immune to your pre-judgement, or do you believe their incarnations of Star Trek on the big screen to be “vulgar” as well? What prompts you to hold Abrams, Lindelof, Burk, Orci, and Kurtzman to such a higher standard?
#206
“Abrams Et Al want to explain away the origin of the series, and leave no elegance as to the mystery of how the crew came together. the very fact they feel the need to do so, I happen to find vulgar, quite frankly. who are they to explain it all away? roddenberry never felt the need to. kirk and spock as boys? both sets of parents? carol marcus? gary mitchell? pike? it does begin to sound like the film will operate on the level of a soap opera where every relationship is thrown up so there’s no doubt left.”
Every question answered (or explained away) it simply raises more questions. The questions and answers just go to a deeper level.
Somebody said that it was fun it Trek to try to piece things together on your own after the show. That includes the plot holes and continuum issues. We could write our own little stories in our head to try to make sense of it all and try to get it to fit together. That can be fun. But somebody has to write those stories which we try to piece together in the first place!! These guys aren’e explaining anything – they are simply writing a story. When they write this story, if you like it, it will, like the other episodes, raise more questions and allow for us to explain away the events in this movie in our heads again.
Every explanation/storyline just raises further questions. The problem arises when something it written that you don’t like and don’t want to accept as occurring — like STV or the death of Kirk in Generations. If you didn’t like it you don’t waste anytime thinking about it and trying to make it make sense. Hopefully these guys will do a good job writing a story, and after the movie we can spend many hours thinking about the movie, filling in the plot holes, explaining away the many questions the movie will evoke, making sense of it all again like we did TOS.
#188 and #194
I could care less about Finnegan, I was mocking.
I wrote that because I read in here all the time about how concerned people are with ‘continuity’ and ‘canon’ and I don’t get it. Why does it matter if something is contradicted?
#217 – ’s okay. I don’t get how someone would *not* care about continuity. ;)
Seriously, I really do think that a fictional world that cannot maintain basic consistency is neither very believable nor much fun. (I’ve never been much of a fan of chaos. ;) ) But it does often seem that people believe that continuity requires that either everything ever mentioned has to be referenced in every new thing, or that nothing not mentioned previously can ever be created, and both of those ideas just strike me as rather silly.
#218—” But it does often seem that people believe that continuity requires that either everything ever mentioned has to be referenced in every new thing, or that nothing not mentioned previously can ever be created, and both of those ideas just strike me as rather silly.”
Excellent points.
I cannot help but think of the many fans who believe that Khan’s recognition of Chekov on Ceti Alpha V was a continuity error, as if the fact that Walter Koenig was not on the show during season one means that the character of Chekov could not have been aboard the Enterprise during the events of “Space Seed”.
I always just imagined that Khan simply memorized the information and images of the non-classified personnel files of the Enterprise during his convalescence in sickbay, and Chekov was simply not yet the ship’s primary navigator. Perhaps he was a junior navigator on the “graveyard shift”, or not yet working on the bridge at all. IMO, that reference in TWOK makes Chekov’s presence aboard the Enterprise at that particular time a part of Star Trek canon. The fact that the television audience never saw him makes no difference.
Furthermore, I believe that too much inclusion of known canon information in the backstory can weigh too heavily upon the story progression of STXI. I don’t need to see Gary Mitchell, Ben Finney, Finnegan, or Carol Marcus to know they exist in canon, and that they once impacted the life and/or career of JTK to one degree or another. It simply is not necessary.
218. Alex Rosenzweig –
“Seriously, I really do think that a fictional world that cannot maintain basic consistency is neither very believable nor much fun. (I’ve never been much of a fan of chaos. ;) ) But it does often seem that people believe that continuity requires that either everything ever mentioned has to be referenced in every new thing, or that nothing not mentioned previously can ever be created, and both of those ideas just strike me as rather silly.”
There is something to be said for continuity and canon and generally I feel the same way as you do on this. It always agravated me how little the writers of VOY knew or cared about what had been established even just a few years before on DS9 or TNG. There was that two-parter “Equinox” which had Janeway explaining that Capt. Ransom had made first contact with the Yridians who were believed to have been extinct which made little sense given how often we met Yridians on TNG and that it was common knowledge they were information brokers. And then they even appeared on ENT… That kind of stuff could’ve been so easily avoided had someone just leaned back and pulled the Star Trek Encyclopedia off a shelf and done some fact-checking then changed the alien name to something else. Yeah that may be nit-picking but you’d think they’d've had a fact-checker on staff.
Someone asked where to go after the new movie. Well, I for one would like to see more adventures from the original mission, maybe see a return of Harry Mudd, some more Romulan incursions, Klingon attacks, Gorn, Tholians, Orion Pirates, Tellarite and Andorian fights, new characters, new worlds with new catastrophes awaiting, more Mirror universe, the list goes on and on.
The next movie can open with Kirk and McCoy talking. McCoy is giving Kirk a psychological evaluation after his experience from dealing with Janice Lester.
#221 Great place to restart. Just don’t box in the rest of the 5 year mission by what we see in the later spin-offs.
#220 Nothing quite like a little example of how continuity and canon limit what a writer is allowed to write. After 40 years, the box gets smaller and smaller.
#201 Nothing that a little reboot can’t handle. We can get rid of Sybok, bring back Kirk, worry about the fates of our hero’s during every future episode — all because we altered the time line, or at least the bad guys in this movie can do that.
#222 – “#201 Nothing that a little reboot can’t handle. We can get rid of Sybok, bring back Kirk, worry about the fates of our hero’s during every future episode — all because we altered the time line, or at least the bad guys in this movie can do that.”
But that assumes, again, that maintaining established continuity is a bad thing. I don’t think we benefit at all with a license that says, “Well, we don’t care anymore, so let’s just throw everything out and start over.” If one wants to be free of such things, start one’s own series and thereby don’t worry about what an established one should cover.
“#220 Nothing quite like a little example of how continuity and canon limit what a writer is allowed to write. After 40 years, the box gets smaller and smaller.”
Ahh, so continuity is considered bad because someone should *gasp!* have to do a little homework. This is what some refer to as the “reboot-to-justify-lazy-writing” argument, or “I want to write whatever I want, so we should reboot so I don’t have to care what others do/did”. I suppose some might like that, but it’s a big failure-point in the logic to me.
“#221 Great place to restart. Just don’t box in the rest of the 5 year mission by what we see in the later spin-offs. ”
The later spinoffs rarely addressed the 5-year mission, so there’s precious little that’s uniquely TOS that would be boxed in by them.
So, moving right along… :)
#218 The thing is, what is going to be changed? I agree that if Kirk and Spock were suddenly brothers and Uhuru could read minds and Chekov had gills and had to gurgle ‘enemy wessel’ from inside a fish tank, then I’d have an issue…. but that’s NOT going to happen.
I just get bored of seeing people getting worried over things that don’t matter when they should be happy to see a new Star Trek.
I personally can’t wait.
My dad was a huge Star Trek fan. When when VCRs came out he had to buy one and start recording each episode. My sister and I got hooked on the show because we’d watch with him. This continued through TNG, DS9, and Voyager, but he died before Enterprise. I don’t believe in an afterlife, but when this new movie comes out I’ll be there with my sister on opening day, and I’m buying three tickets.
#224 – “#218 The thing is, what is going to be changed?”
I think that’s part of the discussion, and part of the uncertainty. Certainly, on the surface, it seems like they’re not planning on making profound changes. We know the characters are the same people, and I think most folks expect, and accept, that there has to be some level of change in the production design, though of course it’s premature to judge what they’ve done, since we haven’t seen it yet.
What some folks are arguing for is the idea that everything should be wiped away, so that future filmmakers/writers/whoever can tell new stories without regard to what’s come before, and other folks are arguing that if they really want to do that, they should build a new universe and leave Star Trek alone. :)
“I agree that if Kirk and Spock were suddenly brothers and Uhuru could read minds and Chekov had gills and had to gurgle ‘enemy wessel’ from inside a fish tank, then I’d have an issue…. but that’s NOT going to happen.”
Right. It certainly seems thus far that the makers of this film are trying to be true to the existing world. It’s just all the talk of time travel and the potential for alternate continua that might in the future no longer be beholden to what’s already been established that concerns some people, myself among them.
Again, of course, it’s hard to judge what they *have done*, because we don’t know. So instead we’re left to debate the possibilities, and what we feel should or should not happen. I’m sure that aspect will shift as more hard information on the film itself emerges.
“I just get bored of seeing people getting worried over things that don’t matter when they should be happy to see a new Star Trek.”
Well, I am happy, but as far as I’m concerned, I’ve been seeing new star Trek every single month for years and years and years, irrelevant of whether there was a TV series or a movie in play, so while I look forward to enjoying a new film, it does make a difference to me whether it plays in the same world as 99.95% of all those other stories or not. I mean, if millions of words of storytelling can be written that remain at least broadly consistent, I’d like to think that a few movies wouldn’t find it so hard, assuming the writers of those films care to do so. Right? :)
224. Sarah –
“#218 The thing is, what is going to be changed? I agree that if Kirk and Spock were suddenly brothers and Uhuru could read minds and Chekov had gills and had to gurgle ‘enemy wessel’ from inside a fish tank, then I’d have an issue…. but that’s NOT going to happen. ”
I actually think those are good ideas. Also Uhura should be a sassy young sister who says, “Oh no he did’nt!” and “You go girl!” because those would be perfect soundbites for the trailer. There should be a running joke involving Sulu’s flatulence. Also the trailer should use James Brown’s “I Feel Good” as the accompanying music.
“That’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout!!”
206. Decious
I wish when you quote me….. actually QUOTE me. Don’t put words in my mouth.
[...] Lindelof: Star Trek Needed A Batman-like Reboot | TrekMovie.com [...]