Abrams Talks Challenge Of Keeping Star Trek From Turning Into Parody | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams Talks Challenge Of Keeping Star Trek From Turning Into Parody September 19, 2008

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

In a light-hearted interview for BBC Radio 1, JJ Abrams talks about Fringe, Cloverfield, Lost, and yes…Star Trek. Abrams and comedian host Chris Moyles joke around a lot, but the Star Trek director also reveals some new things about the film and goes into more about how he is trying to ensure the film does not become a sequel to Galaxy Quest (not that there is anything wrong with that).

You can watch the whole interview at the BBC site


Star Trek not Galaxy Quest 2
The host asked JJ if they studied plans for the USS Enterprise and then asked if his had any toilets on it. Which led Abrams to talk about canon and camp…

It is very funny because when you get into what is known— they had blueprints that they sold, but a lot of it is hypothesis, like made up. … The show itself made mistakes. The idea that there is a canon of Trek and what is honest to goodness Trek and what you can’t change — The show itself changed history and revised things a lot. So clearly the approach was we want to make this thing feel real. It is so insane, the idea of these massive starships. The goal of this movie, despite it being called Star Trek, despite the pointy ears and all the established fans and hundreds of hours and almost a dozen movies and all that kind of stuff, we actually feel this is kind of a new thing and this is legitimate. Which is probably the biggest challenge, because it is by default so close to being campy. Like you see Galaxy Quest, which is such a great movie, and it is so — when you are actually on the set doing Star Trek, there are these moments that are like ‘dear God, how do I not make this bad?’ You see how easily you could go the wrong direction and suddenly you are mocking your own world.

Abrams went on later to talk about the challenge to keep it real and stay away from parody, saying

There were moments where I thought ‘the biggest challenge of this moment is make it not suck.’…To make it not be the version that in Ben Stiller’s hands or someone, which would be hysterically funny, and yet that is not the result you want for this moment.

Some other factoids about Star Trek revealed in the interview


1. Sean4000 v8.04 "Hardy Heron" - September 19, 2008

Shaping up quite nicely.

Please be good. PLEASE! We need this to be a hit.

2. R - September 19, 2008

“We want to make this thing feel real.”

I like that.

3. Dyson Sphere - September 19, 2008

Sounds good so far

4. NicholasAngel - September 19, 2008

“I have been opposed to gag reels simply because Star Trek is something that always borders on the silly… You’ve got people flying at impossible speeds and spaceships defying gravity. You’ve got a lot of things that are accepted, but that are almost scientifically ridiculous. It’s so easy to turn it into a parody.” – Rick Berman

5. Craig - September 19, 2008

We need this to fail or else this will set a dangerous president, that will eventually kill all Star Trek

6. mojonaut - September 19, 2008

Chris Moyles? Comedian? Used in the loosest possible terms, I hope.

Craig, I don’t share your pessimism. Despite not being a huge fan of Abrams’ work to date, I actually think he’ll do a good job. And if not, at least it’s an honourable attempt.

7. Bennie - September 19, 2008

Sweet. Can’t wait for the movie to open. Bad luck for me is that I propably have to wait even longer than you guys in the States, as I’m living in the Netherlands….

8. NCC-73515 - September 19, 2008

7 Bennie – Why not go to Germany and watch it on May 7? ;)

9. Paulaner - September 19, 2008

“So clearly the approach was we want to make this thing feel real”

Sacred words. One of the issues with post-TOS Trek, in my opinion, was that sense of unreality. Even DS9, with a gritty and dark setting, was full of… plastic… glowing lights… you know what I mean. That world was in a dreamland. Trying to connect it with our sense of reality will be awesome.

10. Kirk's Toupeé - September 19, 2008

Given this reality angle, I hope it doesn’t have a “Starship Troopers” look and feel to it…..

This is an immense task to get it right, I almost feel suffocated by the 40 years of Trek-lore bearing down in this movie, how must Abrams feel??….

11. Tanner Waterbury - September 19, 2008

Hey guys, hes going to London in NOVEMBER for something related to Star Trek. I wonder what it could be? New TRAILER perhaps?

12. konar - September 19, 2008

London symphony orchestra perhaps

13. Schultz - September 19, 2008

November… London? Recording the score?

14. vorta23492392932939230 - September 19, 2008


15. Chris Pike - September 19, 2008

He really is bang on with his approach. Even the best of the movies such as TVH still had an element of parody with some character moments, and only just got away with it. TMP is still the film that of the original cast had that element of “real” JJ talks about done best, the massive feel of the ship etc, and lack of parody.

16. Dab - September 19, 2008

Anthony, can you please fix the typo here:

“It is very funny because when you get into what is known– they had blueprints that they sold, but a lot of it is hypothesis, kike made up. ”

Pretty offensive.

17. The Underpants Monster - September 19, 2008

Jeez, I always ASSUMED there were unseen toilets somewhere on shuttlecrafts. If it’s unseen, why mention it? Are we going to hear flushing noises from the other side of the closed door à la “All in the Family?”

18. Duncan MacLeod - September 19, 2008


It’s a simple typo. The L is right next to the K. If that word was going be used offensively, it doesn’t quite make sense grammatically. Is he saying that some Jew made it up? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Especially since Abrams is Jewish according to http://www.nndb.com/people/797/000141374/

Simple Typo

For full disclaimer – I am Jewish and damn proud.

19. Duncan MacLeod - September 19, 2008

Typos mmmmm.

We need this to fail or else this will set a dangerous president, that will eventually kill all Star Trek


20. Duncan MacLeod - September 19, 2008

I’ll vote for the PRO STAR TREK president!

21. Ryan - September 19, 2008

London? Maybe James Bond?

22. MrLerpa - September 19, 2008

#10, Unlike Starship Troopers JJ has half of his cast running around wearing bright red, blue and gold uniforms, thats got to be very difficult to pull of convincingly.

I want this film to be taken seriously, it would be all to easy to turn it into a laughing stock. TOS can be watched now and be seen as a sixties tv series and you can forgive the design style for that reason, but there is no way that the general public could take that exact look as anything but a joke now.

I think that if Ben Stiller did make this movie it would look EXACTLY as it did in the 1960’s and that would be the big running joke throughout the movie.

The only reason the fantastic James Cawley fan films are taken seriously is because they are made just for fans who can transend the sities design look and appreciate the effort gone in to the reproductions of sets and costumes. My Fifteen year old just thinks they look weird!

I’m all for realism.

23. Ryan - September 19, 2008

Sorry to make another post, but I looked it up and QofS is indeed premiering in London, although the date is the 29th of October.

24. Crazy Guy - September 19, 2008

I’d made this exact same decision long ago, but I’ll say it again – I’m gonna give Star Trek: The Movie a chance. And these recent statements by JJ Abrams only reinforce my decision.

And on a side note … I know there are a bunch of people who hated ST: Nemesis, but I liked it. Sorry if I offend you.

25. Dennis Bailey - September 19, 2008

#5:”We need this to fail…”

I don’t.

26. Daoud - September 19, 2008

#19 Well, McCain has the Admiralty vote, and Risa and Argelius wrapped up… but Obama has the Hawai’i, Kenya, and Indonesia planets along with Europe and New New England. It could come down to the vote in key battleground states:

The Pakleds… if they remember how to vote….

The Ekosians and Zeons… depending on the uniforms they’re wearing…

The Romulans… whomever the Tal Shiar decides to have them vote for…

The Shapeshifters… if they remember to bring photo ID.

Just be careful voting on Eminiar VII or Vendikar! Those. aren’t. voting. booths. they’re. disintegration. chambers. Spock.

Since the only filmed new Trek we’ve seen features Welder Man, and Todd Palin is a card-carrying union member and steelworker/welder, I think that’s your sign.

Vote for Bill Engvall!

27. mojonaut - September 19, 2008

#26 – best post today.

28. JL - September 19, 2008

“We need this to fail.”

What an ignorant thing to say.

What are you waiting for, someone doing Trek later, maybe in 20 years? What is the rational in that?

Come on

29. Phoenix - September 19, 2008

WTH? WHO transcribed the interview? they misspelled LIKE as KIKE…an EXTREMELY offensive racial slur against Jews…the Shat and Nimoy would be appalled by this error…

30. Capt Mike from the Terran Empire - September 19, 2008

#5. Please keep your extreme pessimisim to your self. We true Fans want this to Suceed and be the biggest ever in tickets and money so we can have more movies and another Series. that’s what all true Trek Fans want. J.J is our best hope for this and He and his Court are very talented and gifted writers and directers and they are all true Trek Fans just like most of us on this site are.We are all true fans and we have the best of the best makeing this movie. I am so glad that berman is not apart of it as most fans credit him for almost killing Star Trek.

31. Alex Rosenzweig - September 19, 2008

#5 – Craig, what precedent do you think it’s going to set?

I’m not seeing what’s so horrible here.

32. Cervantes - September 19, 2008

From the comments by J.J. above, it seems to me as if he will just distance himself from WHATEVER previous onscreen Star Trek ‘canon’ has preceeded his Movie, that he doesn’t like. That is his perogative and entitlement, as it was for the previous makers that meddled with various aspects that came AFTER the original TOS series….but I get more and more convinced that things are going to be very DIFFERENT in lots of areas with J.J.’s own personal ‘re-introductory’ version of Star Trek.

I reckon that, no matter how much I like it, I MAY have to look on this whole Movie as just being a very ‘alternative’ take on what we’ve seen before. And that’s okay, as if I want it to somehow fit into my own ideal version of ‘canon’, then EASILY imagine it as being a TOTALLY ‘alternative’ timeline / universe to what I’ve previously seen. This could still be the direction that J.J. is steering us towards anyway, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Whatever, I am sure this ‘version’ will look sumtuous in it’s visuals, and have a ‘straight-faced’ tone, and will be as plausibly ‘realistic’ as they can manage without it seeming like ‘parody’, WHETHER the crew have ‘colorful’ uniforms or not.

And I sure hope SOMEONE makes that ‘Galaxy Quest’ sequel sometime, complete with all the remaining ORIGINAL actors!

33. Spectre_7 - September 19, 2008


If this one doesn’t make it, it’s all over for us.

Which is why it’s gonna be a smash hit

34. montreal paul - September 19, 2008

# 5 – Craig
“We need this to fail.”

Now why would you want this to fail? That would kill Trek forever. End of story. I may get banned for saying this, But Craig, that is the stupidest thing anyone has ever written here… or anywhere. I agree with JL… that was truly an ignorant thing to say!

I am looking forward to this movie. I think it’s going to be huge and very successful. And I am an old school Trek fan… I’m just not pessimistic and negative.

35. Capt Mike from the Terran Empire - September 19, 2008

# 34. You Are corect Sir.

36. Wrath - September 19, 2008

#5 Craig, the fact you used “president” instead of “precedent” encourages me. You are likely in a minority. One can only hope.

37. DaveO - September 19, 2008

I think it’s safe to assume that JJ’s referring to the Franz Joseph blueprints, which I owned two copies of as a teen.

And sure, yeah, they were indeed hypothetical. Franz used his skills in naval architecture to imagine what the rest of the ship would look like.

But it wasn’t designed as part of the show, just part of the world. It was a fun “what if.”


McCain *thinks* they got Risa. But it’s a PLEASURE planet.

That’s not gonna go over in the red states.

“The Shapeshifters… if they remember to bring photo ID.”

Didn’t you mean “if they remember to bring *up to date* photo ID.” ?

— Dave

38. raulpetersen - September 19, 2008


red shirt death!!!! omg me and my mates are going to give a standing ovation when that happens!

39. raulpetersen - September 19, 2008

red shirt death!!!! omg me and my mates are going to give a standing ovation when that happens!

40. raulpetersen - September 19, 2008

sorry stupid laptop posted twice!

once again very sorry!

41. AJ - September 19, 2008


McCoy: “Man! What stinks?”

Scott: “Boma’s in the bog”

Spock: “Yes..it would seem that the shuttlecraft has, unfortunately, somehow gained a toilet.”

Boma: “Pffffffart!”

Spock: “Please get back to draining the phasers. We don’t…”

Boma “FART!”

Spock: “…have much time…”

42. Craig - September 19, 2008

No need to flame me but, seriously this is not Trek and if you
1.Allow characters to be recast it starts horid cycle of Kirk after Kirk after Picard will be recast.
2.The story will stagnate being stuck in the 23rd. No Cardasia,No Borg,No Dominion,No Ferengi, No 8472, No Bajor
3.Trek will be damaged by panderings to the mass market eg Nemesis Argo scene that saw Picard violate the prime directive in order to ride a dune buggy.
4.As for JJ appart for the first 2 seasons of Alias I think his judgment has been questionable at best
5.As for TOS being and audience grabber I think certainly in the UK that TNG,DS9 & VOY even ENT are more popular

Anything that spawns from this alternate Trek will be of this tainted origin

Personally They should of saved themselve a load of money and spend a quarter of it on a series of TV/DVD movies similar to what stargate are doing

43. AJ - September 19, 2008

The BBC would like to apologize for that last announcement.

44. steve - September 19, 2008

#22 – I’m all for realism.

I do agree. It will be interesting to see how he pulls it all off.

One thing I want to note is that the Enterprise will fit nicely into a modern styling/design motif. Meaning, design has come full circle. That ship and its interiors (and consoles) can be “updated” easily.

As one earlier story suggested…I can see the bridge having an Apple Design influence and look fantastic.

It can be said that Abrams could update that entire 60’s look (in total) and pull it off. Yes, the color (Star Trek, in Color) was bold but…the designs were simple and that is a plus when considered as a “foundation” or point of design departure.

45. Kaywinnet - September 19, 2008

#26 — hilarious! Well done.

Love that JJ references Galaxy Quest — and Ben Stiller doing a Trek parody could be really funny. I’d love to see that.

This site keeps me hopeful about this movie! Can’t wait.

46. trekkiefan - September 19, 2008

I love that there is a red shirt death. Nice that JJ recognizes that there is a thin line between good Star Trek and Galaxy Quest. From the way he talks, he seems to really understand alot of the nuances of Star Trek.

I love Galaxy Quest but it is not the type of movie I want for the new ST movie.

47. Frye - September 19, 2008

#42. ‘Cause the Stargate straight-to-DVD movies have been such winners…? Give a dude a chance.

48. BobbyStarfleet - September 19, 2008

#42 — you’re absolutely right. JJ should burn the movie so it never sees the light of day. No Cardasia,No Borg,No Dominion,No Ferengi, No 8472, No Bajor — my GOD, how in the world can they make a movie without the Ferengi and 8472 — no, this new movie MUST NOT BE RELEASED!

49. NoonienSpock - September 19, 2008


Please refrain from making noises during the most anticipated moments of my life.

50. OneBuckFilms - September 19, 2008

RE: Toilets.

Number One, you have the Bridge.

I have to take a Number Two ;-)

Sorry …

51. Ryan - September 19, 2008

#42 Your full name wouldn’t happen to be Craig Burkey would it?

52. Zip - September 19, 2008

I am looking forward to this New TOS era movie, nothing anyone can say or do will change the fact that most fans are TOS fans, for with out it there would be no TNG, or DS9 or Voyager or ENT.
Ok JJ bring it on,,, give us something to look forward to before we all bad mouth each other over because we’re so frustrated.
Show us the Ship, my #1. character.

53. AJ - September 19, 2008


Let’s give JJ a chance. I think you’re jumping the gun about losing all the continuity going forward. The 24th century will continue to exist in books and on-line fanfic.

If the new film is a success, the doors are open for a new TV show. TVH’s success spawned TNG et al. ST11’s success could very well open up the 25th century if we pray hard enough.

I’m content just to hear that JJ loves and respects Galaxy Quest.

54. Captain Ron - September 19, 2008

I always felt that part of the reason that “Enterprise” failed was that it was too slick and indistinguishable from its predecessors – if we were going into the past where the Enterprise was a prototype ship, then I wanted to feel like the ship was being held together with spit and duct tape. Instead, we get some crap explaination about how waste and garbage is recycled or whatever, everything functioned smoothly, characters were dull…there was no sense of urgency, no sense that the ship could blow up at any moment. That was the great thing about the original Trek – you really DID feel like the ship could blow up at any moment!

55. AJ - September 19, 2008



That’s up there with “What did Riker find when he went to the bathroom on the Bridge? The Captain’s Log..”

Well done. Apology accepted ;-)

56. Dr. Image - September 19, 2008

Galaxy Quest remains the best Star Trek movie ever made.

That typo- it’s just SO bad that I had to laugh out loud because I could just see the shitstorm coming. Oh my…

57. Craig - September 19, 2008

#51 you know of me?

58. Ryan - September 19, 2008

#57 – I recognize your comments from facebook.

59. The Underpants Monster - September 19, 2008

Well, I’ve gone on record in another thread as assuming that male transporter chiefs just pee into the beam to avoid having to leave their stations for bathroom breaks.

60. Craig - September 19, 2008

#58 Oh I’ve not updated that in ages probally needs doing now we we know how bad its gonna be

61. star trackie - September 19, 2008

#42 “2.The story will stagnate being stuck in the 23rd. No Cardasia,No Borg,No Dominion,No Ferengi, No 8472, No Bajor”

And I’ll be delighted! Nothing in that mix excites me in the least.

62. Rod Of Rassilon - September 19, 2008

kike is a slurr? well you live and learn.

general rule to people too new or too stupid about the intertubes, if it LOOKS like a typo, take a second and look down at your keyboard, see those funny buttons there that when all pressed in the right UN OFFENSIVE order make the words all flowery and lovely, check to see if any of those could have been pressed out of order or mis typed.

I thought it was some varient on keek or keeth which are Scottish words, one meaning to take a peek and the other (which I know how to say but not spell) means crap.. or doo doo, or something less offensive and more flowery.

also note that this was a UK interview, where we have the English language, welsh and scots, and a smattering of celtic words from Ireland.

oh yeah, and GET OVER YOURSELF.

63. Rod Of Rassilon - September 19, 2008

basically, the world doesn’t end at americas shores.

64. Devon - September 19, 2008

#60 – Craig – Troll.

65. Craig - September 19, 2008

#64 Call me troll if you wish but I’m sure I’m representative of a large proportion of Trek fandom

66. montreal paul - September 19, 2008

Craig… you are an idiot. You have no seen one frame of this movie and you are condemning it. You call yourself a Trek fan? Ha!

Your arguments are unfounded and unrealistic. You have no bases for any of them because you have yet to see the film. How about this. GO SEE THE MOVIE FIRST.

How can you blast a movie for being bad that you have not even seen yet?

If you are this pessimistic and negative about a movie you haven’t seen.. I can just imagine what you are like in real life.

For the record… I think everyone has the right to their own opinion.. .after they have seen the movie.

67. montreal paul - September 19, 2008

#65 – Craig…

you are NOT representative of a large portion of Trek fandom. You are representative of yourself.

68. AJ - September 19, 2008

As a TOS maven, I disagree with Craig, too. Species 8472, the Borg, etc.are not critical to my enjoyment of Star Trek.

But to Craig’s point, they are important to thousands upon thousands of fans who discovered Trek in the ’90s, and to whom these elements are critical.

You can be sure that Mr. Abrams will not address any of the issues on Craig’s List ;-). But he’ll leave everything open, for sure. Now if he could just send the Death Star to Ferenginar….

69. Spock's Brain - September 19, 2008

Craig (#5, 42, etc.) Your spelling and grammar errors are as blatant as your unsupportable reasoning.

70. adarkknight - September 19, 2008

#67, spot on.

listen, craig, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but, honestly, your opinion of this film being a shame on Trek and on its continuity is crap. J.J. LOVES Trek, as do the writers…..they’ve done months and months of research on this……and, yeah, you, my friend, have not seen a single frame of this film – HOW IN THE NAME OF JEAN-LUC PICARD CAN YOU ASK THEM TO BURN IT! you don’t have the right to denounce it when you haven’t even seen it. just because we don’t get any Borg or Ferengi or any of those other species featured after TOS doesn’t mean there’s nothing interesting – just look at all the species and phenomena and wonder featured in TOS and its films. even Leonard freakin Nimoy loves it – the ORIGINAL SPOCK! already after the advance screenings people are calling this fantastic. so, please, please save your opinions until after you see the film…..if you can bring yourself and your huge ego to even do so. the filmmakers behind this care so much and are having so much fun with what they’re doing…..don’t throw them off the bus when you yourself have no chance of ever making a Star Trek series or film. these dudes are professionals that have worked and fought they’re whole life to get to do something like this, and you dare come onto this forum and call this tainted and not Trek. that is an insult to them and to all the beyond-ecstatic fans who are waiting so eagerly for this next year. shame on you, craig.

oh, and if they made a series of Trek tv movies like they are with stargate…..THAT would be tainted. THAT wouldn’t be TREK. it would just be crap.

71. Trek Nerd Central - September 19, 2008

Trolls are boring. Nice typos, though.

I’m glad to hear a redshirt dies, poor bloke.

72. AJ - September 19, 2008

montreal paul: Calm down a bit.

It’s understandably tough to grow up with a show, and invest onesself in its mythology as a fan, only to find it’s going to be rebooted and reinterpreted.

TNG and all its siblings brought millions of new fans to the franchise, most of whom consider TOS an anachronism. It’s canon, for sure, but it’s a pain to watch. Hopefully the “R” series will change that.

I love TOS and its films. I like TNG. DS9 and the rest are cannon fodder (though I like ENT season 4). For sure, I’ve seen every single hour, and I empathize with fans like Craig who came in later and worry what’s going to happen.

Let’s wait and see what JJ hands us, and then start the debate.

73. Izbot - September 19, 2008

29. Phoenix –
“WTH? WHO transcribed the interview? they misspelled LIKE as KIKE…an EXTREMELY offensive racial slur against Jews…the Shat and Nimoy would be appalled by this error…”

Yo Phoenix, I’m a Jew (“Izbot” is a nickname playing off my given name, Israel) and I am rarely offended by typos. Annoyed by them yes, but appalled or offended by what was obviously a typo? No.

74. John from Cincinnati - September 19, 2008

I wish JJ would elaborate more on WHAT inherently in Star Trek makes it in constant danger of parodying itself more so than other science fiction franchises.

I would think that comes down to the writers, producers and director.

Bad directors, writers = campy.

One can also make the most realistic Star Trek to date but that in itself won’t make it interesting. The story and writing need to be good.

For me, one of the things that was so appealing about TOS was the feeling they were in the future, a real future. I hope that is what JJ was talking about. Make it too realistic though, and there goes part of the charm. It would no longer be the positive optimistic future Roddenberry envisioned, but rather an extension of Aliens or Bladerunner with characters named Kirk and Spock.

75. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 19, 2008

Great artcle.

Parody – Trek’s real nemisis.

76. AJ - September 19, 2008

I’m not Jewish, and found “kike” to be a recognizable typo. I don’t like the word either. I’m sure AP will fix it.

77. Craig - September 19, 2008

#72 & 68 Thanks… oh and sorry about the typos, I’m dyslexic and was trying to use google as a spell check.

78. OneBuckFilms - September 19, 2008

74 – It can be Realistic, and a little used, without being gritty, dirty and dark (aka Bladerunner/Aliens).

What we want, when push comes to shove, is to to see the USS Enterprise and her crew, on the screen, and believe that it could theoretically be real.

Star Trek’s optimistic future was more in how people were, how Starfleet is, rather than the hardware.

The look and feel to me are window dressing for the story being told.

79. Craig - September 19, 2008

First off, I’m a different Craig. Second, thanks for ruining my name ass!

Now personally I really loved Voyager and I really loved the fact that they were introducing NEW species since no one had ever been there before. It was a nice touch and freshened trek up since here in the alfa quadrunt we already explored most of it therefor TNG and DS9 had a lot of the same species.

With Ent It was nice seeing some new and OLD species (ie Andorian) so clearly I like the idea of not seeing a lot of the same ol same ol.

TOS I cant watch, its just tooo 60’s lol. So I would be one of those 90’s era fans, but you know what… I cant wait for this movie and any other show that follows b’/c I love Star Trek. So keep your beliefs to yourself…CRAIG!

On a closing note… After watching Enterprise for the second time 3rd thru 4th seasons… I really miss it. The opening song really sets the show… I KNOW if this show wasn’t based on Star Trek if it just supported the idea of Star Trek as its foundation and that’s it… It would have done great. The Star Trek fans hated it b/c it wasn’t Star Trek enough and the non Star Trek fans didn’t want anything to do with it… It was hard. But as a show NOT Star Trek… ya… it was a great idea, the action and graphics were stellar the. I loved all totally loved the 3rd season… awesome idea… and the 4th was hard to get into after the action fest that was season 3 but I did and after the second 2 parter I got into the 4th season. I just wish it could have gone on… So hopefully the new movie will fill a little of that emptiness in me.

80. Jeff, God of Biscuits - September 19, 2008

Abrams is coming to London in November because 20 minutes of footage is being screened by Paramount. Screened to who, I don’t know yet.

81. Craig - September 19, 2008

#79 Personally I found ENT S3 too dark for Star Trek where as the excellent S4 really gave ENT a element of credability. Manny Coto is to be commended and should of be given the next shot at producing some real Trek

82. Pat Payne - September 19, 2008


While you have a point, it only takes 2 seconds to copy-edit and avoid stuff like this.

83. Alex Rosenzweig - September 19, 2008

#70 – “oh, and if they made a series of Trek tv movies like they are with stargate…..THAT would be tainted. THAT wouldn’t be TREK. it would just be crap.”

Actually, I’ve seen both Stargate DVD films, and they haven’t been bad at all. I think the direct-to-DVD market is one that could serve Trek well, allowing some storytelling that might not be well-suited for a feature film but which fans might enjoy. I wouldn’t dismiss that medium so quickly.

That said…

#42 – “No need to flame me but, seriously this is not Trek ”

How do you know? I’ll admit, some of the rumors of spinoff continuities and changed timelines make me concerned, but until I see the movie (or at least read a copy of the script!), I have no basis to judge what they’ve done.

“and if you
1.Allow characters to be recast it starts horid cycle of Kirk after Kirk after Picard will be recast.”

I used to be really hostile to the idea of recasting, but then I saw it done, and done well enough that I could embrace the concept of different actors portraying the characters. If Star Trek survives long enough for us to need repeated recastings over the years, maybe that’s not a bad thing. :) Preserving the characters is far more critical, IMHO.

“2.The story will stagnate being stuck in the 23rd. No Cardasia,No Borg,No Dominion,No Ferengi, No 8472, No Bajor”

Oh, now here I have to disagree. There’s so much ground left uncovered in the 23rd Century that it could be many years before it’s filled as much as has happened with the 2360s and 2370s. I’m not seeing any imminent risk of stagnation, especially if they allow the scope to expand beyond just Kirk and the Enterprise crew.

“3.Trek will be damaged by panderings to the mass market eg Nemesis Argo scene that saw Picard violate the prime directive in order to ride a dune buggy.”

Well, I think that scene was a mess, but I don’t think that “pandering to the mass market” necessarily equals bad filmmaking. A lot of modern Trek, both good and bad, has made adjustments to attract the mass market, and even TOS was produced in hopes of doing the same. Some acknowledgment of modern sensibilities will be necessary if Trek is to survive as more than just a curiosity.

“4.As for JJ appart for the first 2 seasons of Alias I think his judgment has been questionable at best”

This one I can’t say yea or nay so much on, because while I’ve seen some of Abrams’s work, I haven’t seen enough to speak about it as a whole. I did enjoy his direction of “Mission Impossible III”, though, and I’ve enjoyed a number of the films written by Messrs. Orci and Kurtzman, so I am encouraged on that front.

“5.As for TOS being and audience grabber I think certainly in the UK that TNG,DS9 & VOY even ENT are more popular”

That may be true, though in the end, I still suspect that the mass audience is more “aware” of TOS than of the other shows, even in the UK.

84. alamo - September 19, 2008

My biggest fear is the time travel. If Spock is on a repair mission, then ok. I just hope there is not a major temporal mash-up like we have seen in the series. I don’t think new viewers will get it.

The BIGGEST problem with ALL the trek series was the overuse of temporal displacement. Time travel is a dangerous drug for writers who have run out of ideas. As a minor plot device it is ok, but as a major plot twist it is unforgivable. Once invoked the logic of the storyline is lost. How did VOY make it home in the first place? Of course the DS9 finale was the most revolting of all, but the dueling Janeways were pretty bad. Timeline travest in ENT went to a new level, with multiple twists and turns. How do we know which timeline is the true one?

85. Ryan T. Riddle - September 19, 2008

The more I hear from Abrams and Company, the more I am looking forward to this movie. I can’t wait to see them return Trek to a more naturalistic storytelling, both visually and character-wise, that hasn’t been seen since the early first season and TMP.

86. Craig - September 19, 2008

““5.As for TOS being and audience grabber I think certainly in the UK that TNG,DS9 & VOY even ENT are more popular”

That may be true, though in the end, I still suspect that the mass audience is more “aware” of TOS than of the other shows, even in the UK.”

I disagree SKY,Channel4 and Virgin1 have promoted TNG,DS9, VOY & ENT hugely in the last 20 years where as TOS is occassionally shown to little fanfare on BBC2 and Satalight backwater Sci-Fi. In fact correct me if I’m wrong but TOSR hasn’t even been picked up here

87. DesiluTrek - September 19, 2008

As a die-hard original Trek fan who doesn’t include any of the sequel series in his personal “canon,” geez, I am being more open-minded than UK Craig.

I very much want this movie to succeed on a storytelling and characterization level — not only would that make a fan like me very happy, it would do more than anything else to attract a new wave.

The movie’s very nature invites scores of comparisons to the original, some of which I won’t view favorably. But if it’s a great story with a classic Star Trek moral, set in an optimistic future of a better humanity, with the new actors credibly capturing the characters, I’ll cope with anything else that won’t sit well with me, and I’ll root for a sequel.

Regarding “realism,” often in science fiction making elements more “realistic” often takes them a step backwards. How can we feel a sense of wonder about what’s been achieved in Star Trek’s 23rd century if we somehow want it to look more like our 21st century?

88. Anthony Pascale - September 19, 2008

I am sorry about the typo and if it offended anyone I am doubly sorry

89. Gary 7 of Nine - September 19, 2008


Bwahahaahahahahaaaaaahaaaaaahaahahahah! I couldn’t resist, after seeing some “First” posts, but five posts down.

We don’t need this to fail. We need this to be a huge success to keep Trek alive for existing fans while bringing new fans to the fold. This is not about the actors or the production values, but more about the characters and their stories. If the production values help tell the story while keeping it relevant to our world, and the way it currently looks and feels, then so be it. that’s the way it has to be to make me believe that the new movie is set in the future.

As for the colors of the uniforms, having different colors is realistic to me. Have you ever seen all of the different colored shirts on the flight and hangar decks of an aircraft carrier? Personally, I pretty much love all of the Starfleet Uniforms, with the exception of the ones from the first two seasons of TNG and the Starfleet Leisure Suits from TMP.

90. DEMODE - September 19, 2008

… A typo is just a type. Don’t sweat it! …

91. DEMODE - September 19, 2008


… A typo is just a typo. Don’t sweat it! …

lol… :)

92. John from Cincinnati - September 19, 2008

78. I can totally accept that.

May I add, I think a show gets campy when the characters become caricatures of themselves. Keep the characters real, multi-faceted, and the show stays real.

93. Anthony Pascale - September 19, 2008

To the craigs…don’t get personal, and one of you should add a letter to your name or something

94. Alec - September 19, 2008

I’m not quite sure what to make of comments such as, ‘the biggest challenge of this moment is to make it not suck’; and, ‘there are these moments that are like ‘dear God, how do I not make this bad?’ To Trekkies, these comments could be interpreted as borderline offensive, certainly surprising and worrying. Why would he think that? If the script is well-written and he is directing real drama, why would he have those doubts? Only if the script is obviously lacking or if the acting, special effects, sets, etc., are unconvincing would one have justification for such niggling thoughts. If this is a good film, why would there be any cause for concern about the film?

95. wilderfox - September 19, 2008

I think that from all the hype this will be a great movie. Once the mainstream media gets wind of it, sometime next April, then the general public will find out and hopefully get more people into the theaters on opening night.

We should just keep out minds open and not judge the movie before we even have a chance to see it.
I for one am waiting for a look at the Enterprise. I hope they release some pics of it once we get closer to the opening. I hope it doesn’t look like the one in the trailer, because the nacelles were WAY too large. They should try to keep it close to the original design, just with a few upgrades.

96. Energize - September 19, 2008

Is that Chris Moyles? He has a weekly podcast you can download from his show. I wonder if this interview will be on it. I know he’s in the U.S. this week.

97. Adam Shepherdson - September 19, 2008

I enjoy all star trek, and try to look for bright sides to each episode or series. YES there are things that annoy me about all of them, but I still embrace it, because its all we have. If we critique Trek every time it comes out (Or is still 8 months from coming out), then we won’t get more!

oh yea.. btw chill about typo’s, Anthony and the rest of the Trek Movie staff are only human… and they do a wicked job here.

98. ByGeorge - September 19, 2008

Everyone of us has had some favorite TV series canceled and we were sad to see it go. Ratings slump and you can’t make people watch what they don’t want to. It happened to all the Treks including TOS. However, TOS was the one that got bigger and bigger after they canceled it.

If we return to the TOS era some feel that it will be as if the 24th or 25th centuries never happened. Sorry, but they never really did happen. All of this is fiction.

If this movie is successful, the new comers will probably want more of what they see in this movie not “Cardasia, Borg, Dominion, Ferengi, 8472, Bajor”. Even hard core TOS only fans will find some things different and they may not like them.

Treks just were not pulling in the crowds anymore. To garner new fans and raise ratings you will need these new fans or you will get nothing. Don’t turn off the new fans by expecting the producers to cater to the old guard. They should cater to what the new fan base wants. Everyone who wants their own favorite Trek to continue will have to compromise. If not – the cancellation continues..

99. Odkin - September 19, 2008

To those liking the idea a Stiller Star Trek parody – SERIOUSLY? You’ve never seen this???


I think JJ should incorporate this into his new movie if he can’t get Shatner.

100. The Underpants Monster - September 19, 2008

I always thought it would be fun to set a production of H.M.S. Pinafore on the bride of the Enterprise, with the men’s chorus as redshirts and the ladies’ chorus as Orion slave girls. Dick Deadeye would be Spock, of course.

101. The Underpants Monster - September 19, 2008

bride=bridge, of course. Drat this 21st-century keyboard!

102. Platitude - September 19, 2008

I’m so excited for this movie. Can’t wait any longer!

103. AJ - September 19, 2008


I think the challenge is to make a relevant two hours of film which will create a buzz and satisfy the P&L.

The secrecy behind it has led me to believe that re-writes were necessary post-strike, but it doesn’t diminish my faith in the finished product.

104. Thomas - September 19, 2008

94. Alec,
JJ knows there’s a lot riding on this movie, and sincerely wants it to be enjoyed and taken seriously. If JJ ever has a doubt about the way something should be handled in this movie, that’s not necessarly a bad thing. It means he’s not slacking off on this movie or taking any easy-outs or throwing anything up on screen just because it looks good.

105. bdrcarter - September 19, 2008

Not to jump in on the Craig bashing but….

This is a huge opportunity for Star Trek! One not seen since 1979 when Paramount threw heaps of money at ST:TMP. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out so well. I think every Trek movie since then has been on a pretty small budget…certainly relative to other big franchises. So hopefully JJ and team have learned from all that has come before, found the right mix of characterization and sci-fi thrills to deliver the first Star Trek film that will bring in more than the current (and probably eroding) fan base.

If it fails, then Star Trek is probably dead…at least for a long time.

The 24th Century had a great run…but ultimately it was run into the ground. It took the relative failure of Insurrection, the bomb that was Nemesis, the tepid following of Voyager and the even more anemic Enterprise before Paramount finally and justifiably pulled the plug on the 24th Century/Berman & Braga version of Trek. And they had more chances than just about any other Hollywood property I can think of. The reality is…that it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see a Star Trek movie with TNG-era characters and actors again. I think the only hope would be for JJ to prove that there’s still a large Star Trek audience out there.

Do you really want TV and direct-to-DVD movies when you can have The Human Adventure on the scale of Iron Man, The Dark Knight and…dare I say it….Star Wars (the good ones)?!

Come on Craig…you’re a Star Trek fan. Embrace change. At least give it a chance. I for one am glad our beloved characters have the chance to be re-cast and live on beyond the original actors that helped create them. They truly can move on to iconic status. Tarzan, Batman, Superman, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Hamlet, Kirk, Spock. (OK…maybe I was pushing it with Hamlet.) Star Trek characters have the chance to be virtually immortal…while unfortunately their real-life counterparts are not. Do you really think James Doohan or DeForest Kelly wanted their characters to end with them…or to have them continue to entertain and fire the imaginations of audiences for generations to come?

I didn’t know either of them personally, but I think we can make a reasonable guess as to the answer.

Join in on the fun and excitement. We need you. Yield to the logic of the situation.

106. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 19, 2008

This “Real Trek not pulling in the crowd” myth that is being propagated is wholly unsubstatiated. ENT wasn’t real Trek either, and NEM was directed/edited with total blatent disregard for continutity and fandom. How anyone can say that they made NEM for the “fans” is preposterous I’m sure Berman or Braga did at one point. Oh and . VOY was rushed to a conclusion.

I’m truely starved and Trek is fundermentally some that doesn’t work well on the big screen, unless you make it some thing it’s not. It’s inevitablly gonna be pumped full of special effects, dialog will be full of long winded explanations of technolgies(transporter , phazer(stun/kill), warp drive) that shouldn’t need explanation ontop of that they now need to convince the audience that the bloke from Heroes who cuts peoples heads off is Spock and The bloke whos not Shatner is Kirk. Call me skeptical but this is not progress this is regression.

This is symptomatic of Hollywood that has run out of original ideas, JJ hasn’t got the bottle to introduce a new original crew, He has to dig up the TOS crew and manufacture some convoluted scenario to get them all together on a mission on board the Enterprise years before they are supposed to.

It truely saddens me that people believe that we need to accept this as the only alternative.

I was reminded on another board of the dismal Bond outing that was Casino Royale a total abandonment for the series removing Q,Moneypenny,the humour and themost importantly the escapism of it in pursuit this gritty dirty “realism”. Yes it made a profit but I went to see it . This profit has legitimised the production of a sequel made in the same vein. I for one wont be seeing it(intresting to see if other people share my opinion when the taking are released), and I will not legitimise what see to be fundamental flaws in the production of this alternate Trek movie either.

OK, I seem to have rambled on abit, it’s only because I care and don’t think the real Star Trek Universe needs to be nuked.

107. John from Cincinnati - September 19, 2008

I think the new movie set in TOS but filmed with modern production values and given a realistic and serious tone, is going to be widly successful.

And yes, there is plenty of stories from TOS era to fill a few more movies and possibly another TV series without damaging the timeline from the 24th century.

108. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - September 19, 2008

When I first heard they were doing a TOS movie my concern was that it would become a parody. Look at how many skits there are about Trek and all the comedians who joke about shatner. Hell even us Trekkies love to joke about the redshirts and shatner and spocks brain, etc. Star Trek is very very rife for parody, which is why Galaxy Quest works so well.

I am glad to see that Abrams is aware and careful about that. If Chris pine ‘did shatner’ this movie would fail. If the sets seemed cheap this would fail. I imagine a lot of this comes down to how you direct, act and shoot a scene. I bet any given scene in this film could be turned funny just by taking it in a different direction but not chaging a word.

I dont want the the movie to take itself too seriously like TMP, but when we are laughing we should be laughing with it and not at it.

109. The Enterprise - September 19, 2008

If you download the latest Chris Moyles podcast, you can listen to the interview.

110. Charles H. Root, III - September 19, 2008

# 94, Sir Alec: Right on!

It doesn’t give me warm fuzzies either reading comments like this from Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman.

It could be interpreted as they are already making excuses or apologizing for a bad product. Another way to read it is that he is simply voicing artistic insecurity or self-deprecating “I am not worthy” sentiments. Or, perhaps, the story and/or acting just aren’t that good.

Whatever the deal is, prepare for the marketing and hype blitz. Especially if they have to over-compensate for a poorly realized endeavors like Fringe, Transformers, Cloverfield or Mission Impossible.

If their industry cred is on the line, they’ll need to milk every penny they can out of it.

111. montreal paul - September 19, 2008

106. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86)

perhaps you should just stick to watching whatever Trek it is you like (I haven’t figured out which it is) and then leave the movie to the fans. It just seems that you bash every Trek series… I can’t figure out which Trek you are a fan of.

Why would they need to explain what a phaser is or a transporter or warp drive?? That was all established in TOS. Even when TNG came on they didn’t need to explain that. Where do you get your fact.. or lack there of?

It truly saddens me that you are so pessimistic and negative about the prospect of a Trek movie. Would you prefer that Trek disappear forever? Listen buddy… before you go condemning the movie.. how about waiting until it comes out before making a judgment. We know very little about this movie other than a few things here and there.. nothing to warrant your slamming of it.

112. Daoud - September 19, 2008

This just in… McCain has picked up Ferenginar… although it was close by an ear. Obama’s leading among the Al Gorn. It’s probably going to come down to Tellar with the Tellarite wing and the Tellaleft wing.

#37 McCain’s post-Vietnam flyboy commander years won over Risa pretty easily. Plus, Budweiser made ’em a deal on keg supply. ;)

On Topic. Galaxy Quest does offer insight on how to bring Trek back however. Don’t make the mistake Enterprise did B.C. (Before Coto). It’s easy to honor the legacy, without destroying the universe. Because really, that extended universe is what canon is. It fleshes out the whole. Everything, I mean everything, that JJ, Boborci, et al have said really makes it seem that The Court completely groks this.

113. mojonaut - September 19, 2008

I don’t agree (entirely) with this Craig chap, but I find it curious that some people are telling him to “embrace change” by merely sitting down and accepting we’re going to turn back the clocks and re-visit characters who, for all intents and purposes, had their stories told from beginning, middle to the end long ago!

I’ve gone on the record in terms of how I believe the franchise would be better served going forward (in terms of fictional timeline), but I do have faith in this team. They’re making all the right noises so far. I’d rather a whole new story begin and let the old established characters rest, but that’s just me.

As for the Ferengi, Cardassians, Borg, Bajorans, 8472, etc… Well…. The Borg were pretty adversarial in their first two-and-a-half outings in The Next Generation (Q-Who? and Best of Both Worlds), but they were diluted to the point where (with the first Hugh episode) they no longer seemed a viable threat. The Ferengi developed well, but were never really the replacement for Klingons they were intended to be. The Klingons remain the best developed race in Trek lore, probably with the Ferengi and Bajorans tied for second. The Cardassians and Bajorans just never did it for me, and aside from Chain of Command, I found every story involving those races boring. And 8472… well…. that just wasn’t Trek.

114. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 19, 2008

#111 Personally I’m a huge Voyager fan they should never of called it a day at 7 season, there was huge pontential to it to continue IMO.
After Voyager TNG certainly season3-6 are fantastic.
Of the movies my personal favorite is TUC which is strange since I’m no where near what you’d call a TOS fan. After that I luv INS, FC and tWoK. the rest range from medocre(tSfS) to absured( whales?) and downright travesties(NEM,tFF).
DS9 I like some were really good like Trials,little green men,Our man Bashir but overall I felt it was abit too dark at times still luv to watch repeats though
Oh and ENT S1&2 were appauling some credability was regain IMO with S3 but wasn’t till season 4 that I felt that the show had any soul as I said previously Manny Coto is truely the only man I trust to guide Trek in the right direction, I think it was sooo wrong that he was even hired as a consultant on this “project” concidering the sucess he had with S4.

TOS isn’t for me sorry, Balance of Terror and The City on the Edge of Forever were 2 I liked though.

115. LoyalStarTrekFan - September 19, 2008

Emotions seem to run high on this movie. My concerns have long been laid to rest on this new movie. As to one era of Trek fan against another era of Trek fan, the idea is nonsense. It’s all STAR TREK, after all. Yes, the “90’s era” Trek is my favorite, but I also love TOS. True, there were plenty of crappy, obviously 1960’s episodes like “The Apple,” “Miri,” “And the Children Shall Lead,” etc. but there were also many great episodes that I’d put up against even the best modern dramas. The fact is TOS started STAR TREK and will forever be “The Original Star Trek.” In short, I’m a fan of ALL or Trek and while the 24th century is my favorite era, I love both the 22nd and 23rd century shows too.

As for Trek not looking realistic: one poster complained about the items looking too much like plastic blinking items; have you seen the iPhone, iPod, personal MP3 players, or any other plastic gadgets that are all the rage and some of them have blinking lights too? I guess not. Go back and look at the screencaps on TrekCore, or rewatch and episode from TNG/DS9/VOY and you’ll see that, in many ways, these shows do indeed look very realistic and high tech. Just watch shows like NCIS or CSI and you’ll also see plastic items and flashing lights – it’s called technology. I would further add that TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT all looked more realistic than TOS and I would point out that there was a lot of blinking lights on the TOS bridge as well.

I look forward to this new movie.

116. HunterRex - September 19, 2008

ham sandwich

117. Krik Semaj - September 19, 2008


118. Alec - September 20, 2008


That the lights on the bridge flashed is a non-issue; what is at issue is the manner in which the lights flashed; and, much more importantly, the style, size, etc., of the lights—and everything else. Now, I’m sure that you knew this; and I’m sure, also, that I do not have to convince you that the TOS bridge now, naturally, looks as if it were a decidedly old-fashioned attempt at visualising the future. Modern audiences, even, I dare say, Trekkies, will not now ‘buy’ this bridge as a feature of the putative 23rd century engineering. It needs a major revamp. The ship needs a major revamp. I would be tempted to forget about the TOS ship and use the one from ‘The Motion Picture’ which did not have the naff nacelles. In the battle of continuity and canon versus believability, we must take the latter. Respect the show; but it must be made to look modern. Otherwise, it will indeed turn into a parody: today, nobody will take a 1960’s looking sci-fi film seriously, for it would lapse into a running gag.

119. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 20, 2008

#118 in the cage the primary colours were much less dominate and the sets worked quite well in In a Mirror Darkly I see no need for a drastic change.

120. Bill Peters - September 20, 2008

sweet, JJ is so cool!!!

121. Bill Peters - September 20, 2008

#5 We DON’T need this to fail!!! It must Succed, and I doubt it will kill trek infact I think that it will Revitalize trek!

122. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 20, 2008

#121 Forgive the Star Wars reference(but hey didn’t JJ say he was more Star Wars then Star Trek?) but this “Trek” could the Darth Vader to our Anakin in Trek terms of course, I’m sure you get what I mean.

123. AJ - September 20, 2008

I also would love to see a good show which picks up timewise where VOY left off.

But I think JJ’s team looked into the’ TOS early years’ concept, which is itself quite old, and saw a compelling story. I could see how using time travel to bring back Spock, could be construed as Trek parody, but having Simon Pegg emulate James Doohan IS parody. So they are walking a fine line.

124. Closettrekker - September 20, 2008

#42—-“2.The story will stagnate being stuck in the 23rd. No Cardasia,No Borg,No Dominion,No Ferengi, No 8472, No Bajor”

Stagnate? What in the World could possibly be wrong with telling stories in the most colorful period of Star Trek history, with its most wonderful characters? There is plenty of room in Star Trek’s best story-telling period for more. There is arguably more room within the 5 year mission, there is 7.5 years between TMP and TWOK, and 5 years between TFF and TUC.

I’m all for your vision of “stagnation”. Please, no more holodecks, Borg, children on the bridge, friendly Klingons, android Pinnochios, or ship’s counselors. Star Trek can be “sexy” again.

Star Trek was never as good as it was in the 23rd Century. The “A-Team” of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy should have been recast long ago, IMO.

“if you allow characters to be recast it starts horid cycle of Kirk after Kirk after Picard will be recast.”

Why? Picard is not the iconic Kirk. The TNG-era characters were never really worthy of this kind of treatment. You are comparing apples and oranges…

“.As for TOS being and audience grabber I think certainly in the UK that TNG,DS9 & VOY even ENT are more popular”

So what? The world of entertainment has become much more global than it was in the 1960’s, and even if what you say is true about the UK, are you suggesting that Star Trek’s largest audience market should be overlooked for the benfit of a smaller one?

“Trek will be damaged by panderings to the mass market eg Nemesis Argo scene that saw Picard violate the prime directive in order to ride a dune buggy”

Trek has not only already been damaged, it was completely on the ropes. And Nemesis did nothing to “pander” to the mass market, otherwise people might have actually paid to see it. There is nothing “damaging” about attracting new fans to the franchise, and there is no better way than to give Star Trek’s most interesting characters a massive budget reintroduction with one of the most currently popular creative teams (in which Star Trek fandom is well represented) at the helm.

#65—“Call me troll if you wish but I’m sure I’m representative of a large proportion of Trek fandom”

Not according to the polls conducted by this website.

#81—“the excellent S4 really gave ENT a element of credability. Manny Coto is to be commended and should of be given the next shot at producing some real Trek”

That depends upon what you mean by “the next shot”. I would love to see Manny Coto contribute to a new Star Trek series (once the new wave of films has run its course), but Bad Robot is perfect for the job of reinvigorating the franchise right now.

#86—“I disagree SKY,Channel4 and Virgin1 have promoted TNG,DS9, VOY & ENT hugely in the last 20 years where as TOS is occassionally shown to little fanfare on BBC2 and Satalight backwater Sci-Fi. In fact correct me if I’m wrong but TOSR hasn’t even been picked up here.”

That’s unfortunate that viewers in the UK are not afforded the opprotunity to see Star Trek’s greatest adventures in the original series. However, they are familiar with Trek’s most successful films (5 of the 6 original TOS-era productions), so I think they are quite familiar with its characters. If not, they will be soon enough.

#5—“We need this to fail or else this will set a dangerous president, that will eventually kill all Star Trek”

That is the most absurd statement you made. There is no “dangerous” precedent to reintroducing Star Trek’s most wonderful characters and its most romantic era. Bringing Kirk, Spock, and McCoy back is the equivalent of bringing the big guns to the fight for Trek’s survival.

I never paid a dime to see any Star Trek film that did not feature my favorite characters, and do not plan on doing so in the future. The only reason I am interested in any more Star Trek movies is the fact that those characters are the ones featured. I don’t want to see Star Trek relegated to “straight-to-dvd” movies, which is where the failure of the TNG film series had it headed, IMO. Even people like me, who have been Star Trek fans for decades, didn’t go see those movies…and it showed at the box office. Seeing them later on television did nothing to convince me that was a mistake, either.

If it’s not Bones, Spock, Kirk, and Scotty….I do not care enough to pay for it.

125. NoRez - September 20, 2008

Fellow landesmen, you need to chill re: the (imagined) slur that is just a typo. Yeah, it should fixed from an aesthetic viewpoint, but when you turn simple mistakes into potential hatecrimes you do rational beings a disservice. IT’S. A. SIMPLE. TYPO. There’s enough real antisemitism out there that’s deserving of outrage.

What I find offensive is quoting of/seeing the name Rick Berman. But hey, that’s just me.

126. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 20, 2008

#124 I see that your excited that the characters you loved are coming back but these won’t be the characters you grew to love these will be hybrids and cliches, you may see glimpses of what was but it wont be the same. I love TNG and VOY but if I was given the choice out of No TNG/VOY or a recast I’d choose none as I don’t want the character I loved to be tainted.

Ahh the movies actually the TNG Movies did better than the TOS movies pulling lots $ internationally than the TOS ones with NEM and TMP being the exceptions.

Oh and I’m sure that the polls done here at TrekMovie.com represent a unbias crossection of the Star Trek Fan Communtity

127. AJ - September 20, 2008

It’s been obvious here for a long time that a “generation gap” exists between TOS fans and fans of the 1987+ “Trek” incarnations. The later Treks also made a conscious effort to distance themselves from TOS. GR’s early TNG Writers’ Guide said “No Klingon or Romulan Stories.” We had them in droves for 18 years. Manny Coto finally proudly trumpeted the TOS connection with ENT season 4.

I agree (as usual) with Closettrekker that TOS allowed its characters to show emotion and passion more faithfully than TNG and its siblings. TNG always had an atmosphere that HR would fire you if you looked at a girl’s butt or cracked a dirty joke on the Bridge. It was replete with sterile interpersonal workplace relationships. DS9 realized this and introduced “grit,” which was just people being nice to each other on a dirty space station instead of a ship, and VOY dropped the formula, and spent 3 years playing with itself before flogging the Borg to death for the next 4. By ENT, everyone was tired.

There were lots of good stories written, but give me a good Kirk-Spock-McCoy scene, or a shot of Rand and Kirk together, and nothing shown since even comes close.

128. Captain Robert April - September 20, 2008

I must disagree.

“Galaxy Quest” is the SECOND best Star Trek movie.

“Forbidden Planet” is the best Star Trek movie, hands down.

129. Xai - September 20, 2008

126. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) – September 20, 2008

“Oh and I’m sure that the polls done here at TrekMovie.com represent a unbias crossection of the Star Trek Fan Communtity”

Once again, as someone else kindly pointed out to you, you don’t speak for anyone else. And while you are entitled to your opinion, I can’t see the logic in having this fail. The previous TOS through ENT series remain intact. The previous movies are intact. This “erases” nothing. “They” don’t come in the night and steal your DVD collection.
Good stories come back. TOS is returning with new people in old roles. The new producers and director are Trek fans. They will change things, but the essence of TOS will prevail.

130. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 21, 2008

#129 I’m 100% positive the I’m not alone it my views as I’m sure you are not alone in yours. I see you have your “faith” that this movie will live up to expectations and hope you are not disappointed.
Perhaps it’s just the way JJ and Co have shunned the milliions of young modern Trek fans yet say that it’s the demographic they aim for, is what I feel dubuious about this project.

131. ByGeorge - September 21, 2008

““.As for TOS being and audience grabber I think certainly in the UK that TNG,DS9 & VOY even ENT are more popular””

I don’t think that is true would challenge you on this. They LOVED TOS in Europe and the rest of the world. It spread like wildfire when syndicated. Just like over here in the States, the later incarnations were watched, but didn’t catch on with an addicted fervor the way TOS did.

Demand for more TOS kept getting bigger and bigger until they gave us TNG and the rest. Those series started with a ready made gigantic audience that slowly, over time, kept getting smaller and smaller. Going back to what produced the sensation known as Trek in the first place is the logical choice to help revive a dying franchise.

132. Xai - September 21, 2008

130. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) – September 21, 2008

“Perhaps it’s just the way JJ and Co have shunned the milliions of young modern Trek fans yet say that it’s the demographic they aim for, is what I feel dubuious about this project.”

How has anyone been “shunned”?

133. DaveO - September 21, 2008

130. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) – September 21, 2008

“… milliions of young modern Trek fans yet say that it’s the demographic they aim for… ”

My understanding is that that is *not* the demographic they are aiming for. They have said on numerous occasions that they want a wider-than-just-trek fans audience, and that’s exactly why Paramount decided to move the release date to summer.

Their sights are aimed at “all four quadrants,” as the marketing folks say. (The quadrants being: males older then 25, females older than 25, males younger than 25 and females younger than 25.)

It’s in no way “just for us.” We’re welcome at the party come May, but everyone else is invited, too.

– DaveO


134. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 21, 2008

#131 Sorry I wasn’t born back then so I can’t comment on how it was, but it isn’t any more. If a comedian does a Star Trek sketch here they are in DS9 or VOY uniforms.

#132 From all the talk of Spock and Co I certainly feel they think the enitire Star Trek Fan base is over 40 and the constant belittling of VOY,DS9 and ENT. I sure there is a reason TOSR isn’t here possibly because they don’t want the new movie associated with it here.

135. Mr. Bob Dobalina - September 21, 2008

# ” but it must be made to look modern. ”

Baloney. TOS created the look from nothing. That’s why it looked futuristic because nothing like it exists. Those displays were created by hand and were NOT Plasma screens bought at Best Buy. The conrols were original designs, the were NOT modern day sound boards screwed onto a wall. The whole idea of depicting the future is to make it look like technology we’ve never seen. Make it look “modern” so you can identify it because it resembles your Iphone or mac and they will have failed.

136. Denise de Arman - September 21, 2008

CraigUK#134- I have heard some immature views in the time I have been reading and posting on this forum (about a year). Your comments here are, I believe, the most negative and decidedly childish I have read yet. Your opinions are expressed as though you are an angry 10-year-old. Try to open your mind to what has come before your own lifespan in general – you may spare yourself some embarrassment down the road.

137. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 21, 2008

#136 Can you be more specific? I thought I stated my views as clearly as I could(appart from that last one, that could have been better). Personally I don’t think I’ve attacked anyone in here yet I’ve been pounce upon more than once(64,66,67,69,70,79,111,136) for not going on blind faith that everything be OK.

138. Krik Semaj - September 21, 2008

Trekkies. (Me included I guess) are a very critical bunch. It’s way too political for me. “I hate your Trek”, “Your views are wrong”, ” Roddenberry wouldn’t have done this”, IT’S NOT CANON”, etc… on and on.
Jeez it’s not easy being a fan when you read the rantings over a damn TV show / movie.

139. Denise de Arman - September 21, 2008

Craig#137- I will try to explain my comments to you by using a couple personal examples. While taking Film Criticism as a course in college, we viewed movies made from early in film history until present day. Some of those films were City Lights (silent Charlie Chaplin), Citizen Kane (ground-breaking direction by Orson Wells), Casablanca (Bogart and Bergman), etc. Learning about the historical medium of cinema helped me to appreciate modern films.

The analogy should not end there. To become a more enlightened person means opening one’s mind to all historical avenues, be it the archeology of a 2000-year-old city and its people to stories one’s grandmother may tell about “the good old days”. Though you speak of a preference for the most recent Trek television shows, TOS was the show which gave birth to all which followed.

Now I will answer your query concerning specifics: By making statements such as, “We need this to fail… will eventually kill all of Star Trek”, you 1) show a lack of understanding regarding where the franchise is presently. There are no Trek shows on television, and no other films besides the Abrams production on the horizon. This film is the one and only chance for Trek to be brought back “to life”. 2) By making a statement of this nature on a Trek forum, you invite disagreement and consternation from those who are excited about the prospect of the film. 3) Abrams and his team are not “shunning millions of young Trek fans”. They are making a movie based on a script that Paramount execs, Leonard Nimoy, Chris Doohan and many others have celebrated in print. 4) You state that the TNG movies “did better internationally” than the TOS movies with NEM and TMP being the exceptions. The Motion Picture was a TOS movie, not TNG. Also, where did you come up with the idea that TNG movies have made more money than TOS movies? I have never heard that particular claim – what is your source?

Other claims you have made to support your arguments are vague and emotionally-charged. If you want your comments to be respected and do not want to be attacked for them, be sure of your sources and facts while presenting with a neutral demeanor. Blind faith is not an inherent character trait among most Trek fans, Craig. I think most of us are simply happy to see Trek being revived at all.

140. Craig - September 22, 2008

Thankyou for your detailed response I’d like to address your points
1.I certainly fundamentally disagree with point 1. for reasons I said in post 106.
2. Nothing I’ve seen or heard from JJ and Co have done anything to dismiss my fears of
A.A total an utter failure of the magnitude of the Lost In Space remake such that Star Trek will not recover.
B.A Reboot that looses decades of Star Trek legacy
C.Reboot by creep first a recast but then if successful this imitation Trek will need new stories and character development, look to Smallville at how this can happen. Not saying this will be unsuccessful, I like Smallville I just don’t want stealth Star Trek reboot.
D.This will lead to futher Recastings once these people are gone turning Star Trek into Bond/Batman like franchise with no progression,no contiutity.
4.The box office takings a freely available at thenumbers and boxofficemojo and possibly wikipedia but I haven’t checked that. NEM made more internationally than the last TOS 5 movies indivually that is, but adjusted for inflation it made alot less. INS,FC and GEN however made huge amounts of money internationally with FC making more than any other TREK movie internationally ever unless you adjust TMP for inflation that is.TMP is somewhat of an anomally taking alot more than any other TOS movie perhaps this was due to advertising strategy but whatever the case TOS didn’t bring in the seats TNG even for TUC which was produced concurrently with TNG

141. ByGeorge - September 22, 2008


Craig – sit back, relax and enjoy the show. You might even like it enough to want to see more.

142. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 22, 2008

#141 was me if anyone was confused

143. CraigUK (From 5,42,65,81,86) - September 22, 2008

#140 that is you know what would be cool… if you could edit posts

144. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 22, 2008

140. Craig

I enjoyed that post.

Upon a Wiki search, I found an interesting item that, as you mentioned, relates to Lost in Space. A movie that I think is mirror mirroring our production of interest.

“…However, Jonathan Harris, who played Dr. Smith in the series, refused to make a cameo appearance in the motion picture version as the Global Sedition businessman who deals with Dr. Smith.”

The rest at…

Sound like another Big Head we know?
A few other simalarities…

The Time Travel plotline.

The launch of the Jupiter 2 in LIS sounds to me a bit like the “Enterprise built on the Ground!” controversy.

The inclusion of a fuly animated character. Arex?

But then, I did like LIS. If that movie had been made a few years earlier it would have easily made more cash (139 mil was not too bad, with Titanic at the B.O.) and it’s use of effects was ground breaking, or better than Trek’s. Featuring the first fully animated character years before Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Yeah, the effect could have been better, but at least the concept was there. And I give them credit for writing a story that was not your typical time travel tale too. Too bad the planned sequel was shelved.

I think we will be pleasantly surprised with Trek XI. With Bob and Alex at the helm I think we may be seeing a once in a lifetime achievement.

One that this longtime Trek fan has been waiting for for some time.

145. Bennie - September 23, 2008

NCC-73515 – I am not going to see the movie in Germany because it is always german spoken. I want to enjoy the movie in the orginal english version. So just have to be patient.
Thanks for the offer though…

146. beetlejuice - September 23, 2008

Everyone relax. The movie is awesome. The “E” looks fantastic. Your fears will be alleviated. Your worries are unfounded. JJ is a genius. I’ve seen the movie. It’s everything you hoped it would be. Well, at least some of you. Mark my words. Remember this post. Kirk out….

147. Craig - September 24, 2008

#146 The Enterprise E is in it? I did not know this

148. RD - September 24, 2008

“Kirk wears ‘yellow’ [gold] shirt at some time in the movie”

The shirts were GREEN!

149. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 24, 2008

147. Craig – September 24, 2008

#146 The Enterprise E is in it? I did not know this.

It’s because of the reboot. They got the letters messed up.
I heard there was A-F in this flick.
Anyhow, I am sure they’ll fix it all up in post.

150. Spock - September 24, 2008

@ 15 :

TMP had no self parody in it?
What about Shater’s line :

Damnit Bones… I need you… BADLY…..

I mean I love that line, but really – it’s very funny.

151. pinky - September 25, 2008

It is very disturbing to see questions about whether this Enterprise “has toilets on it “… oh dear. Oh dear. I can see Orci and Kurtzman perched over the script firing the possibilities for pee jokes back and forth at one another. Oh dear… Wait, Scotty’s the comedic relief, right? Yeah… so … Scotty pee jokes …

Oh dear.

152. pinky - September 25, 2008

OH DEAR!!! Ruined. It’s actually in the interview….

Chris: “So your version of Star Trek has Kirk?”

J.J. Abrams: “And toilets.”

Christ: “No, well I’ve moved on from toilet because I don’t think you put toilets in there.”

J.J. Abrams: “Well, you don’t make a big deal of them. You don’t highlight them.”

Chris: “There’s no dialogue where they go, Just one minute, I just need to go.”

J.J. Abrams: “…. It’s in the script that one of the characters is actually in the restroom because he’s afraid of flying… and he comes out of the restroom. But you don’t see it.”

Chris: “So he’s afraid of flying. And he’s in space.”

J.J. Abrams: “That’s the point of the scene.”

153. Dave Lorenz - April 20, 2011

The Movie was great and there will be another

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