Abrams: Star Trek Not Classic Reboot Or Prequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: Star Trek Not Classic Reboot Or Prequel October 11, 2008

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

Star Trek director JJ Abrams participated in a live chat with the Guardian.co.uk to promote Fringe which premiered in the UK on Sky 1 this week. One of the chatters asked Abrams about Star Trek and he dove into the whole reboot/prequel thing. Abrams also talked Doctor Who, Cloverfield 2 and of course Fringe.

 

Abrams on Trek
There was only one Trek related question in the live chat:

Q: What made you touch Star Trek?
JJ:  I think it was the opportunity to tell a story that was based on a world and characters that I felt were just compelling and optimistic and the opportunity to treat that universe with a kind of energy and excitement and the resources we had. It didn’t feel like a classic reboot or prequel. It is a brand new thing inspired by characters that are poised to make a big comeback.

Abrams on Cloverfield 2, Doctor Who, Fringe
Here are some of the more interesting echanges on other projects

Q: Do you have the same enthusiasm working on FRINGE that you have whilst working on LOST? Is the energy the same, if not, in which ways is it different?
JJ:  I have as much enthusiasm working on any new project. Obviously certain things get complicated. For example, working on Fringe I really wanted to work on the pilot but I was also working on Star Trek so I was unable to do both. It was a very surreal thing having to give up that opportunity. I was so jealous. The hardest thing for me on that was just being involved in other things. Every project is different but the enthusiasm is always at the core of why I am involved with it at the beginning.

Q: Fox – not noted for their commitment to genre shows… have you plotted out as far as 7 seasons like Lost or do you see Fringe as being a 4-5 Season arc ?
from – djbollocks
JJ:  Yes [on Fringe]. We have a big picture which we are working to. We have a six chapter idea. That inevitably changes along the way. You make discoveries which you can’t anticipate.

Q: You have never been seen in the same room as Dr Who renvigorator Russell T Davies- are you actually the same person? If you aren’t (and the jury is stll out), would you like to director or script an episode of Dr Who?
JJ:  It would be an honour to be asked to participate in Doctor Who. They are doing a spectacular job. That is not to say I am not already involved as Doctor Who! It would be a wonderful thing and I am a fan. If Russell would ever like to direct anything in my place I would be equally honoured.

Q: Is it true that there will be a Cloverfield 2?
JJ:  There is an idea that we are working on that I hope will come to fruition. We are playing with it right now. Obviously we don’t want to commit to something we don’t love and feel inspired by but we have a pretty cool idea we are playing with.

Much more at guardian.co.uk.

 


Abrams at Fringe press conference in NYC October 5th

Comments

1. MORN SPEAKS - October 11, 2008

We need to mind meld this guy for his secrets!

2. MN_Batman - October 11, 2008

I would love to see JJ do an episode of Doctor Who.

3. Green-Blooded-Bastard - October 11, 2008

I can’t believe only one Star Trek question was asked. It’s going to be EPIC, and only one question. And of course it’s the UK so they ask Dr. Who questions. I like Dr. Who, but it’s not Trek by a long shot.

4. DanielCraig - October 11, 2008

I like the Enterprise alarm sounds in ‘Eagle Eye’ nice touch guys;)

5. Gabriel Bell - October 11, 2008

JJ, Roberto, Alex … keep it rolling. Everything I’ve seen from these guys is top notch. Trek ’09 is going to be awesome.

After this week’s episode of “Fringe,” I am hooked. The Observer dude was outstanding. I am liking that show.

I think I just might spend Columbus day going through my Alias Season 1 DVDs.

6. DJT - October 11, 2008

So what the heck is this movie? It’s not a prequel because it ends up in a different time-line than the one we are used to. It’s not a reboot because it tries to stay true to the what’s been established in that universe prior to the movie. It’s not a remake. So what the heck is it? A remix?

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

7. Thomas - October 11, 2008

I love Doctor Who, but I am looking forward to seeing it in new hands. Maybe Steven Moffat (Moffett?) would be open to working with JJ. As for Fringe, I might take another look at it, but for now it hasn’t peaked my interest the way I thought it would, and I wanted to like this show. I think the only episode I’ve seen from start to finish is the pilot.

8. entropy - October 11, 2008

Good Stuff Goodtimes

9. SirMartman - October 11, 2008

Interesting if not,,,,, confusing

:-D

10. fakesteve - October 11, 2008

It was obvious that the Trek Universe full of Treknobabble and reused Borg queens had reached its end. So the obvious solution was to go back to the beginning and throw a lot of money and a committed team of übergeeks, plus ILM, at it… What we will get is a SciFi Blockbuster Action Movie than will be fast, funny and exciting. And if Old Spocks interference throws the 1701s universe on a slightly different track, I would not mind that. I never liked Time Travel episodes with a reset switch, so that everything is back in place for syndication after 42 boring minutes of Janeway, Kim and Tuvok in jeopardy.

One of the best TT stories I ever saw was “…Different Destinations”, Ep 5, Season 3 of Farscape. For everyone unfamiliar with Farscape, it was everything that Trek should have been in the last 12 years.

11. LorienTheYounger - October 11, 2008

> “So what the heck is this movie? It’s not a prequel because it ends up in a different time-line than the one we are used to. It’s not a reboot because it tries to stay true to the what’s been established in that universe prior to the movie. It’s not a remake. So what the heck is it? A remix?”

#6 – here’s what I think. Technically, it IS a prequel in the sense that it is set before TOS. And because it changes things here and there to update the look and get rid of the ’60s zeerust, it is slightly rebootlike as well. But the FEEL of the film will be neither that of a prequel or reboot, but simply of Star Trek.

“Prequel” and “reboot” both have connotations that JJ and the rest want to avoid. And fair enough – if this is going to be “Star Trek – The Movie” then it’s best to avoid such baggage.

12. Chris Pike - October 11, 2008

Oh yes, let JJ have a little go with a Dr Who, that would be something a bit special!

13. Buckaroohawk - October 11, 2008

I think we have to stop trying to dissect every word and nuance that comes from these filmmakers, and stop thinking in concepts like “new timline” or “altered timeline” when it comes to this movie. We’re in danger of driving ourselves to distraction over what we THINK this movie is going to be.

All of this “is it a reboot/prequel/remake/reimagining/re-whatever?” rambling could so pollute our preconceptions that we might not be able to enjoy what could be a very good movie.

Let’s try to stop worrying about it so much. In a few months, we’ll all be sitting in theaters watching a movie called “Star Trek.” After we’ve seen it, we can each decide for ourselves exactly what it is.

How does that sound?

14. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

If it’s not a prequel or a reboot is it a sequel?

15. SirMartman - October 12, 2008

Its a Rebootquel ?

:-D

16. SirMartman - October 12, 2008

a Pre-Rebootquel ?

17. fakesteve - October 12, 2008

Of course you are right, Buckaroohawk, but what shall we ramble about instead… till the trailer hits us and we can talk 500 post about heretic nacelles, ot the typface on the Primary Hull?

Just kidding.

18. fakesteve - October 12, 2008

sorry, of course that is called TYPEFACE.
;))

19. captain_neill - October 12, 2008

He is going to be changing things which are sacred to us Trek fans

20. M-BETA - October 12, 2008

Good interview.

Anyone else notice that JJ is looking more and more like Fabio Cappello?

Just an observation.

21. Bugs Nixon - October 12, 2008

I read here a few days ago lots of hostility to Doctor Who.

My question is… is it now safe to express love for the Tardis and the Doctor on these forums?

22. Cheve - October 12, 2008

> 21. Bugs Nixon – October 12, 2008

I read here a few days ago lots of hostility to Doctor Who.

My question is… is it now safe to express love for the Tardis and the Doctor on these forums?
—-

I hope so.

I like Dr Who, Starwars, Stargate, Galactica, Farscape, Buffy, Angel, Lost, X-Files, House, Monk, Heroes and plenty of other shows and that doesn’t meen that I’m less Trekkie.

23. Holger - October 12, 2008

I don’t know what to expect of this movie any more. I’ll just have to wait and see for myself. But my initial excitement about a new movie with Spock and Kirk is definitely gone now, thanks to all that confusing talk by its makers.

And by the way, why are some people so sure about that alternate timeline being created by the events in STXI?? Have I missed something?

24. The Last Maquis - October 12, 2008

Uhg.

25. Joe Schmoe - October 12, 2008

The best thing to do is not to have any expectations for this movie at all – positive, negative, or indifferent.

Just go and watch the movie. Try to trick your mind into thinking that you’ve never seen a Star Trek movie before.

Then when you leave the theater, ask yourself the question, “Was I entertained, or emotionally and/or intellectually engaged?” If you answer “Yes,” then great! If you answer “No,” well you lost two hours and $8 bucks, no big deal.

If you leave the movie theater lamenting that Captain Kirk’s chair was 1.73 centimeters too big, or Simon Pegg had 23.78 percent fewer hair follicals than Jimmy Doohan, then you are taking a two-hour piece of entertainment way too seriously.

26. fakesteve - October 12, 2008

Holger, alternate timeline depends on your perspective…
I assume that Spock comes from our established CANON timeline…
hence his appearance will change the timeline of young Spock and company. SOn the other hand it is quite possible that our favorite Half-Vulcans actions change the timeline of STXI to become our known timeline, or will it be the other way around?

boborci to the bridge!

27. sean - October 12, 2008

Guys, this movie is clearly not a reboot nor a prequel. It’s a “preboot.”

28. Allen - October 12, 2008

I think hes saying its not a prequel in the sense that star trek: first contact is not a prequel, yet it takes place before most of the rest of the star trek franchise. From what i’ve heard this takes place post nemesis then goes back in time just like first contact did.

29. captain_neill - October 12, 2008

With all the conflicting information that these makers are providing us with I feel I do not want to raise my hopes to high.

I am really excited about another Star Trek movie and I fell the cast will do well. Quinto, as I said before, won me over at the convention. However, I will always prefer the originals, Shatner and Nimoy et all. For the simple reason as they were the ones I grew up watching. I love TOS as much asI loved the spin offs.

Given the conflicting info from the makers I feel they will have changed it too much from the Star Trek I love. Sure they do what Star trek needs creatively but somehow I feel that our legacy has been lost.

I will support the film but I feel my Star Trek is gone. I dont care about it as much as I have other things in my life which are important than arguing than Kirks delta is 2 cms lower.

All I say is that from these interviews that I am expecting the changes now. Rather I will like them or not remains to be seen. Its scary though

30. biodredd - October 12, 2008

I have never been labeled as anything outher than a sci-fi fan. I love Trek. But I also love SG-1. I enjoy the new Dr. Who. I have a good time watching BSG old and new. Farscpae was grand and Quark was ahead of its time.

Does anyone here really feel comfortable being pideon holed into any one fandom? I really hope not. Life’s too short to wage a never ending campaign about one show being superior to all others.

Trek is a great show. But everything has it merits and everything has its pitfalls. All shows fall into a trap. But if they entertain on any level at all and you come away entertained then its done what it was meant to do.

Even shows like Fantastic Journey and Otherworld have their shining moments. Not great shows but still entertaining even it makes you luagh during the entire broadcast.

It all has value. More power to the ALLFAN!

31. Denise de Arman - October 12, 2008

MornSpeaks#1- Capital idea – Spock to the bridge (right behind Mr. Bob).

Sir Martman#15 & #16- Sounds good, although seans “preboot” is also in the running…

32. P Technobabble - October 12, 2008

“So what the heck is this movie?”
It’s a cookie….
It’s a candy…
No, a cookie…
No, it’s a candy…

33. Spocks Brain - October 12, 2008

I think this movie will suck big time….

34. SChaos1701 - October 12, 2008

#32 Nice comment….troll.

35. Wrath - October 12, 2008

JJ Abrams really does seem like one of the most genial, polite and enthusiastic people working in Hollywood.

36. Jon - October 12, 2008

We know that the Romulan evil guy goes back in time with Spock, sooo does he go back for vengeance and do something Spock has to go back in time to fix or does Spock have to follow him to avoid a disruption in the time line? depending on how the order is will determine if he is fixing the current time stream or avoiding and somewhat changing the old one to prevent everyone from ever existing.

37. Jon - October 12, 2008

Rereading my post I seemed a little unclear. I meant that if Spock goes back in time to prevent the Romulan from altering the timeline, then things may change in the process by at the expense of saving Kirk and company. If Spock is going back to undo what the Romulan has done, then perhaps we resume current canon at the end with events that happened to the crew they just never knew Spock was there. Just my 2 cents. That order of events alone could effect what canon the movie ends with and how J.J. handles the sequels.

38. fakesteve - October 12, 2008

So the romulan pirates have time ships, too? And they start marauding at the fringes of federation space, killing Jims father that way?

39. Steve Short - October 12, 2008

With JJ Adrams saying it’s not a reboot or prequel maybe he is seeing a lot of Old Spock Nimoy in the new movie that it doesn’t look like a reboot or prequel to him it’s just Star Trek.

40. Xai - October 12, 2008

32. Spocks Brain – October 12, 2008
“I think this movie will suck big time….”

Ok, it’s your opinion, but based on what? A couple interviews?

41. Capt Mike from the Terran Empire - October 12, 2008

I wonder how much Bob Orci and and JJ watched star trek Phase 2 with James Cawley. I also wonder if they have any plan for a new Star Trek Series based on the TOS Time frame. Just Wondering.

42. NavySupra - October 12, 2008

Take a look at we have seen of the enterprise so far. First off, there is nothing sticking out from the hull needlessly. The saucer and bridge design ties in very closely with what we have seen on many different classes of starship. The ship is smooth, and its lines appear true. Clearly it is different from the TOS Enterprise, but immediately recognizable as the Original Enterprise. I am looking forward to seeing the nacelles, I image the engineering hull and struts will be pretty straight forward.
What I am trying to say is that judging off what we have seen thus far; there is no reason to get up in arms about things not being exactly the same as they were. It appears that everyone involved with Star Trek 11, wants to do a good job. I am holding my judgment until after I’ve seen the movie.

43. Decker Unit - October 12, 2008

25, 30, 41, Well said!!!

44. OM - October 12, 2008

“Ok, it’s your opinion, but based on what? A couple interviews?”

…Based on the fact that Abrams is pulling the same “keep it secret” stunt that he did with Cloverfield. When you consider how bad the “big secret” was – the monster was a goddamn mutated sea monkey! – then everyone has a right to be concerned *and* pessimistic. All Abrams has to do to allay fears is to release a “beauty shot” of the Enterprise and at least one shot of the entire crew on the bridge, and he’d have it sold. By keeping it a big secret, he’s only shooting himself in both feet.

45. Mark Lynch - October 12, 2008

We will just have to wait and see what the trailer holds won’t we?

46. MrLerpa - October 12, 2008

#43 You should read this site more closely, we are going to see a full trailer next month; Ship, costumes, cast the lot, then let the real debate begin!

That should be a hell of a week on this site…

47. Greg2600 - October 12, 2008

As much as I’ve been on J.J.’s case for the lack of Shatner, and other things I am not fond of, I really am annoyed this is not coming out this December. I hate, I mean hate spoilers, and I just don’t see how they’re going to keep it under wraps for another 7 months or so. So I may have to stop visiting this website. LOL.

48. CmdrR - October 12, 2008

I like Dr. Who quite a lot, and even tolerate the outrageously cheesy ones of the past and present. I also have a deep nostalgia for Lost in Space. Trek — that’s something different. I can see why JJ would like to do a Who. But Trek will never be quite the same as the other sci-fi shows out there. When I was a kid and Trek would come on on Saturday mornings, I recognized that this is the cartoon where nothing bends and there are no whistles to tell you to laugh. Trek is my fav, because Trek remains plausible most of the time. It’s not about technobabble (except when it’s in the wrong hands.) And it’s not about monsters of the week (except when the network suits get their thumbs in it.) Trek is a plausible look into our future, as if we people of today got to jump ahead several hundred years. Who is fun. Lost in Space is fun. But, Trek is truly, consistantly inspiring.

49. Holger - October 12, 2008

25: “Just go and watch the movie. Try to trick your mind into thinking that you’ve never seen a Star Trek movie before.

Then when you leave the theater, ask yourself the question, “Was I entertained, or emotionally and/or intellectually engaged?” If you answer “Yes,” then great! If you answer “No,” well you lost two hours and $8 bucks, no big deal.”

Sorry, but that’s not my take on a Star Trek movie. In fact, that’s not my take on any SF movie which deserves the name ‘science fiction’, that is, which is not just some no-brain action-adventure which happens to be set in outer space. I’m best entertained when I get something to think or to wonder, or something which moves me.
Star Trek means something to me, so I won’t adopt the stance you suggest. In fact, if I took that stance, I wouldn’t have fun in the cinema for sure.
(To reply to the inevitable get-a-life-posts in advance: that Trek means something to me does not preclude that other things are important, too, and more important than Trek.)

About 32, 33, 40: Yes, 32 was somewhat negative. But on what are the numerous ‘This movie will rule big time!!!’ posts based? A couple of interviews?

50. ScreenRant.com - October 12, 2008

“It is a brand new thing inspired by characters that are poised to make a big comeback.”

LOL, if that’s not the definition of a “reboot,” then I don’t know what is. :-P

Vic

51. SChaos1701 - October 12, 2008

Sorry…I was actually responding to comment #33.

52. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

The movie is really 2 hours of Shatner talking about Priceline.

53. Bridge Extra - October 12, 2008

I was an extra on the bridge. I can tell you guys everything!

54. Reliant - October 12, 2008

Spill It

55. Stanky McFibberich - October 12, 2008

re: 49 Holger
“But on what are the numerous ‘This movie will rule big time!!!’ posts based? A couple of interviews?”

Exactly

56. TOS Purist Guy - October 12, 2008

#4 – I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed that sound during “Eagle Eye!”

This interview with Abrams seems even MORE confusing – this movie could either be a prequel or a reboot, but it can’t be both and/or neither!! How does that work?!

57. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

As long as we get Kirk’s shirt ripped, I’m all for it.

58. Bridge Extra - October 12, 2008

Well, for a fact, the bridge doesn’t stray too far from the bridge depicted in TOS. However, the small lower and upper big screens are merged more together. The colorful control boards are now colorful touchscreens with some buttons too. The red railing is still there, though. Overall, the bridge is a little more high-tech, and more curvy than the original.

59. crowmagnumman - October 12, 2008

Abrams is so hell-bent against labeling this movie. He can say labels don’t apply to his movie all he wants, but the fact is that it is something. Since the writers say it fits in with canon, it sounds like a sequel and a prequel to me. Sequel in that it’s set in the TNG universe where Voyager left off, with Spock as played by Leonard Nimoy. And a prequel in that our Spock goes back in time to meet the younger versions of the rest of the crew. Simple as that. JJ needs to admit that already and stop acting like his movie is above all that.

60. fakesteve - October 12, 2008

Hmm, what about the chairs, BE? And what colour was your uniform?

61. SciFiMetalGirl - October 12, 2008

Inquiring minds want to know: what will the NEXT movie (after this one) be called?

A Pre-Rebootquel sequel?

Heh!

62. Bridge Extra - October 12, 2008

The chairs were pretty much the same. They were gray with black cushions. The captains chair was more rounded, and had touchscreens on the arm rests.
I felt so….”iconic” wearing the uniform! It was a red shiny fabric. The miniskirt was a couple inches longer, I would say. I also wore knee high black boots and dark stockings. And like the original uniforms, the Starfleet logo was on the fabric, with no function what-so-ever.

63. SciFiMetalGirl - October 12, 2008

Bridge Extra – Dontcha think you should be re-reading the clause in your contractual gag order?

That micro-chip that JJ had implanted on you while you were wearing that uniform might explode at any second!!!

*not to mention that I am quite jealous of you!!!*

64. Bridge Extra - October 12, 2008

SciFi MetalGirl,

LOL! What is this? The 23rd century? Only the Pen can track me down!

65. SciFiMetalGirl - October 12, 2008

Bridge Extra – Well, be sure to let us know where to look for you in the movie! I can’t wait to see you, and be able to say “I knew her when…”

*PS How about helping out a fellow ST sister to get a spot in the next Pre-Rebootquel sequel? Not much I wouldn’t do just to see my face flash by even one time on the big screen! :))

66. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

Did you get to fall off your chair when the ship was hit?

67. Seamus MacManus - October 12, 2008

I dislike all things JJ Abrams has touched or had an hand in.

The reins should have gone to Joss Whedon.

68. Thomas - October 12, 2008

25. Joe Schmoe,
I agree with you for the most part, but I would like to be (and I assume JJ and Co would like us to be) positive going into this movie. I hope this movie is good, and that it revitalizes the franchise. However, I would admit that it is still a little premature to say that it’s going to be awesome or that it’s absolutely terrible, as both opinions are based on the same amount of meager information that has been released, unless someone on either side knows something the rest of us don’t.

I think we’re facing something we never really thought would happen as Trekkies: the day that Trek would no longer be just “ours”, as if it ever was. This movie is being made with the expressed intent of broadening the fan base. Ideally, it should be “the more, the merrier”, but somehow I think it might be a painful adjustment for some. Trek fans get a lot of grief for playing in our little groups and dressing up in homemade costumes, but I ask this of everyone on here, have we just possibly become less inviting of potential new fans? Have we perhaps also become a bit elitist in our fandom (there are those who’ve said that Trek would have to be “dumbed down” to appeal to a mass audience, which incidentally is the exact group Gene Roddenberry wanted to reach)? Trek fandom is no elite club where you have to know the right people to get in. It’s open to whoever wants to come and no one has the right to dictate who can come or go.

69. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

Joss Whedon? Uh, no way. I think Firefly is overrated.

70. sad fan - October 12, 2008

Abrams reminds me of a remix of Rick Moranis and Eraserhead–and i mean that in a loving way!! Eraserhead is a great movie and Moranis was forever immortlized in genere films for his work in Ghostbusters.

71. Joe Schmoe - October 12, 2008

#49 Holger,

Umm, I think I did write “intellectually engaged.” I think that’s what you proceeded to say that you want out of a Star Trek movie. So I’m not sure why my post is an affront to you.

I’m 40 years old and have been a fan since I was 10. I’ve seen every minute of Star Trek in all its incarnations on film. I’ve read about 30 of the novels. I have all the Hallmark ornaments. I was disappointed when Enterprise got cancelled. And Yes, I am looking forward to this movie.

But it’s just a movie.

If this movie not being good in any way impacts the quality of my life, then I must have a pretty pathetic life. Captain Kirk doesn’t sit around and fuss and fret about his favorite TV show or movie, he’s out exploring and living life to the fullest.

A trait that many of us need to embrace a little more.

Something worth being being upset or worried about? A bully picking on my kids. My financial future. A loved one’s medical situation.

But sorry, not a two-hour Star Trek movie. If the movie is good, then Great. If it’s not good . . . . Oh Well. Big deal.

Doesn’t impact the quality of my life in the least.

72. SirMartman - October 12, 2008

Its a reimagining Pre-Rebootquel, of a previous altered timeline, compounded by the events from actions, by people from an untouched timeline thats still within the existing Star Trek universe.

:-D

73. SciFiMetalGirl - October 12, 2008

72. SirMartman – LOL! Thanks! That sounds like a pretty good acurate description to me!

Now if I can just remember all of that! ;)

74. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

It’s a mirror universe story!

75. SciFiMetalGirl - October 12, 2008

Maybe it’s a mirror universe of the mirror universe story!

Ack! My brain may overload thinking about that one too much! Lol!

76. Trek Nerd Central - October 12, 2008

I know: It’s an opera, set in some alternate Wagnerian universe where everyone wears horned helmets. At they end, they all leave on swans. THAT’S why we haven’t seen any clips.

77. SChaos1701 - October 12, 2008

How bout…it’s just going to be a good film.

78. Anthony Pascale - October 12, 2008

Bridge Extra/ aka Borg King /aka Data Killed Spot
It is not allowed to spread rumors here, nor post under multiple names.

79. The Vulcanista - October 12, 2008

#16: A Preboot maybe?

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

80. The Vulcanista - October 12, 2008

#27 is a perfect example of why I should read all the posts before I hit “Say it.”

GMTA!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

81. The Angry Klingon - October 12, 2008

#5
Missed you at the taping at LASFS….from what I hear I owe you a drink.

82. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

Is it a musical?

83. BRIDGE DATA KING - October 12, 2008

78.

OH NO!!! MY COVER HAS BEEN BLOWN!!!

*RUNS AWAY*

84. Xai - October 12, 2008

44. OM – October 12, 2008
“Ok, it’s your opinion, but based on what? A couple interviews?”

“…Based on the fact that Abrams is pulling the same “keep it secret” stunt that he did with Cloverfield. When you consider how bad the “big secret” was – the monster was a goddamn mutated sea monkey! – then everyone has a right to be concerned *and* pessimistic. All Abrams has to do to allay fears is to release a “beauty shot” of the Enterprise and at least one shot of the entire crew on the bridge, and he’d have it sold. By keeping it a big secret, he’s only shooting himself in both feet.”

Maybe the same tactic, but not the same movie. Sorry it’s not a logical argument. You can’t critique anything without information and we have little. There’s nothing to be “concerned *and* pessimistic” about. There’s interesting tidbits of information out there but not enough to make me jump up and down for joy yet either.
I agree with the secrecy, I’ll be happy not knowing much until May, except for the trailer.
I liked Cloverfield because I recognized it for what it was going in, an American Monster movie.

85. Xai - October 12, 2008

#44 OM

Why does JJ need yours (and others) blessing on the Enterprise and the Crew shot seven months prior to the opening?

86. Enterprise - October 12, 2008

I didn’t think Cloverfield was that secret. I mean we didn’t see much of the monster, because we didn’t see much of the monster in the actual movie.

87. Buckaroohawk - October 12, 2008

Well, so much for my plea for moderation in the whole “prequel/reboot/whatever” debate.

So, just to throw some more fuel on the fire, I humbly submit this Sunday’s (10-12-08) Foxtrot comic strip, from author/artist Bill Amend.

http://www.foxtrot.com/

Please take this in the most lighthearted of spirits.

88. Thomas - October 12, 2008

87. Buckaroohawk,
I followed the link and read the strip.

Really kinda says it all, doesn’t it ?

89. fakesteve - October 13, 2008

[78] Anthony, why am I not surprised ;))
on the other hand it’s amazing that all the real extras out there are quiet…

90. captain_neill - October 13, 2008

I think JJ has changed it all to fit with what he wants and he is confusing us to keep us guessing as much as possible so we dont want to hunt down and shoot him.

his statement is crap to be perfectly blunt. I would rather have Manny Coto in charge of Star Trek still. In fact every time abrams makes a statement he pisses me off. Orci, being a fan, makes me feel more secure than Abrams. I seriously believe Abrams is trying to change it to his vision.

Watched premiere of Fringe and it was enjoyable. Not sure it inspires me that these guys should be the guardians of Trek these days.

I hope I am wrong. Actors will be godd but never will take the place of the originals.

91. Trek Nerd Central - October 13, 2008

#87 Funny and apt. Thanks for the link.

#90. Chill.

92. Sam Belil - October 13, 2008

#59-”Simple as that. JJ needs to admit that already and stop acting like his movie is above all that” — I could not agree more with your entire entry. For the most part I have supported Mr. Abrams and his crew, but I’ve gotta tell you I getting sick and tired of all the secrecy, vagueness, etc. Its really turning me off. This after all only a freaking movie, not some secret cure for disease or some top government secret — again JUST A MOVIE. JJ you need to stop taking yourself and this project too seriously and just share some more information with us, let loose and have fun!!! PLEASE!!!!

93. Holger - October 13, 2008

71 Joe Schmoe: No, your post was no affront to me at all. I just wanted to express that I wouldn’t take up your advice, that’s all.
Re-reading my post 49, I guess I got some things a little mixed up – one shouldn’t type so fast :-)
The upshot is simply this: Star Trek means a little more to me than any other SF, therefore I will not judge the new movie only by the standard ‘Did I like it (for whatever reasons)?’. With Star Trek, there’s always additional criteria like ‘Is it true to the legacy of Trek?’. Or in this case I’ll have ‘Is Spock acting like Spock?’.

94. Steve Short - October 13, 2008

59# I agree with you this starts as a sequel in the Next Generation time period with Older Spock Nimoy . Then it is a prequel when it is in a time period before the Classic Star Trek with the younger Kirk, Spock and McCoy. But I think it starts after Nemesis with Older Ambassador Spock on Romulus not after Next Generation’s Unification 1 & 2 on Romulus with Older Ambassador Spock. Or after Voyager.

95. Chris Pike - October 13, 2008

it’s a re-energizing…

96. P Technobabble - October 13, 2008

I think Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, and all the actors have gone out of their way to do several things for the fans: A) they have participated with us on this website (how many other shows can boast such a connection?); B) they have expressed their own (varying degrees of) love and appreciation for Star Trek and its fans; C) they have put up with a lot of bs from the Negative Faction (something which I, personally, find very annoying, and, at times, even embarrassing). As far as I’m concerned, JJ & Co. have already proven themselves when it comes to treating the fans fairly, but they have not always been treated fairly in return. I am sure none of the new Trek cast and crew are under any contract stipulations that they must spend any of their free time making themselves available to us, and so this has been an extraordinary treat for us, here, To read some people commenting negatively on the producers/writers/cast, or a movie which hasn’t even been released yet, is not just highly illogical, it is just plain ole’ rude and ignorant. Yes, the planet earth is swarming rude/ignorant people, and I’m sure JJ and crew are capable of letting it roll off their backs. But for crissakes, when is enough enough? The movie is shot, nearly finished, and the summer will be here before we know it. If anyone is still chanting some kind of negative litany, what is the purpose at this stage of the game? STAR TREK 2009 IS A DONE DEAL. END OF STORY. There’s a whole mass of Trekkies out here who think this is a good thing, and we’re looking forward to it. Time to let go of the negativity, kids… it is pointless. Take up some stress-reducing activities…

97. AJ - October 13, 2008

Not your father’s re-boot

98. JL - October 13, 2008

It’s not a cookie

It’s not a candy

It’s a cankie

99. Mark Lynch - October 13, 2008

#89
I think that JJ has a policy of having all extras shot when they have finished all their takes…

100. aries127 - October 13, 2008

New York Observer cartoon & aritcle:

MCCAIN as KIRK – OBAMA as SPOCK

Check it out…

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/be-logical-captain

101. Me, Myself and I - October 13, 2008

There have been a few posts telling Mr. Abrams what he “needs” to do . News flash: he doesn’t need to do anything. Those are things some people would LIKE him to do, but he’s probably got higher priorities on his schedule. Like making the best movie he knows how to make.

Frankly, I don’t know why anybody would want to touch Trek with a 10-foot pole, given the rudeness all the so-called experts and plank owners have exhibited.

102. OneBuckFilms - October 13, 2008

I’m actually very positive on this film. Proff is in the pudding, so we’ll see, but I doubt any failure of the picture is down to a lack of heart or love for Star Trek.

Mr. Orci’s active participation on these very pages is testament to that.

Anyone forget the live chat from the set during the last day of filming on the Bridge set?

JJ’s secrecy is being done because he wants us to be surprised, and experience the film with as few preconceptions as possible.

He’s been very open about his approach, and what he believes, but he’s not one to spoil it for everyone.

It’s good marketing, as well as a good policy.

When I see a movie, I don’t want to know everything beforehand.

I’ll see the Trailer in November, but I’m hoping that no key details will be revealed that would spoil the film.

What is revealed and not revealed about a movie in the making is always a balancing act, and JJ does not deserve to be slammed for keeping us from being spoiled.

103. Jamie - October 13, 2008

I’m scared Trek is in the hands of someone who holds Russell T. Davies with such high regard. Certainly, Davies has done some wonderful things for Doctor Who, most notably getting it off to a good start. But I think most fans agree that Davies’ input to Who has become a little stale in recent years, particularly in series 3 last year. (He redeemed himself somewhat with the spectacular series 4 finale.)

However, the fans are now eagerly awaiting Steve Moffat’s taking over of the show. He is the man who has always written the best stories, balancing sci-fi, emotion, wit and humour perfectly. He also gets that the world of Doctor Who is supposed to be mysterious and frightening (whilst still being a family show), and he knows how to scare people out of their wits. I feel certain that his series will build upon Davies’ great work, and take the show to new heights.

If JJ had invited Moffat over to work with him, that would have made a lot of sense. Still, I guess it would have been disrespectful to have ignored Davies at this stage.

104. Ivory - October 13, 2008

Isn’t it obvious from all the leaks that have come out that a second timeline is somehow created that allows for all past ST to stand, but at the same time allows for an entirely new galaxy to exist?

105. OneBuckFilms - October 13, 2008

103 – I hold Davies in high regard. That has nothing to do with whether or not I could produce good or bad work.

106. OneBuckFilms - October 13, 2008

104 – No.

107. Jamie - October 13, 2008

I agree with #102

I don’t really like seeing the trailer to a film I’m looking forward to seeing. If I’ve seen a trailer, I have a kind of list in my head of all the scenes in the trailer, and I kind of tick them off as I go through the film. If the list is completely ticked off near the end of the film, I feel the film has offered nothing new and surprising, and I feel disappointed.

Therefore, I believe no trailer should ever show scenes from the latter half of the film. Maybe just a few snippets of dialogue or head shots, but certainly not any set pieces or big surprises.

The worst trailer I ever saw was for Superman III. It basically tells you the whole film in 3 minutes. YouTube it and see for yourself! :D

108. Captain Robert April - October 13, 2008

Alternate timelines are a waste of time (pardon the pun).

Bottom line, if this does branch off into an alternate timeline, with the intent on continuing on that timeline, then that constitutes a reboot, and they’ve already lost my vote.

109. Ivory - October 13, 2008

Also, I’d bet my life that the BBK people will get 50% of their wish.

I’m betting that Pine’s version of Kirk is somehow given a new lease on life in the second time line, but Shatner’s version of Kirk’s fate is not changed.

110. dalek - October 13, 2008

# 104 Unfortunately, no. If that was the case, getting Shatner involved in the story would have been a no-brainer (altho many of us thought it was anyway). And I still fail to see how the Star Trek universe can be so positive and optimistic, with Kirk being dead.

111. Date Killed Spot - October 13, 2008

Dalek,

I think its best that Shatner be severed from Star Trek forever. I know that sounds harsh, but thats just how I feel.

Now, I would like to apologize to everyone for lying about me being:

1) An extra
2) A woman
3) and a lair (but more a woman than a lair)

I would gladly serve my time at Rura Penthe:)

112. Trek Nerd Central - October 13, 2008

#100. Thanks for posting that – hilarious & insightful, isn’t it? I had posted the link a few days ago over at the Quinto thread, where it languished.

113. Closettrekker - October 13, 2008

Here’s my take.

It isn’t a true ‘prequel’, since there is the element of a (however subtle or not) altered timeline.

However, since it is the same characters (however affected by the changes to the timeline) and setting, it can hardly be accurately described as a ‘reboot’ either.

What Abrams said is not, IMO, as confusing as some seem to think it is.

I don’t see the problem.

114. Steve Short - October 13, 2008

112# If it’s an altered timelime then how would older Spock know before he left for his time travel to the past that his timeline had changed. Unless he traveled back in time with the Romulans when they started changing the past. Maybe the Romulans are not changing the past they are just rebooting it.

115. aries127 - October 13, 2008

#111 – Yar, didn’t see it there. What an apt comparison, no?

You could also cast McCain and Obama as Kirk vs. Picard and have a similar debate, especially on foreign policy.

Glad to see that our beloved Star Trek characters are still wholly relevant! That’s the definition of a classic, is it not?

116. Thomas - October 13, 2008

109. Dalek,
It’s easy to see the Star Trek universe as optimistic even with Shatner’s Kirk dead, because Star Trek isn’t the James Kirk story, and thus Trek does not hang on his every action or thought. Trek is about something bigger than any one character no matter how important they may be, the idea that humankind could get itself pulled together for a better future. The character of Kirk helps exemplify that ideal while showing that people still have some growing to do. That said, Trek isn’t Kirk’s life story, his is just one of many.

117. AJ - October 13, 2008

112/Closet:

How about a “requel?” Bad term for marketing the film to the punters, but kinda handles that ‘new timeline’ idea.

Hopefully, Main Street won’t get too bogged down in the question.

118. Holger - October 14, 2008

113: The Voyage Home and First Contact involved time travel, and so did a score of TV episodes. Every time travel story creates an alternate timeline (if it didn’t, nothing worth telling would have happened in the story). None of these installments needed any of the fuzz we have now. So I don’t think it’s as plain as you suggest.

119. The sweet and sour sauce package from mcdonalds - October 14, 2008

God that picture above of abrams is so blah, I bet he got his lunch money stolen alot in high school…poor dude.

120. Closettrekker - October 14, 2008

#114—-That’s easy. Spock is presumably still on Romulus, helping to facilitate the changing of the political climate there and throughout the RSE.

Through some of his contacts and allies there, he learns of a plot on the part of a rogue faction of the Romulan military and/or Tal-Shiar who are unhappy with the movement towards peaceful relations with the Federation or even reunification with Vulcan. Since he gets advanced notice, he may even be able to act pre-emptively, or at the very least, simultaneously. That’s conjecture, of course, but something along those lines would be ample explanation. Just as has always been the case in Star Trek time travel stories, those who travel back prior to events which influence the future are unaffected by those changes in the timeline. That would be consistent.

121. Closettrekker - October 14, 2008

#119—And, in the end (as is so often the case), that really didn’t matter. Did it? I’m willing to bet that (if that ever happened) 99% of those guys aren’t even a quarter as successful as he is.

122. dalek - October 14, 2008

#116 Kirk is the main character in the franchise again. He’s dead.

Not only does it seem like he is going to remain dead. But part of the plot involves Kirk being dead AGAIN, killing him before he’s born.

Star Trek seems to be about one thing again: Killing Kirk!

Kirk may ride off into the sunset at the end of the movie. But in the mythology, and the back of the characters fans mind, he is always going to have a horribly written and filmed accident, which is about as optimistic as the black death. There is no happy end for Captain Kirk.

123. DonDonP1 - October 16, 2008

If it’s neither a prequel nor a reboot, then let’s say it’s like a revival of the “Star Trek” film series, just like 2006′s “Superman Returns” being a revival of the “Superman” film series that began with the 1978 movie. I thought the new “Trek” flick should be either an interquel between the two pilot episodes of “The Original Series” or otherwise a big-screen prequel to “The Man Trap”. Oh, well.

124. Whill - November 16, 2008

If the movie starts in the 24th century after Nemesis, then this movie is a sequel, even if the sequel has time travel. If so it’s a sequel with a “prequel” inside of it. Like the Back to the Future 2 and 3, and Star Trek IV and First Contact.

It’s NOT necessarily a reboot, because a reboot does not even need time travel to explain why things are different. For example, Batmin Begins And Casino Royale are reboots, and there was no time travel involved.

Maybe the time travellers from the future do some change some things, but maybe most of the plots of TOS will remain canon and unchanged. Maybe all that will different this time around is that the costumes look cooler, everything looks more futuristic with good special effects, and Kirk is played by a better actor. :-)

I saw the trailer at Bond and I am really looking forward to this new vision of classic Star Trek. I’m happy that they are bringing the 24th century Star Trek narrative to a close, because I feel they just ran Trek into the ground in the 24th century (I think Nemesis was almost as bad as Trek I, V, DS 9 and Voyager). And the’ve already made a prequel series taking place in the 22nd century, so now it’s time to do the only things left by bringing Trek full circle. Go back to the classic 23rd century Trek when the characters were young and dynamic, instead of old and fat. I don’t want to get my hopes up too much but I think this may be the best Trek of them all.

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