EW Star Trek Cover Story Online – Lots Of New Info & Spoilers | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

EW Star Trek Cover Story Online – Lots Of New Info & Spoilers October 16, 2008

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

As reported yesterday, Entertainment Weekly has a cover story all about the new Star Trek in this week’s issue. That story is also now online at the EW website and includes behind the scenese info, plot details and interviews with cast and crew. This is a must read article for any Trekkie so go check it out. We have a quick summary (including some spoilers) and a high res version of the cover below.



Paramount’s president of production Brad Weston on Trek franchise:

Every studio in town is searching for these kinds of franchises, so it was important for us to reboot. But we needed a clean, fresh take on this thing.

We have worldwide aspirations and we need to broaden [Trek’s] appeal. Doing the half-assed version of this thing wasn’t going to work.’

Abrams on Trek’s vision

I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now. In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast. It was important to me that optimism be cool again.

EW review of footage screened:

the awe-inspiring introduction of the Enterprise; thrilling action sequences on a harsh ice planet and in the skies of Vulcan — the director has transformed Star Trek into state-of-the-art pop.

Other new info

And there is much much more from Abrams, Nimoy, Pine, Quinto, Burk, Lindelof so read the whole thing at EW.

High res cover

Hi res image of the cover(click to enlarge)



Star Trek’s time-travel plot is set in motion when a Federation starship, the USS Kelvin, is attacked by a vicious Romulan (Eric Bana) desperately seeking one of the film’s heroes. From there, the film then brings Kirk and Spock center stage and tracks the origins of their friendship and how they became officers aboard the Enterprise. In fact, the movie shows how the whole original series crew came together: McCoy (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoë Saldana), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho), and Chekov (Anton Yelchin). The adventure stretches from Earth to Vulcan, and yes, it does find a way to have Nimoy appearing in scenes with at least one of the actors on our cover — and maybe both. The storytelling is newbie-friendly, but it slyly assimilates a wide range of Trek arcana, from doomed Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to Sulu’s swordsmanship to classic lines like, ”I have been, and always shall be, your friend.” More ambitiously, the movie subversively plays with Trek lore — and those who know it. The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!” But revisionism anxiety is the point. ”The movie,” Lindelof says, ”is about the act of changing what you know.”

Other spoilers



1. Andy Patterson - October 16, 2008

I don’t mean to sound like a troll here, but it still looks like Ringo Star there. And again it brings to mind why he’s announced he’s done signing things for the public.

But I’ll check out the mag.

2. George - October 16, 2008

This movie is going to ROCK, can’t wait the see the new trailer in November………

3. Trekee - October 16, 2008

I was going to suggest a big SPOILER banner above this article, but then, why else are we here?

Great article, can we discuss the Kelvin and how it really reminds me of the Stargazer? It DOES look older than the TMP Big E. Just the flatter edges and the turbolasers… hang on, turbolasers???

4. Carlo A. Flores - October 16, 2008

I just realized, doesn’t Captain Kirk have hazel eyes? Did they decide he didn’t look good with contacts on.

5. well maybe - October 16, 2008

How come Spock looks like he just did something he wasnt suppost to.

6. Andy Patterson - October 16, 2008


I was thinking that also.

7. Blowback - October 16, 2008

That image of Kirk in the comm and chair, is that the Enterprise, another vessel, or perhaps the Kobayashi Maru test?

I’m no purist but the reports (or rumors) so far seemed to indicate this bridge would harken back to TOS. This one seems a bit further removed than I expected….

8. Al - October 16, 2008

Spock is wearing a wig

9. New Horizon - October 16, 2008

Kirk, as portrayed by Shatner, had hazel eyes. Kirk, as portrayed by Pine, doesn’t.

10. Admiral Grand - October 16, 2008

Just reading the article gave me goose bumps!

Must we wait till May?!

11. Nelson - October 16, 2008

Anyone notice this issue of EW number is 1017?

As you all know, 1017, USS Constellation registry numbers reworked from the 1701 numbers in the AMT model kit for The Doomsday Machine.

12. Crusade2267 - October 16, 2008

Very informative! Thanks for the link

13. well maybe - October 16, 2008

I hope shatner is in this film :(

14. Trekee - October 16, 2008

“The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!””

Zealots? Who on Earth are they on about?

EW must be one of those Daily Mirror type redtop mags then? :-D

15. TOS Purist aka The Purolator - October 16, 2008

So according to this article, the beginning of the movie starts out with a big canon-buster? For some reason I have the feeling that this movie is going to be as well-accepted as ENT was…

I mean, they’ve been leading us to believe that this fits in with canon, but that’s impossible judging from what we’ve recently seen and heard. We read that the Bridge would be recognizable as “the” TOS Bridge while looking a bit different, but the Bridge we’ve seen doesn’t look anything like it.

I’m more than a little wary of this project at this point.

16. Sean - October 16, 2008

Whoa! They confirm that the USS Kelvin is being attacked by a Romulan ship? I can’t wait to see this on the big screen!

17. JRod - October 16, 2008

Well from the look of this cover, it looks like the awkward sexual tension between Kirk and Spock is still there.

18. Spocks Brain - October 16, 2008

who are these imposters :-)

Spock looks like he is wearing a ugly fake wig. And he is too short … Spock was always taller than kirk…

That gave great composition shots…

I think this movie will be a big disappointment…

19. Norman - October 16, 2008

soemthing to think about…

I get that the series after TOS did the pointed sideburns in keeping with the ‘look’ of the era. (That’s a fashion trend that laster for decades in the trek universe!)

But – why did Spock have the pointed sideburns too. Was he a slave to fashion as well???


20. Perplexed - October 16, 2008

Is that Quinto or a plastic action figure?

21. JL - October 16, 2008

I like the part about the new phasers: the “barrel” rotates and the glow changes color based on “stun” and “kill” settings!!!


22. Scotty74 - October 16, 2008

In the EW Mag the text under the Kelvin Photo Reads:

The USS Kelvin BEFORE Kirk is even born, a Romulan attack on a starship launches the plot for the new movie.

Major Info that was not mentioned.

23. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

I am not making any judgments until the movie comes out, BUT things are looking dire for those of us who love the original series. Times they are a changin’….

Here’s hoping we’ll see the original bridge updated at the end of the movie as opposed to the Apple store with the Wico joysticks.

24. Guenther - October 16, 2008

that is one really bad photoshop picture…

25. OneBuckFilms - October 16, 2008

My theory as to the plot:

– Romulans go back to kill Kirk’s father before Kirk is born (he’s serving on the Kelvin). This changes the timeline.
– Spock goes back in time, and works with his younger self to prevent Kirk’s death at Nero’s hands.
– In the process of travelling back in time to various time periods, we find out how the crew got together.
– With information gained from the future-spock, the current Spock works to save Kirk’s life, and the rest of the crew also learn of the plot.
– The voyage they are on helps bring everyone closer, and builds the bonds and trust between them, thus forging the Original Series crew as we know them.

26. OneBuckFilms - October 16, 2008

23 – I seriously doubt it.

27. Peter N - October 16, 2008

“The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!””

Could it be the attack on the USS Kelvin by the Romulans, and somehow Feds and Romulans see each other? Although perhaps the Feds don’t realize that they are fighting Romulans (sounds like ENT’s playing with canon in the first Ferengi “encounter”).

28. Mugz - October 16, 2008

Oh FFS would you so-called Trek ‘fans’ stop bloody winging?!? This film looks set to reinvigorate the franchise like never before, and God knows Star Trek was in desperate need of a kick up the warp core!!! This ISN’T going to be classic 60’s Star Trek, because 1) this isn’t the 60’s and 2) these ARE NOT the original actors – get over it!!! As long as Mr Roddenberry’s vision is intact and whole, THAT’S what matters.. AND a darned good story to boot!

This is – like it or not – entertainment folks, entertainment for NOW – NOT a carbon copy retread!


29. Thomas - October 16, 2008

I think everything looks great so far, but I also think people here need to remember that this Trek is not just for us, but for everyone who might be inclined or persuaded to see it. The mainstream audience they hope to bring in is not going to care that the bridge isn’t a matchup for the TOS era.

In fact, even if they are only remotely familiar with the “Trek look”, they would still be the ones most likely to appreciate the updates. I like them too, for that matter. Why does everything in Trek have to stay the same? I know, Trekkies will throw the “canon” card, but I never thought canon should have bearing on TOS. When TOS was being made, they did strive for consistency but nowhere did they enslave themselves to the concept of “canon”. They were just trying to make an exciting, dynammic, thought-provoking program. But at some point, canon took precedence over everything else, and frankly, Trk has suffered for it. If this is really a reboot, fine. I’ve got no problems with it personally, and I’m not taking it personally.

30. fakesteve - October 16, 2008

Here a fast look at the good old Pike-era phasers…


31. noirgwio - October 16, 2008

Well, maybe Nimoy’s Spock really dies, ensuring he and his hetero life partner Kirk had the long, adventurous lives as we know them? Plot point, why not incorperate Shatner in that way: A mear death Spock crawls out of a 24th century shuttle craft, into the nexus… Shatner’s Kirk is there, either as Spock’s Vision or the part of Kirk left behind… Part oe Guinan was still there!

32. well maybe - October 16, 2008

26. How do you know he isnt in it?

33. kevin - October 16, 2008

I’ll bet they’ll be using LASERS from the Pike era, and by that I mean The Cage. The rotating barrel sounds like exactly what they used.

34. CmdrR - October 16, 2008

31… Or… Kirk and Spock and the Great Gazoo zap to the studio appartment of Rick Berman just before he signs the final contract for Generations and beat him silly. Then…


I think we’d all better be prepared for new rules in this Trek.

35. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

A show without consistency has no credibility/enjoyability. It would be like watching a show where a main character dies, just to show up again the next episode. It conditions the viewer to not invest their emotions into the characters or stories because everything you see could not have happened. I thought believability was an important factor for today’s audiences, no? A show can strive for consistency even if they don’t always succeed. But to throw the entire identity of the franchise to the trash can isn’t just reinvisioning, but purely arrogant and irresponsible.

36. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

The bridge looks like Galaxy Quest

37. sean - October 16, 2008


38. DJT - October 16, 2008


39. Fred - October 16, 2008

Obviously, and I do mean obviously, the big change at the beginning is what the Romulans set out to do to change history. Can’t complain about it defying canon when that seems to be the point; historical revisionism.

40. Cpt. Retri - October 16, 2008

You guys are retarded I swear…these people are doing their best to bring back a franchise that’s been DEAD AND BURIED for several years and all the fanbase has done so far was whining about Quinto’s wig on an irrelevant magazine cover.

Who the !%&@ cares, seriously.

Haven’t yoy thought that these people have probably finished shooting their scenes for Star Trek months ago? Zachary might have changed hairstyle meanwhile to match the requests of other productions. Then what else is there to do when EW asks you to strike a pose for their cover besides wearing a wig?

Just be glad they’re rebooting your favourite series in such a glorious way so that you won’t be left with the dismal choice between watching TNG DVD’s or reading TOS books for the rest of your existance.

41. Gary the Gorn - October 16, 2008

This is going to be great. I’ll bet it will be better than “The Phantom Menace”.

Star Trek will be cool once again.

42. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

Who’s whining about a wig? They completely re-designed the bridge!

43. Xplodin' Nacelle - October 16, 2008



44. Kobayashi_Maru - October 16, 2008

The movie will be good. I have faith..it looks VERY good so far…

45. SPOCKBOY - October 16, 2008

I agree, Quinto’s eyebrows are obviously drawn in.
: )

46. weeharry - October 16, 2008

i just read the full article and thought the tone of reporting was particularly condescending, but then trek still has to overcome the precoception that trek fans are all overweight 40 odd year old saddos that still live with their parents and have only ever seen a naked woman on the internet.

i like the sound of chris pine, and thought his comment about how he wouldn’t follow himself into battle was refreshingly self-deprecating

i think folk are getting too hung up on the changes in the visual asthetics – it would be naive in the extreme to expect a futuristic space ship to look like it was built in the 1960s. I personally am not that keen on the look of the bridge as i think there’s too much clear plastic panelling and its a bit too bright blue, but so what. To think something like that would ruin a film is just cuckoo. If it’s a good story that is well told, well performed, is visually impressive, exciting, and faithful to the spirit and history of star trek then it won’t matter that the ship looks a wee bit different or whatever. and besides, paramount would probably ask jj for their money back if the enterprise bridge looked like it was made of plywood!

stop worrying people!! i feel very optimistic about the new movie

I had not heard that jj abrams had worked on a script for a superman movie. is that available to read on the web anywhere?

47. Jack - October 16, 2008

Everyone that wants to complain that it is ‘different’ go back and watch the original with your betamax and TV with wire hangers.

Everyone else look forward to the rebirth of the Star Trek franchise! The writers an director understand Trek and have the same intentions that all of us should have.

Negativity can be directed somewhere else.

48. Jorg Sacul - October 16, 2008

Roddenberry & Co. were talking about recasting Star Trek in the 1970s, with Robert Redford as Kirk and Burt Reynolds as Spock. How’s that for heresy?

Kinda makes all this Abrams stuff look good, don’t it?

What is Star Trek, the Shatner/Nimoy show, or is it the Kirk/Spock show? Ponder that carefully.

49. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

It would be narrow minded to think one can’t update the bridge, to make it look more structurally sound with modern technology and still “resemble” the original. They did so with the uniforms why not the bridge?

50. McCoy - October 16, 2008

#40— Why are you on this site if you don’t care?

1) More than most films, this movie’s acceptance with the fan base relies heavily on the design of the ships, bridge and uniforms.

2) Was Star Trek really dead and buried? I’m not sure. It’s an old TV show that has the largest fan base in history and is still going strong.

51. Horatio - October 16, 2008

Trek MUST evolve or it will die.

Come now, young minds, fresh ideas… we must be tolerant.

52. well maybe - October 16, 2008

I just feel like this is the O.C in space and 90210 plus what is Nimoy going to do? I mean his character is old is he just going to observe what is happening, or will he fight?

53. SB - October 16, 2008

I have to congratulate JJ & Co for a magnificent job: Half of us are enormously pleased at what we’ve seen and full of optimism, while the other half have found plenty of things to gripe about to support their unrelenting pessimism.

That’s a hell of a trick, making everyone happy at once. ;)

54. weeharry - October 16, 2008

well said, #51

55. Norman - October 16, 2008

46 – you can find naked women on the Internet?!?!?

56. weeharry - October 16, 2008

also…who were the other 2 potential captain kirks?

57. Norman - October 16, 2008

in all the photos McCoy’s hair is parted on the wrong side… just sayin’

58. weeharry - October 16, 2008


apparently so

59. Kevin - October 16, 2008

I understand all the complaints about everything, but Abrams makes a good point in the article: “‘We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.”

This film isn’t made simply for the purists, which is necessary for Star Trek to continue. All Star Trek has right now are its hardcore fans, which isn’t nearly enough to keep living.

My biggest problem are all the people who say that it doesn’t look at all like TOS: that’s the point. It ain’t. If you want to call it a reboot, a relaunch, a rewhatever, that’s probably right. It probably is more like Batman Begins & The Dark Knight than anything else. If that makes Trek popular and more new, creative efforts, I’ll be fine with it.

60. Enterprise - October 16, 2008

Movie sounds epic. Can’t wait. Been awhile since we’ve had a good epic Trek movie.

61. Norman - October 16, 2008

56 – Neil Diamond, Gary Coleman

62. Adam Bomb 1701 - October 16, 2008

The third season shirts, when the “TOS” costume department changed from velour to that double-knit material, look better than the costumes from this $150 million dollar production.
At least “Enterprise” in its last season played into “Trek” history, and not flipping the bird to the fans. This looks like a disaster in the making.

63. SB - October 16, 2008


It’s considered really, really, really bad form in Hollywood to talk about the people you *didn’t* cast in your new movie: actors have easily hurt feelings, and no one wants to be accused of implying that someone “wasn’t good enough” to play a particular part.

So… if the movie is a hit, we may find out who the Also-Ran Kirks were in ten or fifteen years when the definitive tell-all book about this movie is published. (Always assuming, of course, that anyone even remembers Star Trek in ten or fifteen years. Or reads books.) On the other hand, if the movie is a flop, you’ll get people crawling over each other to mention how smart they were to turn the part down.

As a consolation prize, though… the first two actors approached to play Kirk in the 1960s were Lloyd Bridges and Jack Lord. :)

64. well maybe - October 16, 2008

well basically this movie will do one of two things.

1. The franchise will be revived

2. The franchise will never see a movie again for another 10-15 years. And if we do it will probably involve the enterprise H or I

65. weeharry - October 16, 2008


watchoo talkin bout?

66. Kirk, James T. - October 16, 2008

With all the nit-picking fans do, i hope this silences them one way or the other. sorry for sounding harsh but if there was one fan base that has had it’s say and should shut up – it would be Trekkies – oh sorry, Trekkers. Seriously guys, no wonder you get beat up – lets give Trek a bit of class rather than discussing the HUGE issue on Kirks eye colour. *sigh* and you wonder why Enterprise failed lol.

67. Dr. Image - October 16, 2008

#46-QUOTE: it would be naive in the extreme to expect a futuristic space ship to look like it was built in the 1960s.

No one was expecting THAT.
What WAS reasonable to expect is that the producers, with ALL the talk of RESPECTING the original, would at least re-design and update the bridge to reflect at very least the original color scheme, for example.

Instead, we get something that looks like something out of Speed Racer.

68. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

I find it humorous some people use the stigma and prejudice of what Trekkers are, like some nerds stuck in a time vortex, to push their own agendas of seeing a totally new and different Star Trek. The fact is most trekkers are professionals who were open to seeing some changes, like updates to the uniforms and bridge but not seeing everything turned into Galaxy Quest or Battlestar Galactica and so far, that’s what it’s looking like. The uniforms look good, the cast looks good. The bridge, not so much.

69. well maybe - October 16, 2008

65. I am talking if the movie flops or not. I am with Nimoy that the movie should be released at xmas, paramount was drinking to much romulan ale to push this back till next summer.

70. Aragorn189 - October 16, 2008

This all looks good. I don’t know what everyone is complaining about. There is some resemblance of the original bridge, but it is blended with new technology. Remember the paper print out in The Cage. That seemed out of place for the show at the time. Now the set itself from the 60’s is an obsolete design. This update still has hints of the original in it, and that’s good enough for me. Plus the whole canon heresy debacle is just nuts. My definition of canon is relatively loose. As far as I’m concerned, this is the origin story of the Original crew. Stop griping and give the film a chance. For a story that shows an optomistic future, the fans of it surely aren’t so.

71. Norman - October 16, 2008

others who read for parts but were not called back:

Clint Eastwood – Chekov

Margaret Cho – Sulu

RuPaul – Uhura

Ben Stein – Kirk

Joanna Kearns – Rand

Antonio Banderas – Spock

Jamie Farr – McCoy

Dwayne Johnson – Scotty

72. well maybe - October 16, 2008

66. Enterprise failed cause of the theme song.

Ive got faith of the soulllll, Ive got faith to believe I can do anything!”

73. justcorbly - October 16, 2008

#40 McCoy:

If someone made a Trek film that catered to the demands of Trek fanatics, they’d be making a movie that only Trek fanatics bought tickets to see.

It’s an either-or proposition. Make a Trek movie that’ popular and profitable, or make a Trek movie according to the whims of people who worry about things like the color of Kirk’s eyes.

I use the word “fanatic” deliberately. Lots of Trek fans around here. I’m one. But fanatics lose touch with reality and make a fetish of the whole thing.

74. AJ - October 16, 2008

Someone has just got to break the spoiler of the opening sequence!

75. well maybe - October 16, 2008

71 you forgot.

John Stamos-Spock

Jim Carrey-Kirk


Tom Welling-Mccoy

Brandon Routh-Uhura

Bob Saget-Scotty

76. Aaron R. - October 16, 2008

# 50 – I am sorry but Trek does not have the largest fan base in history. We can only dream… Maybe after the movie it will though.

77. Kevin - October 16, 2008


Abrams’ Superman script:


78. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

The bridge looks fine in the single very limited still frame perspective we now possess on it. A comprehensive aesthetic critique of it…let alone a comprehensive *comparative* aesthetic critique of it versus a forty-year-old version of it…needs to wait until there is a sufficient amount of information to do so intelligently. All else is onanism.

79. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

Here is what from the new bridge resembles the old bridge:

cricket. cricket. cricket.

80. SPOCKBOY - October 16, 2008

Are you kidding me?
Those horrible flat polyester 3rd season pajamas were NOT better than these. At least the velour from season 1 and 2 had texture to it, these have delta shields.
What if they pulled a “Wrath of Khan” and had completely different all red uniforms? At least they stayed true to the original right down to the black pant and boots. When you see them from a distance they look just like the originals.
To quote someone James Cawley, I think the uniforms are “spot on”

peace : )

81. Enterprise - October 16, 2008

It’s still circular.

82. Garovorkin - October 16, 2008

Looks good to me

83. Captain Pike - October 16, 2008

I’ve tried hard to stay positive about this project. I know it was never going to be “my” Star Trek but I was hoping it might at least look like my Trek. Maybe from a distance. If I squint. and look sideways. But that picture of Kirk on the bridge is so many shades of wrong….

84. Aaron R. - October 16, 2008

A. I don’t think that is the bridge of the Enterprise.

B. The captains chair is similar.

C. If it is the bridge mabye a photon hits it and a new bridge replaces it at the end! New bridge looks more like what we are thinking…

What do you think?

85. Aaron R. - October 16, 2008

Hey the new bridge could even be in a refit in movie two who knows

86. Trek - October 16, 2008

Two new pics (Sulu and Spock):

87. Box - October 16, 2008

The new bridge sucks. The outside of the ship better look right or JJ and crew can suck it.

88. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

84: It is the bridge of the Enterprise. Unless Paramount and everyone associated with the movie are attemtping to spread misinformation.

As for the aesthetic mertis of the new bridge, I repeat: perhaps final judgment should be reserved until we actually know what the whole thing looks like rather than one still frame and very limited perspective on it.

89. Vulcan has no moons - October 16, 2008


So if we are to expect this line in the new Movie : ”I have been, and always shall be, your friend.”

How does it tie in with Spock strangling Kirk? I mean, granted Spock is older than Kirk even here, or at least should be… I still find it odd that Spock not only strangles him but actually shows emotion…

IF Spock smiles… JUST ONCE, they’ve effectively gone against Nimoy’s Spock and then he’s not Spock at all…

90. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

no. 18… you are absolutely right. Everything I have heard about this venture has made me edgy. Now I see these stills and I am absolutely certain that, although this may be a great “movie”, it won’t be Trek. Unless all of these stills come from some alternate universe, it just doesn’t work.

All this stuff about Kirk’s shirt being black and being a major part of the film’s storyline… frankly, I need a little more explanation.

Chris Pine is a wonderful actor, following in his father’s footsteps, but his eyes seem a little too blue for him to be Jim Kirk.

I’m a rigid Trekker from the 60’s, and I undertstand others are not so “canon” oriented. I just do not have a good feeling about this film and I’ve had a bad feeling about it from the very beginning. These new stills do nothing to make me feel better about it.. I have no faith in Abrams/Orce/Kurtzman, etc..

I’m a big free speech advocate, but from everything I have seen, every copy of this film that has been made should be burned.

91. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

89: “IF Spock smiles… JUST ONCE, they’ve effectively gone against Nimoy’s Spock and then he’s not Spock at all…”

You’ve never seen Amok Time then, I take it?

92. Driver - October 16, 2008

I’m gonna buy a Blu-Ray player when the film comes out on Blu-Ray next year at this time. And hopefully J.J. will be working on Star Trek 2.

93. Enterprise - October 16, 2008

The Captain took his crew to an ipod store. That’s not the bridge.

94. Norman - October 16, 2008

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that – for instance – the uniforms are almost a cross between the Pike era and TOS.

Look at Dr . Piper with the one stripe and compare it to Urban’s in the new photos.



Plus, the new movie uniform insignia closely resembles that of Pike in the Cage and Kirk in WNMHGB.

Plus, notice the 60s-esque lamp thingies at the red-shirt lady’s station – much like as in the Cage.

If they are going to notice and reproduce stuff like that, just think what they will do with everything else – let alone the STORY!

Let’s give ’em a chance eh?

95. New Horizon - October 16, 2008

#84 – It has already been confirmed as the bridge of the enterprise.

96. Scott - October 16, 2008

The new Kirk and Spock are shiny.

97. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

90: “I am absolutely certain that, although this may be a great “movie”, it won’t be Trek.”

You need to calm down. If you are upset it will not be a frame by frame reproduction of TOS, well, it was never going to be that. That you apparently insist on it being this says much more about you than the extant still frames say about the upcoming movie.

98. Phil - October 16, 2008

The nit picking reminds me of all the screaming that Daniel Craig couldn’t be Bond because he was BLOND. Turned out to be the best, highest grossing 007 flick to date. Don’t judge the new movie until you see it …

99. jim - October 16, 2008

I am a recovering Daniel Craig mocker. Now I can’t for Quantum of Solace. And that was before the Trek trailer was attached.

100. ~~TARA~~ - October 16, 2008

The article made me scream like a little girl. I’m so excited. I love the phaser joke from ZQ. Also, I have to agree with Abrams optimism NEEDS be cool again. Comparing this world to the time of the 60s (which was before I was born, so I’m going off others opinions) we need Star Trek again. I just can’t wait!!!!!

101. bill hiro - October 16, 2008

“Well from the look of this cover, it looks like the awkward sexual tension between Kirk and Spock is still there.”

I laughed so hard I had coffee come out of my nose.

Scalding hot coffee.

I wish everybody good luck with their movie. Based on what I’ve seen so far, this looks like Star Trek translated into Japanese, then into French, into Greek, and then back into English. The basic form is there, but the nuances and the meaning are changed completely. Very noteworthy, then, that the word “reboot” and phrase “Abrams’ Trekverse” are used. And that’s all fine. I just wish all parties involved would have been a little more straight and forthcoming about it from the beginning.

102. bill hiro - October 16, 2008

“Turned out to be the best, highest grossing 007 flick to date.”

Not when you adjust for inflation :-)

103. Marcellus - October 16, 2008

Well, the USS Kelvin being an older ship explains the ENT-style deployable phaser cannons.

104. Clinton - October 16, 2008

I’ve been a big supporter of this film, But, for the first time, I’m feelng a bit anxious. And it’s all because of this passage:

“More ambitiously, the movie subversively plays with Trek lore — and those who know it. The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!”

105. Cobalt 1365 - October 16, 2008

While the bridge isn’t quite what it expected, and true, Spock itsn’t as tall as he was in TOS, it’s not really what’s most important about the movie. Take a look at the EW article, and you’ll see that it’s the number one ranked article on the website, plus they call Trek “This Summer’s Blockbuster”. I think we should be able to look past these minor inconsitencies and recognize that it’s still Trek, except (wonder of wonders) the entertainment world is actually excited!

I’m recalling the casting announcements and many people throwing fits complaining that ‘Cho doesn’t look like Sulu’ or ‘Pine doesn’t really look like Shatner’. The question wasn’t whether they could look like the crew, but whether they could BE the crew. The question here isn’t whether the Abrams can make this movie look like classic Trek, but whether the new movie can BE Trek

I think this breathes new life into the franchise, and I’m buying tickets the second they go on sale.

106. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

I recall that Ian Fleming described James Bond as having that “comma” or “question mark” curl of BLACK hair in several novels. Doesn’t mean anything, reallly. Craig is a wonderful Bond, Dame Judi Dench is a fine M (even though she’s a broad) can’t wait to see Quantum of Solace and hope it’s as good as “Casino”.

I’m just concerned with what these people are doing with my beloved STAR TREK

107. Shatners Bile Duct - October 16, 2008

I personally think its a ‘training bridge’ before they actually go out into space on a mission that would make sense as its so ‘friendly’ looking IMHO.IMHO

108. Shatners Bile Duct - October 16, 2008

#98 its not ‘your’ beloved trek, its Gene Roddenberry’s. You have no creative stake in the franchise. Just FYI

109. Phil - October 16, 2008

Sounds like they have made a fine piece of entertainment. If a shorter Spock blows it for you, don’t go.

110. Alex Rosenzweig - October 16, 2008

#39 – “Obviously, and I do mean obviously, the big change at the beginning is what the Romulans set out to do to change history.”

Right. makes sense. And if TPTB are telling us the truth, history is put right by the end, to lead us into the Trek we know, at lest in terms of the storytelling.

“Can’t complain about it defying canon when that seems to be the point; historical revisionism.”

Well, if TPTB are *not* telling us the truth, and this is, in the end, throwing out continuity (note that I say “continuity”, not “canon”), I can–and will–complain plenty. ;)

#40 – “Just be glad they’re rebooting your favourite series in such a glorious way so that you won’t be left with the dismal choice between watching TNG DVD’s or reading TOS books for the rest of your existance.”

There isn’t a thing dismal about Trek books these days, and really, the books have been, on average, a whole lot of fun for a very long time. If the choice is sticking with the books or accepting a continuity-busting reboot, my choice is with the books, hands down.

#50 – “2) Was Star Trek really dead and buried? I’m not sure. It’s an old TV show that has the largest fan base in history and is still going strong.”

As usual, reports of Star Trek’s death have been greatly exaggerated. ;)

#51 – “Trek MUST evolve or it will die.”

Absolutely. There is, however, a difference between growth and evolution, and eradication of what has happened before. The former leads to continued life; the latter risks death.

In the end, though, I think it’d be wrong to assume that people either expect or demand no change whatsoever from the original sets/costumes/etc. Now we’ve simply moved into a different phase, that of whether what *has* been done is something that people like or not.

111. Danpaine - October 16, 2008

…and remember, folks – sound effects and background music have a lot to do with the atmosphere of a film, and we haven’t heard any yet. Even if the new bridge does look like “an ITunes store,” (I like that one), if the sound effects are even somewhat reminiscent of TOS, that’ll help tie the whole thing together.

Regardless, these are some scary times for those of us who’ve been fans for 35+ years….

Change is good…repeat….change is good.

…and I too agree that EW cover looks like something from the LOGO Channel….not that there’s anything wrong with that…

112. Brian - October 16, 2008

The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!” But revisionism anxiety is the point. ”The movie,” Lindelof says, ”is about the act of changing what you know.”

Does that worry any of you guys???

113. Drew - October 16, 2008

#20 – Yes I agree lol Spock is lookin like a major Porcelain doll. I have been a Photoshop user for 18 yrs – Geez we’ve got some major airbrushing in that pic

114. Shatners Bile Duct - October 16, 2008

Its time for a reboot it worked for Bond & Batman it can work for this. Most of the newer Trek movies where total let downs. This can only be good.

115. sean - October 16, 2008


So you never watched The Cage? or This Side of Paradise?

116. NCC-73515 - October 16, 2008

seen that one? spock lateral view:


117. Shatners Bile Duct - October 16, 2008

I’ve been using Photoshop for 20+ years and its mostly makeup there. You’ll see in the movie..

118. Shatners Bile Duct - October 16, 2008

116: your link is broken

119. bill hiro - October 16, 2008

“Can’t complain about it defying canon when that seems to be the point; historical revisionism.”

Well said. I wonder how all the TNG, DS9, and Voyager fans will feel when it sinks in that all their favorite characters and stories no longer exist in the Star Trek Universe. Sorry “Abrams’ Trekverse” ;-)

120. NCC-73515 - October 16, 2008

edit: the link doesn’t work.
new one:


121. fakesteve - October 16, 2008

[91] Dear Sulla, check this out…


122. Alex - October 16, 2008

OK, so is that the whole article or can we expect more info and pics when it’s out on Friday?

123. sean - October 16, 2008


Right, because JJ & Bob will break into our houses during the night and burn our DS9 DVDs. Just like when Baz Luhrman burned all of Shakespeare’s works when he made Romeo & Juliet with Leo DiCaprio. Oh wait, he didn’t do that? All the original material exists, you say? Nevermind.

124. Vulcan has no moons - October 16, 2008

@ 115

Which season is that in TOS?

I just got the HD-DVD/DVD remastered first season… I hope it’s on it… probably isn’t…


125. Lurker - October 16, 2008


Wider shot of the Kelvin from Yahoo…anyone see this yet?

126. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

121: fakesteve, I think your link is stale or bad, it only goes to the sttos website main page. That being said, judging from the link address, yes I know Spock smiled in The Cage (and The Menagerie by default), and in This Side of Paradis as well. I think Amok Time is the best example of an instance of Spock smiling…because it was not in the first pilot (when Spock character had still not been fully formed), and not due to spores or else some sort sort of external reason for Spock being able to smile. But your point is taken. ;-)

127. steve - October 16, 2008

Spock and Kirk are touching nipples on that cover.

128. ety3 - October 16, 2008

For those of you complaining about Chekov’s hair, Kirk’s eyes, et cetera, et al, ad nauseam, I’d like to remind you of this:


129. sean - October 16, 2008


I believe The Cage is included on the final DVD release (3rd Season). ‘This Side of Paradise’ is a first season episode, but I’m not sure which season of the remastered it appears on.

Spock was given to frequent half-smiles, much like Mark Lenard was as Sarek. It wouldn’t be totally out of character.

130. Snake - October 16, 2008

Anyone know if the online EW article contains the ENTIRE magazine article??

if so theres no need for me to buy the mag now!!

131. I'm dead Jim - October 16, 2008

Of course it’s the Enterprise bridge for cryin’ out loud! If the crew isn’t enough, it says 1701 on a panel or screen in the back.

132. OneBuckFilms - October 16, 2008

129. Each Remastered DVD set matches the episodes and order of the Original.

As a season 1 episode, “This Side of Paradise” is on the Remastered 1st season set.

133. Mr Phil - October 16, 2008

Is it just me, or does Chris Pine look like the male version of Denise Richards?
Oh, it is just me.

134. Brian - October 16, 2008

This shot of the Kelvin’s saucer reminds me a lot of the first shot of the USS Stargazer from TNG “The Battle”

I like the way she looks, I just can’t tell if thats a warp nacelle or a deflector dish. Shes like that non-cannon Akula Class that was seen in the video games.

135. Brian - October 16, 2008

Does anyone think that Pine’s shirt is just the black undershirt that all the others are wearing under the Duty Uniform? Just a thought.

136. Victor Hugo - October 16, 2008


At least we know the plot of STAR TREK 12.

Federation temporal investigators Dulmur and Lucsly will question Spock about his attempt to save Kirk´s life, after all that man was a menace. :P

137. bill hiro - October 16, 2008

” … no longer exist in the Star Trek Universe.”

I guess you missed the operative prepositional phrase there, sean, so I repeated it for you – unless of course you’re confusing the real world with the Star Trek Universe. Ooops, sorry “Abrams’ Trekverse” :-)

138. Jordan - October 16, 2008

Kelvin still looks to me like it has a giant eyeball.

139. Cobalt 1365 - October 16, 2008

135 – That’s what I was thinking. Looking closely at Kirk’s shirt it’s much more fuzzy than Spock’s overshirt, and what we can see of Spock’s undershirt looks identical to Kirk’s. Maybe wearing an undershirt on duty is regulation??

140. McCoy - October 16, 2008

Just to be clear, just because someone does not like this new bridge does not mean they are a purist. I believe there is a design that can be reached that looks like the “future” but better resembles TOS.

Why try harder to resemble TOS? Because the characters and the uniforms fit better with that context. It actually makes the bridge less noticeable if it’s toned down a bit and if it matches expectations better than what we currently see.

141. fakesteve - October 16, 2008

[126] Dear Sulla, sorry for that broken link… for me it still works for whatever reason, anyway, it is that moment when Spock and Pike play with these blue butterflies down on Talos, and I saw The Cage much later than the rest of TOS and was always totally dumbstruck by that… because he was under no influence in that moment ;))

(I never considered that smile canon, hehe)

142. mike - October 16, 2008

Do you think the trailer for trek will be before QOS in the UK? QOS is out on the 31st October here. Im guessing it wont be, im sure they wouldnt play it to the UK befre US?

143. dave - October 16, 2008


peeps, ya got to see this.

144. ETMoody3 - October 16, 2008

Consider for a moment:

The number of actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes.
Or Tarzan… not to get hung up on a particular author or anything…

Or the re-imaging of “Journey To The Center Of The Earth” as compared to Verne’s. ( I haven’t seen the new one.)

What we have is a setting, a time, a group of characters, known major events in a fictitious universe… et cetera.

I embrace this project in this spirit. There are these characters named Kirk, Spock, Scott, Sulu, Uhura. They have first names. We know where most of them grew up.

I was born the same year as Star Trek, grew up with it. I love the explanations spun by some novel authors as to the 60’s style technology depicted used in the future.

Rather than making wild ( but good ) excuses for the shortcomings of television production in handling a fiction universe that wants to breathe on it’s own, isn’t it ok to do just what Mr. Abrams and crew have done and simply re-tell a story paying a different attention to detail? I submit that it is OK and urge fans of the franchise to see this for what it is.

That’s not Shatner, but we know who Kirk is. That’s not the 60’s bridge but we know who Enterprise is.

How about fuses for once? Sparking panels seem so dangerous.

145. MrLerpa - October 16, 2008

A wig??, if you read the EW article (which most people don’t seemed to have) it states that Quinto grew his hair and had it dyed.

And as for “what have they done to my beloved star trek”… it ain’t yours its mine, and i love it!!!!

146. Commander Data - October 16, 2008

RE #28. Mugz
Totally, completely agree!

I really cannot beleive some of the whinging faced babies on this site that sit there complaining cos ‘the warp nacelle is 0.3cm too short, or the colour of the hull is too white!’ No wonder peoples opinion of star trek fans is the way it is.
I love star trek because of the optimism and vision of the future not because of canon, crikey if the whole of the trek universe was set on Canon and Continuity then it would have been completely screwed. Some people really need to give the film a chance!
I’ll bet the Same hypocrites will be all full of praise if the film is a box office success and franchise boost.
I praise all of the people who support this film, and are at least giving it a chance!

Rant Over! :D

147. sean - October 16, 2008

I didn’t miss it Bill, rather I was pointing out how silly the idea is. Nothing will cease to exist, in this universe or any other. It’s merely a new interpretation of an old story. Did Sean Connery’s 60’s Bond cease to exist because Daniel Craig’s Bond is shown starting out in 2005? No. They co-exist quite comfortably. Did other productions of Romeo & Juliet cease to exist when Baz Luhrman made his modern revision? No. Just because the new film might dismiss other incarnations or previously established storylines does not mean those events didn’t happen, it just means that in this particular storyline, they may not have. And knowledge of Abrams’ new story won’t sour me on those old stories, or vice versa. You don’t like the new movie, you ignore it. Just like I ignore ‘Way To Eden’ and ‘Spock’s Brain’. In MY universe, those 2 episodes don’t exist. :)

148. Commodore Lurker - October 16, 2008

Pissed off Spock looks like Skylar with pointy ears and the bridge looks like Galaxy Quest. From a design stand point I don’t see how you get from here to TOS.

149. HMS Enterprise - October 16, 2008

Canon isn’t the be all and end all….

There are always people who’ll find something, anything, to complain about…Spock’s hair, lights on the bridge…. Lets not go berserk over a few photos. At least wait for the trailer before you unleash the fury. Please.


150. Spock Jenkins - October 16, 2008

Aintitcool has posted a hi-res profile Spock pic from the EW cover photoshoot.

I suspect that as Spock’s makeup has been reproduced specifically for the photoshoot months after filming has finished, Zachary Quinto as Spock is wearing a wig and his ears and eyebrows are a bit different when compared to ‘MTV Bridge pic’ and all those on-set Spock production pics that were online some months ago…

151. That One Guy - October 16, 2008



A psychic Pokemon.

Sorry, had to do it.

152. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

140: “Just to be clear, just because someone does not like this new bridge does not mean they are a purist. ”

Perhaps not. However, if one is hysterical about not liking the new bridge, and at the same time makes it abundantly clear this is because they feel it is not sufficiently identical to the old bridge, then that certainly does mean their objections are purist in nature.

153. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

141: fakesteve: “(I never considered that smile canon, hehe)”

Heh, I never did either. ;-)

There are a number of inconsistencies or irregularities in TOS, particularly as regards The Cage/The Menagerie. This is due in no small part to no one having been operating under the assumption that hordes of internet geeks would be analyzing those episodes frame-by-frame forty-odd years later attempting to ascertain THE TRUTH ABOUT THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE from them. ;-)

154. John - October 16, 2008

wow can’t wait for this to come out and time travel just keeps getting more and more interesting

155. Smike van Dyke - October 16, 2008

While i’m not happy with some of the details (Shinzon’s stepbrother Nero e.g.) you just have to get used to the thought that this is an entirely new version of Trek.

TNG, DS9 and the other spin-offs have got nothing what-so-ever to do with this. They exist! Even TOS and movies exist, most likely in a parallel reality, but definitely on our DVD shelves…

Now tell me: Do the Superman comic books cease to exist because Richard Donner gave us his movie version? Does “Dr No” cease to exist because of “Casino Royale”? Has the 1966 version of “Batman” phased out of existance due to Tim Burton or Chris Nolan’s take on the material?

Get used to it: Trek is just another franchise and Paramount quite frankly made that obvious with their latest comments. The wanted to restart this one as a franchise of summer blockbusters. That’s it!

The SpinOff concept is dead for future productions. It has run its course. The previous shows however exist nonetheless…

156. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

I’ve said from the beginning that Jeffrey Abrams shouldn’t be heading this thing and now I’m more certain than ever. He might create a “new” Star Trek with a new fandom, but us “oldsters” are not going to accept this as canon or as Star Trek at all.

157. JP Saylor - October 16, 2008

Wait a min..

The bridge looks totally UNLIKE the original,


That would mean that the Enterprise could look that one vid on youtube. By Gabriel something or other.

Either way, I still need to change my pants with all this new excitement.

158. Spock Jenkins - October 16, 2008

145, I suspect the EW article is refering to Zach Quinto’s time during the movie production itself, and not the EW photoshoot…

159. BaronByng - October 16, 2008

The production design is very interesting — the ship exteriors so far look excellent, I can’t wait to see some motion clips. It’s hard to judge the overall size / feel of the bridge but (as I believe some of them said in interviews) there’s a definite influence of Star Wars there (big transparent displays like in the rebel bunker on Hoth, etc) and a bit of BSG’s asymmetrical CIC. Even a bit of Alias, actually, as there’s not a little bit of the APO “white lit lab” there. The visible onscreen graphics look a bit overstylized but again, maybe we need to see them in motion.

The one thing I’m not digging are the dual handheld barcode scanners on Uhura’s station. That’s very clearly what they are, and very little attempt was made to disguise them. It’s rather glaring — why not put a Logitech quickcam or an IBM cash register there too while we’re at it. They’re not exotic, they’re common technology in use at almost every retail store I know…actually, looking at the rest of the bridge, they don’t even really fit the “apple-y” look.

Messrs. Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams, I know you read the boards — Is it too late to digitally remove them?

160. Jordan - October 16, 2008

Wow. Would the “oldsters” who don’t think this movie as Star Trek prefer if we don’t continue the franchise?

161. orgcaptainnemo - October 16, 2008

#155, where did you get this Shizon’s stepbrother Nero notion? Are you just making it up?

I haven’t read that anywhere.

162. Dr. Image - October 16, 2008

And after ALL the talk about how this wasn’t a reboot….
I had said in another thread that as far as TOS is concerned, basically they’re saying that it didn’t happen THAT way anymore, now it’s happening OUR way.
So you now must excise TOS (the one that started it all!!) and plug OUR version in between ENT and TNG.
Pretty severe.
Roddenberry is spinning in his grave at warp speed.

163. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

156: “He might create a “new” Star Trek with a new fandom, but us “oldsters” are not going to accept this as canon or as Star Trek at all.”

Speak for yourself. I happen to be an ‘oldster’ (or at least, my fandom goes back over twenty years and into the pre-TNG era) and I am becoming more excited about the new movie. Which is not to offer a verdict on how “good” any aspect of it is just yet. It is ridiculously too soon to arrive at any sort of certainty on that subject, and proclamations that the sky is falling are neither informed nor helpful.

164. AjaxLou - October 16, 2008

I’m getting pumped – sounds like the movie opens with a bang action and canon wise. Die hards will need time to adjust.

Favourite line in the article comes from, who else?, but Leonard Nimoy –

”My only regret is that the movie can’t come out sooner,” Nimoy says. ”I think the world could use it. Don’t you?”

Here is a link from AICN with an out take shot of Quinto as Spock – http://www.aintitcool.com/images2008…eQuintoBig.jpg. Wow! That looks really good!

@163 Amen brother! Grew up with Trek in its initial run. I’m really happy at what has been shown so far. To survive, involves change, and that is what Trek is going through now.

Besides the originals are still there for our enjoyment.

…and the adventure continues…

165. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008


I’ve actually said, many times, in these fora that I don’t like the idea of TOS or the entire “franchise” being continued. I’ve said I like the Cawley fan films (and others) but, no, I don’t want to see the franchise continued in this way. I want to see it “go forward”. I’d like to see what the Great Bird’s galaxy looks like in 2660 or 2800 C.E.

166. Aragorn189 - October 16, 2008

Well said 155,

I consider that all Star Trek stories occur in the universe, just details of the presentation are different. Movies, television shows, games and books to some degree; they all fall in the universe continium. This film will be a welcome addition to Trek Lore no matter where it falls in. And even an alternat reality can have the same outcome, different paths leading to the same destination. This theory allows all of the media to easily coexist on a relatively linear plain. So certain details were ignored or forgotten. It’s the journey of the characters that matters, not what hair color an actor has or whether the set design will be the same. Every film team has their own vision of what everything in the Trek Universe looks like. Each had its own unique style, yet they all share a common thread. If certain details are changed, fine. It’s not like the producers, writers, directors, and even actors remain constant in their interpretation. If that was the case, most films and such would be extremely boring. Let JJ throw us a curveball. Who knows; maybe it might be Trek’s next home run.

167. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008


168. AJ - October 16, 2008


Jordan, it’s a natural exchange. It’ll take time for some to truly get used to the new production design.

I’m an “oldster,” and I am extremely excited…. Hey! Who let the kids onto the Bridge?

169. Professor Askew - October 16, 2008


I have to disagree. I’m a 46 year old fan of all things Trek and my favorite series is TOS. I am greatly looking forward to this reboot…the look, the cast, and especially the new sense of energy and purpose. So far everything I see looks great and I have full confidence they will pull off something very entertaining and optimistic. I look forward to the future of Trek.

170. Alec - October 16, 2008


If this film is not Star trek (at least in the opinion of the “oldsters”), then, in the opinion of the oldsters, it wouldn’t be the Star Trek franchise that was continuing, but some imposter or unwanted cousin. Therefore, no, in that case, the oldsters wouldn’t want the ‘franchise’ to consider. And we have 716 episodes and 10 films already; so do we really NEED a reboot. I think not. I don’t need to see this film. But if it works, great. I hope it does.

PS. I know many such oldsters (i.e., purists). I don’t, yet, consider myself one; however, I have been decidely unimpressed with almost everything I’ve seen so far. I like the captain’s chair and the uniforms…

171. Alec - October 16, 2008

My ‘consider’ should be ‘continue’.

172. CaptainRickover - October 16, 2008

I think, the Galaxy Quest bridge looked good in comparsion to what we’ve seen from the new Enterprise-bridge. It’s remind me more about seaQuest dsv (I heard, Abrams hired one of the seaQuest setdesigner).

The Kelvin looks great. Very elegant design, even if the blue ramscoop might not fit for the 23rd century (That thing was ever red. In the 22nd, the 23rd and even in the 24th century!)

But it make me very nervous about the Big E. I’ll bet it will be a a recognizable federation starship of the same design-family (saucer, neck, pylons, warpdrives), but looking nothing like the Original NCC-1701.

I tell you what this new movie is: It’s a reboot, telling an origin story and pretend to run in same old universe, but everything looks different. That’s my conclusion so far. If we can learn more about that, I’ll may change my mind. But for the moment Star Trek XI lost me.

173. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

162 (and 167 by default): “So you now must excise TOS (the one that started it all!!) and plug OUR version in between ENT and TNG.”

No. You merely have to watch the new movie or not watch it. You are free to like or dislike it. You are also free to believe whatever you wish to believe about what REALLY HAPPENED in the Star Trek universe quite without reference to anything in the new movie.

I myself prefer to imagine, for example, that Nemesis was part of an elaborate Romulan time-travel plot to make a Trek movie that sucked beyond description in an effort to destroy the entire franchise. Note that my wild theory makes a lot more sense than yours, if for no other reason than that I have actually seen Nemesis, whereas you have not seen the Abrams Trek movie. Again, it is far, far too early for you to arrive at definitive conclusions about the new film. You’ve seen literally five or so still frames from it. Take a deep breath and try some decaf, boys.

174. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

#163, felix sulla
Sorry, but you’re not an “oldster”. Twenty or so years of Trek fandom is laudable, but I’ve been at it for forty years or so. There are those of us who actually sat there (in our own chairs or upon our father’s knee) and were there watching this TREK thing in the beginning. This is special to us and we are concerned about the franchise being handed to a bunch of inept morons who — most of whom — aren’t old enough to remember watching the actual show in the 1960’s. We’re old. And we love Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.

175. Thomas - October 16, 2008

155. SmileVanDyke
I agree with you for the most part. Personally, I do think we might see another series in the future.

I guess what troubles Trek fans so much is the idea that Trek might be changed, when most fans seem to believe that Trek is somehow untouchable. What makes Trek so different that it isn’t allowed a restart? Yes, there are hundreds of hours of TV and movies, not to mention all the non-canon materials. None of that stuff is going to go away with a Trek restart. Franchises have been restarted (in some cases, quite drastically) and have survived, and in many cases, thrived.

On the bridge issue, does anyone here honestly think that Paramount would give JJ $135 million just so he could turn around and create a reproducton of the TOS bridge, even with modern materials? Trek fans would be very forgiving and definitely receptive of the old-style design, but the average moviegoer whom they help to draw in would just find it ridiculous and dated, not to mention cheesy.

Trek fans have to face the prospect that with this movie, Trek is going to stop being “just ours”. Especially when the studio hopes to bring in new audiences.

176. Alec - October 16, 2008

#172: ‘I tell you what this new movie is: It’s a reboot, telling an origin story and pretend to run in same old universe, but everything looks different. That’s my conclusion so far’.

Indeed. And an interesting philosophical question this raises is, how much qualitative change can a subject (here, Star Trek) edure whilst remaining one-and-the-same? If they change too much, it won’t be Star Trek. Or it will be Star Trek in name only.

177. Orb of the Emissary - October 16, 2008

Still cautiously optimistic…

178. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

Anything that would make “Nemesis” never happen is fine by me!

179. Mr. AtoZ - October 16, 2008

For all the ones that are whining, I have an idea…DON’T GO SEE IT. Does everything have to be the same? I mean come on “Kirk’s eyes are hazel, why does Spock have pointed sideburns? Why is Kirk’s shirt black? Why is this? Why is that?” Give it a rest. I watched Star Trek back in the 60’s and 70’s things change or better still “Get a life!”

180. Felix Sulla - October 16, 2008

174: “Sorry, but you’re not an “oldster”. Twenty or so years of Trek fandom is laudable, but I’ve been at it for forty years or so. There are those of us who actually sat there (in our own chairs or upon our father’s knee) and were there watching this TREK thing in the beginning. This is special to us and we are concerned about the franchise being handed to a bunch of inept morons who — most of whom — aren’t old enough to remember watching the actual show in the 1960’s. We’re old. And we love Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.”

And see, here I am with twenty years of fandom under my belt because I absolutely detest Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek…

Look, the “actual show” exists and no one will ever be able to take that away from you. You even have Cawley’s (sometimes good, sometimes gut-wrenchingly bad) Phase II stuff if you must have some kind of hyper-technical recreation of TOS.

This says nothing, however, about what the inherent quality of the Abrams Trek will be. You are clearly determined to hate it under any and all circumstances because it does not conform precisely to your unreasonable (i.e., precise reproduction of a sixties television show) expectations for it. I really think that’s all to say on the matter.

181. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

#179 Mr. AtoZ

I don’t really intend on seeing this potential travesty in a theatre. Why? Because if Kirk shows up with those beautiful baby blues instead of his plain hazel eyes without some sort of explanation — hey! his eyeballs got frozen out of his head on that ice planet and the donor eyeballs were hazel — then I’m going to ask JJ for my money back.

182. Kevin - October 16, 2008


I’m sorry, but if you won’t see this because of Kirk’s eye color, that seems almost childish, like you’re stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because it’s not what you want.

And your idea earlier that “you’re old and enjoy GR’s Star Trek” makes you seem like being a Star Trek fan is some exclusive club that only those who watched the show in the ’60s can be a part of. Calling Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman “morons” again makes you seem arrogant.

183. werewindlecincinnati - October 16, 2008

#180… naw… I’m determined to hate it because it’s a JJ Abrams product. There’s also Kurtzman and Orci. I look at the list of producers and directors and writers and I am so completely underwhelmed, I am so completely unimpressed, that I can’t help but be concerned that my precious Star Trek is in their hands. As I have said before, I may see this move and be really impressed. I just don’t see that happening right now.

184. Dierna - October 16, 2008

Looking at those images I just have to say WTF? The bridge of the Enterprise is waaay too bright and shiney for a ship already some 20 years old when Kirk took the helm.

185. John from Cincinnati - October 16, 2008

Hmmm, uniforms that resemble the ’60’s with a bridge that looks like it’s out of the 21st century. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and they say the original series was cheesy!


186. boborci - October 16, 2008

181 werewindlecincinnati – October 16, 2008

Gotcha’ covered.

187. Mugz - October 16, 2008

I have to say having read all the negative RANTS on this board today I am ashamed to be a Star Trek fan – Old Bill was right – “GET A LIFE!!!”

There is a photo with a TINY part of the bridge visible and people are going ape – absolutely PATHETIC! May I remind these so-called fans how painfully bright and white the bridge at the end of Star Trek IV looked like, or how it mysteriously changed appearance in Star Trek V, and THEN AGAIN for Star Trek VI?!? Nobody moans about that… and THAT was Canon?!? Gimme a break! Once there’s soem sound effects in there, lighting, camera moves, STORY, ACTING etc etc etc I bet everyone will have forgotten about nitpicking the bridge… I tell you if I was J.J. I’d be tempted to pull the film from some of the whining and whinging going on here!

For God’s sake WATCH THE FREAKING FILM and GIVE IT A CHANCE before passing judgement – streuth! Some of you REALLY need to grow up a little!!!

……. and breath out……!

Here’s to J.J. and Co – I wish them God’s speed!!!

– John

188. The REAL Redjac - October 16, 2008

Those costumes are too good for that bridge set (at least what I can see of it and the TOO BRIGHT lighting!). Dark-ER lighting (not pitch black…not too dark) would have enhanced those costumes.

Go back and look at TOS…that bridge was NEVER this bright!

189. justcorbly - October 16, 2008


So if we are to expect this line in the new Movie : ”I have been, and always shall be, your friend.”

How does it tie in with Spock strangling Kirk?

Why do you think the quote needs to tie in with the photo of an apparently angry Spock?

We shouldn’t assume that the quote will come from Spock. Or, if it does, which Spock.

This movie will show a much younger Spock, still struggling with his human emotions. I’d expect that to be a major theme of his character’s development in the movie. I also expect that we will see young Spock seek advice from old Spock on the matter.

190. Superman - October 16, 2008

Hasn’t anyone figured out that the bridge of the Enterprise we see is the “battleship” Enterprise from a different timeline Orci and Kurtzman mentioned here on TrekToday not too long ago?

I don’t buy that that is the “true” Enterprise bridge. No matter what “veil of secrecy” is being lifted, they wouldn’t show that just yet, nor the Enterprise’s exterior.

191. Len Krieger "Purist" - October 16, 2008

Will Someone PLEASE Tell Me that the plot of this story involves some sort of “Alternate Time Line” or “Alternate Reality”!

192. greeneya - October 16, 2008

That movie will be junk. Total reboot. :(

193. greeneya - October 16, 2008

That movie will be junk. Total reboot :(

194. greeneya - October 16, 2008


195. greeneya - October 16, 2008

junk. Total reboot :(

196. Mr. AtoZ - October 16, 2008

192-195 so i take it that you don’t like it then??

197. CaptainlordBat - October 16, 2008

#89 So we have never seen Spock do this to Kirk before? Have you ever SEEN the show?

198. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - October 16, 2008

bought the issue today at LAX.

199. Enterprise - October 16, 2008

Will Kirk get a green shirt at the end of the movie?

200. Dennis Bailey - October 16, 2008

The bridge looks great. For those of us who’ve been Trek fans since 1966, this is an exciting time. :)

201. cellojammer - October 16, 2008

I’ll see the whole thing before I make any such pronouncements as we’ve seen here. What I’ve seen of the bridge might take some getting used to but I’ll roll with it. It’s just set dressing. Gotta see it all on the big screen first before I write it off.

The heart and soul of Trek will be in the writing and acting. So far I’ve heard nothing that brings my optimism down a single iota. Most of all I’m hoping it will *feel* like Trek. I’m totally ready for a modern interpretation of a classic concept.

Not that it means anything (it doesn’t), but I’ve got memories of seeing TOS in its original network run. BFD. Doesn’t give me “ownership” or expertise beyond anybody else who simply loves the thing.

202. garen - October 16, 2008

My first thought was “wow, quint is really photoshopped” Then i read just a few comments going back and forth on the matter. Most talked about his porcelain skin….but was struck me was that you can see the photoshopping plain as day when you look at Spocks eye brows.

203. Mr. "Why does Paramount keep screwing with Trek?" - October 16, 2008

I’m very dissapointed. This ship looks like 21st Century Hollywood, not the 23rd Century. JJ Abrams, admittedly not a ST fan, has changed too mush.

At least I still have New Voyages/Phase II if I want “real” Star Trek.


204. Tim - October 16, 2008

Why are people so concerned with canon all the time? Aren’t there various pieces of Star Trek that you’d rather not have be part of the overall storyline? I’d be rather pleased if ‘Voyager’ never “happened,” for example. Plus, continuity’s always been pretty shaky for this franchise. Didn’t Spock go from being a Vulcanian to eventually just being a Vulcan?

205. Enterprise - October 16, 2008

Maybe Spock is possessed?

206. ObiWanCon - October 16, 2008


207. Tim - October 16, 2008

Oh, also, isn’t the point of watching a new movie so that you can see/experience something completely new? If you want to see something that you’ve already seen, then you can just pop in any of the previous Trek DVD’s,right? Abrams seems to be doing what EVERY good director should do — presenting the audience something entirely different. Canon, while it can be rich and exciting, can also bog down a franchise if it’s spend enough time churning out inferior storylines, and Trek tends to lose its way a lot when that happens, much like the Bond franchise had before ‘Casino Royale’ started from scratch. I don’t think I ever heard someone complain about the character of Mayday no longer being canon :)

208. VOODOO - October 16, 2008

The parts of the article that caught my eye:

“Before Kirk is even born, a Romulan attack on a starship launches the plot for the new movie”

“Star Trek’s time-travel plot is set in motion when a Federation starship, the USS Kelvin, is attacked by a vicious Romulan (Eric Bana) desperately seeking one of the film’s heroes.”

– This seems to confirm the AICN rumor from over a year ago that the Romulans travel back in time and alter the time line in an effort to remove James T. Kirk from Federation history.

“But since the box office peak of the original film series in 1986 (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home), the Trek brand has devolved into a near-irrelevant cultural joke, likely to inspire giggles and unprintable curses from even its most ardent supporters. After a succession of contrived TV spin-offs (the last, UPN’s Star Trek: Enterprise, mustered only a feeble 2 million viewers in its final season) ”

– I think I’ve been saying this for a decade or so.

“The adventure stretches from Earth to Vulcan, and yes, it does find a way to have Nimoy appearing in scenes with at least one of the actors on our cover”

– Leonard Nimoy has confirmed that he has at least one scene with young Spock.

“The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!” But revisionism anxiety is the point. ”The movie,” Lindelof says, ”is about the act of changing what you know.”

– This could mean just about anything, but if I had to guess I would say (based on rumors we have all read about) that the entire ST universe is somehow altered by the Romulans traveling back in time. Everything we once knew may have changed.

“History may be mutable in the new Star Trek, but the old characterizations remain the same”

– This may be the most telling sentence of the entire story. The “history may be mutable” seems to indicate that everything has somehow changed. Is it possible that Spock cannot change history and the time line will flow on in a similar, but different manner? Or that an entirely different time line is created “history may be mutable” by the actions of Nero and Spock?

That scenario seems the most logical to me. Old fans get to keep their universe intact. While on the other hand Abrams + co get to create their own universe with no limits on their vision. For example, Kirk is given a totally new lease on life here because his and the rest of the characters fate has been altered.

“One other essential element in Team Abrams’ conception of the new Trek: getting the old Spock. Abrams felt Nimoy’s Obi-Wan-ish presence was so crucial, he told the studio he wouldn’t move forward without him”

– It seems that Mr. Nimoy has far more than a token walk on and Live long and prosper.

‘ Trekkers will be excited too. Nimoy’s first scene in the film, screened for EW, is goose-bumpingly cool. ”

– That is the moment Star Trek will come to life after so many years of being less than mediocre. When Leonard Nimoy takes to the screen it will be official that Star Trek (the real Star Trek) is back in business.

“Negotiations with Shatner did not go as well”

– I’m not going to go into it again, but Shatner should somehow be in this movie. I love the direction this film is taking, the one major flaw in my eyes is that Shatner is not involved. His contribution to Star Trek should never be minimized.

“Based on footage screened for EW by Abrams — the awe-inspiring introduction of the Enterprise; thrilling action sequences on a harsh ice planet and in the skies of Vulcan — the director has transformed Star Trek into state-of-the-art pop.”

– This is great news. The word of mouth has been nothing short of spectacular.

209. mr. mugato - October 16, 2008

OK. Now I think i get it. It’s “Star Trek” but it’s in an alternate time line. That’s why the people making it won’t refer to it as a “reboot.” It’s THAT different. There will be some elements we are familiar with and some we are not. It give’s the film makers freedom to do all kinds of things that aren’t canon busters, per se.

Are we going to have to suffer through protoSpock? Emo-Spock? Fer kripes. Been there done that. Like a million times.

When I first heard about this project I was dismayed to say the least. I could not and still cannot understand why they would want to mess with these iconic characters. There are a handful of humans who are recognized around the world. Muhammad Ali, Chaplin, Hilter and Spock are some examples. My mess with this? Why take the chance?

They should have set it 80 year after TNG, that way they could do whatever they wanted to do with the bridge, the weapons, the ships.

When I saw these pictures this morning I was bummed. I still am.

210. Xai - October 16, 2008

35. John from Cincinnati – October 16, 2008
“A show without consistency has no credibility/enjoyability. It would be like watching a show where a main character dies, just to show up again the next episode. ”

OK, similar to what….hmmmmm. …maybe reviving Shatner’s Kirk?

211. Xai - October 16, 2008

67. Dr. Image – October 16, 2008
#46-QUOTE: it would be naive in the extreme to expect a futuristic space ship to look like it was built in the 1960s.

“No one was expecting THAT.
What WAS reasonable to expect is that the producers, with ALL the talk of RESPECTING the original, would at least re-design and update the bridge to reflect at very least the original color scheme, for example.”

Seems to me the bridge has been all gray, pale blue, earthtones and white on white in it’s various TOS incarnations. TOS has seen three major uniform versions.
NCC-1701 and 1701A has had major and minor facelifts.

Let’s see the movie before we have a geek-freak.

212. Xai - October 16, 2008

192. greeneya – October 16, 2008


Boot. Apply directly to your forehead.

213. starfleetmom - October 16, 2008

why is chekov in the movie? He joined the crew later, remember???

214. Fansince9 - October 16, 2008

It’s wonderful to see all of this info coming. Thanks, to all who have provided us with this and for keeping us up to date. Very exciting, and I’m really looking forward to May!

215. Phil - October 16, 2008

Apparently. The only way to make these guys happy will be to dig up Mr. Kelley and reconstitute Mr. Doohan and absolutely insist they perform again. Either that, or CGI all the characters. Swear to god, it’s like listening to little kids fight over the flavor of ice cream…..

216. the quickening - October 16, 2008

I think it’s already been revealed that Spock doesn’t die in the new movie, which would have been a misstep, since he has already died in the movie series.

217. Who´s Captain Kirk? - October 16, 2008

-Moviegoers will get a sneak peek when the first full trailer is released with the new James Bond flick on Nov. 14.

Will that be around the world, because here in sweden we get to se the new bond movie on the 31 of october.

218. the quickening - October 16, 2008


Are you kidding me? Nimoy’s Spock smiled plenty of times in TOS and the movies!

219. Seriously! - October 16, 2008

When are you fanboys (and girls) finally going to realize that you can’t judge an entire movie by a crappy Entertainment Weekly cover? So bored with this hysterical prejudgement that happens before every scifi movie.

220. Commodore Redshirt - October 16, 2008

I think it all sounds just fantastic!


221. jimj - October 16, 2008

I was born in 1966 and I’ve been a Trek fan since I became old enough to watch it (even without understanding it). So that means, pre-1970, I was hooked. Frankly, I think this looks fascinating and i am looking forward to what they are going to do. The original will always be the best, but this is a fresh breath of air…breathing new life into a quickly fading franchise. Heck, even Nimoy can see that, and he’s damned protective of Star Trek. Maybe there will be movie fans out there that never knew how great Star Trek could be, that will see this new stuff and GET interested. Who freakin’ cares if Chekov is in it, if Pine looks too young, or if the bridge and ship look a tad different? The fact is….this could breathe new life into all things Trek and reinvigorate the franchise. I’m willing to go into an alternate timeline and give up some of the “sacred stuff” to save Star Trek…as long as the message and vision is there. What I find pathetic is that Trek was always about a positive vision and many so called fans don’t practice what it preaches. To the several naysayers here: what the hell do you see in Star Trek? It certainly doesn’t fit with your attitude of doom and gloom. It’s about as pathetic as people debating about whether the Batsuit should have nipples or not or if Supes’ costume change destroyed everything Superman. Lord, get back to what Trek is about, people. THE PEOPLE and THE MESSAGE!!!

222. thebiggfrogg - October 16, 2008

Boy Spock Rox! Not! Let Quinto, BE Quinto, I say. Death to the Photoshop Junkies!

223. thebiggfrogg - October 16, 2008

Um, 89. Spock smiling? Check out Mudd’s Women (that Vulcan horndog!). Showing emotion? Check out The Cage, Amok Time, All Our Yesterdays, The Naked Time, STTMP, Star Trek–The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III, etc. Granted the movie ones are post the V’ger incident which obviously rocked Spock’s world, but Spock was emotionless just controlled. Who knows what is going on in the Quinto photo.

224. Kenjamin - October 16, 2008

I think it’ll be fine. I’m sure everything that happens in the movie will keep everything canonical. Leonard Nimoy is in this movie for canonical purposes. I’m sure the Enterprise bridge will be closer to the original. I like the uniforms, they do look exactly like I thought they would look like.

And there have been rumors that some surprising cameos will happen during the movie. What they are or who they are? I guess we’ll find out in May.

I think the trailer with Quantum of Solace next month will give us some answers. Maybe not the ones we want, but some answers. Hopefully, when EW says the Enterprise debut is “breathtaking” I hope it’s true. This is the ENTERPRISE we’re talking about. They can’t screw that up.

Just be happy Rick Berman and Brannon Braga weren’t doing this movie. Meh. Though Ron Moore would have been good for suggestions and ideas. Still this could be the best Trek movie since First Contact. And that was 1996.

225. Devon - October 16, 2008

Just curious… earlier in the year I believe TrekMovie.com had confirmed that the film starts off Post-Nemesis and this is where we see things kick off with Nimoy.. but the Entertainment Weekly story suggests that the film’s opening sequence starts with the Kelvin. So did things change or is that poor wording or am I remembering wrong?

226. Devon - October 16, 2008

#213 – SoccorMom –

“why is chekov in the movie? He joined the crew later, remember???”

There’s nothing to prove that. Was never established when he joined the crew. Also remember that Khan remembered him from a season 1 episode in “The Wrath of Khan.” He was on the ship, just not really seen ;)

227. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 17, 2008

I just checked out the “Kirk’s Best & Worst” gallery on EW.com — truly hilarious…!

228. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 17, 2008

I just checked out the “Kirk’s Best & Worst” gallery on EW [dot] com — it is truly hilarious!

229. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 17, 2008

I just checked out the “Kirk’s Best & Worst” gallery on the Entertainment Tonight website, and it is truly hilarious! I think a lot of fans will concur with their assessments….

230. captain_neill - October 17, 2008

I feel like I will be hunting JJ Abrams if he changes any more things

He has taken our favourite show and ruining it.

I want Rick Berman back or Manny Coto back right now

Abrams verse, its bloody Roddenberry’s Trek, not Abram’s Trek.

Why is JJ taking too many liberties. I feel helpless

231. captain_neill - October 17, 2008

all these pics have done is made me feel worse about the film

232. Kirk's Toupeé - October 17, 2008

“The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ”Heresy!” But revisionism anxiety is the point. ”The movie,” Lindelof says, ”is about the act of changing what you know.”

Could be the launch of the Big E from her earthbound drydock???

233. Paul - October 17, 2008

Kirk finally looks at Janice’s legs.

Where is Janice anyway? I held out for the return of Sarah Jane Smith and that came true. I WANT JANICE!

234. captain_neill - October 17, 2008

I dont care about Kirk’s eye colour or Spock not being as tall, these dont bother mew, what is bothering me is that bridge. It is very unlike the bridge we know. I wknew it was not going to look the same but I felt it was going to be a little more jazzed up.

This alone has made me believe JJ Abrams is going to crap on a lot of us

235. The.Grand.Nagus - October 17, 2008

spock looks a little to fake for me. young kick is dead on though.

236. Harsh - October 17, 2008

I knew they’d screw up Spock’s hair. Somewhere along the way the Vulcan haircuts began to look like Moe Howard. Those bangs didn’t use to be cut straight across but had more of a curve.


237. Ty - October 17, 2008

Anyone notice that McCoy has the medical bag on his hip in the Bridge pic? It looks pretty much like what De Kelly wore all the time.

238. COMPASSIONATE GOD - October 17, 2008

Interesting that the bridge has the bright, glass ‘n’ polish look of the conceptual paintings created for Star Trek: The Motion Picture’s bridge.

EW cover: Spock’s skin looks a wee bit like a dead man.

239. Dr. Image - October 17, 2008

You people constantly miss the point—-

Quinto is SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME CHARACTER as the one Nimoy played- THE SAME SPOCK. (Now stay with me here…)
If consistency is not a factor, then why have Nimoy in it at all??

The Enterprise IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME SHIP that appeared in TOS.
(Is a light bulb going off with anyone??)

Therefore, if young Spock- the same Spock- is on the Enterprise bridge, how can the same bridge suddenly change beyond recognition??
This is NOT a refit, as the E-A bridge was- this is supposed to be established Trek “HISTORY.”

HELLO?? Logic, anyone??

240. Jason - October 17, 2008

You people are crazy. Can’t you just be glad that Star Trek is back? You’re going to skip the movie because you don’t like the look of the bridge? It’s a 100 million + movie – they aren’t going to make it out of cardboard and plywood like they did in 1966. Just chill out. If Leonard Nimoy is happy with the movie and the plot and the sets and actors and costumes, then that is praise enough.

241. lwr - October 17, 2008



to prevent Kirk from being erased from exsistance, future Spock must correct the timeline.

originaly I thought that the films climax would be that maybe the timeline would ‘ tweek” just enough so that the huge climax would be Kirk did not die in GENERATIONS and he would somehow meet Spock when he returned to the 24th century.

now I think it is AS THIS:

the romulans go back to whattever era ths Kelvin’s from and do something that whipes the Kirk family from the history of STAR FLEET.
maybe now, in this altered version of time,kirk takes that vette for a joy ride, because dad died on a starship so parental guidance is nill,and dies in a corn feld..” do not know ‘”

maybe the romulans next step has something to do with spock and all the rest.
kind of like a terminator scenerio.
get rid of Kirk and all his crew before they become fleet officers.

our future Spock somehow discovers this, and has to set it all right, making things happen a little different than they did before.

a side affect of this is maybe a technology change that causes an advancement of gizmo’s in a way that gives us a sorta TMP looking enterprise and ST universe earlier than we should have one

things maybe tweeked’ so that other items happen in a different manner (Pikes injury, maybe happens here instead of as a fleet captain?? Kirk asumes command of enterprise earlier so now all that happened later is changed. no TMP.no TWOK. no TSFS. no TVH. no ST5,6.no next generation or deep space 9. no voyager. no generations, first contact,insurrection,nemesis….)

maybe the drastic HERASY is that in the end, the ultimate climax as fortold by the touching of the 2 Spocks with the vulcan hand gesture is…our Leonard Nimoy Spock is erased from the future!
all to save the exsistance of a CAPTAIN JAMES T.KIRK and the crew of the Starship Enterprise.

the ultimate sacrifce for a family of friends.

hence the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.
I have been and always shall be your friend.” quotes being used.

a homage to Spocks sacrififce of life for Kirk and crew in TWOK and Kirks’ sacrifice of career for pock in TSFS.

it is perfect. emotional. and a truly dynamic ending that creates a beggining for a new audience to enjoy.

i believe it is a wonderful concept.

much like the miror universe.

you now have universe A… TOS,TMP and all the rest.


universe b… boldly going as long as the economy will let them produce more!

242. lwr - October 17, 2008

apendage to # 241:
that should have been #208, not s08.. sorry
my typing stinks

243. The Vulcanista - October 17, 2008

#174 Not all of “Us Oldsters” share your opinions. I’ve been watching Trek since ’66, and I *can’t wait* for this movie to open.

I’ve been waiting for something like this rebootination to happen FOR YEARS!

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

244. Spock - October 17, 2008

I’m not watching this unless Uhura takes her clothes off.

245. Kenjamin - October 17, 2008

I think everything will work out fine. I said that yesterday. I’m sure Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and J.J. Abrams truly did respect the canon of the franchise. I’m sure they know how people will feel, but it’s too late. The movie is finished in December. This film is what it is.

Let’s just go along for the ride. What’s the worst that could happen? And yes, I know the answer. Star Trek going deeper down the crapper than ever before. And never coming back.

But really. Things always work out in the end. I think this film will too.

246. captain_neill - October 18, 2008

I hate how Lindoff is say “Its about changing what you know!”

With comments like this I see them sh**ing on the Trek we love

247. TOSFAN - October 19, 2008

Great article! Great photos! Very excited about this movie! I thought the best part of the article was the sidebar detailing which episodes, movies and novels the writers drew on for the movie. I haven’t read “Best Destiny” or “Prime Directive” but I ordered harcovers of both through Amazon Marketplace last night!!

248. Greg2600 - October 19, 2008

The “Kelvin’s” design is not canon with the period, IMO.

249. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - October 19, 2008

The Kelvin’s deflector is on the top, her single warp nacelle is on the bottom. Odd, but at the same time refreshing.

The *SPOILERS* in the article didn’t give away too much. We already knew about time travel, etc.

The ears on the villain – finally – confirmation on what we already knew.

Kirk – damn that man is sexy. There I said it. Mock me.

The bridge….. at first I was repulsed. Then it started to grow on me, but I need to see more. ORCI, KURT, and ABRAMS – we demand more. Feed our addiction….

Today’s deluge has made my day.

250. McCoy's Third Knee - October 20, 2008

Aesthics aside, it’s the story for me. From what I have learned about the story, I am not excited. In the ST context, time travel is being used as a device to reboot.

Time travel is like the holo deck IMHO: A cheap way to craft a story without the challenge of crafting. It’s space – the final frontier people!!

251. Kimmycat - October 20, 2008

I received my copy of EW in the mail on Friday and have read the article several times. I am so looking forward to this movie. I think J.J. Abrams outdid hmself. Even though he admits he’s not a fan of Star Trek in the article, I think he was faithful to the characters and concept. The crew shot on the brdge is my favorite. These actors have nailed the TOS crew down. Simon Pegg really does look like Scotty (my favorite character) and Zoe Saldana looks stunning as Uhura. I am looking forward to more pictures and plan to see “Quantum of Solace” just so I can see the full trailer!

252. The Quickening - October 22, 2008

I do remember reading the AICN article and have long since understood what Abrams and company might be trying to do–alter the TREK timeline in order for them to explain changes they will make in their new TREK film(s). This will give their future stories more fresh and interesting possibilities and directions and it will also curb the accusation of canon violations. My problem is, why is that necessary? Just be creative and do your thing.

This reminds me of the ENTERPRISE episode that thought it was necessary to explain why Klingons from TOS era look different from Klingons from ST:TMP and beyond? That was just silly ’cause we all know the main reason was technology and economics. I just didn’t care, don’t care, nor did I think it was necessary to offer any explanation.

I say the same thing to Abrams. If AICN is correct, they will–in part–be turning the future foundation of TREK into nothing more than a time travel franchise, so that any future changes seen in a future TREK story, will have that baggage. Other franchises have survived changes, without this kind of pandering or contrived explanation. In the film CASINO ROYALE, M is a female and Bond is blonde, and no damn explanation was given–or needed for that matter.

In a lot of ways this approach is condescending, ’cause it presupposes fans wouldn’t accept change. That is true to a slight degree, and it can be seen, just by reading some of the posts above, but, fans will get over it, and if they don’t accept the changes, fine, let them move on–new blood is the primary mission of the film anyway. Small changes will eventually be accepted and I doubt seriously if the film makers were ever going to make major changes anyway.

253. Alex Rosenzweig - October 22, 2008

252 – “This reminds me of the ENTERPRISE episode that thought it was necessary to explain why Klingons from TOS era look different from Klingons from ST:TMP and beyond? That was just silly ’cause we all know the main reason was technology and economics. I just didn’t care, don’t care, nor did I think it was necessary to offer any explanation.”

Well, to be fair, DS9 was the show that established that the difference was “real” in-universe. ;)

I actually liked the ENT ep, because it added some real depth to Klingon society, to see how they responded to the situation. I also liked that the episode was a good ol’-fashioned allegory about today’s issues, in the spirit of TOS, something that a lot of folks seem to miss in all the commentary about the “Klingon forehead episode”.

Either way, I agree that Abrams and Co. shouldn’t be creating alternate timelines just to explain some production design differences. ‘Course, it’s really far from clear that they’re actually doing that, when all is said and done. Even the “heresy” line in EW is referring to the end of the opening sequence, not the whole movie, which means there’s a whole lot afterward that they haven’t told us. ;)

254. TrekMadeMeWonder - October 22, 2008

Deeply troubling for those trying to visualize the next Trek.

255. emoboy - October 25, 2008

Hi, Check out the photos of my new emo hairstyle
in http://tinyurl.com/6y6u6s

256. Darth Rane - November 21, 2008

I hope this isn’t another disappointment…there have been so many of those movies. It’s been FOREVER since Hollywood actually released something good. T_T

257. chris - May 8, 2009

wait I’m confused. I read something about Spock emerging from the nexus in the 24th century? Ok plus hang on- if Kirk diedin generations then how the hel is this movie possible? I’m notstupidand I’m not being asmart ass but wha I’m saying is I would like for someone to maybe explain that to me is all.

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