Abrams, Quinto and Pine Talk Star Trek In Empire Cover Story October 30, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
A couple of days ago Empire magazine released new exclusive photos from the Star Trek movie that accompanied the cover story for their new issue. Now the issue is out and it includes a lot of interesting quotes from Star Trek director JJ Abrams along with some thoughts from the new Kirk and Spock (Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto).
Abrams Trek is back to basics…with surprises
In the Empire article, Star Trek director JJ Abrams talks about how when he was a kid he can remember visiting the Paramount lot with his father (producer Gerald W. Abrams) and what he ‘remembers most’ was Star Trek (as Abrams was born in 1966 he most likely referring to the era when the TOS movies were in production). Abrams feels that since that time, and with the many spin-offs, the franchise has lost some of what it started with, noting:
At a certain point, Star Trek became something totally different, with just the Star Trek name slapped on it. I do appreciate some of the series that came after the original, especially The Next Generation, but The Original Series is to me what Star Trek was all about
Abrams went on in more detail about the spin-offs, saying:
When you say ‘Star Trek’, to some people it means Deep Space Nine, to others it’s Next Generation or Enterprise, or The Original Series, or the films. It’s become this kind of diffused, slightly confused title, and I don’t think people really know what Star Trek is anymore. What this movie is doing, I hope, is focusing the concept, not rethinking it. At the same time, though, anyone who thinks they have seen it all before, who thinks they know what Trek is, they’re in for a surprise when thy see this movie.
One thing Abrams specifically rejects in the current trend in ‘going dark’ like with the reboot of the Batman franchise. Instead the director notes that "If you’re going to do a Star Trek movie then you have to embrace it." One thing he specifically is embracing is Trek’s optimism, Abrams notes:
What Roddenberry was doing in The Original Series, and one of the aspects that appealed to me the most, was positing that humanity would survive, that they would thrive. We would one day not only be able to travel beyond our solar system, but people of all races and species would work together. What this movie is doing is embracing that optimism; it’s focusing on the core characters — most notably Kirk and Spock — and is telling a story of how this group, this family, comes together. We’re not simply showing the scenes that took place before the series began, though. It’s much more in-depth than that.
New Star Trek crew gets back to basics
Lessons from Star Wars
It has been widely reported that even though Abrams is a Trek fan, he considers himself more of Star Wars fan. In the Empire interview, the director makes it clear that he does not plan to do Trek what has been done to Star Wars in the last decade:
Star Wars was everything to me when I was a kid. It was this mind-expanding, visually stunning emotional ride. Like with Star Trek, though, I think the original films are what Star Wars really is. With the prequels, the video-games, the endless books and now the TV series, it’s diluted what Star Wars means in much the same way as what’s happened to Trek
However, there is one area of Star Wars that he does want to bring into Trek…more action:
Star Wars was always full of action. If I had one criticism of the original Star Trek, it’s that the show was often a lot of discussion about things that were happening and not a lot of action depicting it. That needed to change. So we looked at the ships, the feeling of battle and action and fights and all the stuff that makes a movie like this so exciting. It all needed to be done in a way that people had never seen before, and certainly never in a Star Trek movie.
Abrams to Lucas: You diluted my childhood
Pine and Quinto on Kirk and Spock
The Empire cover story also includes sidebars featuring comments from Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Chris Pine (Kirk). Here are some quotes and highlights
Quinto on what attracts him to Spock
I really relate to the duality of his perspective. I think all the things that Spock is known for — the logic versus the emotion, the human versus the alien — are at the core of his journey in this film. I think he’s less refined in his capacity to deal with them.
Pine on Kirk in the film
Kirk is the bombastic, emotional, charged, angry, vulnerable guy — he gets to show all sides at 100 per cent full throttle. He’s all over the place. To steal a line from this election, he’s a maverick.
Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto)
(click to see full-size at Empire)
Empire on newsstands
There is much more in the latest issue of Empire, which is a good thing to pick up for all Trek fans, especially collectors. The issue is out now in the UK and should be available at some newsstands in the US, Canada and elsewhere soon.
Click to see inside the magazine
Loading ...
Comments»
I’m liking everything I hear so far. Bring it on!
I’m so ready for this movie!
Once again I’ll say JJ&Co seem to “get it” and THAT is far more important to me than the eye color of an actor.
STAR TREK LIVES!
…only 189 days to go…
This movie will rock.
Quinito?
Keep it coming! This is helping with the Trek withdrawls!
This is the best stuff I’ve heard from JJ so far, and makes me anticipate the film even more.
Lol, who’s Quinito? Is that the lass that gets the heart of James T?
Every time I read what these guys have to say, I get excited. This is going to be an experience not to be forgotten. May cannot get here soon enough!!
Embracing optimism in a new Trek movie is a step in the right direction. Hopefully there won’t be too much action to where the story suffers, though. Story first, action second.
so very sad… star wars is not even sci-fi (as lucas said).
things that were certainly never seen in a star trek movie?
so it will be untypical… or rule-breaking or something like that.
triple “sad!” for that :(
Im a TOS purist but i have to say JJ has me believing that this is something well worth waiting for. crikey this is exciting.
those pictures are awesome.
Greg
UK
I don’t know. The pics look cool and all, but I really wish the uniforms would have been more TNG like.
#10 – Amen to that. IMHO that was one of the weaknesses of MI3. Yes it was the best of the franchise, but having said that it was way too much biff, bam, boom and too little plot and character.
#7–”Quinito” is the Spanish diminutive of “Quinto” I’m guessing, but then you’d have to pronounce it as “key-NEE-to.”
What worries me about this take on Kirk is that the Kirk of TOS really *wasn’t* a maverick at all. Sure, he was often flexible in his interpretation of the Prime Directive, but it wasn’t really that strictly defined back then anyway. But the only time in the show that he actually violated a direct order was in “Amok Time.” Most of the time, he was portrayed as a serious, dedicated military man with an intensely strong sense of duty. His reputation as a maverick is a creation of the movies.
What I’m hoping is that this movie shows how a young maverick Kirk learned that discipline and dedication that he manifested in TOS.
I realise the rush to be the first to print what was in the magazine, but could you check all of the spelling and put the words in that have been missed out please? :) makes it awkward to read in places.
thanks for publishing though.
you may want to take a look at
http://a728.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/126/l_6ebfc20ccfd61f4cfb761f9a976c0147.jpg
there are many more new pics of quinto and pine there!
Its great that we’re getting these new images and stuff, all in all to still keep us excited over the new movie, but I just have to ask though: when are we going to see the new Enterprise? I hope its very soon.
Found in Star Trek Movie Forum, user “Miguelito” (not me)
Yep I have a copy of Empire magazine in my hands and I’m drooling all over it…Bring on the trailer!!
Abrams talks a lot of sense, he seems to know what Star Trek is at the core – he spoke very honestly about what it is that Star Trek lacks and what Star Trek needs to get back to.
I agree that although TNG and the other spin-offs are pretty decent, the further away from the source you go, the more diluted it becomes. this is what has happened to Trek – it’s so confusing and so convoluted now that no one, not even the fans i feel, know what Star Trek really is.
as for the comments about Star Wars – i think JJ talks a lot of sense – Star Trek has always had a good solid message to it but the action has been lacking – it hasn’t really got anything to do with it being Sci-Fi or fantasy – it’s to do with how you tell a story – of any type – and the way Abrams believes his Trek story should be told is with the added action sequences, i mean this is a big budget movie now – Trek has never seen this kind of investment in it, if it wants to be something bigger it has to be bigger.
This isn’t going to be Star Wars because the action is bigger, it will be a Star Trek movie because the story will be one buried in reality and Science-Fiction, this will be a Star Trek movie, a Star Trek that people will turn around and say “now that’s how it should have been done”.
i don’t see how fans can confuse action and story.
i feel 100% with abrams, this is what i’ve been waiting for, that trip back to the root and core of trek is. it’s not about the uniforms, it’s not about how the ship looks, it’s about those essential three people, that have changed tv storytelling forever i think. i agree completely that tng lost some of what the original trek was, and evrything after tng, kind of followed in tng’s footsteps, with everything basically looking the same, with the same atmosphere, i’m certainly glad that TOS is no longer ignored as being the real trek.
17
when u say there are more pics “there”, where is “there”? u just posted a link to only 1 image…
I like the Messages we ar getting. it seems like Abrams gets it and I hope thats the case. What pine has said about Kirk in that you see everything is realy encourging and Quinto as spock with Lenorad Nimoy there to guide him will be fantastic. It’s time for may to already be here. Long Live The Empire.
“At a certain point, Star Trek became something totally different, with just the Star Trek name slapped on it.”
Kind of like what this will probably be.
“Kirk is the bombastic, emotional, charged, angry, vulnerable guy — he gets to show all sides at 100 per cent full throttle. He’s all over the place. To steal a line from this election, he’s a maverick.”
I can’t really go along with that description.
Mr Abrams,
ANY TREK IS GOOD TREK.
“diffused” MY ASS
27. ASDF
not so… I hated the first few seasons of TNG. But that is just MY opinion. Everyone has their own… including Abrams.
Lucas to direct Star Trek sequel. Fans commit mass suicides.
EMPIRE describe the spins offs quite well in the article – “TNG (the one with Patrick Stewart), DS9 (the one on the space station), Voyager (the one with the busty borg) and Enterprise (the one no one watched)”
They did similar articles for all the TNG films…and everytime they did usually devoted a page to the weirdness of Trekkies…they also used the original Kirk/Spock looking up picture as a full page in the Generations article so maybe that’s where they got the idea for the new update pic with Quinto & Pine
Their film review ratings are out of 5 stars – so far it goes like this – I ***, II ****, III ***, IV ****, V ***, VI ***, VII **, VIII ***, IX, ****, X ***
TOTAL FILM is the UKs other big magazine (not as big as EMPIRE though) and they tend to mirror what EMP does every month so maybe expect another big Trek exclusive with new pics from them in the next month or so… (if not then maybe later)
Well. I loved all the Trek Series. The best was Tos and then Tng and then Voyager and then Ds9 and then Enterprise. Though the 4th season of Enterprise was the best season and ranks up there with Tng. Ds9 was good but they did do that 1 great Episode Trials and Tribleations. That was by far the Best Episode of the newer Treks. But Tos is where it needs to be and Im glad Abrams is bringing us back to the time of Kirk and Spock.
TOS definitely embodied the spirit of Trek more than any other incarnation to me.
Exploration of space with characters living highly ethical lives, comraderie among friends and the human condition.
People still read EMPIRE magazine? Half of it is reviews of DVDs released months ago.
@25
But that is who Kirk is. He is that arrogant fellow that is just arrogant enough to save the day. Kirk is most definitely angry, hence the fistfights, emotional, yes, but not the same way bones is. kirk is the embodiment of spock and mccoy shoved into one. he carries that logic that spock has, but also carries that major human subjectiveness that mccoy has
35. Darkwing
very well put. i agree.
Heres the link to their Trek film reviews if anyones curious (made a couple of mistakes on some of the ratings in my last post)http://www.empireonline.com/search/default.asp?search=star+trek&searchtype=0 I say they are way off on some of them…
Id put them like this:
I ***, II*****, III ****, IV ****, V **, VI ****, GEN ***, FC ****, INS **, NEM **
#27:
Whaaaa?
“ANY” Trek?
No way dude. Star Trek was good some of the time. TNG was barely tolerable what with the hatefully clean-cut, fuzzy-wuzzy 2D characters and the technobabble gibberish that passed for plot. DS9 was ok. Voyager was TERRIBLE in every way a TV show can be terrible. Enterprise was ok…if only because it had the hottest chick in any of the Star Trek shows.
It sounds like Abrams recognizes that Star Trek has both awesome and retarded elements, and is attempting to keep the cool stuff while ignoring the stupidity – and that is good.
When is te trailer coming out ? cus bond is out in the uk already and heard a rumour it may be attatched or is that for the us
38 – Whereas I am not so negative in my review of the Star Trek spinoff series, I agree that Star Trek could do with some polish.
37-
Hoshi was hot, wasn’t she? ;-)
Ok, was 37, now 36 nephron
I love all the Trek series, DS9 and ENT are my big favourites. And although I would love to see some more 24th Century adventures I am starting to feel that going back to the 23rd Century may be the best thing for the franchise, and the phrase “more in depth” has made me very very very HAPPY!
Is there a reason why they are making Spock look like a hermaphrodite in all thes publicity photos?
To the mainstream public there was really only TOS and Next Generation. Only Trekkers and Trekkies ever watched DS9, Voyager or Enterprise. To ignore them is the best step Abrams can take…
Wow, so I was censored for riffing on the ‘Maverick’ line.
Hopefully Anthony can stop censoring political speech when this election is over, because [a] censorship is not in keeping with IDIC and [b] Star Trek is, was and always will be political.
Strange that Chris Pine can be quoted likening Kirk to McCain’s Maverick image, but we can’t comment on that.
re:33. Darkwing – October 30, 2008
He may have become angry at times, like anyone, but I would hardly describe him as “angry”.
Of course I’m sure Abrams is talking about the “new” Kirk anyway, which doesn’t really count.
ONE THING ABRAMS HAS TO REMEMBER, THOUGH…
…the TOS episodes, at least, were less action-oriented due to 1960’s TV budget constraints (at least in terms of space battles and special effects), so I’d like to think that actually helped the writers focus more on the stories, dialogue and character, much like how Spielberg had to focus on the three main leads in JAWS because the shark wouldn’t work.
The TOS movies had more than enough action, IMHO. They struck a nice balance between character and ILM bells-and-whistles. Hope they don’t go overboard TOO much action in TREK XI, much like that TRANSFORMERS monstrosity…
44. Jeffries Tuber – October 30, 2008
Wow, so I was censored for riffing on the ‘Maverick’ line
No, I think you were censored for what you called the language you used.
Where’s Nimoy?
“but The Original Series is to me what Star Trek was all about”
YES!!!!
:-)
Vic
One thing I’d like to comment on. The original series and the first 6 movies were about the Trio- meaning Kirk, Spock, and Doctor McCoy. Since when did it become a duo only? It was always about the three, not two.
I have to say , while Trek has never had the fast paced action of Star Wars( maybe Way of the Warrior DS9) in my mind, nothing was more tense that TWOK, the cat and mouse game between the two titans of the galaxy!
I can understand JJ saying that the original concept of Trek changed, defused or maybe even evolved over the years but it reflected human nature. War is something that everyone can recognise and thus DS9 is critically acclaimed.
Bottom line, I have enjoyed every bit of Trek, even Enterprise and Nemesis.
Star Wars blew it with the first two prequels and couldn’t pull it back fully with the third.
Trek will regain the crown of most fantastic Sci-fi franchise and it will be with one of the other lots patrons at the helm and that is a sweet victory!
Rant over,my word I feel quite tired.
Have been and always shall be …….a Trekker. Action or no action
regarding the Abrams Lucas pic – there must be some prerequisite that stipulates Sci Fi auteurs HAVE to have a great thick full head of hair…same for Roddeneberry
As The Shat said in his Lucas tribute….’I envy you…no really…i envy you…..its the hair…i just envy the hair….is it a dominant gene?’
as a (fairly young) man suffering from an increasing receeded hairline (getting all Jude Law now) i can relate…and marvel at guys like Lucas, Abrams etc who somehow manage to keep their full on teenage hairline their entire lives…
judging by the pics Pine is gonna be just fine hair wise…
TOS and ENT were fun and fantastic – I love them more than the rest, to this day! While TNG was my main intro, and I liked bits of it, DS9 and VGR, TOS was what my dad watched, and I followed suit. Then ENT came along and put Dr. Sam Beckett in the big chair and I loved it. Here was a Trek that spoke to me, it was in line with my age, (30, in Dec.) and was linked to TOS by the (very sad and premature) end, which had me in hog heaven! I am anxious about this new flick, but really excited too! Trek is and will forever be part of my life!
hmm, I’m probably being too optimistic here, but i read that paragraph about star wars as not so much bringing more action into trek, but depicting the action that is occurring rather than talking about it. i.e, more external action and less “standardized ship shakes.”
as for the description of Kirk:
“I’ve seen the captain feverish, sick, drunk,
delirious, terrified,
overjoyed, boiling mad.” -Montgomery Scott
Sounds pretty close to me :-)
#10 NCC-73515 – “things that were certainly never seen in a star trek movie?
so it will be untypical… or rule-breaking or something like that.”
This is what excites me about the new movie. I want changes…big changes.I want glitz and action and shiny stuff and story and heart and a sense of aww and wonder. Recreating TOS as it was would be dull and boring.Heck, even Rodenberry himself recreated Star Trek with TNG. That show was glitzier than TOS. But it had new characters that fans said would never fly. If t wasn’t Kirk and the boys it wasn’t Star Trek. Well, it turned out to be the best Trek series yet. I cannot wait for this new Star Trek to shake things up! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot! Reboot!
I read that some people are Star Trek and some are Star Wars people. Is there anybody out there that is both? I have seen how a lot of people didn’t like the Prequals very much (Episodes I, II, and III). However, I don’t think it really has anything to do with the plots or effects. I think the real reason is that they grew up watching IV, V, and VI first. Basically they are seeing the beginning, after they already know how it ends. That is not something a lot of people like. I pretty sure that if you took somebody that had never seen the original trilogy, and started them on Episode I, they would love it.
I love trekmovie.com but can someone please mix in a freaking spell-check from time to time?
Wow!
That photo above was of the lunch meeting where JJ Abrams asked George Lucas permission to use Jar Jar Binks as a member of the bridge crew.
#56-
Count me in as belonging to both camps. Watching the animated TREK series from 1973-74 is one of my earliest memories. so I’ve pretty much followed TREK all my life. STAR WARS, of course, completely blew my 5-year old mind back in 1977.
But I do agree with Abrams and others on these boards that Kirk & Spock and the Original Trilogy are the only aspects of TREK and WARS that matter and that people will still be talking about in another 30-40 years.
Love ‘em both, always will, for different reasons. TREK does some things better than WARS, and vice versa, but I can’t really favor one over the other (*gasp!* For shame!).
I’m feeling a lot better about it after reading this.
47 Montreal Paul: Your response is even more puzzling than the lack of an explanation by the editor. The language I used? EMPIRE includes a quote from Pine saying Kirk is a Maverick.
Ironic or not, he’s making a reference to politics, and it’s not clear why we can’t comment on that. This is AP’s site, so we play by his rules. But what’s the point of a forum if we can question the rules?
57, lets not turn this into an English lesson – people of all abilities should be able to post here without being inadvertently insulted. be mindful, and remember that not even the fabled spell checker will get words right. thanks.
Getting back to Trek.
Trek will always be very different from Wars, regardless of the action Abrams puts into it. I think fans might need to take lessons in just enjoying something that will be a re-telling, revival but forever faithful version of the original concept.
the notion that ANY Star Trek is GOOD Star Trek is just complete fan boy twaddle. It is down to personal taste, i know a few good people who love Voyager, personally i think it’s the worst series.
I loved Enterprise, Deep Space Nine and Next Gen, they are shows to be judged on their own merits because when it comes down to it they are diluted versions of the concept.
Now the interesting thing with this movie is that once again this will be another take on the original concept – only this time rather than putting more water with the juice, diluting the drink even more, there taking water out and getting back to the true flavor of the original and Juice always tastes better, stronger imo. for others, the more water, the better so really, in the end, opinions are great but we will all like what we’ve liked since we’ve known the difference between hate and love.
This is a GREAT Site. I LOVE IT!
That said, I think it would be even better if the articles (not the posts) were run through a spell checker first, so they would be easier to read (and better presented).
I love reading these interviews because THESE GUYS JUST GET IT!!!
56 – I am a fan of Star Wars and Star Trek, and I appreciate all eras of both with equanimity — which isn’t to say I don’t have preferences that I believe are strictly based on the quality of each product (i.e. how good the movie or TV show is, as a movie or TV show unto itself).
So, I love ST:TMP and ST:FC the most out of the ST movies, even though they are totally different eras, different captains, etc., because I consider them to be good movies in their own rights, without reference to the fact that they are part of a franchise that I love. Similarly, I love The Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith the most out of the SW movies, again on the basis of their intrinsic quality, independent of their being part of the mythos. And when it comes to Nemesis and The Phantom Menace, they just plain suck, and their positions within their respective franchises do not save them.
When it comes to the ST TV shows, I think each series, from TOS to ENT, all have good entries. All in all, I think TNG had the highest percentage of on-the-mark episodes for my taste, but I do not give it more weight or the other shows less weight because of this.
So, I think I’m pretty even handed when it comes to Sci Fi. I do not play favorites within franchises, or between franchises.
Star Trek doesn’t need more action.
As to Abrams’ comments, I am pleased with his stated approach. I think it’s high time to get back to the TOS era (I know it’s strictly speaking pre-TOS, but the characters and ship are TOS, so that’s where I’m headed) simply because that era deserves more mileage, as well as the fact that the TOS era does, after all, lay the groundwork for a lot of the stuff that comes later (and ENT, despite it being, in my opinion, a perfectly good ST TV show, opted out of really exploring the prequel dimension of its premise, for the most part). I also am pleased that he goes in for more action; I’ve always thought Star Trek could embrace more action without compromising its more thoughtful sides.
It needs More T’pol and Uhura action.
Let Lucas Have it JJ.
Trek has Won.
An interesting dialogue,
Although most of you have missed the point.
Star Trek is an idea.
An idea about hope. Hope that we as humans,can overcome our differences and be one. No matter the color,race,gender,sexual preference,country of origin,political party………Whatever.
That we will recognize that we must work together and accept our differences and embrace them.That there is a right and a wrong.
That the decisions we make, affect everyone.
Hence the Prime Directive.
But as Agent Sloan said ” At the end of the day it is our actions,not our beliefs, that define who we are”
All of the Star Trek series held that principle. ALL of the characters of Star Trek had it,or They learned it..
What have you learned?
Were we all watching the same series?
My oldest and best memorie was seeing the Enterprise go past on my TV.
That was 42 years ago.
To paraphrase……………………
I have been and always will be a friend of Star Trek.
I will know it when I see it.
I have yet to see it n what I have heard so, far.
I like how the casting was done. I look forward to the performances.
Cloverfield though,scares me.
The Star Wars reference scares me too.
Now.do not get me wrong.
I love Star Wars,but Star wars is Star Wars.
Star Trek is Star Trek. As Barry Fitzgerald said in the Quiet Man:
When I drink whiskey,I drink whiskey.
When I drink water, I drink water. I don’t mix the two.
We will see.
“There all always possibilities”( do I have to say who said that)
Live Long and Prosper
HOLD ON GUYS WHAT ABOUT THE MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE TV SHOW THE MOVIES JUST HAVE THIER NAMES STUCK ON THEM AS WELL
I am excited for this movie. I love what JJ has to say about the concept, I love how the actors are interpreting their characters. I think we are going to b in for a huge treat come May 8.
This thing is totally going to rock.
I hope.
As long as it has a better script than that Godawful Transformers movie … !
Seriously, anyone remember that scene where Shitty LeBoof says to the guys “let me tell you a story, it’s about a guy that had a dream-”
Please tell me there won’t be anything like that in this movie.
Retarded.
The fact that Trek takes the time to talk about things, hash them out intellectually, rather than charge in with another action scene full of characters shouting crucial plot points over phaser fire is what makes Trek infinitely better than Star Wars.
JJ misses the point, he’s just another low brow, action junkie suffering from ADD! That’s probably why he dissed the Dark Knight earlier this month, he couldn’t understand what they were talking about & just wanted to see “BIG TRUCK GO BOOM!”
Yeah, JJ…why would you want to emulate the most successful movie of the year? Or the highly successful DS9 & Voyager?
Do us a favor; shut up & let this movie be judged on it’s merits!!
While I’m still shaking my head over the feverish pitch with which some people throw out their opinions, I am (still) quite looking forward to the new film, and I think JJ has got it right. He seems to be enough of a Trek fan to come at the project with a great deal of respect and enthusiasm (wasn’t his deal with Paramount hinged upon the fact that he WANTED to do Star Trek?), but he’s enough of a non-Trek fan to be objective about the whole thing. This, I think, is the problem with many fans… utterly incapable of being objective, because they are stuck on their own fan-ism. I think an intelligent position is one which can look at this thing called Star Trek from many angles and not just one angle based upon one’s personal point of view. Not every differing point of view can be right, but since JJ is THE point of view at the helm of this project, I think we have to respect him for that (and not simply toss a bunch of critical — or even rude — remarks at him). Now, I probably wouldn’t know JJ if I ran into him, so I can’t be accused of standing up for a friend. But I try to practice what I preach, and a lot of what I preach echoes the Trek-ian ideals of cooperation and tolerance… qualities severely lacking in this world. So, I feel that JJ & Co. have been taking a lot of sticks and stones when they really deserve support and admiration for trying to bring Star Trek back to us. It’s fine to be constructively critical, I think… but the film hasn’t even been released yet. I’ll wait to see it before I start offering an opinion about the film, itself.
57# Please, be aware that many of the posters ( myself included ) aren’t native speakers/writers of the english languaje. still 6 months to go… TREK LIVES
76# I am not sure, whether only the non-native speakers are responsible for the spelling mistakes :-))
I love every Trek series or film up to date, but i have realy bad feeling about this. The more I read, the worse it gets. I hope Abrams made sense of this film and didn’t turn it into a Hollywood mindless action & effects spectacle.
All and everything sounds good. Certainly not difficult to let it appear good. Thats advertising. The want to make us curious for good ratings. That is easy, because they know what we don´t know. Its all a strategy, but for me this strategy does not work. W will go into this movie. With or even without spoliers and trailers. It is unnecessary to show the movie so late in may next year. They have done this with THE DARK KNIGHT. Now they copy the concept. I will know what I feel about the movie in may 2009, not one day earlier. On the other hand… maybe the anticipation is the last sweet thing we will experience concerning STAR TREK. Am I so negative? No, just that I want the movie NOW! :))
All sounds great to me.
Got to keep in mind that this potentially exciting installment does not cancel out what has happened before or what we hold dear. That all happened & that’s history.
As for the Star Trek / Star Wars thing … the original series was perhaps the most physical & in that sense ‘action-based’ of the lot.
I don’t get to lost on the viewpoint that Star Trek is ’sci-fi’ & ‘Star Wars’ is not. In a sense neither is, apart from setting largely in space. Star Trek is about friendship and adventure, Star Wars is about redemption in a classic fairytale arc.
It is truly great that their will be challenges to traditional thinking and that we can expect the unexpected.
Bring it on.
Im getting tired of TNG, DS9, and VOY getting bashed all the time to be honest. Enterprise…enterprise kinda deserves it for a lot, but the others, well I still point out that each made it 7 seasons, I think TNG could have gone on longer even, and TOS…it went on for 3. I think in some ways there’s a big divide between the 23rd century fans and the 24th fans, almost like dems and repubs. Im trying to keep an open mind about this movie, but every time JJ says something I feel more and more like he might just be trying to get another trek movie or 2 out just to make some good money and totally kill the franchise in the process.
^^^ Will H. If you are implying that he’s “bashing” the sequels then he must have been REALLY kind about it.
#74 – “The fact that Trek takes the time to talk about things, hash them out intellectually, ”
I’m just wondering, when you go to the store, do you set around discussing how you are going to do it, what your plan of action will be, etc? Or do you just go do it?
“That’s probably why he dissed the Dark Knight earlier this month”
Quote/Source?
“Yeah, JJ…why would you want to emulate the most successful movie of the year?”
Wait, so to you, Star Trek is a dark thing? And you say HE doesn’t get “Star Trek?”
“Or the highly successful DS9 & Voyager?”
DS9… maybe. Voyager? Hold on, I have to go off and laugh.
This is the kind of stuff I want to hear from JJ Abrams. I am glad he is not making it dark and bringing back the optimism of philosophy of Star Trek.
While I still hate him for completely redesigning the look of Star Trek, I will applaud him for maintaining the philosphy of Trek
But guys please do not forget what has come before, embrace them and NEVER forget them. Make sure the Next Generation does not forget the Star Trek we grew up with as well as allowing them to embrace the future.
I hope you have it right JJ. I seriously hope you have Trek right. I guess if the film is great I can warm to the redesigned bridge but he has changed a few things too many in design.
But I hope he has it right as I want to love this film.
Oh I can see he wants more action but I hope he embraces the IDIC that in the future we try to co exist with other species and not blow them up.
Trek needs to take a leaf out of Firefly and BSGs book and not treat the franchise like it is all about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Scotty and McCoy often do well as comic relief but they need to give at least one of the other supporting cast something meaty to do in every film.
Many borg episodes were very dark and dark can be exciting but I agree that the Starfleet characters need to remain reasonably light.
I’m still sooo upset that there is no hint that Janice will be around. I know they said they didn’t want to use characters unless they could do them justice but come on, would it have been so hard to include a part for a second female character; this is the 21st century and the film is looking to be more sexist than the 60’s in terms of a balanced cast. I have everything crossed in the hope that Rachel Nichols will end up as Janice and that the orion make up had something to do with the plot… yeah I know – desperation, but Janice really deserves some limelight!
“I’m just wondering, when you go to the store, do you set around discussing how you are going to do it, what your plan of action will be, etc? Or do you just go do it?”
Star Trek always was more than action. Of course it had action. Of course Kirk and Picard also went to the store after they discussed. Until now there isn’t any singke serie that showed bigger space battles on TV than DS9 did. More action is impossible.
But that isn’t what Star Trek was really about, even the core of DS9 was about something else.
Action always surved the story! Not the other way around!
TNG was the most successful ST serie ever, with almost no action, and still belongs to the most successful series of all time, with some of the highes ratings ever.
What I need is more intellectual stuff and less BUMM
If the trailer is attached to QoS, then it should be coming out today in the UK! Let’s hope it is attached to the UK film. If anyone goes and see’s it today please let us know..then I don’t have to waste my time seeing this movie
;-P
Not that it’s bad, necessarily… but, this interview sounds like Hollywood filler. He’s defending his choice to go with a TOS reboot (spare me the 500 word essay on why its NOT a reboot) by knocking the fact that over 40 years, Paramount let the series branch out. I don’t think Star Trek was diluted. I think Star Wars was thin to begin with. It was ONE great movie plus two good sequels plus fifty other projects that are hardly worth going to see. Trek approached each project for valid reasons and most of them are good overall. The turkey-ratio is not really high for the number of projects we’ve enjoyed.
The new Kirk:
He’s not afraid to get mavericky in there. You know… he’s gonna take every aspect of a crisis and look at it, and then he’s gonna ask himself, “what would a maverick do in this situation?” And then, ya know, he’ll do that.
;)
You betcha! ;)
I know Star waned but I loved all the shows. The ideas of Roddenberry were still there.
Dont tell us what we want JJ, let the fans tell you
If JJ wanted a Maverick to play Kirk, why didn’t he just get John McCain. Maybe next time, since McCain won’t be doing anything much after Tuesday.
#89
As a creative outlet, of course the brand has been diluted. Just look at the division among the fans. The same thing will happen to Star Wars over time. That’s why it is time for a fresh start.
Some of the TOS magic was lost in the later spin offs I agree but each show became a show in its own light.
TNG is a good example of this. the ideas of Roddenberry were there and expaned the universe. Though don’y rely on Star Wars for a Star Trek film as they are two different kettles of fish. Star Wars is pop corn where as Star Trek is the meat and potatoes.
I love the more intellectual quality to Star Trek, Star Wars is space fantasy more so than sci fi. I hate the way fa slection of mainstream films these days are geared towards people with shorter attention spans.
I want to embrace this film but don’t forget the Star Trek shows we grew up with.
“At a certain point, Star Trek became something totally different, with just the Star Trek name slapped on it. I do appreciate some of the series that came after the original, especially The Next Generation, but The Original Series is to me what Star Trek was all about.”
Amen to that JJ!
Can we agree to never use the word “Maverick” and Kirk in the same sentence again? the word, alas, ha become tainted by this year’s politics.
eck!
I agree, “maverick” needs to go on hiatus for a while.
As to politics, I agree with Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
Hey you know I just realized something.. thought of it when somebody asked where is the Nimoy pic…
What are the chances that they kill off a main character?
RE #99: What are the chances that they kill off a main character?
It would be ironic if old Spock goes decades back into the past and dies saving the day, while Jim Kirk went decades into the future and died doing the same thing.
re 23 dave
i posted a link to the pics, but this post was removed.
dunno why, since they obviously are not spy shots.
Re: 70 MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
J.J. only did the last film. There was no way to go back and return to anything resembling the old show after what Paramount had done to the series in the previous two films. The first one was an abomination – a slap in the face to the fans and actors of the original series, and MI-2 was a ridiculous narcissistic love letter from Tom Cruise and himself. At least MI-3 made Ethan Hunt’s spy world more grounded and believable .
I never cease to be amazed at how anything JJ says can be picked apart, quoted back out of context, turned into a straw man argument, and ranted about. These seem very well-balanced opinions to me – he likes the kernal of Trek but not some of the later off-shoots (fortunate since he’s making a TOS movie!), likes the original Star Wars but not the prequels, understands entirely that Star Wars and Star Trek are separate , gets the distinct message and characters of Trek, but wants to infuse the new film with more of the visual energy of Star Wars. I just can’t disagree with a word of that.
#17 and #23
Those new pics of Kirk and Spock are also here: http://downloads.scifinews.de/cat_1576.html (starting at the bottom of page 1.) Interesting that the Quinto ones are clearly not photoshopped – for this photo shoot he obviously didn’t have his eyebrows shaved so they’ve made a fairly clumsy attempt to cover them with make up.
Also while the comments about Kirk/Spock standing ‘just a little too close’ were starting to annoy me, it’s just impossible not to think that in a few of these shots. :-)
“At a certain point, Star Trek became something totally different, with just the Star Trek name slapped on it. I do appreciate some of the series that came after the original, especially The Next Generation, but The Original Series is to me what Star Trek was all about”—-Abrams
Amen! Me too, JJ.
“When you say ‘Star Trek’, to some people it means Deep Space Nine, to others it’s Next Generation or Enterprise, or The Original Series, or the films. It’s become this kind of diffused, slightly confused title, and I don’t think people really know what Star Trek is anymore.”—Abrams
I think that, with so many incarnations and spinoffs over the last twenty years, that is absolutely true.
“…that humanity would survive, that they would thrive. We would one day not only be able to travel beyond our solar system, but people of all races and species would work together. What this movie is doing is embracing that optimism; it’s focusing on the core characters — most notably Kirk and Spock — and is telling a story of how this group, this family, comes together. “—Abrams
These may be the best quotes from Abrams regarding this project yet. This tells me that he ‘does’ get it.
“I really relate to the duality of his perspective. I think all the things that Spock is known for — the logic versus the emotion, the human versus the alien — are at the core of his journey in this film. I think he’s less refined in his capacity to deal with them.”—-Quinto
The inner struggle has always been what is most attractive to me about that character (my favorite).
#13—That’s what it was supposed to be. ‘Star Trek’ is not supposed to be that. I think Abrams understands that.
#15—Me too. To be fair, though, the movies are as ‘canon’ as the series. Kirk’s actions surrounding the KM test, for example, fit that description well. Also, I think it does take a “maverick” to succeed in becoming captain of a starship at such a young age. There really has to be something which sets him apart, IMO.
#81—”Im getting tired of TNG, DS9, and VOY getting bashed all the time to be honest”
In other words, you are tired of other people’s opinions…TOS is (more or less) my generation, as it is to Abrams. The spinoffs did not have the effect upon me (or upon American culture, for that matter) that TOS did. TOS had far more impact in 3 seasons and 6 feature films than the spinoffs did in 25 seasons and 4 films.
I think that many more people are interested in Kirk/Spock/McCoy than any of the other Trek characters who lacked that iconic status, and I think that the 23rd Century is a much less sterile, far more romantic period in Star Trek.
I ‘love’ that this is the movie Abrams wanted to make…
“If I had one criticism of the original Star Trek, it’s that the show was often a lot of discussion about things that were happening and not a lot of action depicting it. That needed to change.”
Star Trek won’t be Star Trek without some of the cerebral, though. I’m all for action, but make it make sense, tell a smart story, and give me something to think about when the movie is over. Just like a lot of TOS episodes did.
The fact that J.J. believes that the original TOS series is what Star Trek was ‘all about’, and that he also sees the original Star Wars trilogy as being what Star Wars ‘really is’, and that everything else that came afterwards in these respective franchises only ‘diffused’ and ‘diluted’ the originals….gives me hope.
Although his Movie will never match what the original TOS gave me on many levels (the particular Actors involved, and the Production Design aesthetic of the 60’s), I think that he will at least deliver something more appealling than some of the previous stuff offered after TOS….
I predict that on election day, paramount will release the big E pics, just to heighten the drama:)
JJ: “At a certain point, Star Trek became something totally different, with just the Star Trek name slapped on it.”
Funny! I guess the hardcore movie skeptics are fearing that exactly this will happen now.
JJ: “I don’t think people really know what Star Trek is anymore.”
I don’t believe that’s true. Star Trek is just a very big universe now.
Quinto looks more like Spock without the makeup than he does with the makeup.
THINK IF LUCAS LET JJ ABRAHAMS DO THE PREQUEL TRILOGY!
I’m a bit confused by all these posts describing TOS as having less action than later incarnations. I always thought it had *more*. Kirk was much more likely to smack people around than Picard ever was. And the folks on TNG were much more likely to speak in scientificagobbledygookababble than anyone on Kirk’s bridge ever did.
The original episodes were cerebral in the sense that they explored elements of human nature & politics — the Big Questions — but that didn’t preclude a good dose of shootin’ and fightin’.
As for the “maverick” line, I think we should find something else to obsess over. Originally it refers to unbranded cattle.
The article was really not that great. But then the magazine wasn’t great. An insult to intellect when you read the crap articles. The show still seems good though and Simon Pegg keeps me attached to this movie anyway… Bloody merchandise takes the quality out of anything. I wish those magazines would finally hire better writers.
#113—To which posts are you referring?
There is certainly no basis for anyone saying that TOS had less action than the spinoffs.
I think that what Abrams is saying is that there is a great deal of implied action never actually depicted as well as it could have been. Some people want to believe it was out of some sense of cerebrality, whereas in truth, it was out of budget limitations.
Abrams does not have such constraints.
92 “Dont tell us what we want JJ, let the fans tell you”
I’m going to have to disagree with you there. While Trek is a commercial property, it has always had a healthy element of artfulness to it. Most good art is made with a singular vision.
While the fans may weigh in on the final result, it would be a huge creative mistake to try cater to their tastes during the process of creation. Just look at all the differing opinions here. The movie would be all over the place!
It looks like the project’s in the hands of someone who ‘gets’ it. I feel he will give us a feeling of the familiar while putting his own artistic stamp on it.
And that’s reason for great optimism!
#113 “I’m a bit confused by all these posts describing TOS as having less action than later incarnations. I always thought it had *more*. Kirk was much more likely to smack people around than Picard ever was.”
I agree with closettreker. I think Abrahms is referring to the space battles that could never be explored with great detail because of monetary limits. Hands down, TOS is easily the king of Trek’s when it comes to mixing it up hand to hand.
one word: TRAILER!!!
#117 Well, there’s no matching the STII:TWOK sequence in and around the Mutara Nebula for space action. That’s three dimensional thinking. Star Wars space battles were often too flat… except (not surprisingly!) in the beginning with the Death Star destruction at the end.
Ah, back when they did more with models and motion control than they now do with CGI. ;)
Of course, TOS had an “Abrom”… I think Gene Roddenberry predicted the coming of JJ in “Patterns of Force”, no? See, the clear Zeon features?
Just got back from Bond…as expected no Trek trailer for the UK :(
oh well will have to wait 2 weeks…and then either see it online or wait to see it attached to TDTESS
Bond was ok btw
#119—Those are amazing visual sequences, considering TWOK’s mediocre budget, but it would be ridiculous—IMO—to contend that Meyer couldn’t have done even better with a budget like the one awarded to Bad Robot for STXI.
I certainly do not feel that the quality of ‘anything’ must be surrendered in order to direct bigger and better action sequences. It is just about making the action sequences better, and adding (without subtracting anything else) that element into the mix.
Whereas Star Trek has, for the most part, been limited to this point as to how much action can be depicted and how much must simply be implied, STXI has no such restrictions.
I’m looking forward to Star Trek getting the treatment it deserves, action and all.
Thank you, Mr. Abrams for clarifying your attitudes and the directions you have for this film.
I am always willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt.
When I learned you were a huge STAR WARS fan and was going to incorporate some of it into your TREK film, it didn’t phase me. It’s a franchise that does little for me, but I figured you were only referring to production design, CGI, epic scenes and sequences… those kinds of things.
Your writing team has mentioned BATMAN BEGINS a few times in the past (in reference to it being a story of the character’s origins, I suppose), and that gave me hope.
Then, your comments in EW magazine, a few weeks ago, started me getting a little concerned. You see, I wanted this film to be THE DARK KNIGHT. To me, TREK is thinking man’s science fiction and that film really showed what genre films can do. I disagree it was as dark as you claim. The word I would use is adult.
However, in the last few days–based one some rather silly comments by you, I’m beginning to get a little disappointed. You see, Mr. Abrams what you are describing for this film has already been done. I know you’re not a huge TREK fan, but someone should have screened a few episodes of VOYAGER for you. That was a TREK series that was also designed as an action oriented project, and frankly it was the weakest of all TREK series in my book. Oh, it had character moments, sometimes a lot of them, just like your film is suppose to have, but it was still a major disappointment. It came off as… I think the term Trekkers use is, TNG-lite.
Forgive me, but I was wanting more than just a 150 million, well designed, two hour VOYAGER episode. This may be a simplified comment regarding your film. The problem is, it’s no more simplistic than the comments you have been making regarding TOS.
Is it really necessary to tear down something in order to build something else up? I know you want to sell your movie, but why all the negative commentary regarding TOS, when none is needed? Why all the hate? Why say anything at all? I have heard that you are suppose to be a nice guy, but lately you have been coming off as less than classy. Just talk and build up your TREK film and leave TOS edifice were it is. It’s done pretty well the way it was. I think any fair person would understand it must be judged in the context of where, and when, and how it was created.
#81 Im getting tired of TNG, DS9, and VOY getting bashed all the time to be honest. Enterprise…enterprise kinda deserves it for a lot, but the others, well I still point out that each made it 7 seasons, I think TNG could have gone on longer even, and TOS…it went on for 3. I think in some ways there’s a big divide between the 23rd century fans and the 24th fans, almost like dems and repubs. Im trying to keep an open mind about this movie, but every time JJ says something I feel more and more like he might just be trying to get another trek movie or 2 out just to make some good money and totally kill the franchise in the process.
Will H. I have also been thinking of that and I think I have come to the answer on why. Think of this senario. If you took a bunch of people who were grew up listening to music from the 50s, 60, 70s or perhaps earlier and had them listen to some music of today the results would vary. Some of them will find it quite enjoyable. They will start getting with it and maybe even dance to it. Some will listen to it and will neither like it nor hate it. The rest will be like, “You call that music? Turn it off, turn it off!” The point is, as Spock said in “Yesteryear,” “Times change.” Many are natural haters of change, but it is coming whether you like it or not. If you’re lucky, you can adjust to it. Some, however, are not so fortunate.
The point I’m making is that Star Trek Changed because it adjusted to the times. People thought it sucked, because THEY didn’t.
I always thought people loved action.
I am seeing how people are talking about “Nemesis.” Now I saw that movie and while I did see it as somewhat silly and a bit depressing, One thing I did not see it as was Boring. Did any of you ever think to consider: maybe it wasn’t the move, maybe it was you?
#122—”Is it really necessary to tear down something in order to build something else up?”
Forgive me, but I do not see what it is from which you draw those conclusions.
I am a huge TOS fan, and am not offended by anything Mr. Abrams has used to differentiate his movie from what was done in TOS.
Removing the cheese does not threaten Star Trek’s vision, nor does utilizing all of the means at his disposal to create an asthetically pleasing visual experience. Making Star Trek’s “action” better than it has ever been before is not a disservice to the vision.
“…someone should have screened a few episodes of VOYAGER for you. That was a TREK series that was also designed as an action oriented project, and frankly it was the weakest of all TREK series in my book”
First of all, I don’t think VOY was an action-oriented project. Second, it ‘was’ bad. But I don’t see how you can even begin to equate a movie you haven’t seen yet with a Bermanverse television series. That is absolutely absurd. Finally, this creative team has never described this project to us as anything but character-driven. Adding better action sequences does not mean anything must necessarily be subtracted…
I can’t understand what your problem was with Voyager. I found it a lot more enjoyable than DS9. Call me wierd if you wish. But that was a whole lot better.
#123—-”The point I’m making is that Star Trek Changed because it adjusted to the times. People thought it sucked, because THEY didn’t.”
Or it just didn’t appeal to some of us.
TOS had great characters, IMO. TOS had lots of action. TOS was sexy. TOS was a progressive voice.
TNG had bland characters, IMO. TNG was sterile. TNG was sexless. TNG was too safe and politically correct.
–holodecks
–caveman Klingons
–Klingons in Starfleet
–Android Pinnocchios
–children on the bridge
–a luxury hotel w/ warp engines
–a ship’s counselor
–a captain who plays the flute and drinks Earl Grey tea
I prefer a half-breed science officer who struggles with himself; a smart-ass doctor who isn’t afraid to tell even his captain what to go do with himself; a hard-drinking, two fisted engineer who prides himself upon being a “miracle worker”; and a captain who pretty much fistfights and fornicates his way across the final frontier!!!
So sue me…
Of course, that’s only one man’s opinion.
Just because times change…doesn’t mean they change for the better.
But the biggest thing to remember is this…
TNG does not need me or anyone else to justify it. It garnered plenty of success (at least on television). I wonder why it bothers you so much that some people like TOS and not TNG/VOY/DS9.
It certainly doesn’t bother me that some people don’t like TOS.
Different strokes for different folks.
In any case, I never paid a dime for a TNG-era movie. I will be paying plenty (considering I have a large family) for this one.
#128It certainly doesn’t bother me that some people don’t like TOS.
You could have fooled me. It sure sounded like it offended you when your kids said it sucked.
Hmmm TNG was the most successful Trek series to date, attracting millions of viewers each episode, and a new generation of Trekkers who kept the franchise alive. And yet it sucked?
Personally, VOY got me interested in Star Trek, not TNG or TOS. Until recently, I ignored DS9, but now I respect it, and ENT was a lame duck, with better special effects and camera work.
I’ve watched many TOS episodes, not all of them, but all the best ones. Was it good television? No, but it wasnt bad either. And I think the televison audience at that time agreed with me. It was only after the series was cancelled and later syndicated in the 70’s, that Americans and people around the world began to realize what it represented. TOS didn’t represent the future as much as it represented the 60’s.
for the most part i agree – TOS is where it all started and everything else that followed in “trek” is a footnote to that series, that all tries to recreate the relationships and friendships among the senior officers. but TNG definitely succeeded in a similar fashion, especially from season 3 onward – and in many ways TNG improved on the original, where the relationships were different, but in a sense more balanced, personal, believeable and consistent, and evolving over the course of time – and especially in bringing strong female roles front and center (you must admit, a lot of TOS is awfully dated material from the 60s) – - and DS9 definitely expanded on this and succeeded in showing the darker realities of the galaxy. my only real criticisms are VOY and ENT, where the relationships and friendships and comparisons of similar characters seemed too forced , and after exhausting trying to recreate of the “trio of characters” (kirk-spock-mccoy, — janeway-doctor-seven, archer-trip-t’pol) just didnt seem worthy of the “star trek” name, though you can see how it all played within the same universe
my ratings of the movies, (scale of 1-5)
TMP solid introspective movie for its time – just short of a full 4
TWOK the best – 5
TSFS near perfect followup – 4 and 1/2
TVH farcical but uplifting , still good movie – 3
TFF weak – 2
TUC back to what works – just short of 4
GEN i really liked it – 4 and 1/2
FC on par with TWOK – 5
INS a little weaker but still heartwarming – 3 and 1/2
NEM weaker attempt at recreating the plot of TWOK – 3 and 1/2
#127—”I can’t understand what your problem was with Voyager. I found it a lot more enjoyable than DS9. Call me wierd if you wish. But that was a whole lot better”
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion.
Every day, after football practice, homework, and family dinner—my 11 year old son watches VOY episodes he recorded on his DVR from the day before. He has even asked me for the dvd collection for his upcoming B-day (Nov 10). If not for him, I probably wouldn’t have even seen the entire series once.
He likes the original movies, but laughs at even my favorite TOS episodes. He cannot get past the dated production design and some of the more obvious stunt-doubling. He shares my opinion about TNG. He finds it as boring as I do.
As for me, I can stand repeat viewings of DS9, but not TNG or VOY. I think that DS9’s characters are more interesting. I cannot stand the doctor or Neelix.
He and I both like ENT, although I still feel that ENT lacks (as do all of the spinoffs, IMO) the quality of the TOS characters.
There is Trek for everybody who calls himself/herself a Trek fan. You may like some or all of it, but not all of us feel the same way. Some of it entertains me…some of it does not.
IDIC
#129—Perhaps I should clarify…It doesn’t bother me at all that perfect strangers on the internet might not like it.
I always thought that the 4th movie was the best with the fifth a close second. I guess people don’t like humor either. I don’t mind that people dislike the 24th century era, I can respect that. But I don’t like it being rubbed in my face. Forgive me. I used to work with a lot of foreiners who did nothing all day but bitch about America. It’s like what Scotty said, “It was a matter of pride.”
#130—”TOS didn’t represent the future as much as it represented the 60’s.”
Wrong. The “production design” and costuming, and maybe some of the lame behavior of certain female characters represented the 60’s.
The TOS vision of the future is just as relevant today as it was then. It is a vision of a positive future for Mankind, suggesting that humanity overcomes all of the challenges we face today and goes forth boldly into the final frontier.
Hello 85 captain_neill
IDIC is a load of garbage, I’m afraid. It’s about a tacky hippie medal created to make Lincoln Enterprises some money and shoehorned into some episodes as a bit of product placement!
As for the redesigned look, I think it’s wonderful. It’s clearly Pike’s bridge, rather than Kirk’s, though, so I suspect we’ll see a more ‘faithful’ look in a sequel. I accept this film as a reboot, to all intents and purposes anyway, even if it is a ‘reboot that dare not speak its name!’ ;)
Not entirely sure about Abrams’ action remarks though. TOS was pretty action-packed, where it had the money to be. It was TNG which brought in talkie-Trek! :)
135.
Only after a horrific war, and contact with the Vulcans, did HUMANkind overcome its problems. If we look at reality, a horrific war seems far, far more likely than encountering aliens (who would be willing to help us).
#10…he meant that itd be a rulebreaker in that it wouldnt conform to the pessimistic mess star trek became in recent years; itd embrace the optimism star trek was originally meant to embrace…i’d have liked though to see openly if religion among humanity EXISTS in the 23rd century in this new film…such as SEEING kirk embrace his jewishness in honor of the shat, or something…
#138 SEEING kirk embrace his jewishness in honor of the shat, or something…
Just because the actor is jewish, doesn’t mean the character is.
#135—Irrelevant, since the focus of the vision is on the notion that mankind does not destroy itself. It does not say that Mankind will face no more trials in the meantime. The potential for a devastating war in the future (in between now and then) is no more relevant than the fact that we experienced a devastating war in the middle of the last century. As far as the “vision” is concerned, it is the destination… not so much the journey. :)
And the notion that first contact with the Vulcans initiated mankind’s salvation is not a part of the TOS vision. That facet was added thirty years later by Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.
126.
You wrote–
Forgive me, but I do not see what it is from which you draw those conclusions.
I am a huge TOS fan, and am not offended by anything Mr. Abrams has used to differentiate his movie from what was done in TOS.
Removing the cheese does not threaten Star Trek’s vision, nor does utilizing all of the means at his disposal to create an asthetically pleasing visual experience. Making Star Trek’s “action” better than it has ever been before is not a disservice to the vision.
This is not about being offended, it about keeping the focus where it belongs, being fair and consistent. I don’t remember Tim Burton or Chris Nolan mentioning or referring in any way to the 60s BATMAN series with Adam West. They didn’t because to make the link would be silly. It’s obviously a work of it’s time. They are secure artist who don’t have to denigrate to express their vision. Yet here Abrams is, constantly stating the obvious. Of course it has cheese, it’s a 60s TV series with a limited budget for goodness sake! Just talk about your own movie and leave TV history where it belongs. What I find laughable is, he talks about cheese, but here he has kept those cheesy TOS uniforms. Sounds a little hypocritical and trying to have it both ways to me.
You wrote–
First of all, I don’t think VOY was an action-oriented project. Second, it ‘was’ bad. But I don’t see how you can even begin to equate a movie you haven’t seen yet with a Bermanverse television series. That is absolutely absurd. Finally, this creative team has never described this project to us as anything but character-driven. Adding better action sequences does not mean anything must necessarily be subtracted…
Well, you’re wrong. As stated by both Michael Piller and Rick Berman, VOYAGER was an answer to DS9, which at the time was being criticized for being both stationary and too character based (read talky) series. They wanted to up the action quota because ratings for TNG (final season) and DS9 were slipping.
You need to take a stress pill. I am still looking forward to this film. All I said I was getting a little concerned and disappointed with what I am hearing. While I haven’t seen the movie, I can definitely get impressions from what continues to be stated, and action and STAR WARS are being mentioned a hell of a lot more than elements like character-based and theme are. In your own words, why subtract these items by not stressing these as well… and to the same degree? As a matter of fact, I haven’t heard one person mention what the sub-text or theme of this film is. Of course I don’t hang around this site enough to care, but I would like to hope these things are at least mentioned from time to time. To me, that’s what TREK is foremost about.
#140 And the notion that first contact with the Vulcans initiated mankind’s salvation is not a part of the TOS vision. That facet was added thirty years later by Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.
That doesn’t mean you should ignore it. I am seeing how just because they didn’t like it, they are saying it isn’t canon. I’ve got news for you. It’s the Producers who decide what is canon and what isn’t, not the fans. Whether we liked it or not, it’s canon unless the producers say otherwise.
140.
U PWNED ME!
I would just like to add one thing to what 142 said,
The producers are in charge, but if the fans dont like it, the producers will do what is necessary to keep their jobs.
Re: #56, eagle219406; I am very picky but also very loyal to my fanboy likes… I love Trek, TOS, ENT, DS9 and TNG/VGR, (in that order). Love Star Wars, (all 6), but am not into Heroes, Lost or BSG. Could take or leave any of the Stargate shows, but loved the first when it first came out. Love Doctor Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures, Smallville and Ghostwhisperer/Hunters… Dig the latent superhero flicks too. I am an all over the place fan, and am excited about this new take on TOS, while also being apprehensive… At least the trailor will be with a GOOD version of 007, I hate the old ones! I’m like that gaming-wise also; love MGS and Final Fantasy & GTA – but not much else! Hopefully the new flick will rise to my expectations! And all of yours too!
Who is the tall young handsome man
Maverick is his name….
:D
Can you please stop your TNG bashing here?
Of course there are many who can’t accept it, because it had a style that isn’t up to date anymore. Today’s serie style is closer to the 60s and TOS than it is to the 80s and TNG.
But TNG is for my point of view still one of the most intelligent written series of all times. Almost no serie touched more political and socialcritical aspects than TNG (maybe except of Simpsons that has a few seasons more). Although its style is antiquated its stories still get copied even by nowaday’s series. Just think of the Lost episode that was inspired by “All Good Things” or BSG’s “Drumhead” version …..
Almost every of Star Trek serie has its own charm.
TOS is romantic, shows the adventure of exploring space, is hopeful (overcoming racial and ethnical problems) and has good action.
TNG is intelligent, TNG shows Roddenberry’s vision of a better, evolved mankind best, and thus criticizes problems of our nowaday’s world in some kind of fable. TNG’s discussions about mankind and morality have a higher level than commercial products usually reach.
DS9 had the best space battles of any TV show. It is darker, but though also didn’t forget to show a litte social criticsm as Star Trek used to show. It shows the variety of the different species best, with also non-Starfleet people as main character. And it has the best character development and the first and only story arc (instead of stand-alone episodes)
Voyager is the worst i think. But it also has a charme. It gives a lot of “family feeling”, why it probably is most attractive for female fans. It probably has most action and phaser fights of all series.
Enterprise has at least in season 4 the spirit of “how did it begin”. It has some good and some bad episodes, especially Many Coto’s are good and only for the 4th season it was worth to be made.
What I like most depends on the mood I have that day.
Do I want action, or intelligent discussions, do I want something for the heart, or something for the brain, do I want a story arc or an episode for inbetween?
The good aspect for Star Trek is that it can offer everything to me! Not only one kind of style, it can not only satisfy one kind of mood, but every.
That huge diversity is one of the big advantages of Star Trek !!!
Any creative person would probably tell you A) there are times they feel insecure about their work, hoping the public will like it; B) you can’t please everyone, so you have to please yourself first, and expect some degree of disapproval from the audience. The whole Star Trek franchise has stirred people’s emotions on the small and big screens, but it has also stirred emotion’s regarding what Star Trek is all about, and how it should be presented. I think there are plenty of interviews/books/etc. in which the creator, Gene Roddenberry, expressed his views about what Star Trek is, and we can either accept his word or (wrongly) re-interpret his word or re-invent his word.
As for how it should be presented, according to my tattered copy of the version 3 Star Trek Guide (circa 1967), the main point stressed was one about BELIEVABILITY. From the Guide: “… believability of characters, their actions and reactions, is our greatest need and is the most important angle factor… In every scene of our Star Trek story, translate it into a real life situation. Or, sometimes as useful, try it in your mind as a scene in GUNSMOKE, NAKED CITY, or some similar show. Would you believe the people and the scene if it happened there?”
And then: “Build your episode on an action-adventure framework. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20,000,000 people or we simply don’t stay on the air.”
Finally: “We’ve received some interesting analyses of possible alien civilizations, socio-economic speculation which seemed brilliant to us. But the characters were “sitting and talking” rather than “feeling, moving and doing…” So, even from the get-go, Star Trek was intended to be an action-adventure-oriented, yet believable program. How many Trek episodes/films can you think of that did not follow these fundamental guidelines and wound up being the most criticized? And would you agree that the most successful ones did follow them? In addition, we cannot forget the most important principle of story-telling: Do we care about the characters? If we don’t care about the characters, if the characters are presented in a false situation (such as being placed in danger, yet we already know they will survive), if we cannot relate to the characters at all, then the story falls flat. Action-adventure is definitely a major aspect of entertainment, but so is drama. And drama is not simply about characters being in danger, it’s about making choices, having to make decisions, even when those choices and decisions are unpopular, or even wrong. Add to this the fact that tv/movies are a BUSINESS, intended to make $$$. Balancing the artistic with the business is, perhaps, the most difficult thing because falling specifically to one side or the other is going to affect the $$$. In this almost exclusively money-oriented world, failure to generate $$$ means the show is over.
#142—You’re taking what I said out of context. I never suggested that it was not canon. I was responding to a specific point by another poster.
As far as canon goes, I recognize all Paramount sanctioned live action Trek as such. You’ll never read any post from me which says otherwise…
#141—” I don’t remember Tim Burton or Chris Nolan mentioning or referring in any way to the 60s BATMAN series with Adam West. They didn’t because to make the link would be silly. It’s obviously a work of it’s time. They are secure artist who don’t have to denigrate to express their vision.”
Batman does not suffer from the same type of unflattering preconceived notions as does Star Trek. The goal of any $150 million+ budget film is to attract as large an audience as possible. Convincing general audiences that “this is not your father’s Star Trek” is a must, IMO, in order to achieve that goal.
The fact that Abrams and company are revisiting the TOS-era characters at all is compliment enough, IMO. Abrams is a bigger fan of the movies (TWOK, in particular). So what?
“You need to take a stress pill”
Uh….no. I don’t.
” While I haven’t seen the movie, I can definitely get impressions from what continues to be stated, and action and STAR WARS are being mentioned a hell of a lot more than elements like character-based and theme are. In your own words, why subtract these items by not stressing these as well… and to the same degree? As a matter of fact, I haven’t heard one person mention what the sub-text or theme of this film is. Of course I don’t hang around this site enough to care, but I would like to hope these things are at least mentioned from time to time. To me, that’s what TREK is foremost about.”
I would encourage you to look at the ‘entire’ article, not just the bits of it that talk about making the action scenes better.
“What Roddenberry was doing in The Original Series, and one of the aspects that appealed to me the most, was positing that humanity would survive, that they would thrive. We would one day not only be able to travel beyond our solar system, but people of all races and species would work together. What this movie is doing is embracing that optimism; it’s focusing on the core characters — most notably Kirk and Spock — and is telling a story of how this group, this family, comes together. We’re not simply showing the scenes that took place before the series began, though. It’s much more in-depth than that.”—JJ Abrams (from the same article above)
They (the entire creative team) have always maintained that the story is “character-driven”. It is mentioned in nearly every article posted here at trekmovie.com.
Making action sequences better does not equate to subtraction of any other element, and that is the bottom line. There is no reason that STXI could not have both.
I have been hot and cold as to JJ’s recent statements. He’s put himself now in a place where he must denigrate some aspects of existing Trek to make his version seem the freshest.
He seems to have to persuade the world that everything after TNG sucked so that he can come and save us with his film. Oh, and by the way, he’s not a big Trekker to begin with.
My problem is that I agree with his taste in Trek. But he still has a long way to go before his opinion gains even moderate credibility. There are VOY and DS9 fans here who got into Trek because of those shows. Sorry, guys, but the “Star Trek” name was just ’slapped on’ to your shows. If he’d actually bothered to watch, he’d think differently. Referencing TWOK all the time doesn’t build cred either. Ask Stuart Baird.
JJ must realize that his $150m epic will also have the “Star Trek” name “slapped on” it. Let’s hope that’s a good thing, and that he revitalizes the brand, and that we’re all jumping for joy next May.
#83. – Yeah, Voyager…which I hated, was highly successful; running for 7 seasons & holding stronger ratings than DS9 for it’s entire, shrill voiced run.
And no, I didn’t say that Trek is a “DARK THING”. Although it is much darker than say Star Wars. Come on: Salt Vampires, Planet Eaters, Killer Computers, Abe Lincoln impersonators!! Star wars main bad guy turns out to be a good guy, in a scary mask. This whole notion that it’s so optimistic is a bit overblown. What’s the optimistic part? That humans haven’t killed themselves yet? That the good guys always win? That when they encounter a new race they don’t immediately subject it to slavery? That’s not optimism, those are minimal expectations for ourselves in the future.
As for Dark Knight: I was comparing the narrative style of separate dramatic dialogue based scenes & action sequences, as opposed to the Star Wars style, similar to that of Transformers, where exposition is tossed around by characters as they run around in action sequences. Trek’s history lies more with the separation of those scenes, so we explore the issues at hand instead of charging in without thought. Trek is a morality play, disguised as a scifi show, always has been. So was Dark Knight & I fear that Abrams comments above indicate that he is steering away from that, which will cheapen & undermine Trek. Are we clear?
As for when I go to the grocery store; yes I do plan it out, I go through my cupboards & fridge & take stock of what I need, make a list of what to buy & go buy it. I don’t just go to the store & “do it” like a moron; that’s how end up with two full jugs of milk expiring before you can consume them & a crisper full of rotten fruit. How old are you? 15? Go have a pop tart & leave the discussion to the grown ups!
- STAR TREK- KINKY VERSION…where is that manhood from the begining..?
150: “I have been hot and cold as to JJ’s recent statements. He’s put himself now in a place where he must denigrate some aspects of existing Trek to make his version seem the freshest.
He seems to have to persuade the world that everything after TNG sucked so that he can come and save us with his film. Oh, and by the way, he’s not a big Trekker to begin with.”
I agree with this. And he’s also denigrated TOS to a degree. Every time I have read new comments by JJ so far, I was really annoyed. He’s also said some things about the movie which I like, but then he always added some comments which put me off again.
If I had JJ’s comments only, I wouldn’t watch the movie.
149.
You wrote–
Batman does not suffer from the same type of unflattering preconceived notions as does Star Trek. The goal of any $150 million+ budget film is to attract as large an audience as possible. Convincing general audiences that “this is not your father’s Star Trek” is a must, IMO, in order to achieve that goal.
Response–
It’s the same type of unflattering preconceived notions, perhaps not to the same degree, but it’s there and Nolan and Burton chose the high road in dealing with it. How do you measure or substantiate a preconceived notion anyway?
My point is, is it necessary to negatively focus on it? Why not just say, “My movie will have state-of-the-art CGI; it has a 150 million dollar budget… etc.” People aren’t stupid, for the most part. As soon as you mention these things, in a positive light, they’ll know the movie will be better looking than TOS…a 60s TV show for god’s sake! That’s common sense. You don’t have to do a negative campaign like a desperate politician. Why risk alienating core fans? That’s just not very smart. I doubt many will not go and see the film because of his remarks, but why be negative, when you don’t have to?
You wrote–
The fact that Abrams and company are revisiting the TOS-era characters at all is compliment enough, IMO. Abrams is a bigger fan of the movies (TWOK, in particular). So what?
Response–
Abrams, with Paramount’s help, are revisiting TOS because it’s the best gamble they have to recoup their investment and making a profit. If focusing on TNG, or DS9 was a better risk, we’d be seeing them on the screen with a 150 million dollar budget.
I wrote–
“You need to take a stress pill”
You wrote–
Uh….no. I don’t.
Response–
Then I apologize. I wrote this ’cause you were getting dangerously close to name calling. It’s just a movie you know.
You wrote–
I would encourage you to look at the ‘entire’ article, not just the bits of it that talk about making the action scenes better.
They (the entire creative team) have always maintained that the story is “character-driven”. It is mentioned in nearly every article posted here at trekmovie.com.
Response–
It’s not just the article above I am responding too. Guest I’m just a skeptical person. I just don’t accept what’s thrown out there for me to consume. After all, this is a business to make money. When I hear action and STAR WARS, a red flag goes up. I truly hope it’s more.
You can say your film is character-driven and action packed, and still get STAR WARS or TRANSFORMERS, or a bad movie. All I’m saying is, there are other elements of a movie–ascetic things–that can be talked about. STAR TREK was also about theme. Can you tell me what this movie is about? Not the plot. What’s the sub text? Is there one? Is this movie a cartoon? What about it sensibilities? Is it an adult film? Will it have cinematic style? What is it’s stylistic approach? There are lots of things to talk about–minus the negative comments concerning TOS, and the standard action / character / humor cliches Hollywood people usually spew out regarding their product.
Thanks.
150.
you wrote–
I have been hot and cold as to JJ’s recent statements. He’s put himself now in a place where he must denigrate some aspects of existing Trek to make his version seem the freshest….
And, isn’t it silly that he thinks he must do that? All he has to do is focus on what HIS film will offer and he will accomplish the same thing.
As soon as we see the trailer. and he shows clips of his film at press junkets, people are going to know it’s not old TREK or the 60s TV series.
I get so tired of this, “I have to tear down your TREK, to justify my TREK.” Why can’t we all just be TREK fans?
141 – “…I can definitely get impressions from what continues to be stated, and action and STAR WARS are being mentioned a hell of a lot more than elements like character-based and theme are…”
Star Wars (the original 3) were certainly character-based and full of theme! Is there anyone not living under a rock who doesn’t know the characters of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Darth Vader and even R2D2 and C3P0??? And the theme of Good vs. Evil permeates nearly every scene of each of those films!!!
I don’t see what all the fuss is about when JJ mentions Star Wars. Those films (again, I am referring to the original 3) are WONDERFUL movies, whether you call them fantasy, or sci-fantasy, or whatever. If JJ brings some qualities of Star Wars into the new Trek film, so what? I seem to recall George Lucas calling himself a Trekkie, and was inspired by TOS. I also seem to recall he disliked the “Star Wars vs. Star Trek” debates. So, Lucas likes Star Trek, JJ likes Star Wars… it seems to me they are one big happy family, eh? The only ones troubled about this are some of the fans, but they haven’t been given the task of making this film.
Ultimately, I suppose one must ask, “How do you measure success?” If, in this case, success is measured by numbers, then JJ is a success. He’s already proven himself. If one does not, personally, like his creations, that does not, to my mind, detract from the masses who do like him (or JJ’s success). On the other hand, I am not saying that just because many, many people like what he has done in the past will automatically carry over onto the new Trek film Typically, when someone achieves some level of success you see them again and again… at least until they fall out of favor. I don’t see how JJ’s desire to re-new Star Trek, or embrace some characteristics of Star Wars is enough to make him fall out of favor. As #149 stated above: “…The goal of any $150 million+ budget film is to attract as large an audience as possible. Convincing general audiences that “this is not your father’s Star Trek” is a must, IMO, in order to achieve that goal.”
I am in total agreement with this.
PS: If success is not measured by numbers, but is a more subjective thing, then it’s quite a coincidence that so many people have dug JJ’s work at the same time, don’t ya think?
156.
Didn’t mean to step on your toes. STAR WARS just doesn’t work for me. I don’t want to linger on it. I just prefer more depth, adult & cerebral sensibilities, in my movies. I do agree there is character and theme in it, it’s just rather simplistic and shallow. Good verses evil is so overworked in movies as well; the world is just more complex than that. It’s great that you enjoy it though. There’s definitely a place in the world for it.
Don’t have a problem with JJ embracing the technical aspects of WARS in his TREK, just not it’s shallow, kiddy, over-designed, all too apparent market-based approached. Several movies–most recently THE DARK KNIGHT, proved you can make smart movies and make a lot of money.
Glad to hear George Lucas is so altruistic and open minded concerning WARS and TREK. I saw a 60 MINUTES piece on him years ago. It featured him and his adopted kids. He seems like a great guy. I’m not a fan of his films, but I like the man.
Sorry #154, Closettrekker has NEVER come close to calling anyone on this board a name. He’s the most even-tempered guy around these parts.
I haven’t read any Abrams remarks that have been insulting about TOS. If anything, they are generally positive but he doesn’t hesitate to point out the things that don’t work for him. So he’s not a fanboy…that’s a GOOD thing! Somebody with a semblance of distance and objectivity is what any Trek production needs. I have great hopes that this movie will kick some serious butt. If it doesn’t, I’ll be very surprised given the filmmakers’ track records and dedication that’s been hinted at here.
Though not “rabid,” I’ve been a STAR TREK fan since 1991 and as I’m only 29, I think that’s saying something in terms of time spent as a fan. I havea hefty and healthy respect for the original series, most of its films and THE NEXT GENERATION, mixed feelings on DS9 and Voyager and just plain sadness that such a good idea like “Enterprise” was just so poorly executed (barely any memorable characters in a crew so blatantly a throwback to the Kirk-Spock era).
Someone here please do me a favor – e-mail me at jdmoores24@yahoo.com telling me how this bright, Apple-computer Trek reboot helmed by a STAR WARS fan with barely-known actors my age and younger looking like Abercrombe & Fitch models in ribbed versions of the original series uniforms (and a LOT of obvious makeup) is going to be a good thing, for TREK or for anyone? I’m cautiously optimistic until I at least see the trailer in front of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but from what I’ve seen, this is one of those SNL send-ups of the real “Star Trek” given a hundred-plus million-dollar budget.
PLEASE tell me I’m wrong and why.
160. PLEASE tell me I’m wrong and why.
We can’t. We can’t tell you you’re RIGHT either. Haven’t seen the movie yet.
Maybe I’ll get back to you in a few months.
One thing’s for certain: some things are going to be different. It all depends on how much difference crosses the line for you. It’s a personal choice for each viewer. My threshold is relatively high.
157 “… Didn’t mean to step on your toes…”
I didn’t take it that way, my friend, nor do I ever intend to step on anyone’s toes, either. We all tend to be a bunch of opinionated SOB’s at times, but we should also remember that the printed words do not specifically reflect the personality behind the words. When we talk about Star Trek, we are expressing our passion for it, and when different viewpoints come into contact, sometimes there is disagreement, and that is how it should be left. There is certainly no need to arouse conflict, especially over something like a movie, eh?
Ultimately, all of this back and forth is good for the movie. If we want to be taken seriously, we’re gonna have to see the film, and THEN we will be able to talk about the film. Until then, this is all a lot of speculation, but all this speculating is driving the anticipation to see the movie. I think it’s great for marketing. To boot, we’ve even had the pleasure of interacting with the writers and producers of the film, which – as far as I know – is a first.
No matter how the movie turns out, this experience of communicating with the film-makers and fellow Trekkies from all over the world has been a great pleasure. I’ve been a Star Trek fan since Day One, and will continue to be a fan to the end. Star Trek, itself, will outlive all of us, of course.
Ok, we are now 13 days away from the new trailer… I don’t know about you all but I can’t wait to see it.
JJ and I reach. Star Trek is where it’s at. It’s colorful, it’s fun, it’s exciting, it’s retro cool, it’s imaginative, geeks and mainstreamers both grok it and it’s legendary.
The spin-offs are not.
JJ is on the right path, can’t wait for the trailer!
#160- PLEASE tell me I’m wrong and why.”
You have to have faith in Nimoy. The man knows Star Trek better than anyone making that film or anyone on this message board. He lived it. He created it and then RE-created it, successfully in the movies. He knew NOT to take a role in Generations because it was not good Star Trek. He knew how to use TNG to cross promote HIS movie Trek 6. The e man read the script and liked it enough to pull himself out of retirement to put on the rubber ears once more. Nimoy has never treated the character of Spock or Star Trek lightly and feels a great responsibility towards it.
Yes, we have to be cautiously optimistic, because there are some serious concerns. But by the same token how can anyone not have faith in Leonard Nimoy? Creatively, the man understands what Star Trek was and what it should be. If he read the script and thought it was good, that is one hell of a stamp of approval.
So, as of now, we know the inception and story was good because Nimoy told us so. It’s the final execution of that story that reamains the wild card.
I hope JJ has it right
I am not happy that he is changing the set design big style but hopefully he will deliver a good movie.
I will be giving him the benefit of the doubt, he would be such a hipocrite if his film turned out to be a film with the Star Trek name slapped onto it.
I want to have faith in JJ, I really do. I hope to be proved wrong but that bridge is so alien to me
Closetrekker, my son’s birthday is also Nov 10th. He’ll be 14.
He actually bags on some aspects of TOS (effects, stunt doubles, etc) but honestly, he has actually volunteered to watch certain episodes. Most of these are also my favorites (TCOTEOF, Arena, etc).
Sometimes I’ll glance over to see what his general reaction is while an episode is on, and I can tell he genuinely enjoys it. At one point he quoted me and said “Ya know, that is true what you said, dad… it’s like a good book… who cares about the bad special effects… story is number one…”
Made me proud
JL, you have good reason to be proud. Some people never learn that story takes precedence…..
#154—-”It’s not just the article above I am responding too.”
Then I would suggest going back and reading some of the past articles. You’ll find the same equal emphasis on making clear that the story is character-driven as you will the assurance of first class action and special effects.
“I just don’t accept what’s thrown out there for me to consume.”
And yet you have no problem “consuming” the notion that bigger and better action sequences will somehow denegrate Trek or hinder the filmmakers’ ability to tell a great story about Kirk/Spock/McCoy.
I don’t follow your reasoning….sorry.
I don’t either.
BIG ACTION AND EFFECTS + GREAT STORY + SOLID ACTING AND DIRECTING
(to me)
= GREAT MOVIE
169.
You can be a character-driven/action movie and end up an adolescent cartoon–STAR WARS, and you can be a character-driven/action movie, a cartoon and have adult sensibilities and end up with THE DARK KNIGHT. That’s my concern. Will we get a dumb, action-pack, popcorn movie, or a smart one?
You wrote:
And yet you have no problem “consuming” the notion that bigger and better action sequences will somehow denegrate Trek or hinder the filmmakers’ ability to tell a great story about Kirk/Spock/McCoy.
I think you mean denigrate.
No, not just accepting possible Hollywood rhetorical salesmanship is my point.
I can respect any director who hates the Star Wars prequels.
I feel that the original Star Wars trilogy united a great many people in a positive way; while the prequels united even more people in a negative way. But through it we are united. We know that this kind of tragedy must never happen again. Ever.
The things I read from JJ really put my mind at ease. Even if this movie isn’t as good as we hope, it will surely still be a great movie, and the sequel will learn from any mistakes that are made.