Editorial: James Cawley On The New Star Trek Movie | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Editorial: James Cawley On The New Star Trek Movie November 12, 2008

by James Cawley , Filed under: Editorial,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Exactly one year ago tomorrow Star Trek Phase II star and executive producer James Cawley made news with his editorial here at TrekMovie regarding his thoughts on early designs he had seen of the new USS Enterprise from JJ Abrams new “Star Trek” film. Now that the pictures are out, he has sent in and update on his thoughts on this new Trek.


To Boldy Go……

Upon reading all the comments and some fans backlash this morning after finally seeing the newly released image of J.J. Abram’s new Starship Enterprise, I wanted to breath a sigh of relief that " I could finally talk about the design" and yes, with a few changes this IS in fact the design I saw last year. But all the negativity I was reading got me thinking that I really needed to speak to my fellow fans about the new feature itself, beyond the new Enterprise. So let me start off by saying that Yes, this film will be different! And What is wrong with that?

That is probably a pretty strange sentiment coming from such a die hard, canon obsessed – whore fan as me! (lol, yes I can admit that!) You see, I want to put this new film into comparison with another high profile franchise that is doing quite well these days, and in the end see if you don’t agree with me.

Right now as I write this there are no less than 4 different versions of Batman available to the mainstream viewing audience. On tv we have "The Batman", "Batman: The Animated Series," The forthcoming "Batman: The Brave and The Bold" and of course "BATMAN" starring Adam West. There is also, the current successful film series (Batman Begins & Dark Knight) starring Christian Bale, and the Tim Burton era films. They are all wildly different interpretations of the character, and no one confuses one with the other, they are all Batman! And all of these enhance that franchise and all, to some degree, are successful.

So, why can’t Star Trek do the same? No one will confuse this new feature with The Original, or vice versa. This new feature will hopefully be a slam-bang adventure with some of Gene’s morals thrown in for good measure. This is simply another take on Trek. No one will punish the die hard fans, if in the end they enjoy it.

This New Trek, will hopefully serve to remind people why they Loved Star Trek so much to begin with. I believe it will re-awaken people to the fact that The Original Series was so good, and prompt them to buy the DVDs and get reacquainted with old friends. It will also, more importantly, introduce those legendary characters to a new generation of kids who have no idea who Kirk and Spock are, and what the heck is Star Trek.

I understand this is a new way of doing things, after all the Star Trek franchise was unique (with the possible exception of Star Wars). Trek is a single franchise that respected it’s own fictional universe and history and made each of it’s sequels fit fairly snugly (despite a few small errors over time) into it’s own 40 year canon, which is remarkable! That being said, Relax. The Original Series isn’t going anywhere. SO GO SEE THE NEW MOVIE! GIVE IT A CHANCE. This is a NEW STAR TREK! as a fan it really is okay if you like them both!


James Cawley is the star and executive producer of Star Trek Phase II. Cawley also has a non-speaking cameo in the "Star Trek" film.

As with all guest editorials, the opinions are those of the writer and not necessarily those of TrekMovie.com


1. M-BETA - November 12, 2008

You tell ’em James!!!!

I am well excited to see this new Trek.

2. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

What a mensch!

3. ensign joe - November 12, 2008

word up

4. Jim - November 12, 2008

Thanks for a more objective point of view…or at least as obejective as a Star Trek fan can be…

5. John1979 - November 12, 2008

Well said

6. Dennis Bailey - November 12, 2008

Well, that’s certainly a sensible way of looking at it. “Batman” is probably the best analogy out there, since it’s been through the greatest number of *successful* iterations and variations in different media over the last half-century.

7. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

I still have yet to see or hear anything bad.

8. Dorothy - November 12, 2008

The only thing I don’t get is, if this “take” on TOS is “the way it really looked”, then that completely invalidates episodes like “Trials and Tribble-lations” and the entire TOS-remastered releases.

9. REDBELLPEPPERS - November 12, 2008

I get what he is saying, and I kinda agree. However, if there’s something I dislike, then there’s something I dislike.

Why can’t anyone get over that aspect? There’s aspects about this project I like, aspects that I dislike.

Deal with it and move on. My dislike doesn’t affect your liking. I can’t believe that it’s so importanbt to others that I do.

10. Prologic9 - November 12, 2008

I know some of the negativity is permeating but for the most part I think the disappointment in the ship has been limited to the ship alone, the way it should be. And it’s entirely justified.

I love the recent batman movies but I know the Batsuits leave a lot to be desired as well, though I kind of like the TDK version. That’s no different from the Enterprise, except the design of the ship is far more important and far more disappointing.

11. Annoyed ANimator - November 12, 2008

NOT CANNON! my crew and I will never submit to a non cannon feature that destroys the laws written in marble by our beloved gene. Huzzah!!!

12. Nick Cook - November 12, 2008

Here’s hoping James is right. I don’t believe this movie is going to completely erase the last forty years of Trek, despite the obvious visual changes to the TOS setting.

If we get a good movie, with a thoughtful, exciting story, I’ll be mostly happy.

13. fizzbin - November 12, 2008

I’m taking your word for it James. I beleive Kevin Smith gave it thumbs up too. Despite all the controversy I’m looking forward to seeing the movie.

14. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

I heart JC™.

Now izzen up and EAR me now… this is me main geezah, JC™, Captain James T, mister new voyages, that’s Phase II to you…

if he can accept it… a year ago no less…

now of course we all can’t have small roles in the movie, visits to the set, and a chat with sir JJ himself… but still.

Listen to JC™. Listen to AP. Listen to hitch1969.



15. Tony Whitehead - November 12, 2008

I wholeheartedly agree. It’s good to see you continue to publicly throw your support behind this project. It would have been sad to see Nemesis be the epitaph on the coffin of Trek’s movie franchise. Now that Trek has a new lease on life, we can nitpick the carcass or we can join you and get everyone fired up to make the opening weekend as big as possible for future onscreen journeys.

16. D. P. McGuire - November 12, 2008

In TUC Kirk stated something like people have trouble with change. 1960’s Star Trek would look silly on the big screen today. TNG looks dated. People yelled like crazy over the new Bond. Guys, just deal with change and go watch the movie. If it is entertaining, awesome. People yelled like crazy with STTMP Enterprise. I wasn’t sure at first either but later grew to like it more than the original. Maybe apply IDIC to the Star Trek universe and just enjoy.

17. Universal Tim - November 12, 2008

Very well said.
However, I think I need to state that some people are upset because they were told this was going to be faithful to TOS and not a reboot. However, it is a reboot of sorts, and they should have been up front about it, which is why I can understand to some degree the disappointment of a few.
Now, I’m not upset at all. I’ll happily go see this movie. I may not be thrilled by some aspects of it, but I can accept it in it’s own continuity as a reboot. No problem. It is after, Star Trek reborn.
If I can accept whatever Trek has thrown my way for the last couple of decades I’ve been a fan, then I can accept this.

18. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#8—Let me help you.

Everything that happened before (ENT-NEM) is inherently relevant to the story in this film. It is that long series of events which leads Nero and his cohorts to make a decision to take action to alter the past.

Everything we have seen beforew has to happen in order for the story to progress to that point.

Nothing before is invalidated, as long as it took place before the timeline incursion.

If you have to “make it fit”, then that’s how you do it….

19. Geoffers - November 12, 2008

Well said! I really do think a lot of folks visit this site each day, so they can decide what next they can say is wrong with Trek… That aint being a fan. That is making sure you kill what you say you love, stone dead.

20. ety3 - November 12, 2008

Thank you.

Now, let’s see this puppy in action on the big screen.

21. Sebi - November 12, 2008

I completely agree with James! Right on! Why can’t we love both?!

22. Unbel1ever - November 12, 2008


1. not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different.

In other words: Not Star Trek

If you want to make something different, make something different. Don’t call it Star Trek.

23. Jasmin - November 12, 2008

Does anyone wonder if the ‘new cast’ will stick around more than 1 or 2 movies? What happens when Kieth Urban gets bored and they have to re-cast him? What if its Chris Pine who suddenly gets famous and takes other roles leaving trek..can they really replace the principles every other movie like they do with Bond or Batman (of old) would we stand for seein them played by different actors every few years, assuming the new franchise is successful?

24. ETmoody3 - November 12, 2008

I couldn’t agree more, Mr. Cawley.

In fact I have to credit you with helping me separate the character of James Kirk from the actor who originated the role. Your work made it easier to accept this new work.

In other posts I have used Sherlock Holmes the way you used Batman. It is some testament to how well we can accept these changes in a franchise that I did not see Batman as an example. I had obviously accepted the variations so well ( or it may be that I’m more of a fan of Holmes)

I am simply pleased that the “bottom-line-obsessed” world of Hollywood is still keeping the characters and the universe alive. Period.

25. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#17—“…some people are upset because they were told this was going to be faithful to TOS and not a reboot. However, it is a reboot of sorts, and they should have been up front about it, which is why I can understand to some degree the disappointment of a few.”

How can it be a reboot if everything depicted before has to happen in order to get the story to the point where the Romulans take action to alter the past?

It is not a “reboot”, nor is it a “prequel”. In fact, it has more attributes of a sequel, since none of this can happen without ENT-NEM…

26. Reign1701A - November 12, 2008

Sooo…what do you think of the redesigned Enterprise Mr. Cawley?

27. Decker's Stubble - November 12, 2008

I doubt any design would satisfy everyone. Even if they cloned the original vessel, there would be a sizable number of detractors.

While the design is not my fave, the ship is merely the scenery for the show. It’s the story and the acting that will decide the matter.

28. ShawnP - November 12, 2008

12. Nick Cook.

Agreed. If you watch this movie and end up liking it, your existing Star Trek DVD collections will not up and leave in protest. They will not dematerialize. They will still be there.

29. Galileo - November 12, 2008

Somebody had to speak some sense. Thank you Jim!

30. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#23—“Does anyone wonder if the ‘new cast’ will stick around more than 1 or 2 movies? What happens when Kieth Urban gets bored and they have to re-cast him? What if its Chris Pine who suddenly gets famous and takes other roles leaving trek..”

They are all signed for 3 films. And if the money is big enough, they’ll stick around after that…

31. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

JC™, November 13, 2007:

“Much has been made about me not liking the design. So, let me explain why I don’t.

I have been a fan for 35 years. I grew up with TOS. I am a TOS purist. I see Matt Jefferies designs as “Timeless” not dated. To me they are pure Sci-Fi, we do not have anything that looks like them at all… But, Just because that is my opinion, does not mean that many more of you, won’t like the possible New Look.

That being said I do not know who started the rumor that that the new Enterprise “has wings,” but I certainly did not. I have been asked by Anthony to try and describe what I saw, and all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek”. That is as much as I feel comfortable in sharing.”



32. Weerd1 - November 12, 2008

First, thank you James, and indeed thank you for YOUR additions to the Trek universe so I can still watch those as new Star Trek if I don’t like the new take!

Perhaps it is just me, but I think my biggest issue is just the idea the studio/producers sold this film to me as how the Classic characters come together. It would seem that is not the case, but rather we get this new timeline created in the course of the film. I don’t think that is a bad idea, and I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong or canon-smashing about it. It is however not what I thought we were getting. I wanted to see the Jim Kirk I grew up with cheat on the Kobayashi Maru. Now I am seeing a Jim Kirk whose history is altered by timeline issues. It may be a great story, but it is not “my” James Kirk, and therefore diminishes my interest. I think repeated comments of “this is just the next Trek movie” though technically accurate, were a bit disingenuous (or true from a “certain point of view” to quote another franchise!).

I will give it a shot, but I would certainly have preferred “my” Kirk’s history rather than the retelling. Perhaps in seven months I will be singing a different tune…

Thank you again James.

33. Tom Dick & Larry - November 12, 2008

I will go see this movie if only to get up & walk out while giving the movie screen the finger.

34. Canonkiller - November 12, 2008

They’ve been doing it with some obscure group of plays by some guy named Shakespeare for 400 years so I guess it would work for Trek.

35. LCDR Arch - November 12, 2008

I have a huge respect for James and what he has done for Star Trek.
In my opinion James Cawley helped to save Star Trek and get this movie project going. I think that by creating his fan films (the most downloaded SF fanfilms in history) he proved to CBS execs how much we all love the original trek characters. I think this got them more in touch with the idea of a reboot/pre-TOS movie.

I think we all owe James a thank you for keeping the spirit of TOS alive after Enterprise!

If JJ’s movie is as good as “World Enough and Time” I will be very pleased. Keep up the great work James! I can’t wait to see your next 2 part web episode soon.

36. Universal Tim - November 12, 2008

to #25
I guess I didn’t make myself clear. I should have reworded what I said. I meant it is a reboot “of sorts”. It isn’t a reboot exactly. Events have to happen for other events to change. Yep, I get it. However, I was just saying I understand some of the reasons why a few fans were disappointed, not that I’m unhappy or anything.
I agree with much of what James said here. I may not like all of this new movie, but I’ll be there. I didn’t like many things about Trek that came before, but I’m still a fan. Just wanted to clear that up.

37. st-midway - November 12, 2008

to all the naysayers:
“you´re afraid! you wanna run away and destroy the ship! you cowards!”

38. harris250 - November 12, 2008

Star Trek does not compare to any of the other franchises often mentioned here. Bat Man! PLEASE! On it’s best day Bat Man was never Star Trek. Trek is what it is because it has it’s own highly detailed and lengthy cannon. This is a mine field for JJ and Co. Look, Paramount and JJ are using Trek to make money, not tell a story and get weepy about cannon. These people have jobs and shareholders to think about. Think about everything else you love in the public realm and tell me if it hasn’t already been compromised, maybe Star Trek is just the last old binky to be trivialized and debased. I hope there is a catch in all of this and all us old trekkers will be happy. I hope so…..

39. RMBurnett - November 12, 2008


Well…if the reason for the changes to the universe we so know and love has to do with Nero “Yesterday’s Enterprising” the entire classic Trek universe, then I say to everyone involved, “Wicked cool, I’m totally down with that.” Keeping this altered universe, wonky Enterprise and all, would be a real stroke of genius and I think a PERFECT way to reset the Trek universe, while still maintaining ALL canon.

I think this may actually be a possiblity, what with “Prime Spock” being identified on the upcoming Playmates toys. The Classic Trek universe is the Prime Universe, the Abrams Universe is th NEW Trek Universe. Elegant and perfect solution, while making everything old new again.

Love it.

That being said:


I’ve been thinking about this all day…and I have to say, judging from the scene descriptions and now this first glimpse of the new Enterprise, I’m not very optomistic about the upcoming film.

In my experience, the original series is viewed one of two ways; for those who grew up with it, love it and continue to enjoy it, we take it seriously. The best episodes have storylines which are both intellectually compelling, vastly entertaining and certainly of an adult nature. The actors and the characters they play are striving to tell illuminating stories about the human condition. It’s all very serious to us. But most importantly, we BELIEVE it. Utterly.

We never see paper mache rocks, fake planetscapes or substandard visual effects (which were, at the time, beyond state of the art), we see a universe we can believe in. The planets look the way they look because…well…THAT’S THE WAY THEY LOOK. We don’t go, “Nah…doesn’t look realistic to me…” We PORE over every minute detail, trying to recreate every grill and panel line, because up unti now, the creators and designers of all five Trek series strived to create an absolutely believable future. The franchise faltered when it moved away from that goal (the entire third season of Enterprise is a perfect example of this, Trek reduced to not much more than a Flash Gordon serial and no one, not even the hardest core fan, believed any of what they were watching).

Then, there’s the more modern viewer, who came to Star Trek later,as someone with previously concieved notions, who was already aware of the SHAT factor, so they’re never really able to see Kirk as a “real” character, but only as a pop culture icon, and always with tongue firmly in cheek. Sure, they can recognize the value of the storytelling, but they’ll never take it “seriously,” if that makes any kind of sense.

J.J. Abrams is clearly one of these viewers…and now he’s directed the new movie.

The production design of the bridge and of this new Enterprise and the scene descriptions of the new film, clearly illustrate this. In almost every interview, J.J. Abrams talks about not being a Trek fan, but being more of a Star Wars fan. Why would you possibly say this? Almost like apologizing in advance for any missteps the film makes.

I’m sure while watching the original series in preperation for directing this new Trek, it never seemed very “real” to J.J. There was never a Mos Eisley spaceport, a Star Destroyer or Death Star in Trek. He believed in those. But the Fesarius? The Doomsday Machine? The Romulan Bird of Prey? Three colors of velour? Not so much.

I’m sure he could recognize the great storytelling, but while probably engaged somewhat during a few episodes, I’ll bet he never got past the fact Trek was just a bit silly to him on a number of levels.

I’ll bet he said to himself, “If only Trek could be more like Star Wars, with characters a modern audience could immediately identify with, like Felicity, Sydney Bristow and the cast of LOST, I’d really have something.”

Which brings me to why this new Enterprise looks the way it does…and its interior follows suit.

The producers of this new Trek film simply didn’t place much importance on whether or not anything appears “real” or functional, but whether or not it appears COOL. So the original Enterprise has to be updated into the souped-up version of the design. Its outer lines no longer have to have any kind of relationship to functional design elements in the interior…they just have to look really cool, because, after all…it’s fantasy.

I’m sure the characters and story elements will be treated the same as well…we’ll all be able to recognize the troubled rogue James T. Kirk as being like previous characters from everything from Rebel Without a Cause to Top Gun. Spock will be the troubled alien outsider with a chip on his shoulder. It’ll all be easy to understand for a modern audience, because they will have seen such characters and storylines all before, especially on the previous material Abrams has written and produced.

But from everything reported in the past few days…it all seems…pedestrian. We’re getting the paint by numbers, studio-notes TWILIGHT, middle-America version of Star Trek. With time travel, so it can be called “edgy.” There won’t be any truly surprising hard sci-fi moments where someone takes a blue pill and realizes their entire life is a lie. Nothing challanging. We’re getting characters with dilemmas very much of TODAY.

That being said, I will be first in line to see the new Trek film…

40. Spock with a Crowbar - November 12, 2008

The more I learn about this new Trek, the more I’m reminded of “Crisis on Infinite Earths” (non-comics readers should wiki for a brief description).

It was the best thing that ever happened to the DC Comics Universe and it paved the way for more updated interpretations of the characters and their surroundings w/o breaking canon.

“Crisis on Infinite Enterprises” anyone?

I think that might be what is happening here, and I welcome it.

41. Wrath - November 12, 2008

If Star Trek really does have pretensions of long term mythology status, it has to be re-interpreted, re examined. Superman, Batman, James Bond, the more they change the more they stay the same.

Trek needs to do this too, or dwindling audience figures will lead to it’s death.

42. Donn - November 12, 2008

8. Dorothy: As an alternative to what ClosetTrekker said… (of course, his/her idea is perfectly valid also)

To come at it from the angle of “if this is what it looked like, does that invalidate TOS, and retro-episodes like ‘Relics’ and ‘Tribble-ations’?” No, it’s just that TOS is how it was made to look in the ’60s, and those retro-episodes referenced that imagery to provide the context and setting of the past. If you want to think of it this way, the stories are all still perfectly valid, you might imaging a re-tooled version of “Tribble-ations” in which Sisko et al are dressed in the “new” uniforms, and strolling the decks of the ship that was just revealed to us. The story still counts, it was just filmed to look different than this new movie will look.

Now personally, I’m prepared to look at it both this way, or to say indeed we are starting over and we’ll see where this new version goes. The old version is still a valid work of 40 years worth of art, and still valid to watch and think about. Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood had the big duel with the Sheriff of Nottingham; Errol Flynn had his with Sir Guy. They’re both great, fun movies for different reasons, and you can still like the Robin Hood legend and enjoy them both. (Myself, I really enjoy the Patrick Bergen version as well.)

43. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

hey, the new movie is going to be great… don’t get me wrong.

but nothing matches the greatness of phase dos.

and the fact that we get both the new movie… and more and more phase II… well, that just tickles me. it’s kind of like getting a threesome with a really really hot chick and just a hot chick. like the hot chick alone would be good, or the really really hot chick alone would be a lil better. but then you get to mix the chocolate and strawlberry and mash up that van halen with beastie boys, throw in some travis barker on drums working with the DJ AM… rotate the landing tires on the lear jet so you can take off *proper* and no one gets burned!!!

thats what old h69 is talking about. safety first, party down the project runway to the mile high club with at Invesco Field. JC™ knows what I am saying. and that is what he is telling you here, today. at the trekmovies dot com dot org.



44. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

I am like james Cawley. Im a Diehard original Fan and fan of all the Trek Series and All 10 Movies. I have Watched Trek Since i was 7 or 8 and im 39. I have also seen All of cawleys Work over on Phase 2 and am looking forward to the new Shows he has got cooking. On Trek 11 Coming out im looking forward to it. As long as they Keep to the Principles Of Gene Roddenberry then im fine with the Movie and it’s Suttle Differences. Keep wioth the Core of the Franchase and i believe theyhave other wise Men Like James Cawley and Lenoerd Nimoy would not be in the new Movie as they would not like the script and the Fx of the New Enterprise. So with true MEn like them and many others then im very content as a cannon and Fanatic Trek Fan to be there opening night at Midnight and watch the latest Movie of Star Trek. This Movie needs and has to Appeal to the rest of the Movies going audence and not just the Die hard Trek Fans like myself and james Cawley and others.

45. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

Like I said before:

New Star Trek movie = Never Say Never Again

46. LostonNCC1701 - November 12, 2008

Thank you Cawley. Some sense, finally.

More examples to go along with Batman:

Godzilla. There have been at the VERY LEAST seven different Godzilla timelines, of which only ONE is treated as “not Godzilla” (that “one”, of course, being the American made movie).

Transformers. As Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman no doubt know, there have been so many versions of Transformers that the name “Optimus Prime” or “Megatron” doesn’t so much refer to a specific character so much as a Archetype.

James Bond. Probably the best parallel to the Star Trek Movie Series having a semi-reboot. I remember when they announced “Casino Royale” would be a reboot: “Wait, you are throwing away 20 movies of Continuity to start over!?!?! HERESY!”. Now, the Bond movies rarely would do continuity nods like Star Trek does (yeah, they’d mention Bond’s wife every once and a while, and Q would make a quip referring to an old gadget sometimes, but nothing like what Trek would do), but it is easily the largest amount of history every thrown onto the Continuity backburner of doom.

Frankenstein. Oh dear god, Frankenstein, and all the other public domain characters.

47. Galileo - November 12, 2008

This uproar reminds me of 2006, when Nintendo decided to to name their new console, codenamed Revolution, the Wii. Fans were up in arms, but the general public fell in love. That was a disruptive strategy to create a newbie market because the diehards could no longer support the market alone. Without such bold strategies existing markets die. Why would anyone here want Star Trek to die? Chill people.

48. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

Thank you Mr Cawley for your editorial and By the Way. Im A big fan Of phase 2 and your doing some fantastic work. Keep it up.

49. OneBuckFilms - November 12, 2008

James, well said, sir.

As Kirk said once, “People can be very frightened of change”.

I think the merits of the movie as either a reboot or a Canon prequel to the Original Series should be properly assessed after the movie is released.

Now – your critique of the Enterprise design ;-)

50. silencer - November 12, 2008

Yes Captain.
You of all people have treated the Enterprise with the respect she deserves…
but you do have to remember, many of us take Scotty’s view of the ship – “Laddie, don’t you think you should rephrase that”…..
That ship is loved by a lot of people. It is difficult for us to see it mocked (for instance having 1950’s headlights being put on the nacelles, or replacing the secondary hull with an upside down Wrath of Khan phaser).

Gabe’s version would have been fine with me. This just makes me mad. This ship isn’t an improvement….. it is like Abrams wants us to just suck it up. I am tired of people telling us fans what we want.

Good work, James, I will take your advice.
Hopefully Paramount will trust you with the franchise soon – you actually ‘get’ the concept.

51. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

Like I also said before:

JJ has already stated everything that looks different in the new movie will have a canon explanation. So either there is a new timeline in which case, everyone can jettison 40 years of work by thousands of talented artists, or everything is on a different timeline in the movie but gets corrected in the end.

52. EnsignJulka - November 12, 2008

I agree with this guy!

53. Frank - November 12, 2008

While I understand his point of view, the trek fans have embraced different ship designs before.

The problem is that an ugly Enterprise is still and ugly Enterprise….

And THAT is what JJ is giving us.

54. Chris Dawson - November 12, 2008

As someone who works in Hollywood, the thing I would really like to see is not so much a “new” take on old, well-established show concepts (like “Re-Imagining” or “re-Booting” – MAN I HATE THOSE WORDS), but new worlds and visions WITHIN the established world.

So make a film about a NEW crew. And keep all the great things about Trek. And you can still advertise that “It’s Star Trek.”

That said, I think that James Cawley here has what might be the best reaction and outlook I have so far seen. And I trust him.

Ever since I was a kid watching Trek in the early 70’s I wanted to see more of that world – other ships and crews, other people doing different jobs, in different situations but WITHIN THAT world.

That’s why I love the fan films, the books and each of the Trek Franchises totally worked for me because it opened up Gene Roddenberry’s world.

We don’t need another interpretation of what already has been done, we need to continue forward and explore the final frontier perhaps with the hopes our future might match or surpass the positive world of Star Trek’s future (minus the WW3 part)

55. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

Oh. I work in a Car dealership In Austin and on my Computer Screen Saver i have a Pic of the new Enterprise from the Movie and i have had a lot of People tell me they love the look of the Big E. So ill be doing what I can to Promote the Movie Here In Austin and I have already had some good Conversations about the New Movie From J.J. Abrams.

56. Trek Nerd Central - November 12, 2008

Nice, generous comments from the mindful Mr. Cawley.

But I’m unclear on one point. Can someone explain to me why people are freaking over the ship? I finally saw the photo.

I’ll grant that the cutaway in the bottom startled me a bit, but aside from that, I think it’s pretty darn close to the original E. And on second glance it struck me as quite graceful.

Did we expect it be a carbon copy of the TOS ship? Is that why people are spazzing? ‘Cause I own a Dinky Toy version of that Enterprise, and I can gaze lovingly at it any old time I like. Or I can watch episodes of the original show.

57. Clinton - November 12, 2008

My first encounter with “Star Trek” was watching the original broadcast of “The Man Trap” back in 1966. Some people may go back beyond that point, but probably not many. I am ready to sit down and, hopefully, be fully entertained by this movie. So it puzzles me when some people are so quick to hate everything about it.

I think James’ comparison to Batman is an excellent one. This is a new take on a familiar theme.

Go. Enjoy the movie on its own merits. Classic Trek is still there for you on VHS, DVD, iTunes….heck, you can even see it on YouTube.

58. harris250 - November 12, 2008

again I say, Star Trek is none of these. Bond did not have a story prior to the original book and movie. Godzilla? Transformers?

59. jondh - November 12, 2008

It certainly depends on what you call a reboot! Some here think that ANY change or update constitutes a reboot. Sheesh!

It could have been much much worse. JJ could have abandoned the entire saucer/nacelle design altogether and given it wings and lots of pointy turrets and a bridge buried in the heart of the ship (which, let’s face it, makes more tactical sense). It could have been the size of a star destroyer. Star Fleet uniforms could have been black or gray or something leathery. Kirk could have been a woman.

THAT, my friends, is a reboot. WHat JJ gives us is just an update.

Also, if you can’t spell “canon” correctly, you don’t deserve to adhere to it.

60. Fwise3 - November 12, 2008

Very well put Mr. Cawley! This new movie does not affect anything in the past. It is simply a new take on Star Trek. Each series will still exist, each movie will still exist, it isn’t like the new film will somehow erase everything that came before it! That wouldn’t happen even if it was 100% different.

61. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

God Bless you, Capn’ Mike from Austin. You are doing the Lord’s work. Praise Allah.


62. Dave - November 12, 2008

@17, you are so right. The “Supreme Court” screwed up by telling the die-hards this was going to be faithful to TOS. Instead of pussyfooting around the fact that they are using a time travel deus-ex-machina to reboot the franchise, they misdirected everyone into thinking this was going to be TOS. All that has done is delay the backlash from the die-hards.

If Bob Orci is reading this, I have no problem with the designs or aesthetics of your film. If anything, I am GLAD to see a new visual take on Star Trek after years of Okudagrams, vaccuum cleaner phasers and boring black jumpsuits. I eagerly anticipate this new iteration of Star Trek.

That said, you should have played it straight with the canon nazis. With any franchise, they are the hardest to please when doing a new version of a beloved story. It is clear that you did your best to retain some of the more beloved core elements of the original Star Trek (the uniforms, haircuts, the basic silhouette of the Enterprise, etc.), while taking things beyond anything we’ve ever seen (the bridge design, the details of the Enterprise, the Romulans, etc). During the build-up to the first release of photos and footage, there was very little official word from Supreme Court about *how* different some things would be. The die-hards now feel cheated because they were told how faithful this would all be to TOS.

This is NOT faithful to TOS. This is NOT TOS, as Cawley states emphatically here. This is the 21st century equivalent of TNG. This is a brand-new Star Trek aesthetically. I am sure the themes, characters and general feeling of Star Trek is all the same, which to me is far more important than what the Enterprise’s nacelles look like. There ARE folks who feel differently, who think those nacelles are as important as whether or not Spock is portrayed as half-human.

I think you guys all knew how jarring this would be to the die-hards. You purposefully held back, either out of your emphasis on “surprise” or because you were afraid of the backlash. Maybe a bit of both. Either way, I think you lost a lot of goodwill from the Trekker community by not being more honest from the outset. I can’t wait to see Star Trek, buy the toys to put on my desk, buy the Giacchino score, and get the Blu-Ray. I am genuinely enthusiastic about what you all have in store for me in May. I am just worried that the number of Trekkers who feel like I do is dwindling because you couldn’t just say “this is a new Star Trek and it is not TOS.”

63. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

He drank the Kool Aid

64. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#51—“So either there is a new timeline in which case, everyone can jettison 40 years of work by thousands of talented artists, or everything is on a different timeline in the movie but gets corrected in the end.”

If there is a permanent new timeline, it will most certainly ‘not” jettison any previous work.

All of the previous work (chronologically, from ENT-NEM) will be necessary to get to the point where villains from the post-Nemesis era take action to alter the past. That makes all of the previous ‘canon’ inherently relevant to the story.

As for your suggestion that everything “gets corrected in the end”, that’s possible also.

Something Bob Orci said in another thread suggests that might be the case:

Bob Orci: “We will make no excuses about bending canon. If you see the movie, you will either agree with our final solution, or you won’t. But it’s too early to tell right. Just hoping for an open mind.”

BaronByng:”… by ‘final solution’ you mean there’s something we have to see the movie to understand, right…? Something not evident in a bunch of movie stills?”

Bob Orci:”Yes on ‘final solution’ question”

(taken from the Enterprise Image thread)

65. cw - November 12, 2008

I just re-watched a bunch New Voyages with my son the other night, they are so awesome. I especially love the World and Enough Time. Fantastic.

66. OneBuckFilms - November 12, 2008

51 – Actually, I think either Roberto Orci or Alex Kurtzman said something on these boards to the effect that anything that breaks Canon has a LOGICAL explanation.

Abrams has not actually stated anything about Canon specifically.

If there is some link or something, I’d love to read/see/hear it.

50 – I know you don’t like the new Enterprise. That’s fine. But I don’t see the new Enterprise as a Parody.

I think it was redesigned to take it out of the 60s, and was a sincere effort to re-imagine a classic.

67. randy - November 12, 2008

I can get use to the new look of the Enterprise. I recall that I did not care must for the design of the Enterprise – D at first. But over time it grew on me.

68. Enterprise - November 12, 2008

Never seen an episode of New Voyages in my life so I don’t care.

69. Scott - November 12, 2008

If I had a non-speaking cameo appearance in this movie, I would feel EXACTLY the same way!


Scott B. out.

70. Mark - November 12, 2008

I continue to be amazed at how mad people get at a movie based on A TV SHOW. I love it, love the movies. But, it’s all a TV show. No need to get so uptight, folks.

James, I really appreciate your attitude– it is one of someone who REALLY loves the ideas of Trek. You have kept your version visually true to TOS, but you also are open enough to something a little different, but with the heart of TOS. I wish more were so open-minded.

Having said that, I again predict all the ones complaining will be standing in line the first weekend of May if the reviews are good. Ain’t life funny that way?

71. Daoud - November 12, 2008

And so it turns out, that NERO is really just a maguffin… No wonder Eric thought the role would be fun: he’s the raison d’etre of this “What Dreams May Come” version of Star Trek. Just realizing how screwed up J.T. Kirk is as a result of Nero causing his father’s death, etc….

Perhaps NERO is just an acronym for “New Enterprise Re-imagined Onscreen”. Then again, it’s also “Not Exactly Roberto Orci” :)

72. GraniteTrek - November 12, 2008

James – well spoken. I have a 12 year old newly adopted son who until he moved in with us had no idea who Kirk and Spock even were – absolutely no idea. Of course, now he does, but obviously I can’t be every kid’s Trek-obsessed Dad, so this movie should fill the bill nicely.

73. Chris Doohan - November 12, 2008


I Couldn’t have said it better myself .

Looking forward to seeing you in the movie. Chris

74. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#66—I think this is the quote he meant to refer to:

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”—Roberto Orci

What he needs to understand is this:

The possibility and existence of alternate timelines within the Star Trek Universe due to interference with the past has always been canon, as evidenced in episodes like:

“Tommorow Is Yesterday”—TOS
“City On The Edge Of Forever”—TOS
“Yesterday’s Enterprise”—TNG

Someone more familiar with Bermanverse episodes could probably go on and on…

Bob and Alex have handed JJ Abrams a big built-in canon loophole—-alternate timelines.

Anything which isn’t otherwise specifically explained can be attributed to that.

75. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

If the timeline gets permanently changed then yes, everything before becomes irrelevant, or else why would Nero try to alter history to begin with?

Just like in City on the Edge of Forever, history and the world as they knew it would be gone forever.

76. Ensign Ruiter - November 12, 2008

James, you have shown your command leadership with this call. Well done.

77. Captain Hackett - November 12, 2008

I kindly hope James’ words have re-assured those fans who are freaked by seeing a picture of new big E and spoilers.

Thanks, James!

78. Enterprise - November 12, 2008

Man, and you people are the same people who like DS9?

79. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008

So we are talking about a total reboot of Star Trek like has been done with Battlestar Galactica.

“I wish we hadn’t had to do this.”

80. barrydancer - November 12, 2008

18 Closettrekker

My main problem with the theory that everything had to happen how we remember in order for Nero to go back is this. A-D had to occur for Nero to time travel, but once he goes back and alters the timeline the original conditions that initially caused A-D have changed, potentially negating the very need for Nero to have gone back…or something. Time travel makes my head hurt. :)

81. Blowback - November 12, 2008

Thanks for your comments James. Now will everyone plase step back from the ledge?

82. J_schinderlin56 - November 12, 2008

Can’t wait to see it in action.

83. Reg - November 12, 2008


Even Cawley sold his soul to the new movie.

I guess tradition means nothing to fans anymore. As long as it has the ‘Star Trek’ name on it people will take it without question. This movie means that the past 40 years will now be rendered null and void. You embrace this movie, you forsake and spit on a classic franchise that earned the love of generations. You dance on the graves of DeForest Kelley and James Doohan. If you truly loved TOS you should be against this. You cant say you love your brother and then turn around and say you love his murderer do you?

Roddenberry’s noble dream is being raped and butchered and worst of all, being embraced by fair weather fans. And yes, it IS being raped. This is truly the end of the world. Its a zero sum world out there. You can either love one or the other. You cant love both equally. Thats not how life works.

84. Edwin - November 12, 2008

It’s amazing how the offer of a non-speaking cameo in the film can sway the opinion of a die-hard….

85. Will Doe - November 12, 2008

Having read Mr Cawley’s remarks I have to say, that I’ve never thought of Trek that way before. Star Trek’s been seen one way and one way only for 40 years now.
Sure we’ve had different show’s and such,but they all stay within continuity.
It’s been said from the outset that this was going to be different.
But until I saw the ship yesterday was I really challenged to take this new interpretation seriously.
Well its a new day and now I’m a little embarrassed by reaction.
So bring it on Mr Abrams,I’m looking forward to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

86. seamus macmanus - November 12, 2008

Star Trek died with Star Trek: Voyager.

Star Trek was beat while dead with Star Trek: Enterprise.

Star Trek will be destroyed forever because of JJ ABRAMS.

Solution 01: Nicholas Meyer

Solution 02: Joss Whedon

87. Zed - November 12, 2008

Well said, Mr. Cawley.

88. Dave - November 12, 2008

39, which I assume is Robert Meyer Burnett, what you are asking toward the end of your post is for Trek to be subversive. I think Trek has had that rebel’s heart to it, even up to the much-maligned Trek V, where Kirk says something that’s quite daring when you really ponder it; that God exists, but only in the human heart, the soul and not “out there.” The great adventure happens within. In a culture like ours, that’s a crazy thing to say in a big-budget sci-fi action film.

When you get down to it though, Star Trek wasn’t that “out there.” It was saying things that were bubbling under the surface of American culture already. Notions of equality, cooperation, the futility of open war and sexual freedom were counter-culture concepts that would soon be aspects of the popular culture. Star Trek rode a vast societal wave, rather than being a vanguard of it, in my opinion.

Today, as we look to the early 1960s and the Kennedy era for inspiration in the Obama era, we’re going to look to our pop culture to reflect that. Star Trek’s ideas, no matter how you present them, are going to be challenging and interesting to the masses again.

To play off your analogy, Star Trek is not The Matrix and never has been. Star Trek wasn’t tearing down social constructs through science fiction. It was preaching *truth*, Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon’s truth of IDIC. Star Trek moralizes. It is not a William Gibson or Philip K. Dick mindtrip that makes you doubt your own truth without giving comfortable answers. Star Trek was all about comfortable answers. At the end of every episode, Kirk, Spock and McCoy told you “this is what we learned from our adventure.” Same with Picard, Riker and Data. Even in my example of Star Trek V, that very statement by Kirk is an attempt to place what has occurred into an easily digestible idea that at least leaves open the possibility that God does exist (which is almost the antithesis of Roddenberry-ism).

Star Trek, as embodied by the Federation and IDIC, is about the moral order. The only truly subversive Trek was DS9, that made us doubt the moral order as established by Roddenberry, Coon, Peeples, Gerrold, etc. Kirk, Picard and the Federation are the voice of authority. Sure, it’s progressive authority, but it’s still authority. In truly subversive works, authority is what must be destroyed.

89. Enterprise - November 12, 2008

Joss Whedon couldn’t write a show to save his life.

90. Superman - November 12, 2008

Cawley’s “endorsement” does nothing to change the facts: this film is making unnecessary changes to canon and the ship design is ridiculous.

I’ll not be seeing it, and despite the apologists, I know many long-timers are done with new Trek. They wanted something that could’ve been the best of both worlds, and instead are getting pretty, young, watered-down, 90210 Trek.


91. John Gill - November 12, 2008

Although I am a die-hard TOS fan/whore, I must say I was just a little bit disappointed with the new image of NCC-1701. But, alas, James Cawley has eased my tension.
Thank you, Mr. Cawley, not only for the latest words of reassurance, but for your own excellent version of TOS, and your dedication to cannon, BTW, when will we be able to get New Voyages on DVD? I am ready to buy!

92. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

Well said James! Roger Moore as the next Captain Kirk you think anyone?

93. OneBuckFilms - November 12, 2008

75 – I suspect the story has nero attempting to change things, but because of Spock helping the original crew getting together, prevents Nero from altering too much.

Everything before is relevent as the source of the changes.

94. classictrek - November 12, 2008

im with you james and im a TOS die hard too. We have to accept some degree of change.


95. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

#61. LOl. Very Funney. I just love Star Trek. I think the New Movie will be great.When I was a kid and this is the First time ill Admit this to anyone outside of My Family. I used to have a cassette playe recorder. Remember this is Before the V,C R in the Dark Ages. I would record all the Tos Episodes on Cassette and then Just listn to them on Cassette whenever i could not see it on Tv. Thats how much of a nutt i Am for The Tos Series. So if a Trek Geek like me who Used to Just Listn to All the Episodes on Cassette can get into the New Movie then i think we are all pretty safe. Oh by the Way I no longer have the Cassettes. The finaly all broke. But i do have them On Disc and im just waiting for the Bluray relase.

96. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

Again, I am still waiting, from the Supreme Council, why they felt the need to go back and change an original, a classic, and not just create a new Enterprise with perhaps the descendants of the original crew. I’m sure a lot more hard core Trekkers would’ve bought that all while still reigning in a new audience.

You see, to some people, you say Star Trek and they think dorksville. Then you tell them it has Kirk and Spock in it and they still won’t see the movie.

You say “New Star Trek”, with new crew and new ship done in a way never seen before, and you could reign in more people.

Just my 2 cents.

97. LostonNCC1701 - November 12, 2008

Joss Whedon is the antithesis of Trek. If Gene Roddenberry is the ultimate Sci-Fi optimist where hundreds of races live together, Whedon is the pessimist where the government tortures and experiments on little girls, people get brainwashed into becoming Human robots and the Love Interest dies in the final fight between the Hero and the Villain.

98. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

I agree with the BATMAN comparison, to a degree. But as RMBurnett suggests above, Batman’s canon is a breezy pamphlet compared to Trek’s.

The proper comparison in my opinion is Shakespeare. Shakespeare managed to create a vivid body of literary works that transcend their time and bear all manner of interpretation. In other words, you can stage it in the Elizabethan style or watch a Baz Luhrman movie, or just pull up a Sonnet from the Internet and be transcended from your mundane life of pushing buttons for The Man.

But Star Trek was always a collaboration. Gene, more than anyone, acknowledged that it was the dozens of writers and artists who created Trek that made it in to what we love.

But, like Shakespeare, one should not be beholden to the performances, costumes and exigencies of Elizabethan stagecraft. Olivier, considered the master of 20th Century Shakespearean actors, participated in many abbreviated, shortened and interpreted productions of the Bard’s works.

So to all the great fans out there–from Cawley to the guys editing Ryan Church’s design on the Enterprise board or chicks who dig men dressed up as Klingons and Spockboy’s latest on youtube…
… I’ll see your bet that Star Trek is the greatest science fiction franchise of the 20th Century…
… and raise the comparison to William Shakespeare.

But for that to happen, we have to be willing to accept change, reinterpretation and [yeah] an Enterprise that doesn’t look like it was designed with a ruler and a protractor.

Like Gene’s quote posted on the New Enterprise board, the greatest praise for Roddenberry, Fontana and Jeffries [among others] is to let Star Trek be young again.

99. 8of12 - November 12, 2008

I completely agree with Cawley’s comments and attitude here 100%! Thanks! I’m looking forward to this movie too!

100. Chris Pike - November 12, 2008

A good article, James and some valid points. The only point I would make is that the difference, the big difference with Trek as opposed to other “film franchises” (hate that corporate speak!) is that Trek originated on motion picture film, as “screen theatre” with specific actors originating the roles and a very identifyable and unique visual style. I think that does make it different to those originated in the written word or even comic book where one artist with the stroke of the pen/brush can change visual style on a whim. That’s what makes these changes that more difficult to stick as they are so seemingly “set in stone”, so many are so used to that original series – the most famous and established of all of Trek. So these changes are inevitably to be more of a shock to some than Bond, Batman etc where there’s more leeway. You can go back and read the orginal book/comic and create your own visual interpretation rather than have it delivered on a plate before reading any screen adaptation. Preconcieved ideas have been around for 40 years! It is a difficult task. But if it is a great film for any audience, lets enjoy it!

101. G - November 12, 2008

You know, I was saying yesterday that I didn’t care for the ‘new’ old Enterprise (didn’t hate it, just didn’t care for it). And, I really hated hearing a lot of people saying, “I can get used to it / It’ll grow on me”. But, I must admit, after taking a fresh look at the picture again today after a good night’s sleep.. I’m starting to like the picture of the new Enterprise (growing on me?) LOL She ain’t bad looking, and the ‘retro’ details are starting to look quite nice to me now.

Just my 2 cents, on my second impression of the photo.

102. Spockanella - November 12, 2008

27: Yes!
53: Also, yes.

103. LostonNCC1701 - November 12, 2008

That isn’t to say that Joss Whedon isn’t a good creator, just that he carries the idea that Humanity is full of bastards too far.

104. Dave - November 12, 2008

Did someone say “Joss Whedon”? I would trust Joss to write the PHONE BOOK now, let alone a Star Trek considering what has happened with Dollhouse. Talk about a one-trick pony. If Joss got his hands on Star Trek, Uhura would all of the sudden learn karate and have a “dark secret” and Kirk would do nothing but spout self-referential one-liners. No thanks.

You guys are losing it over how the SHIP looks. Let me remind all of you that if people had taken their initial reactions to design into consideration while choosing whether or not to see a film, X-Men (black uniforms), Spider-Man (the Power Ranger Goblin), Batman Begins (the Tumbler) and The Dark Knight (“Goth Joker”) would have all been ignored by fans. That’s not even considering some people rejected Daniel Craig as James Bond for being BLONDE.

Also, Spielberg and Lucas went to great lengths to make Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls match the 3 other films visually…and it STILL sucked.

This movie might suck, but it also might be great. It won’t have anything to do with how the Enterprise looks though, I can tell you that much.

105. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#80—I hear you, but I think that would be the whole point for him. I’ve always suspected that Nero and his cohorts are representative of some faction within the RSE that is unhappy with the changing political climate on Romulus (somewhat aided by Spock). That would explain the attack on the USS Kelvin and the attack upon the Klingons that is mentioned as well in one of the UK reviews. I think it is a move inspired by the desire to shift the balance of power in his people’s favor.

But yes. It’s best not to overthink the ramifications of time travel…lol.

106. Drapera - November 12, 2008

#51 and all…

This is my feeling as well. All will be corrected in, say, the last 10 Minutes of the film…The universe will be “reset” by Spock’s timeline correction (whatever it is), and everything will come back looking more like TOS we had hoped to see on screen. That is my plan and I am sticking to it…

Picture the final scenes of Kirk, Spock (Zach) and McCoy beaming back to the Enterprise after the main adventure is over, and having no memory of anything happening out of the ordinary…

…and walking onto a bridge that is much more like we remember…

then a classic last minute speech about the universe unfolding as it should…

Then Kirk says:

“Mr. Sulu, ahead…warp factor One!”

“revamped” TOS music plays

…and the adventure continues…

We will see what really happens in May 2009…with fingers crossed

107. Enterprise - November 12, 2008

Um, I wouldn’t trust Joss. His track record sucks. Buffy was a hit, but his other works have struggled to find audiences.

108. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

this is JUST like the time that Sammy Hagar replaced David Lee Roth in Van Halen.

The Van Hagarists vs the skewl of Dave or The Grave.

wait’ll they get a load of Gary Cherone for an album…. then NO ONE was happy, but they atleast all agreed at that point: Van Halen sucked.

dont worry fellas… Sammy came back in 2004, and David Lee came back in 2007 and they ALL made the rock n roll hall of fame!

-minus cherone, of course.



109. Wastedbeerz - November 12, 2008

Cawley is the man!!! He is spot on, on all accounts!!!

110. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008


I like it.

111. Ed G. - November 12, 2008


Keep living in the past.

I don’t know how we’ll do it, but we’ll find a way to move on without you. ;)

112. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

I totally agree with not knowing anything for sure until the movie comes out and I’m still going to see it no matter what.

113. FloridaTrekBoi - November 12, 2008

Look, I wholeheartedly agree with JC except for one thing…the writers and director have all said that this movie is cannon. They’ve tripped over themselves trying to appease the fanbase by saying it’s NOT a reboot. I, for one, am all about new and different and I would not have minded this at all if they would admit it’s a reboot.

But for Abrams to say it’s not and that he’s trying to keep the classic feel and keep the story in cannon, then bring out such a RADICALLY different Enterprise…you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I can live with different versions of the same franchise (I love my Smallville and my Action Comics equally), but at least those franchises come right out and say, “Hey..we’re the same, but we’re not! They’re not in the same continuity. Just enjoy them for what they are.”

Abrams and crew might go a long way to just open up and admit that.

114. Andros - November 12, 2008

Why does everything need to be validated? This is another take on the same universe we all know and love. Nobody is yelling at James because he looks nothing like Shatner.

Its a Star Trek movie, its not a Shatner Star Trek movie, its not even really a TOS movie. This is just Star Trek. Be grateful they even made another.

115. Ed G. - November 12, 2008

Johnny from Cincy,

If we’re all drinking kool-aid, does that make you Jim Jones?

116. TOG - November 12, 2008

#39 Bravo!!!

117. Joel - November 12, 2008

Well put James. I enjoy what you have been doing with STNV and I hope disgruntled fans will see the new film in the light you just expressed in this op-ed. The sheer fact that we are getting a big budget Trek film should silence all critics and we should simply be pleased with the fact that Paramount is willing to do this.

Love your work and hope it continues on with Phase II!

118. Andros - November 12, 2008

I love how people call this new Trek “90210” Trek. The cast really isn’t any younger than when Nimoy and Shatner began doing TOS. They make LOOK younger, but then again that’s what 40 years of medical breakthroughs will do LOL.

119. tk421 - November 12, 2008

I’ve been saying the Batman thing for freakin’ months! Am I talking to myself here? Obviously!

120. Allen - November 12, 2008

First of all when TMP came out and they changed the klingons, people just accepted the change. Granted later on this was explained somewhat in Ent. But originally people said that these are just the new klingons. I don’t have a problem accepting that this is just the “old” enterprise.

Also as a huge fan of phase 2, does anyone know when the next one is going to come out? I originally remember seing something about oct 31, but it didn’t happen. They also don’t update their news very often unfortuantely. I check the site every day hoping to see the new one.

121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008

To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. I can assure you, that had I made this film, I would have done things different. That does not affect my ability to respect someone else’s creative vision or enjoy a different take on Trek. To me Adam West is the definative caped crusader, but I certainly can enjoy The Dark Knight,
I see this New film as a whole new Trek experience, one that I am intending to enjoy. It in no way will diminish my love for TOS! but I am never going to be closed minded, and not want to experience something new. Star Trek Lives……….in many forms.
I urge you all to sample them all.
“Second star to the right and straight on till morning”

122. Marcus Johnson - November 12, 2008

That actually makes sense.

123. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

Waiter, I’ll have what Cawley’s having.

124. Phil Bailey - November 12, 2008

I wish it looked like the Enterpris eshould… though it dose look cool…

125. WicketSC - November 12, 2008

I agree with Elvis.

126. Rainbucket - November 12, 2008

I still can’t understand why ST:TMP is okay, blessed canon even, but the new movie is an outrage. TMP changed how everything looked just as much, even the Big E.

We’ve been accepting two versions of Klingons for 30 years, people.

127. Odkin - November 12, 2008

James –

Does Chekov die at the end of the new movie, and magically reappear in the sequel without explanation? :-)

Kidding aside, I just hope the new movie is as good as “World Enough and Time”!

128. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#75—“If the timeline gets permanently changed then yes, everything before becomes irrelevant, or else why would Nero try to alter history to begin with?”

But from my point of view, evrything before would still be relevant because you couldn’t get to the point where Nero decides to alter the past without it. It would therefore remain a part of the overall mythos of Trek.

I still think that Nimoy’s Spock will be successful in restoring most of it. I think that, by the end of the movie, we’ll see the characters beginning the 5 year mission.

If the most that is altered is the look of things in the 23rd Century and little bits of backstory from “WNMHGB”, “Obsession”, “The Conscience Of The King”, and “Court-Martial”, the bulk of resolution to events depicted during the 5 year mission could remain intact.

Somehow, I think this is the “final solution” Bob Orci was talking about.

129. RobertaLincoln - November 12, 2008

Thee words for you:


No one had a problem utilizing suspension of disbelief when TMP came out and all of a sudden everything looked light years more detailed and advanced than in TOS. No one had a problem utilizing suspension of disbelief when we noticed that the Enterprise-A corridors were the same as the Enterprise-E corridors, or when TNG got a new battle bridge every time they spun their heads, or when the TOS era suddenly jumped from being 200 years in the future to 300 years in the future. So unless you want to start referring to Warp Speed as “Time Warp Factor”, or putting termal printers on the bridge, let it go, folks.

And don’t even get me started on the events of 1996.

130. Ed G. - November 12, 2008

No doubt about it JC, you are the biggest fanboy with the thickest money clip Trek has. If you have an open mind about it, other people should consider to have one too.

For me Roger Moore will always be Bond, but then again in a Gen X’er.

Look at the alternative – NO TREK.

131. sean - November 12, 2008

I say this as someone who isn’t a fan of New Voyages or Cawley – LISTEN TO THE MAN PEOPLE. If someone that obsessed with the minutae of TOS can take a step back and appreciate this new project, then surely the majority of fans can.

132. Son of Sarek - November 12, 2008

Here, here James! Your herculean efforts at replicating TOS and maintaining the ideals of Trek are highly applauded by this fan and by so many others in fandom! I for one am preparing myself for a movie that can hopefully stand alongside TMP, and TWOK in the annals of Trek movies. IDIC, after all…

133. Eric Holloway - November 12, 2008


You’re right. Good analogy (Batman) James. And my earlier dislike is now waning to whatever. I’ve just always wanted a good story and that they show the Big E with beauty, power, and depth. Make her feel tough and real and I won’t care too much. The shock is wearing off.
Time for pizza.

134. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#113—“I wholeheartedly agree with JC except for one thing…the writers and director have all said that this movie is cannon. They’ve tripped over themselves trying to appease the fanbase by saying it’s NOT a reboot. I, for one, am all about new and different and I would not have minded this at all if they would admit it’s a reboot.”

The possibility of alternate timelines and alternate outcomes as a result is canon, and has been since the beginning. Anything that is different due to changes in the timeline would therefore not be in violation of canon. They are actually ‘using’ canon to make the changes…

And it cannot be a “reboot” if every bit of filmed Trek to this point leads Nero to the point where he alters the past. Everything from ENT-NEM is required to get the story to that point. Nothing is suddenly irrelevant.

135. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

Dooooooooooooood, can we please stop using Orci’s term ‘final solution?’

That’s what the Nazi’s called the extermination of the Jews!

136. Style - November 12, 2008

Hey I see what you’re saying #23 and I here you #30. But lets say after the sequal to this one the third film doesn’t do too well. Will They Stick Around!!!? Good question! TOS cast were die hards! You see Shatner dieing DIEING to be in this film and look how old TOS cast is. I hope this cast knows what they are getting into. And I guarantee some signed on because of knowing the history of Trek. Knowing that doing this now, they can cash in big! I hope they understand Star Trek means alot more than that. This cast, if they view this right can have roles for a life time!

137. harris250 - November 12, 2008

Ya! Didn’t a cast member once say that they had been on the bridge of the Enterprise and that it was very similar to the original, and how surprised he was? He could boot have meant the bridge we’ve seen in pics.

138. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

Dooooooooooooood, can we please stop using Orci’s term ‘final solution?’

That’s what the Nazis called the extermination of the Jews!

139. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

“No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss.”

THIS is why JC is the definitive James T Kirk in my book. Gentlemen, the captain has spoken. (again)


140. trekmaster - November 12, 2008

@James Cawley
Ok, that was very diplomatic! I agree, nothing will be lost! But I doubt that we have to seperate this new film from the rest of the franchise. It’s not like the several filmed superheroes adapations (Batman etc.). Our graphic card just has upgraded to a higher resolution so that things look like a little bit different – at least that’s my point of view (–> 2008)!

141. Dunsel Report - November 12, 2008

The uproar over canon is a distraction from a more universal issue raised by the preview.

Namely: whether the movie turns out to be a candy-coated, $150 million pop culture disaster like “Speed Racer,” or an action film for intelligent people. The stuff about Kirk “comically” grabbing Uhura’s breasts makes this sound like it’s been written at the level of bad Hollywood cash-ins in the tradition of “The Mod Squad” (1999), “Lost In Space” (1998), “The Flintstones” (1994), or “Scooby Doo” (2002).

Now, it might be fun to see “Trek” done as a cartoonish trifle, like “The Dukes of Hazzard.” But it looks like J.J. may have abandoned the idea of treating it as a human story you could get emotionally invested in. For example, his new “Enterprise” looks as fun as a new MP3 player, but I’m gonna have a hard time believing that this curvy contraption is something you’d regret seeing blown up in the orange skies over the Genesis Planet.

I certainly wouldn’t see why I’d pick that over a beach to walk on…

142. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#138—“Dooooooooooooood, can we please stop using Orci’s term ‘final solution?’

That’s what the Nazis called the extermination of the Jews!”

I think the best thing to do is acknowledge that the Nazis do not own that very universal phrase. That would be giving them too much, IMO.

Even Spock uses it.

“Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?”—-TWOK

I have no problem with its very legitimate usage here either.

143. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk! I want to play Kirk!

144. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

dude, barring the 80s handbook for suicide by the same name, I believe that “final solution” is orci quoting spock in describing kirks unique solution to the kobayashi maru test. no need to taint the festivities with visions of adolf, bro. plus that was like, 80 years ago. who even cares anymore? are you sensitive about the black plague too? calm thyself.


145. Dunsel Report - November 12, 2008

P.S. We at The Dunsel Report are in love with James Cawley, so please be nice to him.

146. jr - November 12, 2008


147. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008


I totally agree about the lame attempts at humor.

Did we really need comic relief like that?

When Star Trek has been funny it’s typically accomplished with some witty banter not with pratfalls and fratboy humor.

148. Style - November 12, 2008

#141 Im feeling your comment too. As much as they say they want to stay away from Galaxy Quest, it seems like they’re knocking right at its door! With the way the bridge looks the humor. Alot is similar. But I gotta reserve judgement till I see the finished product. I think we all do.

149. Pensive's Wetness - November 12, 2008

*claps* As much as i ‘UGH’ on aspects of JJ-Ent, like i said on Flare, gonna see the movie *snort* sometime next year. The batman thing is a great example (besides the decades of Bond Films –> best example, of course).

I like the actors(they channel the iconic charactors, just you do, sir) I like the primary hull (no under-dip!), hate the nacelles (shiney hub-caps & mudguards)… lets hope for design changes. actually i’m sure they would tweek the design for any further movies in the future…

150. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

If the new ‘Dark Knight’ movie had Adam West as the Caped Crusader or “Casino Royale’ had Sean Connery playing Bond then I can accept those comparisons. This new Trek has Leonard Nimoy in it which gives the appearance of a smidgeon of consistency.

127. I accept your points about Nimoy but we’ll have to agree to disagree about the prior mythos.

151. Enterprise - November 12, 2008

Galaxy Quest was terrible. It wasn’t a Trek sequel. Trek movies have more class than Galaxy Quest.

152. silencer - November 12, 2008

121. James Cawley –

For most of us you are personally responsible for keeping up our love of the show – at your own cost in time, resources and money; you have asked for nothing in return.

I work in the industry as an IATSE special effects tech, so I understand how much effort actually went into your product. Not many people could have pulled this off, not in one lifetime.

Cheers, brother.

153. Dunsel Report - November 12, 2008

#148: I don’t mean to kill the vibe, but I learned to take all these Hollywood promises with a grain of salt ever since the creators of the “House of the Dead” movie told me, in an interview, that it was going to be totally like a Romero movie with very little CG!

#147: What I wouldn’t give for a wicked Nick Meyer script with hardcore wit.

But it’s cool, I mean, if they want to make it like “DeGrassi: The Next Generation,” I’d still check it out.

154. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

I meant 128.

155. EnsignJameson - November 12, 2008

I think a lot of die hard fans are afraid that when Trek is given to any artist other than the dedicated crew that worked on Trek for the past 20 years it will become a blurred universe. but maybe..

Change is the essence of progress

there´s bound to be some Vulcan somewhere who said that

156. Tiberius - November 12, 2008

I have no problem with a new film.

However, the design of the Enterprise is awkward. That is all I am saying. It does not look sleek, but rather clumsy and ungainly.

I just think they could have done a better job on the ship. The neck protruding from the middle of the secondary hull makes the ship seem bloated.

I can live with the nacelles. Just, for God’s sake, move the neck forward.

157. Tiberius - November 12, 2008

And I for one am happy that Berman and Company are gone. I am not such a fool to think they were not getting stale.

158. Radam - November 12, 2008

I was priviledged to see James Cawley speak at a Trek panel during this year’s Dragon*Con and I was really pumped about the movie after hearing him speak. His honest and genuinely positive attitude toward this new feature cleared any doubts I had before. We’ve heard nothing but good things from Mr. Nimoy, Simon Pegg (one of us I feel) and now James Cawley. Any doubts that people may have now are just unfounded fears that feed on ignorance and an unwillingness to accept change.

159. YARN - November 12, 2008

CAWLEY SAYS: “Drink the Kool-Aid! It’s Good!”

Isn’t it slightly odd that we are being implored to spend $$$ on this flick and that all dissent is being waved off as fanwankery?

If the praise is sincere, it’s sincere. My paranoia should not diminish this endorsement. I am just not sure that I’ll pay to see it until I read some reviews….

160. AJ - November 12, 2008

Dear James:

The problem with the new E is that it is not absolutely spectacular.

For $150m, Abrams came out with something that is a 5-minute re-hash of the TMP Enterprise with some corporate consensus redesigns.

I guess one question you can mull over is “where’s the love?” It has Doomsday Machine nacelles and looks enough like the E to get by, but you and your team have done better work on a shoestring.

Yesterday, I was OK with it, but it strikes me today as a waste of time to simply make small changes with a statement from Abrams which makes it seem like he hasn’t even seen it.

161. Ed G. - November 12, 2008

#150 – FAIL

Desmond Llewelyn portrayed Q through 5 Bonds and it worked out just fine.

162. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

163. OneBuckFilms - November 12, 2008

141 – We can’t really judge the humor until we see it in context.

We also cannot judge JJs take on the Human side of things, or the more serious drama yet.

Seeing Kirk and Spock in conflict in that picture where Spock is pinning Spock to the floor tells me that the human conflict and drama is there in large amounts.

164. captain shroom - November 12, 2008

Thank you James for your thoughtful and necessary insight. As a fan, the trepidation is understandable. We became fans for a reason, the characters, Enterprise included, are iconic.

I have to concede, and this is largely due to New Voyages/Phase II, that these characters can and should be revisited by actors who can give new dimension and perspective. Shatner can be Kirk, as can Cawley, as can Pine.

With all due respect to canon, we know the original series had some flaws. Partly due to budget, partly due to lack of continuity and in many ways because the technology is dated. Let’s be honest the original Enterprise model and sets cannot compare to TMP and its sequels.

I hope, as Mr. Cawley suggests, this movie will re-energize the fan base as well as broaden the audience.

No one is suggesting that the original series be forgotten, that is impossible. But perhaps, and this is the logic of maturity, we should allow it to stand as one interpretation of Rodenberry’s vision. As was TMP, as was TNG etc., etc.

I, like many, felt twinges of disappointment about certain elements of this movie, but am also developing a renewed excitement for the franchise. It is a courageous venture, as courageous as Rodenberry’s pitching sci-fi adventure in the era of Gunsmoke.

I say this with all honesty that every time I look at the new Enterprise it gets better…we just need to give this time.

165. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008


We should because this dude has brought us the best Star Trek for a wee while.

166. JP Saylor - November 12, 2008

Well… on the urging or James… I shall give the new movie and Big E a chance.

Hell I even liked ST: V

I seriously doubt this one is worse! haha!!!

167. Jordan - November 12, 2008

I will go see it and have been giving it a chance since it was announced. This is the future of Star Trek people!! Be glad we’re getting anything at all!!

168. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

161. Well, I always thought of James Bond as a generic name, an alias given to every agent with the 007 number. In fact, it’s not supposed to be the same person in all 5 iterations.

That’s how I sleep at night.

169. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

170. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

this is usually about the place in the commentary where old JC™ makes a sad comment about all the trek fans not being able to live the message of the show, walking away in disgust, never commenting again.

JC™ – thicken up that skin, buddy. You’ve done something incredibly well and of course that means that you are going to have haterz simply for that fact. who is this “cawley sucks” guy, calling you a hack? take it for what it is and ignore it, man.

You are the captain of the finest ship in the fleet and don’t you ever forget that mister.


171. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

Batman, Superman, James Bond, these are bad examples, and should not be compared to Star Trek. They all started as comics or novels, and from the beginning, a changing cast was always present. Plus those characters were “superheros” in a sense. Star Trek’s appeal was that these were common, mortal people. Fictional, yet real people. The canon is a huge part of the fandom. Now after 40+ years we should just throw it away? Call me crazy, I don’t care. J.J. can’t have it both ways. Either its canon, or its a reboot, make up your mind. The film was too canon to include Shatner, who’s character “died,” but let’s throw canon out the window whenever we choose. I’ve been a fan for 20+ years, and have always cherished the canon, and thought about it when I watched the shows or movies. Orci said they always looked things up on Memory Alpha, well, I’m wondering what?

172. Timncc1701 - November 12, 2008

“Much has been made about me not liking the design. So, let me explain why I don’t. I have been a fan for 35 years. I grew up with TOS. I am a TOS purist. I see Matt Jefferies designs as “Timeless” not dated.”

Your words, Jim, not mine. I think I have more of an open mind on the design. I loved TMP version of E and like the primary hull of the new E which is inspired by TMP. However, I still have problems with the nacelles and secondary hull. Hopefully this will not detract from the film. I don’t think it will.

173. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

167. Beggers can’t be choosers.

174. York Actual (JE) - November 12, 2008

Um does anyone here remember Enterprise? Rick “the dick” Berman tried to do a prequel and bring Star Trek into a new generation and look what happened, it failed. Now I still have my hopes up for it and I will see it, but I am a little worried by statements such as, “we aren’t making a movie for fans, we are making a movie for people who like movies.” I don’t think Abrams meant that he’s changing anything, but it still has me worried. I also don’t think the Enterprise should have been designed to look a lot like the refit (1701-A). He should have had a design that looks like it could become the original series Enterprise, not the motion picture. I don’t know right now I may change my mind after seeing the trailer, but right now I’m starting to worry

175. InSaint - November 12, 2008

I don’t hate the movie -I hate the new design for the Enterprise, not because it is not “good old lady” from TOS. I would have loved a good new design, as long it wasn’t totaly different. But here’s a thing – the new design is UGLY! And if taken into account the “engineering” lore of the Star Trek, the design lacks a lot of sense, but I could ignore that too. I cannot ignore that it is UGLY and a poor design. And if they could not improve on the design or atleast come up with adequate design, maybe they would have better gone with the classic instead of making “a change” for the sake of only being different and it’s own.

176. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

# 169

Nope, its just my bank balance thats low but thats due to a UK recession and my love for ebay.

The Phase 2 team have got a good episode of Star Trek to perfection, understanding the spirit of Star Trek is what makes you look past the odd tweak in ship design / uniform over the years to enjoy the best part of all – the story.

177. Ed G. - November 12, 2008


You’re losing me. Can you give me an example of when James Bond is not suppose to be or has been James Bond the entire time? Are you saying that James Bond is a code name?

178. HSIV - November 12, 2008

#25…its called a moebius loop…the closest scifi film/story to this film’s time travel concept is the stargate continuum direct-to-dvd film…

check it out and you’ll see how the time travel story of this film can work…

179. Spockticus - November 12, 2008

*Cough*….Corporate Tool… *Cough*

*Cough*….sold soul to paramount for new voyages… *Cough*

180. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

# 175

If you don’t hate the movie theres loads of people here that would love your copy to see it for themselves! :) :)

Oh wait……

181. CaptainRickover - November 12, 2008

# 134 Closettrekker

If I remember correctly, alternate timelines were all repaired in Star Trek (even when Gabriel Bel now wears Sisko’s face). But I can’t imagine that the Enterprise will look more TOS-like in the next movie (if there’s one) and Kirk will have a different background than he’ll have in this movie.

So, every event, every design, every word, every single thought beyond ENTERPRISE will be whiped out of existence and only Nero and old Spock might be able to remember. When the two of them will die (and I bet Nero will!), then the history of the Star Trek universe will die as well. The alternate timeline becoming the main timeline and the original Star Trek timeline will be preserved with some luck in an minor reality we goodlike observer could only visit from time to time by DVD or Blueray. But there will be no new adventures. A very sad imagination, IMO.

So, I’ll see it like Cawley suggests. Star Trek (XI) is an adventure from an alternate reality, with parallel past (Archer, his beagle, Spock & Co.) but some great differences (Kirk’s past, the new Enterprise etc.). I’ll may watch it next May, but I will not support the idea to go on with that style. Name me a nerd, an idiot or blind minded, but I’ll stay to the “old universe” and go on with watching fan films (Phase II rule!) and write my own Star Trek adventures for myself and some friends.

182. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008


“Orci said they always looked things up on Memory Alpha, well, I’m wondering what?”

Me too.

I realize that their have been mistakes made with Trek History before, my question is why would you continue to screw with it?

Was it really that hard or uninteresting to tell the origin story with out throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

If it was that hard or boring, then I submit that shuffling these canonical details can’t save the story.

I’ll be there at midnight when Star Trek opens but it will be with a fair amount of trepidation.

183. Closettrekker - November 12, 2008

#169—“Wow your expectations are severely low.”

His expectations are not nearly as ‘low’ as the poster name you have chosen to troll and flame with…

184. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

177. Yes, you or I could be James Bond. We get a job with MI6, earn 00 status and get assigned 007, our alias is now James Bond. Multiple James Bonds that all look different from each other. You could apply the same theory to M and Q too. In fact, in one of the Bond movies he is talking to M and even mentions his “predecessor”.

It’s how my logical mind allows me to sleep at night.

185. Spocksbrain - November 12, 2008

I would expect nothing else but a PR piece from Cawley because they offered him a part in the film, or at least a chance to preview some of it. I do not like what I am seeing. One thing that has made Star Trek so special to avid fans is the consistency. “Relics” was the first to look back on the Constitution class design. Enterprise further revisited the days of the original Trek, and fans were excited. I cannot get excited about that deformed looking ship. I would much rather sit and watch ten of Cawley’s episodes than to validate this non-deserving MADD magazine rip-off. As the real Bones might say, “For God sakes man, just let it die!” Let us be content with our authentic Trek (a concept totally missed by the movie-addled Cawley) reuns and DVDs and stop trying to kick a dead horse. I am staying away from this drek.

186. rag451 - November 12, 2008

I must admit I get a little nervous now and then. What if it’s bad, really bad? It appears that J.J. Abrams has made a good-faith effort, along with his crew and cast, to make a solid, enjoyable film which caters to the broadest possible audience. Although a few of the spoilers provide irksome details about non-canon developments, what would bother me more than those is what would happen if the film flops at the box office.

Agree or disagree with what Abrams is doing, but no one should want this film to fail at the box office.

187. Jay El Jay - November 12, 2008

I must agree with some of the agrieved fans on here. I feel like we as fans have all been lied to. All the time this film has been in Pre Production, Filming then Post Production the cast and crew have been banging on about how much we’ll love this film and how “loyal” it is to Star Trek canon. I dont see any evidence to support this… we’ve all been strung along and although I’m still hyped about this film and will definately see it, im just disappointed that they didnt just come out and say, “Guys, its a reboot” Maybe I’ll wait till the DVD comes out, got final year uni exams to do…. what a con!

188. SarahJM - November 12, 2008


Haha. $100 says you see the movie, 100 more says you do not walk out and give the screen the finger.

I’ll take cash or money orders.

189. CaptainRickover - November 12, 2008

# 162 and # 169

This guy should be banned and his comments erased.

190. Anthony Lewis - November 12, 2008


I hope you aren’t implying that TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and all the movies before this were done out of the love of Trek and not so they could make money off of something that a lot of people like.

New Voyages/Phase II are done out of a love from Trek, Of Gods and Men THAT was done out of love for Trek.

If it’s on a bookshelf, a TV screen, or a Theater screen then it’s being done to make money. TV and movies are a business, and the bottom line of any business is money. The only reason Trek has not been on TV or the big screen wasn’t from a lack of people wanting to tell a good story these days, it was because Trek didn’t make big bank anymore.

This movie isn’t doing anything that the other shows and movies weren’t trying to do. I never like to look at it that way, but that’s how it is.

191. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

Come on folks – we all knew there was going to be some tweaks – its not like it looks like Pee Wee Hermans pushbike is it!?! I showed a few fellas at work today the new photo, all the comments were ‘thats the starship enterprise alright, whats the difference?’, they are the people who want to be getting the backsides to the cinema and making it a hit., I can live with this – easily! :)

192. T'Aerwynd - November 12, 2008

Well said, Mr. Cawley! Your paragraph about the Batman franchise was right on.

But I fear your points, however good they are, will fall on deaf ears. Die-hard purists are saying they hate a movie/trailer they’ve never seen and are making all sorts of over dramatic statements about Trek being ruined, all because of a few released images, two trailer descriptions and descriptions of four clips that were released. Trivial or not, people already hate this movie. And it’s sad.

Even so, I wholeheartedly support what has been said here. I’m looking forward to Trek: IX!

193. Thomas Jensen - November 12, 2008

As I like to say, “Star Trek is 79 episodes and 6 movies.” It’s a self-contained body of work. If the new movie fits into what I consider original trek, then great! If not, I can accept it as something which exists on it’s own. It doesn’t have to be connected to the original show.

And yes, I’d rather it be consistant with the original show.

Although it might have been easier on everyone if they had proclaimed it a reboot, only taking the best from Star Trek and discarding those elements which didn’t work from the show.

I think Battlestar Galactica did this with some success.

194. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

187. Just playing devil’s advocate, but we haven’t seen the movie yet. It could still end with the timeline getting “corrected”.

Here’s to my pipe dreams!

195. CaptainRickover - November 12, 2008

# 184:

A very good in-universe-solution. So there still could be one Bond-universe (what I would prefer). And I think you’re not wrong at all. Haven’t said the Lancenby-Bond after the girl run’s away, something like “that never happend to the other one”?

I wish there would be such an easy explanation for Star Trek (XI). This alternate-timeline-plot is a very cheap trick to cloak a Reboot, IMO.

196. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - November 12, 2008

So Mr. Cawley is basically confirming that this is an alternate-universe Star Trek story. I mean, he’s comparing it to the Batman movies, each one which takes place in an alternate universe to the other (Adam West’s Batman obviously does not coexist with Christian Bale’s).

197. 4dog - November 12, 2008

As I have said before, I can appreciate a reboot of Star Trek..but let’s admit it’s a reboot. If this movie starts out from canon, in the 24th century and everything changes from a certain event (like the Romulans taking out Kirk’s dad and changing the timeline) then I’m all for the change in continuity. But all we have been hearing from Orci and the like is “It’s an reinvigoration”. No dammit it’s a Reboot. If Kirk and Chekov serving together at the same time..it’s a Reboot..If Kirk is Captain 2 hours after the Academy…it’s a Reboot…If the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the Apple Store..it’s a Reboot…

198. OR Coast Trekkie - November 12, 2008

How does this invalidate all the other Star Trek that was made? Your DVDs won’t magically disappear. You can still go home and watch them as many hundreds of more times as you want.

Cawley is right: this is simply a different take on Star Trek. It is Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov. They are on the Enterprise. Same principles, different execution.

199. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

I have never heard one person say they hate the movie. It would be illogical to hate a movie one hasn’t even yet seen? No?

I heard some people (myself included) say they hate the ship or the bridge and are looking for explanations.

Again people, if you can’t stand the comments then don’t come here and read them!

200. SarahJM - November 12, 2008

To recap, these are how many of you posters feel:

OMG new actors?!
W-w-white bridge!?? (even tho ST4 had a white bridge)
Tiny little cropped picture of the ship at a weird angle??
I’m never seeing this movie ever… even though I love star trek.

I think you’re all silly. Just go see it.

201. Space Ghost Joey - November 12, 2008

Nah I don’t care what James Crawley says. This is supposed to be an origin of some kind time warp or not. Little changes like the uniforms are fine for the change but that bridge and ship and some of the spoilers is just a turn off. comparing star trek to batman or most any other franchise is kinda silly. Yeah Change can be good and hard for some but really if Leonard Nimoy wasn’t in it would it be a Star Trek film.

202. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

Theres a rumor…. shhhh… but……

They moved the turbolifts again!

203. Explorer - November 12, 2008

I agree with James. This new version of Star Trek will in no way change the spirit of what is Trek. This film is a reboot only on the look and design aspects. An update to the taste of the newer generation of fans. What is the problem with that?

The cannon will in no way be changed. It will follow what is already there and even give us some answers on missing pieces for TOS era.

I personally can’t wait to see this rebooted ST film and I am convinced that I will love it.

204. Sam Belil - November 12, 2008

I have been saying this for the past 2 WEEKS. It is a re-boot with Old Spock causing changes that result in an alternate timeline. No this is not a prequel to TOS. This a new version of Kirk and Crew, which means the past 40 years of the “origninal Kirk and Crew” adventures are history!!! I predicted weeks ago, for example that the “new” Captain Pike will meet a doom that is diffrent from the one he met in “The Menagerie”. I wish Abrams and crew would have been more up-front about it.

205. Jeff - November 12, 2008

As soon as Heroes gets cancelled they can bring Abram’s Trek to TV as a weekly series !

206. AjaxLou - November 12, 2008

Preach it James! Preach it!

….and the adventure continues….

207. Dave - November 12, 2008

John From Cincinatti, your Bond theory doesn’t hold water. Lazenby’s Bond married Tracy in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. She was killed by Blofeld at the end of that film. In For Your Eyes Only, Roger Moore’s Bond lays flowers at Tracy’s grave. Not to mention Dalton’s Bond referencing being married once. It isn’t exactly logical that Roger Moore’s Bond would feel grief over George Lazenby’s Bond’s wife…or to even pretend to do so. Same with Dalton.

The James Bond films have no real continuity to speak of. There’s some vague backstory behind all the Bonds, but continuity is meaningless. At most, you can argue for some continuity within each actor’s reign in the role. They are all James Bond 007. The same man, just different flavors and conceptualizations.

I don’t want to verge *too* far off topic, but that particular theory has always seemed fairly half-baked, though if it helps you sleep at night then don’t mind me.

208. Wolf Trek - November 12, 2008

You know – I have room in my life for all things Trek. Complaining about how canon is not being followed TO THE LETTER, is like some spoiled housewife moaning over the fact that her double mocha grande latte is not EXACTLY 179 degrees.
As Shatner once said – Get a life!

209. fakesteve - November 12, 2008

[202] Paul, I don’t know if they moved the lift, but I can tell you they have kind of a double door, an glass inner and gray outer one, and they close first on the inside then on the outside…

210. cpelc - November 12, 2008

Here’s my take on a movie poster in the traditional star trek style for this new movie!

I also have a full desktop version:


211. cpelc - November 12, 2008


-better with new movie logo

212. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

Eric Bana is green! Don’t make him angry…..

213. cpelc - November 12, 2008

Here’s my take on a movie poster in the traditional star trek style for this new movie!

I also have a full desktop version:


sorry anthony–you can delete my last 2 posts 210 & 211

214. Lousy_Canadian - November 12, 2008

Thanks, James! Stronger words have never been said. :)

215. Captain Joe (formerly Joseph Brown) - November 12, 2008

#18 You make a good point that the current continuity from Enterprise to Nemesis leads up to Nero changing the timeline. However, you may be wrong that nothing is invalidated, only if the timeline is fixed will nothing be invalidated. I understand the nuances of what TPTB are trying to do (in as much as I can going on the limited information). They are making a sequel-prequel-reinvigoration which is not a true reboot .What they are attempting honestly is a very ambitious and very impressive feat. However, if the timeline isn’t fixed, they are using canon to destroy the established canon and continuity. Even the events of Enterprise could be in question because some of those events were caused by time travelers from the future (a future which has now been changed). This is rather disheartening. So,
I can understand the outrage that some diehard fans are feeling.

Personally, however, I am trying to be open-minded and fair. For one thing, everyone is basing their opinions on 4 scenes, some pics, and some snippets of info. We aren’t seeing the whole picture. The timeline may be fixed at the end of this movie or the last Trek movie Mr. Abrams does. Even if it isn’t fixed on screen, if Nero goes back in time prior to Nemesis, Trek fans will know somehow or other the timeline will be restored even though it isn’t seen. I am cautiously optimistic, though, I am losing some of my optimism. From what I can tell the movie will be an awesome film, but it may not be an awesome Trek film. However, I will withold my complete judgement of the film until I see it.

216. Reg - November 12, 2008

Sorry Cawley. You had my respect when you were making your own episodes. You tried to keep with canon and your attention to detail was spot-on

But if you’re embracing this abortion, the very rape of all you claim to love, then you are selling out. Unlike you they arent even TRYING to make it look like the original. No one is saying you didnt pour tons of your own money into anything, whichj is all the more reason iyou and other so-called fans of Star Trek should be OUTRAGED.

Yes Star Trek is being raped. Brutally raped and murdered and desecrated by Hollywood types who see it only as a cash cow to be milked. And by supporting this you are supporting the rape and desecration of one mans noble vision of the future. You are pissing on graves of Gene Roddenberry, Mark Lenard, James Doohan and ANY Trek actoir who has passed on . Just like JJ Abrams is.

So no you cannot say you support TOS and support this abortion of a franchise. I will not give this a chance because unlike other so-called fans my loyalty is true and adamant as any true fans ought to be. I care. And obviously a lot more than you do. I do not settle for something without question because it has the TREK label on it. Unlike the so-called “Fans” who are praising.

THe Star Trek I grew up with. My very CHILDHOOD itself is being raped. And you Mr Cawley, are applauding it. This was my life and now its going to be stripped away from me. Rendered null and void. Wiped out of existence and you DEMAND I let them crap into my mouth and BEG FOR MORE?!? Can you possibly in a million years understand how betrayed I feel? I dont care how much money you sunk into your show

See saying you love TOS and like this direction is like saying youre a vegan, but still eat red meat and butter. You cant support both. That';s not how it works. When a new vison is gone the original is wiped out. Now all my DVD are invalid bwecause now theyve never happened. And you expect me to support that which killed it?

217. StevenPDX - November 12, 2008

Thanks for the great comments, James.

For me, it’s pretty simple. I miss fresh Star Trek material–TV or movies. If we’re such purists that say, “I want Trek my way and no other way–it has to look or feel a certain way”–and that way doesn’t appeal to the masses, there won’t be any new Trek at all.

Given that option, or a fresh perspective from a new person with the clout and money to give us new material, I’ll take the latter!

218. Stanky McFibberich - November 12, 2008

I’ve gotta stop reading this stuff…

219. Dave - November 12, 2008

As an addendum, I find the literal thinking of many genre fans beguiling.

Just because a work of art contains the same characters and thematic elements as another work does not mean it has any relationship to that first work. Quite often, it is an independent work, something that is another interpretation of the same story elements. When a film is remade, or a book is adapted into a film (or vice versa), it is just one person’s interpretation of that work. Unless specifically stated, they don’t intrinsically have a connection within the story universe. Case in point, there is no definitive, accepted continuity in the Bond series. It is amorphous and ever-changing because there are no hard and fast rules at all. Some theories have more or less merit, but they are all theories.

The notion that all versions of a character have to “fit” somehow seems kind of crazy to me. How many different iterations of Sherlock Holmes have their been? Are we trying to shoehorn them all into one jumbled narrative? I shudder to think of people thinking Robert Downey Jr. is playing Jeremy Brett’s Holmes. If you think it’s ridiculous, consider what some people are saying about James Bond.

There are actually people who have seen Casino Royale who think that Daniel Craig is supposed to be a young Sean Connery and his films are all prequels to Dr. No. Same goes with the Nolan Batmans. I have met people who have asked if Heath’s Joker is a young Jack Nicholson.

Star Trek is JJ, Bob and Alex’s Star Trek. Not Gene’s. They were just kind enough to give us a plot point that will allow the changes to make sense within continuity. THEY DID NOT HAVE TO. They could have trashed the last 42 years like JMS and Ron Moore suggested. In that sense, we should thank them.

For other iconic characters, most of the time, that courtesy is not granted to obsessive fans. Different versions of Batman, Holmes, Bond, Superman, The Hulk, Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers just assume you are clever enough to realize Buster Crabb and Sam Jones are playing the same version of the character.

220. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

# 216
Not needed

221. TL - November 12, 2008

James your killing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn’t take you for, whats-the-word? Oh, yes, SELLOUT. Come on man, this ship design sucks! The bridge looks like crap! They put you in the movie, and now you have to publicly state how much you like this bad, bad, design! I was almost honestly thinking of contacting you to ask and beg JJ to change the Enterprise design, and redo the special fx shots, but now, it’s like your freaking turning to the dark side. Whats next your going to tell us Lucas didn’t screw up the new Star Wars? And why did you go ahead with phase II and redo the original ship which by the way also looks like crap!

222. Dave - November 12, 2008

216, by association are you saying that Leonard Nimoy is raping Star Trek also?

Are you also saying Chris Doohan is “pissing on his father’s grave” by being in the film?

If Majel Roddenberry is well enough to lend her voice to the film, is she desicrating the memory of her husband?

Are you starting to see how insulting your comments might be?

223. Steve - November 12, 2008

Hey Guys
A couple of years ago Enterprise was cancelled and we all thought that was it for a long time……….. Now we are a few months away from a multi million dollar movie. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEnjoy it

224. Smike van Dyke - November 12, 2008

#207: Personally I believe there have been TWO 007s up to now. The original Bond, Connery up to Brosnan, who has been surgically altered several times and his illegit son with Pussy Galore who ended up as an orphan and was recruited after his father’s retirement…

Craig’s Bond is Bond’s son in my book.

225. Dave - November 12, 2008

^224, that is…pretty far out. Disregarding what multiple (and extreme) plastic surgeries would do to a human body, you would also have to wonder exactly why James Bond would have a surgery to become George Lazenby, then decide later to go BACK to Sean Connery. Nevermind the fact that I would have to accept James Bond CHOOSING to remain in the flabby, wrinkly body of Roger Moore for so long before finally becoming Tim Dalton.

226. Sam Belil - November 12, 2008

Mr. Cawley — FIRSTLY let me say that I have a great deal respect for YOU! YOUR FANTASTIC BODY OF WORK! Most importantly your PASSION for STOS!!! For myself I feel totally mislead by Abrams and Crew. I have suspected for the longest time that they WOULD be making changes, BUT these are DRASTIC changes which contradict not so much “so-called canon”, but most importantly THE CONTINUITY of the ST franchise. I wish they would have been more upfront about this from the beginning, I wish they would not have insulted our intelligence. I think we all know that this re-boot will (and future movies — if any) will IN FACT be in an alternate timeline. This is not OUR ST, OUR Enterprise, OUR Kirk and Crew as we have known it throughout the past 40 years — I’m ready to accept that, however Abrams was NOT totally upfront about it!!! Time will tell — I hope this movie will be successful. I just purchased my tickets for Quantam of Solace opening night in NYC, hopefull the trailer will bring some excitement.

227. TL - November 12, 2008

It’s now official, James Cawley is a SELLOUT.

228. Style - November 12, 2008

Thats true all what you said #190. But if they disrespect what came beforehand they may lose the real big fans(and they are super influential to us lesser fans) and lose MONEY!

229. ShawnP - November 12, 2008

Wow. I understand expressing disagreement, but some of you folks are just flat out HATEFUL. You know who you are.

James, thanks for the vouch of confidence in the movie. I’m nowhere near being a purist, but I appreciate your standpoint and reasoning. And I’m willing to pay whatever over-inflated ticket price they want me to pay to see this.

230. Prophecy - November 12, 2008

Wait – This guy James Cawley is in the movie?


Of course he is going to say he likes it. And for him to have to write an editorial to tell fans to “please go see it” is a sign of desperation by him, Paramount and this site. I heard JJ was nervous showing the 4 scenes in England – now I believe he was nervous. This movie is going to bite large.

231. Leela - November 12, 2008

That’s all great and all, James, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that the new design sucks.

Go ahead and redesign – The Motion Picture did it beautifully, and showed us how it could be done and WORK.

This new design is showings us how it can be done and miserably FAIL.

232. Dan - November 12, 2008


233. c0mBaTkArL - November 12, 2008

James, thank you for your insight and the timely dose of reason and wisdom. You sir, have been the second Kirk in my mind for some years now, and your efforts are dearly appreciated. That said, I think it should be pointed out that if we’re all really really lucky, then this exact scenario we’re all so passionate and anxious about will play out once again in another 30-40 years time when some other nostalgic Hollywood producer with talent and gusto comes along and decides it’s time yet again to re-imagine the Trek universe. Or, you can all remain comfortable reminiscing about the good old days in your official TOS-Kirk command rocking chair admiring your dusty $800.00 limited edition TOS holographic cube set. Either way, change we must. It is the only constant. You can either sit and sulk, or join in the lovely ride. I have a window seat, thank you.

234. Myrth - November 12, 2008

#89 Them there are fightin words.

235. JWM - November 12, 2008


Thanks for an opinion far better articulated than what most here could convey.

236. TL - November 12, 2008

What JJ and company are forgetting is the Enterprise is a character in TOS. When you radically change the look of the character people freak out, at least the hard core fans do. Orginally James Cawley said when asked on the bridge design, “its not what I would have done” now all of a sudden he is singing a different tune. I still think Paramount was stupid to hand this franchise to a director who was not a fan and doesn’t get it. These photos say alot, and I for one don’t like them.

237. Smike van Dyke - November 12, 2008

#216. Pathetic fundamentalism was never part of the spirit of Star Trek! Whining purist crybabies are not welcome at Starfleet Academy!

Trek is about bodly going where no one has gone before and accepting a remake of the original is just another final frontier that had to be crossed at some time.

You know, Star Trek is not about puny little details listed in some freaking 90s encyclopedia. It’s about the spirit of accepting diversity in infinite combinations. Parallel realities are a vital part of Trek.

Multidimensional thinking is required but your lack of imagination, tolerance and the ability to move beyond your own fanboyish preconceptions makes me wonder why someone like you became interested in Star Trek in the first place…

Loyality has got nothing to do whatsoever with nitpicking or living in the past.

You feel betrayed and accuse us “so-called fans” of betraying Trek? For what?

Because the bridge is white and blue and not black and red? Because the new Enterprise’s neck is not exactly like in a 45 year old TV show? Because Kirk wants to “kiss” Uhura for real this time and not just as part of a silly game set up by “Plato’s Stepchidren”? That’s obviously what really matters about Star Trek, isn’t it?

Get a grip on yourself and relax. Your DVDs are not going to be rendered invalid…everything seen on TOS happened, just in a different reality…a different universe. If your mind is not able to imagine that, we can’t help you.

You know, guys like you remind of that aliens from Galaxy Quest feeling betrayed because those “historical documents” aren’t real. Man, get a live and let the rest of us true fans enjoy the future of the future…

It’s FICTION, damn good fiction in most parts but every good story has been retold and updated since the dawn of mankind. Star Trek is no different. It’s not a historical document from our future…These are characters played by flesh and blood actors! They get old and they die. But the stories live on…in one way or another…

238. c0mBaTkArL - November 12, 2008


Seriously, I’ve heard testimony from real rape victims that sounded less heart-wrenching than your diatribe. You must go and seek professional medical counseling as soon as possible. The last thing we want to see here is the obit of a desperately depressed fan.

239. Wolf Trek - November 12, 2008

****STAR TREK Throw Down Challenge****
We place 3 “canon” folk in a room and challenge them to come up with a 5 minute short based on TOS. A total of 100 points will be awarded in 3 catagories:
Creativity 0
Entertainment Value 0
Canon 100
The person with the most points after being evaluated by an independent panel of “canon” judges will be declared the winner. A contestant will be automatically disqualified if any of the judges have their eyes glaze over. Extra points will be given if any one can secure the services of the original special effects company (matte lines are a plus!!)
Contestants – your time starts NOW!

240. George - November 12, 2008

James, you have embrassed IDIC in the true sence of what it is meant to be. I keep telling people that as long as the product holds true to what Gene wanted to try and teach us we should welcome it with open arms. The sad part is a lot of people remain closed to change and after 40 + years of what Gene had put on the screen back in the 1960’s we as a people have a long way to go if we are to live in a future as Gene saw it.

Jim, good luck with phase II it looks wonderful, I will for one be someone watching it.

JJ, if your reading this, I’m looking forward to your version of Star Trek and wish you and the cast all the best.

241. Matthew_Briggsuk - November 12, 2008

Well said Mr Cawley.

As for him selling his soul for ST:P2 I don’t think he has. I think Paramount lets him (and other productions) carry on with thier work, the reason I think this is because it show them that there is still an interest.

I had an idea in my head of how the new movie may look and its slightly different as to what I was expecting.

There’s a line in ST:TUC where Kirk is recording his log and he says something like “how can there be any peace when theres still people like me” or something to that effect. I think this should translate to the naysayers on this bored. “How can the Star Trek franchise move foward with people like you”

By the way sorry bowt the spelling and punctuation I’ve had some home made romulan ale

242. Dave - November 12, 2008

^No…James is NOT singing a different tune. He is STILL saying “it’s not what I would have done.” He has not retreated from that stance. It’s just that he is preaching an open-minded point of view. You don’t have to like what you see. It’s your right. Mr. Cawley doesn’t even necessarily like it. Just realize that Star Trek is moving forward, with or without you. That’s his view, but to accept that doesn’t fit into the narrative that is being formed by people who want to be mad.

243. James Cawley - November 12, 2008

Call me what you will. But the fact is I don’t like the design of The Enterprise ( I admitted that a year ago!) and When J.J. Abrams showed me the bridge, I told him I did notlike it, it is not what I would have done. Please go and re read my words form last year.
I have no clue as to the plot, time travel, canon, reboot or what not. It all has nothing to do with whether or not you can enjoy this movie as a DIFFERENT telling of a classic tale. I feel that this team of people are working their collective asses off to try and please alot of people. They are charged with making Star Trek relevant again, they have to make Trek acceptable to a new generation who have no clue as to what it is, and at the same time try to appeal to the old fanbase. THAT IS NO EASY TASK.
The Heart and soul of Star Trek is in the telling of the tale. I have not seen one frame of footage. I simply choose to have faith, that it will be a well told tale, regardless of production design or whatever. While I am purist, and do prefer the original series and alway’s will, there is no reason I can’t enjoy this too.
James Cawley

244. Smike van Dyke - November 12, 2008

#219: Couldn’t have said it any better myself! Kudos!

245. Rat Boy - November 12, 2008

I think Mr. Cawley hit the nail on the head. This is unexplored territory for this franchise and after forty years of having the story of Trek continue in iterations both after and before TOS, it’s hard for some to swallow going back to its roots with different faces and different looks. Bond has done this repeatedly, as has the aforementioned Batman. The only other franchise that I can think of that’s done what Trek has for so long is Doctor Who. Sure, the main character has been played by different actors (with a nifty in-universe explanation as to why), but it’s the same characters and the same continuing story line from the first black and white episodes up to now. Time will only tell if Trek and its fans can make this leap.

246. Paul Martin - November 12, 2008

# 243 Well said James! :)

# 241 Wheres mine?

247. KC saint - November 12, 2008

WTF is with some of you people. No one is demanding you like the changes, but you are acting as if the people in charge of reinvigorating and recharging a nearly dead franchise should stick with the same formula that slowly killed Star Trek in the first place. No studio in their right mind would put up the huge investment into a new tenpole franchise without updating, changing and catering to a younger skewing audience. The 14 to 24 year old male demographic is the dominant force of movie goers. Move ahead with your life or just don’t go to see the movie. The goals for Paramount are all about the profits for a company that really needs it. They are in business to make profits not to entertain you. New toys of a new design sell a lot better then new toys of the same design we have bought years ago. Once you realize the “Holy Grail” of moviegoers are the ones being catered to then maybe you can let go of the great memories from the past and appreciate some things of the new movie. Otherwise, the Trek franchise will die off like it’s cast and we will be left with nothing but our memories.

248. Paulaner - November 12, 2008

#237 “every good story has been retold and updated since the dawn of mankind. Star Trek is no different. It’s not a historical document from our future…These are characters played by flesh and blood actors! They get old and they die. But the stories live on…in one way or another…”

Amen to that. New tech manuals and new Trek encyclopedias will be printed. A different, tweaked canon will be forged. We will be able to bring friends to the show without having to explain “you know, the visuals are cheesy, the sets are cardboard but the stories are good.” (how many times did you have to say this?) Fans should not to be divided into hard-core, canonites or casuals. They are just fan, and every fan has the right to have Star Trek.

249. Matthew_Briggsuk - November 12, 2008

I drank it all. neutrons will be eminating from my head 2mora

250. T. Dogias - November 12, 2008

im with you James. Well stated

251. Wilson7777 - November 12, 2008

Thanks James. I was pretty down about the new images of the Enterprise…..but you have lifted my spirits! Thank You.

252. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

253. Reg - November 12, 2008

222: Insulting? Only in the sense that saying that an Eagke cab fky is insulting. Im calling it as it is. If Chriss Doohan loved his father he wouldnt sell out to that which shits on his father’s grave. TOS was Doohns sole legacy in entertainment. ST 11 has invalidated that legacy because now it never happened. What part of that am I not making clear? This films new continuity makes the original series NULL and VOID.

Nimoy, Majel …they just sold out to the almighty buck. Majel was always a golddigger. Nimoy is old and cant get work in anything else. Even so-called fan James Cawley has become JJ Abrams personal lap dog after a few bucks and a juicy part got waved under his nose and now to him the great almighty JJ Abrams can never do wrong. Even his farts smell like fresh apple pie. And where he walks flowers bloom. Christ.

Im fighting the good fight. Im standing up for the sanctity and purity of a sacred 40 year sci-fi mainstay. Im not all too eager to take what I’m given and not question it like a good little consumer drone. Sorry, I don’t graze with the herd, I have standards. I have loyalty. And loyalty demands unwavering adherance.

Too bad fans today don’t know what loyatly is anymore. My childhood has been killed. Murdered. And you all are embracing the killer. How do you think that makes me feel? Can you possibly have any consideration, even a bit for us fans who have supported it all our lives? I guess I cant expect you to have the depth of character to think about the feelings of some of us. As long as you get what you want to HELL with the rest of us, is that it?

254. spock - November 12, 2008

This looks one of those bad parodies of the series. This movie is going to tank harder than Nemesis did. JJ is one of the most overated guys out there. How many times did he have to re-image Alias during it’s run, just about every season opener. Lost is losing steam, MI3 sucked.

255. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

256. JimJ - November 12, 2008

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: the fans of Star Trek that claim to love it so much are gonna kill it. What kills me is, it’s because they won’t embrace what Star Trek is truly about. i can’t speak for Gene Roddenberry or his family, but I’m guessing he’d be excited about this new take on it. Would he want to give input? Sure! But, I bet ya he wouldn’t go off the deep end like so many of the so-called fans are. We are a patetic lot. We could have things like Han shoots first, Jar-Jar, midichlorians, and so on. Oh well, what a spoiled lot the so called fan base has become overall. It disgusts me!

If this movie bombs….Star Trek is over, done, etc. Then, you watch, people will be whining to bring Rick Berman back. Pathetic!

257. brady - November 12, 2008

James, sorry didn’t have the patience to read 236 fan boys fighting over canon. I’m really just wanting an update on BAF p1 release date.Ps. Maybe a few years down the road you can build a new set and have a kid so he can play James T the 2nd ;)

258. TL - November 12, 2008

I would love to know what JJ thinks of the fans. He isn’t comming out telling us why he went with this design. I really get bad vibes from him. Personnaly Cawley, and I have stated this several times in this forum, I would rather they gave you the helm as director. I know your in a tight corner but this is why Hollywood sucks, those in control only think of money. My personal experience with agents when trying to sell a script is they don’t care about story only money.

259. steve623 - November 12, 2008

The bedrock problem is thus: the project was originally talked up in terms of a “prequel” that “honors” and “respects” the canon, that it wasn’t a reboot. And a few months later, its obvious that its a reboot. And that’s fine. Its what they should have done to start with, but its also something they should have been up front about from the beginning and not bait-and-switched people. Mr. Cawley’s comments and comparisions to all the different versions of Batman makes the same point – this is not a continuation of “Star Trek”, this is obviously a reboot of “Star Trek”, regardless of the Clintonian and lawyerly wordplay the writers and producer have been engaging in for months. Its a reboot of the franchise with Leonard Nimoy thrown in to give it some legitimacy. Fine. Pay me and my intelligence the respect of saying it for what it is without the months of selling me a false bill of goods.

260. James Cawley - November 12, 2008

We are a couple of weeks away from locking the episode and releasing.

261. Rat Boy - November 12, 2008

“We are a couple of weeks away from locking the episode and releasing.”

Well, at least we’ll have some Star Trek before the holidays.

262. oop - November 12, 2008

ARE YOU KIDDING ME ???????????







263. Wolf Trek - November 12, 2008


264. Dave - November 12, 2008

253: “As long as you get what you want to HELL with the rest of us, is that it?”

Well, if you put it that way…yes. That’s exactly it. If you are going to go around speaking ill of people you’ve never met who are connect to a show you supposedly “love” then I can’t say I care much what you think.

What you are doing is directly attacking people, some of whom post on this site. That will not sit well with Anthony or anyone else who helps run this site.

265. fakesteve - November 12, 2008

JJ thinks a lot about the fans… but Starships are flying different in this movie then ever before… the new form of of the 1701 makes the amazing maneuvering she is capable of now on screen much more believable.

266. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

267. Reg - November 12, 2008

#255 melodramatic much?

Sure, it’s easy t be flip when it isn’t YOUR childhood being raped and rendered invalid.

268. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008

I agree with steve623, it reeks of a total reboot so why even pretend to be checking with Memory Alpha etc?

Call it what it is, like Galactica.

You can’t pretend to be paying attention to Trek History and ignore some of its basic tenants.

Let me say again however, I hope it’s good and I’ll be there at the first showing.

269. McCoy - November 12, 2008

Using Batman as a comparison, I would point out that I hate ‘The Batman’ character style and therefore do not care what the story is. Also, I do not like nipples on the batsuit and therefore do not care what what the stories are with Schumacher’s Batman series.

So on one hand, Cawley is right, the Batman’s I don’t like do not spoil the Batman’s I like. However, I will not pay for anything related to the one’s I dislike. I have learned that when it comes to tapping in to “old friends” for a new romp, design matters.

With classic Star Trek, for better or worse, gadgets, ships and clothes are characters and make a large part of going where no one has gone before. It’s not all about the story or the action.

Audience members who pay to see the new Star Trek should be prepared for total change. What will be different?

1) actors
2) The Enterprise
3) tricorders
4) communicators
5) clothes
6) sounds
7) music
8) the transport effect
9) the bridge
10) the shuttlecraft


Have fun with the movie…If reviews are good, I’ll catch the rental later. Much later.

270. Richard Daystrom - November 12, 2008

I grew up with TOS always thinking in my mind as a kid that it was actually the way things were going to turn out in the future. I looked at each new movie thinking it was actual progression in the timeline of Star Trek.
Then came TNG. And I said yeah, I can see that maybe happening. I turned a blind eye to most of the bullcrap that came later and all the BS that was added on in each successive series. I just wanted what drew me to Star Trek in the first place.
My fantasy with the series came to an end because it just became too damned layered with BS and Technobabble and all the other crap. I think the Generations movie was the last straw.
I will give this movie a chance and if it makes me feel the way I used to feel when I watched the original series…..HELL YEAH!!!!

271. Steve - November 12, 2008

Keep the Trek flag flying and take no notice of all these negative so called trekkers

272. Phaser...where are youuu? - November 12, 2008

You know, it’s really easy for folks to criticize, belly-ache and what-not when they aren’t the ones who put in all the hard work and invested tons of creative energy.

I was in a 1950’s band in the early 1990’s, and we did a lot of original stuff, but also did some covers of others, like Bill Haley and the Comets, some obscure Elvis stuff, etc. People were constantly dissing us because they said we made the ‘sacred’ originals too different from the way the original artist performed them. After a while, I had to just ignore the nay-sayers and enjoy doing my thing…recording an album and touring with the band…but it always made me shake my head in disbelief sometimes to hear the 1950’s ‘purists’ knock our efforts. I kept going, though, because I knew there were tons of people who actually did appreciate our work…and that was payment enough.

Think about it…it’s highly unlikely we would have seen any new Star Trek movies for a LONG time if J.J. had not got involved. He’s had some successful projects, and I think the suits were cool with him doing this movie because he’s got some great creative energy, and a great writing team. If it were not for J.J., there probably would not have been a countdown to May 2009, no buzz about new poster images or ‘leaked’ reports. It would be the status quo (except for New Voyages/Phase II), it otherwise would be boring and quite frankly, a little sad.

James, you and your gang do a fantastic job, and I’m grateful for all of your hard work. I know people criticize and complain, but I think you guys bang it out of the park. You have taken your love of Star Trek to a whole different level, and entertained so many of us in the process. And I agree with you. I think, just like becoming the new parent of an adopted child, we can have love in our hearts for more than one vision of Star Trek.

If you don’t like the new Enterprise, if you think you’re not going to like the new movie…don’t go see it! lol Why not do like James has done, and make a production based on how you feel Trek should be? Bottom line is this…there is enough room in this world for all kinds of creativity…try not to knock someone’s hard work, even if you don’t agree with it.

(btw, when in the world is BaF going to be out? I cannot wait! :D)

273. ShatRuinedV - November 12, 2008

This movie invalidates nothing! Spock had to have lived through the TOS and TNG to get to the point where he time travels. I’m sorry, this movie invalidates NOTHING.

With this kind of abuse, can there be any doubt on why talented directors and writers would tend to stay to away from Star Trek – its an invitation to get flamed by people attempting to live their live vicariously through Star Trek.

274. TL - November 12, 2008

I really enojoyed all of James Cawley episodes. Yeah I would absolutly give this man the helm. Have you seen the episodes? Amazing. Best Trek since TNG. If he had the buget I am sure the set designs wouldn’t look like crap. Also he is the only guy who got orginal writers from TOS to write new episodes. Thst is freaking genius! I can’t wait for the next one, my only wish is that Cawley kept the original outter ship design instead of the phase ii look!

275. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

276. KC saint - November 12, 2008

If all you have from your childhood is a television show to cling on to then there are probably many more issues you should deal with first.
Your childhood is over, be an adult!

277. Al Hartman - November 12, 2008


If we were told it was going to be a reboot and reinterpretation… I’d be fine with what we are getting. I could deal with it because I had been told the truth.

I’d STILL hate the redesign of the ship, because it’s ugly. But, I’d like the bridge and the uniforms.

Instead, we were promised that this WASN’T a reboot. That it was just going to be new actors playing the roles, and there would be slight updating of the sets and SFX to bring them up to modern standards.

We didn’t get that. I object ot being lied to.

YOU get it right. While I don’t like the Blue Nacelle Domes and Blue Upper and Lower Domes on YOUR new Redesigned Enterprise from Phase II. I DO think you get it 99.999% right just about everywhere else.

You have done the best that can be done to bring back TOS.

As did Paramount in “In a Mirror Darkly”. Except for the Gorn, they did a great job! And they didn’t learn from that. The highest rated Enterprise episode, and they didn’t learn bupkiss.

Thanks for your comments. I WILL be going to see the movie and buying the DVD release. But, instead of going to see it multiple times as I did for some of the other movies such as TMP or WOK. I’ll only go to see this one once.

Paramount and JJ have sacrificed the fan multiplier effect by delivering a movie that probably won’t thrill a lot of the classic fans.

I hope it does well with new fans. It will need it.

278. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

Hey James Cawley. Ignore the person who has the post of Cawley Sucks. You james do not suck and you are a true Gentleman. The one who post that is not a True Trek Fan For if he was he would not post like that. Anthony i hope you see those post and Delete his Posts as they are not dignified to be on this great site.

279. brady - November 12, 2008

James, as The Love Guru says “Give me a pound and LOCK it DOWN” lol

280. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

JC, stay strong and keep on the high road like you are my friend. You’ve got plenty of us here on your side so stay the course.

Liked your post 243.

To the “sucks” dude… you’ve got zero credibility and it is obv. that you are just someone who doesnt like JC for whatever reason. You’ve made your point so why dont you make like a tree and leave?

You ever hear about the golden rules, buddy? How would you like it if we said that you suck? Well, we didn’t and we won’t. So respectus the perspectus of our rectus, please sir. Thank you in advance.



281. ShatRuinedV - November 12, 2008

Is the Las Vegas Experience canon? Seriously. There were Klingon warships over Las Vegas in the mid 1990s according to the ride, but no record of that in the TOS. Long live canon. Who cares about story, we want canon dammit, because we have spent 40 years reading books and novels and comics and watching cartoon shows, and eventually if you read the stuff for a long period of time, IT BECOMES REALITY!!!!!!! Long live Canon.

282. Craig - November 12, 2008

Star Trek isn’t Batman, Bond or Superman and it definately isn’t Kirk it’s bigger than all of that and to do what they are doing is fundermentally wrong!

283. Wolf Trek - November 12, 2008

There are some folk on this site that give the rest of us fans a bad name. It’s no wonder mainstream America laughs at us.
I wonder if the fans of Bay Watch are this bad?

284. fakesteve - November 12, 2008

[270] I grew up with TOS, too, Richard. And the movie makes me feel like that again. It is the perfect fusion of action, technology, friendship and humor the franchise needed to survive another 40 years. Wait till you see Jim Kirks swollen hands with Bones trying to inject him while running into the bridge. It is pure Trek.

285. Reg - November 12, 2008


Oh Im sorry, I thought this was a free country. You know, the First Amendment like our founding fathers set forth.

I attacked nobody. I stated how things were. If I tell grass that its green, is that an attack? No, By that measure saying someone sold out when they did is not name calling, but rather an accurate assesment. Im dfending what important, thats noble. By that token what I say about people who help violate what I hold dear is acceptable. Brecause they wronged me first, Im simply returning fire, as honor demands.

No. No, it doesnt suprise me one bit you wouldnt care. In fact I expect that from todays fandom not to care about anything truly important. As long as you get your k3w1 n00 3nt3rpr1s3. I cant logically expect you to possess sufficient depth of character to care about how anyone feels but you.

Let them ban me. Ill go knowing I fought the good fight. For standing up for what was right. For defending a beloved franchise that has captured my imagination since I was a child. My only crime was giving a damn. For caring. Stifle free speech. Let only JJ Abrams legions of loving yes men say nothing but praise and support.

God forbid a different opinion ever be uttered. We might actually get the mistaken impressions that this was a free country.

286. Craig - November 12, 2008

So is Mr Cawley saying that CBS will make some real Trek for us fans? even if this abortion is arround

287. Pop - November 12, 2008

I think James Cawely needs acting lessons, anyone?

288. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

289. Dave - November 12, 2008

285, It is a free country. In America, you can feel free to think whatever you want. I just don’t have to like it.

290. Buckaroohawk - November 12, 2008

Mr. Cawley,

Thank you for making some excellent points. It’s good to know that there are open-minded, level-headed Star Trek fans like you and Anthony who understand that this new version does not, will not, and can not have any negative affect on the series or movies that have come before. They stand on their own now, and they will after this film is released.

As for those of you who feel you must purge your distasteful rhetoric and pathetic adherence to previous Trek lore, and those of you who are just so certain that the film will be a failure based solely on the tiny snippets of story and images we’ve been shown, I have one thing to say…

As Kirk said to Kang in the episode Day of the Dove, “Go to the devil.” I’m sick of being associated with you, both publicly and on these boards. Since you lot won’t go away, I will.

Love the site, Anthony. I enjoyed my time here. Best of luck as the Big New Day Approaches.

291. wkiryn - November 12, 2008

“No one will confuse this new feature with The Original, or vice versa. ”

Mr. Crawley you as Kirk made an amazing case that having other actors play these characters was possible and enjoyable especially after the Berman-Braga years. I’m just offended this movie is being called a prequel when visually and most likely plot wise it won’t match.
(general rant)

I am quite sure there will be a few people that would say this design is literally the pre-“the cage” era TOS design (unless somehow the plot explicitly rules that out by having a bit in the 5 year mission era). So great more idiots watching star trek and ruining it for others (it’s like reading USENET)

This is more reboot than prequel and unfortunately this will lead to little more than another new generation of star trek “fans” that think little of the originals ( heck imagine kids looking at a galaxy class starship and thinking how it looks primitive and dated compared to a Abrams-verse constitution class! ) I expect there will be a few similar school playground debates matching what was going on in 1988 when I was comparing and contrasting TOS vs TNG with friends.

We don’t have ANYONE calling smallville a prequel to the George Reeves Superman by analogy. There will be people debating if this movies events are really in the TOS universe

292. montreal paul - November 12, 2008

James Cawley… thanks for your words of encouragement. I have watched Trek since I can remember. My mom has a picture of me in front of teh TV when I was two with the original Trek playing in the BG. I love TOS… I love all things Trek… but I love TOS. But I am also very open to this new Trek… i do know that JJ and gang had a tough task at hand. Making Trek relevant again in 2009. From what I see, I like. Bottom line is how teh story is told. That is Trek… Gene’s look at the future. If the heart of Trek is still there and holds the same message.. then I think JJ has accomplished it.

Change is good. Would I do things exactly like JJ did if I was in charge? Some yes, some no. I wasn’t happy with Chris Pine, I would have prefered Ryan Reynolds as Kirk. I also had my own design of the Enterprise (I think everyone does.) But I am not the one making the movie.. neither are any of you. you would all do it different.

Just because JJ is doing things differently than I would.. won’t stop me from going to see this movie (countless times) and enjoying every minute of it. It is nice to see a fresh take on Trek… no matter who does it!

I really don’t like the guy playing Spock in Phase II but still enjoy what Mr. Cawley is making. Let me just tell you.. i am envious that you are doing what you are.

The thing that gets me is how hostile and negative some people are. And you haven’t even seen the movie yet. My God people… give it a rest.. it is ONLY A MOVIE! At least wait and see the movie before you tear it apart.

If people are that insulted by what they see.. then stop coming on here.. stop posting… stop looking at anything about this movie.. don’t go see it and move on with your life. You have already made up your mind that this movie sucks and that you won’t accept it. FINE… MOVE ON. The rest of us fans that have been around since the sixties and for all the other fans willing to give it a chance.. we are anxious and excited for this movie.

And if Trek fails.. it isn’t because of JJ and gang.. it will be because of you… the fans that are not willing to accept change as a part of life. Go see this movie with an open mind. Deforest Kelley and James Doohan are no longer with us. William Shatner’s ego is too big for any movie… the rest of the cast is getting older. The TNG movies are dead. Why not try something new like this. I, for one, and happy they decided to take a look at the Kirk/Spock era again and not jump into something TNG or something completely unknown. Grow up people… stop bashing everyone else. If you don’t like what you see.. then don’t go see the movie. Simple as that.

And please.. stop saying that your childhood was raped.. that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

293. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 12, 2008

1. No, anthony, don’t delete that guy’s comments because they speak for themself. It demonstrates someone with a grudge acting out anonymously on the internet. It would given them greater attention and credence if they suddenly are gone. They dont take away anything from what JC is saying, either. Quite the contrary.

2. Although I am 100% down with this new movie, I am also in 100% agreement that JC should have been handed this franchise after the Berman era. In no one else do I trust as much. And there is no one who deserves it more.

It didn’t happen that way, unfortunately. And what we have now is not a bad alternative… but make no mistake, JC paved the way for this, and his endorsement is important. I hope that sir JJ and the orcster, all the suits at paradiggum understand that.


294. Wolf Trek - November 12, 2008

Might I offer some advice? If you do not approve of this project, then maybe you could avoid this website. Why punish yourself?

295. Irishtrekkie - November 12, 2008

Hmm , it really does seem at times that they are aimming this movie at “new” fans or people who are not star trek fans at the moment , oh well its was nice well it lastest, i guess we where just not good enough guys hand in your combadges we have been replaced .

but no i cant say much till i see the movie myself, alot of what i have seen so far looks good , some is just weird like the galaxy quest bridge , and that ship is ugly.

I wonder did JJ and the rest of the crew ever thought that out of all the changes they are making , that changing the ship would be the biggest one to really get a response from star trek fans , i knew they would change it, but i thought it would be more like Gabe Koerner design or something .
But i have to say if the people behind the movie did not know it would be a big thing when they showed off the Enterprise then they really dont understand or get Star trek , for me the Enterprise was always the most Real Thing on the show

296. George - November 12, 2008

This is just sad, for the first time in my life I’m ashamed to call myself a Star Trek fan. No matter if you agree or not with James and or JJ you have that right. But to go so low as to start attacking them personally is just wrong.

Just go to the theater, sit down watch the movie and if you don’t like so be it but at least give it a chance.

297. banned - November 12, 2008

deleted by admin

298. lostrod - November 12, 2008


Perhaps the Remastered TOS should have waited for the movie’s release then redo all the effects to look like the movie …


299. AJ - November 12, 2008

Can “Cawley Sucks” please change his handle?

i don’t mind a good volley of opinion, but no one deserves to have one’s surname denigrated in one post after another. Grow up, for Pete’s sake.

300. TL - November 12, 2008

@ 296

JJ attacked fans first by shoving this redesign Enterprise down our throats!

301. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

Hey Anthony. Where are you at. We need you to Delete some of these Posts. These Prsonell Attacks are just so. Not Trek Like. I mean come on people. Just because you Don’t like somethin and you Disagree with Cawley and J.J and then does not mean you should Personly Attack them. If Spock weere here he would tell you to do so is Not Logicle.

302. DaiMonRon - November 12, 2008

James Cawley – two words for you, sir –


Hitch 1969 – I have yet to disagree with anything you have posted here, and I really have respect for your opinion. Please continue with your honesty and open-mindedness; very refreshing!

PS Hitch – I laugh outloud everytime I read “THE WOMEN!”

303. Richard Daystrom - November 12, 2008

While I have never seen any of Mr. Cawley’s films, I see no reason to bash him for his efforts. In doing so, you are also riduculing everyone else who dresses like a Klingon, Vulcan, or Starfleet Officer. The same people that keep this show alive year after year. The same people who kept the show on the air after the second season. The same people who went to a gazillion Star Trek conventions through the years and convinced Paramount to try another TV Series. Let’s get along.

304. RTC - November 12, 2008

James, I tip my hat to your courage — not only in your initial post, but in your calm and reasoned responses in the face of some amazingly crude and puerile comments.

Sadly, there will never be consensus among Trek fans regarding this film, even after it appears. Too bad the debate must be seasoned with lack of civility — a trait that I had never attributed to Trekkers, until now. I’m willing to give JJ & co. a chance. They’re a creative and dedicated crew, and I believe we should trust them.

And for those who so liberally toss around the word ‘rape’ to describe their present emotional turmoil … I sympathize with your angst, but to compare your disappointment to such a violent and despicable act is beyond the pale.

305. montreal paul - November 12, 2008

I am completely ashamed to be associated with people being so incredibly negative and resorting to personal attacks. It is one thing to not like the movie.. ONCE IT IS SEEN… and another completely for such disrespect for the filmmakers or the posters on here.

With this.. I am leaving this site. To me, being a Star Trek fan meant being open to anything Trek. When people are not even willing to wait to see the movie to make a FAIR judgement – i have lost total respect for those people. Sorry.. that is not a true Star Trek fan. Get over yourselves and grow up people.

Anthony.. thank you for this site.. I have enjoyed coming here.. for the most part. Thank you for always being on top of things. Best of luck for the future of this site.. i may return one day.

keep on Trekkin’!

306. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

# 304. I agree with what you said completly. Some of these Post Should be deleted and Usualy Anthony is on here keeping the peace but he must be off doing some inportant work for Trek Movie.

307. Will Decker - November 12, 2008

To Reg:

You say Star Trek is being raped by this new movie being made by JJ Abrams? I just don’t see it, I have been a fan of this franchise since I was still in diapers (I am 29 right now, which tells you how long I have liked the series). You how much as changed since I started watching Star Trek? I always thought of Star Trek being Kirk, Spock, and McCoy as well as the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701.

Star Trek has grown since then, if I went along with the franchise being raped. That would have been when I saw Star Trek II in Theatres with the Spock dying and then followed by the sequel and the destruction of the Enterprise. Or even when they get a ship that looks like the Enterprise in the fourth one but just felt different when you saw her on screen. Or better yet! Let’s say Next Generation and the spinoffs was them grabbing the already beaten horse and molesting it some more. I didn’t like next gen at first when I saw it premiere back in ’87 because it wasn’t the cast of characters I liked.

It’s your opinion, but I think its still unfair to go so far as saying that Chris Doohan and others involved with the franchise is spitting on the idea of Trek. Even the original cast has gone as far as giving their support on this. Shatner wishing he was part of it . But Star Trek will continue no matter what you or I think, It has gone through low ratings in the sixties, and animated series, reruns, proposed movies, new TV series, and then 10 major motion pictures before it go to the point where it is now.

Infinite Diversity in Iifinite Combinations. One of the philosophies that comes from said show. Phase II, Exeter, Farragut, New Frontier, etc all adpoted that when they did their fanfilms. JJ did when he did his, just because it does not look like what we have seen since our childhood. Does not mean it will be different. If it holds to Roddenberry’s ideas; then that is enough for me

308. Quarksbartender - November 12, 2008

I.D.I.C cant we all just get along. James cant wait to see the new episode.

309. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

243. James Cawley – November 12, 2008

The article that we’re all responding to is not a sell-out to Paramount, but post 243 is a sell-out to the Right-Wing Canonistas. Wasn’t the view better from the high road Cawley? I respect your puritanical point-of-view, ’cause, damn if there isn’t something pure in TOS to protect, but doubling back to feed the trolls is sad.

Closettrekker – your citation of Spock’s use of the words “final solution” in TWOK cracked me up. I always like the process behind your opinions. You’re right, but I’m right, too.

310. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

# 305. Don’t let these People get the best of you otherwise you let them win. Keep posting and keep coming back as we need folks like you who are true fans of the show and not pretenders.

311. Prophecy - November 12, 2008

I wholeheartedly agree with Reg.

This movie will blow…don’t give Paramount your hard earned cash. Let’s teach them a lesson.

If you want to drink the kool-aid with the other sheep in the herd go right ahead and blow more sunshine up JJ’s ass. I read the news, check out the footage, follow rottentomatoes and trust the critics I relate to. From what I’ve heard so far RT will give it a 25% rating at best.

312. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - November 12, 2008

For a document like this to have been prepared so quickly makes me suspect the “team” is in a bit of a “defense” mode re the reaction to the photos/storylines.

I’m not someone who necessarily has to have letter-perfect obedience to “canon,” but everything we’ve heard about this movie in promotional “carrots” thus far indicated there would be substantial deference to canon, and that the bridge was this “homage” to the original, and that’s cool, too. The problem is that it sounds like that’s not what’s in the offing – it sounds like a ground-up, foundational reboot – a shell of what we knew, but wearing throwback uniforms. I can’t say I’m just nuts about the Enterprise photo that was release. It just looks, well, a little weird. I don’t think *any* Enterprise will match the grace and style of the TMP Enterprise, personally.

I guess all I’m sayng is that we’ve been pretty coy about the literal term “reboot,” when that’s clearly what it is. Why not just say so?

All that said, I’m not going to trash the movie or condemn it out-of-hand; I’m extremely curious to see what Abrams and crew have constructed. It should be a fun ride.

Looking forward to next May, albeit with a bit more trepidation.

313. Richard Daystrom - November 12, 2008


How can RT give it a rating at all when it hasn’t been released yet? Yeah, let’s teach them a lesson and boycott this movie and wait who knows how long for any kind of Trek and then bash that one too!

314. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2008

I am not sure why I keep having to remind people to be civil and watch their language and their tone. The comments are coming fast and furious and I cant spend my whole day policing them and some people are really going way too far.

Also stop with the all caps

And to James, thank you for joining in the discussion and sharing your logic

315. Prophecy - November 12, 2008

The entire film hasn’t been seen – you are right about that. HOWEVER, four scenes have been shown, therefore we are allowed to make judgments on that content. And if they are negative comments then so be it.

316. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - November 12, 2008

Good heavens. Could we please stop using the word “rape” as a metaphor for our emotions regarding this movie??

For Heaven’s sake, folks, it really is a just a movie, and yeah, from a franchise that’s special to us. But when emotions run ahead of our brains, we start to sound like the zombied morons many think of Trek fans, like Noel from Frasier.

Trek isn’t a religion. Trek isn’t inviolable gospel. It’s a fun extrapolation of a future vision made into a TV show, and movie series which, by their nature, must be commercially viable.

But this nonsense about “raping Trek” is the most asinine thing I’ve heard in years. It is categorically embarassing.

317. Prophecy - November 12, 2008

I was taking a guess at what RT will give this film come next year.

And you’re right. Let’s blindly hand over our cash to Paramount and the execs will say “Wow the masses love what we’ve done to Star Trek…call JJ up for a sequel.”

I’ve read the reports on the footage shown in England – it sounds atrocious. If I was in grade 2 it might impress me.

318. Richard Daystrom - November 12, 2008


I’ve read the description of the four scenes and I still don’t see why there is an uproar. We don’t know why they occur in the storyline the way they do and we just have to wait for the movie. This reminds me of the bashing Nolan got for picking Ledger for the Joker and look how his judgement turned out to be right. Give it a chance!

319. Richard Daystrom - November 12, 2008


Stay at home then.

320. Phaser...where are youuu? - November 12, 2008

“Well….I see we have a long way to go”

321. The Last Maquis - November 12, 2008

James you were Bought and Sold!! hope that non speaking role was worth it Bro.

Why is Nimoy even in this then?

They should have just named it Trek 2: The Beginning or something

since It’ll have Absolutely nothing to do with the standard Star trek Universe.

322. C.S. Lewis - November 12, 2008

Market research data for Paramount

Gentlemen, I’m a 44yo fan with a high paying professional job, a wife, a young son the right age to see Star Trek and enjoy it at a child’s level (same age I was when I saw The Doomsday Machine first run…) and when I go to the movies, it’s a $50 to $60 spend all in for the family.

I don’t go to many movies as too many of them are simply not worth the effort and expense. Then, with many more, there are poisonous ideas and role models I simply won’t expose my son to, nor do I wish to endure them myself.

Star Trek, with the many apparent concessions and compromises to the “popular culture” in the name of relevance, is just about too risky a choice for family entertainment. I don’t need my boy seeing some sex-crazed character groping a barmaid for laughs! Don’t get me wrong — implied sex, the way it was done in the 1960s, went completely over the heads of children and was therefore safe for the family (think Kirk and the babe from Wink of An Eye).

There is a second point. The original Star Trek came at a unique point in history. Color TV was new. Most of the actors and writers learned their craft after “real jobs”. The Moon Shots were in play. Star Trek was a continuation of classic drama, albeit in a popular form.

This movie seems to me very much a simple marketing opportunity, an exploitation to capture the wallet share of a particular summer, some merchandising tie-ins and inevitable DVD sales. I don’t really see slap-dash “modern, relevant” — AND ONE OF THOUSANDS — of typical short attention span movies succeeding in the mold of Star Trek. It just can’t. It will be yet another “flash in the pan” as they once said.

And thus I am somewhat disappointed, as a fan, as a father, and one that loves the ideas present in the original teleplays.

Paramount, I’m sure you’ll make back your investment with a satisfactory return. You might even get a run of sequels that will yield substantial, if diminishing returns.

But in the process, Star Trek is reduced to one-of-many such film extravaganzas that are mere diversions for a teenager passing the endless summer.

Now I am not picking a fight with anyone and I hope you all recognize it. I’m just saying I don’t feel the need to spend $50 – $60 simply to line Paramount’s pocket at my expense. And that means my little boy Joey will find something else to capture his young imagination. Hopefully, speaking as his father, something in the real world.

Thank you for reading.

323. Jeffries Tuber - November 12, 2008

316. Author of “The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers” – November 12, 2008
Good heavens.
Could we please stop using the word “rape” as a metaphor for our emotions regarding this movie??

I second that motion. Unless and until there’s a cute kid with a bowlcut [Ensign Oliver] or a wisecracking robot [Lieutentant Twiki] or mindmelds are explained technologically… I agree that the R word is out of line.

324. Xai - November 12, 2008

33. Tom Dick & Larry – November 12, 2008
“I will go see this movie if only to get up & walk out while giving the movie screen the finger.”

Don’t act like an adolescent. And if you sit next to a parent and child when you do this, don’t be surprised if the offending digit gets broken.

I don’t advocate violence ever. But I won’t sit next to someone who infringes on my right or my family’s to try and enjoy this film. If you can’t make yourself be civil, stay home and rest your finger.

325. Prophecy - November 12, 2008

Amen 322 Amen.

And 319…I’m upgrading Limewire as we speak.

326. Xai - November 12, 2008

as a matter of fact… I can solve this now for many of you who can’t adjust or don’t want to.

Stay home.
Deny Paramount your $$.

Watch an old episode, but don’t walk away all bitter inside.

327. Wes - November 12, 2008

“Right now as I write this there are no less than 4 different versions of Batman available to the mainstream viewing audience. On tv we have “The Batman”, “Batman: The Animated Series,” The forthcoming “Batman: The Brave and The Bold” and of course “BATMAN” starring Adam West. There is also, the current successful film series (Batman Begins & Dark Knight) starring Christian Bale, ”

But, is there over 800 hours of television, countless books, comics, magazines, fanzines, fan movies, 10 features, etc. over the course of 40+ years cementing certain facts about the Batman franchise? Nope, it has been all over the place, but, Trek has been constant and consistent (for the most part). Also, just a question, why should we trust what you say, when you have been in the pocket of the ‘supreme court’ since day one? (I didnt get to see the drawings or sets, etc. and neither did 99.9% of the folks on here). You told us, that they were faithful to the original, yet, we see this ‘Enterprise’ that they have rolled out, it looks more like a cheap rip-off foreign toy of the Enterprise, then what I would expect from someone honoring Canon. And we saw the Enterprise in The Cage and it looks nothing like this.

328. Xai - November 12, 2008

286. Craig – November 12, 2008
“So is Mr Cawley saying that CBS will make some real Trek for us fans? even if this abortion is arround.”

Find a new term for your dissatisfaction.

329. Capt Mike From the Terran Empire - November 12, 2008

Hey Anthony. Thank you for deleting some of those posts. it was truly getting redicalous and theres just no call for any of that on this great site.

330. Falvoant - November 12, 2008

James Cawley……
Ive never met anyone who knows more about trek…
How many people do you know could tell you the proper angle of the bridge consoles ?
Ive never met anyone who has more LOVE of TREK
He has worked himself to physical exhaustion and picks himself up off the floor and keeps going at 3 AM to make episodes for YOU
Ive never met anyone who pays so much attention to fine detail
If you see somthing in one of our episodes thats not quite “correct”
Rest assured James left it there .for the fans to “spot” He has pointed stuff out to me that NONE of you ever noticed …nor did I…till he showed me…
Thank God For James Cawley…for without New Voyages …a Movie with other people playing these ICONIC roles….would NEVER of been thought of…
Rest assued the franchise would be in VERY GOOD HANDS….with James Cawley….
But right now…JJ Abrahms holds that Job…No One can make you like something you don’t like….
I am not crazy about JJ’s interpetation of things either..But We must give it a chance ..for the franchise becuase YOU love trek…Whats good for JJ is good for “ALL of us”..Blood and Fire will be out VERY VERY SOON…..Lets all get excited about Star Trek…..Its been a long time coming We have a Feature Movie coming out soon and now a webisode too…If there is enough excitement for trek MAYBE just MAYBE it will be on TV again


331. sean - November 12, 2008

Stop it with the ‘drinking the kool aid’, ‘I’m a real fan and you aren’t’ talk, please. No one has any business telling anyone here what kind of fan they are. That goes for people getting nasty with those uncomfortable with changes as well. I don’t like New Voyages, I’ve tried but honestly can’t swallow it as being anything other than some Trekkies that got together and made a movie in their backyard. Yet, I would never, EVER presume to tell James Cawley that he’s ‘sold out’ or betrayed true fans or isn’t a fan. That’s so far out of line it’s not funny. He has every right to offer his opinions as he’s well-known in the fan community and he also happens to be IN THE MOVIE.

332. Xai - November 12, 2008

322. C.S. Lewis – November 12, 2008
re: “Market research data for Paramount”

Have you seen it or just basing your post on second hand knowledge?

I don’t know what your child watches on TV, but he or she might have already witnessed more there than what they may see on this movie. Time will tell… but how about making an informed opinion on facts instead of assuming?

333. Xai - November 12, 2008

90. Superman – November 12, 2008
“Cawley’s “endorsement” does nothing to change the facts: this film is making unnecessary changes to canon and the ship design is ridiculous.

I’ll not be seeing it, and despite the apologists, I know many long-timers are done with new Trek. They wanted something that could’ve been the best of both worlds, and instead are getting pretty, young, watered-down, 90210 Trek.”

more assumptions. Don’t go

334. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 12, 2008

Anyone who thinks he can decide who a true, loyal fan is, is clearly an ego maniac and delusional. We are all fans, or we wouldn’t be here. We are all entitled to an opinion about the new production. The purists are entitled to the same, but no one is entitled to decide who is or is not a fan.

James Cawley, I thank you for your thoughts on STXI and your independent efforts. I, for one, am happy to take on a fresh look at the Star Trek franchise. I already look at every existing era as a slightly different beast. In fact, I regard different episodes of TOS and later shows as slightly different animals — for example, the TOS episodes “The Omega Glory” and “The Cloud Minders” show our favorite characters and their philosophies in very different lights, because the scripts of those episodes exhibited very different takes on how they should be.

If we are to evaluate Star Trek in terms of the strictest criteria of continuity, it fails miserably. It takes a certain willingness to see it all as part of a single imagined future, in order to reconcile all the various strains and themes that run through the five series and 10 movies.

335. Thomas - November 12, 2008

216. Reg,
You scare me the way no Trekkie should ever scare another. You are not the only person who cares about Trek and what happens to it, but you are taking this far too personally. No one is “violating” or “butchering” Trek the way you say they are, and to liken what they are doing to as horrific a crime as rape is reprehensible. With all this talk of “desecration”, you have elevated Trek to a quasi-religious form. Trek is not gospel, and the actors are not saints. You have taken Trek far too personally, and to a depth that honestly concerns me. I have never felt this much concern for a fellow fan.

336. Devon - November 12, 2008

“243. James Cawley – November 12, 2008 – When J.J. Abrams showed me the bridge, I told him I did not like it, it is not what I would have done”

James, thank you for your input and you do seem to be reasonable in this case.

However, this is what you said when TrekMovie.com interviewed you regarding the set on January 23:

“I like the set. The bridge is spectacular, absolutely stunning, but it is not what I would have done. But I think the fans are going to go ‘woah’ I think people are going to be genuinely stunned. I think people are going to be impressed. It is a beautiful set.”


That’s a bit different than telling J.J. that you didn’t “like it.” What gives with that? I’m asking with all due respect of course.


337. Devon - November 12, 2008

#216 – Could we PLEASE stop with those references? Those are VERY offensive.

338. sean - November 12, 2008


What exactly do you find contradictory about those statements? He said it wasn’t what he would have done, but he thought it was a great looking set. Or am I missing something?

339. Joker - November 12, 2008

To “Reg” and all the other losers who suggest that this movie will “rape” their beloved Star Trek, shut up! I’m so sick of hearing self-righteous fanboys use that word when they so clearly don’t know what it means. Rape is a physical, emotional, and psychological violation. It’s violent, personal, and damaging in ways you cannot understand. Try explaining to someone who has been raped how your hysterically dramatic disappointment over this movie compares to her experience. You don’t like this movie, fine. You can put in your old VHS tapes of the original series and relive your childhood. A person who has been raped does not have the luxury to go back to the way things were before. Get some perspective, for goodness sake.

I don’t usually respond to comments online, but I felt that just had to be said. Sorry if I came on too strong, but enough is enough.

340. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008


There have to have been 6 James Bonds now, each a different man with each man having James Bond as his code name. Isn’t it possible that two of them were married to women named Tracy and they both died? They never establish in ‘For Your Eyes Only’ how Moore’s Tracy died. It is implied Blofeldt killed her but it is never talked about in the movie. Dalton could’ve been married before too, his never says her name. It’s easier for me to believe a super secret spy uses an alias to protect his real identity than one man who changes looks but never ages over 40 years and is a spy but is world famous in every bar from here to Timbuktu but no one can ever seem to track him down at home and assassinate him or at the very least, steal his identity?

341. Peter - November 12, 2008

harris @38: The modern Animated Batman alone (Timm/Dini/Burnett/et al; the one voiced by Kevin Conroy) had 14 years of continuity, across 9 TV series and 4 animated movies. Though not considered “canon” by fans, necessarily (some stories ended up adapted into canonical episodes), there were many, many comic book and videogame spinoffs from the various animated series.

A newer animated Batman series called The Batman, with a Batman voiced by Rino Romano, was airing opposite the Conroy-voiced Batman on Justice League Unlimited in 2004. That series ended in 2007 and a new animated Batman series, Batman: Brave and Bold, starts this Friday with yet another version of the hero voiced by Diedrich Bader.

Even in the various Bruce Timm-designed and produced animated series, Batman’s design was tweaked and refined each time. Somehow, Batman remains a viable character in animation alone despite all these variant looks and continuities, and I’m only covering his appearances in animated cartoon form since 1992 here.


342. Richard Daystrom - November 12, 2008

Last Post for the night…. This is only a TV show. It is purely for entertainment. They are not rewriting the history of the Roman Empire. If you think otherwise maybe you need some therapy.

343. John from Cincinnati - November 12, 2008

As far as the new movie, after Nero corrupts the timeline, older Spock give the Federation a 24th century technology boost to help defeat Nero. If Nero has already corrupted the timeline, Spock only needs to worry about saving the Federation and himself. Everything could still get corrected in the end, or mostly corrected.

344. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 12, 2008

#339 Joker — 100% agree. It is offensive to throw the word “rape” around like Reg is doing.

345. Joker - November 12, 2008

For the record, I’m excited for this movie. I think Cawley’s got the right attitude. Keeping the Enterprise exactly the same as some fans want would detract from any innovative ideas that the movie might have. Too many movies have been ruined by slavish attention to 20+ year old continuity (Superman Returns?) If you hold too tightly to continuity, you have to live with it all, even the goofy bits. Also, don’t forget all the times that Star Trek played fast and loose with its own continuity, even within the original 79. Life’s too short to be obsessive and closed minded, especially when it comes to something so trivial as television or movies.

346. Xai - November 12, 2008

It’s your site, but I find #216 offensive in many ways.

347. Anthony Pascale - November 12, 2008


Warning to Reg/216 for inappropriate language

People please find ways to discuss things while being civil.

348. James Cawley - November 12, 2008

#336, I do not like it as The Enterprise bridge. It was a bit too radically different for me, it is not what I would have done. But as a set , taken in that context it is an amazing piece of work, and is beautiful. Although to me it could be any ship, just not the Enterprise, When I said I think the fans are going to say “Woah” I meant that as the purists won’t like it, and alot of others will. That being said, it is a very cool and functional set, and I give props to those who designed and built it.

349. Jeff - November 12, 2008


If the Enterprise wasn’t so central to the series it would be OK to change it up so much.

Battlestar Galactica’s design was never central to the series like the Big E is.

Hell, Kirk was practically in love with the ship in TOS.

350. I left my heart on Rigel 7 - November 12, 2008

Wow Cawley…how much did Abrams pay you for that?
What a load of crap!
Cannon is cannon for a reason, we already know what the Enterprise looks like, so what Abrams is so inappropriately doing here is trying to tell legions of loyal fans of a 40 year long space epic, that what they know isn’t truth any more.
If that was okay, then Rodenberry wouldn’t have include a refit in TMP script, he’d have just done it & expected the fans accept the change without explaination. But he didn’t because he & Trek & all Trekkies & Trekkers alike, are smarter than that.
This is low brow nonsense!!
It’s something George Lucas would do, “oh, well now the force is biological, not mystical.” Dumb tee dumb-dumb DUMB!
The sad part is that dedicated trekkies like Cawley feel the need to say something to calm down the heard, that should tell Abrams how far off his new “interpretation” is. What interpretation did you need? Get your glasses checked, JJ! It’s already been done, clearly you can’t re-interpret something that is written in plain english (vulcan or klingon also apply)
The negative reactons of fans are sound, this is STAR TREK for Kah’less sake!!! This franchise has been saved by it’s fans more than once!! More than any other franchise in tv or film history, the fans own this. Not Paramount or The Rodenberrys or JJ Abrams & the writers who ruined Transformers!!!
And just to put Cawley’s weak-ass Batman analogy to the test, while he is partially right about the different versions; how would fans react if Christopher Nolan had removed the cape & ears from the Batsuit? Some things are iconic & a decent team of filmakers would know better!!

351. The Last Maquis - November 12, 2008

346. Xai

Enough with you Already!!!!

Let people Think what they want, Express what they want to about this Film, (Within the Guidelines of course)
Go to the Movie and Have a Ball.

Spend a fortune on Snacks, Bring screaming Kids, But If I want to dislike or try to like this thing That’s my Business.

Got that?

352. Devon - November 12, 2008

#338 – “He said it wasn’t what he would have done, but he thought it was a great looking set. Or am I missing something?”

I was just confused on what he meant that he told J.J. he didn’t like it, but commented to this site that he did like it and gave it praise.

James clears up what he meant below.

#348 – Fair enough! Did you also mention that to J.J. as well, out of curiosity?

Thanks James!

353. sean - November 12, 2008


Learn to spell ‘canon’ before you get your panties in a bunch over it.

354. Dennis Bailey - November 12, 2008

#350: “The negative reactons of fans are sound…”

So? Even if that is your *opinion*, that and $3.58 will buy you a double tall mocha at Starbucks.

You can enjoy this movie, or try to make the best of it, or ignore it, or get mad about it – those are, in broad terms, your four main choices.

The fourth option is a pathetic waste of your time and life, no matter how you rationalize and justify the “importance” of being angry.

355. Jorg Sacul - November 12, 2008

Thank you James for coming here and sharing your perspective. You must’ve wanted to bust for the last few months, I’m sure!

From an early quote:
“1960’s Star Trek would look silly on the big screen today.”

I saw the remastered “Menagerie” in a movie theatre. It was awesome. Nothing silly about it…other than a Class-J shuttlecraft chasing the Enterprise, which made a dog chasing a car seem practical. You don’t give enough credit to the artisans who made Trek in the 1960s.

That being said, I’m open minded about this new film, no matter how much that ship design doesn’t (yet) say “Kirk’s USS Enterprise” …to me. I’m a firm believer in the Trek universe being changed with every time travel instance, so I look forward to seeing what the latest ripples in the temporal pond will give us. And if people still can’t deal with the new interpretations? I’ve got a stack of worn VHS tapes labeled “Star Trek”.

IDIC. Read it. Learn it. Live it. ;-)

356. Falvoant - November 12, 2008

355-saw the remastered “Menagerie” in a movie theatre. It was awesome. Nothing silly about it…
Did you notice Spock’s Fax Machine??
1966 WOW……
Another peice of technology we have today that was envisioned by trek!


357. Jughead - November 12, 2008

I’m a Star Trek fan. I would sit in front of the television eating carrots while my Grandpa was hollering at me to get out of the way. I was 2, it was 1967 and it was a daily ritual.
My Grandpa died of a heart attack God rest his soul.
I had the original action figures, the tall ones, must a been about a foot long each, they don’t make em like that anymore.
My kid brother had the Batman figures, he made my mother buy him a purple suit that he wore to church because he wanted to look like the Joker… dumb kid.
I’d go to the corner store every week and spend my allowance on Archie comics & bubble gum, then I’d play with my pals for a while.
I’m mid forties now and have a lot of responsibilities, job, family, but everytime I watch a Star Trek episode, DS9, Voyageur, any Star Trek, it takes me back to that feeling I had as a kid, of wonder… Trek isn’t about the future, it’s about the past.
I visited the forums once when Enterprise was in it’s last season and saw folks arguing about a lot of stupid things like they knew what Star Trek was about, like it was about a bunch of details, and how they were cursing and trying to lecture the people involved in production and everyone else who didn’t agree with them, then they got their wish and Enterprise was off the air… and now a lot of those types are complaining and saying the same kinds of things, and not wanting to see the movie, I hope you all stick to your word. I’ll be first in line… with the rest of my pals.

358. Xai - November 12, 2008

351. The Last Maquis – November 12, 2008
346. Xai

Enough with you Already!!!!

“Got that?”

Take it up with the site owner. If he wants me to not post, I’ll listen to him.

You?…. Not likely.

359. KDoug - November 12, 2008

I’ll say this: There may have been many interpretations of Batman, but they were all done as unrelated continuities. The basic ideas and characters of each TV show, movie series, or comic may have been the same, but there was no requirement or expectation that each story had to be truly consistent with the others. If anything differed greatly between each separate story, it would be a non-issue. But if just one of the stories was obviously inconsistent with itself, it would come across as sloppy.

It strikes me that that’s what we’re seeing here. Yes, taken in and of itself, the new Enterprise design that they’ve come up with looks reasonably nifty, but it doesn’t look at all like a predecessor to the Star Trek TV model. It looks more like a sister of the revamped movie model. It’s not just that they’re showing hull plating. It’s not just that the level of detail is greater. The overall shape of the ship just plain looks like it came out of Star Trek: The Motion picture. If this was supposed to be a new continuity, I wouldn’t mind. But, we’ve been told that this new movie is supposed to be in line with all of the other Star Trek movies and TV shows.

Are we supposed to believe that Starfleet came up with this design originally, then gave the ship an extensive refit to give it the shape of the TV series model, then gave the ship another extensive refit for The Motion Picture, returning it to almost the same design it had originally? It just strikes me as kind of ridiculous.

But, having said that, I will definitely see the new movie. And I probably will enjoy it. And I may even think to myself that the new Enterprise looks pretty good. But in the back of my head, I’ll also be saying to myself that it just doesn’t fit properly in the previously established continuity. (That’s “canon”, for those of you who can’t get enough of that word! ;) )

360. Dr. Image - November 12, 2008

The primary problem with the masses today is their lack of critical thinking.
Just a thought.

Just keep giving us more Phase II. (TRUE Classic Trek.)
We’ll need an antidote, I think.

361. C.S. Lewis - November 12, 2008

351. The Last Maquis – November 12, 2008

Thank you kindly, merci beaucoups even. I thought Xai’s retort was potentailly mean spirited and perhaps not made in good faith.

I’m only explaining that my reaction to what I’ve seen is causing me to, quite rationally, assume this movie will be substantially similar to other movies that have used similar techniques to market themselves and have had similar design ethics to their physical sets (the CSI Miami/NCIS and clones come to mind which, while entertaining somewhat, entertain as live-action comic book stories).

This is a valid deduction based on a lifetime of intelligent experience making deductions and decisions based on them. Please don’t try to trivialize my life’s experience and the judgment that comes of it, sir. I think you would expect no less in return.

But to my point, this movie appears to me closer to the Planet of the Apes remake and the CSI:Miami/NCIS worlds of live action cartoons, evidently meant as light entertainment or an evening’s diversion rather than thought provoking or profound.

And that makes me sad as a lost opportunity in a time when profound thought would be very welcome.

C.S. Lewis

362. Xai - November 12, 2008

#361 C.S. Lewis

No C.S., Myresponse to you was not intended to be mean-spirited. But I’d rather you spoke directly to me if you have a concern.
I can see where my post to you could have been misconstrued as mean. I apologize for not being clear.
I appreciate your concerns for what your family views, but I cannot see where anyone can make a judgement based on second hand knowledge and assumption. We have bits and pieces of story, images and the credentials of the talents involved… but not a complete package. My wish for you is to see the movie yourself prior to taking the child. Then decide. I loved Trek growing up… if this movie is an heir to the title, I’d hate to see a child of today being denied it.

363. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

I expect the film to be a success, and agree with James Cawley that the bridge certainly looked impressive. Jim, I do think many of us will revert even stronger into “our” Trek vs. “new” Trek, but I think it will be a negative for the franchise. This is what I am most concerned about, and what distresses me the most. I fully expect to have to put up with newbies badmouthing original Trek as compared to this one. I see it often on this website. The countless people who hate, yes hate William Shatner, TNG, Enterprise, whatever. Many even hate New Voyages! It’s this strange Internet world I guess.

I spent the first 15 years of Trek fandom discussing with classmates, or reading the Larry Nemechek’s ST Communicator, or chatting on AOL. It was very cordial, very intelligent, and usually complimentary. Granted Berman soured a lot of that, notably during Enterprise, and most seriously when they wrote 9-11 into season 2/3. The last 5 years have been very negative. It’s difficult to find a Trek site or topic on a message board that isn’t filled with some degree of anger. I feel this film will probably add to that.

I am not a fan of remakes, but I was still hopeful that they would leave most of the canon and visual elements unchanged from TOS. As James said, this will be something different. I suppose that fine, but I was hoping for something more authentic. It seems they are departing a lot from TOS and that is disappointing, and honestly unnecessary if you ask me.

364. The Last Maquis - November 12, 2008

Post all you want, just let other People Post what they want as well with out You criticizing them about it.

Very well Then, Anthony, I am Not the kind who Tattles on Others,
but Xai is jumping on everyone.

(I’m like “Conan” Praying to Crom over here)…..”and if you do not Listen”………

365. TL - November 12, 2008

BRAVO #350

JJ’s Enterprise does not respect the original!

366. Tommy Servo - November 12, 2008

Although I have been a life-long fan, I have never given a rats ass about “canon” or Roddenberry’s vision. I just simply liked the characters and stories. There was always a certain “charm” to the cheesy costumes and 60’s effects. And I was always fascinated (no pun intended) with the behind-the-scenes stuff (I have probably read “The Making of Star Trek” a hundred times).
That being said, I still have problems with the new Enterprise design and what we have seen of the Apple Store bridge set. Something about it just does not “feel” right. Like I wrote in a previous post, I hope the story is so good that this other stuff doesn’t matter. Lord willing I will be in a theater seat opening day, and I still hold out hope that I will be blown away.
And I agree that most of the haters here are taking it waaay too far. No matter what type of film comes out in May, your collective childhoods are safe.

367. snoopytrek - November 12, 2008

Do I not recall…and it’s been said on this page and others…that Mr Cawley had visited the set, saw the new E design and was totally opposed to the whole re-image concept, the new E design, etc? Have I also not read that the reason he has ‘come to terms’ as it were, is because (and I think I would have kept this to himself) he has a part in the film and Abrams and probably the studio by this ‘convinced’ him to be more positive about project? Heck, as much as a fan as he is, I would’ve told people anything, like I DID vote for Obama, just to get a walk-on in a Trek project.

368. The Last Maquis - November 12, 2008

#361. C.S. Lewis

That makes a lot of sense, actually. especially when you compare it to Planet of the Apes, I Thought The Make up, and Design was Inspired and Even Tim Roth did a Good job, however the Overall story and Wooden Walhberg just brought it all down for Me. I felt like it was a Huge Missed Opportunity on the part of Tim Burton’s.

369. Mark - November 12, 2008

“Cannon and cannon! What is cannon?!”

370. Greg2600 - November 12, 2008

Tim Burton was not the original director of Planet of the Apes. He was brought in late in the game, after the project had become a disaster. He probably should not have taken the job, but he was so personally inspired by the original film and novel that he wanted to do his best to fix it. Sadly, he also was forced to inherit Mark Wahlberg as the lead…….

371. Xai - November 12, 2008

#367 Snoopy

Read up. Cawley clarified all

372. 750 Mang - November 12, 2008



373. thomoz - November 12, 2008

Cawley – if I can buy a Kirk w/ his own hair (YOU)
then I can buy this Enterprise. Enough said!

btw, love your show (Phase II).

374. Jeffrey S. Nelson - November 12, 2008

Would have been more happy if James Cawley was at the helm of this big screen adventure design-wise…

375. Xai - November 12, 2008



376. Tin_Man - November 12, 2008


The ship looks terrible. The premise is a joke. I’ve been a fan for well over 20 years and this is the end of the line for me.

Chat this wreck up all you want, I’m not giving paramount another dime for this crap!

Trek is not Batman and shouldn’t be compared to it, just because Batman can’t get his canon straight doesn’t mean Trek has to sink to those levels.

377. Orbitalic - November 12, 2008

376. Tin_Man – November 12, 2008

See you at the theater.

378. Shi Don Yu - November 12, 2008

This is ridiculous!
Over 40 years of uninterrupted continuity have just been jettisoned out the photon torpedo tubes!
I honestly hope this piece of crap fails miserably. That way Paramount will realize that a “reboot” was NOT the answer. Then perhaps cooler heads will prevail and Paramount will put the next Trek film in the correct continuity.

I will not spend a dime on J.J. Abrams’ “folly”!

379. John Kirk - November 12, 2008

Thanks James,
I was looking for the words to say this morning, but didn’t have the time. I do not understand some “fans” of Trek who continually look for reasons to “knock” what they supposedly love.
I consider myself a die hard Trek fan, since I was 13 years old in 1972. I missed the original run, and became a fan through syndication, as so many of us did.
I can spout dialog from the original episodes on a whim, an while I also loved TNG (To your point, much different than the original Trek, that immediately generated huge fan concern, deja vu?), the original series remains my favorite.
I am HUGELY looking forward to this movie. It seems the studio is also HUGELY putting $$ into the franchise they’ve never done, and the writing staff and director are top notch.

What else could we possibly ask for? Hello?

All of the negativity is harmful to the franchise. Be thankful the studio is doing what they are doing. I personally am, and will be first in line in May.

John Kirk
Abbottstown, PA

380. P Technobabble - November 12, 2008

I, also, want to thank Mr. Cawley for all of your Trekkian efforts, and the enjoyment I have derived from those efforts. I want to salute you for the incredible accomplishment you have achieved in producing a quality series, while expecting nothing in return. That is the sign of a true artist, I believe. I admire your drive, sir.
I’ve said all along that I’m an original Trekkie since ’66, TOS is my most beloved Star Trek, and I am still keeping an open mind about the film because it’s the STORY that matters more than anything else. I will be judging this movie entirely on STORY. Alright, I’ve said it again, and, no doubt, it’s pointless to keep repeating it.
Apparently it’s also pointless to keep asking for some civility and respect from some of the less mature crowd… they’re all making me ashamed to be part of the same species! I’m hangin with the Vulcans…

381. cellojammer - November 12, 2008

216. Reg

Get help, man. This is truly scary…

382. shat hands - November 12, 2008

Oh that is lovely.

Finally some sense in a world full of fury.

I can’t wait for this film… just hope my heart can handle it

383. Xplodin' Nacelle - November 12, 2008

Thanks James.

I’ll give it a chance, but like you, I’m a die hard TOS fan all the way…no bloody A,B,C, or D.

384. Xai - November 12, 2008

380. P Technobabble – November 12, 2008

“…Apparently it’s also pointless to keep asking for some civility and respect from some of the less mature crowd… they’re all making me ashamed to be part of the same species! I’m hangin with the Vulcans…”

Agreed. Point made… I hope.

385. Bob Tompkins - November 12, 2008

I’ve been a true Trekker since Day One, back in1966. I’ve watched the consequent movies and series come and go, each one ably juggling canon but never allowing canon to absolutely dictate tone. Breaches of canon are commonplace in every one of the projects. It’s just too much to keep track of now.
I would hope JJ Abrams uses the device of an ‘altered timeline’ to reboot Trek. Using that admittedly overused device perhaps a final time would erase a lot of unwieldy canon; at the end of the movie, Spock would simply look back from the 24th Century [if he even gets back] and conversationally state to someone that he fully remembers ‘both’ histories.
That works for me.

386. Buzz Cagney - November 12, 2008

I have a lot of time for James and what he has achieved so I greatly respect his comments.

387. Reg - November 12, 2008

337 – Stp with those referenes? Well Id like to see people

Xai? I find what’s being done to my childhood heroes offensive in so many ways too. Maybe, just maybe you understand how thrown away I feel. but I wont expect you to.

Yeah, IDIC all right. Unless an opinion goes against the views of the majority. Then that diversity is stomped out with extreme predjudice.

335 Thomas – Concern for me? Why would you care? Youve obviously got what you want. The majority dont care about the minority. Im going to lose something I loved.

All right Anthony. You win. Ill be quiet and allow this place to be the “JJ’s Yes Men” Forum. Its clear that a differing opinion is going to be squashed or treated with contempt. YOuve already censored me once

You people have won. Youve got your shiny new movie.

388. montreal paul - November 12, 2008

387. Reg

You don’t like what’s done with the new movie? Fine. It’s simple. SHUT UP AND DON’T SEE IT. Stop being such a drama queen. You are embarassing yourself.

389. CMX54 - November 12, 2008

I’m looking forward to the Ed Wood version, STAR TREK: PLAN 9! :)

390. S.E. Dogaru - November 12, 2008

okay okay okay,

i have been reading this site, and following the discussions pretty much since day one, and have not posted much, because it seems to be a pointless invite to a verbal battle with people who are so blinded by their love of (lets face it) a franchise that has not only seen better days, but has RARELY lived up to it’s own amazing potential (i.e. all the promise of The Cage). i think that is one thing we all share here, an absolute LOVE of that potential. of our potential as a species to overcome petty differences and act as one people t words common and amazing goals. in a way, all the bickering here over (yes) minute irrelevancies is the antithesis of the heart of Star Trek.

and just to be clear, this film is NOT a prequel, it is NOT an illustration of ‘how things really looked’, nor is it moving in to in any way ‘replace’ what is already there. it IS however, a ground zero retelling of our favorite story. that’s it in a nut shell. they are taking the concepts that were never realized to full fruition in their time due to budget constraints, creative oversight, meddling executives, and poor ratings, and they are strengthening these concepts with insight that we as an audience and society have gained over the last 40 years and giving us a newly relevant parable for the dreams and aspirations of an amazing species.

and here i thought Star Trek fans the world over were supposed to be known for upholding such ideals as not judging something based on partial information and first impressions. remember when Starfleet hated the Klingons? we just had to get to know them a little better… lets do the same for the new proud crew, of our favorite proud ship. let’s see how she handles first before we decide if we like it or not.

391. cellojammer - November 13, 2008

388. Montreal Paul


You don’t like what’s done with the new movie? Fine. It’s simple. SHUT UP AND DON’T SEE IT. Stop being such a drama queen. You are embarassing yourself.


Wow, I wouldn’t have been that hard on a person so obviously in need of perspective…

…but HIGH FIVE!! Oh, that needed to be said.

392. ShawnP - November 13, 2008

Reg gave in! Yesss!!!
And that’s MISTER Yes Man, thanks!

393. Andy Patterson - November 13, 2008


” we BELIEVE it. Utterly.

We never see paper mache rocks, fake planetscapes or substandard visual effects (which were, at the time, beyond state of the art), we see a universe we can believe in. The planets look the way they look because…well…THAT’S THE WAY THEY LOOK. ”


Man, I’m with you. That’s the way I’ve always been. And I believe I’m with you on everything you said. I never questioned the effects of the original show. I never even knew they were bad until I started reading that in newer generation’s assessments and reviews of the show. I remember when the 20th anniversary rolled around and mags like TVGuide described the show as campy, and with bad effects. But then again, as a kid, I bought everything Batman said and did as gospel. (Except the episode where they sang there way out of a player piano trap that Liberace had set. Let’s face it. That one just seemed too silly to me)

I also believe you are probably right and very perceptive when you describe how you think JJ sees the original show and characters as. That makes sense and that also makes me sad. My Star Trek is my Star Trek. My Kirk is real as it gets, dammit! And shallow of me or not, it makes me disappointed in JJ that he doesn’t see the greatness that I grew up seeing.



I must admit, it’s only dawned on me lately how some people see the original show. I’m not quite sure how to feel about that. I’ve long been too stubborn and idealistic to admit it. Funny, it’s taken people like you, with my point of view to help me realize that. “In another life…I might have called you….friend.”

I’ve also said I may enjoy this movie for what it is. And yes, I’ll be there in line but…… I don’t believe it will be my Star Trek. We’ll see, won’t we?

Think I’ll go on being a bit stubborn and idealistic though.

394. Captain Robert April - November 13, 2008

I know this is repeating things a bit, but it needs saying again.

Why does the Batman analogy not work?

Because Star Trek is not Batman.

Besides the fact that, in the case of Batman, the source material had already been “rebooted” about fifteen times before Tim Burton even signed the contract (so what was done in those two movies wasn’t all that better or worse than when Columbia did those two serials in the 40’s), it’s a different matter when you’re doing a movie based on a pre-existing property. Michael Keaton didn’t originate the character of Batman, nor did Adam West, or the guys in the aforementioned serials. Sean Connery did not originate the character of James Bond.

Star Trek IS the source material. There were no Star Trek novels prior to September 8, 1966, so there was nobody to complain about how the ship didn’t look right, or how William Shatner is completely wrong for Kirk, what was on screen is the source material from which all other Star Trek related material is derived, including the look of the ship, interiors, uniforms, weapons, equipment, etc.

Frankly, this highly polished turd shouldn’t even have a “Based on Star Trek” credit. At best, “Inspired by Star Trek”, at worst, “Any resemblance between the characters and situations presented and Star Trek is purely coincidental.”

My prediction: This thing will do a stunning imitation of “Ishtar” at the box office, while “Blood and Fire” will break all records for downloads.

James, I’m glad you clarified your position on the redesigns, I was beginning to worry. And while I appreciate the thought and attitude behind the happy talk, I cannot, in good conscience, support a project that, in my opinion, will do serious, possibly irreparable, harm to the franchise as a whole. Your stuff is great for the franchise, and demonstrates how strict adherence to the original designs and continuity doesn’t have to be a barrier to creativity, and can even enhance it, but it’s still, in the grand scheme of things, pretty low on the radar.

This film is gonna be on everybody’s sensors, and that ’57 Caddy starship in the ads could do more damage than a Sci-Fi Channel marathon of nothing but “Spock’s Brain”.

Every time the front office pinheads decide to “make a Star Trek for the mass audience”, it’s an unmitigated disaster. ST IV was probably one of the most fan friendly films of the lot, and it was the highest grossing film of ’em all, while Nemesis, targeted specifically for the non-fan, has yet to make its money back.

All I can say is get ready for history to repeat itself.

By any chance does J-Lo have a movie opening that weekend?

395. Devon - November 13, 2008

Oh look, it’s Captain Robert April repeating himself and still unsure of what he’s talking about. You honestly think Star Trek 4 was targeted just for the fans? REALLY? Ha!

396. jetflock - November 13, 2008

Well, I hope they make it clear why everything is the way it is-instead of just a reboot. “Universe 1″ would be the entire 40 years up till a bit after Nemesis…..”Universe 2″ would regard the Borg stuff left on earth in First Contact, past altering events of Enterprise, and Nero’s wacky adventures- creating an alternate timeline, a new universe, or twisting of the original universe, which in effect would not exist without “Universe 1″- so the past 40 years of canon would be relevant….
Atleast I hope Nemoy will explain that things are being fucked around with….

397. Deebo Shanks - November 13, 2008

#38– Hahaha, Star Trek has already been trivialized. It happened in 1966. Gene Roddenberry, despite what the fans and cast say, was not looking to show the world what it could be! He was in it for the money. They even said as much in FC! Watch that movie and read up a little on Mr. Roddenberry, and tell me Zephram Cochran wasn’t a jab at Gene! It’s all right there when Z. says he had no vision. He didn’t see a future with mankind reaching towards the stars, he saw dollar signs. Money. He didn’t build the warp ship to usher in a new era for mankind, he build it so he could spend the rest of his life on a beach with naked women! And if you pay attention to the true history of Roddenberry, you’ll see that was him. If you watch the original series, you see the rampant womanizing going on, the mindless sexcapades of Jim Kirk. That has remained a mainstay, mostly. From Deanna Troi in her tight pajamas to Seven of Nine and T’Pol! Come on!

Now as a comic fan, I don’t have a problem accepting time travel, parallel universes, or any of that good crap. But I feel lied to by Abrams and his group. I feel like the old universe still has a lot of good stories to tell. They didn’t have to erase the last 40 years. They could have jumped ahead, simply called it Star Trek and not mentioned anything that went before. That would have been just as good. And it kills me that all of these people on here are getting so angry at those of us who want canon preserved! Why!? Why can’t we have our opinion? I would like to be able to state my opinion without getting mobbed by the bobble-heads who nod in agreement with everything JJ and his team put out! Grow some sack! Only three years ago, you people were blasting Berman and Braga for Enterprise and Voyager. Now you’re telling me I should be grateful for this movie? You say this is better than no Trek at all? Well I would rather have no Trek at all, honestly. I would rather have them wait until someone with -real- reverence for this franchise comes into play. I don’t love Star Trek because of its “ideal” future. I don’t love Star Trek because everyone is liberal and happy in the future and no one ever has any problem with anyone (among humans). I say that is and always has been Star Trek’s BIGGEST FAULT! And that crap only really started happening in TNG when Roddenberry started believing his own myth! TOS has conflict and some really lovable characters. Real heroes who weren’t afraid of a scrape with each other. That’s why DS9 was so terrific! TNG, VOY, and even ENT (why they were so evolved I’ll never understand) were saddled with an invisible cloak of sanitation that kept the programs so sterile, there was no possibility of Star Trek growing beyond a formula. THAT’S why Star Trek faltered. Not because of 40 year old canon that some lame-brain executive thinks is too convoluted. Because it simply stopped being interesting. DS9 did it right (in the last four years). There were more stories to be told. But Paramount and JJ and everyone else is so hot to scream “reboot” these days… not for any discernible reason, either. Just because they can do it instead of actually having the imagination to conjure something original. And they know it will seem fresh and innovative at first. But really, it’s just upping the tempo on an old song. Some young people might think it’s something new, but will only get side-tracked by the next bit of saccharine to come lurching into theaters with a 200 mill budget. And the older folks who remember Star Trek for what it was and used to be? For stories that made you think about both sides of an argument? For characters that were more than arcs, for ships that had a lineage and iconography about them that made your heart swell when they appeared on screen? They’re going to see a flash in the pan. They’ll shake their heads and cluck their tongues, and they’ll wonder, “what happened to good stories? Why can’t movies make you think anymore? Why is all just action and young people trying to erase what older men did much better?” And they will realize as I have that the answer is that young executives want to make their mark on the world. Young filmmakers want to change everything and remake everything, and when someone mentions The Day the Earth Stood Still or Star Trek or Transformers, they want you to say, “Oh, yeah that movie was awesome!” and they want you to be thinking of their movie. They want today’s generation to ignore the original material because by comparison, few writers, producers, filmmakers can even come close to making anything with that kind of depth.

398. The Last Maquis - November 13, 2008

Okay Here is a Possible side View that’s not just a Silhouette.Cheers


399. Sam Belil - November 13, 2008

#385,”I would hope JJ Abrams uses the device of an ‘altered timeline’ to reboot Trek. Using that admittedly overused device perhaps a final time would erase a lot of unwieldy canon; at the end of the movie, Spock would simply look back from the 24th Century [if he even gets back] and conversationally state to someone that he fully remembers ‘both’ histories” If you have been reading any of many posts I have been stating that my prediction is: As a result of future Spock going back in time, we WILL ALTER the TOS universe as we KNOW IT/KNEW IT!!!! This would explain the following:
1-A Starship Enterprise that is NOT THE ONE we have seen in the ST Franchise for the 40+ Years
2-Uhura, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov reporting to Captain Pike
3-No Number 1
4-No Gary Mitchell
5-No Charles Garrovick, USS Farragut
6-No Dr Boyce
7-No Lee Kelso
8-No Carol Marcus
I mean i can go on and on. This is a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of the TOS Universe. And as I have stated before, MARK MY WORDS ON THIS, “doomed Captain Pike” (as referred to in the EW article), will meet a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FATE, than the one he met in the events leading up to “The Menagerie”. Be the house on that!!!!

400. Bryan With Pointy Nacelles And Large Disk - November 13, 2008

New Enterprise re-design a mistake for this very fact .
All of the series/movies were filmed linear, past to future, and the ships became more streamlined and designed as a natural progression.
However this ship looks like could be situated during the “c” and the “e” incarnations. What was necessary to do was to go look at Matt Jefferies earliest versions of the Enterprise and make it fit before the TV pilot version. I don’t understand why the series “Enterprise” had to horribly muck-up the look soooooo badly.
Again, the new ship doesn’t fit in the order she was supposedly produced.
My take it looks like a Buick, not even your fathers Oldsmob….er ah Enterprise!

401. Bijillm shkaitnrerk - November 13, 2008

Im gonna love this movie just as much for the way it looks and the people that are involved in making it as I am for the geeks and nerds who for whatever stupid reasons ( and there are many ) are gonna hate it or have already decided to hate it.

Cmon do you want to keep cardbord sets and wooden acting for multimillion dollar effects and seasoned, successful talent.

We all love whatever we love about trek but to keep it going boldly on it NEEDS to change. No political analogy needed but Trek needs this reboot as much as the whole world does in its thinking so maybe a little bit more open mindedness is apt for both situations.
Live long and prosper.
Do not however live, prosper and long.

402. Chadwick - November 13, 2008

I usually post on trekweb.com but all over the net I have come across people who are so upset at the look of the new Enterprise they refuse to see the movie! Stupid isn’t it? I just have a little something to say for you naysayers.
I defend JJ’s ideas and Ryan Church’s design of the Enterprise. Sometimes I wish that people involved with Star Trek’s past could have had a hand in this but Hollywood does not always work that way, neither do Paramount executives, but maybe that is a good thing as it lets new talent and ideas form.
To further what James Cawley said, the Batman series was a great example but I can give you all a better one. What movie is the Star Trek trailer going to be screened with…James Bond. How many times has James bond been made over, change, reinvented, altered, manipulated…WITH ALMOST EVERY MOVIE! The essence stays the same the suave and debonair secret agent. But do the films progress in a cannon timeline format? NO. Every Bond films more or less takes place at the same time, it’s like Bond never ages but time never moves forward. The same with Batman. There are now 22 Bond films and they are all great! Do you think Ian Fleming would complain about that? NO! Just as Gene would not complain about this new movie. As well as being a Star Trek fan I am also James Bond fan and a Batman fan. I love all the movie (even with their shortcomings,) they are what they are. If you don’t accept it that’s fine, but I would rather find some small way to accept or relate to something therefore I can enjoy it rather then being cynical, raising my blood pressure and spewing bad Karma. Everyone has the right to say what they want but a negative comment is just that, a negative comment and that will never change unless you deem it so.
In JJ’s defense faithful might not mean to the cannon but to the fans and the true spirit of Star Trek, which we all know is what really matters. I don’t have to tell you that Gene Roddenberry is smiling right now. It’s not about the ship it’s about the greater message that HAS to be conveyed or its no longer Star Trek. You know I am talking about empathy, kindness, accepting people for who they are, respect of all life, etc, the true good in our hearts and empathy is what Star Trek was always about, striving to change for the better.
Need I remind you of some quotes of Gene:
“I would be happy for Star Trek to come along decades later with a new group of minds. I’d love someone to say, ‘Besides this one, Gene Roddenberry’s was nothing!’” – Gene Roddenberry, Starburst magazine
“…I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow’s things to tomorrow’s generations…” – Gene Roddenberry
We all know Gene Roddenberry was a beautiful human-being with the hopes and dreams he had for humanity and his relentless kindness and tolerance towards all people and all cultures which he dreamt all humans would one day share. We all know that Gene’s dream is what we want to become reality, is the reason why we watch Star Trek, it is what MUST be kept alive, not the style of the ship. All secondary issues like the cool technology, awesome ships, and three breasted feline women are simply “sauce for the goose,” it would not be Star Trek without it but is not essential to the message and the meaning of Star Trek. And trust me, I am an anal and obsessive when it comes to Trek cannon as I see it as a future I want to exist, all us Trek fans do, we all want it written in stone. I can quote lines from TV episodes at the drop of a hat. Ask me when the Romulan war took place, when Daedalus class vessels were decommissioned or when the Enterprise C was commissioned and I can give you dates. I really did want to see the old 60’s ship in all its HD glory with today’s technology, especially with the descriptions they give about the movie and how flying by the Enterprise you can see the panels of the outer hull. But I am also open to a new ship and that is what Ryan Church has given us. Don’t new designers and writers have a right to express themselves? Lets be happy that there are many Star Trek fans working on this movies and its not made by people who have no idea what Star Trek is and have no feelings toward it.
I strongly urge anyone who does not want to see this movie to reconsider. I am only 25 but have been a Trek fan since I was four years old as TNG had just began its first season and I watched equal amounts of TOS reruns, not to mention the movies. As a youth and teen I had the privilege of Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, and some more movies. I don’t know how long many of you have been fans for but we all feel the same in our hearts when we watch Star Trek.
I remember seeing the first spy photos of people on set in black uniforms with military type hats thinking..that does not look very Starfleet, it looks military, but I let it slide because time travel and parallel universes are easy explanations. Then we all saw the bridge and I was thinking, WOW they really changed it, but it looks good, it has a 70’s feel and I love 1970’s Sci-fi. Even though I was not born till 83, I would have loved if today I could watch a Star Trek TV series made in the 70’s. Phase II should have been happened. We saw the new uniforms and they look great. At a first glimpse of the ship I didn’t like it, (mainly those bulky nacelles) but I am human we all are, and we can adapt. The nacelles have grown on me, as I said I am a 70’s sci-fi junkie and this fits into that.
Ill admit I have my shortcomings as well. Being a huge Trek geek, I was using the cannon to look for a way for this story, this ship to fit in. Could this be one of the refits, time travel = alternate universe, and in the end I realized I was trying to make this fit into the cannon so I could be satisfied with my cannon junkie side, lol, and forgot that I wanted to see this movie no matter what it looks like or what has changed…why? Because it is Star Trek, it is Gene’s dream that has simply been expanded upon. Just as every story changes with the person who tells it, the story teller is always aware and respectful of the true spirit, its essence and beginning that can never be butchered or cannibalized because its is a story of true good, of empathy and compassion.
When Gene passed in 1991 most people thought Star Trek might be over with TNG, Star Trek’s father is gone. But there were enough good people who knew Gene’s vision inside and out and Star Trek continued staying true to the formula. DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and 5 movies were made without Gene, but watching them.. it felt like he was a part of it. And now Star Trek XI! Gene would be very happy!
Again I urge you to go see the movie, give it a chance. This movie is supposed to expand the Star Trek audience which is a good thing. Star Trek speaks about the truth of good, what could be nobler then that. I would hate to see a humans dream as noble as like Star Trek loose a fan because of the appearance of a model ship! Put your skepticism and cynicism aside and have faith, I mean that is what Star Trek is about, right?

403. Peter Parker 000 - November 13, 2008

James Cawley speaks the truth. This is Star Trek for the loyal fans and the new audience. This is just another version of the series we all love.

Guys, it’s not just about the ship. It’s about Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise.

Thanks, Mr. Cawley.

404. Aldo F. Rodriguez - November 13, 2008

THIS IS A DISASTER! IT IS NOT CANON!!! IT’S uh…IT’S Uhmmm…oh whatever(enough with that old gag). I’m going to end up seeing this movie regardless and enjoy it just the same. It’s Star Trek and, Dammit Jim, I’m going to like it! After all, have we all forgotten about IDIC? Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations? I have a feeling this movie will embrace that and then some. It this will revive the franchise then so be it! Since the cancelleation of Enterprise. I’ve been enjoying the online exploits of Phase II (Excellent work, by the way, Mr.Cawley! It took me awile to see you as James T. Kirk but you and your gallant crew succeeded in making me a fan. Keep on Trekkin’!), Exeter (need more, please; B’Fuselek rocks!), Farragut (awesome Alternate Universe twist ending in ‘For Want of a Nail’), Intrepid (Nick, you da man!) and the others.
It’ll take getting a bit used to the new Big E design, but hey, the Enterprise-D grew on me after some time too. Let’s give it chance, folks.
I will still hold a place in my heart for Connie (the original and movie version of the Constitution-class, just to clarify this for my wife ;-) but I will be open for this new diversity in this new combination.
Looking foward to seeing your cameos, James and Chris (Doohan)!

Live Long and Prosper and may God Bless You all. 0:-)

405. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

Sorry James, the Batman/James Bond/Superman arguement has been given many times in threads over at st.com and as always I say you can’t compare them.

Audiences are used to those franchises being rebooted regularly. News of someone new being cast as Bond or Batman is a routine thing, almost expected. Remember, in the time we’ve seen all six men who have played James Bond, six men play Supeman/Superboy, and five men play Batman (not to mention five women in the role of Catwoman), only ONE set of actors have been synonymous with the TOS crew…a recast is something not easily swallowed to begin with. But to change everything they can that surrounds those characters just magnifies the scale of what they’re doing.

Second, we have a director who can say something like: “If you’re going to do Star Trek there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you’re going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?” then we find out the Enterprise looks the way it does. What’s this thing that’s supposed to be a Constitution class starship? What was so wrong that they couldn’t update the basic design of the original like Gabe Koerner and others have, instead of making change just for change’s sake so they have something that looks “cool” for the general public? “Organic” has no purpose or need in space. Efficiency and functionality does, that why Jefferies designed the ship that way.

Then again, said same director has also said how this movie isn’t for fans of Star Trek, it’s for fans of movies. Guess that’s his way of saying what we think doesn’t matter much. After all, the man who at first assured us that what they were making would respect canon and be able to fit into the established timeline has let us know more recently how he “didn’t love Kirk and Spock” when he started making the movie and how he wasn’t really a TOS fan.

Will it inspire people to buy TOS DVDs? Maybe, maybe not. More than likely the general public that does see the movie probably wouldn’t find TOS flashy or gee-whiz enough, or would find it, what’s the words usually used, cheesy and old. Worst of all, TOS would make them have to pay attention to a storyline. And it wouldn’t be a hip, college age cast, placed products and cool effects.

Sorry James, to me, if they can’t even get the Enterprise herself right, my small optimism for the movie is getting less and less.

406. Colonial One - November 13, 2008

We Star Trek fans should be eager to “boldly go where no man has gone before”, this new film with new crew and new actors is a “strange new world”, and to be as prejudiced as we are being this days regarding this new film it is a very “un-star trek” sentiment. Star Trek philosophy is to embrace the new, the strange, to welcome the unknown… I dont think all the negativity to the new film fits with all that…

407. King Zooropa - November 13, 2008

You know, if you were a complete stranger to Star Trek, and then came and read these comment threads, you would think that it was a terrible show and terrible film series. Seriously, 90% of what you read around here is “This sucks!” or “That sucks!” and “Bring back Shatner, or I won’t go see it!”

Grow up, people.

408. Scifigirl - November 13, 2008

Very well said. I can’t believe that some people get upset because the nacelles of the new E are a few centimeters smaller than the original ship or that the deflector dish is too wide or whatever other structural difference there may be. Seriously, who cares??!! Listen to Mr. Cawley, he’s the voice of reason…

#23 – It’s ««««KARL URBAN»»»», not Keith Urban… *sighs* Last time I checked, Karl Urban didn’t sing country tunes….

409. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 13, 2008

i sort of understand the “wings” commentary now, i think. or atleast how some people might have had that reaction. like JC, I do not agree with that though.

JC™, thanks for bringing your POV. I think thats what we need, as fans, right now in these uncertain times.

Kevin Smith can say that he loves the movie all day long, that and a nickel will get him a hot cup of jack squat with us.

JC, you’ve made things more settled in the trek universe. thanks man.



410. Sarge - November 13, 2008


What a thread. My sympathies to Anthony and crew for trying to keep up with it.

As background, I’ve worked with James Cawley for almost six years on the New Voyages/Phase II project. I am not a “drinker of the kool-aid”, but I am a fan of Star Trek and have been since I was five-years-old. In private conversations with James and others on the NV/P2 team, we’ve all shown varied opinion of what we’re in for.

Do I like the design of the new Enterprise? No. Do I have to? No. I’m willing to give the movie a chance. If I don’t like it, I’ll not watch it again. I won’t buy the DVD. I’ll not touch it again. But, I’ll give it a chance.

I’ve read the thread (two hours worth of reading) on the picture of the new Big E. I’ve tried to read most of this one (Oh lord, the migraine is coming). I don’t understand the dissention and even anger that is levelled at this new movie and the things that we don’t know for sure. Bob Tompkins is right. It’s speculation, pure and simple. We don’t know if we like it or not yet, because we haven’t seen it yet.

Please bear this in mind.


411. rehabilitated hitch1969© - November 13, 2008

The Sarge© is right, and I am going to be posting with him and JC™ at the phase II site more in the future. These are reasonable men in what only can be described as a somewhat unreasonable situation.

SO many people want this movie to be great, and it probably IS great. I read through some of these comments though… presumptive comes to mind. Defensive comes to mind. Internalized, selfish… comes to mind.

Its like just as soon as we get some tangibles from something we’ve been waiting for for 3 years… oh yeah, SHOW ME THE ENTERPRISE comments in every story here for how long? Someone finally shows it to you and then its forgive me for I know not that for which I ask.

Can you imagine this Ryan Church dude? How many of you dudes are old fashioned kind of guys like me? Oh how we like our gals to be demure and respectful. We dont want action on a first date… nope. We want to be able to respect the chick. We use our mother for that standard – we are looking for the mother’s of our sons out there. So imagine… by our own standards… us, framing all the issues… we happen to find the right chick! And we date for 3 years… and NOTHING. Just the way we want it.

Then its finally time for the coitus, after 3 long years of playing it OUR WAY. She’s been everything you’ve ever hoped and more. And the time comes… and you get to that point where the shedding of cloth finally happens – the shedding of the loincloth, the final figleaf, as Al Pacino tells us in Devils Advocate. And then your Miss Perfect suddenly freaks out, breaks into laughter and says that she cannot consummate with you, that the sight of your manhood was a dealbreaker. Wasn’t what she expected. It didn’t look right. EVEN THOUGH, its the basically the same standard issue in concept that every other dude has. THIS one, she was insulted by.

Then, 1500 more posts on the internet that your mac is too PC to be a real mac. Maybe its running Office 2007 a little too well or something? For all you knew, you had the macciest of all macs. And now you’ve lost your girl, and you’re questioning your mac.

Hows that gonna make you feel, fellas? Well just go ask Sir JJ and Ryan Church about now.



412. Ryan T. Riddle - November 13, 2008

I’ve come to regard this film, like a do Superman comics, as being variations on a theme. The same characters, setting and backgrounds but visually different depending on who’s doing it.

In any case, I continue to look forward to this movie.

413. Pensive's Wetness - November 13, 2008

Wait and see. 411 posts = drama. i’m still gonna go see the movie eventually, drama be damed…

and Mr Crawley? Thank you and thank you to the folks that work with you. New voyages and Phase II is still tops on favorites for Fan films. JJ’s Ent might look ugh but maybe it might grow (it took me 1/2 the season to tollerate the few negative’s about Macross Frontier [Few. VERY FEW]) on me.

So pass the popcorn and shut off the phone, please?

414. Bennie - November 13, 2008

#39 : May I point out to you that you are of an almost extinct breed! Many people did not grow up with TOS, and frankley , find the TOS series, in terms of visual and story telling viewpoint, not very entertaining. Hell I think it sucks!
But I do enjoy all other incarnations of Trek. Some a little more than others. And if I have to choose between not trek or JJ’s vision of trek, my choice is made.
I hope the movie rocks and sell’s, so that we all can enjoy some more trek.

415. Jorg Sacul - November 13, 2008

At the end of this film, “Classic” Spock will be sitting in an office on 1964 Earth, speaking to an ex-policeman, now screenwriter named Gene. He’ll be telling a tale of great adventure and action, with much human component added. Unwilling to violate the Prime Directive, Spock tells Gene the magnificent story that Gene later presents (and then re-presents) to the network that becomes the “Star Trek” of our collective unraped childhood memories…

There’s your final solution. Star Trek Lives.

And if I may add one final thing, James– Thank you for New Voyages and Phase II. You’ve given us Trek when we needed it most.

416. The Underpants Monster - November 13, 2008

You’re a class act, Mr. Cawley. Can’t wait for the next Phase II episode!

417. The Underpants Monster - November 13, 2008

I’d like to add that every time a “new” version of a classic comes out, it almost always sparks public interest in the originals. If the new movie interests people enough that they go back and watch the TV and film series, that’s wonderful. If they don’t like the older stuff after seeing the newer, then they probably would never have become serious fans anyway.

418. Holger - November 13, 2008

James Cawley: “No one will confuse this new feature with The Original, or vice versa.”

If only JJ Abrams and his people had said this: Don’t confuse it with the original! This is a reboot!
But they haven’t. They have maneuvered around this question like skilled politicians, inventing a new R-word every week. And I still don’t see a clear statement about this issue.

419. Tin_Man - November 13, 2008

377. Orbitalic – November 12, 2008
376. Tin_Man – November 12, 2008

See you at the theater.


I will down load it for FREE just so I can have a fully informed opinion of this wreck.

But just because it has Star Trek in the title doesn’t mean I’m going to just toss my money at it.

Which by the way is what they are hoping we all do because they think we’re a bunch of geeks that will accept anything Star Trek related.

Anyone who has read the scene samples from this garbage knows it’s a tweenie fest not meant for anyone over the age of 16 (at best)

I love how sites like this are filled with virial marketing studio cronnies who plant glowing oppinions about this crap and say shame on the rest of us for expressing a negative response.

420. CarlG - November 13, 2008

Never really got into the whole fan-produced stories, but Mr. Cawley sounds like a seriously classy dude, with a very sensible outlook. Bravo.

@418: So, you’re worried that this made-up story won’t be as real as the other made-up stories?

421. SMSgt Bob - November 13, 2008

Mr. Crawley asked the question, “What is wrong if this film is different?” As a fan for over 30 years, to me Star Trek is more then a “franchise”…it is a national treasure. In the 60s, when the world was on the verge of nuclear annihilation and racial intolerance and violence was on the nightly news Star Trek gave us hope that humanity could make it to the 23rd century. That no matter ones race or nationality, humanity would make it to the stars, together.

But now the most recognized symbol of Star Trek, the USS Enterprise, is being totally redesigned for what– in order to sell more toys this Christmas. Matt Jeffries design is timeless; it is the only sci-fi space ship in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. There is nothing wrong with giving the Big E a little more texture or detail for the big screen. However, Mr. Abrams has gone too far by totally changing our beloved Enterprise to appeal to non Star Trek fans, who really don’t care what the ship looks like as long as the space battles are like Star Wars…that is what is wrong with this film. Unfortunately, I will not have the opportunity to see the film when it comes out, I will be deployed to Iraq…I hope you all enjoy it.

But remember there is only one TOS Enterprise and this ain’t it.

422. troubled tribble - November 13, 2008

Hey Reg, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…. or the one. lol Just a little “canon” for you to digest. Really, don’t you think you are being just a little too serious about a movie. I love Star Trek too, but if a movie can “rape my childhood”, then I think I might be a tribble short of a grain compartment. Buy a DVD player dude… the older stuff isn’t going anywhere. And now you are so mad at JC that you will probably not see anything new he makes out of spite, even though it is exactly what you say you want! The guy owns, actually owns, a TOS bridge and writes and produces TOS episodes and you think YOU understand more of what Trek is about…. please. Chill dude. Just a guess, but I don’t think that Roddenberry would find your hostile, uptight attitude very ’23rd century’ optimistic.

423. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

#406, Colonial One:

Only thing is, this movie isn’t something new…it’s going back and treading on ground we are at least a little familiar with.

It’s trying to tell us there are things we remember that never happened.

It’s trying to say the ship we remember didn’t look like that, it looked like this.

They promised us respect of canon and a story that would fit the continuity. I’m not confident at all that we’re getting that.

424. McCoy - November 13, 2008


Yes, how many times has Bond been changed? But not for the better. Change is not always good…and ticket sales are not always an indicator of quality.

425. Ken - November 13, 2008

If there is any “fan backlash,” it is the same silliness that took place with the Battlestar Galactica reboot. I don’t think there are very many “fans” left who are NOT glad that Ron Moore did what he did to re-imagine the original series from the late 70’s. Once they saw it, the actual fans of the new show thought it was amazing. As a fan of both old and new shows, I think the new “take” is far superior.

If you constrain talented people like JJ Abrams and his team too much, the result will be garbage. Or it will be a parody, like Galaxy Quest. As James Cawley says, it is silly to think that things will look and be the same. Of course it will be different; change should be expected. I would be disappointed if there was no change. The original series was how Gene Roddenberry imagined the future over 40 years ago.

426. P Technobabble - November 13, 2008

RE: NEGATIVE OPINIONS – Perhaps something needs to be clarified. I don’t think any intelligent person here would deny another intelligent person the right to offer a negative opinion, even more so when it is an INFORMED opinion. The problem here is the manner in which some of those opinions are being expressed… out of the mouths of barbarians. We are talking about a movie… a conglomeration of fiction, characters, images, music… I shouldn’t have to explain this to you… we’re talking about a movie. We should all be having fun with this. If there are things you don’t like about it, well, big deal. You will live. Life is full of things we don’t like, anyway — or has that thought never occurred to you? (Now you have something new to thing about) . Does your disapproval mean you have to verbally jump up and down like a cranky infant because you don’t like something? I think it is deplorable the way people toss off comments like “This movie sucks,” or worse. As supposedly intelligent members of the human race, you should be able to offer criticism without stooping to adolescent name-calling and insensitivity… Again, we are talking about a movie. Have the differences in the Enterprise new design (or anything else about the new movie) affected your life? If they have, I suggest you look into some counseling. I should note that these remarks are not aimed at civilized critics, of which there are some, and are the proof you don’t have to be a snert or a troll or whatever it is they call you.
I’m sure the producers of this new film are capable of enduring the negativity, but they shouldn’t have to, and they deserve a big apology from all the little demons.

427. sean - November 13, 2008


Well, the latest change to Bond saved it from being a permanent punchline, so hopefully JJ’s change will do the same for Trek.

428. Bob Tompkins - November 13, 2008

Bond, Superman [sort of], Batman, all have survived and even flourished even with massive changes- lead actors, swings from campy to action-adventure to downright dramatic. A new vision Superman is in the works as we speak, since Warners was ‘unhappy’ with the $200 million ‘Superman Returns’ made domestically.

If the new Trek perks up interest- and it has, since one of my recalcitrant 20-ish sons is now anticipating the new movie, but the other still unmoved by what he’s seen- then it’s all to the good.
So it plays with canon? Who should really care as long as it faithful to Roddenberry’s original vision?

429. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

#425, Ken:

Updating was expected, not wholesale change.

Yes, the new BSG is superior to the original BSG, because the new BSG is done on an almost Star Trek level. The original BSG was not on that level.

In this case, TOS was an outstanding series that for the most part has held up over time…

Change for change’s sake is not always a good thing.

If you think the Abramsverse can actually surpass the level of the original TOS, you’re welcome to believe that.

430. cagmar - November 13, 2008

You know, everyone, I think fans have been pretty fair to most things around here. The teaser was well-received and appreciated, the new uniforms have been embraced, the actors playing the roles are recieving praise– fans mostly just get tied up in a knot when there’s something uncomfortable shown, like the ibridge or the exterior of this beloved ship. If you look at it, most fans have been pretty good about everything.

We’re not being crazy. This is a part of the reboot or reimagining or revival that feels wrong to us. That’s all. It’s still just one part… and I’ve sat through every movie with the Enterprise E without ever appreciating that ship either… so I’ll be in the theater for this one, too. But I don’t like the reimagined Enterprise.

And we’re allowed to not like it, even if we do like the movie.

431. starbase63 - November 13, 2008

#428, Bob:

Please see post #405.

432. Cush - November 13, 2008

I am finding it a little weird that you are giving it such a pass here. Could it be that you were bought off with your walk on role.

Rick Sternbach brings up a serious point here 40 solid years of established history and design ethic is being tossed to the wind in an effort to re-energize a great franchise…. When all that has EVER been needed was a good story and great characters and good acting and the epic feel trek deserves.

No one ever walked out of a trek movie or tv episode going damn I wish they would update that ship or redesign that costume or set ….cause man that’s really effecting my ability to enjoy this series or this movie.

Where is your outrage at the Romulans being involved in this story? Years before balance of terror?

A little respectful change is ok ,,, wholesale disrespect of canon is just change driven because somebody needed something to do and get paid huge sums of money for it.

Most illogical

They F’d up lost in space and now they are about to do the same here.

433. The Doc - November 13, 2008

#25… well said… I was also thinking of Doctor Who. It is almost a better analogy than Batman. With Doctor Who, you have the same series (I am counting the new series as a continuation of the original, because it is) reinventing itself over time. The Tom Baker episodes were remarkably different than the William Hartnell episodes. Even the later Tom Baker episodes were in a different style than the earlier ones. The Sylvester McCoy episodes were different than the either the Tom Baker or William Hartnell episodes. The Eccleston season was different than any other series. Even the Tennant seasons have been different than anything before them. The show constantly reinvents itself. It has done it many times over with different actors, characters, producers, writers, and eras. The show is very much about change. Star Trek can do that too, on a smaller scale.

434. Green-Blooded-Bastard - November 13, 2008

Say what you will, the Enterprise looks like the Love Boat. JJ Abrams is going to rape our beloved Star Trek the same way George Lucas raped his own Star Wars in an effort to sell toys and merchandise. He doesn’t care about the fans, he doesn’t care about canon, he doesn’t care about the original actors/crew, and he doesn’t care about you…he cares about MONEY. That’s it, MONEY. He’s in this business to make a buck like the rest of Hollywood or he’d be making indy films for the love of the art, and now he’s going to make a buck on Star Trek because it’s ripe for the picking.

Rapists and liars.

435. The Doc - November 13, 2008

One more thing.

Mr. Cawley, I respect you as a tremendous fan who has taken extreme care in representing the original series. You won’t get anywhere with the people that are complaining. Just let them complain. You’ll just end up being upset, which is what they want.

436. RAFE - November 13, 2008

Oh yes,maybe in 40 years from now,somebody will tell me… ”Geez ,Grandpa, is this the crap-ancient starship of J.J.Abrams ???,…..we have better designed starships now…”

437. dyaleleon - November 13, 2008

Good article, James! I totally agree.

438. Trekwebmaster - November 13, 2008

Well you guys have James really wrong… James is a Star Trek “purist” in every sense of the word. His ability to see “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations” is what matters. We all should be so logical.

My goodness folks…we have a tremendous “universe” that is unfolding before us with this new movie. I agree with James.


Director J.J. Abrams has a new vision for the course set for “Star Trek,” than what the usual “Trek” fan or anyone familiar with the series, which began in the late 1960’s, would assume. J.J., does indeed “boldly go” where no director has gone before, to foretell of a “fascinating” and successful “reboot” of this still great franchise.

“Don’t grieve, Admiral, it is only logical,” seems to be the message behind the message, at first look of a new U.S.S. Enterprise; a stunning example of “fresh minds,” looking at a franchise, which had suffered from “branding of an era,” from a new perspective.

A “new look” for this famous starship features very modern stylistics, which are more canon than one would think. Just think back to the “Phase II” study model, and suddenly the details jump out at you, it is very “fresh,” and a much needed change, indeed.


439. Trekwebmaster - November 13, 2008

I mean, just look at that ship up there. It’s beautiful! I wouldn’t want to tangle with it, that’s for sure!

I look at it this way, with all of the “paradigm shifting” in media these days, feel fortunate and lucky that Star Trek is getting this major “reboot” which offers the franchise alot more than other sci-fi franchises have gotten in the past or present. With economies in flux like they have been for the last two months, this is a major deal.

We should support this as much as we can. Be logical about it. It is really too early to judge…wait and do that AFTER you see the movie…it’s only fair. But, I like it and I like it alot.


440. THX-1138 - November 13, 2008

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some may love this new Trek movie and sing it’s praises from here to the highest mountain tops. Others are going to loathe the very idea that someone would have the gall to even try to update their beloved Trek. And even others may not care that Trek exists, has existed, or may continue to exist.

What I have observed these last few days would be the first two types. There is a smattering of intelligent people from both sides of the issue who are willing to compromise on their viewpoint. But as always the negative trolls and the complient sheep will bicker without hearing each other.

But something I have noticed is an influx of plants. A higher than normal volume of new posters are here and not all of them are legitimate fans, in my opinion. Many of these people seem to have an agenda, that being damage control for the sake of the production and the studio. Plants.

Now I’m not going to call James Cawley a plant per se, but it does seem interesting to me that at one point he gave the new Enterprise a rather negative review upon first seeing it. This was before he was reported to have a small part in the new movie. And now afterwards, we get an article telling all of us that all is well. I find that “interesting”.

James Cawley is a great standard bearer of Star Trek. His fan productions are unmatched and I greatly enjoy watching them. But just to play Devil’s Advocate, is there a possibility that he is giving all of this a thumbs up in exchange for a part in the movie and possible autonomy in his fan productions, like say, the rights to sell DVD’s without Paramount pursuing legal action?

I am not accusing James of this, but in a free society, this question should be asked.

441. James Cawley - November 13, 2008

#440, I suggest you read my other posts in this column. lol.
I still do not like the design. It won’t however keep me from enjoying the film. All this colsed mindness and conspiracy theory stuff is frankly too much.

442. Trekwebmaster - November 13, 2008

The following is a personal opinion article:

I will not endeavor to speak for anyone other than myself. Being a fan of Star Trek since the late 1960’s, I have seen the show canceled, then being relaunched onto the “silver screen,” and then the franchise was revived into “The Next Generation,” and several series after that.

Suffice it to say, pardon the pun, I thought the “TNG” version of the Enterprise was horrible, then learned the benefits of a new series outweighed my personal viewpoint or reaction, which prompted me to quickly re-evaluate my snap decision.

Over the years since that time, I have played many number of computer games, watched countless fan renditions of Star Trek, and for all intents and purposes, I do not consider myself a “plant.” By no means am I that.

This fantastic future we are now witnessing through the “reboot” of a franchise, will be something future generations will look back on and remember “Star Trek” as we did. What would this say about us, as a generation, to deny THEM that?

I don’t think the criticism is warranted, to this degree, when the movie isn’t even out yet.

Note: I have no affiliation with any major studio or fan film production other than the Star Trek Webmaster program, which is a very excellent way of showing your support and love of the franchise, for that I am grateful.

I am going to go by this maxim:

“We all must realize that our individual personal ideal of what we think or want the world to be, shortchanges countless others of their perspective which, statistically, has a higher percentage of being better than what we started with.”


443. King Zooropa - November 13, 2008

Having a negative opinion is fine. I don’t think anyone is saying you aren’t entitled to have one.

What is ridiculous, though, is to jump up and down like a 12-year old on a sugar high writing silly things like: “THE NACELLES ARE OUT OF ALIGNMENT!” No offense, but you are basically embodying every silly cliche about Trek fans most of us who are a little more reasonable about our fannishness have had to deal with over the years (yes, even including the one from Our Revered Mr. Shatner told us all to ‘get a life.’)

So, yeah, feel free to express your opinion. But if you’re going to quibble about minor details that won’t even be up on the big screen for another six months, how on Earth do you expect us to take you seriously?

I’ll repreat what I said before in #407: Grow up, people. Enjoy the fact that our beloved franchise is getting a reboot/rejuvenation/fresh start that could guarantee it will live on the big (and maybe small) screen for generations to come.

p.s. I love New Voyages/Phase II. Bravo, and job well done to Mr. Cawley!

444. SaQ - November 13, 2008

I thought he was actually a moderate….
But he linked Joel Schumacher’s Batmans with Tim Burton’s Batman’s….as if they were they were…all Tim Burtons…

That’s like only recognizing the good and not the bad. Is he really moderate?
I don’t know…

445. TC65 - November 13, 2008

I agree #443, I for one am excited about the “reboot.”

OH, hey James, I love the “Phase II” redesign you guys did on the STP2 Big E!!!

I can’t wait to see the NEW BIG E in action on the big screen. J.J. your team rocks…thank you!

446. tribble farmer - November 13, 2008

Pretty much all of my doubts from before are gone now.

447. Captainfirst - November 13, 2008

To me, it doesn’t matter what the ship looks like, or the uniforms. It’s the story, and the people aboard the great ship, that matters. All else is, in the end, unimportant. And really, anyone who accuses Mr. Cawley of selling out is, IMHO, dead wrong. This man has done more than anyone to keep the original Trek alive and well, giving amazing amounts of his own time and money. We should all have such passion for something near and dear to our hearts.

448. reinvigorated, reintroduced, and rebooted hitch1969© - November 13, 2008

I get so bothered by all the negative stuff being said about JC. However, I am happy to see that he is consistent in stance, and gentlemanly in presentation. Stay the course, JC. You’re a class act, and in just what you have given ME back from this franchise… words cannot describe.

Your take on this movie is as, or is perhaps even more, important to me as Nimoy’s. And having him sign on was a major step for me to accept the re-boot. I love the fact that you can be honest enough to say that you don’t like certain elements – or that you wouldnt have done them that way – but still endorse the new movie. And as mentioned, you’ve said this consistently.

Just HOW is that selling out? Dude, it ain’t. And any one of these dudes here today either reading or posting would have taken a set visit and a chat with JJ any day of the week. I don’t care how much they say the negative stuff.

Shatner originated the role, Pine took it over… but JC is the only JTK to me.

from the heart, brother. a lil love to counterbalance some of the crap you’ve had to tolerate here.



449. TL - November 13, 2008

I think the number of post here should indicate the high interest fans have invested into the series over the years. I am one of those very, very disappointed with the look of this movie. Since it will not be released until May of next year, JJ and company should look carefully at the comments posted here and take what is said into account. Some of us have been fans for close to 40 years! If the ship is just a cgi render they can easily fix the design to the proportions of the orignal before it hits movie screens. Ignore the fans and I promise you they will ignore buying any dvds and/or coming out and supporting this film.

450. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#126 – “I still can’t understand why ST:TMP is okay, blessed canon even, but the new movie is an outrage. TMP changed how everything looked just as much, even the Big E.”

Simple. TMP made changes, but it didn’t retroactively alter what had come before. It just made changes going forward. If this film had been set post-“Nemesis”, and made a bunch of changes, it wouldn’t have caused that much of a stir. But rewriting the existing storyline? That’s not happened before in filmed Trek, and that’s major league.

451. Alex Rosenzweig - November 13, 2008

#247 – Okay, I’m curious here… I can agree with you to a point about changing the look and feel of Trek to reflect the sensibilities of the younger audience of today, but what I don’t understand is why any of the laudable things you describe would require changing the internal storytelling continuity of Trek’s fictional world? Could you elaborate upon this idea?

#260 – “We are a couple of weeks away from locking the episode and releasing.”

Looking forward to it, James! I saw the trailer, and it rocked. :)

#425 – “I don’t think there are very many “fans” left who are NOT glad that Ron Moore did what he did to re-imagine the original series from the late 70’s.”

(Raises hand) I’m one. While there are arguments to be made that the Moore Galactica is better written on a line-by-line basis, it stripped away many of the science fictional elements of the original Galactica, and, perhaps more importantly, the original Galactica had characters I could respect and admire; the new one’s characters I can do neither.

So, no, I am not glad for Mooreverse BSG, and still await a proper new production of Classic Galactica.

I can think of few more unpleasant things than something equivalent happening to Star Trek.

452. reinvigorated, reintroduced, & rebooted h69© - November 14, 2008

re: 302. DaiMonRon

hey, thanks!

I appreciate that you read my opinions here, and also agree. I’m not too good at writing thank you’s. Seeing your response made me smile. thanks again.


453. Kuvagh - November 14, 2008

Let’s all relax. One way or another, it’s not the end of the world.

You know, it occurs to me that something really brilliant may be happening here.

Consider this: As a veteran fan, how big of a deal is it to you if the story is about a dangerous threat to planet Earth? You’ve seen that a lot, huh?

Well, how scary is it if 40 years of lore in a thick, hard-bound encyclopedia is being threatened with erasure from existence? How much would you despise Nero? How hard would you be rooting for Nimoy’s Spock and his damage control efforts?

I may be off the mark, but it’s an interesting possibility, no? :)

454. Avindair - November 14, 2008

James —

Thanks for the refreshing take. For SF genre fans, the easiest way to just enjoy this movie for what it is will be to say “Okay, so, this is an alternate universe. Rock on.”

That being said, I do think J.J. and his design team did miss the boat with some of their choices. Any way you look at it, that new Enterprise design does not capture the spirit of the original. More to the point, the script pieces that have leaked (Kirk’s giant Mickey Mouse hands, the oops-grabbed-her-boob scene in the bar brawl, and that ludicrous “You can have a ship in eight years” corporate America take on leadership line) have been less Trek, and far more Transformers.

In other words, from what we know so far, it doesn’t look like Trek, and now it doesn’t sound like Trek. That’s my objection.

Of course, I could be wrong. I’ll go and see it. If I like it, I’ll happily raise my hands and say “Wow, did I call this one wrong.” Until then, though, color me more and more skeptical.

455. starbase63 - November 14, 2008

438 & 439, TrekWebmaster:

Sorry, dude, there’s a difference between doing something because it NEEDS to be done, and doing something because they CAN or because it “looks cool.”

A poster on my boards said last night how having a director and design team that has a more Star Wars leaning is blurring the lines that have existed between the two franchises…what looks “cool” for the sake of looking “cool” is supplanting what Star Trek fans like to have look cool but also be workable and believable. The basic TOS look only needed updating, not wholesale reworking. Like the maxim goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There was nothing wrong with the original Jefferies design that detailing and minor updating wouldn’t have made workable. Abrams says how the flyaround scene in his film shows all this detail and stuff and says it’s never been done before…I take it he never saw the final scene of ST:TMP (which was reused at the end of STII), probably one of the best shots of the Enterprise ever filmed…and THAT was done with a MODEL…

I know you need to keep a pro-Abrams front up for the good of your site, but keep in mind, your hardcore Trek fans know and understand what this movie is all about and it’s not about Star Trek itself or it’s fans.

456. Holger - November 14, 2008

420: No, I’m worried this made-up story will be INCONSISTENT with the other made-up stories.
And everything would have been fine for me if they had said from the outset that this is a re-imagination. Then I wouldn’t feel completely alienated now. I would have just said: Right, re-imagined Trek, I will watch this but it doesn’t mean anything to me.
(And again, for all those who can’t understand how one can say that Trek means something: I am well aware and agree that Trek means nothing compared to cancer research, global warming, the financial crisis, etc.)

457. Tin_Man - November 14, 2008

I’ve got a diploma in Advertising and a grad cert in Public Relations I work in media every day.

I know a bunch of studio plants when I see them, all these glowing reviews are a-typical viral marketing ploys.

Yes let’s all just wait and see the movie before we comment. Yes hand over your 8 bucks before you give an opinion.
But make sure you pay us before you utter one word UNLESS it’s a positive one.

Give me a break

458. McCoy - November 14, 2008

I think much of the spirited conversations come from trying to communicate how we all feel, on each side. We don’t seem to have an good analogy for the Star Trek world of Canon because nothing like the Star Trek phenomenon has really existed before. Those who love canon automatically defend it and those don’t care automatically get agree when “concerns” come up.

I think a good analogy for “canon” and to better understand how Trek fans feel is to consider that the history of Trek exists in much the same way the history of Middle Earth exists in Tolkien’s world. Except that Trek history does not come from a single author, but rather a series of TV shows, books and movies.

To change the “history” of that world or the interplay between characters changes the experience. And it sounds like there are more changes to these characters than just the fact that Nero has gone back in time. Since this is a new movie and we have all seen silly changes in other “reboots” fans wonder why some changes are made for no apparent reason other than “style.” This is why many fans are upset of course.

The Enterprise is a MAJOR part of Star Trek history and fewer changes could have been made to the Constitution-class ship without hurting the (probable) story and certainly, no one new to the franchise would ever have known (or cared).

459. McCoy - November 14, 2008

#457 LOL!

So true. Yes, this is a product….you are allowed to do research before you buy it. :o) It won’t really matter what your opinion is AFTER you pay to see it. As far as the creators are concerned, if you paid for it, they’re happy. And, they will take that as a positive affirmation that everything was OK with it—whether you liked it or not. When they call something a “summer blockbuster” they automatically have another built-in audience: people who want to go to a movie and disappear for a while with popcorn. In fact, maybe that’s why they moved it to May instead of December. After viewing the dailies, they may have had concerns that the Trek fan base would turn out in large enough numbers. Moving it to May and branding it more as “summer fun” gets that extra group.

There’s a belief that a sliding scale exists between what the hardcore fans want with this movie and what the mainstream audience wants. The only real reason given for moving anything to “mainstream” is to get more people in the theater (more money). As if the existing base wasn’t big enough—which I think is crazy BTW.

460. THX-1138 - November 14, 2008

James Cawley

Sorry dude. I didn’t mean to come off like I was attacking you as much as I was trying to make a point that I do think that we were seeing a lot of “planty” type posts. I happened to use you as an example of perhaps being “influenced” by your close contact as of late with Paramount. And by the fact that this is an article written by you in defense (somewhat) of the new film. My bad.


I agree with you. A viral marketing campaign utilizing the comment section of the most widely used Star Trek website would seem to fit nicely into JJ Abram’s MO. Very planty.

And, really, I am excited in seeing this movie. But I am not going to be a good sheep Star Trek fan and just get in line without questioning it. People ask how come TMP got a pass from fans with all the changes it made. I agree with what someone above said: TMP made it’s changes in step with the progress of time and not a re-thinking prior to established events. Also, it was Gene Roddenberry himself who did the changing. It was his baby and vision and who were we to question it. JJ Abram’s has to prove himself to the Star Trek fans before we all give him a free pass to make wholesale changes.

461. TomBot99/4A - November 14, 2008

Yes, there were many iterations of Batman, etc. But just as with them, I’m not going to turn off my mind, and just go,” Oh, this is some NEW version of Star Trek, and I’m just going to accept it! Yay!!!” If it rocks your world, fine, but don’t say we are being negative just because we disagree. Let it stand on it’s own two feet and we’ll all see if this “new” franchise has legs come May. By the way, even though I think the Dark Knight is almost the single best Batman so far, I still am not so keen on the Tumbler. The movie rocked so far superior to the rest, it relegated that quibble to unimportant sidebar. ;-)

462. Spocksbrain - November 14, 2008

Ha! I read so many posts here from people who talk about how the new movie won’t change the spirit of Star Trek. Well, here is a newsflash. The spirit of what Star Trek is has been diluted so severely that it is bare a blip on the long-range sensors now. It started in 1987 with TNG and by the time Enterprise came along, well, there was just nothing left of it. And that was done by the official gate keepers! So, why would anyone believe the Johnny Come Latelys who worked on the new film have any concept of what the spirit of Star Trek is all about! They are very likely even further removed from the priginal concept than Rick Berman, Brannon Braga and their ilk. Star Trek began with good adventure story ideas and lessons about the human spirit and the possibilities of a beautiful future “worth living for”. THIS CONCEPT HAS SINCE BEEN HORRIBLY BASTARDIZED and RAPED by less than visionary people who prefer to appeal to masses with money. In doing this, they have both failed to bring in money (the likely reward for tampering with genius) and alienated those who appreciate the original idea.

And, you’re damn right that this is an emotional subject. I have spent most of my life as a Star Trek fan, and I DO find the notion of this film to be insulting. I will not accept Star Trek as an action franchise, in with the likes of Batman and comic book flicks.

Nothing beyond TNG was even remotely inspiring to me (least of all Voyager and Enterprise), so why should this new movie?

463. Al Hartman - November 14, 2008

Maybe this will make clear what many of the “Canon Obsessed fans” as we are called, feel about this new project.

Star Trek as we knew it, ended in 1969. Other than the Animated Series, no new episodes have been made. Ever.

Star Trek Phase II, was our last best hope. That didn’t happen.

The Next Generation was nice, but basically teased us constantly until Relics by making almost NO reference to the original series visually.

The bulk of the series made no references to TOS, as if it never existed. The THREE episodes out of 400 or so that did, were HUGE ratings hits. And remain among the most popular episodes of each series.

It’s because us “Older” fans just want more episodes of 1966 Trek. That’s all.

We don’t want redesigned TOS. Just like we all rejected “New Coke”. We liked Classic Coke just fine.

I just want more episodes of Trek taking place in that familar, wel loved universe which first aired on NBC in 1966.

Which is why we went crazy when we got “Relics”, “Trial and Tribbleations”, and “In a Mirror Darkly Pt I and II”. Because for just a few minutes, we were back in the late 1960’s and back in the familiar universe we all love and miss.

This movie was a huge tease to fans. It promised to deliver on the scale of a major motion picture what we know Paramount COULD deliver, because they did on TNG, DS-9 and Enterprise… A show that recreated the original TOS.

They didn’t deliver that. They decided to redesign it.

I think ultimately, this movie will be a failure like Nemesis.

Whenever the studio has to convince fans the movie is really good, and the fans aren’t having it… The movie flops.

If Paramount had delivered TOS recast, as James Cawley does with New Voyages/Phase II… I think it would have been the most successful Trek Movie of all time.

Going for the “new” fans ignores some important things…

1. The Fan Multiplier Effect. Like Star Wars fans, Trek fans will go to see the movie MANY times. Each fan doesn’t account for one ticket. They may account for 10 – 20 tickets (if they have spouses or relationship partners).

2. Word of Mouth. If a Trek fan bad mouths the movie to non-fans. That matters. If a Trek fan hates the movie, most non-fans will decide it REALLY sucks. Most non fans think Trek movies suck as a default. If a fan confirms that… They’ll spend their money on Harry Potter.

That’s my opinion. Paramount has screwed the fans SO MANY TIMES in the past, and have suffered financially for it… you’d think they would have learned by now.

Making a Trek movie IS for the fans. It has failed when they have made a Trek movie for anyone else.

James Cawley’s New Voyages/Phase II is by fans, FOR fans… and it’s why it’s so good.

464. Falvoant - November 14, 2008

This makes the most sense to me out of this entire thread
I hope JJ does good…It will never replace TOS
and James is continuing TOS with fresh new unseen storys
Its a Trekies heaven
I saw the Managerie on a Movie screen not too long ago…
The theatre was SOLD OUT…and they added a second showing..and it sold out too…so Whats old and tired?
Don’t think so…


465. Al Hartman - November 14, 2008

Tony, I had the pleasure of meeting you and doing a little work with you on the Jeffries Tube at the June Shoot. I wish I hadn’t gotten so ill so I could have done more to help…

But, I agree with you. I think Paramount is dumb not to take some of the best episodes, and show them theatrically.

The Doomsday Machine MUST be seen on a large screen to be believed. I saw it at a convention projected onto a large screen 20 years ago and it was awesome. And watching it with 100 other fans was an experience you can’t replicate on a small screen in a living room.

A triple feature with the restored Cage, followed by the Menagerie would be AWESOME!

Or a double feature with “The Trouble with Tribbles” followed by “Trials and Tribbleations” would be incredible too!

Paramount leaves so much money on the table by not doing that.

Even “The Enterprise Incident” would be amazing on a big screen. Or, “The City on the Edge of Forever”.

466. Al Hartman - November 14, 2008

Oh, wait.. I got you mixed up with the other Tony.. But, I still remember you and your wife who made a HUGE difference in the June shoot…

And I STILL agree with your sentiments.

467. Aaron Cagle - November 15, 2008


I have been reading this thread for the past two and a half hours. I am, and continue to enjoy watching Star Trek: Phase II. I have been a fan of Star Trek since I was born, in the early eighties.

I was weaned on VCR tapes of TOS, LASERDISC (points for anyone who recalls them) copies of the motion pictures, and sneaking to the living room late at night when I was younger to watch and record TOS episodes I didn’t have yet on school nights. I was often spanked, and even grounded for falling asleep during these outings, to be caught in the living room the next morning. If you cut me, I BLEED Star Trek.

That being said. I will say this, and it’s nothing that hasn’t been touched before in this thread, but bears repeating:

Star trek is NOT James Bond, Batman, Superman, or even Star Wars. A reboot is probably going to taste very sour in the mouth of the die hard trekkie who has been a fan since the days of Shatner and Nimoy’s renditions of Kirk and Spock. I’m having trouble swallowing the idea right now, and I’m a fan of most of the new talent they have brought in on this project.

Did I like Phase II when I first saw it? Honestly, I thought it was a joke. I understood the premise, but everyone seemed so wooden. Only as they made more episodes, and I could see everyone becoming more comfortable with their characters, could I go back and watch the first episode.

Now, I hold Phase II with as much respect as I do TOS, and in my heart, it truly is Star Trek, as much as Shatner and Nimoy. It, however, IS NOT a reboot. It faithfully follows the tried and true “formula” of the original series. Sure, there’s the episode where Chekov dies, but he’s alive again the next episode. It is, as much as I hate to say it, just a television show.

The only problem I have with the new design is… this version of the Enterprise is supposed to be portraying the Enterprise at an earlier period in time… However, it looks decades ahead of what it supposedly will look like in another 10 or so years. They should at lease be heading a step backwards in time with the design, not forward.

I also understand that Paramount wants to draw in younger, newer blood with this outing. They might actually succeed in this, however, at what cost? Most die hard fans are saying that they will be boycotting this movie, except for the very open minded, which are immediately branded as some kind of heretic.

I love Star Trek so much I have it inked into my skin, however, I wouldn’t go so far as to consider canon to be religion. I would, however, think it’s bad form to have a director of Star Trek that’s not a Star Trek fan. I don’t though, as Nick Meyer wasn’t a Star Trek fan before he directed Star Trek II, and it’s considered to be one of the best trek movies of all time.

Another thing that offends me is that a lot of people can automatically pan the new movie without seeing it. I will at least endeavor to see it once, before I make my judgment, and twice to confirm that it’s sound. For a group of people who love something that embodies equality, the greater good, and a hope for a better future than the present we have, you are a lot of hateful people.

Maybe trek should be led out to pasture, but that doesn’t mean we should mourn it’s loss. We should be thankful that we were able to thrive on it’s energy, ride the wave, and bask in the beauty of it as it fades away into the sunset. However, as Spock was fond of saying, “There are always possibilities” and I would like to think of this as Star Trek’s version of waking up on Genesis after coming to a hard landing.

Sure, it’s initially going to be young, and retarded, and unable to communicate effectively. It’s not going to be able to determine that the fire in it’s veins is Ponn Far telling it to mate or die. However, if it becomes united with it’s spirit, then everything will unfold as it should. Let’s just hope that up there, somewhere, it’s savior is coming soon, before the world that it is collapses in on itself.

Let’s just hope that Star Trek doesn’t lose it’s katra. Thank you for reading my ramble.

468. anthony - November 15, 2008

wow – someone deleted my comment about hoping cawley’s cameo was him wearing a red shirt on an away mission

this website is WEAK!!!

469. Aaron Cagle - November 15, 2008

Honestly, I couldn’t think of a better cameo for ANYONE to have on Star Trek.

470. Mark Lynch - November 15, 2008

Aat least we have still new stuff that looks and feels like Star Trek. Thanks James.

471. Al Hartman - November 15, 2008

The upcoming “Blood and Fire” will be a treat for fans. The volunteers at the June shoot got to see an unfinished rough cut, and it was good…

Also, “Enemy Starfleet” which is to follow, is a great episode with a great guest star.

They also just finished filming Jon Povil’s “The Child” script. So that’s four episodes in the can in post production, doubling the number of episodes filmed so far.

2009 is going to be a good year for Star Trek.

472. Aaron Cagle - November 15, 2008

Hopefully, for Star Trek 12: Voyage to the Home, they will just “borrow” James’ sets and CGI team.

473. Falvoant - November 15, 2008

Now you got the right Tony
Although bolth of us are almost interchangeable…
and TONY D is awesome in my book!
Blood and Fire is coming soon..
Real Soon!


474. Joseph - November 16, 2008

I appreciate your message James, but I don’t think that Star Trek should be compared to Batman, which wasn’t as successful as many are making it out to be. Batman died a long time ago, and is no more popular today, than it was when the first movie came out. Besides, like one poster stated, Star Trek is not Batman.

Look at what happened to Superman the Return. Did the young generation flock to see it? No, they didn’t. It’s dead.

Why are all of these movies dead? It’s because the modern day culture is dominated by MTV fans, who’s minds are constantly bombarded with cell phones, I-Pods, thongs, multiple sexual intercourses, drugs, hip-hop, Rap music, and neon lights. Science Fiction is not in their thinking, thus any form of science fiction is just too dorky for them…..at least most of them anyways.

Come on James, even you admitted that you are a purist. I’m certain you didn’t like the design of this so called “Enterprise”, any less than we did. I flat out hate it all-together. It’s too damn ugly! Forget about where the primary hull is, or the nacelle’s. The entire ship is too ugly.

When I first saw the Refit design back in 1979, it was love at first sight. Did it deter me from TOS design? No, because it wasn’t a new Enterprise, but the original refitted into its new glory, beauty, and attractive sleek design. But this so called Enterprise from JJ flat out stinks!

The only way Trek will be liked by the non-science fiction mind is to add mindless comedy, and the other perversions I mentioned above. Without those attributes, or forms of entertainment, Star Trek (or any other science fictional movie) will always be considered (IN THEIR MIND) dorky.

As for me, keep up the great work with Star Trek New Voyages. I love your shows, and I appreciate what you’re doing for Star Trek.

Oh, and here’s a hint for those of you who do not agree. What episodes were more popular with TNG, and DS9? Was it not the two or three episodes that showed settings from the Original Series? Your damn right! All the other episodes had low ratings.

It’s the original series fans that keep Trek alive. James Cawley and his crew are living proof of that.

I’ll watch the film out of curiosity, but I don’t see this as truthful to Star Trek. Sorry guys, but that’s how I feel.


475. ex treker - November 16, 2008

Michael Keaton is Batman. Don’t like what I have seen since.

I think Daniel Craig is fine, but I don’t like what they did with Bond.

Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries designed THE Enterprise. Period.
What I saw for the first time today is crap.

The new movie is going where no one has gone before without me.

Sorry, but that is the way I feel.

476. John Sullivan - November 16, 2008

Hey, I hear your message to ‘lighten up’ and only after being leaked some “disclaimer’ elements that allow two different versions of Star Trek to coexist without going to an Alternate Universe (pretty much the whole point of the film’s drama) did I realize that this might work afterall.

I am so much NOT a J.J.A. fan that I was going to call this movie “LOST: In Space.”

If I can say so, I would have been much happier (and still would be) if Paramount would have put some money behind your New Voyages projects, which to me are as fantastic and as cannonical as the originals. As a matter of fact, I particularly LOVE your actresses who play Uhura and the Yeoman.

Now I get your point, and you use Batman Begins and the Dark Knight as a great example. The James Bond stuff seems to work on that plane as well. But what I really want to see is something that succeeds like “Get Smart” was able to do.

I’m not going to hold my breath, unless I’m surprised and for once Paramount has poured as much thought into a Star Trek movie project as they did money.

I will say one thing … Les Moonves personally told me a few years ago that Star Trek will be back within 2 or 3 years. A little overdue, and not exactly what we were thinking, but he did keep his word, even if it happened in a Viacom division not under his control.

477. Alex Rosenzweig - November 16, 2008

I’m torn, and dismayed, these days. I so wanted to be excited and looking forward to the new film, but now it feels like fans like me, who care about continuity and fidelity to TOS, will be summarily kicked to the curb.

I really, really want to be wrong about that, but every new thing TPTB are saying now seems to be reinforcing the feeling.

James, your work, and that of the other fan film teams, is even more appreciated now.

478. Joseph - November 17, 2008

I just saw the new trailer, and it’s a great movie. I believe many of us will believe that this new movie by JJ Abrams (Notice that I didn’t say Star Trek) might be a great action film, combined with a brief sex scene. But, just in the short trailer, I noticed 5 errors with Star Trek Canon.

1. Enterprise built on earth – FALSE! It was built in space dock. The same dock the Refit Enterprise last visited before her final voyage unto her death, was her birth place, according to some Trek sites.

2. Captain Kirk’s first to command the Enterprise – False! Captain April was the first captain, and Christopher Pike was the 2nd. Kirk would succeed Pike after he was severely burned.

3. Spock’s first captain – Captain Christopher Pike was Spock’s first captain. Yet this movie seems to depict the entire TOS crew were the first to board the Enterprise. Sulu and Spock both worked under Christopher Pike’s command, but Sulu didn’t work the helm; he was a mathematics science officer.

4. Design of the Enterprise – this new design doesn’t even come close to the original. This is a totally new star-ship design, with very few elements of the original, and mostly of the Refit, but only in the Primary Hull section; the rest is reinvented.

5. Kirk driving a 1960’s Vette – That’s false! Cars didn’t exist during his day. He didn’t even know what eye-glasses were in Star Trek the wrath of Kahn. Plus, Kirk loved horses, and horse power.

6. Spock’s anger – Spock served aboard the Enterprise long before Kirk did, yet Spock showed very little emotion even remotely close to JJ’s version of Trek

I’m sure others could point out more errors, especially the ever thinner Lt. Uhura, who does appear in a Bra scene, and is engaged sexually I think with Kirk. That must be an added twist to bring in more fans. Let’s go watch Star Trek to see a little nipple. *Laughs* I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that.

What can I conclude with all this from just a short three minute trailer? THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE, BUT IT’S NOT STAR TREK!


479. Joseph - November 17, 2008

I meant to say, “Kirk loved horses, AND NOT horse power….” in #5.

Sorry for the typo error.

480. Joseph - November 17, 2008

I’ll say it again..

THIS IS NOT STAR TREK. It is a complete REBOOTING of Star Trek, using legionary names to establish a new Trek Canon. 40 years of Trek history and Canon are being buried a thousand feet under.

My fellow Trek Fans, faithful to Trek Canon, we are being pushed to the curb. We can either continue to support James Cawley, and enjoy the original series stories, or we can abandon 40 years of Trek to engage in this new aged version of Trek. I think the movie will be great, but it has absolutely little to do with Star Trek tradition, Canon, and spirit.


481. Falvoant - November 17, 2008

James is rather busy these days trying to get Blood and Fire out the door in a timely manor…so Im not sure if he will have time to come back here
But I wanted to say …THANK YOU>>>from all of us at Phase 2..
We will do our best to continue the ORIGINAL VERSION for us old geezers who are so uncool we
still remember it….

Phase 2
Engineering Div

482. Trek XI: The final affront? | Marc Perton - November 17, 2008

[…] of dross over the years, and in the end, I’m willing to cut the new Trek a lot of slack. As TOS purist James Cawley […]

483. anthony - November 18, 2008

Guys, I understand the frustration with the new movie… The discontinuity with the canon is a bit annoying… But over the years this has been true in many trek moments… in TNG when Scotty was found in a transporter buffer believing initially Kirk had come to find him… But in Generations Scotty was there for his presumed death… It has been 40 years since TOS… almost 20 since TNG… and 10 Since DS9 and Voyager… Enterprise was a nice go but failed to compare to the others… Which is sad because I loved the concept and the characters… But even in all these none were 100% to canon… The books are full of canon errors… The last great Trek Movie was First Contact… There is a whole new generation of Trekkies waiting to get back into the Roddenberry Vision… This reboot or better termed reformation will inspire and invigorate both schools in the trek universe. And with that we can continue to grow… Gene’s vision was for all peoples to live, work, and respect each other… If we can’t even do that over a movie then we all have lost his real vision… Give the movie a chance and enjoy it for the story it wants to tell…

484. Rachel S. - November 19, 2008

I said what I wanted to say about the new film in two long posts on Flickr, seen for this picture of the…ship *shudder*, so here’s the link:


I’d welcome any responses here, since Derek closed the photo to future comments.

Rachel :)

485. Joseph - November 20, 2008

Anthony, I understand what you mean, and for the most part, I agree with you. However, they didn’t have to get so far away from Star Trek Canon to make a great film. That’s what bothers me about this entire ordeal.

Raping characters from the original series, and rebooting it into a totally different universe, is not a good idea. They would have been better off creating an entirely new Star Trek, with new characters, and new stories.

Why did they have to use Kirk and his crew?

I feel that we, the true and faithful Trek Fans of a 40 year tradition, are being cheated, and kicked to the curb. The advertisements led us to believe that they were taking us back to the beginning of how the original crew all became the living legends they were. Instead, the only thing they did was use their names. This is insulting to 40 years of Trek history, and killing the faithful fan base.

Why not use characters from TNG? Or Enterprise? In my opinion, it’s because the characters from the Original Series were the most popular among Trek fans. I could be wrong, but I’d say Star Trek started rolling down the hill after Star Trek First Contact. I personally loved Star Trek Nemesis, but I can understand why others didn’t like it. It was full of action, but the graphics were not that good.

If Paramount released the amount of funding to create awesome, and realistic graphic scened to the previous Trek movies, I’m sure the reaction would have been pretty damn good. But Trek was always given a much smaller budget, especially when William Shatner filmed Star Trek V.

Part of me hopes that JJ Abrams can turn Star Trek around. But the huge part of me is extremely upset with him using historical characters, and completely redefining their personalities. It just isn’t right. Then again, we are only talking about fictional characters, so I suppose it’s not worth getting bent out of shape.

My final thoughts and opinions are this. The new Enterprise is very ugly, and the characters are too dramatic; additionally, they do not match the traditional style of the original crew. Thus, this entire “REBOOT” should not have been conceived. Instead, they could have taken us years ahead of even the Next Generation, and started an entirely new set of Trek legends. But nope, they raped the legends of the Original Series, and used their popularity to change their history. That’s bad for us, but good for those who might decide to become trek fans. But I don’t think that will happen. I’ve seen enough action films to know that science fiction is not what interests the younger generation. Sex, mystery, bloody gore, and mindless comedy are what interests this young age. Thus, this new idea for Star Trek is not promoting Gene’s idea. In fact, I think it will destroy it.


486. Joseph - November 20, 2008

Another point I’d like to suggest is this. I suggested above that they could have used a totally new crew. Well, what’s wrong with using a totally new ship with it’s unique name? This could have been a new Star Ship named, USS Yorktown, Freeman, or something else. Jumping years ahead of Star Trek the Next Generation would have permitted them to think of new things. This would certainly match the increased technology this new Trek appears to have. The best part was that it would not have violated Star Trek canon, and we loyal fans would not be so upset.

I just can’t bring myself to commit adultery against the cast and crew I grew up with, and watch a less than perfect movie producer like JJ Abrams, screw up everything I’ve loved since I was 5 years old. I’m 40 years old, and I understand it’s time for new adventures, but circumcising old characters to present a new Star Trek image is not good for the franchise. All they did was offer false advertisement. And it shows that they don’t care about the ones who have spent BILLIONS of dollars supporting their productions. Did you know that of all the Star Trek models on the market, the original TV series model is the most sought after? But the best design available cost more than a thousand dollars, and who can afford that? To this day, I’d love to get my hands on a highly accurate representation of the 11 foot studio model. But I can’t afford something like that.

I’m very thankful that James Cawley and the rest of you are continuing to entertain us Trek fans of the Original Series. I will support you and your staff in any way I can. Just let me know how I can support you all.

I appreciate everything you’re doing, and I can’t wait for you to release Star Trek Blood and Fire. Watching the Enterprise burn from a nasty Klingon attack scared me, but it was awesome.

Oh, and you know what else I wish would have happened with Star Trek. The Enterprise Refit model was a beautiful design that didn’t get to see much screen action. I wish they made a series using the Refit model. I saw a website using a refit model called, “USS LEXINGTON”, and it looks pretty Interesting. Between the original design, and the refit design, the refit design looks more glorious (in my personal opinion), but the original design is still my favorite.

Does Jamse have plan to use the Refit design of the Motion Picture?


487. Anton L - June 15, 2009

Indeed, this new film changes everything. I saw it yesterday and it is, indeed, a fun action film in space but it is not Star Trek.
I am not referring to superficial things like the appearance of the ship or the mannerisms of the crew. It is because it alters the timeline so dramatically that it erases all the future: of the original series, of TNG etc. Imagine a federation without a planet Vulcan or a Vulcan high council, etc! Imagine a Spock that is constantly caving into his human emotions and loosing his temper more than his human colleagues.
What’s worse, contrary to James Cawley’s statements, I did not see an attempt to preserve Gene Roddenberry’s philosophical ideas in this movie at all. Finally, on the science, the show established a reputation for trying to fit the implausibilities required for a TV show within a framework of solid science. That was especially true in TNG and up to a certain extent in some of the movies (they even got Stephen Hawking to appear in one TNG episode!) although it later degenerated into non-sensical technobabble in Voyager and enterprise. This last movie was the worst of all.
In the end the movie had no philosophy, no profound character development, no good science and no misteries from space to expand the human experience. How is this Star Trek? Fortunately Gene Roddenberry never got to see this. What a sad joke!

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