Anthony’s Thoughts On The L.A. Star Trek Movie Presentation | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Anthony’s Thoughts On The L.A. Star Trek Movie Presentation November 20, 2008

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

Last night JJ Abrams finally brought his World Tour to Los Angeles, for a screening of four scenes from his Star Trek movie at the Paramount Theater on the Paramount lot. TrekMovie correspondents have been covering each stop on the tour, but this was the first time I, your humble editor, was there to see it for myself. Find out what I thought below. [SPOILERS]

 

 

SCENE SUMMARIES
Below are quick summaries of the four scenes shown. Since this has been covered by this and other sites extensively, it is not worth going into too much detail (and can be skipped if you have been reading all our other reports), but is presented here as a quick refresher. My thoughts on what was shown is presented separately below.

Scene 1 – Iowa Bar
This is the first scene where the audience will see Pine as Kirk and it has him in modern looking bar (with some sci-fi touches like menus with animations on them). Although there is much talk about Star Wars, this bar is no Cantina scene, it is very real and it is identifiable as our future. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is at the bar ordering drinks for her friends when Kirk tries to pick her up. She brushes him off, but seems to be impressed when he is familiar with her field of communications expertise. Kirk is then confronted with four Academy cadets whom he antagonizes further resulting in a bar brawl and Kirk getting beaten pretty badly until Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) comes into he bar to break it up. He sits Kirk down (and apparently knows him) and gives him a ‘your dad was a hero on the USS Kelvin and you are wasting your life’ speech and implores him to go to Starfleet Academy. Although Kirk doesn’t give Pike any hope that he is listening, we then see Kirk riding his motorcycle to the "Riverside Shipyards" in Iowa to board the shuttle for the Academy.


James T. Kirk – rebel without a ship

Scene 2 – Kirk’s Romulan Warning
It is now three years later and Kirk has been a "trouble maker" at the Academy. He is still a cadet pending a review (due to the Kobayashi incident) when there is an Emergency on Vulcan and many Starfleet ships are called into duty to help with possible evacuation. Kirk is not assigned to a ship, but his buddy Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) has smuggled him on board the USS Enterprise for her maiden voyage. The scene starts with McCoy dragging a sick Kirk into Sickbay (where Kirk still had time to make a pass at a nurse). McCoy injects Kirk with some kind of drug that knocks him out, Kirk regains consciousness while Chekov (Anton Yelchin) is briefing the ship on the ‘lightning storm’ at Vulcan and Kirk immediately perks up, realizing he needs to warn Pike they are headed into a Romulan trap. He uses a console to ask the computer where Uhura is and then goes to get her and they head to the bridge with McCoy trailing and injecting Kirk with various things to cure him from whatever side effect the last injection had (including comically giant hand swelling). Once on the bridge Pike is not happy to see Kirk, but after he explains things, even Spock (Zachary Quinto) agrees "the cadet’s logic is sound" about the trap. Uhura was brought along because she had intercepted Romulan communications and so she was put in charge of Comms, because she speaks "all three" Romulan dialects.


Red Alert!

Scene 3 (shown 4th) – Romulan Attack on Vulcan
Although this scene was actually the fourth to be shown, it appears come between the scenes shown second and third We start off in some industrial part of the ship with Pike, Spock, Kirk, Sulu (John Cho) headed to the shuttle bay. The ship is at Vulcan and the Romulans are attacking the planet. Pike has accepted an offer to go to Nero’s ship to negotiate but tells Kirk and Sulu they are going to jump out of the shuttle on the way in order to shut down the drilling beam coming from a platform Nero has extended into Vulcan’s atmosphere. Pike puts Spock in command and makes Kirk first officer (Spock is not amused). On board the shuttle Kirk and Sulu talk to Chief Engineer Olsen about the mission and he is gung ho to "kick Romulan ass" but after they jump and dive to the platform you see that Olsen’s red jump suit was a bad omen. Kirk and Sulu proceed to do some Romulan ass kicking of their own, with Sulu using his trusty folding katana sword. It turns out they were too late, the Romulans launch their ‘red matter’ weapon into the hole they drilled and when Chekov warns Spock Vulcan only has "minutes" before it is turned into a black hole, he puts Yelchin in command and beams down to Vulcan to save his parents and the Vulcan Council. Meanwhile Kirk and Sulu fall off the platform and need a beam up before they hit the ground and so Yelchin runs to the transporter room because only he can figure out how to beam them back through all the interference.


Kirk, Sulu (& Olsen the red shirt) to the rescue

Scene 4 (shown 3rd) – Kirk meets Scotty (and another Spock)
The scene shown third appears to take place at some unknown time after the Romulan attack on Vulcan. Kirk and Spock still don’t get along and Spock has jettisoned Kirk onto a frozen planet, where he has met the older Spock (Leonard Nimoy). The scene starts with Kirk entering some kind of lab or workshop where he and Spock meet Montgomery Scotty (Simon Pegg) and his pint-sized alien friend. Scotty thinks they are there to resupply him and he starts complaining about the food and how long he has been stationed at this outpost after his failed attempt to transport Admiral Archer’s ‘prize beagle’ (Kirk notes that he knows the dog and asks how it is, Scotty says he will tell him when it shows up again). They tell Scotty they are actually there to get him to beam Kirk back to the Enterprise using his trans warp beaming technology, which he can only do once Spock gives him his own formula from the future. Spock advises Kirk that he must not reveal his existence to his younger self and that Kirk must get control of the Enterprise from his younger self (he also tells him how to get under younger Spock’s skin so he can be relieved of command). Once ready they prepare for beam out and Kirk notes to Spock that traveling through time and changing history is cheating, Spock notes that he learned it from an old friend and gives him the Vulcan salute. Believe me, regardless of where you sit on the fan spectrum, you will well up when Spock says “live long and prosper.”


Scotty makes a big entrance
(no images from the Spock/Scotty scene in trailer, but this appears to be from the scene that follows – Scotty is wearing same ‘frozen planet’ outfit)

IMPRESSIONS
Below are my impressions broken into different categories. It is important to note that this is based on just 20 minutes of a 120 minute movie. So concerns can be alleviated once the whole picture is seen.

Story & script
With only 20% of the film shown, it is impossible to know what the full story of this film is, but you do get the general impression that this film is very much an origin story, and that Kirk is very much the character that is the central core. This film truly is Kirk Begins (with a good amount of Spock Begins as well). So in that sense the heart of the story are the arcs that these characters go through, as we learn how they become the heroes of Star Trek. That being said, the crisis with the Romulan threat is certainly big and we see that this film has major ‘save the world’ stakes written all over it, as a Star Trek film should. There wasn’t enough footage to get a sense of the theme of the movie, but at moments, such as Pike’s speech to Kirk in the bar, you feel the hope and optimism that is what Star Trek is all about.

Like all of their work, Orci and Kurtzman’s script seems very tight and very complicated. Although much of what was shown was action-oriented, the character moments seen in the bar in Iowa between Pike and Kirk as well as the scene between older Spock and Kirk, were both powerful and reveal very real emotion, and yet were totally true to what Star Trek is all about…the family that is this crew. One thing that is a bit surprising was the amount of humor shown, much of which is delivered perfectly by Pegg, but at times the humor slipped into slapstick, like Kirk accidentally grabbing Uhura’s chest during the bar fight (which was pretty funny) or his Mickey Mouse sized hands due to a drug side effect (which seemed silly and out of place during the Vulcan emergency). Being that this is an Orci/Kurtzman script you also get lots of quick references, like the nod to ‘Riverside Iowa’ (the city Roddenberry deemed as the home of James T. Kirk).

There is a bit of a conceit in this film that borders on a bit of a contrivance.  It seems like they wanted to do an origin story like the Star Wars Prequels, but didn’t want it to take three movies to get everyone into their TOS positions. In order to get the whole gang together, there seems to be some very rapid promoting going on. Uhura is the only one who can be at comms, Kirk is the only one who can be first officer, Scotty arrives in the nick of time, and McCoy is made chief medical officer because the first one got killed. Of course this kind of thing seems to be a Trek tradition. This is reminiscent of past Trek films where the only ship that could handle the emergency is always the Enterprise.

In the end it is clear that Orci and Kurtzman understand Trek and its core audience well (which tends to be a bit older), and at the same time they understand modern (and younger) audiences well, and they are trying their hardest to cater to both. This works for the most part, but at times it may only work for one or the other. 

Characters & actors

James T. Kirk: Chris Pine
Going into the preview, the thing I was most concerned about was the portrayal of Kirk. With all the talk about bringing a little Star Wars into Trek, I was concerned that Kirk would be turned into Han Solo. Nothing is wrong with Solo. Harrison Ford and George Lucas created one of the coolest characters in popular culture and the heart of the original Star Wars trilogy. But Kirk is not Solo. Kirk is not a reluctant hero and he is not a rogue. Now to be sure, this film does start off with Kirk being a bit of jerk, but from the four scenes shown, it is clear that Kirk goes through an arc. The out-of-control (and a bit uncouth) Kirk in the bar is not the determined and thoughtful Kirk you see with elder Spock on the frozen planet. And when Sulu (someone Kirk just met) falls off the drilling platform miles above Vulcan, Kirk does not hesitate, he just jumps after him. If that were Solo (unless it were Chewie), you know that he would jump, but he would give some kind of quip like "I didn’t buy into this" before he went. Kirk’s fast action is the kind of selfless heroism that defines Captain Kirk, the man who would do anything for his ship and his crew. And the key to making this all work is the outstanding portrayal of Kirk by Chris Pine. His much lauded character work to date (in films like Smokin Aces) is put to good use as he creates very real versions of these different stages of Kirk’s growth. You buy into him as the character of James T. Kirk. Pine finds the best of Kirk that was embodied by William Shatner, and yet he never once slips into a parody of Shatnerism.


Pine helps Kirk earn the chair

Mr Spock(s): Zachary Quinto & Leonard Nimoy
Quinto has Spock down in his look and mannerisms, including the eyebrow raise (which shot up when Pike made Kirk first officer). It is clear this he has studied under the great Leonard Nimoy. Yet in the two scenes that were shown, we don’t see a lot of Spock being logical. We know Kirk and Spock as having a bond best defined by Spock’s Star Trek II utterance "I am, and always shall be, your friend" which we get a notion of in this new movie when elder Spock talks to young Kirk about his "old friend" and addresses the Kirk as "Jim." But like many great relationships in the movies, this film sets up Kirk and younger Spock as adversaries to start. So in the few scenes we catch of Spock, he is clearly not happy about Kirk and so we saw a lot of Quinto’s Spock struggling to balance his two halves and to keep his cool. You can see a bit of Sylar (his Heroes villain) in his portrayal. And when he was shown in command watching his home planet getting obliterated by Nero, this struggle for emotional control was apparent. I only wish we got to see more of Spock’s journey as we did with Kirk. For now it is clear that they got the Spock struggling with (and losing) his emotional control down, and I can only hope that we also see his arc towards the more logical Spock we know and love. 

As for Leonard Nimoy, what can be said? After almost two decades he stepped back into the role without missing a step. Yet it is also clear that we are seeing a Spock even later in his life. Nimoy brings us a Spock that has come to an even greater peace with his two halves and, while still remaining eminently logical, clearly has an affection for his friends (and the worlds he is trying to save).  


Quinto’s Spock is working on that logic thing

Capt. Christopher Pike: Bruce Greenwood
Greenwood’s Captain Pike in the new Star Trek movie is one of unexpected highlights of the night. Of course it is no surprise that the veteran actor delivers a strong performance as a leader, what is surprising is the importance of the role in the film (or at least in the parts scene in the clips). This is no cameo. Pike is both the consummate take-charge commander and at the same time a compassionate father figure. Bob Orci once told me in an interview that captains in this movie would not fall into the trap of past movie captains like Styles (ST: III) or Harriman (Generations). Pike is in no way a weak foil set up for the audience to be begging for Kirk to get the big chair. Greenwood’s Pike exudes the confidence and fast decision-making that is the model of what we hope is the future of Captain Kirk, but when he puts Spock in command and makes Kirk first officer the audience will be thinking ‘oh god no, Kirk is barely out of the Academy and Spock is barely keeping his s–t together.’ Pike will be leaving some big shoes to fill, which only raises the stakes even higher.


Greenwood’s Pike gets a big ‘one beep’ for yes

Uhura: Zoe Saldana
Uhura was in two scenes, and in that time that we can see she is smart, sexy and sassy, just like she should be. And in the few bits that were shown, Uhura will clearly have more to do than just answering the space phone. Her chemistry with Kirk (they appear to know each other well by the time they get on the Enterprise) is great, and she is the key to helping convince Pike. While clearly an homage to Nichelle Nichols, Saldana’s portrayal of Uhura is more subtle and very convincing as a younger version of the Uhura we remember from The Original Series.    


Hailing frequencies are open to Saldana’s Uhura

Dr. Leonard McCoy: Karl Urban
We know Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy as irascible, sarcastic, Jim Kirk’s friend and confidant, and a bit of a needler for Mr. Spock — and that is exactly what you get in the new Star Trek movie. More than any other cast member in the film, Karl Urban seems to be channeling the original actor, but Urban as DeForest Kelley works because he has experience doing character roles (with different voices) and his love for the material is obvious. Maybe the only concern is that in the one scene we have of him actually performing medicine he seems to be struggling a bit to cure Kirk of the disease he gave him to sneak him on board using the "I can bring a patient" ruse. This is played for comic relief, but hopefully we see Bones doing some heroic life saving elsewhere in the film. 


Urban channels Kelley

Montgomery ‘Scotty’ Scott: Simon Pegg
Simon Pegg has made it clear that he is playing the role of Scotty from the script and not going to imitate James Doohan’s portrayal and that is very much in evidence. Pegg makes the role totally his own and the script clearly calls for him to carry much of the comic load, as he did in Abrams’ Mission: Impossible: III (whic was written by Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams). Pegg was only seen in one scene and it was being played for laughs and it works. There was just a hint of Scotty as the genius engineer, and so hopefully in the rest of the movie we see him begin to earn that reputation as a miracle worker.      


Pegg plays Scotty for laughs

Hikaru Sulu: John Cho
Besides seeing the back of his head at the helm, Sulu was only seen at the preview in the attack on Vulcan scene.  Cho was not kidding when he said Sulu was a ‘badass’ in this movie. Sulu (who, in another one of Orci & Kurtzman’s continuity callouts, tells Kirk he has an expertise in fencing ) really raises the action bar in his fight scene. In fact, it is actually Sulu (and his cool Katana) who has to save Kirk, who didn’t have a weapon to fight off his Romulan. Cho shows that mix of confidence with a bit of whimsy that we expect from Sulu, with maybe a bit more ferocity than we are used to.       


Cho’s Sulu goes from helm to hero

Pavel Chekov: Anton Yelchin
Anton Yelchin’s Chekov is introduced in the scene where Kirk is warning Pike about the Romulans. We find him at his console with the computer not responding to him due to his accent, and I got to say, I am with the computer on this one. Yelchin is a talented actor, as can be seen in films like Alpha Dog. And the role as written, fits the character perfectly as he is a young and shy seeming officer, but also enthusiastic and good at his job (all of which are portrayed as he goes running through the corridors yelling "I know how to do that" as he heads to the transporter room to save Kirk and Sulu from being turned into jelly on the surface of Vulcan). Yelchin does a great job with all of that, but he sure is laying on the Russian accent thick. This film is not supposed to be going into parody (and I know he is from a Russian family), but it was a bit much. In talking to others outside the theater after the event I found people were split, with some thinking he was cute and others agreeing they needed to dial back on the "Wessels" knob.        


Yelchin’s Chekov is wery wery Russian

Nero: Eric Bana
Nero was only seen during the attack on Vulcan, and only for a few brief moments so it is impossible to get a full sense of the character. However he does appear different than your typical Star Trek villain. Bana’s Nero seems to be much less bombastic and larger than life, he just seems quietly, cold, calculating, and ruthless as he and his crew methodically destroy an entire planet. Much of this is probably the result of Bana not coming from the same kind of theatrical background as Trek guest villain actors like Christopher Plummer (ST:VI – Chang). I haven’t seen enough to make a call, but even though Bana has a background in comic acting, his Nero is as real as a heart attack.      


Nothing funny about Bana’s Nero

Production

Sets – Enterprise
Although much of the talk of the film is about the ‘iBridge’ that is just one facet of the Enterprise. The interiors of the Enterprise in this film make the ship seem bigger than ever seen since TMP and one thing that is different for Trek is the variety of different looks. Sickbay is much less bright and seems much more like a modern medical facility. The ‘realism’ and industrial aspects go up even higher as you go into the transporter room, the workspace where Kirk finds Uhura and the area outside the shuttle bays. Unlike the past on Trek where there is pretty much a uniform design aesthetic to the ships, this Enterprise is more like a ship where the bridge deck is a gleaming first class, and as you get deeper into the ship the more industrial it gets until it is all metal and pipes and ducts and valves with a periodic LCD screen. I am no Canonista and open to change, but I found the variance a bit jarring. It was hard to imagine it was all the same ship. Each individual set was well done for the most part. I like the bridge in general, although I wish it were less busy and had a few less flashing lights. Transporter room was seen briefly and looked more like what we are used to in the TOS movie era. Sickbay was good. But some parts of the ship were clearly shot on an industrial location which worked for me sometimes and other times just looks like you are in a factory with a few sci-fi add-ons.

Sets – other
The rest of the sets and locations were excellent and provided a very realized world of the 23rd century. The Bar in Iowa had just enough sci-fi gizmos added in to make it futuristic without making it seem too Star Wars cantina. The shipyard where Kirk boards the shuttle was also shot on location somewhere, but here the industrial look mixed with some futuristic items worked perfectly. Probably the most interesting set was Nero’s bridge which was only seen a few times, but was unlike typical Star Trek bridges. There was no real sense of what was what and it almost seemed cobbled together with spare parts, but that all added to the menace. You could see that Abrams wanted the ship to be another ‘mysterious monster’ both inside and out.


This is just the high class part of the Enterprise

Wardrobe, make-up and creature effects
One of the areas this film goes into new territory is in terms of costumes. Again they seem to be finding the right mix of realistic and futuristic. What is also good to see is the variety. In just the four scenes shown, we see Kirk in four different outfits (five if you count the gold shirt seen in the trailer). I love the new uniforms, which are a great call back to the originals. The only thing seen so far I am not a big fan of is the sky diving suits, which seem a bit too ‘typical sc-fi.

As for for the aliens, there was one seen in the bar that appears to have a CGI face and it was flawless both in terms of the effects as well as how the character was shot )sitting between Kirk and Uhura and getting an earful from them both). There was another alien in Scotties workshop (his small sized sidekick) who was in full make-up and yet you believed he really was a scaly skinned little alien buddy. The days of slapping some latex on a forehead and calling it a day are over.

The Effects & The Enterprise & Nero’s Ship
You can already see from the trailer, this film is in a whole new category when it comes to the special effects, especially in terms of past Star Trek. The work that ILM has done is breathtaking and you really believe what you are seeing.

As for the new Enterprise, I like it. I didn’t speak about it last week when the first image came out because I thought it was a bad angle. We have a new poll going on the Enterprise and comparing it to the one done before the trailer came out shows a big jump in those who like or ‘love’ the ship. You are going to like it even more once you see it in action.

Nero’s ship is really hard to call a ship. The size and power make it as intimidating as the Doomsday Machine (in "Doomsday Machine") and the organic feel of the swirling mass of chains (and who knows what  else is going on) really make it more of a space monster than a ship. No surprise coming from the man behind Lost and Cloverfield


Now that is more like the E I love


The Kelvin didn’t stand a chance against Nero’s monster

Direction
Back in June I noted in my article 10 Things M:I:III can teach us about the Star Trek movie that JJ Abrams is going to be bringing a new modern sensibility to Trek, and boy was that evident. Like that film, the pacing is frenetic with lots of quick cuts and of course the lots of hand-held camera work. The scene on the drilling rig felt a lot like the bridge scene in M:I:III. Unlike that film, Abrams seems to have opened up lens more to give a sense of scale available on the big screen, whereas in M:I:III he sometimes seemed to be forgetting he had the wide canvas and fell back to his TV roots. This style, along with the effects, show where Abrams has brought some of that Star Wars feel to Star Trek, but the poignant moments in the bar and in Scotty’s lab also show that this film still pays attention to the characters. Some fans may not like this new style, but I think that Trek in the last decade (especially on TV) has been caught in a time warp and not kept up with modern film making.


Abrams amps up the action

Music
One thing that all Trek fans seem to agree on is that Michael Giacchino is the right man for the job as Star Trek’s new composer, and you will not be disappointed.

 

Bottom line

This Star Trek movie is going to be unlike any before. That notion is exciting and a bit terrifying for the true believers. As fans we are familiar with hundreds of hours of a saga spanning centuries and the notion of a team team coming in with a new look and sensibility is not always easy to accept. From seeing this footage it is clear that this is made by people who respect Star Trek, but they are also clearly trying to make a new kind of Star Trek that appeals to a larger community. This means that at one moment you wont believe your eyes when you see an amazing shot of the Enterprise in action, then you may have a tear in your eyes as you see the new young Kirk grow into the role of Captain and interact with the original Spock, and yet in the the next minute you may roll your eyes at some over the top cartoonish gag or overtly sexy moment.

For me it is always about the characters and (mostly) that is working and working well. I am a little concerned about Quinto’s Spock, but it could be that I just haven’t seen enough. I will have to live with the over-the top accent with Chekov. But all in all, I am very excited to welcome this cast into my Trek family, especially Chris Pine’s new Kirk.

I have no doubt that many Trek fans are having trouble embracing the amount of change this film represents for the franchise. But I would argue that Star Trek has no choice but to change. For the last decade, the franchise has been in decline. Creatively it has been running out of steam (with some notable bright spots along the way), and the popularity has been in decline. It is surprising that just a few years after the financial failures of Nemesis and Enterprise, Paramount took the risk of making a big Trek film, and even more surprising that it didn’t go down the full reboot road like the Batman and Bond franchises. Abrams and his team are trying to thread the needle of creating a film that works for the Trek fans and works for a general audience. From what I have seen, it appears that they may have pulled it off.

 

The C word

You will note that the above analysis does not mention the word ‘canon’, a word that for some fans is paramount (no pun intended). These scenes do not seem to be in a film that ‘slots in’ right before The Original Series. Romulans, Pike, the ship, Iowa construction, etc….there are what appear to be ‘canon violations’ all over the place. However we are assured that “all will be revealed” and that there are canon reasons for everything. We know from previous reports that the film involves Nero going back in time from the post Star Trek Nemesis era and destroying the USS Kelvin a generation before the events seen in this four clips. That alone can explain the differences, and until we see the whole thing, we do not know how this plays out. Until then, it is hard to say what does and does not violate canon, and so it isn’t worth obsessing over.

 

Comments

1. Hat Rick - November 20, 2008

Perhaps the orbital skydiving is the most currently feasible element of this movie. There are actual plans, I believe, to achieve it.

2. SPB - November 20, 2008

But does Zoe Saldana SING…?

“Beyond Antares!”

3. SPB - November 20, 2008

But does Anton Yelchin SCREAM…?

“Aiii-YEEEEEEE!!!”

4. hitch1969© - November 20, 2008

oh. so THAT is what AP was doing at Paramount.

sorry bout that sir. thank you, drive thru.

=h=

5. SPB - November 20, 2008

“The days of slapping some latex on a forehead and calling it a day are over.”

HALLELUJAH!!!

6. Cato the Llama - November 20, 2008

What still confuses me is . . . how is Kirk still just a cadet, while the rest of the crew (including lil’ Chekov) are already commissioned officers?

7. Hat Rick - November 20, 2008

I was fascinated by the comment that as one goes deeper into the Enterprise, one goes, metaphorically, from first class to steerage, or, at any rate, the boiler room. This is an interesting development and perhaps rationalization can be brought forth from the world of real ships, where the bridge or the combat command center is often highly technological even as the engine room remains aethestically unchanged from fifty or sixty years ago.

I would be interested in seeing consistency within decks, and among adjacent levels. For example, the captain’s ready room (if there is one) should be one befitting the officer’s status; the senior officers’ conference room should be relatively refined. Below decks, the junior officers’ quarters should be significantly less impressive, and by the same token, the engineering sections of the ship — having no business being other than purely utilitarian — should indeed show the pipes and other conduits that doubtless run through the ship. One recalls that, consistent with this idea, there were many such fittings seen aboard the TOS Enterprise along its many corridors. And one should certainly not forget the exposed nature of the interior of the Jeffries tubes.

The starship design ethic of the 23d Century is still a long way from the “luxoliner” ethos of the Enterprise-D, and perhaps that’s exactly the way it should be.

8. Can't Wait for Labor Day 2009 - November 20, 2008

Great Article Anthony. Can not agree with you anymore of Star Trek being about its Characters.

9. Aragorn189 - November 20, 2008

Sounds promising.
Those will probably be the scenes released in April to promote the movie as well. Hope they do arrive. I can read descriptions all day, but to actually see those scenes unfold is a totally different experience. Can’t wait for May.

10. T2 - November 20, 2008

what more is there to do between now and may….think we’ll get another trailer before then? great review.

11. Jorg Sacul - November 20, 2008

but…but… Vulcan blown up? That’s going to put a kink in Spock’s pon farr homecoming down the road!

Ok, ok… I just have one question remaining: Is it May 2009 yet?

12. RuFFeD_UP - November 20, 2008

Hmm sounds interesting I’ll have to lower my level of trolling on IMDB lol.

13. Yspano - November 20, 2008

Hi Anthony! From your description and impressions of the Enterprise interiors, it sounds as if it had become the Titanic.

14. AJ - November 20, 2008

Wow. “a little concerned about Quinto’s Spock?”

Anything worse than Nimoy in “The Cage or “WNMHGB” in hindsight?

15. New Horizon - November 20, 2008

The great thing about these previews is that they have time to actually go back and tweak some things that are a bit over the top….such as the comical hands, or Yelchin’s over exaggerated accent…I’m sure he could re-record some of his more obvious lines and dial them back.

I kind of had a hunch that Yelchin wasn’t really getting the character during an interview with him that I read. He just seemed to grasp a very surface understanding of Chekov.

Hopefully the film makers will see fit to fix some of these things to make the film even stronger than it already sounds.

16. Gene - November 20, 2008

I wonder is Scott Bakula makes an appearance as Admiral Archer or the Admiral his son? Will the beagles name be Porthos?

17. Rick Berman's left nut - November 20, 2008

Very impressive so far, I hope this movie makes a lot of moolah so more are made.

18. Hat Rick - November 20, 2008

13, let us hope that it does not suffer the Titanic’s fate!

On Pavel Chekov, a bit of a sidelight: How interesting it is that accents survive into the 23d Century! Clearly, a hundred years later, Picard was to speak with an upper-crust English accent (inexplicably, since his family is from France). Yet, besides Chekov’s patois, the Southern drawl (McCoy) and the East Indian accent (commander of the “rigging a solar sail” ship in STVI), to the contrary, survived, at least through Kirk’s time. What does it say about the 24th Century that fewer accents seem visible then than a mere hundred years prior?

For example, why, precisely, wouldn’t Riker speak with a Sarah Palinesque accent? (On second thoughts ….)

19. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 20, 2008

While I admire your optimism, your faith’s misplaced.

Abrams & Co. mean well, but, it’s clear they perceive what is quintessential Trek about as clearly as a fork perceives the taste of food.

Films that succeed the most, are often those who try the least to be something they’re not.

It’s A Trek. Just not THE Trek.

There’s a difference.

They’ve failed to note that.

20. thorsten - November 20, 2008

Anthony, did they show the production stills in the lobby?
The shots from that factory kind of did not work for me either, because it does not really suit how the ship looks from the outside now… or as the guy from Wired put it, “The engineering department looks like the guts of a World War II battleship after being colorized by Ikea.”

21. hitch1969© say Chaz™ Root is THE MAN. - November 20, 2008

I am hesitant to believe that Vulcan’s destruction is going to be an event that is not corrected.

I think there are many plot points from this movie that we are missing.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

22. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 20, 2008

13-

Funny you should mention that…and I’m not talking about the movie, either.

23. New Horizon - November 20, 2008

19. Anthony Brooks Fellows –

You’ve seen the footage that Anthony P has seen then? I think I’ll take Anthony P’s word, until I see it myself. If he says it works…it works.

24. Hat Rick - November 20, 2008

Before we get into the question of canonicity overmuch, I wanted to note how positively rococo the speculation about where the Enterprise was built can be. There are those who say, for example, that the Enterprise could have been build in a city called San Francisco located elsewhere than in California, but as I recall, California was specifically mentioned in canon, and there is no San Francisco in California other than THE San Francisco, which looks nothing like rural Iowa (or Bakersfield, for that matter).

For those who don’t believe that canonicity can be preserved in this new Star Trek, perhaps it’s just as well, since Chris Pine does not look very much like William Shatner.

25. Michael Scott - November 20, 2008

I’m feeling more reassured everyday and can’t wait until may!

26. Sean4000 - November 20, 2008

I really think Nero’s time traveling is just throwing a big wrench into things to show us that we don’t need everything exactly the way we were told in order to have a compelling story.

This is just looking better and better.

The VFX are out of this world. No pun intended. Thank you ILM and thank you Linux!

27. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

Why is it that if Quinto performs something like one of Nimoy’s eye-brow raises, or another Spock idiosyncrasy created by the original actor, it is considered to be true to character or a “Spockism,” but if Pine were to utilize something like a pause as he considered what to say next or how to say it, or gestured in a way that was idiomatic or characteristic of an aspect of Shatner’s interpretation of the character (and thus in my opinion creating some continuity with the character we know of TOS and the films with that cast), we are told we are not getting a “Kirkism” but a “Shaterism?”

Also, it is apparently just fine that Urban essentially channels DeForest Kelley’s performance. Why then would it be so terrible if Pine gave at least something of a nod to the original interpretation of Kirk’s characteristics and established mannerisms without these being lambasted as caricature or parody?

I am starting to feel that there is too much prejudice against Shatner and his icon-creating performances on the part of the film-makers (in an earlier interview Pine is quoted as saying he did not go to “Shatnerville”). and on the part of some of the personnel contributing to this website.

Why is this the case, when so much of what we admire and love about Kirk’s character was every bit as much breathed into life by Shatner’s performance as those we admire about Spock and McCoy were done so by these other two fine original actors?

I just don’t understand why there is so much bias, if not outright disdain, against the man who helped flesh out this character over forty years ago and whose performances helped contribute to keeping this fictional universe interesting and appealing to countless fans for over four decades: bias not only on the part of the fans but also from those reporting news of the film’s developments.

28. james - November 20, 2008

Beagles live for 100 years? Holy crap

29. hitch1969© say Chaz™ Root is THE MAN. - November 20, 2008

I am also surprised that AP questions Quinto as Spock.

This site is where I learned of Heroes, Sylar. etc. I had never seen the show until June of this year. I torrented all season 1 & 2 episodes and me and hitch1996 watched them over the summer, in anticipation of season 3.

However, I would have never even bothered without the high referencial from this site. And it did not disappoint.

So now, AP is questioning Sylar as Spock? wow. Leonard Nimoy signed off on this… good enough for me.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

30. Catie - November 20, 2008

Thank so much for the review!
I was most excited by the description of Nimoy as Spock. I can’s wait to see this. I also agree that the characters are by far the most important aspect.
:-)

31. Cato the Llama - November 20, 2008

#27. Brett, well said. It’s so ironic that Shatner created this cultural icon that many people love, but then vilify almost everything that Shatner did to make Kirk, Kirk.

32. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

31 – Cato, thank you. I’m glad that there are others who feel the same way. I get tired of Shatner and his interpretation always getting slammed. I’m glad that there are other fans grateful for the actor’s accomplishments in creating this extraordinary character.

33. vincent gregg - November 20, 2008

Anthony,

I could not agree more in your interpertation of the clips. (ive seen them in NY and I thank you for posting my report)

I am also concerned about the Quinto scenes. I didnt like his reaction to Pike’s naming Kirk as first officer. His response was supposed to be logical and without emotion but was not delivered in an emotionless, logical mannor (about the human sense of humor escaping him). We need to see more. The jury is out.

Pine really does well. Totally blown away by his confident portrayal. Im glad you saw the character arc as I did. He’s really good in the older Spock scene. Very mature and very Kirk. When he saves Sulu, he doesnt hesitate. True hero, True Kirk. They lucked out with Pine.

I’m in the Anton Yelchin is great club. Chekov was always a very “stereotype” charactor. The fact that he lays it on thick and was very “kid” like at times was enjoyable.

I think we will definately see the knowledgeable Dr. McCoy. Urban is McCoy and the best part of Kirk’s reaction to the medicine was when McCoy saw his hands enlarge and yells, “My God Man!”

The Enterprise is awesome. Hands down. I just wish they would release a clip to the fans that more accurately represents the ship. The lighting and different angles shows the ship to be the goods.

Most importantly, Im glad you have seen the clips!!!!!!!!!!

34. Hat Rick - November 20, 2008

27, I, too, believe that Shatner’s performance of Kirk is sometimes given too little respect, although in this I speak of no one in particular.

As to why some people ridicule Shatner’s mannerisms, I’m afraid I must say that, for this, I fault the same kind of sneering condescension on the part of too much of popular culture toward Trek as a whole. For too much of the media, it’s “cool” to look down on Trekkies for their supposed indulgence in the unreal, and, by extension, it’s therefore “cool” to diss Shatner. Why the same kind of contempt isn’t rained down on those who not only play, but may place bets on fantasy football or other such sports, for example, is, at first glance, obscure.

But, then again, even the schlockiest kind of comedian needs someone to whom they can feel superior, justifiably or not.

35. iyellkhan! - November 20, 2008

so do we know where precisely the enterprise is constructed? I had just gotten use to the idea of it being built on Earth, but Im not sure if I can stand Iowa. Lest the shipyards also function as a caucus site, in which case I will laugh and then cry.

36. CarlG - November 20, 2008

Oh noes! Poor Porthos! Scotty had better save that puppy. Or else.

Is it May yet?!?!

37. tholianhata - November 20, 2008

Great review, Anthony. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Not as good as seeing it myself, but almost.

27: The way Pine is sitting in the pic above looks very much like a Shatner-ism to me.

38. Anthony Pascale - November 20, 2008

vincent, I am glad too!

It was a bit weid after talking to you and thorsten and all the other folks who covered this event. I have edited half a dozen articles on this and read a dozen more. Seeing the clips was lying watching a movie for a book that I had read many times before.

I am glad we are in agreement on most. Just to be clear, I like yelchin and chekov is written well. I just think they went too far on the accent.

RE: Shatner and others who comment on that
I love shatner. This site covers him and his every move, we have a new ‘shatwatch’ coming up shortly. The reason I was so concerned going in about pine is that william shatner made me love star trek and Kirk.

I just happen to think that the role is so icon and been parodied so often that to ‘do shatner’ becomes parody too easily.

39. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 20, 2008

The stock was about to split. Now I read this about the E’s interiors.

I was reallly orried about this. C’mon. Did they think nobody would notice?
And really, how much did they save doing this? The E’s interiors should all have the same basic characteristics. Sticking an LCD in betweeen a few pipes is so lacking in inpsiration.

Anyhow, thanks for the warning on that one Anthony. Sounds like those detais took you right out of it. It would for me too. I don’t get it. Why make Trek for such big money, make it epic and all, and then scrimp on the REAL set details, or add anoying porrly conceived comic relief?

PLEASE SOMEONE DO SOME RESHOOTS OR ADD SOME CGI MAKEUP TO THE SETS FAST!!!

My G*d Nero. What have you done?

40. montreal paul - November 20, 2008

19. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 20, 2008
“It’s A Trek. Just not THE Trek.”

Well DUH.. THE Trek is a 3 season series that ran on TV in the late 60’s. EVERYTHING afterwards is A Trek. Even TWOK was A Trek and not THE Trek.

You are more than welcome to live in the past and view every episode on DVD and not embrace this new Trek… but I will do both. Thank you very much. Anthony’s review of the footage was great.. I look forward to seeing this movie in May.

41. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

34- Good points. I believe that a lot of late night talk show hosts, ofr example, are dismayed by the current administration’s coming to a close for the mine of opening-monologue one-liners and other materials it has yielded them for the past eight years.

And you’re right: it is a large part of human nature for many people to feel better about themselves only by denigrating others.

42. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 20, 2008

So not a ringing all out endorsement but that much of what you saw works. I can live with that. I do hope they keep the Michael Bay-esque low brow humor to a minimum though. There is tasteful humor like the ironic stuff in Lost, or the Apatow humor and then there is the 2nd grader dumb Michael Bay-esque and Rob Schneider type humor. I know they are trying to appeal to the little kids and MTV myspace gen but I don’t need dumb funny like peeing Transformers and Mickey Mouse hands Kirk. Also sounds like we are going to have an all out comic relief Scotty with Pegg. Not really happy about that I thought they might have him play it a bit straighter but it sounds like were getting wacky Simon Pegg Scotty.

So all in all looks very promising but I think all of us are going to have to deal with some stuff aimed at pre teen pocket books. I can deal with that as a small price to pay to get Kirk, Spock and my Enterprise back .

43. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

38 – Anthony, thank you for clarifying, and my comments were not aimed against you personally, but against what I have seen to be typical journalism and media-related comments about the film and the inevitable comparisons to its TOS sources.

I still, however, feel that one or two nods to Shatner’s performance on the part of Pine and the filmmaker’s would create some character continuity and thus enhance believability.

44. hitch1969© say Chaz™ Root is THE MAN. - November 20, 2008

AP- Will we like this, based on what you saw?

I can ask the OrcSter, but I think its gonna be a bit biased………..

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

45. Mark - November 20, 2008

Anthony – above, re Greenwood/Pike, you say,

“Pike is in no way a weak foil set up for the audience to be begging for Kirk to get the big chair. Greenwood’s Pike excludes the confidence and fast decision-making that is the model of what we hope is the future of Captain Kirk”

Did you perhaps mean exudes rather than excludes? That would make more sense to me.

And #27, you are right on the nose. We don’t want a Shatner impersonation, but some of the Shatnerisms ARE part of the Kirk character.

46. Mark - November 20, 2008

I love how people who haven’t seen any of the movie keep saying that people who have seen parts of the movie and really liked or loved it that they are wrong!

Amazing!

47. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 20, 2008

On 1 – 10 scale this looks like it wil be a 6. Maybe 7.

48. Jeff D - November 20, 2008

Re 27:

I’ve also often wondered the same thing… Just because Shatner may have brought some of the same mannerisms into almost every part he played, doesn’t mean it’s not a part of the character we know as Kirk.

49. DJT - November 20, 2008

I….was not….invited?

KHAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!!!!

50. Jon S. - November 20, 2008

Reaction to the ‘swelled hands’ gag seems to be mostly negative. Hopefully Mr. Abrams will take the hint and cut that scene…

51. thebiggfrogg - November 20, 2008

I’m worried this is going to be too cute by half: the Enterprise being built in Kirk’s backyard? Scotty played for laughs. Kirk and Uhura getting it on. Captain Pike as Kirk’s father figure. Kirk’s big ol’ hands. As someone said in a post elsewhere it seems like the Star Warsification is on. Everything in Star Wars was too tidy: Leia is Luke’s sister. Vader/Anakin built C3PO, Yoda and Chewie were old comrades. Hopefully Scotty’s pal isn’t all Ewok-y and Kirk’s hands won’t put us all in the mind of Jar Jar Binks.

I think with all the changes this is going to have to be the beginning of an alternate timeline. Canon is smashed so often by the sound of it it would be impossible to fit this in a predecessor to The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before. So I’m actually hoping for a broken timeline and a permanently destroyed Vulcan, because it is the only way I reconcile it with the rest of Trek. Besides, if everything goes back to normal at the end how will they fit it into Trek continuity for the inevitable (barring a flop) sequel?

I mostly enjoyed the trailer, but the descriptions of these scenes have me on “red alert.” Hopefully I’m proven wrong.

52. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

37 – Nah, Shatner would have been holding up his RIGHT arm. In fact, perhaps that is a canon violation …;) Tongue — swollen by a McCoy drug — firmly in cheek.

45 – “you are right on the nose. We don’t want a Shatner impersonation, but some of the Shatnerisms ARE part of the Kirk character.” You see it, too.

53. Anthony Pascale - November 20, 2008

TrekMadeMeWonder and others

it is not for you to say how I would rate the movie.

hitch

I cannot answer how I think you or any other fan will react.

I have spoken to other true Trekkies who have gone and in LA and other cities and there is a lot of agreement that this all looks good.

54. TerPor - November 20, 2008

Star Trek is finally with good hands i really hated how Rick Berman and
Brannon Braga nearly killed Trek

55. SciFiMetalGirl - November 20, 2008

I think they should re-do all of the TOS-R episodes with the new Enterprise!

56. Jim Nightshade - November 20, 2008

Great article and comments Mr. Anthony Sir! Thanks again for all that voodoo that you do do! I am totally behind JJ and this movie. It sounds like the heart of the movie is the characters, OUR characters, and that for the most part is what will make this movie great. Likewise the story seems superior, and of course the visuals are nothing short of spectacular! It sounds like JJ has done everything he can and then some about making this movie both for Star Trek fans and Movie fans. Let us all hope and pray and that both will show up in droves and make this movie the most successful Star Trek movie of all time. The humor/slapstick moments may seem out of place but if it helps to entertain everyone then it is worth doing. I understand the movie makers intentions, as we often remember a funny or slapstick moment from a classic movie we have seen and enjoyed.

Quarksbartender Darren. I read your comments in the other room too late as posting messages was already closed by the time I read it. I have been to the Experience and Quarks many times over the years but have not really gotten to be that well known with the bartenders. Myself and Sheri were last there in August on the 19th 20th on a tuesday and wednesday…We were there tuesday nite and sat at the bar next to Gerry after meeting him. We saw April in and out of costume. She came by and sat at the bar with us Tuesday nite…We also left a paper on the wall of memories with a pix of the two of us holding Drinks in Quarks….We saw our poster was put on on the wheelchair ramp after we left it there we noticed it in a picture in the UglyCouch.com website pictures….Hope that helps…I dont know if you were the bartender that waited on us. We tried to drink a mini borg sphere and failed, also ate one of the shrimp pasta dishes….We live in Tacoma…JEFF AND SHERI

57. hitch1969© say Chaz™ Root is THE MAN. - November 20, 2008

AP,

can you please comment either way about what i posted previous:

“i think that we’re going to see various shout-outs in dialogue to the previous versions of Trek (ie – Archer’s dog) but I highly doubt that any major plot point is going to be based on anything before it.

Personally, I think all the canon violations are, like I’ve stated before – First Contact’s “reintroduction” of Cochrane. If you try to compare it to that one episode, you’ll be like… duh? But if you have a general idea who he is in the scheme of things and havent seen the episode in 15 years it really works well. Because you remember his name and that about it. “Oh yeah… that guy. I remember him in an episode I saw 15 years ago. The stupid one with the cloud and the chick from Father Knows Best”

In other words… no alternate timeline. Sir JJ said that this is an “origins” story. AP has called it a “prequel”. THAT is it’s function, the time travel aspect thrown in as a reset button.

I don’t think that Sir JJ is giving nods to any previous series. He’s not a fan, remember? He’s been handed this franchise and surrounded himself with knowledgeable folks like the Orcster to keep it honest.

How honest, is open to interpretation. I believe it’s very faithful, because I am not getting caught up in some throw away line that Shatner said in an episode that’s 40 years old.

SO now, SF is Iowa… earths orbit becomes on the ground… I mean, come on… why is Uhura in a bar IN IOWA???? Pike’s there, too? Chekov serving with Pike? No Boyce, Number One, all them? One beep for piss, two beeps for shit?

Would the general movie going public care??? “This movie is not for the fans, it’s for fans of movies”

It’s like old David Chase tells us about that Sopranos final episode. “It’s all there.”

People please think about this and begin to accept. Then, enjoy. Stop making up crazy scenarios that defy common sense. It’s all there, it’s all been there, right in front of you. Like the ruby slippers and whatnot. Just click your heels and wish.”

AP – is this your general impression? OR am I totally off on this?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

58. Brian - November 20, 2008

Guys-

We haven’t seen the film yet…who’s to say he doesn’t give Shatner a nod somewhere in the film? He’s very Kirk-like(i.e. Shatner) in that shot of him sitting in the command chair.

And if he doesn’t, big deal. Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig don’t channel Connery and things have seemingly worked out very well for the Bond franchise these many years.

I say this as a life-long Kirk fan. I’m not interested in seeing a Shatner impression. Let Pine make Kirk his own. As long as Jim Kirk is written properly, the attributes we all know and love will shine through.

59. thebiggfrogg - November 20, 2008

28. This is the 23rd century! Of COURSE, beagles live ridiculously long lives.

60. The Lensman - November 20, 2008

“But some parts of the ship were clearly shot on an industrial location which worked for me sometimes and other times just looks like you are in a factory with a few sci-fi add-ons.”

There’s a certain weirdness to that for me personally. Because in my 37 years of being a Trek fan, I’ve only had one dream, years and years ago where I was actually on the Enterprise. I was in the secondary hull and it looked like an industrial machine shop (although my general impression is that the whole ship had the same industrial look). I always felt let down that it didn’t look anything like the show.

Maybe I was just remembering the future, eh?
Is that the Twilight Zone theme I hear?

At the time, though, I worked at place that had a huge printing press workshop and at the end of the day I had to walk through the thing to leave. It was big, industrial and always full of noise and activity. I’m sure there were a few times, walking through, where I thought that such a place existed on the Enterprise….prolly cause I’d read “Voyage of the Space Beagle” where machine shops and production facilities DID exist. And since that’s as much a pre-cursor and influence on Trek as Forbidden Planet…wasn’t much of a stretch in my mind..

61. DarthLowBudget - November 20, 2008

Also, people may note that Kirk is actually the least “Shatner” of Shatner’s roles. All those pauses and everything really are more parody than accurate reflection.

62. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

58 – Never said I wanted a Shatner impression — just believability in character continuity, the likes of which Urban and Quinto are apparently reported to be bringing to their interpretations without a lot of media hoopla or ridicule. I hope that helps clarify my stance.

63. devon Richards - November 20, 2008

Hmm, i’m concerned when you pundits say you have reservations about Quinto’s portrayal of Spock. When I first heard he was cast, it was the first time I actually relaxed about this movie and thought they might know how to pull this off. I guess we’ll see.
I’m glad that Pine is winning people over with Kirk. If he didn’t work, this movie wouldn’t work, and that would not bode well for Star Trek as a whole.

64. Skippy2k - November 20, 2008

Not sure about the accent yet as I haven’t seen the clips or actually seen him in anything but where I work I see the cover of “Charlie Barnett” at work pretty reguarly and I like his hair style there as more of a checkov look. Now obviously styles change and I’m not meaning this as any kind of major point just something I think when I see it compared to the pic above.

Here is the cover:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/draven99/movies2/charlie_bartlett_ver4.jpg

65. Brian - November 20, 2008

62-

I totally understand what you’re saying; I want that continuity too. Since Kirk is apparently the linchpin of this movie I suspect we’ll get it….maybe not at the beginning of the film but hopefully by the end.

66. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

64 – Nice shot of Yelchin. Hey, hey, he’s a Monkee! ;) Remember that Roddenberry created the role not only as antidote for the Cold War but also to vie for some of the teeny-bopper audience Davy Jones was getting.

67. Brett Campbell - November 20, 2008

65 – I agree.

68. Michael Hall - November 20, 2008

Not having seen the footage, it’s been fascinating to me, even in my distress, how those who have almost universally praise what they’ve seen–even as their descriptions of what J.J. Abrams has wrought make my heart sink and my blood run cold.

I’m not a canonista, or opposed to change on principle, nor am I someone who ever insisted that this film had no business being made without Bill Shatner’s participation. Reboot, reimagine, reset the basic Trek premise for a new generation, whatever. Move things around, change what you want–just tell a good story that respects the characters, Roddenberry’s philosophy, and, most importantly, the intelligence of this film’s intended audience in a way that summer blockbusters rarely do. Sadly, very little that I’ve seen or read so far has convinced me that the new Star Trek intends to deliver on any of those counts. The attempts at humor as described sound silly and forced, the worst since Shatner’s ill-conceived ego-trip into self-parody. The jeopardy, with its emphasis on yet another two-dimensional villain seeking revenge, is tired and stale. Worst of all, every choice the writers have made regarding the backstory of how the Enterprise crew comes together seems to have been dictated by a perverse contrarian notion of undermining audience expectations, irrespective of good storytelling, contradictions with established history, or even common sense. (This is why we end up with an image of a quarter-million ton starship being constructed in what looks like a 19th century welding foundry in the middle of an Iowan cornfield.)

I’ve been a steady visitor (and occasional poster) to this site since this film was first announced what now seems a very long time ago. Given the pedigree of the creative talent involved I had no reason to be anything but optimistic about its prospects. Now, even as I acknowledge that the trailer promises what looks to be a spectacular, big-budget Trek film I find myself dreading its arrival almost as much as I anticipate it. Of course, I could be wrong about this. I hope so–in fact, I’ll never have been so happy to have eaten crow in my life, if I wind up liking J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek in spite of it all.

69. Third Remata'Klan - November 20, 2008

“This Star Trek movie is going to be unlike any before. That notion is exciting and a bit terrifying for the true believers.”

I am not terrified. I am frikkin’ EXCITED!!!!

“Greenwood’s Captain Pike in the new Star Trek movie is one of unexpected highlights of the night.”

Unexpected? Not for me. I’ve been expecting Greenwood to be a highlight from the moment I heard of his casting.

Oh, and I’m thrilled that Urban seems to be getting it right, because his was the casting I was most worried about when it was first announced. But I love the guy, and I think it’s awesome!

Thanks for sharing this!

IS IT MAY YET?!?!?!

70. Third Remata'Klan - November 20, 2008

#68

Wow. Doom and gloom….

71. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#28

Different beagle. Heck, different Archer. (Jonathan Archer became President of the Federation, after all…if by some freakish miracle he was actually still alive, he wouldn’t be an Admiral….)

72. Aragorn189 - November 21, 2008

#57

Right on.

Not every bit od detail has to put into the new movie. If that were the case, then it would be a giant oversized fan film (not that its a bad thing, but it won’t keep Trek alive.) Canon has always been flexible to a degree. Look at Enterprise. First Contact opened numerous possibilities as well as the back story given by the original series. The same is going to go with this film and canon events can fit into this framework if you have enough imagination. Just let your nitpickieness go and enjoy. I’m pretty sure Vulcan is not going to be destroyed permanently and I’m pretty sure that this will fit into the standard timeline just like Trials and Tribulations, First Contact, and Enterprise did (as they dealt with the famous predestination paradox phenomenom).

By the way, those of you who are still referencing the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Chronology, those are out of date by nearly 10 years. Either the Okuda’s need to make a new edition to include everything including the new movie, or we need to accept the fact that this prime source is outdated and certain things within it are no longer canon (just as the Star Wars Encyclopedia is out of date because it doesn’t cover anything in the prequels or the newest expanded universe). Sorry, but official canon and history is about to get a new a slight change as a new “primary” source is “uncovered”.

73. hitch1969© say Chaz™ Root is THE MAN. - November 21, 2008

SO was Tony killed, or were the onion rings just really good?

“Its all there”

NO… Tony wasn’t whacked. AND there was nothing to indicate that he would be. Oh the movie never ends, it just goes on and on and on and on.

IS anyone smelling what the hitchman is cooking here?

I’ve read thousands of posts at this site, trying to tell me WHY Enterprise was built in San Francisco…or could be, despite “its all there”.

THOUSANDS islands about how time can be re-written and events and people like Gary Mitchell, Carol Marcus, Finnegan, Kirk’s time on the Farragut, etc CAN STILL BE POSSIBLE with this new movie.

“It’s all there”

YOU KNOW that canon his been thrown out the window in this new movie. Absolutely has to have had been.

THIS is the story that was never told… its an origins story.

MEET THE NEW CANON.

same as the old canon.

won’t get fooled again!!

=h=

74. The Last Maquis - November 21, 2008

Seriously Hoping NImoy isn’t in just that one scene, Is this thing going to jump from Alternate Realities as well?

75. mark - November 21, 2008

anthony, or anybody else:

WHAT THE F%&# DOES THIS MEAN??????

It’s insane. We have a life-size Enterprise, but I’m not allowed to talk about it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE4AK0LG20081121?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

76. JamesinTucson - November 21, 2008

I’m still stumped on the whole Kirk goes from Cadet (non comissioned) to first officer to Captain. Big ol ship like the Enterprise, and all Pike could find for command was a cadet? What the devil is that? Hundreds of crew members and nobody thought to say huh, who the heck are you to take command when I’ve trained for years to do this? I don’t get that piece. Someone email me if you have a theory on it or if I missed something, it’s really bugging me. Otherwise, I think we have a good movie coming our way that can open a hole bunch of doors if it sells well.

77. vincent gregg - November 21, 2008

# 69

Greenwood is really outstanding. He brings great honor to Pike . This movie (at least the clips) shows Pike to be an extrordinary leader and ideal star ship captain. Its seen when he talks to Kirk in the bar and when he is in command of the Enterprise during the Vulcan attack.

Think about it, Gene Roddenberry’s two captains from the 1960’s on the silver screen in 2009. Greenwoods performance redefines Pike in the Star Trek Universe.

78. Iowagirl - November 21, 2008

#27
Agreed.

#38 RE: Shatner
Anthony, thanks for clarifying.

79. Skippy2k - November 21, 2008

As much as I might prefer sticking closer to the established look/canon of the previous series/tos and canon errors do tend to stick out I am actually really excited about this movie! While its looking more and more like it won’t be completly rationalized within the older series I can’t wait, I’ve started watching my TOS remastered sets now that the 3rd came out (wanted to start with the cage).

80. JML9999 - November 21, 2008

Timeline and Cannon

I’m under the impression that Nero is from the future and has been trying in a style akin to Wile E. Coyote to kill both Kirk and Spock and wipe them out of the Timeline. So by the time Spock catches up the best he can do is make things kinda sorta a little bit like established cannon. Cannon being defined as the 5 Series and 10 Prior movies. If this is how the movie plays out, it sets things up where Spock could visit Kirk’s presumed grave on Veridian III only to have old Kirk walk up and say “Hello old friend”

81. mark - November 21, 2008

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE4AK0LG20081121?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

JJ PREPING LIFESIZE ENTERPRISE

JJ PREPING LIFESIZE ENTERPRISE

82. thebiggfrogg - November 21, 2008

By the way, speaking of the too cute by half, the biggest of all is all of the principals being aboard the Enterprise with Pike, especially Chekov. Again, in a big ol’ universe everything ties together too neatly. Hop there is some logical way around all this.

83. Jordan - November 21, 2008

Great write-up. Thank you! I have a few canon issues, because I guess I’m one of those kinds of fans. But I should reserve judgment until the finished product is released. That’s only fair.

84. Buzz Cagney - November 21, 2008

Particularly nice, and relieved, to hear that Pine (and the writers) seems to get Kirk.

85. cd - November 21, 2008

This is just Ultimate Star Trek, like Ultimate X-Men: rebooted Star Trek. Maybe they will do Star Trek Zombies next. >:>{

86. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 21, 2008

23-

Despite your clumsy attempt to cloud the matter, his word wasn’t the issue.

What he described–WAS.

I can judge from stills and exposition alone. I’ve never been wrong yet. And, from what I’ve seen and heard comes off as forced and contrived, a stereotypical pastiche right out of the Brannon Braga “high-concept, technobabbling” playbook.

Admiral Archer’s prized beagle?
Riverside Shipyards?
Mickey Mouse hands?
Space skydiving?
Giant drill?

The only thing he got right was that there are actually dive bars in Iowa, and that was just done to set up–oh, never mind. At least he got the girl.

Abrams should’ve stuck with a simple origins tale set around Kirk’s early years on the Republic and Farragut, showcasing the seminal event leading up to him taking command of the Enterprise, not this cliched mishmash of timeships, bed-hopping, bald alien bad guys and superweapons out to destroy whatever, contrived action and pointless drama.

Remember it when you’re eating Cardassian Crow Pie next year.

87. hitch1969© say Chaz™ Root is THE MAN. - November 21, 2008

well excuse us commoners who DIDNT have the luxury to see 1/3 of the new movie… most of us dildos are just going on the info that is released through official channels.

SO F YOU, luttuce speculate, mmmkay?

=h=

88. mark - November 21, 2008

LIFESIZE ENTERPRISE

LIFESIZE ENTERPRISE

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE4AK0LG20081121?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

LIFESIZE ENTERPRISE

LIFESIZE ENTERPRISE

89. voyager - November 21, 2008

Hmm, I had thought that the older Spock’s ice planet scene had come before the attack on Vulcan…but apparently it’s after that! Makes things even more interesting.

90. Leonel - November 21, 2008

If I may be so bold:

FINALLY!

This is the FIRST article since the creation of this site which has completely reassured me about the movie. Respectfully the constant rehashed variations from the cast and crew (“this movie is going to be cool,” the ever favorite r-word, “I was not a fan”, etc.) have been getting old but yes, I still look.. *smirk* When a side-by-side comparison of the old and new E from a similar camera angle came out, I started to turn around. And then the trailer.. :)

I cannot thank you enough, Anthony, for this post!! Writing about the scenes in the order they appear in the film, along with your extra analysis.. wonderful!

As long as we don’t hear more of the same over and over and over again from now until May, I won’t be the cynic I was turning into just three weeks ago.

91. Cheve - November 21, 2008

Finnaly, Anthony!

I personally love the jokes that work twice in the same sentence; as one joke for the fans and as a different one for the non fans.

92. Thomas - November 21, 2008

88. mark,
I followed the link, but JJ is so vague. it is just a model or is it complete with sets and stuff inside? He can’t even tell us what they’re up to right now. That said, a life-size Enterprise sounds awesome.

93. trekker77 - November 21, 2008

concerned about Quinto’s Spock? C’mon AP, elaborate? I always thought that 1 choice of casting was a big gamble as they grabbed Quinto, it seems, based on looks more than anything. Nimoy has such a unique look and that VOICE … I think Quinto has, hands down, the hardest job of recreating one of the original characters. sounds like you’re wondering if he pulled it off. Hope he did.

94. Leonel - November 21, 2008

51: I’m placing bets on Scotty’s little pal being K’t’lk from the novel The Wounded Sky, given Orci’s fascination with the novels. A good read, might I add.. ;-)

95. chasco - November 21, 2008

And again with the “Scotty’s played for laughs, isn’t that great?” stuff.

And again – NO! Please! It’s not what his character was about for fraks sake!

As for the those slapstick moments – please, somebody, edit them out.

The rest of it’s too far gone to fix (Cadet in charge, Chekov a commissioned officer when he should be about 12, everything thebiggfrogg said, etc etc…).

Oh well, I liked the early seasons of ‘Sliders’, and this looks like the Alternate Universe to end them all.

96. Lurker - November 21, 2008

I’m verrry curious about what happens to Pike following in those unseen moments following the shuttle’s departure for Vulcan, and the ejection of Kirk and Sulu — can we perhaps expect that Pike indeed goes and meets up with Nero in genuine negotiation fashion, only to get doublecrossed and pressed against a radioactive engine? Or perhaps is infected with radiation from the drill while attempting to rescue Vulcans in the last moments of the conflict?

…Or perhaps he lives to fight another day, cameo in the sequel…

Hmmm….

Oh, and Spock-Prime surely has more than just this scene shown — it’s been all but confirmed by Mr. Nimoy himself that he shares a scene with Quinto — has it not? I’d say we should expect Nimoy to pop up in at least three scenes…perhaps more…

97. McCoy's Gall Bladder. - November 21, 2008

I was going to post and complain about the Matrix control room, aka Enterprise bridge, but I wont.

I think I’ll read the novelization rather than see the movie.

I understand that Hollywood is more than in love with CGI “cool effects” but The Matrix was its own movie. That control room was all CGI and actors waving their hands at nothing, and also in The Running Man 2: Tom Cruise and a bald Irish chick, Anderton waves his hands at nothing, and the Matrix effects appear again, and now again on the Big E

What’s next? Camerons The Abyss/T2 liquid metal effects?
Jim Kirk dressing like a moody Jesuit Priest?
Transformers supermassive robots in tiny car bodies effects? What I liked about the TOYS was the robot was the car, the mass worked. The movie, suddenly the robots “grow” like the foam toys when wet. Yes the cartoon disappointed me, but it never pretended to be more than cartoon.

My point is, they could have updated the bridge without overusing effects that were only “cool” in the original movie.

It’s the LACK of originality, the lack of research into what it is, what it does, and why the design is the way it is that gets me the most.

The guy that posted about Engineering looking like someplace that engineering might plausibly happen is right on the mark. The ship is not a personal yacht. You expect the Sultan’s starship to look like that. Not a naval workhorse. I always hated carpet on a starship.

It’s the lack of thought. Hollywood elites that are used to pedicures, blue goatees, and being kissed up to instead of hard working, military experienced, blue collar guys who know that if the piston doesnt fit the cylinder correctly, the engine will seize, or if the circuit isnt grounded, someone’s in for a nasty shock, if it isnt thought THROUGH, then someone gets hurt. That’s what bothers me.

What does this part of the ship do? Why? What must be there?

Cars all look the same now because they must hold: humans, cargo, engines, and fuel.

Children draw cars that look cool, but couldnt possibly work. Engineers design cars from the inside out.

I’m sure the story’s well written, but the overall design is ripping off everything.

Anthony, you yourself instantly thought of the Cantina scene. I see the Matrix and Transformers.

Building Starships in Iowa doesnt make sense. Uhura was from the United States of Africa. Why does every villain have an overblown planet killer ship? Khan had the Reliant, Kruge a tiny frigate. Do we need another Scimitar or a V’Ger? Leave the big ships to Star Wars. How many planets had to be strip mined to build a star destroyer? Just how many fanboys does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Eyecandy, eyecandy all!

Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor not a scripwriter

98. Juli - November 21, 2008

Thank you Anthony for the reassures RE: Pine’s Kirk.
I have a good feeling about this ;)

99. The Wild Man Of Borneo - November 21, 2008

#6

Because they didn’t do any research when creating this movie and it almost seems as if they’ve only watched a handful of episodes of TOS.

Canon violations galore.

100. helenofpeel - November 21, 2008

When you reset the timeline then how can there be any canon violations at all?

101. Enterprise - November 21, 2008

Finally, after 3 Trek series we get new Trek!

102. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

Hmm… Well….

Okay, I’m still really unhappy with the continuity choices, but I’ll set those aside for the moment because there may be a story-based resolution we haven’t seen yet, or it may be as simple as the rest of the movie establishing more context that the four scenes alone don’t provide.

The humor I can take or leave. The descriptions of the visuals sound really good, for the most part.

The one thing that bothers me the most is more an issue of internal story logic, especially with the character of Kirk. I can understand the need to have the crew come together in one film, and that’s all fine. But it starts coming off as so…convenient. Now, maybe there’s more going on, but Kirk’s situation, especially, is causing me some serious suspension-of-disbelief issues. He goes from being a 4th-year cadet to being appointed as a ship’s XO, and then to permanent command, all in one shot?

JamesinTucson wrote:

“I’m still stumped on the whole Kirk goes from Cadet (non comissioned) to first officer to Captain. Big ol ship like the Enterprise, and all Pike could find for command was a cadet? What the devil is that? Hundreds of crew members and nobody thought to say huh, who the heck are you to take command when I’ve trained for years to do this? I don’t get that piece.”

Right. Exactly. Never mind canon, never mind continuity with TOS, this just seems…dubious on the common sense level. It’s the sort of thing that would throw me out of the movie on general principles, because I would just have trouble believing it. I don’t believe it in the military sense (one can only imagine how some of the other senior officers would respond), and I don’t believe it in the character continuity sense.

It would work so much better if this were an early incident, and then Kirk goes back and finishes his studies and has some of his career, and then we pick up again some years later, with James Kirk becoming a captain for real, and reuniting with some of the crewmembers he’d met during that prior event and is now fully ready to lead them out on that 5-year mission. Maybe that happens, and it’s part of what we haven’t seen yet. But if not, it’s a big story concern for me.

I could have bought into it so much better if the crisis at the center of the film had occurred subsequent to Kirk’s time on Farragut, with him as a screwed-up lieutenant trying to get his life and his career back on track, and this forcing him to confront some long-standing issues. I mean, given Abrams’s penchant for non-linear storytelling, how cool would it be to have had LT Kirk grieving over the loss of Captain Garrovick, who it’s said was very important to him, and contrast that with his father-figure issues from earlier (his dad being lost on the Kelvin, and his mean ol’ uncle). Then have Pike come in and mentor him, getting him back on-track and on course for his eventual command. It’d still not be spot-on with TOS continuity (I’m trying, in this thought-experiment, to preserve as much of the film’s actual storyline–to the extent that I know it or can figure it out–as possible), but it would make sense in terms of the story it seems the movie is trying to tell, and would use the established backstory to good effect.

It’s all too late for that, I guess, and I have to hope that either there’s a lot more to Kirk’s backstory that we haven’t yet been shown, or that the film’s internal logic is a lot more solid than the pieces we’ve seen so far.

103. Even more Life Like - November 21, 2008

Not crazy about how the E interiors sound. A redressed warehouse for engineering? Glowing heaven-like bridge?

104. Cowboy Steve - November 21, 2008

Anthony, thank you for a well-written and thoughtful report. I have confidence that this will be a movie well worth waiting for!

# 99 and others concerned about canon violations: Surely you must know that Gene Roddenberry and the original series were not slaves to canon. There were little gaffes and slips all over. They were making a TV show, not writing the Bible. We can live with minor discrepancies.

Please note, too, Anthony’s closing comments. We have not seen the whole film. It is premature to dismiss the film now since we have not seen the whole story. Have some faith that there will be a logical reason for any deviations from canon. I am a big fan of LOST, and am constantly amazed by JJ’s great care about continuity in that show. He will bring that same care to this project.

105. M5 - November 21, 2008

# 97
This is deeper than complaining about a bridge.

JJ is doing the following:

Star Wars (1977) was 30 years ago. 12 year olds have no idea who he’s ripping off.
Pine/Luke instead of whining about going to the academy is going to be tough and get some.
Aunt Beru/Uncle Owen/Kirk’s Parents get burned so he goes seeking vengance – Bones Smuggles him in the deckplates Vulcan/Alderaan gets blown up and there’s a showdown with Nero/Vader. Epic CGI space battles ensue.

JJ’s gambling, probably rightly so that this will be a cash cow creating a Star Wars franchise for Paramount so they can monetize all of america’s children yet again while essentially anihilating everything that made TOS TOS thus creating a new platform to inject new propaganda to a sadly dumbed down world.

Why you think they threw a 60’s Vette over a cliff? Clever or a veiled insult… you be the judge.

If you want to reward $13:50 or more to over-privileged jet setters with a huge agenda… again… Knock yourselves out. It will probably pay for development of a CGI CloneWars show to compete with a CGI CloneWars show, which is actually an ammusing metaphor.

For those like myself looking for more creative ways to spend your ticket money, here’s where mine will be going until Phase II drops the ball or gets co-opted which right now evidence is firmly demonstrated the opposite direction. A lot of great things started in people’s garages y’know.

Q. How can I help the production? (Phase II)
A. The best way to help is through gift cards from the retailers we buy supplies from (Home Depot, Lowe’s, WalMart). You can send them to Star Trek Phase II PO Box 448 Ticonderoga NY 12883 USA. If you have other ideas to help, CONTACT Public Relations for more info.

106. G-Boss - November 21, 2008

Thank You, Anthony for the great review.
Maybe now the Canon Nazis will chill out and just enjoy what I think will be the best Trek Movie in several years.

107. Al - November 21, 2008

Honest review Anthony. I am interested – reading between the lines – that you didn’t like it as much as you’d expected.

108. OR Coast Trekkie - November 21, 2008

Looking forward to this movie, canon violations or not…

109. That Nutty Fanboy - November 21, 2008

M5, we already had a Star Trek Clone Wars show. The Dominion war, anyone? =)

110. Anthony Pascale - November 21, 2008

107
this article may be the longest I have written for this site. There are plenty of lines in it and no need to read in between any of them

And I am a bit tired of people putting words into my mouth.

For those that wanted me to say something different I am sorry. I wrote what I feel is the full truth of the experience.

111. oztrek - November 21, 2008

Admiral Archer’s prize beagle – Funny I just re-watched the Enterprise series after staying away from it for quite a while – not as bad as I remembered it.

Great article

112. Sxottlan - November 21, 2008

I shouldn’t have read that. Got spoiled on something major, even though I could kind of surmise it from the one shot of Spock materializing on Vulcan.

I’m trying to stay as spoiler free as possible and have been pretty successful so far.

113. Bythebook? By...the...book. - November 21, 2008

#105:

To quote William Shatner: “Get a life.”

To quote myself: “F!ck off.”

114. Yspano - November 21, 2008

@ 105 M5
Oh, haha, I’m not sure if you’re being serious or ironic. ;)

115. voyager - November 21, 2008

Phase II is a joke.

116. Devon - November 21, 2008

Thanks for your review Anthony.

I’ve heard a few people mention that Anton lays on the Russian Accent kinda thick there. I too am curious about the Kirk being a Cadet to suddenly a Captain.

Also, when I was reading your review I found a pattern encrypted into your message which I found interesting. If you take certain letters throughout the article and piece them together, you get “Star Trek Must Die.” I thought this was really showing that you were very unbiased, but concerning considering the nature of this site and all.

;) Just messin.

117. Devon - November 21, 2008

#105 – $13.50 for a movie ticket? Where????? It’s only like $7 or $8.00 here. And since I am fully capable of making my OWN mind after seeing a movie whether or not I think it will be good.. that’s where I will be spending my money.

118. JML9999 - November 21, 2008

“116. Devon Cadet to suddenly a Captain.”

If we’re calling the TOS cannon

“Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before (#1.3)” (1966)
Lt. Mitchell: Hey, man, I remember you back at the Academy; a stack of books with legs! The only thing I ever heard from an upperclassman was, “Watch out for Lt. Kirk! In his class, you either think, or sink!”
Capt. Kirk: I wasn’t THAT bad, was I?
Lt. Mitchell: If I hadn’t aimed that little blond technician at you…
Capt. Kirk: You what? You… you PLANNED that?
Lt. Mitchell: Well, you wanted me to think, didn’t you? I outlined her whole campaign for her!
Capt. Kirk: I almost MARRIED her!
Lt. Mitchell: You better be good to me. I’m getting even better ideas here.

119. Kev - November 21, 2008

nOT SURE if anyone has mentioned this before but in the opening scene in the trailer where a young James Kirk is drivig, has anyone noticed the dark grey structures in the background?

120. S. John Ross - November 21, 2008

I’m really beginning to think that the core “Star Wars” element being introduced is characters being wedged into unlikely connections. The whole “Kirk meets Pike and Uhura in a bar in Iowa” and “kirk is smuggled onto Enterprise for her maiden voyage” thing feels very “it turns out Darth Vader built C3PO as a kid” and “it turns out Luke and Leia are brother and sister; ew”.

121. Jon - November 21, 2008

I’ve been, and remain, fully supportive of a ‘re-imagining’ and/or ‘reboot’ of Star Trek, yet the more I read about the film I seem to feel quite sad that these characters, whose history is obviously different to the original characters, will not indeed become those original characters- even though they all still end up together, they’re not quite the same people. I never wanted, nor expected, this film to slot in neatly before TOS but I wish they would do one or the other, rather than make sweeping changes with some kind of ‘in-universe’ justification. If it isn’t a reboot, then we must acknowledge it is an alternate universe to the one that contains the original TOS series and movies- I’m happy to do that, but then I can’t regard this crew as the original crew, rather an alternate version of them just like the mirror universe has.

Though I am ‘coming to terms’ with these issues, I am still very much psyched for this movie, and have loved everything I’ve seen so far. The production values look top notch, the ships are beautiful, the sets are spot on and the casting seems perfect. I just hope the script holds up now!

122. Crewman Darnell - November 21, 2008

102. Alex:

“I could have bought into it so much better if the crisis at the center of the film had occurred subsequent to Kirk’s time on Farragut, with him as a screwed-up lieutenant trying to get his life and his career back on track, and this forcing him to confront some long-standing issues. I mean, given Abrams’s penchant for non-linear storytelling, how cool would it be to have had LT Kirk grieving over the loss of Captain Garrovick, who it’s said was very important to him, and contrast that with his father-figure issues from earlier (his dad being lost on the Kelvin, and his mean ol’ uncle). Then have Pike come in and mentor him, getting him back on-track and on course for his eventual command. It’d still not be spot-on with TOS continuity (I’m trying, in this thought-experiment, to preserve as much of the film’s actual storyline–to the extent that I know it or can figure it out–as possible), but it would make sense in terms of the story it seems the movie is trying to tell, and would use the established backstory to good effect.”

I would be more stoked over that sort of screenplay. I can’t hep but feel many great back-story opportunities like what you described have been squandered in this mega-million dollar effort. The character development(s) in this movie sound a bit over-contrived.

123. Werewindle - November 21, 2008

#105 — Agreed. I’ve been concerned ever since someone threw the words “Star Trek” and “J.J. Abrams” together in one sentence. Most of what is described in this story makes no sense in general or in canon.

124. ali - November 21, 2008

So these are entirely positive comments? Was merely my point.

“There is a bit of a conceit in this film that borders on a bit of a contrivance. It seems like they wanted to do an origin story like the Star Wars Prequels, but didn’t want it to take three movies to get everyone into their TOS positions. In order to get the whole gang together, there seems to be some very rapid promoting going on. Uhura is the only one who can be at comms, Kirk is the only one who can be first officer, Scotty arrives in the nick of time, and McCoy is made chief medical officer because the first one got killed. Of course this kind of thing seems to be a Trek tradition. This is reminiscent of past Trek films where the only ship that could handle the emergency is always the Enterprise.

In the end it is clear that Orci and Kurtzman understand Trek and its core audience well (which tends to be a bit older), and at the same time they understand modern (and younger) audiences well, and they are trying their hardest to cater to both. This works for the most part, but at times it may only work for one or the other.”

125. Jay El Jay - November 21, 2008

I think this Movie will be set in 2260…

126. Paul - November 21, 2008

It’s looking good but I think they’ve gone unecessarily far in trying to bring all the characters together. While Kirk is only slightly older than most of the original crew (Bones & Scotty are older than him), Chekov was only 22 during the second year of the 5-year mission so he is more than 10 years younger than Kirk. I don’t see how he could be a crewman or even a cadet while Kirk was still a cadet unless Kirk came to the acadamy late in his mid twenties and Chekov came early in his mid teens.

The Chekov role should have been filled by Gary Mitchell in my view, as I think he was Kirk’s First Officer before Spock and they were strong friends at the acadamy. They could have observed Mitchell’s comments about Kirk’s younger days as well to round that element out nicely. Leaving Mitchell out completely is a mistake from a canon perspective if that is what they’ve done.

And I’m still grumpy that the origin story doesn’t seem to include Janice!

127. Kev - November 21, 2008

We have to remember that we are only being told snippets of the story and not possibly in the order that the story plays out. So hopefully it will all fit together. The guy who plays chekov is 18 so he is about 10 years younger than kirk…although not 22 as stated by Paul the age he was during the TOS.

128. Geoffers - November 21, 2008

#105… ah right, the driving the car off the cliff is a subliminal note of “to hell with the past”…. wow conspiracy is all around eh?

#107… oh for gods sake, they guy liked what he saw, but managed to write a “balanced” view of that, while taking in that he saw 20 mins of the whole thing…. Jeeeez let the guy have a positive opinion… what the hell is going on on this site… when did it become the “bash trek” forum.

For me, as a “fan” who has enjoyed all Trek (yep including Enterprise and …. gasp Nemesis).. I enjoy Trek for all it’s facets, for it’s history, for its emotion, its intelligent story telling, it’s action, it’s positive vision… I wonder if that makes me odd… seems a lot here enjoy it for being something to pick appart.

Yes, I want to go into that cinema, and I want to get that “Trek feeing”.. but I want to also enjoy it as the escapism it has always been for me.. not to sit there, constantly searching for where it’s gone wrong.. maybe I’m just one of Trek’s “the glass is half full” people, where as it seems more would rathere see Trek’s glass as not just “half empty”, but drained of the dregs.

129. DaveM - November 21, 2008

#10 – Most films release one trailer. A few films release a teaser and then a trailer. Very few films release a teaser and two trailers. Its a rarity and it was stated some time ago that this film would be getting ONE trailer. This is it. Don’t count on another one. Its highly unlikely.

For a year I’ve been telling you when the marketing campaign would kick in. And six months ago I correctly told you the film the NEW trailer would premiere on.

Unless something terrible happens, like a lot of negative feedback concerning these scenes (unlikely based on current articles being generated by the press) or negative feedback on the current trailer (also highly unlikely) that demands a marketing push in a different direction this IS the only trailer that will come out until the film opens.

130. voyager - November 21, 2008

Bob Orci already said that there was going to be at least two trailers, and that Spock was going to be featured in the next one.

131. thebiggfrogg - November 21, 2008

Unless I am missing something here. The whole giant drill seems like a ridiculous special effects driven plot device. If you can create a black hole why does it matter whether it is implanted at the surface or at a planet’s core. Either way it is going to suck big time. Lets hope all of this makes more sense when the movie comes together and the black hole will be all that sucks big time.

132. Wrath - November 21, 2008

The scariest part of this write up is the Quinto doubt.

If Spock doesn’t work, I’m not sure the movie will recover.

133. Julio - November 21, 2008

#105

See you at the theater opening night.

134. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - November 21, 2008

Outstanding article, Anthony! Your analysis is thoughtful, balanced, and very reassuring to many of us. I suspect that many of the suspicions or fears people seem to hold regarding this film will be cleared up once they’ve seen it in its entirety.

Twenty minutes’ worth of film obviously will not answer all of our questions. That said, I find myself increasingly excited about this May. I look forward to ‘welling up’ for Mr. Nimoy’s performance once again, just as I look forward to seeing a new generation of Trek’s heroism, optimism, and thoughtfulness in action. It’s exactly what we need.

135. Kelvington - November 21, 2008

I’m sure this has been said before, but I’m going to pretend I came up with it, because in my head I have. I’m sure when Kirk and company,set things right at the end of the film, the Enterprise we knew, and the bridge we love, will pop into existence and that’s where this film will end and the next one begins.

Chekov will magically end up below decks for the next movie, and Spock will get his familiar eyeshadow returned to his eyelids, and we will forget we ever met the Romulans, or knew how to drive a clutch. (fingers crossed)

Personally the more I see of this film the more I’m liking it, I think it’s just going to be Trek, not old Trek, not new Trek, just Trek. Something to be enjoyed and watch, not something to be picked apart and vivisected.

The only problem I really see, and this has more to do with Paramount than anything, is that the studio “thinks” this is going to be another “The Dark Knight”. It’s not. They think it’s going to do six hundred million dollars, that’s current dollars, not penny/dollars that we will have in our hands next summer if the economy continues to tank.

Here’s why it can’t be the next, “The Dark Knight”, it’s not crazy, it’s not psychotic, it’s not precived to be without soul. The heart of Star Trek has always been an optimistic view of mankind and the world. The heart of films that do boffo box office is darkness. Eight of the top ten films of all time are essentially about death and darkness. “Titanic” and “The Dark Knight” in particular. One is about an immovable object meeting and unstoppable force and the death the surrounds them, the other is “The Dark Knight” (see what I did there?)

Star Trek at it’s heart will be upbeat, and have a satisfying ending, where no we care about will die. “The Dark Knight’ was very much the opposite, darkness sells, death brings dollars, and in the case of “The Dark Knight” absolute psychosis brings out everyone. The Joker had no regrets, no limits, and that is spellbinding for all twenty-three minutes he was on screen. People think like that, people occasionally want to be like that, I don’t think anyone will want to be like Nero.

Characters like Tony Soprano, and The Joker, do horrible, terrible things and we want to understand why, and sometimes people want to be them, did you open your door this year at Halloween? For every Batman, there were five Jokers. Next year I don’t suspect there will be any Nero’s at the door, and precious few Spocks or Kirks. Nero can’t be as dark, and cold, and as unforgiving as a freezing Atlantic, nor will he be as unpredictable, and as cutting as a man in white face.

The only hope this film has to be boffo at the box office is to be something that it’s not, to be more than sum of it’s parts, to be darker then “The Dark Knight”. My biggest fear is that the people who love cannon so much will see it, hate it, be traumatized by it, and from day two stop everyone in line who wants to see the new Trek film, will point to their brains and ask them simply one question. “Wanna know how I got these scars?”

Just my 2¢,
Kelvington

136. Akaranger - November 21, 2008

Hello there me again with another Raint about being this to be NOT a Reimaging of the Star Trek series or PRequelle. Star Trek is manly a sequal pre-qual in other words its both becuase your dealing with past present and future here.If you all look closly the hallways of the Enterprise of the orginal Consatution class vessle looks like Mixsed betwen the NX-01 and the Cage so dose the birdge the only differints is the size and thecolour witch is nice and white and not milltary like. and Starfleet is not a milltary at all so the way they made the Enterprise is very uniqe in away and I am glad for this film and can not wait for its relise begins this is a re-start for the franchise and everyone do not get over excitment on it belive me I know from exprince just look at this film as a given knowing that we have a great man working on and understand Gens Ideas and God bless you JJ Abrams God bless you for breing back Gen Rodanbarry’s Star Trek that we been missing for the past 20 years

137. JB - November 21, 2008

Good job, AP. Your comments are the most insightful we’ve seen yet.

I’ll be curious to see how they explain Kirk going straight from cadet to CO. And I have a hard time buying into the notion that Kirk was a problem-child all the way up to his academy years, although I thought I read somewhere that most of what transpires in the movie is an alternate timeline, created by Nero’s interference. However, if that’s accurate, then this really isn’t “Kirk Begins”, is it?

138. CmdrR - November 21, 2008

But, I want to obsess over canon…

Nah. I just hope it’s good stuff on the screen, and mixes thought with spectacle… with Zoe in her underoos.

139. 750 Mang - November 21, 2008

The comic gags sound just awful. For $150 million you would think they could have sprung for a good script.

Why?

140. harris250 - November 21, 2008

“and yet in the the next minute you may roll your eyes at some over the top cartoonish gag or overtly sexy moment”

As far me..I’ve always felt this way about Trek…mostly in TOS, I love it, but boy there were times……maybe those moments should part of my (our) overall experience as much as the cannon.

Thanks for giving me new way to look at this movie!

141. Lousy Canadian - November 21, 2008

What you’ve experienced from this new film Anthony, is what I’ve been through when I first watched TOS and it’s films for the first time. :D

Your report along with the other ones you’ve made make me even more optimistic towards this film. This site also makes the wait move along more smoothly since I want to see this so badly.

142. Q Macedonia - November 21, 2008

And this is why i keep coming back to TrekMovie.

Anthony this was the best article since this Star Trek revealing storm started 2 weeks ago.

Well done.

143. Clinton - November 21, 2008

Nice, thorough report and analysis, Anthony. Glad you got to see the footage. Of course I am jealous, but there are only 167 days to go until we all get the chance to see everything. ;-)

Can’t wait.

Keep up the great work!

144. James - November 21, 2008

Interesting report – thanks Anthony.

The OTT gags and sex references don’t bother me – every time ANYBODY goes into the Holodeck in TNG-VOY, I feel the same. ‘Oh no… not ANOTHER Holodeck episode!’ Star Trek needs a little bit of kitsch, otherwise it wouldn’t be Trek. From what we know of the film so far, it certainly seems to be darker than anything previously – so I can imagine that the kitsch will be tempered by the more sinister tone.

As far as other aspects of ‘reimagining’ go, I’m liking what I hear – and I AM a canon freak. I’m hoping that this film will add to canon, not just adhere to it. Flexibility with regard to canon is fine – I just don’t want to see everything that’s happened over the last 40 years totally disregarded, or mutilated beyond belief.

So I guess I’m cautiously optimistic. I just want to see it NOW.

145. harris250 - November 21, 2008

This must be the worlds largest group therapy web site…we oldsters owe AP a debt of gratitude and JJ and company should buy AP a dinner when this all over…

All I can say is Grazie e Tutti….

146. Mike - November 21, 2008

Does anyone else get the sense that, except for Capt Pike, there are no adults around in this movie? It seems like they’re all a bunch of fresh-faced kids and this is a training cruise. More specifically, I’m really struggling with the notion that Kirk will suddenly be made Captain by films end when he is fresh out of a non-distinguished ride through the academy. I mean – really – it takes years and years of service to get your own command in any navy I’ve every heard of regardless of who is pulling for you or how many times you’ve saved the day. There’s just too many good people in line ahead of you. I really hope this doesn’t turn out to be popcorn movie where you enjoy the explosions and don’t ask to many questions. Please don’t let Star Trek turn into that!

147. Scott - November 21, 2008

This was the most level-headed review and reasoned analysis I’ve read so far. I skipped over much of the plot points because I’m trying to avoid the actual script spoilers. I have to say I’m almost embarrassed to be a Trek fan when I read much of the crying over canon violations and those fearful of what they perceive as their personal idols being tampered with or defiled beyond all recognition. Star Trek has been stuck for 10 years or so because of canon and inflexible fans and restricted writers. No one is going to come into your home and take away your TOS dvd collection. I believe that regardless of the changes this movie brings, the TOS ‘timeline’ or whatever you want to call it will remain intact–if all that continuity is essential to you in order to enjoy Star Trek in general.

Look, it’s fun to have that canon as a historical ‘back-story’, especially when watching TOS now, when we know so much more about these characters. That history really makes the experience of watching the original series all the more enjoyable; it turns a simple 1960’s sci-fi series into a universe far more complex than the original creators intended or ever dreamed of.

But it’s time to try something new, because the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate and the original concept of Star Trek and the Enterprise adventures is something that deserves to be timeless and capable of endless incarnations–and not limited to 3 seasons of tv episodes and 6 films (one of which, IMO, is nearly unwatchable).

I cringe a little at seeing some of these changes, I have to admit. I love the original Enterprise design. I’ll always consider the original cast as THE characters. I’ll never get over that, but I’m also looking forward to seeing them again, in a new interpretation. Give this film a chance!

148. Flake - November 21, 2008

Having the ship built in Iowa is indeed lazy writing, why not keep it in San Francisco which for 40 years is where we know it was constructed.

Its in Iowa just so that Kirk can look up in awe at it! Hell yes thats a great scene I agree and people who don’t know any better will not care in the slightest, but come on, its not fair on those of us who have stuck around all our lives watching every incarnation thrown at us.

I don’t understand how the Kelvin being destroyed allows the Enterprise to be constructed in Iowa… unless…. San Francisco has been destroyed?

149. GraniteTrek - November 21, 2008

I think that rather than compare Quinto’s Spock with most of TOS or the movies, you need to compare him to the Spock seen in “The Cage” (or the record tapes for “The Menagerie”, if you prefer). There, you see a Pike-era Spock that smiles, exclaims, and generally is less under control.

My guess is that this movie falls between “The Cage” and “Where No Man..”

150. the_law - November 21, 2008

nicely done, sir. I’m printing this article out and giving it to those who are skeptical on the new Trek.

151. GraniteTrek - November 21, 2008

Regarding where Enterprise is built, two thoughts:

1) Who says the Yards aren’t BASED in San Fran with facilities around the globe?

2) It makes more sense to build a giant starship filled with volatile substances in a flat area with no man-made obstructions, a sparse population (fewer people to be annoyed by noise), and more plentiful land than in the middle of a city, where land is valuable and scarce, with lots of people living around it and man-made obstructions (buildings). Especially since it’s a ship of the skies, not the ocean.

152. Robert H. - November 21, 2008

Cato the Llama says, “What still confuses me is . . . how is Kirk still just a cadet, while the rest of the crew (including lil’ Chekov) are already commissioned officers?”

I have a theory that originally Kirk was already a Lt. Commander and was at the academy learning to become a Captain. Just like how Saavik on Star Trek 2 was a Lieutenant even though she was a cadet. But we may have to watch everything before the bar fight to be absolutely certain.

153. Flake - November 21, 2008

I also think that the blatant disregard for canon is going to continue to sway fans such as myself from being overly positive to slightly negative. I was a gusher and putting down the ‘haters’ at every opportunity. Now I find myself agreeing with some of the stuff they say..

The gags, fast track promotions and canon violations are beginning to get too much for this fan to take. I don’t doubt that the movie is going to be visually fantastic and the actors themselves will do an excellent job. Hell the story might be great and the movie might be great – BUT – in the back of my mind I will always be wondering why they had to change so much to satisfy a need for mainstream acceptance, why didn’t the writers not try harder to craft a story into what has already been established.

Inspite of these concerns, I do think I can enjoy the movie for what it is. I will be there on opening night, I will go multiple times, I will buy the Blu-Ray, I will by god knows how much of the merchandise and above all I am still looking forward to May 8, 2009.

154. AJ - November 21, 2008

86/Anthony Brooks Fellows:

“Admiral Archer’s prized beagle?
Riverside Shipyards?
Mickey Mouse hands?
Space skydiving?
Giant drill?

The only thing he got right was that there are actually dive bars in Iowa, and that was just done to set up–oh, never mind. At least he got the girl.”

Tribbles?
Spock’s Brain?
Neelix?
Marshmellons?
A gorch?
Quark?

There is an overriding impression that Star Trek is “thinking man’s” TV. While it is thought-provoking, and provides real grist for further rumination, it is not Proust or Asimov. Remember, “The Cage” was rejected by NBC.

JJ Abrams is no stranger to the idea of making the viewer think, and I am sure he will provide at least as much thought-provoking material as any episode has.

155. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

86. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008
“Remember it when you’re eating Cardassian Crow Pie next year.”

I hope you can do the same when it comes out and it is fantastic. How can you even pass judgement form a 2 minute promo??? You must be psychic or something to know how the movie will turn out without seeing it. But whatever… negative people like you think you know everything.

156. SPOCKBOY - November 21, 2008

Great article Anthony,
Could you elaborate further however, on the music?
Is it BIG?
Is it subtle and mysterious?
Is it Star Trek?

Thanks,
: )

157. Raphael Salgado aka BeyondtheTech - November 21, 2008

“As fans we are familiar with hundreds of hours of a saga spanning centuries and the notion of a team team coming in with a new look and sensibility is not always easy to accept.”

Don’t you mean “dream team?”

Great article, by the way. Canonistas really need to get a life. I wouldn’t have minded a total reboot with the way Berman and Braga managed to plunder a multibillion dollar franchise, and this movie may very well be the answer to our prayers. I wouldn’t mind having my wife, who is totally unTrek, becoming a fan of the franchise, as well as a few friends who have thumbed their nose up against all the technobabble and aliens who look and act way too human, save for that extra piece of latex.

158. TonyD - November 21, 2008

Great summary Anthony; that was very informative without being too spoilerish. Overall I like where this movie is going, but a few things give me pause:

1.) Its looking more and more like the timeline will be altered and this new Jim Kirk will start out as a rebel without a cause before maturing to the captain we all know and love. Personally, I find that backstory a little disappointing. I liked the serious, grim “stack of books with legs” version of young James T. Kirk just fine. I know that these characters need to be “freshened up” to make them more palatable to younger audiences but as a 43 year old fan of TOS I can’t help but think its a change for the worse as introducing heroes as “rebels” has become so typical in movies aimed at younger audiences.

2.) I’m not wild about the notion of parts of the Enterprise having valves, ducts, piping and generally looking low tech. I’ve always equated that “boiler room” design with el-cheapo SciFi Channel productions and am a little concerned that its creeping into Trek. The engine room, not to mention the rest of the starship sets in the TOS movies were a thing of beauty and I will miss that kind of aesthetic greatly.

3.) The occasional lapses into slapstick seem a little forced and out of place based on the descriptions. I remember Orci and Kurtzman doing the same thing on Transformers (who can forget John Turturro’s bizarre wierdo character) and I cringed at a lot of that stuff. I really hope it doesn’t sink to the same level here.

4.) Last, and most damningly, it sounds like Vulcan might be destroyed and I absolutely HATE that idea. I hope our heroes find a way to save that planet as I think that would really send us old-timers into a tizzy. Blowing up a planet that has been central to the Trek mythos since the beginning strikes me as a cheap stunt (ala killing off Kirk in Generations) and I hope the filmmakers don’t go that route. To my way of thinking that would show a severe lack of respect for the series and I know it would compromise my enjoyment of the film.

Other than that, May 9 can’t come fast enough and although it most likely won’t happen, it would be nice if JJ Abrams took some of the concerns aired during these previews to heart and used them to tweak and hone the film to whatever extent is possible and feasible; after all, he has plenty of time to make some corrections.

159. Kirk's Girdle - November 21, 2008

One thought on Riverside Shipyards. That may not even be the Enterprise being built there, but another of the original Constitution class vessels. The Enterprise may already be in service. Of course, what rational reason then could they have for Pike and all those cadets to be hanging out in Iowa?

160. Max Choi - November 21, 2008

Re: 137–Until I hear more, I’m in agreement with you, that what we’ll see in this movie is an alternate timeline, the product of Nero’s meddling. Unlike previous Trek time travel outings, though, it could be that Nero has caused so much “damage” that there’s no going back. Maybe a few minor things here and there can be reset, but not enough to bring back the precise history of the TV series and ten previous movies.

This could be Abrams’ et al. way of re-booting Trek without abandoning *anything* in Trek’s past (like Batman, James Bond, etc.). Writers have the necessary freedom to do new things for years to come, without necessarily violating anything that has come before. In other words, they can have their cellular peptide cake with mint frosting and eat it, too ^^

161. P Technobabble - November 21, 2008

I imagine as the promotional stuff continues thru May 09 that we’ll be hearing even more criticism, negativity and general sarcasm. It will be just like watching a political campaign…
Thanks Anthony for the honest report, and your continued efforts on this website.
I want to say that I don’t need this film to be absolutely perfect. I don’t think any Trek movie, thus far, has been completely perfect, and each one (including the great TWOK) has its share of “moments” I could have lived without. Those moments did not ruin my ability to enjoy the films.
Personally, I like the idea of altering the time-line permanently. That’s something we need to happen in THIS world, TODAY…

162. Shane - November 21, 2008

After reading Anthony’s thoughts on the film, here is a thought I have suddenly had.

Perhaps the film begins with all of this unfamiliar stuff – non-canon or anti-canon material of all sorts, including the destruction of Vulcan. Then, Kirk meets Old Spock on the planet, and by some means Kirk travels back in time to correct these. This would set the universe right, as far as canon is concerned, but leave all of the events of the film meaningful, being a lead up to that.

There are two possibilities at this point. Either Kirk goes back in time and fixes things, setting everything right as we know it, and that’s that, or perhaps for some reason Kirk has to remain in the past, and from there he enters the Academy, winds up on the Farragut, gets into starfleet before Chekov, etc.

163. JL - November 21, 2008

Does Yelchin say,

“Kiptin…. day put…. klee-chores…. in our bo-deez…..”

164. Shane - November 21, 2008

To add a minor but worthwhile point to my previous post, this would set up a situation wherein Nero is in fact the cause of Kirk being what he is and causing the problems for Romulus in the first place, making his name an appropriate choice for a man who is actually responsible for destroying his very own Rom(e)ulan empire.

165. ucdom - November 21, 2008

TWOK – Kirk

“I like to think that there always are….possibilities”

166. JL - November 21, 2008

One character-related quirk that kinda bugged me in the trailer.

Urban is really channeling DeForest in that drop ship scene, but it comes off strangely phony to me. Why is he almost whispering it, something about it doesn’t sound right to me. The line sounds almost like he’s reading from the script.

Anyone else agree?

167. Jay - November 21, 2008

To: 86. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008

“Abrams should’ve stuck with a simple origins tale set around Kirk’s early years on the Republic and Farragut”

… and then Star Trek would be dead because the only people who swear by those events as gospel (which is only referenced loosely in the series), are card-carrying, living-in-your-mom’s-basement, 40-plus-year-old Star Trek elitists who can’t embrace change. I believe, STRONGLY, that this film will adhere to canon, but in a VERY different way…

… so much so that I’d be willing to bet that two of the destroyed ships shown on the bridge viewscreen when the Enterprise drops out of warp in the trailer are the Republic and the Farragut, possibly meaning that Nero inadvertently saved Kirk’s life while trying to kill him.

Time travel is a funny little thing…..

168. Spock's Brain - November 21, 2008

So much of these 20 minutes seems to challenge canon, that it must be part of an alternate timeline (at least alternate to the one what we’ve come to know and love).

169. star trackie - November 21, 2008

#86 “Admiral Archer’s prized beagle?
Riverside Shipyards?
Mickey Mouse hands?
Space skydiving?
Giant drill?”

Admiral Archer’s prized beagle? -Doesn’t he get zapeed in the transporter? Nothing wrong with that. lol

Riverside Shipyards?- Why not? Kirk has blue eyes…things have clearly changed.

Mickey Mouse hands?- Ever see a bad reaction to a bee sting? Sounds funny to me.

Space skydiving? -Kirk already did it once and apparently enjoys it. No problems there.

Giant drill?- Very cool.

And yes, I welcome any Shatnerisms by Pine. And remember, this is not 1985. Shatner has new street cred since his surge in popularity and multiple emmys. The tired old “Shatner hammy acting” bit doesn’t fly any more, so that really isn’t a problem.

Quinto, no doubt, is playing up the emotional side, which we knew exists from The Cage and WNMHGB, and even the first season. He didn’t evolve into the dry, logical, cool customer until the 3rd season and frankly, I prefer the edgier Spock of the first season.

As far as engineering goes….we all know every ship has guts. Every building has areas between floors where all the ugly stuff is. Perhaps there is a Engineering “control” room that is more fitting to the aesthetics of Trek and the scenes mentioned are outside of that, taking place deeper insode the belly of the beast.

Some of Scott’s humor seems a bit juvenille and I hope we don’t see a lot of it. But it is what it is. Despite a few things, I’m still incredibly jazzed about this film. Can’t wait!

170. Garovorkin - November 21, 2008

Sounds great can’t wait to see it.

171. danbevan - November 21, 2008

In one of the scenes, pike beams to nero’s ship to negotiate, if this is a trap and he is killed, this will be screwing with canon as we know he doesnt die.

more likely he will find out that kirk is important to the future as nero is trying to kill him, so he decides to promote kirk to captain.

172. Jay - November 21, 2008

This picture caption for the Pike picture above…

“Greenwood’s Pike gets a big ‘one beep’ for yes”

… really made me laugh, outloud! That’s a funny little line. (And I think Greenwood makes a great Pike, too)

173. Ian B - November 21, 2008

“and yet in the the next minute you may roll your eyes at some over the top cartoonish gag or overtly sexy moment”

This is the series that gave us Harcourt Fenton Mudd (and his android haridan wife), Kirk submerged in Tribbles, “brain and brain…”, women in barely-past-the-censors costumes and deafening “sexy chick” music cues every time a vaguely passable looking women appeared in Kirk’s field of vision, not to mention “oiling my traps, darling”. Give it a break :)

174. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

LoL … “Brain and brain. What is brain?” That line cracks me up each and everytime! Brilliant writing! LoL

175. fred - November 21, 2008

Parhaps they are in the waste disposal plumbing area of the ship?

And I wonder if we’ll see toy versions of “Kirk Swelled Hands” with a sound chip that plays when you wear them?

176. JL - November 21, 2008

167 JAY

To: 86. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008

“Abrams should’ve stuck with a simple origins tale set around Kirk’s early years on the Republic and Farragut”

… and then Star Trek would be dead because the only people who swear by those events as gospel (which is only referenced loosely in the series), are card-carrying, living-in-your-mom’s-basement, 40-plus-year-old Star Trek elitists who can’t embrace change.

I would also say this:

There’s no way to really prove this, but I would be willing to bet if you took four of the most hardcore, canon-lovin’ Trek fans on this board and let them come up with a legitimate script for Trek XI — they would not be able to address all these issues, come up with a compelling story, and bring in the masses any better than what Mr. Orci and Co. did. Yet a lotta people are bitchin’.

Of course we can’t judge the final film until May.

But I’m telling ya, doing this right — making Trek that’s relevant again and doing it in a way that people will want to watch — it has to be harder than it looks.

177. steve - November 21, 2008

Anthony, I’m being a nitpicker here. In the scene synopsis you refer to characters by Star Trek names yet you refer to Chekov by his actor name – Yelchin.

I’m just sayin…

178. steve - November 21, 2008

” It turns out they were too late, the Romulans launch their ‘red matter’ weapon into the hole they drilled and when Chekov warns Spock Vulcan only has “minutes” before it is turned into a black hole, he puts Yelchin in command and beams down to Vulcan to save his parents and the Vulcan Council. Meanwhile Kirk and Sulu fall off the platform and need a beam up before they hit the ground and so Yelchin runs to the transporter room because only he can figure out how to beam them back through all the interference.”

I thought I saw more of it but…anway…

179. Dennis Bailey - November 21, 2008

It looks like the production design is the weak link here. Extravagant mediocrity. And fans wil flat-out hate the engineering “set.”

180. fred - November 21, 2008

I can’t recall anyone mentioning this, but was the actual Engineering room seen as anything other than a factory setting? What about the big Engeneering Room we are used to seeing? Does that exist or has it been seen at all? It’s usually the biggest ship set in any ST movie.

181. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

179. Dennis Bailey

Please don’t generalize… YOU may hate it.. but not every fan. Please don’t speak for me.

182. Flake - November 21, 2008

I don’t like the sound of engineering either, I want it to be just as futuristic as the rest of the ship. Infact the engineering set in TMP was probably the best looking one.

183. Tallguy - November 21, 2008

“Canonista”! I’ve found today’s favorite word!

I see now that my quest to stay unspoiled is hopeless. I need to see this movie today!

184. Paul - November 21, 2008

It is possible that alterations to the time frame mean that Kirk doesn’t enrol at the acadamy when he’s supposed to. This would cover many discrepancies we’ve noticed. Maybe they are going to play around with the events that occur when that Anton Karidian dude starves out his parents?

185. Kevin - November 21, 2008

It’s wrong. You greedy souless bastards are profiting from others hard work.

Do us true sci-fi and Trek fans a favor….

Change all the proper names in this movie….Voila! …an entirely different movie that does not resemble the Star Trek story or brand in any way. Plus, you will be able to sleep at night knowing you’re not a greedy, slimeball, thieving punk profiting off of a deadman’s legacy.

I think even if they tired to be true to the brand, they could not. They obviously do not understand, Sci-fi, Star Trek or a good story. I guess I understand why you feel the need to steal someone else’s story, I mean, what are people with no souls, imagination or artitic ability of any kind supposed to do?

Stick to crappy TV shows made for people with no imagination, who can’t think for themselves and only care about sex, explosions and funny accents in their video entertainment- people like you.

I know a bit harsh. You’d think these guys kicked my dog or something. I don’t think these guys even have enough brains to get my point and if they do, they’ve shown little integrity in making this film to begin with….

186. JL - November 21, 2008

179

Have you seen it, DB?

187. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

185. Kevin – November 21, 2008
It’s wrong. You greedy souless bastards are profiting from others hard work.
Do us true sci-fi and Trek fans a favor….

Please don’t speak for me Kevin.. I am a sci-fi and major Trek fan… I WANT to see this movie and won’t judge it til I’ve seen it. When you make idiotic comments like you have before seeing the movie – speak for yourself.. not others.. especially me.

188. Dennis Bailey - November 21, 2008

181. montreal paul – November 21, 2008

179. Dennis Bailey

Please don’t generalize… YOU may hate it.. but not every fan. Please don’t speak for me.

At this moment, I know more than you do.

Almost everyone bothering to post on the Internet about this movie who’ve been Trek fans prior to this will hate Engineering.

189. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

188. Dennis Bailey – November 21, 2008

you may know more about this movie than I do.. but please don’t generalize. YOU may hate it.. but you don’t know how I will feel about it. So, please don’t generalize…

190. USS Jon - November 21, 2008

regarding Kirk being a Cadet and everyone else proper crew.

Could Kirks rank from say Lt Com have been temporarily rescinded due to Koybi Maru, waiting further investigation. therefore not posted on a ship when things go t!ts up on Vulcan, and reason why he is posted as Number One under Spock.

191. Jay - November 21, 2008

To 176 —

Oh, I agree, story development is a pain in the —! I’m a writer by profession, and have written a couple of original screenplays and it’s a pain enough when there is no current audience. I image Orci & Kurtzman must’ve been up a lot of nights banging their heads against the wall trying to come up with ways to both retain the base and generate a new audience … all under the eyes of hawkish purists. But, they get paid A LOT of money… and not for their looks, but for their ability to generate a compelling story … and so far, i’ve seen nothing plot-wise to put me on pause.

Giving four hard-core fans the keys to the franchise, as you mentioned, would do nothing but perpetuate the the Berman-esque downfall of the show … and would be rife with the Enterprise firing one-shot torpedo hits that destroy entire ships (See: ST Generations), and ultra-G-rated campiness broken up by “shocking” usage of profanity (typically delivered by Data or Spock). How long has it been since saying the “S”-word on screen a big deal in American culture? Quite frankly … the uber-hardcores would simply steal ideas from past productions which were part of it’s slow collapse to begin with.

192. Danpaine - November 21, 2008

“#100 – helenofpeel – November 21, 2008
When you reset the timeline then how can there be any canon violations at all?”

EXACTLY. Any conversations/disputes about canon are pretty ridiculous. Maybe the question should be – Will this movie be considered “canon?”

193. ShatRuinedV - November 21, 2008

Yeah, people seem to forget the series was Kirk “taking care” of almost every woman who came aboard the Enterprise in the 1960’s. And if Kirk wasnt getting his, Spock got a few, and Scotty chased tail and almost got sentenced for murder because of it.

The movies actually dropped most of the “I want to sex you up Kirk” mostly because Shat was getting old by that time, and frankly the misogynistic themes of the show would not have appealed to any females. Then came TNG, made during the PC friendly 1990’s that mostly eliminated the sex from the Trek universe (notable single shot exceptions excluded).

194. AdamTrek - November 21, 2008

#188

Engineering was basically just a room with a very large control panel wall in the old TV show. I hope it’s not made into some super-large-boiler type room with steam, etc., that looks way to big for the size of the ship.

Sounds like we won’t be seeing a warp core or anything resembling Trek-tech when it comes to the engines, except for the exterior of the ship.

Too bad.

I was hoping for a stepped-up version of Enterprise or something.

195. Julio - November 21, 2008

Not going to see this movie because the bridge design doesn’t appeal to you is like not going to see “Empire Strikes Back” because you didn’t like Mark Hammil’s haircut.

I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that 99.99% of us on this site are going to see this thing opening day. Heck, I’m not even totally sold on the new vision, but I’ll be damned if I’m not going to be there at midnight ready for the first dose of NEW STAR TREK in ages. And proper Star Trek with Kirk and Spock to boot!

And if I see the word “canon” one more time, I’m going to pop a blood vessel. I love the “fictional history” of Star Trek as well, but it’s JUST A TV SHOW. Let’s not be the group that ruins this movie by acting like the stereotypical Trekkies that everyone makes fun of, and will keep people from seeing this film.

196. New Horizon - November 21, 2008

185. Kevin

That kind of post, should get you banned. Seriously. If you respect Trek so much, then act it.

197. USS Jon - November 21, 2008

185* and others.
Can people please put the word NEGATIVE RANT above there post so i skip it. thanks

198. JL - November 21, 2008

185

“I think even if they tired to be true to the brand, they could not. They obviously do not understand, Sci-fi, Star Trek or a good story…”

“blah blah”

“blah blah blobbity-blah”

What a misguided, uneducated statement to make. You have no idea if this is the case.

What’s more, the four writers (Mr. Orci included) ARE fans of sci-fi and they ARE fans of Star Trek.

Give us a break, you misinformed clown.

199. JL - November 21, 2008

195

“Not going to see this movie because the bridge design doesn’t appeal to you is like not going to see “Empire Strikes Back” because you didn’t like Mark Hammil’s haircut.”

hahahaw, true that.

200. steve - November 21, 2008

Archer’s Beagle?

Uh, how long do Beagles live in the future?? Wouldn’t Porthos have been long dead (or is this Beagle TNG?).

And, I don’t like killing animals (even off screen) to make a joke.

201. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

200. steve – November 21, 2008
Archer’s Beagle?
Uh, how long do Beagles live in the future?? Wouldn’t Porthos have been long dead (or is this Beagle TNG?).

Uh, you don’t think he would have got another beagle if Porthos died? this would have probably have been the 5th or 6th beagle.

202. cw - November 21, 2008

I just don’t get how the Enterprise is built in Iowa, and the Starfleet Cadet hangout is in Iowa too……
How do we know this is where it happens? I mean, the Vette crash is in Iowa, that I get, but when Kirk is checking out the Enterprise, how do we not know this is in Calfornia? And the bar too, wouldn’t that be in San Fran tooo?

203. Raphael Salgado aka BeyondtheTech - November 21, 2008

On a side note, I think the Riverside Shipyards is exactly what President-Elect Obama and our bailouts should invest in. We could create millions of jobs constructing large starships.

Oh, come on. Don’t deny your inner child. Before you die, you want to see someone with a boatload of money to invest and construct a life-size replica of the Enterprise that you can walk around in. You’ll probably need the funds equivalent of a Saudi prince, but you’ll be damn sure that it’ll be one heck of a museum (or a real ship, who knows?)

204. danbevan - November 21, 2008

Jonathan Archer would be dead for the time of this film, must be another archer or a descendant.

205. falcon - November 21, 2008

As far as Kirk’s “jump” from cadet to CO, a couple of thoughts:

1) He’s probably already a Captain, just not assigned to a ship. That’s why no gold shirt. And how do we know different ships don’t have different color schemes for their uniforms? (A stretch, admittedly.)

2) When Spock calls Kirk “the cadet,” how do we know he’s not being snarky? Is it possible he’s trying to rub it in because Kirk doesn’t yet have a ship? That wouldn’t be beyond Spock.

206. falcon - November 21, 2008

@200 – besides, when Scotty says, “I’ll let you know when he comes back,” he probably meant the beagle was trapped in some sort of transporter limbo (much like Scotty himself in “Relics” (TNG) when he escaped the crash of the Jenolen). Not dead.

Kind of like how Einstein would have felt in “Back To The Future.” For the beagle, no time would pass, yet for us on the outside, it could be years. In BTTF, no time passed for Einstein, either.

Get out the flux capacitor! Got a beagle to save!

207. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@205

When the Vulcan crisis hits Kirk has three years Academy on his back…
that is a fast track to Captain…

208. Imrahil - November 21, 2008

Everything I read about this movie makes me less interested in it. Join me in pirating it instead of paying to see it next may! :)

209. Anaxagoras - November 21, 2008

Folks, a few points here:

1. Nero obviously is changing the timeline. He does it twice, if I’m figuring out the chronology correctly. The first is when he destroys the Kelvin. Why? Well, in an obvious attempt to prevent the coalescing of the Enterprise crew by taking out the Captain before he’s had a chance to mature. The hope was to kill off James T. Kirk but, if not that, then to ruin him for life by embittering him to Starfleet.

It ALMOST worked.

At this juncture, the timeline has changed. Period. Dot. It’s done. But in the future, Spock Prime notices the changes–pehaps things change around him (an interesting scene if it was visualized), lines in history tomes shift or whatnot–but for some reason is not affected by them overly much. He knows he has to do something, though, or else it’s curtains. Think of the galaxy without the influence of the USS Enterprise. How much would the UFP be in bad shape without Kirk’s initial 5-year mission which, if you recall, was the FIRST one to be successfully completed (which earned Kirk a promotion of not one but TWO ranks).

So Spock Prime goes back to ‘right’ things. It’s an easy fix, right? Wrong. Because Nero discovers his first change didn’t do the job. Kirk’s in Starfleet and, if anything, he’s even MORE a threat now because his father’s death FUELS him. Kirk is now PISSED. Trust me, a death of someone you love can motivate you in ways that seem completely incongruous and yet powerful in retrospect.

Nero then decides to destroy Vulcan. Surely this will do it. If anything, it will stop that silliness of the Unificationists that corrupted his future (maybe they are on the cusp of success and the Romulans are on the verge of an historic Star Trek VI-type moment. Maybe a Romulan Khitomer is right around the corner and Nero is a revanchist trying to stop it). Destroy Vulcan, stop the Romulan Empire from being “tamed” (in his viewpoint).

So Vulcan is destroyed. It’s done. No going back now, for whatever reason (maybe Spock Prime’s timeship is a one-way ticket) and the Enterprise has to deal with Nero on his terms.

The ending will be a rebooted canon. But because the apparent view of Abrams is that history more or less has a direction–I guess he’s not a fan of the Great Man Theory–the canon will have a few changes–some glaring, some not–but the general thrust will be identical.

Case in point: Vulcan’s gone.

Okay, but how much does that matter beyond the meta-point of it not being there for Spock’s pon farr bout? Well, how about this: what if there is a substantial Vulcan diaspora? Actually, there already IS a substantial diaspora. This just makes it larger. What if one of the centers of Vulcan civilization left now becomes the area where Spock will be forced to go to for his pon farr bout? All you do is trade Vulcan for Vulcan refugee camp or New Vulcan or where ever they make it. The thrust is the same.

Other changes: Enterprise’s new appearance.

Well, the destruction of the Kelvin would have to be investigated by Starfleet and the Corp of Engineers is going to know that the tech that went into demolishing that ship was vastly superior to their current levels. Just knowing that would spur changes in the way research and development was taken thereafter. More emphasis on shields, phasers and speed. The latter speaks to the changes in the pylons and nacelles we’ve seen. Hence the “new” Constitution-class takes on a lot more of the “old” TMP-refit.

This is probable because being in the military, I know that changes in technology are implemented piece by piece. The US Navy is implementing their changes in the Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers bit by bit, in blocks. The end result, after four or five ships, will be completely different from what they began with. In other words, blocks are pre-planned and installed as tech matures. The refit of the Enterprise in TMP was undoubtedly planned long before TOS ended. It just needed the maturity to be installed, to say nothing of the funding. That’s how engineers think.

Riverside Shipyards.

Well, why not? Who’s to say it’s the Enterprise but instead another Constitution-class vessel?

But even if it is, there are logical reasons for it that fit in with Nero’s alteration of the timeline. Maybe the new technologies the Starfleet has invested in are too dangerous to be utilized near major metropolitan areas, hence the relocation to the middle of the Plains, where population density isn’t a problem.

Quick Promotions.

Okay, this can be taken two ways here. One, we don’t know the timeframe here. Years could pass between incidents for all we know. That’s the optimist’s way of looking at it. In other words, it’s all good, we’re just fooled by the illusion of time into thinking it’s all happening simultaneously.

But there’s another take to it.

We know from TWOK that cadets graduate as LJG (Lieutenant Junior Grade) unlike in the US Navy where they grad as Ensigns. Now, there’s some thought that maybe command-track cadets stay for an extra year (hence Saavik as a Louie) and others don’t (hence all the Ensigns we’ve seen who are NOT cadets) and that makes a certain degree of sense. Saavik, in this interpretation, was in her optional ‘fifth year’, having been identified as a likely candidate for command.

Kirk might be in a similar situation. The time may be off a bit–maybe Starfleet Academy was a 3 year institution then, with an optional 4th year and by the time Saavik came along they’d added a year to both tracks–but it works.

So Kirk might actually be a Louie and not an Ensign by the time he’s drugged up by Bones and taken to the Enterprise.

Now, you can rise up the ranks very, very quickly. It happens a lot in wartime back in the day (prior to the First Gulf War). It was nothing for a person to start out as enlisted and get battlefield promotions to the officer corp and end up retiring as a full bird colonel.

If we consider the battle to save Vulcan as a major, major, major event, equivalent to wartime, it’s plausible–thought just barely–to envision Pike deciding that Kirk has the potential that no one else has on the bridge and thinks that’s enough to make him First Officer. It’s not necessarily a promotion–it’s a position, not a rank–but more often than not it includes a recommendation for promotion. You’re the XO and at least in the US military, that position carries with it an expectation of a certain rank. You can fill it temporarily with someone of a lesser rank but you’ve got to know that that person is heading up in the world. Pike might have done that.

We see Kirk saying “Buckle up!” to Bones. He’s wearing the gold overshirt and has the Captain’s stripes. What we DON’T know is WHEN that happens, chronologically-wise. It could very well happen at the end of the movie.

Remember, no one is complaining that Spock is placed in charge of the Enterprise and he is, at the most, a Commander and probably a LtCmd. So Kirk is only a rank or two behind him. Difficult to catch up? Yeah, it is. But in a battlefield promotion, it doesn’t matter. That resets the ballgame. Also, keep in mind that Spock was on the Medical/Science track. I’d wager their promotions were much, much slower than the Command track. How else can McCoy be a Commander when the Enterprise-A retires and even Spock is barely a Captain? Heck, McCoy’s an Admiral when Enterprise-D launches but that’s umpteen-odd decades later! That’s a VERY slow promotion system, even if he’s a four-star! ;-)

So, bottom line: I think we should be prepared to accept this as the new canon. The same but not. The thrust will be the same, the details will be new. Spock’s emotionality takes on a new twist. It’s not just because of his mixed heritage or his war with his dad, it’s because his home planet is gone and there are now maybe a billion Vulcans galaxy-wide left. Kirk is aggressive and even more outrageously insubordinate as before. Not because of Kodos or Gary Mitchell dying but because his dad was murdered and he went for years blaming Starfleet Command for the Kelvin’s destruction.

And now we know that Jim always had the hots for Nyota >;->!

We can go with the flow and embrace the change of the details without sacrificing the Greater Scheme of Things and I think that’s what’s going to happen.

Don’t be surprised if that final scene is NOT the familiar black, ’60s Enterprise look. In fact, by this juncture, after seeing this much, I don’t think I want to see it end that way.

Let’s just see what she’s got and enjoy the ride. And like any good family, we’ll argue about it later ;-)

210. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

208. Imrahil – November 21, 2008
Everything I read about this movie makes me less interested in it. Join me in pirating it instead of paying to see it next may! :)

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read on here. How old are you? 12?

211. DennyC - November 21, 2008

200 Steve

A. It might not be the same dog. I’ve seen references to Porthos the Fifth of Sixth.

B. I agree that I don’t like the notion of making jokes about killing dogs. I think there are lines of dialogue that indicate that he didn’t kill it, but that it may be in suspended animation in the transporter. Doesn’t Scotty say something about being able to say how the dog is when it shows up again? I could see this as the basis for a good gag later on if Scotty is trying to beam something up and the dog shows up in the transporter.

212. Wastedbeerz - November 21, 2008

Wait… if engineering is supposed to be boiler-room like in the new movie… maybe there’s another villan that hasn’t yet been revealed that the crew need to watch out for… FREDDY KRUEGER!!!

Sorry, I had to go for that one.

And you know you’d all pay to see that movie… Freddy VS. Star Trek.

213. Opcode - November 21, 2008

I was extremely optimistic about this movie till I read AP’s report. I voted very positively in all pools so far. Now, I have started to get a feeling that this movie isn’t exactly what I was hoping for…
I must agree with some of you here, I never liked the idea of JJ Abrams helming this movie. I have seen enough from his work to say that he is not the next Spielberg, not even close. There are a lot more talented people out there… but ok.
Reading AP’s report, I got the idea is movie is being done for the general teen audience, not me, or any moviegoer with a more refined taste. It looks like it is going to be one of those movies that you pay $10 to see, enjoy for a couple of hours (in the best case), then forget about. Humor is over the top and will just get worst with repeated viewing, production design is terrible, artistic choices are as bad as they could be. That is what happens when you get a TV production team and give them $150 million to make a movie. Haven’t Paramount learned something from the TNG movies?
JJ keeps saying he wants this movie to look realistic. My question is, what does he mean by that? Maybe the use of hand-held cameras? Gosh, the movie industry is now more than 100 years old and we are forced to watch amateurish footage. Maybe JJ thinks the use of a lot of warehouses (Enterprise, Vulcan council, Starfleet hangar) makes this movie more realistic? I bet that will make this movie look terribly dated in less than 10 years. Perhaps Pine’s hair? No, that will look dated in less than 5 years. Sorry JJ, I don’t see realism in any of what has been showed or discussed so far. And I am not telling that as a movie fan, not necessarily a Star Trek fan.
But ok, I am sure that the average US teenager will feel very comfortable watching this movie, with its iBridge and shaking footage. I, in the other hand, was hoping for something more memorable. But then it seems like Hollywood don’t mind producing classics anymore, just quick fixes. I bet I will need to wait 30 more years…

214. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#147

Oh, well said. It’s so past time to stop crying about canon….

215. Raphael Salgado aka BeyondtheTech - November 21, 2008

From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3727898fb2739b042faf6d879173110d

“Oh, there’s a whole crazy campaign that is going to …,” Abrams said, trailing off. “It’s insane. We have a life-size Enterprise, but I’m not allowed to talk about it.”

Good Lord, if that’s true, sign me up!!!

216. commander K, USS Sovereign - November 21, 2008

“Too many canonists spoil the broth”

217. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#77

That’s great to hear.

#85

They already did “Star Trek Zombies”. It was called ENT: ‘Impulse’.
(Oh, and by the way, that’s the only episode in the entire Star Trek “canon” that somehow felt “un-Star Trek” to me…and I still enjoyed it.)

218. C.S. Lewis - November 21, 2008

105. M5 – November 21, 2008

M5, thanks for this cogent analysis. After thinking about it, and about my own “read alerts”, I think the best “R Word” to describe this movie is:

Revisionist.

Revisionism is to take the vocabulary of something long in existence but REDEFINE those words to mean something very different.

Think the liberal/left US Supreme Court decisions. Think the Episcopal church’s gutting of the Book of Common Prayer in 1979. Think the fantasy/horror story concocted about Joseph McCarthy — after he was dead and no longer able to defend himself.

While those examples seem to come from a certain point of view, I don’t mean to inject politics into this. I simply try to use examples of Revisionism readers here might know from personal experience.

Abrams’ iTrek eviscerates Star Trek, leaving the empty shell of 1966 and fills it with the cheap Hollywood formula-du-jour. At the moment, that means car chases, drunken brawls, gratuitous sex, smart-ass dialog and the stroboscopic editing of the ADHD generation.

What does this mean to thoughtful, mature fans?

Not much. Abrams didn’t make this film for you, my friends and suffering fellows. Star Trek was from an older generation, now mostly dead, that prized honor dearer than life, actions more than words, and duty over all. That generation did the same screwed-up things today’s basement dwelling slackers wish they could do — but they didn’t lionize or romanticize them. In fact, they did their best to hide them so their kids would have a proper example while growing up.

This ain’t that.

This is Hollywood in full exploitation mode.

Now, a note to all those who are already composing their “You’re a narrow-minded schmuck!” replies — I am sure this movie will be entertaining. It will make a huge amount of money.

Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll always have.

It is just that this movie bears only superficial resemblance to Star Trek, as the ethos and people that made it and loved it are now closer to Heaven than earth.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis
A Fan of Mere Star Trek

219. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@ Anaxagoras…

there are Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers? That is mazing…
Who in the Pentagon comes up with these naming schemes?
Is there a Richard Nixon Destroyer hidden somewhere in Norfolk?

Very good analysis.
As You Were.

220. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#99 – “Canon violations galore.”

How can you say that? We haven’t even seen the @#$%#! movie yet!

221. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@217

Fascinating…
for me there are 106 items from filmed canon that were Un-Star Trek like…

TNG: (20), VOY: (48), ENT: (36), Films (2)

222. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

Geez! What the heck are the nasty critics (#105 is a good example) doing here?! You obviously don’t want to see the movie. Why are you wasting so much of your lives bashing something you are determined not to like?

#128 – I’m with you. Even bad Trek is still pretty good. And I like Trek in all of its incarnations.

I’m still pissed that Enterprise got canceled….

223. Jordan - November 21, 2008

Well done Anthony! I look forward to the new movie more & more each day!

224. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#221

Fascinating.

225. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 21, 2008

Bailey – Please elaborate. My main beef thus far has been the production design. I actually like the hallway. Bridge to me looks far to overly bright and busy but I like the layout (Except for those oddly placed cordless drill looking joysticks with the round red buttons sticking up in the middle of all the consoles??). But my favorite sci fi set of all time was the TMP engineering set.

Am I going to get the bowels of some post industrial revolution factory with lots of piping, soot and steam???

Come on Bailey, please dish

And how big is the ship?? I have heard insider reports that put it at 3000 ft in length. In the teaser it appears much more massive than the TMP E but in the second trailer the docking ports and viewports are roughly the same looking size on the ship as on the TMP. Unless the new viewports and docking rings are three times as big too????

226. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#218

I repeat: What are you doing here?

I can understand your concerns. I can appreciate them. I don’t share them. IDIC, and all that.

But we cannot judge before we see a finished product. Plain and simple.

227. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@224

yep, I keep that list with me on my iPhone all the time ;))

228. Crewman Darnell - November 21, 2008

@ 211

It seems likely the beagle will show up at the end of this flick, validating Scotty’s worth and garnering huge guffaws amongst the target audience. :-/

229. Daoud - November 21, 2008

#28 Who’s not to say the beagle was stuffed by a taxidermist 95 years ago? ;) Probably too much cheese!

230. Third Remata'Klan - November 21, 2008

#209

Interesting analysis.

231. Anaxagoras - November 21, 2008

thorsten-

yeah, the Navy’s new CVNX or CVN-21 program was eventually given the monicker the Gerald Ford-class.

the Pentagon comes up with some really silly ones. calling the F-35 the Lightening II sounds…dumb. i would have preferred Kestrel or Phoenix, but…eh.

as far as the CVNX…should have been the America-class. that was a better proposal, methinks.

232. MC1701B - November 21, 2008

167.

Without us “40+, card-carrying, elitists,” who whined and bitched and cried and wrote letters and stories and bought miserable merchandise and worse Marshak and Culbreath novels until TMP was made, you’d have no Star Trek to talk about now except TOS.

So kindly piss off.

233. sean - November 21, 2008

Everyone referencing Shatner’s iconic status as Kirk seem to ignore the basic truth that it is that iconic status that makes him the most ripe for parody. When Trek has some fun poked at its expense, who is the center of all of those parodic quips? William Shatner. Why? Because he was an OTT Shakespearian actor with a dramatic stammer that could stop a starship at warp 14. And we love him for it, but certainly we can recognize that same abundance of enthusiasm is why it’s so easy to pay tribute to him in comedic form?

The other Trek actors/characters just aren’t on that same level. Oh sure, you can make fun of Bones for saying ‘dammit’ a lot, and Spock for being cold and raising his eyebrow, or Scotty for saying ‘the engines just cannae take it’. But Kirk, Shatner’s Kirk, is just a veritable candy store of quirky mannerisms and exaggerated deliveries. It is that fact alone that makes Pine’s job so, so difficult. He is the one actor in this whole production that – were he to stray too close to his predecessor’s interpretation of the character – is in the greatest danger of appearing as a mimic or a imitation.

That being said, I’m sure he will pay tribute to Shatner in some subtle way. It sounds like he has the Kirk bravado & libido down, so we’ll just have to wait and see if he has everything else.

234. garen - November 21, 2008

please excuse my ignorance….but i have a question:

Havent we been told or at least lead to believe the Kirk was the quiet, studious type is his academy days?

where Picard was wilder as a young man and calmed down with age…Kirk was the opposite. I thought he was overly careful and “not as cool” when he was younger.

Please someone enlighten me.

235. MC1701B - November 21, 2008

218.

Joseph McCarthy’s story needs no “revisionism.” His vile desecration of the Constitution was caught on film for all to see and remember.

As is your desecration of the screen name “C.S. Lewis.” Please change to something more appropriate, e.g. “Ann Coulter” or “Joseph Goebbels.”

236. C.S. Lewis - November 21, 2008

226. Third Remata’Klan – November 21, 2008

What am I doing here, Remata’Klan?

Something very old, now very passe: speaking for the record. Standing to be counted despite an unpopular view. This too is a relic from the past, as today we are all expected to keep dissenting thoughts to ourselves, lest we risk ostracism or other punishment by the Thought Police.

Funny, though, that Star Trek in its post-WWII implementation of American liberalism (it was not so much a product of the 1960s as it was the war) believed that legitimate (i.e., thoughtful) differences in principles were open to discussion, and if they were deeply held, sometimes worth suffering to defend.

I’m afraid you have taken on that role of “oppressor of dissent”. In a somewhat ironic way, that is what I see as the major problem facing our people, right now in 2008. It’s a very un-trek idea, don’t you think?!

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

237. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@231

Anaxagoras, thanks for that info…
I really like your text, I was thinking about battlefield promotion, too.

The Enterprise arrives at Vulcan, the three Starships that arrived earlier are gone with all hands, Pike will be at least Neros hostage if not severely injured or KIA.

So there is a good chance that “Buckle up” is the End of the movie, and the start of 5 years fun and exploration in the galaxy… and five sequels ;))

238. Spock's Brain - November 21, 2008

What are some of you guys drinking that you think your view is a “real” fan’s view on the new Trek?

First there are all degrees of fans. Some truly fanatical. I’m a HUGE fan. I’ve known Trek 33 of my 43 years of life. I don’t attend conventions because I’m not obsessive about the actors or personalities. To me it’s about the stories and characters (so I do care about canon, to the extent that it adds to the enjoyment of the Trekverse) and the values that Trek represents.

And to (185. Kevin). Abrams, et al are not rippin off a dead man anymore than the last several years of TNG, DS9, and VOY did. Paramount owns Trek and they can do what they want to with it. Gene gave birth to something so wonderful that it outlived him and will continue in many incarnations.

239. Ivory - November 21, 2008

alternate universe

240. Rudy M Alapag Jr - November 21, 2008

this trek is gonna look cool.
more action this time, thanks to J.J. Abrams it does look like the future enterprise and the future war.
“what kind of romulan nero is”? what’s his background?

241. Jay - November 21, 2008

I have a question: Since Nero comes back in time from the post-Nemesis future, I’m assuming they will show that in the film – like what leads up to the decision to go back in time, etc.

So, is there a chance for a cameo from any TNG cast/characters? I think I remember Anthony writing that there are some scenes and ships depicted in the movie from the TNG era, so it would seem possible.

With Abrams you never know. He seems to love surprises, so would be keep secret a cameo from someone like Frakes, for example?

242. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@240

Rudy, Nero was held in a klingon prison because a temproral crime he comitted earlier. He travelled back in time to destroy the Star Trek franchise by inserting two of his henchmen at the highest level of Paramount, but got caught in the act…

243. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#167 – “To: 86. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008

“Abrams should’ve stuck with a simple origins tale set around Kirk’s early years on the Republic and Farragut”

… and then Star Trek would be dead because the only people who swear by those events as gospel (which is only referenced loosely in the series), are card-carrying, living-in-your-mom’s-basement, 40-plus-year-old Star Trek elitists who can’t embrace change.”

Leaving aside that the conclusion is specious at best, the more citical question is how one would even think that the one follows from the other. Why should people reject something simply because it’s grounded in existing continuity? The only time it’d be a problem would be if the writers assumed that the audience already knew what was going on and thus ignored the basics of good storytelling. If the writers don’t make that assumption, we simply are introduced to LT Kirk instead of Cadet Kirk (or wherever he starts out). In practical terms, it makes no difference to anyone who doesn’t know the backstory, and can only be a benefit to those who do.

All the “Star Trek would be dead because we followed some backstory” claims are really frighteningly overblown, and the result could well be that Star Trek will die. I surely hope it doesn’t come to that, but sometimes I wonder…

“I believe, STRONGLY, that this film will adhere to canon, but in a VERY different way…

… so much so that I’d be willing to bet that two of the destroyed ships shown on the bridge viewscreen when the Enterprise drops out of warp in the trailer are the Republic and the Farragut, possibly meaning that Nero inadvertently saved Kirk’s life while trying to kill him.”

And that adheres to continuity how…? I think I missed something. ;)

#176 – “There’s no way to really prove this, but I would be willing to bet if you took four of the most hardcore, canon-lovin’ Trek fans on this board and let them come up with a legitimate script for Trek XI — they would not be able to address all these issues, come up with a compelling story, and bring in the masses any better than what Mr. Orci and Co. did. Yet a lotta people are bitchin’.”

If you add to the list of characteristics that the fans in question are also competent writers, I’d take that bet. ;)

To be fair, my thought-experimentation has been largely limited to tinkering with the movie’s actual storyline, to the extent that I know it. I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel in this case.

#192 – “Maybe the question should be – Will this movie be considered “canon?” ”

I think what’re likely to become the bigger questions are, “How do we define ‘canon’ now? And is it a meaningful concept anymore?”

244. Anaxagoras - November 21, 2008

@237

Thorsten,

you know, i was thinking about what happened/will happen to Pike. My guess is that the original explanation for his horrific injuries is gone. I’ve got a hunch that Nero tortures him severely, so much so that he’s forced to live in the manner we’re familiar with (maybe it’ll look a bit different; it doesn’t make any sense that a technological level that allows for transportation and FTL can’t jimmy up a better lifesuit/iron lung/whatevertheheck poor Pike was stuck in).

again, in keeping with my plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose hypothesis. details shift but Great Scheme of Things doesn’t.

245. Scott - November 21, 2008

158. TonyD – November 21, 2008
Great summary Anthony; that was very informative without being too spoilerish. Overall I like where this movie is going, but a few things give me pause:

1.) Its looking more and more like the timeline will be altered and this new Jim Kirk will start out as a rebel without a cause before maturing to the captain we all know and love. Personally, I find that backstory a little disappointing. I liked the serious, grim “stack of books with legs” version of young James T. Kirk just fine. I know that these characters need to be “freshened up” to make them more palatable to younger audiences but as a 43 year old fan of TOS I can’t help but think its a change for the worse as introducing heroes as “rebels” has become so typical in movies aimed at younger audiences.

I have to agree with that. It would have been startling and great to see this heroic character everyone knows starting out as some serious nerdy type in Starfleet. Another missed opportunity for the writers, who apparently chose the easy route and make young Kirk a cocky rebellious type…which I think is cliche and wholly unoriginal. There are actually some great things in canon that they could have used to their advantage in this movie, but didn’t. I’m still hopeful this new interpretation will be worth all the hype…

246. hitch1969© say The OrcSter™ aint yella. - November 21, 2008

I think that Anaxagoras® has come the closest of anyone in putting this all together, based on what we know to date. I’ll bet when May rolls around, what we see will be very similar. Please re-read post 209 again.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

247. sean - November 21, 2008

#218

I think you might be placing a television show on a pedestal it shouldn’t occupy by comparing it to government scandals and religious controversy, dontcha think? See, those things *actually* occurred, whereas Star Trek is fiction, and thus subject to reinterpretation (revisionism would imply the original is in some way changed, discredited or irrevocably altered, and no new movie – no matter how popular it may prove to be – is capable of that).

248. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@244

yep, Anaxagoras, same thinking here. The question is if we need to see Kirk losing two fathers in one movie, so there is a good chance you are right and Pike survives injured. And I agree, there will be no magic wand at the end of the movie, that timeline is established and will stand.

249. JL - November 21, 2008

238

“First there are all degrees of fans. Some truly fanatical. I’m a HUGE fan. I’ve known Trek 33 of my 43 years of life. I don’t attend conventions because I’m not obsessive about the actors or personalities. To me it’s about the stories and characters (so I do care about canon, to the extent that it adds to the enjoyment of the Trekverse) and the values that Trek represents.”

This is pretty much me in a nutshell (including the age.)

Yeah, Gene and the others created a thing which goes far beyond their years. So much untapped potential and so many untold stories.

Trek is awesome fiction and an incredibly fascinating universe but I’m not interested in the number of times Shatner had his favorite horse shoed at the blacksmith.

My two and a half cents.

250. James - November 21, 2008

@ C.S. Lewis:

I can understand your concerns, but I think you might be blowing a few things out of proportion here. What we’re looking at with this new film isn’t mind-bogglingly different from changes we’ve had in the past.

Changes like ST:II, for example, which took the franchise in a totally different direction – arguably for the better. Changes like DS9 (okay, let’s not start with the whole ‘I hate TNG Trek’ debate again), which brought something different to the equation.

Just because the film is being aimed at a broader audience doesn’t automatically mean it will be totally vacuous and devoid of real substance. It will be different, yes – I don’t think there’s any denying that now. But different doesn’t necessarily mean worse.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

251. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

249. JL

I concur with you and Spock’s Brain. I’m 41 and have been a Trek fan as long as i can remember. Trek is about the stories and the characters… not about how many bolts there are on The Enterprise’s secondary hull in this movie as compared with TOS. People seriously need to get a life if THAT is what Trek is to them. Who cares about the eye colour or the hair style or if the actor is 1/2 inch too short… or if the Enterprise isn’t EXACTLY like the one in TOS.

252. Spock's Brain - November 21, 2008

RE: 209. Anaxagoras…

Excellent thinking! I was also thinking at least two, maybe more, temporal intrusions. The timeline is all effed up! I can’t get enough of Trek time travel tales!

253. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@249

050465, JL

;))

254. JL - November 21, 2008

244

Anaxagorus

“I’ve got a hunch that Nero tortures him severely, so much so that he’s forced to live in the manner we’re familiar with…”

Maybe they put him in carbonite. Just kidding

No, I see what you’re saying and I think your idea would be verrrrry bitchin’ to the fans who know who Pike was and so forth.

Damn, you guys really have me thinking………….. !

255. SH Cone - November 21, 2008

19.

Once again… you talk like you’ve seen the whole thing and you haven’t.

So many of you just don’t know what you’re talking about without having seen the finished film.

256. Dennis Bailey - November 21, 2008

“225. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar – November 21, 2008

Bailey – Please elaborate. My main beef thus far has been the production design. I actually like the hallway. Bridge to me looks far to overly bright and busy but I like the layout (Except for those oddly placed cordless drill looking joysticks with the round red buttons sticking up in the middle of all the consoles??). But my favorite sci fi set of all time was the TMP engineering set.”

http://brianfinifter.com/2008/02/11/star-trek-stormtrooper-and-scientology/

Check out the first paragraph.

257. Anthony Thompson - November 21, 2008

202. cw

Mr. Orci modified those aspects of canon to make Iowagirl happy. : ) Myself, I wish the Enterprise was being built in Minnesota!

258. BL_Sisko - November 21, 2008

My wife and I have been lurking here for a long time, posting only occasionally. We’ve now read all the coverage of these four scenes, and we have to say: we are not impressed. I’m hoping we’re wrong, but we both have a general uneasiness about this project, and here’s why.

We are sick and tired of Abrams bending over backwards to say “You know, I was never a fan…” over and over again. Yeah, we get it. You liked Star Wars better. It was easier to wrap your head around. Less thinking, more BOOM! Got it. That seems to be what he’s going to do this so-called Star Trek, along with adding a stripteasing Uhura who makes wisecracks about Kirk screwing farm animals. (Hey, thanks guys. We look forward to having to explain that to our kid.)

It’s bad enough he’s messing with things that are pretty well established, making the main cast the same age as Kirk without giving them a reason to respect him, and chucking out pivotal events in these characters’ lives (Tarsus IV, I’m looking at you), all in exchange for stupid stuff like trashing a 20th century car for kicks. It’s worse that the other day Abrams introduced the scenes by telling people he didn’t even know there were a whole bunch of previous Trek movies.

He’s either a liar or a complete moron. This is all just him trying to convince non-fans that this isn’t that other, nerdy, icky Trek they’ve all avoided before. It’s like he, and the studio, can’t even embrace Trek for what it’s been. It wasn’t that long ago that TNG was on and a very popular, critically-acclaimed show. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about here, and if he feels that way maybe he was the wrong guy for this project.

I understand that JJ’s trying to appeal to a wider audience, but I don’t think slapstick, sex and action for action’s sake were the ways to do it. He clearly doesn’t respect the material – he’s said as much from the beginning – but my problem is that Orci and Kurtzman, while claiming to be big fans, are not the same kinds of fans that I and many others are. And because JJ is not a fan, he had to trust their instincts as writers.

It sounds to me like JJ asked for lots of action sequences, Orci and Kurtzman gave him the action sequences, and then had to build a story around them. Therefore you get a complete dumbing-down of the material. Everything is just a little too convenient. The ship’s being built in Iowa so Hot Rod Kirk can go see it? Kirk is the only person who can take the XO’s position in a crisis even though he’s technically still a cadet? Fleet cadets take their leave in freaking Iowa (hopefully I’m wrong about that, it’s hard to tell from the descriptions) so Kirk can get into a barroom brawl with them? It’s beyond ridiculous.

Add in the goofball slapstick and the sex, and I’m turned off by the whole affair. I have been a fan for my entire life. But this movie was clearly not made for me, because what I have always loved about Star Trek – the optimism, the friendships, the character moments – have taken a back seat to the BOOM. I don’t go see a Trek movie for the boom. I love it in other movies — The Dark Night, Iron Man, the first to X-Men movies, etc. — but that’s not what makes Trek real Trek. Not to me. Apparently it is what makes Trek real Trek to Orci and Kurtzman, or at least to JJ.

So they’ve made a Trek movie for the masses. Whatever. It’ll be a smash, because the people who never got Star Trek to begin with will probably love it. I’m gonna hate it when this movie breaks $200 million and drunken frat boys suddenly think Star Trek “F-ing kicks a** man! BOOM!” Because then MY Trek will be effectively gone.

So thank you very, very much for LOST Mr. Abrams. It’s my favorite show ever, even eclipsing the wonderful, but woefully underappreciated Deep Space Nine (that’s a Star Trek show, in case you weren’t aware). We want you to know that we think you’re a talented guy, but this simply may not have been the project for you. Just like Superman clearly wasn’t either.

259. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

258. BL_Sisko

So you’ve seen the entire movie to make this assumption?? Lucky you. I have to wait until May to see if it is crap or not.

260. Crewman Darnell - November 21, 2008

# 245 Scott

“Personally, I find that backstory a little disappointing. I liked the serious, grim “stack of books with legs” version of young James T. Kirk just fine.”

That’s exactly what I too was hoping for in this film. Taking that further perhaps – Seeing the back-story of Kirk, as an overly serious cadet, harassed by the likes of Finnegan, later manipulated by Gary Mitchell, to become the basis of the Kirk we all know. If a bad boy, motorcycle-riding Kirk was required, this could have been accomplished without creating some obnoxious, “townie” stow-away, rank-jumping character we can now expect in the movie.

261. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#209 – “We know from TWOK that cadets graduate as LJG (Lieutenant Junior Grade) unlike in the US Navy where they grad as Ensigns.”

This was the only part of your post I don’t necessarily agree with, as a matter of “fact”. TWOK tells us nothing of the kind. And with the number of Academy graduates who are out there as Ensigns, it’s not likely.

I always took TWOK to be an indicator that there is something like a Command School or other graduate level or comparable senior officer training program, and LTJG Saavik had merely enrolled in that, possibly after having served on active duty for a time. That also explained what Kirk was doing at the Academy while still an Emsign, and even for a time as a Lieutenant. He was a grad student who was teaching courses while pursuing his command track studies. :)

#216 – “Too many canonists spoil the broth”

I think the rebootists were already well underway toward that, before the canonists even got into the kitchen. >:)

#222- “I’m still pissed that Enterprise got canceled….”

You and me, both, especially since it had gotten so good. What’s ironic is that lots of my friends never bothered with it while it was on the air, and then got hooked when I shared my DVDs with them. Go figure…

262. sean - November 21, 2008

#245

As another long time fan, here’s the problem I have always had with that – how do we reconcile ‘a stack of books with legs’ with a daring cadet willing to risk expulsion by reprogramming the simulator and ‘changing the conditions of the test’? How do we go from this supposedly straight-laced cadet to a daring rule-breaker? That never jived, for me. Captain Kirk was a master of the bluff, an extrovert, maybe not a rule-breaker but certainly a creative rule-interpreter.

263. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@258

All the best to the wife!
Do you like Mad Men, btw?

264. Matt - November 21, 2008

Canon schmanon!! I want to be entertained!

The Enterprise built where? WHO CARES?!
Kirk can’t drive a stick? WHO CARES?!
Don’t like the look of the bridge? WHO CARES?!
The nacelle pylons are in the wrong place! OMG! WHO GIVES A CRAP?!

and on, and on, and on….

Why do you people care about stupid little things? Why does it matter?

Is this a good film? NOBODY knows yet. You are ripping it apart and you haven’t seen anything but a 2 minute trailer and a couple of pictures. Everyone who actually seen some of the film has been overwhelmingly positive about it – even the most rabid Star Trek haters.

I hope all you whingers who are saying you won’t go and see it because the bloody deflector dish sticks out too far DON’T GO AND SEE IT.
I hope Star Trek builds a whole new audience – people who actually go to the movies to see a movie and not to rip it apart.
I hope Star Trek can actually become cool for the first time in 40 years.
And I hope the public at large, not nerds like us, start looking forward to a Star Trek film the way people are now looking forward to Bond or Batman.

You whining little babies can stay home.

265. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@261

Hey Alex, season 7 of 24 is coming up,
made by Coto/Braga…

;))

266. Brett Campbell - November 21, 2008

262 – Sean — “how do we reconcile ‘a stack of books with legs’ with a daring cadet willing to risk expulsion by reprogramming the simulator and ‘changing the conditions of the test’?”

I’ve never had the impression that risk-takers can’t be well-informed and well-read. Many of the greatest risk-takers in world history have been. The two are by no means mutually exclusive.

267. Ryan Spooner - November 21, 2008

@ 6 “What still confuses me is . . . how is Kirk still just a cadet, while the rest of the crew (including lil’ Chekov) are already commissioned officers?”

I’m guessing because the Romulans went back in time and destroyed the Kelvin which was commanded by his Father? This probably turned Kirk into a bit of a rebel and he rubbed people up the wrong way, therefore they held him back.

268. hitch1969© say THE WOMEN!! - November 21, 2008

BL_Sisko®

Sir JJ was not lying when he said that this movie is not for the fans of Star Trek. Atleast he was honest about that…

I see alot of what you are saying, too. I share in some of your concerns. I went as far as to ask The OrcSter the other day if his continued participation in this site was somewhat out of guilt in the knowing of what he has done to this franchise for folks like you.

I hope that you and your wife can find a way to come to enjoy the movie for what it is, despite your misgivings. Again, I do not think they are entirely misplaced, yet I remain excited for this movie in general.

AP should have a poll – have the last 2 weeks changed your enthusiasm for the movie? I would vote that I have experienced some disappointments.

Yo, D. Russ B-Flav® – interesting comment about engineering. You’ve got the cred with me pallie, so I’m taking you at word on that.

t h e w o m e n !!©

=h=

©2008. “the women!!” is intellectual property of hitch1969© and hitchworld industries. all rights reserved except when not reserved.

269. Anthony Thompson - November 21, 2008

I’m beginning to wonder if “Montreal Paul” is a pseudonym for JJ or Mr. Orci! Haha.

270. JL - November 21, 2008

253 thorsten

good one

271. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

Seeing Cadet Kirk stand next to Ensign Chekov is just so wrong on so many levels.

272. BaronByng - November 21, 2008

There’s no reason to assume that the character moments will not be there. If anything, JJ Abrams’ shows are ALL ABOUT character; as someone currently watching Alias in re-runs, it’s incredible to me how much the show was really a complex character drama tied together with action sequences, rather than vice-versa. Similarly, Lost is about the motivations of different groups of characters; there are no cardboard cut out goodies and baddies.

There is something the Star Wars films have over Trek, and that is the idea of a classic character development arc. With Trek, we never really got that in any of the series; week-to-week it would seem that the reset button would be pushed, there would be no lasting consequences, no referring back to things that happened previously. (Seriously, it’s like every week, Voyager or the 1701-D would encounter some amazing technology and then FORGET THEY SAW IT by the time the credits rolled…)

Similarly, the movies depended on you coming to them with a lot of old series baggage in order to understand the characters; as good as some of them were (II, IV and VIII in particular), you would have to know Space Seed to get TWOK, and ‘Family’ and ‘Best of Both Worlds’ to really understand Picard’s feelings in Generations and First Contact.

Star Wars Episodes IV-VI was the classic hero’s journey, from callow youth to sober adulthood; a Bildungsroman set against a galactic war backdrop. Luke goes from wearing white at the beginning, to grey in the middle, to black in the final chapter, signifying the stages of his growth and maturity.

It seems that Abrams is giving us this much-needed background to Kirk (never really seen outside novels)…and a refresh of the more well-known backstory of Spock. This is the character with some key elements in place, but still young, untempered, untried, making mistakes.

It is setting the stage for further character development in future movies; Kirk will still be young at the end of this flick, and my guess is he’s not going to be promoted to full captain’s rank — that would be unrealistic. This story is how he ‘captains’ the Enterprise in a crisis before Pike, I assume, takes it back. If this is really the maiden voyage (as implied by the ‘brand new’ line), Kirk might only just be a Lt JG at most.

But anyway — this is all fan speculation and we should wait to see the whole movie.

273. sean - November 21, 2008

Here’s the thing – we’re making an awful lot of assumptions about the passage of time and the way events transpire in this film.

Just today, Anthony has confirmed that the scene on board the Enterprise is actually 3 years after the Iowa bar scene. So I’m sure there are other timeline issues we’re either misinterpreting or taking for granted.

Chekov, for instance. How do we know he’s not still in the Academy when Kirk comes aboard Pike’s E? Kirk was supposedly a Lt while still at the Academy, as was Saavik. We don’t know what year cadet they were, though if you accept the Okuda’s overall timeline then Kirk was probably a 2nd or 3rd year at best (I won’t even go into the mess that is Kirk’s backstory according to TOS, because it really is a mess). Chekov could be a first year cadet for all we know. And given his age, that makes sense (certainly more than Koenig’s age in relation to the character ever did).

And addressing the age issue – the TOS actors were all reasonably close in age, excepting Dee Kelley and James Doohan. And we have a pretty close approximation with these new actors ages – Karl Urban and Simon Pegg (McCoy and Scotty, respectively) being older than everyone else (John Cho being a big exception, but he’s made a career out of playing younger characters based on his looks). And as I said before, Yelchin is actually a better fit for Chekov’s age.

Now, I’m not particularly thrilled with the idea of all these convenient promotions, either. However, I thought about it and given the fact that we know a massive fleet of starships is destroyed at Vulcan by Nero, are we sure that it can’t – at least partly – be explained by the fact that a lot of senior officers are now dead? Is it possible this new Enterprise might be rushed into service as a result of the Romulan threat, and therefore is understaffed in some ways? That could explain why certain field commissions might be necessitated.

As far as Kirk being a captain by show’s end – how do we know when that actually is? Could be some time after Nero’s failed (or successful, depending on how you look at it) attempts at corrupting the timeline.

274. jww - November 21, 2008

young kirk is apparently a james dean, bad boy character who one day impulsively decides to join starfleet? hmmm….

he’s smuggled on board the 1701 for her first flight? doesnt he have classes to attend?

mccoy sounds like a terribly irresponsible practitioner of medicine here.

“Uhura was brought along because she had intercepted Romulan communications and so she was put in charge of Comms, because she speaks “all three” Romulan dialects.”

she couldnt even speak universal klingon, as demonstrated in ST:TFF suddenly she is hoshi sato? actually this is more of a critique on that movie, likely the result of the studio going for wacky “laffs” and screwing up shatners original script. but still, it was on screen and canon.

‘red matter’ is this like star trek kryptonite? what the… at least ‘proto matter’ sopunded more scientific, red matter? magic.

a john archer reference? sweeet.

i thought this was a spock story… its a kirk story? without shatner? crickey…

shat could have played the owner of that sweet corvette, crusty old uncle kirk

maybe three movies to get the crew into the familiar wouldnt have been a bad move at all…

uncannily rapid promotions = comic book credibility and certainly not trek in any way.

han solo was a great space cowboy, like kirk. they share many qualities.

they should have made this a chris pike story, with the kirk crew at the fringes…

i’m glad uhuras character finally gets some dimension as well as the other main crew.

i’m all for new and better trek, that 1701 will still take some getting used to.

cant wait until someone uploads this screening!

275. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

Okay I just have to ask this:

Why doesn’t Spock Prime just time travel back to 5 minutes before Nero attacks the USS Kelvin, cut him off at the pass and restore the original timeline?

Problem & catastrophe solved.

276. JL - November 21, 2008

258

“I’m gonna hate it when this movie breaks $200 million and drunken frat boys suddenly think Star Trek “F-ing kicks a** man! BOOM!” Because then MY Trek will be effectively gone.”

No it won’t. It will be right there on your shelf and you can pop in any of the DVDs whenever you want.

To say TOS will dematerialize because someone else did another take on it is really caveman-esque. I say that because to me, it’s like someone getting pissed because Burton and Nolan went and changed the “Adam West” version of Batman!

Like me, love and cherish the awesome, epic adventures of TOS as they exist. No one is forcing you to aknowledge a modern incarnation of it.

277. Iowagirl - November 21, 2008

#258
Good points. Do come here more often…:)

278. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

269. Anthony Thompson

HaHa.. funny. I only wish I had their money and credentials. The only similarity between them and me is that I am also a writer and I do work in the Television industry in Montreal. Back in the 80’s, I tried to write a Trek novel.. after writing it.. I went to my Trek bible and realized that I would have to change most of my story to follow “canon” strictly. So I shelved it because people like the nay-sayers here would have torn it apart. It was an amazing story too.

I just don’t get all th eidiots that have already condemned this movie without seeing it. That is real open mindedness for you. If, AFTER seeing it, i do not like it.. then I know I went in there with an open mind and didn’t judge it before seeing it. As for the rest of you.. hate it now, your mind will never change. I give up on you guys.

279. hitch1969© say THE WOMEN!! - November 21, 2008

and BL_Sisko®, one more thing-

I did ask the OrcSter™ if there was any profanity in the new movie as I was radically opposed to that much in keeping with your values – he said maybe one minor one that he could recall.

In my opinion, turning the Dukes Of Hazzard into a ‘swearfest’ on the big screen killed a once family-friendly franchise to me. Plus they were smokin dope and stupid stuff like that. Totally out of character for Bo and Luke and Uncle Jesse. Willie Nelson? Come on.

Theme Now!!

=h=

280. Matt - November 21, 2008

275. John from Cincinnati

Something is bound to go wrong – you know like when Marty McFly tried to go back 10 minutes early and save Doc and the DeLorean broke down!! Lol

Plus we would have much of a movie…

281. JL - November 21, 2008

245 Scott

“Personally, I find that backstory a little disappointing. I liked the serious, grim “stack of books with legs” version of young James T. Kirk just fine.”

Me, I’ am realllly tired of the “bookworm” character – it has been overly exposed for many, many years via Peter Parker and Clark Kent.

I welcome change. HOORAY FOR CHANGE!!

282. jww - November 21, 2008

#275 and thats why the time travel plot device is often the cheapest trick ever.

it worked for the ‘back to the future’ series i think, but rarely ever elsewhere…

283. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

I’d love to see a poll here that asks if you will see the new Trek movie with an open mind or go in hating still. I would love to know the ratio. And we all know.. no mater if a person says that they won’t ever see it.. they will see it. :)

284. Brian - November 21, 2008

209- Very interesting theories…I think you’re on the right track with at least some of it.

285. sean - November 21, 2008

#266

“I’ve never had the impression that risk-takers can’t be well-informed and well-read. Many of the greatest risk-takers in world history have been. The two are by no means mutually exclusive.”

You’ve misinterpreted me, there. It’s not about intelligence, but rather attitude. Mitchell paints Kirk as a rather strict, by-the-book instructor and a ‘grim’ cadet. That seems somewhat contrary to the kid that cheated on the Kobayashi Maru and was ‘never a boy scout’. I could accept it more as a gradual character change (like Picard’s path in TNG, where he was a pretty brash cadet but a significant event led to him learning to temper those tendencies) but it seems to happen pretty darn quickly (within his Academy years).

I’m not saying it’s impossible to reconcile the two, just that they never seemed consistent, to me. I always had a hard time swallowing it.

286. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#6—-“What still confuses me is . . . how is Kirk still just a cadet, while the rest of the crew (including lil’ Chekov) are already commissioned officers?”

Apparently, the changes in the timeline have resulted in a scenario where Kirk’s entry into Starfleet Academy is significantly delayed. The attack upon the USS Kelvin 4 days before he was born (as far as we know—the first timeline incursion) obviously affects Kirk’s path more than the rest of the characters with which we are so familiar.

This is not the route I would have taken, but who knows? It may play very well. I’ll give it a chance.

#209—I’m holding out hope that Kirk is not somehow promoted to Captain from the cadet ranks.

As a former military officer, I am well aware of the notion that “battlefield commissions” and “battlefield promotions” can and do occur, but such things are rare and almost always temporary. They are also nearly always specific to a certain task or operation.

However, to be fair—-this is not without precedent in our own history.

During the American Civil War, for example, there were actually few officers on either side with formal military training (despite a few notables). Many men in the officer ranks were little more than people who came from notable families, and were given commissions directly to ‘Colonel’ (the naval equivalent of which would be a ‘Captain”) and command of a ‘regiment’ (consisting of 3 to 7 ‘battalions’, or anywhere from 600 to 5,000 men depending upon that particular regiment’s makeup).

To go even further back, Phillip of Macedonia’s son—Alexander was merely 18 years old and had already led an army which had conquered much of the World known to him.

With that said, this is ‘Starfleet’, and we have never seen Starfleet handle promotion in that manner. Then again, we’ve never seen the 23rd Century Federation (and apparently, the Klingon Empire as well) attacked by Romulans from more than a century in the future.

Would it really be any more absurd than 2 captains (Spock and Kirk) and 5 commanders (assuming that Scotty’s “Captain of Engineering” promotion in TSFS was never actually formalized) all serving aboard the Enterprise-A in STV: TGTTO89? If Starfleet is capable of such a gross misallocation of valuable personnel resources, then surely one “battlefield promotion” to Captain isn’t much of a stretch?

Maybe.

287. JL - November 21, 2008

286

“…the Enterprise-A in STV: TGTTO89?”

heh

this always makes me laugh, ct

288. sean - November 21, 2008

#275

If the images we’ve seen are anything to go by, Spock would be outmatched and outgunned – significantly so.

289. dalek - November 21, 2008

#275 perhaps Nimoy’s character going back was a one shot deal. And he can’t time travel again from the point of going back.

Maybe the reason he is seen to be SO old in the clip they showed, was because he’s had to live back in the time from when the Kelvin was destroyed up until the point he meets Kirk and Scotty. Isolating himself on Vulcan’s isolated frozen parts would seem the logical hiding place. Perhaps this Spock has to spend the rest of his natural life in the past trying to correct history at every opportunity.

The assumption in your post is that Spock can time travel AFTER he has come back. For all we know, his ship can’t time travel and he entered the same vortex Nero’s ship did ala Enterprise in First Contact.

290. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#275—-“Why doesn’t Spock Prime just time travel back to 5 minutes before Nero attacks the USS Kelvin, cut him off at the pass and restore the original timeline?

Problem & catastrophe solved.”

I’m sure there is an explanation as to why he can’t do that within the film.

291. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#265 – Y’know, I have yet to watch “24”. Is it worth it?

#275 – “Why doesn’t Spock Prime just time travel back to 5 minutes before Nero attacks the USS Kelvin, cut him off at the pass and restore the original timeline?

Problem & catastrophe solved.”

Oh, see, now you’re just being logical. ;) But you have hit upon one of the weaknesses that seems endemic to time travel stories. OTOH, because it’s such a widely-known weakness, perhaps Alex K and Bob O came up with a rationale for why that couldn’t happen?

292. JL - November 21, 2008

290

#275—-”Why doesn’t Spock Prime just time travel back to 5 minutes before Nero attacks the USS Kelvin, cut him off at the pass and restore the original timeline?

“Problem & catastrophe solved.”

“I’m sure there is an explanation as to why he can’t do that within the film.”

Maybe. Or maybe they are just making an entertaining movie with a few plot holes that we’ll just have to get over. Who knows

293. Ian B - November 21, 2008

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck does TGTTO89 stand for?

294. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

Here’s the revised scene from Enterprise B from Star Trek:Generations after the timeline has been corrupted from this new movie it goes like this:

Chekov (Looking towards Sulu’s daughter): “I was never that young.”

Kirk: “No, you were younger.”

Chekov: “Maybe, but at least I was an officer when you were still a stinkin’ cadet. So stick that where the sun don’t shine.”

295. JL - November 21, 2008

Plot holes, I should add, like

Why doesn’t Superman just spin the world backwards to fix every catastophe or defeat every villain?

Some things we need to get over for the sake of entertainment.

296. JL - November 21, 2008

293

Star Trek V: the Great Trek Turd Of ’89

297. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - November 21, 2008

Great article, Anthony. Man I wish I could see those scenes for myself though. Still remain very excited for May.

298. SH Cone - November 21, 2008

275 and 290:

If Nero’s ship is as big as we’ve bed led to believe, and if it’s destroyed The Kelvin and has the ability to destroy Vulcan..

..um, I’m just thinking that maybe Spock’s little timeship might not have the juice to stop him. :)

299. Horatio - November 21, 2008

Has anyone yet considered the possibility that the producers are showing scenes that really don’t have alot to do with the plot of the film? Knowing how JJ is so paranoid about secrecy do ya’ll think that hes giving away major state secrets with 5 1/2 months to go before the film is released?

I get the feeling that the scenes that have been shown were specifically chosen so as to throw everyone off. I bet that JJ, Orci, Kurtzman and the others are reading all these threads and having a good laugh and patting themselves on the back for making so many Trekkers foam at the mouth while in reality all is well in canonland.

Just a thought.

300. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@291

The first three seasons are great imho,
but then the concept grows tiresome and the plots
get weaker and weaker.

Manny Coto took over as showrunner after ENTS cancellation
and hired Braga for season 7, which will be kind of, you guessed it,
a reboot
;))
/t

301. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

298.

Why use the little time ship? Why not take Enterprise F around the sun? Or a fleet of ships for that matter?

302. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#158—-“Its looking more and more like the timeline will be altered and this new Jim Kirk will start out as a rebel without a cause before maturing to the captain we all know and love. Personally, I find that backstory a little disappointing. I liked the serious, grim “stack of books with legs” version of young James T. Kirk just fine.”

That was certainly Gary Mitchell’s view of Lt.Jim Kirk as a teacher at the Academy”, but it is not exactly the ‘final say’ on who young James T. Kirk was.

TWOK seemed to present a very different perspective on his earlier years.

“Jim Kirk was many things, but he was ‘never’ a boy scout.”—Carol Marcus

This is also the same guy who cheated on the KM test and was nearly thrown out of SFA (the writers seem to have picked up on this or something similar in the story at hand).

303. BL_Sisko - November 21, 2008

Hitch1969 in #279

Oh, swearing doesn’t bother me too much. My wife and I both have fairly unrestrained foul mouths, and our now nine-year-old daughter dropped her first four-letter word on us when she was about three. (As my wife said at the time, “Well, at least she used it correctly in context.”) We nipped that in the bud quickly and have been more restrained since. So that’s not so much what I’m worried about.

The sex with farm animals thing, though… She’s getting to the age where the birds and the bees talk is looming. I’d rather we not have to incorporate livestock as well.

And SHE, more than either of us, is excited about this movie. Can I resist those big, brown eyes? No, I cannot. So I’m reserving judgement as much as possible. But Abrams’ “I am not a Trekkie!” attitude really bothers me. What’s so wrong with being a Trekkie (or Trekker if you prefer. I make no distinction.)? I’ve been one my whole life, and I turned out okay. I do not live in my mother’s basement, I am married to a smart, sassy woman whom I met entirely because of Trek, and we have a bright, beautiful daughter who has a tangential relationship with Trek, but who wants to see this movie. I just hope that if she comes to know and love Trek as much as we do, it’s because of the the thoughtfulness and the philosophy less than the bang-bang action. THOSE are our values, referred to in your post, and I hope this movie is in keeping with them. I guess we’ll find out in May, won’t we?

304. JL - November 21, 2008

Refering back to my 296

I know everyone’s duifferent but I loved Donner’s Superman and I still do – and the fairly dopey “earth spinning” sequence does not detract from my love of the film. Not at all. Because I think the film is great on so many levels, I forgive these things.

If I were to get upset and dislike a film because it had a couple of elements I did not like or did not agree with, there would literally be no movies I would ever want to watch, EVER.

Except maybe Empire Strikes Back or Dark Knight. Mayyyybe…

305. Derek Evans - November 21, 2008

Like most people at this site, I’ve followed Trek for years. I’m mostly a TOS person. I’m Hoping for the best. I’m glad that Paramount is investing the Buck$ in STAR TREK…To be honest though..The BIG reason I WILL see this movie on opening day is LEONARD NIMOY…and to be Very Honest wit you all..I’ll probably shed a tear or to…There I said It!

306. Brett Campbell - November 21, 2008

285 – Sounds like it will be interpreted as something of a gradual character change in this film — perhaps a coming-of-age story of the maturing of Kirk.

Apologies for misinterpreting you.

307. darendoc - November 21, 2008

There is nothing that was said that Kirk was “thrown out of SFA”… in fact, he “got a commendation for original thinking”… far from being thrown out. This new kirk is being portrayed as a rebel… a guy that doesn’t fit in… but as we saw in TOS, Kirk fit in everywhere… especially star fleet. He was extremely adaptable… which is why he was perfect for the job.

308. sean - November 21, 2008

#301

Again John, I could poke holes in nearly every Star Trek story ever told (not just time travel). There comes a point where you either accept the story logic or you don’t. After all, why didn’t the Enterprise-D just whip ’round the sun every time they have a problem? Or the Enterprise, for that matter? The real reason is it’s too convenient and kills the drama to use that plot device every week. But sprinkles will always work.

However, because this is fun and I’m sure we could keep this going a while… ;)

How about this – Spock’s trip back in time is unauthorised, thus he can’t use the Enterprise (I assume E, since it’s the post-Nemesis timeframe and it was being repaired at the end of that dismal movie) or perhaps any Federation vessel. Maybe he has to steal this ship? Maybe slingshots around the sun don’t work anymore? Maybe it was too risky and he needed a sure way to get back? I’m sure there are a million explanations that might work.

309. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

289.

The problem with your theory is this:

Young Kirk asks Spock Prime on the ice planet “Time travel. Isn’t that cheating”

Spock Prime: “I learned it from a friend”

The assumption here being Spock meant he learned it from Kirk from all their adventures together. This means Prime Spock is from the original timeline.

310. JL - November 21, 2008

305

Don’t be ashamed. This will likely happen to a lot of us.

311. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

302.

I thought Kirk was given a commendation for original thinking for his Kobayashi Maru solution? That’s a far cry from getting thrown out of Starfleet or being denied a ship upon graduation.

312. JL - November 21, 2008

“I thought Kirk was given a commendation for original thinkin…”

Wow, that’s right. Closettrekker what do you say to that?

313. BK613 - November 21, 2008

27
I blame Kevin Pollock :)

314. CaptainRickover - November 21, 2008

So far I’ve read Anthony’s report, I don’t think I will like this new movie. Even this fast trailer turned me halfway away. I don’t like trailers with only action, action, action, action and no idea of what the story is.

When I think about all the descriptions of the four scenes and the scenes from the trailer, somehow Star Wars Episode 1 came in my mind – or Transformers (beside that, I liked Transformers more than Episode 1). What me angers so much about all the given story details is, all things happen are very predictable and somehow elements of other films as well: Of course someone drives car over a cliff, of course someone had to touch the heroine’s breasts in an accident, of course SF-medicine had to go wrong (Micky Mouse-hand), of course the hero had to come illegal on board (Titanic anyone?), of course someone had to draw a sword (even in the 23rd century. AHHHHHH! BTW: I like swordfights, but who will allow a starfleet officer to carry such a weapon?), of course Kirk had to sleep with every hot chick on board and of course he had to hide under the bed of the roommate, when she’s coming in, of course someone of the crew had to be the clown (this time it’s Scotty. Perhaps Abrams and gang had seen TFF one time too much) and of course the young boy (Chekov) had to be wunderkind with a unique technological solution at hand. And of course the hero-ship has to be build in the backyard of the heroe’s home. Aww… man, I don’t know what I was thinking when I thought that movie could be great. Ok, I haven’t seen it yet, but all of that doesn’t sound very promising and I can’t imagine Abrams showed the press some of the lesser scenes.

Who was talking about more realism and don’t turn Star Trek into a parody of itself?

As far the story is revealed (what isn’t much, but there are few enough hints to make a picture of the general direction), I can say, all these obvious canon violations are absolute unnecessary to tell THIS story. That’s very angry for a fan with a great sense of continuity (you can call me a canonista, but I wan’t my universe as real as possible). Changing or bending the canon isn’t necessary to tell a story that could be enjoyed by the the mainstream audience and the fans as well. Because the young kiddies don’t care for canon or logical correctness. But they could be becoming interested in, if they hear about some hints of Kirk’s terrible past on Taurus-IV or onboard the Farragut. The mention of a great and interesting past was it, what made Tolkien’s Lord of the rings so sucessfull, the same with Star Wars. All the hints of Darth Vader’s and Obi-Wan’s past (Ok, that turned out well at the end) made you feel there is more beyond the screen and create an epic feeling. So… WHY all the changes about the backstorys from Kirk, Pike & Spock? To make the story more “streamlined” or faster? So, there is at least the “final solution” Mr. Orci hat spoken of, but if that will turn out has to be seen.

About the production-design: Still hate the iBridge and now I starting to hate the entire concept of different technological levels. Of course, the engine room should look like engines and work, it’s the heart of a starship. But why different technology-levels the farer you move away from deck one? That’s ridiculous stuipid. Seems to me, someone had no idea what to do with 150 mil. $ and so he invested it in unnecessary set-designs. And I think I don’t like the Tantive-IV-corridors. Are we still in the Star Trek universe or was there a crossover with Star Wars? And I still don’t like the new ship, even not in the trailer. It is just a cheap copy of the TMP-Enterprise. I wonder, why they payed the designer for that and not hired Andy Probert to redesign his own ship? There is the infinitestimal chance the Iowa-Enterprise is just the alternate-timeline-ship and we will see a far better Enterprise in the last few minutes of the movie (like in TVH). It has not be the TOS-Enterprise, but something more elegant and more Constitution-like as the actual ship.

315. Shane - November 21, 2008

I really don’t think the end of this film is going to result in a “rebooted canon” or an alternate time line which is now *the* time line for Star Trek but still leaves the *old* time line in tact. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see it and honestly the whole seems somewhat silly to me, especially from the standpoint of a filmmaker. If Abrams wanted to make a Star Trek movie with an entirely different story line, he may as well have made something else. In fact, as we all know he actually expressed what seems to be this same sentiment when he said, “I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else.”

Let me put it this way: Some people considered the Star Wars prequels to be failures. Now I’m not trying to argue that point one way or the other; that’s not the point. The point is that that is an opinion held by many, just as there is an opinion held by many that Star Trek has fallen dead. Now here’s the key: were I a director given the opportunity to do a new Star Wars film, would I *ever* want to or consider rebooting the Star Wars universe somehow, and having the same characters but new stories to tell?

Of COURSE not! That would be absurd. I’m certainly trying to contribute my own visions and ideas, but not to the degree of changing it. The very reason I’m excited to be working on it is because it *is Star Wars*… It’s not just light sabers and star destroyers and death stars… it’s much more than that. Anyone can go and write a story in the Star Wars universe with those things and tell almost any story they want using other characters. If I change the characters, it’s not Star Wars, it’s a spin off.

The same goes for Trek. Abrams is excited to be working on this because it is Trek. It’s not the universe, with Klingons and Romulans and Borg, and phasers and the Enterprise and green women. If he wanted all that, he could take any group of characters and make a good story out of it, just as many novelists have with some of the books about crews and characters they created themselves. He wants more than that: He wants Kirk. He wants Spock. he wants Scotty, and if he goes and changes them then he doesn’t have them anymore; he has these new characters with the same names.

I just don’t see it. I don’t see why any fan would want it – and I’m not trying to pick an argument here I just honestly can’t wrap y mind around it – and I don’t see why any *filmmaker* would want it, with *any* established and culturally significant entity. Who would want to change Star Wars? Who would want to change Indiana Jones?

Abrams has made it clear that this is an origin story because the origin story for the characters, as we know them, has never been done. If it’s an origin for something else, then the story he said he wanted to make still hasn’t been made. I just don’t see a reboot. Rather, I see this, and I kindof like the idea:

The movie opens in the time line we all know: Archer, Kirk, Picard, Kirk will serve on the Farragut, Pike will end up on Talos IV, etc. However, at a given point in that timeline, Nero enters in and changes things. He kills Kirk’s father, and so from that point everything as we know it is now different. So a lot of the film takes place in this alternate timeline, and a lot of the non-canon or anti-canon stuff we’ve seen happens. For example, Vulcan is blown up.

Then, at a given point, Kirk meets Spock on the ice planet, and Spock tells him to go back in time and fix things. So Kirk goes ahead, gets command of the enterprise, slingshots around the sun, or uses some part from Spock’s time-ship, or something, and he travels back in time to stop Nero from messing up the time line in the first place, and so the way the film ends is with the time-line we all know.

I don’t want to get into a long list of evidence, but just consider this one point. The scene with Spock being relieved of command most likely takes place after the scene wherein he rescues people on Romulus (or else what is he doing there?), and so that would place the Kirk/Old Spock on the ice planet scene towards the tail end of the movie. I would also suggest that the nature of the scene indicates it’s at the end. It would be *extremely* anti-climactic and just really poor scriptwriting and film making were that encounter to occur near the beginning or even the middle. That’s the kind of scene that comes as a precursor to the final act. So if we accept that, then it would make a lot of sense if we have this film with a different time line, and then at the very end Kirk goes back in time to set things right.
Now there is some possibility here that perhaps somehow or for some reason Kirk actually stays in the past, and so he enters Starfleet earlier, and is not in fact a cadet while Chekov is stationed on the Enterprise, and so on. I don’t know how this would work exactly, but it seems like a real possibility, because for one thing it would mean that the Kirk we all know – the one from the Farragut, and who appeared in 79 episodes on CBS – remembers all of the things that happened in the alternate time line.

This would us a great ironic meaning for Nero’s name: Nero himself is responsible for the Kirk who would be responsible for the state of the Romulan empire. Nero will have burned Rom(e)ulus.

That’s what I think, at least until I see more information. It seems to me the idea most consistent with what we know of the film and the idea that this is not some gigantic reboot or Star Trek “Chaos” or something.

316. C.S. Lewis - November 21, 2008

250. James – November 21, 2008

True enough I suppose. But it is not, by everything I’ve seen to-date, relevant to me. In fact, it makes me feel somewhat dirty to find myself suckered into helping Paramount’s marketing people create buzz and potential revenues for this product, based on what is, essentially, a “Bait and switch”.

After all, most young people think Star Trek is “cheesy”, “hokey”, “retro”, pyjamas in space” etc. and strongly prefer the TNG/DS9/ENT version of Trek.

So I don’t see why Paramount chose to target original series fans… except that they believe we are an important bloc of customers, or at least influencers of potential customers (most likely, parents of children Paramount wants to see this movie.)

So I don’t begrudge you anything or anyone the ability to see and enjoy this movie. I just feel somewhat used, since I’ve talked it up to friends, my wife, my kids, all based on early statements. I would not have talked it up had I seen the trailers and read the reviews of the story we’ve seen lately.

I guess this is what it is to be a “chump”. Oh well. You’re right about one thing, it’s just a movie at the end of the day, but this movie does have a deeper personal meaning only because Star Trek had such a personal meaning to me growing up. “The US Navy In Space” has a certain cache to those of us who grew up with stories of WWII heroism from our grandparents while watching Apollo astronauts walk on the moon, live in living color, on television.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

317. JL - November 21, 2008

315

“Now here’s the key: were I a director given the opportunity to do a new Star Wars film, would I *ever* want to or consider rebooting the Star Wars universe somehow, and having the same characters but new stories to tell? Of COURSE not! That would be absurd.”

Why not? Those are the characters most everyone loves…

318. thorsten - November 21, 2008

While everybody always expected Spacepyjamas in primary colors to be cozy at least, The Man Who Is Pike has another opinion…Summing up the best and the worst parts of his Star Trek adventure, Greenwood zeroed in on the Starfleet uniforms. “Let me tell you, those suits are uncomfortable,” he said, “but getting to have all that authority is nice.

319. JL - November 21, 2008

(just being hypothetical…)

320. New Horizon - November 21, 2008

Why doesn’t everyone just relax until May? All this hand wringing and arguing isn’t going to change a damned thing. The movie is finished. Many people, including long time Trek Fans, have liked what they’ve seen over all.

There is much we don’t know…and obviously the time line has been sent off course, so Kirk is lashing out….he lost his father in this time line….but as we’ve seen, he still has the seeds of the man we know, and appears to fight his way through it all to become that man.

So many here are obsessing…over a fictional universe…when the real world is in far worse shape than a silly movie. Lets get our priorities straightened out.

321. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@314

But how is this supposed to work…
you travel back in Time… you change something. That’s it.
There is no swoosh effect rippling along the timeline.
What you see is what you get.

322. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

I don’t think the timeline gets restored and here’s why:

Paramount gave JJ $150 million to re-launch the franchise. Even though they remained faithful to the “spirit” of the characters and what Star Trek is, they have worked very hard to revamp everything else. So for 1 hour and 50 minutes JJ has this new audience in the palm of his hands just to say “reset”, ha ha , just kidding, we’re going back to what everything used to be. That’s very hard for me to believe. I think you’d have more than a few upset “new” fans in the audience, maybe make us old fans happy but they’re not making this movie for us old fans, they’re making it for a new audience. So to reset everything would go against the reasons for making the movie in the first place. Plus, if they reset that would mean the sequels would be taking place in the more traditional TOS ’60’s universe.

323. Shane - November 21, 2008

317

JL, my statement was imprecise to the point that it’s really not what I meant to say. Obviously, someone would love to do a movie about Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and all those folks with different stories to tell. I meant to ask whether or not anyone would ever want to take those characters and tell new stories INSTEAD of the stories that have already been told. In other words, who would want to make a movie where Luke didn’t grow up on Tatooine, but he grows up on Alderaan in the same house as princess Leia? Or, who would want to make a movie wherein it is true that Han Solo didn’t win the Millennium Falcon from Lando Calrissian, but instead he built it himself?

324. Captmike of the Terran Empire - November 21, 2008

Well.I think when the Movie comes out and we all actualy see it a lot will be revealed. There will be some changes of corse. Vulcan blows up and obvously there has to be more time travel to save Vulcan from blowing up. So there will be different time lines and a lot of great action and great Moments. Post #309 is Right. The Prime Spock is from the orignal Time line and he has come back to try to set things right from what Nero has done and is attempting to do. You Look back at Star Trek First Contact and At one Point the Borg Were sucessfull in Assimalation Earth and you hear Data Say The Population Was at 9 Billion and all are Borg and the BiG E has to go back and set things Right. Or the Tos Episode City on the Edge of Foreever where Mccoy saves Edith and In doing so She Keeps the U.s Out Of WW2 for to long and Hitler Conquers the World. So in the New Movie we will see a lot of Cannon Problems. But i believe at the end things will be back to what there more supposed to be. Now we all here Being true Trek Fans will Know whats Probly going to happen or Make some Pretty good Guesess. But for the Rest of the Movie Audences Who are Either Not Trek Fans or just Cauasl Watchers they will get a Thrill from this Movie and Will hopefully Come back for more. So I completly Agree with Anthony that we all need to not fret about Cannon and wait to see the Movie. As J.J and the Court said. All will be revealed in the New movie and they have asked us True Trek Fans to have An open mind. So as a True Trek Fan for just over 30 Years Ill have an open Mind and Ill be there at the Midnight Showing.

325. JL - November 21, 2008

323

Gotcha

326. Jeffries Tuber - November 21, 2008

Anthony, What a great article–thoughtful and disciplined. I really appreciate this.

It seems like JJ/JO attracted Nimoy by making the Vulcan story like the story of Israel, and the redefined relationship of the Vulcans to the Romulans as that of pre-1945 Jews and Palestinians. This is assuming the timeline is not restored and Vulcan is left a black hole at the end of this movie.

Overtly sexual moments?! Sounds like Original Recipe to me. But I am definitely looking forward to STAR TREK: EXTRA TASTY CRISPY.

327. New Horizon - November 21, 2008

322. John from Cincinnati – November 21, 2008
Plus, if they reset that would mean the sequels would be taking place in the more traditional TOS ’60’s universe.

That’s a narrow way of looking at it. The style of everything that has been designed isn’t going to revert back to anything more familiar. I think there will just be no more disruptions to the timeline from this film onward and things will likely unfold more or less in a similar fashion….or not.

What does it matter? The other timeline still happened, it’s all on film. It doesn’t invalidate it…it’s just another variation of the timeline that has been caused to split off by tampering.

328. Shane - November 21, 2008

322

Just because you reset the time line, that doesn’t mean you can’t do new stories, and it doesn’t mean you can’t use new special effects and such. There are very few fans who would have a problem with telling stories in the “old” or “current” time line but using better looking effects, updated costumes, etc. That’s a function of the development of film making technology, and most people will accept that. Someone might not like the look of the Enterprise as Abrams has it, but they aren’t going to have a problem with a better looking ship. People know it’s only a movie and a tv show, and so they can accept that this ship is the same as that ship even though this one looks better.

Similarly, there isn’t anything wrong with the current time line. Abrams, or anyone else for that matter, can tell all sorts of great stories fitting within that time line. There would be no more restrictions on them than there were on the people that wrote “Trouble With Tribbles” or “Day of the Dove” or any of the other great episodes. The “Day of the Dove” people didn’t need to change the time line to write a great story, and neither will Abrams.

So I don’t quite see why re-setting the time line would hamper Paramount’s future potential with the franchise.

329. Ian B - November 21, 2008

314-

“But they could be becoming interested in, if they hear about some hints of Kirk’s terrible past on Taurus-IV or onboard the Farragut.”

This is part of the problem. The “canon” of Star Trek, especially as regarding the original characters, largely wasn’t woven as part of a grand narrative as with Lord Of The Rings or even Star Wars (if you dignify that as having a grand narrative). They’re just events individual writers bunged into early episodes as part of the plots of those individual stories. Kirk was never written to acknowledge or mention either of those incidents ever again; he even forgot about his dead brother thereafter, just like they forgot about the cloaking device they stole, or that whatever it was in Plato’s stepchildren that grants telekinetic powers and so on, and just as McCoy fell in love ridiculously quickly on Yadayada then forgot her, and Scotty’s everlasting love in The Lights Of Zetar that was forgotten next week. There simply wasn’t any concept of “canon” then, they were just stories written for a weekly TV show. The most consistent background for Kirk is that he is a farmboy from Iowa, and that he suddenly dashed off to Tartarsauce IV really doesn’t make any grand sense anyway. The business with Kodos never influenced any other scriptwriter or Shatner’s performance of Kirk before or after. It’s irrelevant.

330. sean - November 21, 2008

#306

No apologies necessary, I wasn’t offended. I just wanted to clarify what I was specifically speaking to. If anything, my fault for not making it plain in the first place.

Kirk always struck me as smart, though it felt more in line with what we call ‘street smarts’ rather than ‘book smarts’. And that’s not to say I don’t think he was an intellectual or that he didn’t know how every single thing on his ship worked. It was more about the way he carried himself, his decision-making process, the way he managed to get himself out of a jam (Corbomite bluffs, reprogramming simulators). He had an intuitive quality that always contrasted against Spock’s very literal and sensate logic.

331. Daoud - November 21, 2008

Where’s Orseeeeeeeeeee when we need him? I hate that we have to wait until May for him to comment on all these topics!!! Just hate it!

But at least even if one doesn’t like the movie, we have boborci’s promise to talk here a lot after the movie’s release!

332. Cowboy Steve - November 21, 2008

Fellow Treksters, on a different tack and addressing some concerns expressed about the long freefall Kirk, Sulu and Engineer Greasespot make. In 1960 CApt Joe Kittinger made a freefall from almost 20 miles up, well into the stratosphere. He had to wear a pressure suit. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior

I’m just pointing out this plot device is plausible, altho some do not seem to like it (or maybe just the suits).

Let me also quote a section from the article on Jonathon Archer from Memory Alpha:
For the biographical display seen in “In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II”, writer Mike Sussman wrote a final section of text that didn’t end up being visible on screen, stating that Archer “…died at his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation starship Enterprise, NCC-1701″. Note that Sussman himself has said this information might not be canon.

Adm Archer could indeed have lived long enough to banish Scotty to Ice Planet Hoth or wherever.

Enjoy the movie and don’t sweat the small stuff.

333. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

Found the 2nd movie tv spot on youtube, with emphasis on Kirk vs Spock

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU

334. CaptainRickover - November 21, 2008

# 321

I’m not sure, if I want to see that.

Alternate timelines… Perhaps I’m not a friend of that kind of storytelling, because Stargate SG-1 had done alternate timeline-issues to the death.

335. ByGeorge - November 21, 2008

“Kirk’s fast action is the kind of selfless heroism that defines Captain Kirk, the man who would do anything for his ship and his crew. ”

Thanks… I needed that. TOS Kirk worked BECAUSE of this aspect to his personality – not because Kirk is a superhuman superhero.

“I am a little concerned about Quinto’s Spock … we don’t see a lot of Spock being logical. ”

If Quinto’s Spock fails it would not be the actors fault rather it is the writing of Vulcans that has been messed up in Trek. I no longer even know what it is to be a Vulcan.

They were the favorite aliens in Trek so many authors have gotten hold of these guys and written them as they saw fit, that they have become vague, conflicted, and nonsensical.

In the beginning, the Vulcans were intended to be lacking in emotions – not entirely, but certainly nowhere near as emotional as humans both by nurture and by nature. As said in The Making of Star Trek — “Century after century, through practice and custom, Vulcans repressed emotion until they became almost incapable of it. Logic became breath sensation, as uplifting and delightful as the emotion it replaced”

Spock was an exception because he had a human mother but this created his fascinating struggle to constantly control his emotional human half.

Later starting in Yesteryear, Fontana says “Vulcans have emotions they just control them”

Next we have ST5 where Sybock embraces emotion a behaves just like a human.

Next we have TNG’s “Sarek” which says Vulcans have stronger emotions than humans but, control them.

Then we see Tuvok and T’Pol trying to be logical but showing plenty of emotion.

So what is a Vulcan like? Are they emotional or not? Is it just control? Are their emotions more powerful or less powerful than a humans’ and why? Too much writing, rewriting, changing etc that they are IMO undefined anymore. If they have more powerful emotions than humans wouldn’t that make Spock’s control EASIER for him since he would have inherited some of his human mothers weaker emotions?

The authors of this film seem to subscribe to the theory of Vulcans having extremely powerful emotions but also have an ability to control them that is weaker in Spock because of his human side. Though none of this makes sense, it isn’t the writers fault the nature of Vulcans is so full of discrepancy. They inherited a pretty butchered up, inconsistently written species.

Quinto’s showing of emotion is obviously in the script – not a flaw in Quinto’s acting.

Can the Triumverant work with a Spock who has controlled, but more powerful Vulcan emotions under the surface than a human? I don’t know. Spock WAS logic before. Now I’m not sure what he is.

I never would have pictured Nimoy’s Spock as losing command of the Enterprise because he loses emotional control. Rather I pictured Spock as not understanding of human emotion so he has absolutely no people skills, no ability to manage or control humans, no ability to inspire them. He has no understanding of human psychology so he wouldn’t make a good manager — stick to science Spock where his brilliance is best used.

If Spock seemed to be emotional in The Cage or WNMHGB — it was only because Nimoy was still getting his grips on how to portray the character. In The Cage, his character was not even supposed to be non-emotional yet. That came with the second pilot. I would not have concluded that a younger Spock had emotional control issues based upon these early episodes.

336. Steven - November 21, 2008

One of the people working on the film said that the new movie is about changing what we already know. So, I’m inclined to believe that, thanks to Nero’s meddling, we’ll see things changed drastically from TOS, such as meeting the Romulans before “Balance of Terror,” and the possible destruction of Vulcan (GASP!).

Changing one moment in time can have drastic side affects, like we’ve seen in some of the Trek shows and films (Of course, those changes were ALWAYS corrected). It’s like dropping a small stone in a pond. That small stone causes ripples that can go for a good distance from the drop point. That, I believe, is what we’ll be seeing in the new film. Nero coming back in time alters the known events from TOS. Only this time, they won’t be fully fixed.

I’m willing to live with the changes made, because the new film looks incredible. And based on what Anthony and James Cawley have said, the cast looks awesome, and I cannot wait to see their takes on these much-loved characters. But, May 8 is a way off, so we’ll have to wait a while before we see how these changes play out.

Take care, and God bless!

337. DATA KILLED SPOT! - November 21, 2008

HOW DOES IT END?! HOW DOES IT END?!

338. Shane - November 21, 2008

327

****”What does it matter? The other timeline still happened, it’s all on film. It doesn’t invalidate it…it’s just another variation of the timeline that has been caused to split off by tampering.”****

Permit me to use your post as an example, with no personal slight intended: this is the kind of thinking that I just don’t grasp. Why… if you had new Star Trek films taking place in a new time line, the fact is I would have less than zero interest. Why would that be any different from my going ahead and saying, “gee I really don’t like ‘The Trouble with Tribbles,’ so I’m going to say that never happened. There’s a time line where the Enterprise never went to K-7 and the crew never saw any tribbles?”

When you start making a different time line, you’re dealing with really a different set of things. I apologize because this is a *VERY* abstract concept to try to put into words, so I’m having trouble.

Let me try this: I care about Kirk because of all “we have been through.” I saw him in those 79 episodes and 7 feature films. I saw Spock in the 81 episodes and 6 films. I remember all the different things that happened to those characters over all those episodes and films, and so I care about them.

Now say I go and turn on the TV and put on some show I’ve never seen before, and say I like it. I might say, “hey that was exciting,” or, “gee that was a really interesting show,” or even, “wow that Steve is a cool character.” However, I don’t care about those folks the same way as I do Kirk and Spock, by any stretch of the imagination. If I never saw or heard of that show again, my life would be no different. Now if I started watching weekly because I liked it and watch it for months or years, that’s different. I may start to “know” those characters and care about them.

So the thing is, if they really do reboot the Star Trek universe, well then the “new” Kirk and the “new” Spock are, really, no different from the people on that show I’ve never seen before. Sure, I like the setting they’re in, and I like the kinds of stories they may be in, but where are the memories? Where are the hours and hours and hours of “bonding” that I’ve had with those characters? It’s all missing. The “new ” Kirk is just some character in a similar suit flying a similar starship. He’s *NOT* the Captain Kirk I know, that I’ve gotten to know over hours and hours and decades.

I hope that makes some sense… it’s an incredibly difficult concept to express.

339. Captmike of the Terran Empire - November 21, 2008

#337. I time warped to May 8 and the Movie was Fantastic. But I seen it in the Alternate reality. But the cencers of the Terran Empire did cut some things. So Unless you have a time ship you will havt to wait.

340. Mike Thompson (uk) - November 21, 2008

# 305

Spot on, my concern now is he is only in a couple of scenes.

Generations was good until Kirk disappeared on Enterprise B then it went down hill until he reappeared in the Nexus.

Waiting to see a photo of Old Spock, certainly disappointed he is not really in the trailer, I thought his role was key to the movie so please wet my appetite!!!!!

341. CaptainRickover - November 21, 2008

# 329
One thing you forget: Star Trek had no backstory in the 60’s, that’s right. But it became the backstory by itself, when they created the movies and TNG. So everything – even the most weird things – became canon. For example: The Hobbit was never thought part of the gnomish-universe Tolkien had first invented, but after it’s sucess and with the writing of the Lord Of The Rings, all things get connected and become one big universe. Ok, the Star Wars prequels were really awful in storytelling-sense, but before they were brought on the big screen I was really exited how the backstory from Vader and Obi-Wan will look like (but I never knew Lord of the Rings at that time ;)

342. sean - November 21, 2008

#333

Ahhh, thanks for the refresher on just how god awful Plato’s Stepchildren was. *shudder*

343. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#171—“In one of the scenes, pike beams to nero’s ship to negotiate, if this is a trap and he is killed, this will be screwing with canon as we know he doesnt die.”

You must be operating under the assumption that this is ‘not’ an alternate timeline (although at this point, I don’t see how you can be).

If the attack upon the USS Kelvin and (later) upon Vulcan by Romulan villains from the future creates an alternate timeline, then they are in fact adhering to canon, not “screwing with canon”.

The existence and possibility of alternate timelines created by interference with the past is very much canon, and has been for over 40 years.

“City On The Edge Of Forever”—TOS
“Tommorow Is Yesterday”—TOS
“Yesteryear”—TAS
“Yesterday’s Enterprise”–TNG
“Year Of Hell”–VOY
“Shockwave”—ENT

That’s just to name a few episodes in which at least the ‘possibility’ of alternate timelines within the ST Universe is addressed in ‘canon’.

Assuming there are no earlier acts by Nero of which we are not yet aware, anything which occurs after the timeline incursion in 2233 (4 days before the birth of JTK) is subject to change, and those changes will be legitimate ‘canon’ (at least as it pertains to the alternate timeline), since the explanation for the changes is in itself ‘canon’.

—Kirk may learn to drive a stick (“A Piece Of The Action”)
—Pike’s Enterprise may never have a ‘fight on Rigel’, visit Talos IV, or end up in the ‘one beep, two beep’ chair (“The Menagerie”)
—Pike may have a more significant relationship with young Kirk than in the original timeline (“The Menagerie”)
—Kirk may never meet Gary Mitchell in a class he taught at the Academy(“WNMHGB”)
—Kirk may never know an upperclassman at SFA named Finnegan (“Shore Leave”)
—Kirk may never serve aboard USS Republic or or know an officer named Ben Finney (“Court-Martial”)
—Kirk may never live on Taursus or witness the acts of Kodos (“The Conscience Of The King”)
—Kirk may never serve aboard USS Farragut under Captain Garrovick(“Obsession”)
—Spock and Sarek may not go 18 years without speaking as father and son (“Journey To Babel”)
—McCoy may never visit Capella IV (“Friday’s Child”)
—Kirk may never visit Neural (“A Private Little War”)

These are just a few examples of possible effects of Nero’s interference.

But then again, Nimoy’s Spock may find a way to reset the timeline, causing all of these events to happen much as they did before by the end of the film.

Still another possibility is that he may “correct” some things, but some less significant events may remain altered.

If none of it is “corrected”, but Spock merely assures that Kirk is in command of the Enterprise at the start of what we know as “the five year mission”, then at least future stories will have the benefit of being able to place the characters in “jeopardy”, unhampered by the audience knowledge of the established fates of those characters.

The most important thing to remember about established ‘canon’ is (IMO) that it is not somehow suddenly rendered irrelevant, regardless of Bob Orci’s “final solution”. Everything within the timeline we know as the “original” still must happen as it did in order to advance the story to the point where Nero takes action to alter the past. All of it, from ENT-Nemesis, is therefore inherently relevant to the progression of this and future stories (even if the timeline remains in this altered form at the end of the film).

344. Xai - November 21, 2008

86. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008

Another handle?

But at least you are consistantly prejudging a movie you have not seen, just like always.

345. JL - November 21, 2008

338

I can see both sides of the coin.

I see the merit in what you are saying. And to be honest, I can’t really disagree. If they turned Kirk into a jackass and just kept him that way as the character permanently, I would have to say I would not be appreciative at all.

On the *other side of the coin*… I have to say that a secondary visioning of the original Trek we all know and love — even if it comes with changed personality traits for our main characters — would still be something I could enjoy but for different reasons.

It really is hard for me to put into words also. It’s kinda like your first true love you’ve ever had…

You want to accept “new”, changed — maybe even BETTER LOOKING version — but when it comes down to it, you’re not so sure you can embrace it or love it as much as you did the original.

346. CaptainRickover - November 21, 2008

# 338

I agree with you in all ways.

347. Derek Evans - November 21, 2008

My Friends, Family and Co-Workers give me Shi# about my Love of TOS…It is such a Touchstone in my life…As I said before I’m glad to see everything we’ve seen…preview trailer..trailer..trailer breakdown..BUT it will not be real to me until I see Mr. Nimoy in action….My real hope is that more of the original stars can appear in ST-12…more tears..!! LOL

348. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

328.

The only problem is this: Roberto Orci has already stated that everything that looks different, has a canon explanation.

If they reset- they will be going back to the original look.

That is just how I interpret what’s been stated and shown to us, it’s not meant as my opinion on whether it should or not.

IMHO I would prefer the timeline gets restored.

349. Shane - November 21, 2008

345

It’s not so much about personality for me. I definitely understand the idea that if a given character is developed by Abrams et al to have a different personality, then that’s a change, but at the same time I don’t think it’s necessarily significant, unless it’s a drastic change which really becomes very intimately involved in the character. I’m more concerned about what the characters have been through. If the Kirk I go to see in, for example a second or third Trek from Abrams, never went at it with the Romulan commander in “Balance of Terror,” and never came up with the Corbomite maneuver to trick Balok , and is not the same Kirk that will lose his son on the Genesis planet, well then I have no emotional investment in him: he’s somebody else.

350. Shane - November 21, 2008

348

Are you sure that that is what he has said, and that that is what me meant?

In other words, did he in fact say that everything that looks different, referring to physical aesthetics, has a canon explanation, or could his language have allowed him to mean that everything that looks different, in the sense of everything that *appears* to be different – for example Chekov in the fleet before Kirk or the Enterprise built in Iowa or whatever – has a canon explanation?

Big difference there, obviously.

351. McCoy - November 21, 2008

If Paramount sees the future of the franchise is with non-trekkers, then the decisions they make to get there will not be pro-trekker. This film is a conversion of what Trek was into something new. Is it a non-Trek film with Trek mixed in, or is it a Trek film with other stuff mixed in?

There are plenty on niche markets in the world. Would I care that people who never liked Trek would not come to the movie? No. I would rather have a “family” Trek film about how the characters in the timeline I grew up with first met. I am not a prude, I just totally disagree that in order to make a “good” movie, I have to see Kirk and Uhura in their underwear—and Kirk grabbing Uhura’s boobs. ToyStory2, Wall•e and Cars were VERY successful for example. DK also had no gratuitous underwear shots.

Now, there are things about the movie I will like, just like there are things about other movies I like. The trepidation only comes because I have not seen many successes when other filmakers have tried to create new versions of a classic. Changes made because they are needed are acceptable, changes for change sake, no so much. I will enjoy a non-goofy Kirk (STV).

We already have to deal with new actors….making EVERYTHING new, including how they all came together, is a bit far. Nimoy is the anchor. Would have liked a few more—especially the E.

352. JL - November 21, 2008

The Corbomite Maneuver

One of my all-time favorite TOS episodes. Definitely in my top 10

353. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#311, #312—-Yes. He did get a “commendation for original thinking.”

I was referring merely to the fact that he cheated, and that there is obviously a fine line between being disciplined for that kind of behavior (which would normally be the case), and the ultimate outcome of praise for beating the test which was supposedly unbeatable.
I can hardly imagine that a review of Kirk’s actions would have resulted in “unanimous” praise for cheating on his 5th attempt at it.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in what I was trying to get across.

354. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - November 21, 2008

Canon violations or not, this sounds like a really lame movie, period. Whatever faith I may have had in this movie after seeing the trailer has been lost. It sounds like a really, REALLY cheesy mess.

355. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#307—“There is nothing that was said that Kirk was “thrown out of SFA”… in fact, he “got a commendation for original thinking”… far from being thrown out. ”

Never said that. Reread that post and then see post #353.

356. boborci - November 21, 2008

354

You’ll like it. You’ll see.

357. JL - November 21, 2008

(hehe)

358. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#354—” Whatever faith I may have had in this movie after seeing the trailer has been lost.”

When did you ever have any faith? I’ve read your posts for a long time, and I don’t recall you ever having had faith in this movie. It certainly had nothing to do with seeing the trailer…please.

359. thorsten - November 21, 2008

Bob, when Bones flies up with Jim in the trailer, is he just back from the mountains?

360. Mike Thompson (uk) - November 21, 2008

I seem to like the uniforms and the inside of the Enterprise looks terrific.

Looking forward to seeing more………

Just hope there is a good bit of old Spock and not only the scene on the ice planet.

361. Derek Evans - November 21, 2008

BOBORCI–If some of the ‘Canon Violations’.. went away after Spock corrects things…would you tell us?

362. Orb of the Emissary - November 21, 2008

My one little comment among the (so far) 350+ is that, although I’m still cautiously optimistic, I am growing more and more excited with each week for the new movie. Even though I have to get used to the iBridge and Chekov’s new curly hair, little moments that I read today, such as Admiral Archer (Capt Archer from ENT?) and Older Spock and Scotty’s little alien friend (could he be an Ithanite from “Journey to Babel”??) reassures me that this film will blend in seamlessly into the Star Trek continuum. The only question still nagging me: how are they going to work around the whole Federation-not-meeting-the-Romulans-face-to-face-before-“Balance of Terror”-issue? ENT tip-toed around this and made it work. Will the new Star Trek Caretakers figure out a way around it too?

363. JL - November 21, 2008

Hi Mr. Orci

What do you think of my Obama attitude (#281) and my “first love” analogy (#345)?

Thanks, as always, for representing

TOS Fan,
Cleveland
(yes, it’s cold)

364. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#350—-These were his exact words:

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.

Since alternate timelines are themselves canon within the Star Trek Universe, that seems to be accurate so far.

” …for example Chekov in the fleet before Kirk…”

Why can’t that have a canon explanation, especially if Kirk’s entry into SFA is significantly delayed as a ripple effect of the timeline incursion?

Bob did say also that he used the StarTrek.com bios to determine the ages of the characters (or at least the same birth years as ST.com acknowledges to be accurate), so he could not be depicting Chekov as older than he should be.

Due to the alterations in the timeline, we don’t know how long Pike remains in command of the Enterprise this time around, not do we know how old Chekov was when he first boarded the Enterprise. We only know that, in the original timeline, Chekov was aboard prior to the events of the first season episode, “Space Seed”, and that in “The Apple”, he claims to be 22 years of age.

What if Chekov enters the Academy at age 16 (not unprecedented)?

“Enterprise built in Iowa…”

It seems to me that “San Francisco Shipyards” could just as easily refer to a ship building company as it could an actual geographic location. Then again, there is an entire hour and forty minutes of footage not yet seen by anyone in the public, so there could be an even better explanation related to the altered timeline.

365. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

#342
Gotcha! And I got you Sean, even better!

I can sit hrough any TOS episode, it’s endlessly fresh to me. It was poorly excuted but you’ve got to admire the ideas and the concept. You wouldn’t see this on DS9 or Voyager!
Maybe TNG series 1 ;-)

THANKS FOR SHOWING UP AGAIN ORCI !

Am loving the trailer. New ship’s still dodgy though, better be good!!

366. New Horizon - November 21, 2008

338. Shane – November 21, 2008
I hope that makes some sense… it’s an incredibly difficult concept to express.

I understand…..but…..whether they change the time line is irrelevant in this particular case. We have all new actors…essentially the same as watching some other show….and their job is not to play Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock…or to play Shatner as Kirk….it is their job to play their interpretation of those characters. If that interpretation lands closer or farther from the original actor depends on the new actors acting style. Regardless, these characters are going to be different from the crew we grew up with, so our investment in them is going to be different. We have to get to know them all over again. There is really no way around it…except to hire a bunch of impersonators/impressionist look alikes….and that would just be a shallow parody.

A hiccup in this time line gives the whole production more room to stretch in terms of why the characters may be slightly different.

In any case. This is just the reality of the situation. The new actors are never going to be ‘THOSE’ characters exactly. The past is the past, and it is gone.

Nothing is lost by doing this though. Paramount isn’t going to digitally replace all the 60’s actors with the new ones in the old episodes. They’re not going to come to our homes and confiscate all our original DVD’s , VHS or what have you and burn it in some large canyon. It all exists, and will continue to exist.

We have the opportunity to experience these characters for the first time again…through fresh eyes. I don’t mourn it or see it as a loss, I see it as an opportunity to explore these characters once again in a whole new way.

Not everyone will see it that way, but that’s how I feel about life. Keep exploring, keep evolving, keep asking questions…and challenging ourselves to adapt to the changing world around us.

367. New Horizon - November 21, 2008

351. McCoy – November 21, 2008

I think the idea is to convert non-trekkers to trekkers.

For such a literate and open minded bunch…we sure don’t see very far beyond our own imposed set of limitations.

368. table10 - November 21, 2008

A question for Anthony:

Just curious if you were open to elaborating a little on the blurb you wrote about the soundtrack, you seemed pleased, but I was wondering if you could elaborate a little. What did it remind you of? What type of impressions did you get?

Thank you

369. BL_Sisko - November 21, 2008

Ian_B at #329

That’s a really interesting way to look at it. Canon didn’t matter while the series was in first run, so why should it matter to us? The only constants were/are Kirk, Spock, McCoy (and the other characters), the Enterprise, Star Fleet, Earth and a few other dribs and drabs of character, setting and internal consistency (you know, just to keep the series from being wildly different from one week to the next). The incident at Tarsus IV never came up again, so why should it matter to us? Nor did the woman wearing too much eye shadow with whom McCoy falls deliriously in love (that would be Natira on Yonada), the fact that Spock had a pet with six-inch fangs (although that did come up in “Yesteryear,” but if canon doesn’t matter…), or Scotty’s dead Engineer’s Mate, who may or may not have been his nephew (depending on which cut of ST II you watch).

Hmmmm. Okay, I’ll bite on that. I think it matters because JJ and Co. have preserved more irrelevant bits and pieces of canon than the ones I just listed above (except perhaps Natira of the Eye Shadow). If canon doesn’t matter, why bother to put Kirk’s youth in Iowa? That shouldn’t matter either, should it — especially since it only came up maybe once or twice in forty years? Why bother to have Sulu show his fencing prowess when that never came up again, either?

Full disclosure: I am not a “rivet counter.” I do not care if Kirk’s eyes are brown or blue. I do not care if the shirts are red, yellow and blue, and I do not care that the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the Mac store at the mall. That’s all external canon to me, and THAT is what is irrelevant — to me, anyway. It’s the “internal” canon, if you will, that is far more important to me. Losing his parents on Tarsus IV is an incident that may never have come up again either overtly in a script or covertly in Shatner’s portrayal, but to me, it is part of what makes Kirk the person he eventually became. Maybe I’m projecting here. Maybe, because the characters have been “off line” for much more of my life than they have been “on line,” maybe I have created my own mythos around them in order to keep them alive. I don’t think I am the only one, however. I think there are a lot of people like me who are disappointed by what seems to have made it into the movie, and what has been left out.

And to say that canon doesn’t matter because certain things never came up again… That would be like claiming Star Trek is no different from, say, “Wild, Wild West,” a bit of mindless fluff that I also liked thirty years ago, but thankfully outgrew. Only one of those series survived. Sure, there was a terrible WWW movie a few years ago, but that’s it. Star Trek survived for a reason, and I’d argue that it isn’t because the ship had two nacelles, a saucer-shaped hull and a deflector dish.

Oh, and that reminds me: A while back there was a lot of gnashing of teeth when the first pics of the new Enterprise came out, because it seemed like the designers hadn’t gotten it exactly right. Now, how is that different from my being upset that Kodos the Executioner seems to have been forgotten?

370. steve - November 21, 2008

Losing his parents on Tarsus IV is an incident that may never have come up again either overtly in a script or covertly in Shatner’s portrayal, but to me, it is part of what makes Kirk the person he eventually became.

I have to say that that is an important point to me. It is a life shaper more than an evil uncle (baring the uncle wasn’t a pervert).

I will wait for the movie but Tarsus IV was always something that resonated with me (having lost a parent at 11).

371. Captmike of the Terran Empire - November 21, 2008

#356 Bob. As A True Fan of trek for over 30 years and a Purest I will have an open mind when it comes to the Movie. I know there are some on here who are or can be pretty closed minded. But I believe you and J.J have made and are producing a great Movie. I Do realise the thread you are going by in making us as true Trek Fans happy and making it appeal to a much wider Moive going Audience. So Ill be there at the Midnight Showing and I hope you and J.J Will come on here to Trek Movie the Monday after it Premears and im Sure we will all have Questions and Comments.

372. Q - November 21, 2008

“Pike has accepted an offer to go to Nero’s ship to negotiate”

Is he insane?????? Negotiating with a 24th century madman who is bent on destroying Vulcan, Kirk and the Enterprise? ????

Also, another question- Nero destroys the Kelvin which is 20 years before the main events of this movie…so, what does Nero do for 20 years? Hang out in some nebula? Or can he go back and forth through time as he pleases?

373. Brett Campbell - November 21, 2008

330 – Sean — that’s all very true, but remember also how Kirk immediately understood Khan’s reference to the quote from Satan in Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and the fact that Spock gave him a copy of Dicken’s “A Tale of Two Cities” as a birthday gift in TWOK. Kirk was multi-faceted and had book smarts as well as street smarts.

374. hitch1969© say its all been said, so adios! - November 21, 2008

I think that I have said everything that I can say about this new trekmovies dot com, we’ve covered every angle. Therefore I shall not be posting at this site until May 2009.

There’s just nothing more for me to say until then. So I shall not be posting anymore. Unless something comes to mind but I cannot foresee that now. It’s a pretty good bet that this is my last commentary at this site.

hitch1969 is leaving the building. no wait – correct that. hitch1969 has left the building. Adios, conmigos.

t h e w o m e n ! !

=hitch1969=

375. Donn - November 21, 2008

Canon schmanon. I think this movie is going to be great. That said… (purely academic, you understand)

San Francisco: Would people relax about San Francisco? Can somebody quote me the episode and character that said, “Enterprise was constructed in orbit over San Francisco” or “Enterprise was constructed in San Francisco and launched in to orbit,” or anything remotely like that? As far as I understand it, screen evidence that we have for Enterprise’s SF origin was a barely legible dedication plaque that said “San Francisco, Calif.” on it. These boards have already done to death that a ship’s home port, launch port, or whatever is not always, or even frequently, the same as where she was constructed. I tire of reading comments of “well, everybody KNOWS the Enterprise was built in San Francisco, why are they changing that?” It wasn’t, so they didn’t.

Convenience of the plot: How convenient that Enterprise was built in Iowa, where Kirk was from. That Uhura was in that Iowa bar. That Chekov, Sulu, Uhura, McCoy and Spock all happened to be serving under Pike when Kirk came along. How quickly the “gang” gets together.

Retroactive “origin stories” always seem convenient, but they had to get together somehow. Did it seem “convenient” that Riker, Crusher and LaForge were waiting at Farpoint when the Enterprise-D showed up? No, that was just the story, they were meant to join the crew, and that was it. How about just allowing that things ended up the way we know them in TOS–Kirk in command of that ship, with that crew–BECAUSE the ship was built in his backyard, because that was the crew when he faked his way aboard and got involved in her mission. This is not Anakin-built-3P0 retroactivism, this is a reasonable way for Kirk to have come to command that crew and that ship.

How many movies did you want it to take to get the crew together, one at a time? Imagine the outrage! “Who is this helmsman? Where is Sulu? They don’t know Star Trek at all!”

Kirk as acting-Captain: The way AP tells it, Kirk was still a cadet only pending the review of his cheating on the Kobayashi Maru (and AP is as informed as anyone). So, given his “genius” reputation with Pike as it was, and the possibility that he was already on the fast track of command school (Spock himself had never taken the Kobayashi Maru, so perhaps it’s only for those, like Lieutenant Savvik, who are meant for command), it is not so far fetched that Pike would appoint him First Officer, and from there it is a short leap (well, declaring Spock unfit) to Captain. I’m sure there would be much kerfufle back at Starfleet, but once the dust settled, I could see them deciding Kirk was ready and give him the ship. In any case, we know that Starfleet ends up giving him a commendation for original thinking for his cheating on the KM.

376. JL - November 21, 2008

Some people argue that they are sick of “time travel” plotlines.

Just the fact that so many hypotheticals are being tossed around regarding the time travel plot for this film, to me, says Abrams and company are on to something…

It’s fascinating, all the possibilities.

377. Andy Patterson - November 21, 2008

Hey Bob Orci,

How ’bout working on a Gary Seven project when you’ve had time to lick your wounds from this endeavor.

378. JL - November 21, 2008

Later, Hitch

I’ll miss your

“THE WOMEN!!”

379. The Underpants Monster - November 21, 2008

I’ve been game and/or happy with everything I’ve heard and seen up until now, but after reading this – and other descriptions of the footage elsewhere – my credulity is seriously strained.

I’ve not been too picky on canon violations, but at least they made some kind of narrative sense until now. I find it impossible to buy that Kirk is behind EVRYBODY ELSE in experience and seniority – including CHEKOV! – and is placed in command of the Fleet flagship during an interstellar emergency, as a third-year cadet. I don’t care whether it’s canon or not; it’s simply stupid. And there’s no good reason for it.

380. steve - November 21, 2008

Gary Seven project

I watched the remaster epi. I love Terri Garr.

381. Binker - November 21, 2008

You know, looking at the released image of the Enterprise, and the trailer show of it on Earth, I believe that something happens to that part of the hull that makes it look like that. That red thing being more of the inside, and one of the fan images where it was covered up being what it really looks like. Otherwise, I have no idea what it is nor why it looks like that.

382. BL_Sisko - November 21, 2008

Egad, my spouse, who is reading along, just pointed out that it was never established that Kirk’s parents actually died on Tarsus IV, only that he was one of a small handful of survivors. So…my bad. Must be my projection.

Still, it seems to have been a formative event. I would have liked to have seen it played out. (And as a fairily protective parent myself, I would now like to know why in the world young Kirk was there without his parents!)

383. Dennis Bailey - November 21, 2008

“364. Closettrekker – November 21, 2008

#350—-These were his exact words:

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”. ”

That is not the same thing as saying that every apparent canon violation will have an intuitive or specific explanation that all fans will find satisfactory.

“God” or “luck” – to use two examples – are “reductive explanations” that some people find satisfying and that others don’t. What reductive explanations have in common is the assignment of a cause for something without actually providing information concerning the “how” of it.

For example, if I believe in God and someone tells me that the reason we have seasons is because “God created the world that way” I may accept that as the truth but it still doesn’t satisfactorily answer my question.

With reference to the “Star Trek” movie: if the “canon explanation” for many specific changes is no more than “because the timeline has been changed by Nero” then the majority of people who *care* about or are bothered by these changes will be at least a little – and probably a lot – unsatisfied.

For example,

384. sean - November 21, 2008

#365

I’ll agree with you for the most part there. Although Spock’s Brain didn’t strike me as a particularly good concept even before its execution. ;)

385. Joe - November 21, 2008

Have you seen the new trailer? It is not that bad, see it:
http://justbooksandmovies.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/star-trek-2009-official-trailer-2/

386. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@374

so long, Hitch, and thanks for all the dolphins…

387. helenofpeel - November 21, 2008

Look, time is not linear; it’s fluid. So, like Mr. O’Brien said in DS9, “I hate quantum physics.”

The idea of a timeLINE is false to begin with. There is time. It has man folds, creases, twists and turns. Who’s to say that when all is said and done with the sequels that time, as we know it for the original series, is not restored to the familiar Enterprise and events of TOS?

Are they p—-king with time and canon? Yes, by moving it out of time. And the iEnterprise could just as much jump ahead in time and kill Nero before all this starts, thus re-establishing continuity when all is said and done — at the end of the sequels.

It gives the writers a chance to flush out the characters and their origins, without invalidating all that went on before.

In fact, it was probably the only way to do it where you could have some originality and stay faithful all at the same “time.” ;)

388. sean - November 21, 2008

#385

You’re new to these parts, aren’t ya Joe?

389. Donn - November 21, 2008

369 & 370: NO. Kirk did not lose his parents on Tarsus IV. Where are you getting that? He was living there “at the time.” Yes, he was a witness, it was awful, and that shaped his character.

How is that now gone? For all we know, Kirk was at some kind of “remote science camp” on the colony, or living with a different relative on the planet for a while. Boarding school, even. (Not far-fetched, given his apparent need for structure as a kid.) There are any number of reasons why 13-year-old Kirk was on the planet at the time. It was never stated.

I have every sympathy for those who are lamenting the apparent canon changes, but there are some things, like the notion that Kirk lost his parents on Tarsus IV, or Enterprise was built in San Francisco, that seem to be “pretend canon.” No filmmaker could possibly be held responsible for violating your perceived version of events if that version was not even present in the original material.

I just watched “Conscience of the King” very much with this new movie in mind, and I would have noticed something that blatantly contradictory. It wasn’t there.

390. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#369—“Kodos the Executioner seems to have been forgotten?”

How is he forgotten? Kirk’s experience on Taursus is very much a part of the long sequence of events which leads up to Nero taking action to alter the past. Without the timeline of events with which we are all so very familiar, there is no Romulan villain attempting to change the past, or an older Spock from the same timeline trying to stop him. It all still has to happen in order to advance the story to that point. It is therefore inherently relevant to this film, and for that matter, any future stories which might take place in this altered timeline.

Simply put, Kirk’s time on Taursus is a part of the chain of events that lead to this story.

I think you may have been expecting a prequel, when in fact, you’re getting a very unconventional sequel.

391. Jake - November 21, 2008

C.S. Lewis- Gratuitous isn’t the issue. Many great films have used gratuity properly, including many film noirs. Action might be the means, but the higher purpose is inherent in how the story is built. Violence and sex can be incredibly powerful metaphors. The real issue is one of vapidity. Is there violence for the sake of violence, or does it smartly tell a story? There is a huge difference between something like Torque and, say, Fight Club. One is smart storytelling, one isn’t. One knows how to hone style and gratuity down for the service of the story. Not that Star Trek will be either of those – the style is altogether too fantastic and anchored to the roots of Trek – but I’m trying to say that these things when used properly can be advantageous to the story.

I have actually heard good things about the editing in this movie (for instance, instead of quick cuts the action is shown properly and with dramatic effect), and I think it’s ridiculous to think that all character moments have been eschewed for vapid pop filmmaking. Much has been made about Kirk’s rebellious past in this film, but I think it should be said that people who live on the edge like Kirk often have rebellious pasts, and I like that the film is trying to show how Kirk honed that for good. So too should Nimoy provide a proper contrast to the younger Spock’s emotional journey. There is plenty here that shows they are at least trying. Whether they succeed or not is one thing, but I do have faith in them.

392. John from Cincinnati - November 21, 2008

Hi BobOrci-

I am keeping an open mind, although sometimes it feels like I am in mourning over the loss of a family friend, at the same time, I love the scope and feel of the new movie. A question:

Are there any Talosians in the new movie?

393. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@390

yep, you nailed it again, CT…

394. boborci - November 21, 2008

392. John from Cincinnati – November 21, 2008

I don’t believe so…

395. BL_Sisko - November 21, 2008

389: Yep, see my #382 above. My wife, whose knowledge of canon is virtually encyclopedic, caught my mistake. My apologies. Perhaps we will find out why Kirk was there in this movie. In fact, that would be a pretty cool angle.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that at some point, Orci and Kurtzman had to have looked at all the material out there that we call “canon” and said, “Okay, this is important. This stays in. But THAT….that is not important. Out it goes.” It’s not that the bits they kept out aren’t what I would have kept; until I see the movie, I have no good way of knowing it. (And frankly, I’m not that much of a narcissist. Although my wife might beg to differ.) My concern is that the bits they have obviously kept don’t seem to be that relevant. And in some cases, like the retractable katana blade, they are going to be distracting. I don’t like in-jokes that pull me away from the action and out of the universe being created by the film. I fear there’s going to be a lot of that. I’m too old to find that amusing anymore.

I guess that, in the end, I wanted Orci and Kurtzman and Abrams to take the material as seriously as Chris Nolan took Batman when he set out to make Batman Begins. I want to be as blown away by the new Trek movie as I was by both of Nolan’s films. Part of what blew me away was that the films are so realistic that they almost feel claustrophobic. There is nothing to yank the viewer out of that universe. There is no instance of the writer/director looking at the audience, winking and saying, “You and I both know this is just a comic book movie, and therefore kind of silly. So let me show you just how clever I can be.” I wanted Trek to be like that. But I’m not at all sure it’s going to be.

396. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#329 – “This is part of the problem. The “canon” of Star Trek, especially as regarding the original characters, largely wasn’t woven as part of a grand narrative as with Lord Of The Rings or even Star Wars (if you dignify that as having a grand narrative). They’re just events individual writers bunged into early episodes as part of the plots of those individual stories.”

Sure, but collectively they *became* a narrative, one which was built on, steadily, over 40 more years.

“Kirk was never written to acknowledge or mention either of those incidents ever again;”

Except that’s not true. There were occasional references to earlier episodes in TOS, but in other media, and in other series, the ongoing continuity threads were a good deal stronger.

” he even forgot about his dead brother thereafter,”

Even that’s not true, and there’s a neat little bit in “Trek V” which goes over most people’s heads, ’cause it’s a double-level thing. Kirk mentions, toward the end, that he lost a brother once, and McCoy and Spock nod knowingly, in a way that long-time fans would know is recalling Sam. Then he looks straight at Spock and says, “I was lucky I got him back.” And of course we know that he’s expressing his feelings about Spock at that moment. The general audience would obviously recognize the latter, and that works for them just fine, but the extra level was for the fans.

That was the sort of thing I’d hoped for when Abrams and the others were saying that the new film would work one way for the general audience and another way for the fans.

“just like they forgot about the cloaking device they stole, or that whatever it was in Plato’s stepchildren that grants telekinetic powers and so on, and just as McCoy fell in love ridiculously quickly on Yadayada then forgot her, and Scotty’s everlasting love in The Lights Of Zetar that was forgotten next week.”

Of course, all of those things were picked up on later. :)

“There simply wasn’t any concept of “canon” then, they were just stories written for a weekly TV show.”

That much is true.

“The most consistent background for Kirk is that he is a farmboy from Iowa, and that he suddenly dashed off to Tartarsauce IV really doesn’t make any grand sense anyway. The business with Kodos never influenced any other scriptwriter or Shatner’s performance of Kirk before or after. It’s irrelevant.”

It might have been irrelevant to those scriptwriters, because they really weren’t dealing with Kirk’s backstory. Obviously, for a story which does, it *becomes* relevant. Later stories which addressed Kirk’s youth all took that incident into account. Complicated this is not. ;)

397. Captmike of the Terran Empire - November 21, 2008

Hey Boborci. Is there any realy Big surprises in store for us in the movie. If so On a scale of 1 to 10 what would you rate it as. Please let us know.

398. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#389—-“…there are some things, like the notion that Kirk lost his parents on Tarsus IV, or Enterprise was built in San Francisco, that seem to be ‘pretend canon.’ ”

I call it “fanon”…

Fanon: a fan’s preconceived notions of backstory or gaps in the timeline; not established, but merely assumed and incorporated into the fan’s perception of continuity or canon

Other examples:

—There is an additional five year mission under Kirk’s command after the events depicted in TMP

—The “blonde lab technician” referred to by Gary Mitchell in “WNMHGB” is Carol Marcus

—Chekov came aboard after the events depicted in the second season of TOS

—Kirk and Gary Mitchell are ‘best friends’

—Kirk and Pike only met ‘once’ prior to the events depicted in “The Menagerie”

There is a major difference between ‘canon’ and what I describe as ‘fanon’.

399. ScreenRant.com - November 21, 2008

Nice to hear your thoughts on the presentation Anthony. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to make it out to LA myself but I sent one of my writers there (he was THRILLED). He’s a TOS fan and he was quite frankly blown away by the footage, and wrote up a very impassioned piece here:

http://screenrant.com/new-star-trek-movie-footage-briank-4314/

I believe you and I are on the same page: optimistic in this film and excited about the idea of a fresh take on it. While I’ve been a Trek fan for literally decades, I’m not all caught up in the finer minutiae of “Canon.” And I *did* catch that comment in another thread by Orci about everything being resolved by the end of the film – I’m quite curious about that.

My ONE BIG CONCERN is overuse of slapstick humor in this film – after all, these are the same writers who put that idiotic “Transformers hiding in the backyard” scene in that film. :-\

Best,

Vic

400. lwr - November 21, 2008

I am thrilled!
at first i was hesitant about the ship, but the more i see it the more i like it.
the trailer was amazing.

I have been waiting for a REAL Star Trek Movie since 1979.
the closest we ever got was ST-4.
I hated the fact that ST was always done on the cheap, and was made a joke in the proccess.
TNG was okay, but it never translated to the big scren for me.
(even at it’s best, it was cheap as a movie… and the one that actually had cash thrown at it was nothing more than Wrath of Kahn revisited…. )

as for the CANON stuff:

all i need is a one line explaination and i am cool with it.
something as off the cuff as ” the borg technology found by Archer advanced things by 20 years, could explain the difference in the look of things.. and a line explaining that to save Kirk, things may happen different now, but that is the sacrifice Spock will make for his friend, even at the cost of his own future as he had lived it
( “YOU DID THE SAME FOR ME…THE NEED OF THE ONE OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE MANY”… nod to ST3)\
(also would it not be COOL if Spock Prime tells Kirk when he is Freezing on the ice planet that he won’t die, that he will die alone…nod to ST5)

finally, a big fan of the CRISIS comic book stuff, i can live with a Trek prime and Trek 2.

and by the way, i loved TRANSFORMERS!
I thought what those guys did to make a kids toy into a COOL movie was great.
(too, bad they’re not doing GI JOE … LOL!!)

401. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

Hey, Orci, dodge this one!

I’ve heard that Nero is acually a Vulcan in this film.

Any truth?

Good to have you here as walways

402. JL - November 21, 2008

Since this film seems to be in the hands of talented, caring people with accomplished filmmaking backgrounds…

I am going to assume the little midget creature/friend of Scottie’s is NOT annoying like Jar-Jar Binks.

403. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

#402

It might be a CG haggis

404. SH Cone - November 21, 2008

The Kelvin could be at Tarsus IV when its attacked.

Just sayin’.

405. thorsten - November 21, 2008

@402

No, he is cool…

406. Spock's Brain - November 21, 2008

RE: 343. Closettrekker : “The most important thing to remember about established ‘canon’ is (IMO) that it is not somehow suddenly rendered irrelevant, regardless of Bob Orci’s “final solution”. Everything within the timeline we know as the “original” still must happen as it did in order to advance the story to the point where Nero takes action to alter the past. All of it, from ENT-Nemesis, is therefore inherently relevant to the progression of this and future stories (even if the timeline remains in this altered form at the end of the film).”

Well said, CT!

You guys who are tired of time travel stories: You are fans of of a TV show set 100s of years in the future. You time travel yourselves in your head whenever you sit down to watch Trek.

Time travel in Trek (and in most sci-fi) is a story device, and IMHO, a damn good one! Not to be abused, of course.

From what I’ve read so far about those scenes, Orci/Kurtzman deserve a Oscar nomination for screenwriting! ;-)

407. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#396—-“…there’s a neat little bit in “Trek V” which goes over most people’s heads, ’cause it’s a double-level thing. Kirk mentions, toward the end, that he lost a brother once, and McCoy and Spock nod knowingly, in a way that long-time fans would know is recalling Sam. Then he looks straight at Spock and says, “I was lucky I got him back.” And of course we know that he’s expressing his feelings about Spock at that moment. The general audience would obviously recognize the latter, and that works for them just fine, but the extra level was for the fans.”

I think that’s a stretch, since it implies that Shatner could actually recall that kind of continuity from the original series, something he is not known at all for.

:)

I can hardly believe that Bill Shatner came up with something like that with the intention that you describe in mind. He admits to remembering very little from TOS. With that in mind, I think it is a stretch to believe that he made two references from the series in one film (“All I ask is a tall ship…” being the other one and a line of dialogue which he says he always liked and had stood out to him over the years since he spoke it in “The Ultimate Computer”).

I think he was referring solely to the death and “resurrection” of Spock, without any sneaky ‘easter egg’ for the fans, although after sitting through that piece of garbage, I could have used one!

:)

408. Frank The Tank - November 21, 2008

THIS is the opinion i wanted to read!
the man, our leader, the founder…the GODFATHER.

Anthony Pascale!

If he says it looks good , its all GOOD!

409. Blowback - November 21, 2008

389. Donn – November 21, 2008

“369 & 370: NO. Kirk did not lose his parents on Tarsus IV. Where are you getting that? He was living there “at the time.” Yes, he was a witness, it was awful, and that shaped his character.”

Agreed, I don’t remember Kirk saying he lost his parents on Tarsus IV either.

410. JL - November 21, 2008

407

“although after sitting through that piece of garbage, I could have used one!”

too funny

411. Dr. Image - November 21, 2008

Anthony-
Very good assesments. I can tell you’re being honest. Good to know that the actors can deliver.
Overall, though, I am more convinced than ever that there will be no middle groung with this movie. I also fear that they have gone too far afield than was necessary to assure commercial success.
There will be heavy criticism, even from those who are not really that Trek-familiar. It’s all too different- “canon explanation” or not- from what has become so well known over so many years.
For what it’s worth, that’s my prediction, and I think I’m right.

412. LostonNCC1701 - November 21, 2008

Here’s my updated half-serious guess as to what the plot of the movie will be:

In the wake of Nemesis, the Federation (and, to a lesser extent, the Klingons) and the Romulans got into a better relationship. Not a alliance by any means, but certainly better than it ever has been. There have even been some calls for a movement for reconciliation with the Vulcans. There are some violently against this, led by Nero. Nero, along with other radicals and a few military men, were eventually captured by the Klingons and put on Rura Penthe. Eventually, however, he escaped and with his fellow Romulan extremists (who can easily be identified because of their prison-issue tattoos and shaved heads) hijacked a new and horrible weapons ship that is capable of traveling through time and destroying an entire planet. Spock found out about this and “borrowed” (since Vulcans don’t steal) a Federation prototype time-ship to follow him into the past. (most of this would be off-screen or in the prequel comic book that will come out, I’d think)

Nero realizes that since he will have no supplies he needs to change the past with as little effort as possible. To simply blow up Vulcan would possibly bring in too much trouble, but to go back to the Romulan-Earth War or a similar point in time would be too likely to change the timeline so much that his initial quest becomes irrelevant. So he decides to do the easy thing: Kill James T. Kirk before he is even freaking born. If he is able to kill Kirk before he is born and a trip back to the future reveals that Romulans still aren’t the big bosses of the Galaxy, he’ll go back and do more. Or if Kirk survives he’ll go back and do more. No big deal. He has all the time in the world (heh).

So we go to the USS Kelvin in the year 2233ish, investigating some weird anomalies (including the disappearance and believed destruction of 47 Klingon ships!). It is under the command of Captain Robau, with first officer George Kirk. Just then, Nero’s ship attacks. Caught completely by surprise, the opening volleys of the “battle” lead to the Captain dead and George in Command. He orders all non-essential personnel- including his pregnant wife- to abandon ship not in the escape pods but by using the Shuttlecraft, leaving many of them severely overcrowded. During the escape, some of the crew use their craft to cover the extremely-heavily damaged Kelvin on a kamikaze attack on the Romulans. The Kelvin is further aided by a mysterious ship (Spock’s timeship). It works, but the stress causes Mrs. Kirk to give birth prematurely as her medical shuttle goes into warp to escape. The Romulan ship, although still operational, is badly damaged and escapes through time to safety (some point in time where they can just go orbit some random moon and do some repairs and get ready for their next attempt at destroying the Federation). We’d then see the Time-ship go through time too, probably going ahead to check to see what this has changed.

We’d then go through a short vignette of Kirk and Spock growing up. Spock has some pressures growing up with being Half-Vulcan, Half-Human, but Kirk’s childhood is more interesting. His mother either died or left him with his idiot Uncle, who Kirk despises and proceeds to aggravate by driving his antique car into the future site of a Starfleet Shipyard. It is never stated or shown that Kirk was on Tarsus, but it is never directly denied either. One thing that changes though is that because of his different upbringing, he never feels obligated to join Starfleet, instead hanging around Iowa causing trouble until one day he enters a bar being frequented by new Academy recruits visiting the shipyard. He gets into a barfight after hitting on Uhura and is then accosted by the famed Captain Christopher Pike of the being-built USS Enterprise. Pike talks Kirk into joining Starfleet.

Kirk’s time at the academy is unorthodox. While the Axanar mission, Finnegan, John Gill, Ben Finney and Gary Mitchell aren’t seen or mentioned, they aren’t directly denied either. However, Kirk does cause trouble in the academy: He hires a Orion Hooker, he cheats at the Kobayashi Maru and is only saved from expulsion when someone points out that he has shown great original thinking. But still, when first assignments are handed out, he’s left on the ground, primarily because there are still concerns about his conduct with the Kobayashi Maru.

His friend Dr. Leonard McCoy (AKA “Bones”) is able to sneak Jim up to the Enterprise, under Captain Pike and his first officer, Spock. The Enterprise has gone through a heavy refit and this will be it’s first real mission (while this would seem on the surface to eliminate the Talos incident, you could maybe retcon it into having taken place during a shakedown cruise or testing run gone awry). They get a message in from Vulcan about “lightning storms”, causing Kirk to panic about a Romulan attack. He’s right, and when they arrive above Romulus the Enterprise finds a good chunk of the fleet blown to bits and the Romulan ship drilling into the planet itself. Pike gets a message from Nero asking for a meeting, and since there are transporter problems he goes there using a shuttle, out of which he has Kirk, Sulu and Olsen jump out of to try and disable the drilling.

Kirk and Sulu are able to badly damage the drill, but they are too late and the anomaly black-hole is sent into the planet. Spock beams down to help evacuate the planet, as Kirk and Sulu are then beamed back up (thanks to Chekov’s quick-fix of the Transporter), while Spock continues to save his family down on Vulcan. Jim essentially takes over the ship and attempts to use several methods to try and destroy the black hole, but ultimately fails until Old Spock’s Timeship arrives and closes it just in time. Spock beams back up while most of Vulcan continues to evacuate because of aftershocks from the attack. The Romulans leave (possibly though a time bubble) to regroup. It appears to only be a hollow victory, as the Romulans could still easily try again. Worried about the Romulans coming back, the Enterprise runs like hell. Meanwhile, all the turmoil boils over inside of Spock (Vulcan? Human? Neither? Both?) and he breaks down and throws Jimbo onto a ice planet. This may be because Jimbo is under the impression he saved Vulcan when in reality it was mainly Deus Ex Spock’s Time Machina.

Meanwhile, on the Romulan ship of DOOOOOOOOM, Nero decides not to kill Pike, because why do that when he can torment Pike with information FROM THE FUTURE! Yes, you will be assassinated in Dallas… err.. wait… I mean, you will be confined into a black box for your entire life and will only be able to answer “yes” and “no” to every question. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

On the Ice Planet, Jim finds himself wandering aimlessly, no doubt cursing about the stupid Vulcan and the stupid emotions he shouldn’t even have. Eventually, he will begin singing “Mr. Tambourine Man”, causing a monster shockingly like the one in Cloverfield to become enraged. Thankfully, old Spock shows up to save his ass. Because that’s how old Spock rolls. A little bit of exhibition follows in which Old Spock proves that he is, indeed, Spock (this may or may not involve a rousing single of “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins”). Old Spock drops some zen and backstory, and then they go and see the last dude to get stranded on this Ice Planet: Montgomery Scott.

Scotty was dropped on the Ice Planet because he dematerialized Porthos VI. Not the Planet, the Beagle belonging to Admiral Archer. Old Spock totally breaks the Temporal Directive, makes everyone smile, tells Kirk to piss Young Spock off and get command of the Enterprise and then sends them on their way with a “Live Long and Prosper”. The crowd cheers.

Kirk then goes to the bridge, and proceeds to really piss off Young Spock. Then, using the Starfleet regulation, he is able to become Captain. Kirk then announces that Scotty is now Chief Engineer, and tells everyone that from now on, he is the biggest badass in the Galaxy. He then hears that the Romulans are doing repairs in a white nebula, probably getting ready to blow up Vulcan again.But now that James T. Kirk is in command, no force in the universe can stop the USS Enterprise. Nothing! NOTHING!

So, the Enterprise goes one-on-one, mano-a-mano with the Romulan Ship. Assisting in the battle, again, is Old Spock’s ship. Kirk beams over to the Romulan ship, frees Captain Pike (who then beams over back to the Enterprise, which he still is technically in command of), and then fights Nero hand to hand. Nero makes the foolish mistake of cutting Kirk’s shirt, making him very angry and unbeatable in hand-to-hand combat. Kirk then proceeds to make Nero launch the black hole things INTO THE SHIP ITSELF. He then beams out as the Romulan Ship is literally absorbed into itself. Nero, saddened, begins to fiddle, then notices that Old Spock’s ship is still out there. Surmising who it really is, he begins to gun for that. Kirk (Pike is in Sick Bay) orders the Enterprise to risk getting caught in the Romulan Ship’s event horizon to protect the ship. Needless to say, they save it (because Spock dying again doing anything less than a heroic sacrifice that saves the entire universe would be cop-out). The Enterprise and the Time-Ship race away just in time (as always). Old Spock then sends a message to the Enterprise, although only Kirk and Scotty know who it is since Spock’s voice is so different in his old age. The message: “Jim, it has been an honor serving with you one last time. Live Long and Prosper. Thank You.”, he’ll then time-ship out of there.

In the aftermath (with the Enterprise being repaired in space dock), Pike tells Kirk he has exceeded even his Father, and that he is proud that the Enterprise will next be commanded by such a great leader. Pike himself says he intends to move on, he was in line for a promotion anyway. Kirk puts on the Golden Tunic of Awesome to the cheers of the crowd and walks onto what is now HIS bridge. Spock, fully realizing that he had let his emotions get the best of him, thanks Kirk for what he has done, but asks him how he knew about the regulation to get him removed from command. Kirk says something along the lines that it was something he learned from a “new friend”. He then tells everyone to buckle up, the Enterprise is a ship for exploration, and there is a ton out there to explore.

He then says “Set course for… (pick one: Cestus III /Organia/Eminiar VII/Sherman’s Planet/Ceti Alpha V/Altair IV/L-374/Halkan/”Second Star to the Right”)”.

We then get Pine doing the famous “Space, the Final Frontier” narration. Only one difference: When he’s done, Spock tells him that those are fine, evocative words. Kirk then says the final lines of the first TOS Kirk episode (”Where No Man Has Gone Before”): ” I believe there’s some hope for you after all, Mr. Spock. ”

Warp!

413. JL - November 21, 2008

Speaking of STV:TGTTO89

The number-one character-related trainwreck — to me — is the shuttlecraft scene when Kirk flies the shuttlecraft to the E (you’d think he would have done something more effective than wreck it into the safety net) and then starts screaming at Spock “SHOOT ‘IMmmmm!!!!”, trying to get him to shoot Sybok.

From the visible wirework to the dumb dialog, omg what a messed up sequence that whole thing is.

414. sean - November 21, 2008

#407

I agree. I never was given the impression that the double-take is a reference to his brother George, but rather McCoy and Spock acting puzzled by his reference to a brother. But hey, that’s me (and you, apparently).

415. Jordan - November 21, 2008

LostonNCC1701: your write-up seems so eerily possible and authentic that you’re freaking me out.

416. Dr. Image - November 21, 2008

#411 Yeah. Typo. Middle GROUND. As in there won’t be any with the movie.

And off-the-shelf barcode readers as set dressing on the bridge… so sad…

417. Captain Balki - November 21, 2008

Man I was the shat was in this film

418. Anthony Pascale - November 21, 2008

People have asked about the music and I am sorry I dont have more to say except that I found it appropriate and worked very well. I am a big fan of MG and it was clearly his style. I am just not very skilled at describing music. Maybe Jeff Bond (author of “The Music of Star Trek”) will drop by and give you his thoughts, he was there as well.

419. JL - November 21, 2008

412

I like how it’s all serious and everything until you get to the “Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaa! Pike torture”, “Mr. Tambourine Man”, and “Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” parts…

420. sean - November 21, 2008

#416

That’s worse than a barrette as a seeing aid? Or a salt shaker as a medical scanner? Par for the course for Star Trek, I say.

421. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#414—-That is definitely the impression I got, although I did think then that it was a shame that the irony of that bit of dialogue was probably lost on Bill, if not the rest of the cast/producers as well.

That’s an assumption, but I think it is a well-founded one.

Apparently, neither Nimoy nor Bennett (who supposedly saw all 79 TOS episodes prior to TWOK) sufficiently remembered some of the significant ‘canon’ established in TOS either. Otherwise, one of them might have caught the gaffe in Admiral Morrow’s dialogue about the age of the Enterprise in TSFS.

I think it is safe to say that the ‘fans’ are the only ones who care about such detail in such priority as it is being discussed here.

422. JL - November 21, 2008

412

Also, in seriousness I must say that if these are the kinds of things happening in this film, god help the average movie-going audience. I really doubt they are going to be able to process all of this while at the same time enjoy the movie.

Although Dark Knight was pretty frenetic and had many sub-plot elements going on…

I don’t know, man. It still sounds like an awful lot of stuff for Joe Bag-O-Donuts to absorb.

423. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#407 – “I think that’s a stretch, since it implies that Shatner could actually recall that kind of continuity from the original series, something he is not known at all for.

:) ”

Maybe. It’s hard to be sure. Maybe it came from David Loughery. ;)

The delivery of the line and the various reactions just leaped up and screamed “Sam reference!” to me. But even if it wasn’t intentional, it was a neat bit that worked on two levels.

“He admits to remembering very little from TOS. With that in mind, I think it is a stretch to believe that he made two references from the series in one film (”All I ask is a tall ship…” being the other one and a line of dialogue which he says he always liked and had stood out to him over the years since he spoke it in “The Ultimate Computer”).”

I think he recalls a lot less now than he did in 1988-89, too. But I won’t discount the idea that Loughery did his homework at the time, either.

#412 – “The Enterprise has gone through a heavy refit and this will be it’s first real mission (while this would seem on the surface to eliminate the Talos incident, you could maybe retcon it into having taken place during a shakedown cruise or testing run gone awry).”

Y’know, this bit, along with Pike’s line about it being brand-new, made me think of a line from ST:TMP: “This is an almost totally new Enterprise. You don’t know her a tenth as well as I do.” (Decker to Kirk)

It is, admittedly, a stretch, but what if the ship was in the yards being heavily refitted, rather than built from the keel up? It could sort of work.

424. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#420—-Definitely… I wonder if Quinto’s Spock will ever slip up and use his tricorder upside down!

If anything, the barcode thing may be something funny to talk about on the dvd extra features…just like everything else.

425. Donn - November 21, 2008

413. How about when Kirk screams, “Shoot him!” and Spock is holding the muzzle of the gun right at the middle of Sybock’s chest–who, as a Vulcan, actually keeps his heart much lower in his torso. That always kind of bugged me.

But then, if we listed all the things that bugged us about ST:V… we might actually pass the time until May! The giant Jeffries tubes, the deck numbering, the uncanny resemblance between Enterprise-A interiors and Enterprise-D interiors, the confusion of the barrier at the edge of the galaxy for a barrier at the center…

426. zandor - November 21, 2008

I’m sorrry, but that sounds dreadful. It sounds like the kind of awful that was the Lost in Space movie. Scotty has a little alien pal? Dear god. Everybody got out of the Academy before Kirk? Are you kidding?

427. sean - November 21, 2008

#424

Absolutely. And it’s not as though Trek is the only TV/Film production guilty of ‘creative use’ when it comes to props, though maybe they are the most notorious! :)

428. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#423—“It is, admittedly, a stretch, but what if the ship was in the yards being heavily refitted, rather than built from the keel up? It could sort of work.”

Not so much of a ‘stretch’ to me. In Pike’s day (at least in the original timeline), the Enterprise carried a crew of 203. Perhaps it was a “refit” Enterprise that required over 400 Starfleet personnel to man it.

I get the impression, though, that this Enterprise is under construction, not refit.

429. JL - November 21, 2008

425

“……..if we listed all the things that bugged us about ST:V… we might actually pass the time until May!”

Donn, you are so right.

430. harris250 - November 21, 2008

I’m a little late but I want to comment on #309…ya I like it…but Spok was not in the scene where it was revealed that Kirk had reprogramed the simulation computer…and David called reprograming the computer “cheating”, but I like it! I’m back with the Spok Prime from original time bit…

431. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#421 – “Apparently, neither Nimoy nor Bennett (who supposedly saw all 79 TOS episodes prior to TWOK) sufficiently remembered some of the significant ‘canon’ established in TOS either. Otherwise, one of them might have caught the gaffe in Admiral Morrow’s dialogue about the age of the Enterprise in TSFS.”

Actually, according to several interviews at the time, they both remembered the relevant information just fine. Bennett has discussed that line in a few places, and noted that since Star Trek was about 20 years old at that point, they deliberately opted to use that number, as it was thought that the greater age might confuse the general, non-fan audience.

One can argue that the audience was brighter than that, of course, and I do, but either way, I’ll firmly place this one as a deliberate choice, not one made out of ignorance.

432. Miss Tessmarker! - November 21, 2008

Boborci,

Any plans for a second trailer? The first one was great, but it seemed to be speaking to that new, broader fan base you guys are looking to hook. Maybe use the second one to reaffirm the old trek nerds like me. You could end it with Nimoy and his “live long” salute. I think some of us are just looking for a little nostalgia along with the new bright lights.

433. LostonNCC1701 - November 21, 2008

415: Dude, you flatter me. What’s scary though is that this is what I was able to put together from the few reports, which makes me think there are probably large chunks I’m missing, so I’ll probably update it again later if need be.

Just as an aside, here’s some of the reasoning behind what I was thinking about when I made that “speculative plot summary”: What do we know already? What would fit in with what has been said about the movie (“It is most similar to TWOK” especially came to mind)? What would fit in dramatically with what we know already (hence Pike going from daring Kirk to do better than his father to telling Kirk he did better than his father)? And what I think would be entertaining.

434. JL - November 21, 2008

423—”It is, admittedly, a stretch, but what if the ship was in the yards being heavily refitted, rather than built from the keel up? It could sort of work.”

428—”Not so much of a ’stretch’ to me.”

Me either. Although I cannot profess to be at the level of Trekkiness you are (you blow my mind), would this not give young Kirk more time between “seeing it for the first time while riding his motorcycle” and “being snuck onboard and then taking charge in when the Nero threat comes up”…?

435. Catie - November 21, 2008

#418
That would be awesome! I’d love to hear a description of the soundtrack. The right music can make a big difference, in my opinion.
:-)

436. C.S. Lewis - November 21, 2008

426. zandor – November 21, 2008

I’m sorrry, but that sounds dreadful. It sounds like the kind of awful that was the Lost in Space movie. Scotty has a little alien pal? Dear god. Everybody got out of the Academy before Kirk? Are you kidding?

***********************

Seriously. I don’t see fleet command giving the keys of a multi-billion dollar capital ship to some jerk with a checkered past. I’ve read newspaper stories about Navy captains relived of command and charged in courts-martial for fights amongst the enlisted men! There is no tolerance for broken discipline, unless you’re high enough on the food chain to have political cover.

437. The Underpants Monster - November 21, 2008

#426 – Silly, isn;t it? Is he some kind of Space Amadeus, or is it the midichlorians?

438. Stanky McFibberich - November 21, 2008

I read Mr. Pascale’s comments and I appreciate that he was not just gushing all over it and was willing to state not only what he liked, but what he felt was lacking. It was surprising to see an article which was not totally another ga-ga sales pitch for the thing.

439. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#425 – “How about when Kirk screams, “Shoot him!” and Spock is holding the muzzle of the gun right at the middle of Sybock’s chest–who, as a Vulcan, actually keeps his heart much lower in his torso. That always kind of bugged me.”

Oh, that one’s easy. It’d be a much less risky shot for a Vulcan than for a Human. More reasonable for Spock to shoot him there to disable, rather than kill. :)

#428 – “Not so much of a ’stretch’ to me. In Pike’s day (at least in the original timeline), the Enterprise carried a crew of 203. Perhaps it was a “refit” Enterprise that required over 400 Starfleet personnel to man it.”

Okay, maybe it could work.

“I get the impression, though, that this Enterprise is under construction, not refit.”

Oh, I am assuming the movie absolutely intends that. I was just thinking about whether one might viably “creatively interpret” it to imagine a slightly older ship. ;)

440. harris250 - November 21, 2008

question? how do I find a complete list of actors and characters in the movie?

441. sean - November 21, 2008

#430

Spock and Kirk discuss the reprogramming right after the opening scene in TWOK:

“Spock: As I recall you took the test three times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say, unique?

Kirk: It had the virtue of never having been tried. ”

Ergo, Spock was well aware of what Kirk did.

442. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

I love Star Trek V.

443. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

#440

http://www.imdb.com

Search for Star Trek IX

444. Gd846c3 - November 21, 2008

This is a very honest review. It makes me even more excited.

445. Sc00ny - November 21, 2008

Sorry Harris 250, make that XI !

446. Son of Surak - November 21, 2008

Well, this sounds promising.

447. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#423—-You know, Alex, one of the possiblities is that the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” has made one of its canon-rulings on the age of the Enterprise in a manner with which you and I might not have.

The movies effectively established a setting within the late 23rd Century, which didn’t necessarily mesh with what was presented in TOS. With that loose precedent in mind, the “Supreme Court” could have made a ruling that recognized Admiral Morrow’s assertion that the Enterprise was a mere 20 years old (15 years after “Space Seed”) as legitimate.

I assume that, like me, you have always looked to “The Menagerie” or even TAS, “The Counter-Clock Incident”, and determined that to be inaccurate.

They could, however, have taken the approach that “the last word is the official word”, thus superceding what TOS/TAS suggests. It might be difficult to argue that reasoning.

…Not the road you or I would have taken, but Paramount didn’t give us $150 million to make a Star Trek movie.

448. harris250 - November 21, 2008

This is a quote from July 8, interview with Clifton Collins in E! he will play Admiral Ayel a Romulan…

And get ready for some surprise appearances in the movie. “There is, but I better not say,” Collins said of possible big-star cameos. “There are certain things that as kids growing up, whether it’s Star Trek or other shows at the time, all you got to do is really just hear their voice and your heart warms.”
Asked if he was referring to characters and actors from the original television series, Collins simply smiled and said, “Maybe.”

Big cameos? Admiral Ayel? Any thoughts?!

449. boborci - November 21, 2008

432. Miss Tessmarker! – November 21, 2008
Boborci,

“Any plans for a second trailer? The first one was great, but it seemed to be speaking to that new, broader fan base you guys are looking to hook. Maybe use the second one to reaffirm the old trek nerds like me. You could end it with Nimoy and his “live long” salute. I think some of us are just looking for a little nostalgia along with the new bright lights.”

Workin’ on it!

450. harris250 - November 21, 2008

449. Mr. Boborci,

“Workin’ on it!”

you’d better hurry up, we’re running out horses to beat…

Thanks

451. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 21, 2008

86-

I’ve judged well enough to know a bomb when I see one; and this one’s in a league all by itself.

And you’re consistent in backing the wrong horse, as usual. Judge for yourself, though. It’s your money, not mine. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything, just offering my take.

Someone has to.

452. Capt. Fred - November 21, 2008

OH GOD
Greenwood looks NOTHING like Pike!
DISASTER

453. Spocksbrain - November 21, 2008

These changes seem to be morphing Star Trek into a comic book action series. Bla Bla Bla- technobabble and time travel have consistently made good stories seem cliche’ and silly. I hope this is not the case.

The canonical violations sound plentiful. The original crew was just gelling when the series started. It was their growth during THOSE years that made them a family, and not some contrived previous meeting.

“You ever met Chris Pike?”

“We met when he was promoted to fleet captain.”

I refuse to accept Star Trek as Star Wars prequels or as a comic action series. It was never that way before, and this generation’s meddling because of a lack of originality can only serve to make just that out of it.

454. Denise de Arman - November 21, 2008

Congrats on being invited to view these scenes from the movie, Anthony. And thank you for the great article.

455. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 21, 2008

449-

Mr. Orci,

Trailers aren’t the issue. The content is. Work on that. You’ve got some time between now and next May. You and Mr. Abrams would be wise to use it.

All these worlds…

456. Closettrekker - November 21, 2008

#453—“The canonical violations sound plentiful”

How can you have a “canon violation” when they are utilizing the creation of an alternate timeline (which is in itself canon) to depict events unfolding very differently?

““You ever met Chris Pike?”

“We met when he was promoted to fleet captain.”

…and that was in a timeline uncorrupted by an attack upon a Starfleet vessel (carrying Pike and Kirk’s father) 4 days before the birth of James T. Kirk…

That timeline incursion obviously results in a scenario in which the young Jim Kirk and Christopher Pike have a more significant relationship (perhaps due to the absence of Kirk’s father).

“The original crew was just gelling when the series started.”

…and they will apparently ‘gel’ again, albeit under different circumstances due to the altered timeline.

“It was their growth during THOSE years that made them a family…”

…and “that growth” (along with everything else you and I know as ‘canon’) still occurs, exactly as it did before—otherwise, the story couldn’t even progress to the point where Nero goes back in time.

457. Chain of Command - November 21, 2008

This movie clearly deviates from the 40 years of currently established history for Star Trek. That much is apparent. Kirk’s relationship with Pike, where the E was constructed, Kirk’s time between entering the academy and getting command of the E, Chekov being on the E with Pike, No Gary Mitchell or Dr. Boyce or etc, etc.

It’ll be a good movie I’m sure, but it still seems silly to suggest it’s a prequel or a “fill in the blanks” flick when so much of the original established backstory and history has been ignored. I would rather the people making it just come out and say, “This is the Casino Royale of the Star Trek series.” That would seem to be smarter than to say, “Oh, this is what REALLY happened” when every fan clearly knows that it didn’t happen that way.

So, in short, they really should just start Star Trek over with this film. Wipe the slate clean completely!

Besides, most fans seem to pretend the last 12 years of Star Trek spinoffs didn’t happen anyway! LOL

458. Catie - November 21, 2008

#449
Thanks Mr. Orci!
The news of a second trailer just made my day!
:-)

459. sean - November 21, 2008

#455

Amazing that you can complain about the content, when you have not yet seen the content. That’s some crystal ball you’ve got there.

460. Balok - November 21, 2008

The timeline change gives them license to change anything from TOS…. Mr. Orci, a brilliant way to make an old-timer like me feel comfortable with everythting I know and like about TOS being changed…

461. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

451. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008
86-

I’ve judged well enough to know a bomb when I see one; and this one’s in a league all by itself.

You have no idea what the film looks like.. how about waiting until you have actually seen it with your own two blind eyes first before passing judgement? You say you have seen enough bombs in your day. Fine.. they are like that after you have seen then. Other tghen some words online about POSSIBLE plots and a two minute trailer.. you know absolutely nothing about this movie. How easy you are to pass judgement. It’s closed minded people like you that have no imagination and no vision that will eventually kill Trek. The way you badmouth this movie is as if you have actually seen every minute of it. Maybe it’s time you get off your high horse and watch the movie come May. If, at that time, you think it sucks.. then that is your right because you have seen it.

462. zandor - November 21, 2008

My objection is not based on canon violations, but on the idea that Kirk vaults straight from the Academy to XO to Captain. That seems absurd, regardless of established continuity. And whatever assignment you get straight out of the Academy is where you stay until you die? Kirk never had another job prior to sneaking on the Enterprise and becoming Captain?

Don’t even get me started on Mickey Mouse hands. And Funny Scotty worked like a charm in that gem of all Star Trek films, STV. It’ll be great to see that classic bit again. Yikes.

463. Chris Pike - November 21, 2008

449. boborci – November 21, 2008
432. Miss Tessmarker! – November 21, 2008
Boborci,

“Any plans for a second trailer? The first one was great, but it seemed to be speaking to that new, broader fan base you guys are looking to hook. Maybe use the second one to reaffirm the old trek nerds like me. You could end it with Nimoy and his “live long” salute. I think some of us are just looking for a little nostalgia along with the new bright lights.”

Workin’ on it!

Echoed here – would love to see an answer of absolutely!

464. Bob Dobalina - November 21, 2008

To quote Urban, “My God doesn’t this movie look fantastic!” Yesiree, it does. I can do without some of the more, for lack of a better word, juvenile humor…like “ample nacelles”…but I can at least understand while it’s there.

And geez Louise people, how hard is it to grasp?? The changes are due to the altered timeline? It’s not brain surgery….timeline altered….changes follow. Designs are different…uniforms are different, eye colors are different….well, I might have a little problem with that one….but really….that’s the ONLY explanation anyone needs to make this movie fit.

And Bob Orci…if you’re still out there….I know that you’re a big fan and being involved in this has to be a dream come true…but don’t you just wish that , just once in awhile, you could be on the other side of the fence…debating and wondering, along with the rest of us? It’s great fun, but I can’t help but feel kinda guily that you’re so much on the inside, that, as a fellow fan, you’re missing the fun of ringing in a brand new Trek.

But would I give up this new found excitement and sense of Trek discovery to walk in your shoes…among the bridge and other sets, rubbing elbows with Captain Kirk and his crew?

In a heartbeat! lol The trailer along with the scenes described speaks volumes. My kind fo Trek is back in the house! Exciting times indeed!

465. boborci - November 21, 2008

464. Bob Dobalina – November 21, 2008

“And Bob Orci…if you’re still out there….I know that you’re a big fan and being involved in this has to be a dream come true…but don’t you just wish that , just once in awhile, you could be on the other side of the fence…debating and wondering, along with the rest of us? It’s great fun, but I can’t help but feel kinda guily that you’re so much on the inside, that, as a fellow fan, you’re missing the fun of ringing in a brand new Trek.”

So interesting that you bring this up because I think about this all the time. It’s maybe why I’m on here entirely too much — I want to see this all through your eyes. I ABSOLUTELY wish I could be on the other side… highly empathetic of you to wonder… thanks

466. dalek - November 21, 2008

Yes would be nice to see older Spock in the trailer. I can’t for the life of me think why he was excluded other than agism. He wasn’t in the bunch of publicity photo’s either. I can imagine Paramount thinks older actors don’t sell movies.

There is really no other reason to exclude Nimoy. His appearance was possibly the first major spoiler that was released and no tight lipped secret. Plus they have shown him in possibly the biggest spoiler scene as to the plot of the movie.

Poor Leonard. It seems he is being snubbed for all the young actors. Maybe he’s starting to know how Shatner feels.

And as for Shatner not remembering about Kirk’s brother. I don’t think he’d forget the fact he had to play his own brothers corpse. Yep that was Shatner in a moustache. But I don’t think the scene in Trek V alluded to that.

467. A. .S.F.33 - November 21, 2008

The more i see and hear about this movie the less connected to Trek i feel. Ya know as i read through these comments i see others who also seem to share a sense of loss for the Trek we knew and loved. For me it started with the whole Shatner issue and how that was handled and now the way JJ just loves to say how he was never a Trek fan…well at least not untill he got hold of it and fixed all the “cheesey” things that were wrong with it. Well you know what? This Trek fan loved it just the way it was Like it or not, there already was an established history for these characters. Why in the wrold use them if you didn’t want to use the history???

468. Primogen - November 21, 2008

You know, Bob Orci, I’m very envious of you. A Trek fan since seeing the premiere episode of TOS when I was a youngster, I had an opportunity to design and produce a Trek game for Activision, but the project was canceled early on due to the poor reception to Enterprise and Nemesis. But I’m glad you’ve been given a chance to revitalize the franchise, and that the reception to the trailer and clips has been so positive.

But I do have a question for you. Does any of the film depict the entire Enterprise crew (Spock, Bones, Scotty, etc., under the command of Kirk) working together as a team like they were in the TV series, or do they only come together at the very conclusion of the film?

469. sean - November 21, 2008

#466

I bet you most non-Trek fans still don’t realize Leonard Nimoy is in this. My guess would be they’ll either save him for a 2nd trailer or they’re keeping him as something of a surprise for that segment of the audience. I don’t think there’s any ageism taking place here, otherwise why would they have included Nimoy in the first place?

470. boborci - November 21, 2008

468 Primogen – November 21, 2008

Same answer as before!

471. dalek - November 21, 2008

#469 I hope so.

I wasn’t referring to the team behind the new Trek, but Paramount itself. My suspicion of agism on their part is based on the absence of Nimoy and the fact JJ said he had to fight to get Nimoy in the movie, by convincing Paramount that his Obi Wan presence was essential. Why would Paramount even be bothered about Nimoy unless they had something specific against him?

472. sean - November 21, 2008

#471

Well, they could have shared the fear that some on this board do, in that they felt they should start from scratch and not have any ties to the past. They were attempting to revive a fallen franchise, after all.

Whatever their motivation, I’m glad JJ fought for Leonard to be included!

473. Bob Dobalina - November 21, 2008

#465 boborci “ABSOLUTELY wish I could be on the other side…”

Well, if its any consolation, you’re giving a lot of folks one hell of a fun ride….I mean, I haven’t had high anticipation for Trek since 1991, so this, along with the remastered TOS of the last couple of years has really been an incredibly fun ride.

Obviously it can’t happen with the movie, but since you are a fan of the novels, (and yes Prime Directive is awesome) I sincerely hope some talented author takes your Star Trek and gives you a great story…using description that puts them in your timeline, that gives you something fresh and fun to dig into, you deserve it!

474. hitch1969© is back in 2008. - November 21, 2008

Dear The OrcSter™,

“Every time I think that I’m out, they keep PULLING ME BACK IN!!!” – Silvio Dante, 2003.

I had previously retired from this site but you have compelled me to return. That’s an awesome power. Anyhooo. I was thinking about your buddy, Shia LaBoof. I believe that he is the tie that binds us together electronically.

I’m thinking about the sequel, sir. Star Trek 2. or whatver we’re going to call it. First of all, let’s keep MOST of the current cast. THEN… let’s get Shatner!!!

let’s reimagine through the looking glass further, my friend. Another time travel story – lets get old Shia in there if we can – but I am talking about a timeline where the United Federation of Planets has somehow been based on the NASCAR look. For whatever reason. Maybe we can get Will Ferrell to rerpise his role as Ricky Bobby or something.

Anyway. SEE THIS – the new Enterprise… with a bigass Firebird™ painted on the hood of the saucer, with “the bandit” etched on each nacelle. THEN my man… and this is where we MAKE SOME BREAD – “this space available” all over the rest of the puppy and we can get advertisers to slap their logos all over the thing!!!

Maybe Pine grows a 70s mustache ala Burt and wears a cowboy hat, and old Spock put on a wedding dress like Sally Fields, and isnt McCoy a great fit for the Jerry Reed role?

Shatner can play the villian, Smokey®. And how we love to go fast! IF you ain’t first, you’re last!

I want you to tell Sir JJ™ about this idea. Aren’t you excited???? This is going to be the gratest mashup since that time DJ AM mixed the beastie boys with van halen!!!

Mashups are like, the future n stuff. original flavor is the past…

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

475. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 21, 2008

TO THE ILLUSTRIOUS DENNIS BAILEY

Read the blurb. Steampunk bowels of the ship it would appear or more likely Galactica bowels of the ship. What was the episode with the Pegasus commander turning valves with steam, soot, and grime all about. Seems that’s what it will be

Not sure how I feel about that.

476. Xai - November 21, 2008

451. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008
” I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything, just offering my take.

Someone has to.”

ROTFLMAO… Just as a reality check I had to go back and read the headline to this article.
Are you saying Anthony Pascale didn’t do a sufficiently good enough job giving his viewpoint of 4 scenes of this movie? Unless I missed something…. (counting)… that is 4 more scenes than you’ve seen. True?

And in 449 you are giving Bob Orci a nudge to use the time to fix the film… that’s hilarious.
I’ll grant that even you are entitled to an opinion… but be realistic. These posts of yours slamming a film you have not seen is silly.

477. Finny - November 21, 2008

I STILL think this is predestined Time-Travel and this is how the timeline always was!

Spock Prime knew when and where to go,and to tell young kirk make sure Spock doesn’t do something he can’t handle.

478. Jamie - November 21, 2008

Great reveiw, Anthony!

I am very pleased with everything you said.

In a way, all they really need is a great Kirk, and everything else will fall into place around him, or can be tweaked in the sequels. From everything I’ve read and seen, I think Kirk is going to be Kirk. And that’s really the most important thing.

479. Primogen - November 21, 2008

470. boborci – November 21, 2008

468 Primogen – November 21, 2008

Same answer as before!

—-

For those who haven’t visited AICN recently: “Not saved till the end, but not from the beginning…”

480. M5 - November 21, 2008

@ C S Lewis

Striking and humbling observations shared on your part, sir.

Your commentary explains clearly why when viewing Midway (1976) on AMC it felt oddly enough like watching TOS.

I’m not a hater per se. Merely stating some frank observations for the record as well.

Don’t fret JJ fans… people of our mindset steadily become fewer due to thermodynamics and entropy.

– Closer to heaven than to earth. I merely wish I could agree with the collective that this fact of life bodes well for you.

Enjoy your film kids.

481. Elrond L - November 21, 2008

Anthony, thanks for your article. This is one of the best pieces you’ve written since the site began. It addressed everything I cared about, and left me eager for the next morsel of news. I’m a bit concerned about the slapstick going too far, but I’ll continue to keep an open mind. This was a great follow-up to the rush of the trailer, and I’m glad to hear Bob Orci’s comments about the next trailer giving us more meat (and Nimoy, I hope!).

482. steve623 - November 21, 2008

The funniest part is where the editor referred to himself as “humble” :-)

483. Alex Rosenzweig - November 21, 2008

#447 – “#423—-You know, Alex, one of the possiblities is that the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” has made one of its canon-rulings on the age of the Enterprise in a manner with which you and I might not have.”

Oh, I think it’s more than mere possibility. I’d be willing to bet that the probability level of that approaches 100%. (So, Bob O., would I be right? ;) )

That said, though, I’m still playing with ideas, for what will probably be a project I fully undertake after the movie comes out, but which for now must remain a work-in-progress.

“The movies effectively established a setting within the late 23rd Century, which didn’t necessarily mesh with what was presented in TOS.”

Well, TOS was deliberately vague on the subject, so I’d say the series left it pretty much open. Still, by even as early as the mid-’70s, the idea that Star Trek was in the 23rd Century had taken hold, and the movies ended up running with that. Let’s face it, over the years, quite a few facts which began as “fanon” ended up becoming canon.

“With that loose precedent in mind, the “Supreme Court” could have made a ruling that recognized Admiral Morrow’s assertion that the Enterprise was a mere 20 years old (15 years after “Space Seed”) as legitimate.”

Sure. I suggested as much a while back in one of the other comment threads. :)

Inspired by the above possibility, and by the similarities between the Church Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise, an interesting thought had occurred to me around that time. If one were to look at Star Trek as two franchises, one of TV and one of movies, it might turn out that this new film doesn’t gel badly with the rest of the film franchise. that could be especially true if the intent is, as Mr. Abrams suggested, to show a somewhat different backstory for the characters, but for them to otherwise become the people we know. (And, of course, assuming they didn’t do anything nuts like actually blow up Vulcan, etc. ;) )

Now, mind you, I’m not necessarily *advocating* looking at it that way, but merely suggesting that it might be possible to do so.

” …Not the road you or I would have taken, but Paramount didn’t give us $150 million to make a Star Trek movie.”

True ’nuff. :)

484. Redshirt96 - November 21, 2008

I’ve been a fan since the sixties and I am really excited about this movie. I’ve been reading the comments for the various articles and I there’s just one thing I don’t understand. You can love this movie or hate it (or anything in between), but for the ones that have sworn they are going to hate it – why keep posting?

You are so convinced that this movie will suck and shatter the investment you’ve made in following the Star Trek story that you’ve decreed to all that you hate it and will not go see the movie. Fine, that’s your priveledge. But why keep reading and posting? Why not wash your hands and walk away? All of your protests won’t keep the movie from coming out. Are you trying to convince enough people not to see it so that it will bomb? My guess is that won’t happen.

Again, you have the right to hate it (without seeing it). You have the right to state that fact. You have the right to state it over and over again. I’m just curious as to why you would want to do that?

Is it May yet???

485. Thomas Jensen - November 21, 2008

Anthony, I’m responding to your article, which is wonderfuly objective. I think you’ve brought a reasonable analysis to all this and I enjoyed reading it.

I think Star Trek needs some change and as an older fan I think this might be the ticket. Certainly, the scenes I’ve read about are entertaining and I’m looking forward to seeing the writers solution to the changes to the timeline.

I’m frankly loving the fact that it’s the original series characters that are the subject of the movie.

486. The Angry Klingon - November 21, 2008

“Orbital Skydiving'” has been of interest to the military and NASA since at least 1991.While serving at the JFK SpecWar Center back then several of us were asked if anyone wanted to volunteer to help test heat ablative shields (large concave shields). These could be used to re-enter the atmosphere after which point the individual would transition to a HALO. Volunteers would be fast tracked through HALO training then turned over to the Air Force and NASA.
Nobody in my group volunteered. Whereas I dont know what eventually became of this idea I do know from a friend in Air Force RnD that the idea was apparently a means of evacuating a crippled Shuttle in a decaying orbit. All I could see in my minds eye was the last scenes of Dark Star….these are your tax dollars at work. Now Im not an astronaut or a rocket scientist so I dont know how feasible or plausible any of this is but NASA wanted to combine High Altitude Low Opening operators with heat ablative shielding for SOMETHING….kind of glad I passed….the term ‘red shirt’ comes to mind.

487. Balok - November 21, 2008

I think the next movie should go forward in time. This would make an entertaining story:

http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-JFAZW%29

488. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 21, 2008

486-

I like this post.

Post more often. Please.

Thank you.

PS.: The term Red Shirt applies equally to anyone hoping this film’s actually any good, too.

489. Red Shirt - November 21, 2008

Robero Orci, my UT friend…

These scenes have been viewed by domestic audiences now. Do the masses have to wait until the film premieres to see them, or will JJ and the brass on 5555 Melrose consider a little web action for us?

Also, is this thing done? I mean, locked, scored, mixed, ready for prints & ads? Or are there some notions about the collective thoughts of folks’ reactions to the clip screenings being considered into new edits/pickups, etc?

UT Alum Red Shirt, out…

490. Red Shirt - November 21, 2008

I meant ROBERTO, not Robero. Lo siento, amigo!

491. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 21, 2008

476-

These posts of yours slamming a film you have not seen is silly.

Praising one you haven’t seen is sillier, as is your continued need to prove it. You want to see it, go ahead. Who’s stopping you?

As for Orci, I assume he can speak for himself, so you can cease and desist from playing slavish public defender and return to your sarcophagus already.

PS.: Kinda cramped in there, isn’t it, with that guy who played Shinzon from NEM?

492. Boborci - November 21, 2008

489

Hooke ‘em, horns!

493. montreal paul - November 21, 2008

491. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008
“PS.: Kinda cramped in there, isn’t it,”

You are more than welcome to leave.

And people are not praising it.. they are looking forward to it and keeping an open mind.. more than I can say for you.

494. Ralph - November 21, 2008

I don’t know if anyone has posted this yet. Kirk had done a orbital jump in Generation’s. It was deleted. Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REhmdOE5pT0&feature=related

495. John Sullivan - November 21, 2008

First of all, I never thought I would do this, but I have to defend Dennis Bailey in saying that back … way back then … back in the days when Al Gore was inventing the Internet and Rick Berman was a halfway competent producer this is the guy who actually wrote a Star Trek Next Generations episode. I loved his story, but hated the end result. Blame the producer. Good writers like Dennis either always do or should.

When I saw his link to Scientology above I sort of vomited because it’s nearly as weird as Clearwater, Florida is where I live.

This Thanksgiving I think we all have a lot to be thankful for … including a pass when we end sentences in propositions or prepositions.

I do want to thank the world for Dennis Bailey. The Star Trek Universe has become a much better one because of him. (Paragraph deleted).

Now on to my own exchanges – mostly by e-mail with the producers of this new movie, unknowingly, that a whole lot of the story was based on very poorly arranged work by me that I can bring up and restore by tomorrow if anyone is really so interested … but I hope you won’t be. I’ll have to pull all of that off of an off-line USB drive and repost it, and it really wan’t that great anyway. But 9 out of 10 elements of the story appear in this film, and I can’t thank the producers enough for that.

I do ask you to go to http://www.endlesswonder.com/FairyTaleP1.html for just a small video of what happens in that story … in the Shatner / Nimoy version of the Universe that is ingeniously overturned in this film. From what I’ve been able to gather from these e-mails from 2 and 3 years ago with the producers or their surrogates, they like my ideas but want to go one step futher in the perfect reset of the Franchise … to be mirrored by a reset in the commercial success of the Franchise in this world.

There are MANY things of folklore that can’t even be addressed in this reset … the idea that the Enterprise was first launched in 2245 when James T. Kirk would have only been 1 year old … Kirk’s dealings with Finnegan, love life with Ruth, or early years on the Republic and Farragut …

But those things are just folklore. The only two things that can’t be explained away that would contradict the reset are the smaller boobs on Uhura and the much older version of Chekov that we will see in the reset Universe than the mere 22 year old Ensign that appeared upon the Bridge in Season 2 of The Original Series (TOS).

I love this movie already – but how couldn’t I? I can tell you from more sources than possibly even Dennis has access to that this is a movie that leaves Shatner’s Star Trek completely intact along an alternate timeline that by my own estimation ends with the complete evacuation of a doomed Earth by the 34th Century … with plenty of places to go and at warp drive plenty of time to get there. This movie will salute Star Trek in ways that indeed keep Canon intact by presenting this alternate and presumably corrected timeline while doing nothing to diminish the “canon” of the way it could have been in Shatner’s. I do want to note emphatically that this movie does not attempt to say that a “Mirror” or “Alternate” Universe is the one that “is to be” with the “real Star Trek” Universe, but rather a corrected timeline is presented here, which as another epic episode the Star Trek Universe, maintains the linear continuity of “canon” if even because an appearance by a Spock as played by Shatner’s timeline is responsible for the motion, in Spock’s past, for this correction.

I thank the production staff for reminding me of many of these things in their own e-mails, and although I was originally skeptical, it was only because I was offended that 10% of my own ideas were rejected. Silly me.

Go watch this movie. No one is paying me to say that this is the movie that indeed this is not just a continuation of a franchise that by its own inertia was measurably dying, but it is a rebirth that indeed gives great respect to the life of the version of the franchise that was either dying or dead when Enterprise went off the air.

496. Xai - November 21, 2008

491. Anthony Brooks Fellows – November 21, 2008

I’ll take cautious optimism over negativity, pessimism and a pompous attitude any day.
I never said anyone is stopping me from seeing this movie and certainly not you. In fact, I’d buy your ticket if I thought you’d actually go with an open mind. But I don’t need to… you’ve “seen” it and pronounced judgement.
Bob Orci most certainly can speak for himself. I assume he didn’t challenge your comments above because he didn’t see it or was laughing, but ask him…

497. Xai - November 21, 2008

484. Redshirt96 – November 21, 2008

Good post.

498. Reign1701A - November 21, 2008

Mr. Orci, it’s incredible that you, a writer for this film, are even interacting with us the fans. It just shows you care and I think we all appreciate that. That said, now that you’re here, I’d like to grill you for a second ;)

I have to ask you cuz this has been bugging me. My memory might be failing me but I could have sworn that back when the teaser trailer came out , you said something like “well, everyone knows the Enterprise was built in San Francisco”. So why is it being built in Iowa? Like other have said, this just seems to be way too convenient and Star Warsish (e.g. Anakin built C-3PO); it’s just so Kirk can conveniently drive a few miles from his house to see his future ship. Am I remembering your statement falsley (or did you never make such a statement)? Was this change deliberate or were you unaware?

I guess I classify myself as an open-minded purist. I’ve been a big Trekkie for nearly all my 23 years, I’ve seen every episode and movie of Trek ever. I know my Trek front and back. So even though I’m beyond syked that Star Trek is being brought back again with passion, talent, and budget its always deserved…it’s a little scary for me to see the universe I know and love tinkered with.

I perfectly understand re-envisioning the look (a new Enterprise, new bridge, etc…the old E and sets would look ridiculous nowadays), and altering minute details here and there for the sake of story (e.g. Kirk knowing how to drive a stick…who cares), but for some reason the Enterprise NCC-1701 being built in Iowa bothers me. I mean, maybe it’s because it was on the dedication plaque…or something…but it bothers me. Put my mind at ease, Bob!

499. Xai - November 21, 2008

I do look forward in seeing the dynamic between old Spock and the young Kirk.

500. Red Shirt - November 21, 2008

reL 492

Well, I appreciate the collegiate spirit, Bob, but can you touch on my queries? I’m sure that treatment for Transformers 3, or the vanity logo design for KO’s Polo shirts can wait a few minutes… LOL

Gracias

RS, Out…

501. SciFiMetalGirl - November 21, 2008

Boborci,

You do seem like a really cool guy, and someone I would feel really comfortable hanging around with! Definitely one of us! (Not to mention pretty cute too!)

Sorry all, but it had to be said! :))

502. Red Shirt - November 21, 2008

re:501

Of course, Herr Orci is spoken for, but SFMG can dream, right? LOL

503. SciFiMetalGirl - November 21, 2008

502 – Ah darn, burst my bubble! Oh well! ;)

But you know, he is one of those people that is now an integral part of Star Trek culture, and yet he could go to a convention and walk around, and no one would probably be the wiser!

I hope that I can bump into him at a convention sometime soon!

504. Bob Tompkins - November 21, 2008

Great to hear from Bob Orci-
It’s great when a writer or producer steps up and actually discusses things with the fans. Back in the days of the Usenet, several Law and Order writers would parlay with the fans; as it is here, most of the users were literate and civil and the exchanges were always intelligent. If they were fakes, they were very, very good fakes with loads of accurate inside info.

I miss the Usenet. It’s still around but not very civil these days.

505. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 21, 2008

Armageddon was just on NBC.

I understnd JJ hwrote the screenplay.

Yikes!

506. Bob - November 21, 2008

It’ll suck, it’ll fail and it will lose money – such is inevitable.

507. Xai - November 21, 2008

#506 Bob

despite the original name, I’ll ask the question.

Why?

508. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 21, 2008

507. Xai

The warning signs have been lit for a few days now. However, I pledge to keep my hopes high that this movie will rock. Thanks in no small part to Bob Orci’s postings here.

But so much hinges on the continuity issue. I get the feeling, as a fan, that Paramount would love to have a fresh start and many successful movies.
However, with the constant drum beat that this movie will have a logical explaination for the many, many canon violations, I am starting to really wonder not why(?,) but How?

The road may be a bit bumpy ahead for Trek. I can’t wait for this movie to come out so I can really give my views on the writing, direction and design.
I so look forward to posting here come June.

509. Thomas Jensen - November 21, 2008

The original USS Enterprise was proported by have been constructed in space and on the ground in San Francisco, here’s a quote from pg. 171 from “The Making of Star Trek”, “The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space.” I don’t know if something like this was said on screen in any trek series, so it may not count for much.

It sure wouldn’t be the same scene having young Kirk stare at cargo ships leaving for orbital drydock to assemble the ship in space. That vision is much like something today’s space program would do, rather then seeing a massive ship being constructed on the ground

But the plaque by the elevator, in the original series episodes reads, “U.S.S. Enterprise, Starship Class, San Francisco, Calif.”

So where is this Enterprise being made? Iowa? SF? I don’t know.

However, time travel seems to change everything these days.

510. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 21, 2008

Is it June yet?

511. Capt Mike from the Terran Empire - November 21, 2008

Hey Bob Orci. Tell me please. On a scale of 1 to 10. will we see a big surprise in the movie. Don’t need to tell us just if there will be a surprise. ! means not much 10 means we will be big time. Please tell us.

512. Pete Fernbaugh - November 21, 2008

Thank you, Anthony, for a well-written preview. I was among those who were extremely skeptical about this movie. I am still moderately skeptical, and it is tough for me to see new people playing these roles. But as May draws nearer, I am more and more willing to give this movie a chance.

I also appreciated how you did not get into a “who-portrayed-this-character-better” kind of a game. Obviously, these actors did the right thing and acted from the script and avoided the impersonation route.

513. Shane - November 21, 2008

364

The examples you went over (Chekov and Iowa shipyard) were just ones I threw in there as potential examples of canon violations. Whether or not they would even be such isn’t really important so far as my usage of them was concerned; I was really just trying to give examples of things that might be violations.

More importantly, I don’t disagree with you at all that they would be entirely consistent with canon if they came about as the result of an alternate time line. In fact, my take on the film – from what I’ve seen so far – is that the end result of the film may be that the Trek time line we all have lived with for 40 years is in some way actually an alternate time line from what was really the original time line in the first place. In other words, Kirk goes back in time and changes the future from what we’ll see in the film to the very time line we’re familiar with.

My question in 350 was over the particular issue of the *visual styles* having a canon explanation. You see, I was trying to say that the studio doesn’t lose anything by ending up with the characters in the very same time line we’re familiar with. You can tell great stories without having to make up an entirely new time line where none of what happened in the 79 episodes and 7 films actually happened. They didn’t need to make an alternate time line to make “The Trouble with Tribbles,” despite all the episodes that came before it. In response to that, somebody said that Bob Orci had claimed that everything that looks different – e.g., the bridge, or the Enterprise, or the uniforms – would have a canon explanation. I was questioning whether Mr. Orci actually meant this, or merely that events and facts which appeared to be different had an explanation.

In other words, the vast majority of Trek fans will accept without any problem that in 2008 you can make stuff better looking than in 1968, and they won’t have any problem accepting that the “new” Enterprise is the very same ship from TOS, the only difference being production technology. That doesn’t necessitate a new time line, unless Mr. Orci truly did intend to include even visual styles in his statement.

514. Xai - November 21, 2008

508. TrekMadeMeWonder – November 21, 2008

There is a difference between wondering how it will do and will I like it vs. “This is different, thus it sucks” mentality that #506 Bob and #491 Anthony Brooks Fellows seem to have.

515. Daoud - November 21, 2008

#407 You do realize who played the corpse of George Samuel Kirk, Jr., no? William Shatner. With a fake mustache and darker makeup…

516. ksmsscu - November 22, 2008

Anthony – Thanks for the open, honest review. The past two weeks must seem like two hundred years to you — many of us really appreciate all you’ve done, recently and since this whole thing got started.

Bob Orci – Never fear! I, and a large number of the Trekkers on this site and off it, TRUST YOU and Alex and JJ. We trust you not to deliver a carbon copy of TOS or the first six movies, no matter how special a place they occupy in our hearts. They’ll always be there, whenever we feel like revisiting an old friend. We want more; we want new, exciting, optimistic, inspiring, character-centered Trek, and so far (with the inevitable nitpick or two), we think you are going to deliver. May 8th can’t come fast enough, but congratulations in advance on your achievement! (And make sure the second one rocks even harder than Wrath of Khan did ;) )

517. DJT - November 22, 2008

I think ILM should be given a shot at TOS-R 2 …..I can only imagine what they could come up with.

Just for kicks, ya know?

518. CaptainRickover - November 22, 2008

Possible (maybe very unlikely) “final solution”:

(I based this on the trailer scene with McCoy in civilan dress in the shuttle and the one EW-photo where he wears a cadett uniform. Also, the pics of the Kelvin-battle and the ramming-nero’s-ship-pictures)

After Vulcan’s destruction and Spock releaved of command, the Enterprise travels back in time – right into the battle between Nero’s Narada and the poor USS Kelvin. The Enterprise helps the Kelvin and Captain Robau to fight the giant ship. But the Kelvin’s lost and has to be evacuated. Kirk beams over to the Kelvin and meet his own father. Scotty repairs the Kelvin’s impulse engine and while the Enterprise plays bait for Nero, Kirk and George Kirk fly the Kelvin-wreckage right into the Narada. Nero’s eyes open wide, but it is to late to do anything. Kirk has to fight his father to rescue him (’cause ol’ daddy want to stay on board to make sure, the ramming-manover works), but both will be beamed back. Nero and his ship and all his terrorists blows up – together with the Kelvin. Kirk says goodbye to his parents. The Enterprise make a timewarp back to future. CUT

Later, Kirk – back on academy – cheats the Kobayashi Maru. The viewscreen-doors opens and Captain Pike enters the room, together with the academy chief and faces Kirk. Kirk is surprised, that Pike lifes (I guess he will be killed by Nero) and is promoted to fleet captain. Kirk self is called now a “commander” instead of a cadett and Pike reffers to his hard times on Taurus and his service on the old Farragut. Kirk seems not to remember, but agrees with a “Yes, Sir”. Pike is impressed with Kirk’s solution and gives him the command over the Enterprise. Later, Kirk – together with his friend Dr. McCoy, Spock and everyone else – sits in a shuttle to board the Enterprise. McCoy is not very exiting about the coming space adventures (as seen in the trailer) and warns everyone form to coming dangers. Then, the shuttle flys to a spacedock, where a ship is waiting: The USS Enterprise – now more familiar with the TOS-design (golden glowing deflector dish, no visible torpedo launchers and a bit bigger secondary hull). Kirk’s final line: »The adventure is just beginning.«

I hope, the final solution will turn out like this. It wouldn’t make the movie meaningless (because Kirk’s movie-origins are still present – at least he remembers so) and keep it mainly into the canon-lines (Because Pike and everyone else remember a different history than Kirk).

519. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 22, 2008

314-

Would that such common sense was a disease and become pandemic.

520. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 22, 2008

493-

Go home. The dawn’s breaking.

521. CaptainRickover - November 22, 2008

# 519
Ok, it was (314) hastly written (that’s why there are errors all over it and very bad gramatics. And to make it clear: The backstory from Vader and Obi-Wan turned out NOT well. That one word get lost in writing) and I was very angry about the revealed plot details. But since then I slept a night over it and now I think it might be entertaining and perhaps it will turn out well. But I would have prefered some better story-elements than the revealed ones and I still don’t like the design concept of the movie.

522. CaptainRickover - November 22, 2008

# 521
Even if my mood is now more tolerant, I can’t bevlieve Star Trek XI will becoming my favorite Trek movie. There are to much cheap story elements in just 20 minutes of film, how many will follow in the other 100? So, there is no way, it could be better than TWOK, FC or TUC, but I hope IX will turn out better than TMP, Generations or TFF, the worst three IMO.

523. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 22, 2008

514. Xai

I do agree. Posting just a negative comment about how the movie will be without some explaination is “unwarranted.”

I intend to go into this movie with an unbiased viewpoint, despite all of the spoilers and personal viewpoints that I have read or seen so far and despite all the frustration I have with the production (It’s just not TOS enough for me.)

Just like I did with Supernan Returns.

I really liked “Superman the Movie” and I wanted the new Singer version to work. Perhaps this IS a bad comparison to use, but I really tried to like “Superman Returns.” I gave it a shot all the way until the ill conceived and uncomplimentary (to the script) Shuttle scene. By then I knew that the movie was never goiing to pick up. The opening sequence was horrible for the Spacey’s Lex character. Just bad writing throughout for the characters.

It is Superman Returns similar to TREK? I wonder.

It may be a horrible parallel, if I might be so bold. Both franchises are after the golden egg at Box Office. But in thier haste are they are killing the golden goose?

“Superman The Movie” had a very charismatic cast and a good original plot. And we all know what happened with Returns when Singer tried to force his version that was loosely based on the original and relied on the original’s appeal to succeed. It bombed. Singer tried to give Supes average guy problems to deal with. So that the audience could relate and empathize with Kal El, the Man of Steel, a alien from Krypton? This concept has no place in a Superman movie. Superman should be about the Man of Steel, not child custody or father issues. It not what the audience expects or wants.

And with this new Trek movie the general audience is being given misdirection and uncertainty (at least so far.) Is that really good for the Buzz?

With this new Trek they had the opportunity to really ground Star Trek and all the others series together for a new audience to finally understand. Kind of like a Star Trek primer – for everyone. Will it be accomplished with this new movie? I certainly hope so. But indications are pointing to that message being convoluted with new ship styles, changes in character origins and some wacked-out set direction and designs concepts. Again, just not what I would place on the top-ten list for what non Trek fans might find interesting or expect. Just look at the Drudge article. The story focus was about Spock going berserk. Not a headline that I would like to read about Trek. It’s a sign of bad “Superman Returns” type Buzz.

I know. Wait until you see it. That’s all I can do is wait right now.
I will see this flick with an unbiased eye. But when the movie is finally
presented, I will have issue if there is no attempt to present a PRIME Star Trek universe.

Hell, we apparently lost Shatner in this whole row already as well. Too bad IMO. We’ll see. But, I JUST CAN”T HELP FEELING SLIGHTED ALREADY BY THIS PRODUCTION!

I am frustrated here as a fan.

Bob? You and your team are certainly making this wait very interesting.
Please be true!!!!

524. Commodore Redshirt - November 22, 2008

Thank you Anthony.
This is the best thing I’ve ever read here. Good Job!
I’m glad you saw the clips and I feel good about what I’m waiting for…

525. Star Trek Movie Trailer - AznLover.com - Asian/AMXF Social Networking Community - November 22, 2008

[…] another good review (slightly spoilerish) of the footage JJ’s been showing, Pine gets high marks for his portrayal of Kirk (echoing director Kevin Smith’s positive opinion of him), apparently he’s got the goods and portrays the character well. There’s a scene where Kirk and Sulu do some Romulan ass kicking. Anthony’s Thoughts On The L.A. Star Trek Movie Presentation | TrekMovie.com […]

526. Sc00ny - November 22, 2008

Saw the Shat on youtube talking abou the new Enterprise design.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoaFITdfQ4

527. New Horizon - November 22, 2008

523. TrekMadeMeWonder –

Both my wife and I thought Superman Returns was amazing. This guy grew up on earth, of course he’s going to have some real human issues. I really related to the guy, because growing up I was an outsider…and I’ve experienced being away for a long time and having everything change.

Singer had the difficult task of reintroducing the character after a very long absence.

In any case, it had a fairly solid world wide box office of $391,081,192. That’s nothing to sneeze at….regardless of how much the movie cost to make. I don’t think the budget was fully Singer’s fault since the final tally on that included some of the aborted attempts to relaunch it. Had it been a horrible movie, it would have done much worse…word of mouth will kill a movie pretty fast.

I think it was a mature and very thoughtful Superhero movie. Maybe it’s an age thing…but anyone I know in their Thirties and up loved it….but that’s not accurate either I guess…as a lot of my twenty something friends loved it too.

It just comes down to taste I guess. In reality, Superman Returns was more like an independent film…rather than a typical Hollywood popcorn flick. I’m just happy to have seen a Superman film like that…because I know I’ll never get to see Singer follow it up with the Superman movie he planned for the Sequel. It really sounded like Supes was going to have found his place again and kicked some serious butt.

528. C.S. Lewis - November 22, 2008

391. Jake – November 21, 2008

I do hope that is the case, Jake. Sadly, what we’ve seen so far is nothing short of an all-out campaign to *discredit* Star Trek as something of a joke, or an amateurish mistake or some kind of cultish fringe thing. My father was a big fan of Trek in its original run, and I watched it with him sitting on his lap. My father was a very serious man (and a veteran) who did not tolerate foolishness, God rest his soul.

Heck, it’s like Abrams is embarrassed about the very name of his movie – so he must apologize to his Hipper-than-Thou friends when he is forced, no doubt by the studio “suits”, to parade around on a promotional tour.

Bob Orci, one of the script writers, has made a point of visiting this site. I happen to think that is very nice of him as it is unnecessary. He doesn’t have much to say about the content of the picture though, as he merely banters with the participants in a good natured way.

Perhaps Orci’s commentary is contrived to build maximum suspense and anticipation, but it does nothing to counter the well-crafted message that this Trek will be thoroughly contemporary in all meaningful ways. In other words, it adopts the ethic of today which is somewhat alien to the American ethic as it existed before the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and early 1907s.

I mean by this, the perceived need to pull down legend and mythology to something allegedly more “real” – meaning Kirk is “really” not a straight-laced, Midwestern, probably Baptist farm boy, despite his surname, who lead a studious life of discipline and rigour leading to the extraordinarily youthful command of a capital vessel. No, not at all! He “really” is a drunken groper of women and a reckless adrenaline junkie who comes through in a pinch, so he got promoted out of gratitude.

Yeah, I know it’s just a motion picture and a popcorn seller at that. But the products of Hollywood are not merely entertainment, they now stand-in for our mythology and legend, telling us who we are and what we ought to be. When the “Hollywood Class” no longer understands what was or who we are, and begins to function as something else in the name of profit, then we all are diminished to that extent.

Bob Orci, I realize you know this far better than I, and I also believe you do what you can within the very real constraints of your chosen trade. But that does not lessen twinge I experience of yet another distortion of the Great American Hero myth as, as a boy growing up in this great land, I knew quite a few of them in the flesh. And in all that time, none of the rowdies ever amounted to much at all. No, it was always the quiet and diligent that went on to make our world better in their small and humble ways.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

529. Brian - November 22, 2008

Will seeing all the previews and tidbits ruin the movie for you when it actually come out on May 8th 2009?

530. Marian Ciobanu - November 22, 2008

- Well .. Sulu is one of my favourite characters now…

531. Gabriel Bell - November 22, 2008

Hey, Aslan, anyone see anyone taking themselves way to serious?

532. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#513—-” You see, I was trying to say that the studio doesn’t lose anything by ending up with the characters in the very same time line we’re familiar with. You can tell great stories without having to make up an entirely new time line where none of what happened in the 79 episodes and 7 films actually happened.”

I would dispute the notion that nothing is lost, and here’s why.

No matter what stories are told now or in the future during the time period within the ST Universe they are attempting to revisit, the fates of the characters are already known. In other words, we already know how the story ends. The characters can never be put in any real “jeopardy”, no matter what position the writers put them in within the story.

Conversely, if the writers take advantage of the ‘very canon’ element of a potentially permanent alternate timeline, the fates of those characters is once again uncertain. Therefore, the element of “dramatic jeopardy” is there for the audience.

“They didn’t need to make an alternate time line to make “The Trouble with Tribbles,” despite all the episodes that came before it. ”

Of course not, although I am not sure that’s a good example, since none of the major characters are actually placed in any ‘jeopardy’ to begin with.

As for your concern over “visual styles” being altered, I cannot say that I am following you there. Do you consider asthetics to be part of the “canon” established in 40 years of Trek?

533. Phil Smith - November 22, 2008

Interesting. I am most worried about Spock, a character I have found fascinating since my youth. Quinto certainly looks the part, but the Nimoy-esue handling of the character is critical, I think. I do seem to recall that Spock lost his cool at least a few times in The Cage, but maybe my memory is not accurate on that (didn’t he smile a few times back when his character was still being defined?)

534. krikzil - November 22, 2008

“I think that’s a stretch, since it implies that Shatner could actually recall that kind of continuity from the original series, something he is not known at all for. ”

No, he did remember it or at least whoever wrote the scene did. He’s discussed it at a con. He also been candid about deliberately violating things for the sake of drama — like the whole silly elevator shaft and levels scene.

535. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 22, 2008

Hi def trailer is on Xbox live for those of you with the system.
Still not on the Playstation network yet, only the old teaser

And now I will watch the trailer on my Mitsu 73″ DLP in Hi Def and pause and watch and pause and watch

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

536. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#509—-” I don’t know if something like this was said on screen in any trek series, so it may not count for much.”

It wasn’t….so it doesn’t.

537. montreal paul - November 22, 2008

520. Anthony Brooks Fellows

I could say the same for you. I have a questions for you.. if you are so set in your narrow mind that this movie will suck.. and so dead set against seeing it.. and completely negative in every way… why are you here? why post and why read? You know you hate it because I guess you looked into your crystal ball and watched it already. Go away.

538. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#457—-“This movie clearly deviates from the 40 years of currently established history for Star Trek. That much is apparent. ”

On the contrary, that “currently established history” is very much essential to this story.

Without everything playing out in the ‘original timeline’ just as it did before, the story can never progress to the point where Nero or Nimoy’s Spock (both of whom are a product of that timeline) actually travel backward in time.

It (all of the ‘canon’ with which you and I are familiar) is therefore inherently relevant to the story in STXI.

“…it still seems silly to suggest it’s a prequel or a “fill in the blanks” flick…”

It isn’t a ‘prequel’, nor is it a ‘reboot’.

A “prequel” would suggest that it fit neatly into some gap in the early history of the characters.

A “reboot” would completely ignore established continuity and start over.

This story does neither. Since everything in the “original timeline” is required to advance the story to the point where Nero and his villainous cohorts take action to alter the past, this story is–in fact—just a very unconventional “sequel”.

539. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#534—“…he did remember it or at least whoever wrote the scene did. He’s discussed it at a con.”

I’ve never attended a con, so I’ll take your word for that.

It certainly did not come off that way to me when I saw it. My reaction was, “why are McCoy and Spock looking puzzled? Don’t they remember what happened to their friend’s brother?”

It certainly played to me as if they did not understand why he would say he “lost a brother once”, until he added that he was lucky to get him back.

If his intent was really as you’ve suggested, perhaps the scene should have been better written and directed.
:)

540. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#462—-“My objection is not based on canon violations, but on the idea that Kirk vaults straight from the Academy to XO to Captain. That seems absurd, regardless of established continuity.”

That’s a valid point.

As a former military officer, I am well aware of the notion that “battlefield commissions” and “battlefield promotions” can and do occur, but such things are rare and almost always temporary. They are also nearly always specific to a certain task or operation.

However, to be fair—-this is not without precedent in our own history.

During the American Civil War, for example, there were actually few officers on either side with formal military training (despite a few notables). Many men in the officer ranks were little more than people who came from notable families, and were given commissions directly to ‘Colonel’ (the naval equivalent of which would be a ‘Captain”) and command of a ‘regiment’ (consisting of 3 to 7 ‘battalions’, or anywhere from 600 to 5,000 men depending upon that particular regiment’s makeup).

To go even further back, Phillip of Macedonia’s son—Alexander was merely 18 years old and had already led an army which had conquered much of the World known to him.

With that said, this is ‘Starfleet’, and we have never seen Starfleet handle promotion in that manner. Then again, we’ve never seen the 23rd Century Federation (and apparently, the Klingon Empire as well) attacked by Romulans from more than a century in the future.

Would it really be any more absurd than 2 captains (Spock and Kirk) and 5 commanders (assuming that Scotty’s “Captain of Engineering” promotion in TSFS was never actually formalized) all serving aboard the Enterprise-A in STV: TGTTO89? If Starfleet is capable of such a gross misallocation of valuable personnel resources, then surely one “battlefield promotion” to Captain isn’t much of a stretch…

Maybe.

541. Anthony Pascale - November 22, 2008

warning to Anthony Brooks Fellows for trolling and using multiple names
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback

Find a way to express your opinion without being so antagonistic towards others.

542. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#480—“Enjoy your film kids.”

I plan to enjoy the film ‘with’ my kids, and every bit as much as I enjoyed watching TOS in syndication for the first time in the 1970’s, or sitting in the theater in 1982 enjoying a similarly alternative take on Star Trek produced and directed by a couple guys far less familiar with the franchise than the members of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” of STXI.

543. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 22, 2008

Oh lookie lookie!! The HDTrailer I downloaded from XBOX Live looks so sweet on my 73″ DLP. Hmmmm let’s pause the trailer at the precise moment when the Enterprise warps into the massive battle with starship parts littering the screen. Yup definately looks like constitution class secondary hulls on the upper left of the viewscreen. Hmmm still hate those stupid looking white cordless drill handle joystick looking things with the big red buttons sticking up in the middle of the consoles. Oh well maybe they are crodless black and Decker screwdrivers for quick repairs. OK let’s rewind a bit. Hmmmm Uhura tummy be yummy on a 73″ Hi Def screen. OK now back to the beaming effect, very swirly. OK the huge hanger bay defintately not the Enterprise, starleet academy more likely . Pause Damn the shuttles look TOS cool.

Let’s rewind and repeat.

OK ladies go gets yourself some XBOX Live trailer luvin

544. Marian Ciobanu - November 22, 2008

-I must ask something..is the hair of the klingons still long..or it is short like in TOS…?

545. STfan440yrs - November 22, 2008

My understanding is that Mr. Orci is into the ST books, and if that is so, the rebellious young Kirk fits, as that is how he is portrayed in at least 2 of them.

546. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#545—“My understanding is that Mr. Orci is into the ST books, and if that is so, the rebellious young Kirk fits, as that is how he is portrayed in at least 2 of them.”

Yes, that is correct. Mr. Orci has indicated that much of the inspiration for some of the story is derived from some of his favorite books.

However, there is other precedent for this view of young Jim Kirk as well.

Mitchell’s view of Kirk as a “stack of books with legs” is not the only opinion out there, and should be viewed as one from merely his own perspective. Perhaps compared to Mitchell, Kirk was somewhat tame.

Carol Marcus didn’t see him that way.

“Jim Kirk was many things, but he was ‘never’ a boy scout.”—Carol to her son, David.

Kirk was never much for doing things “by the book”. His experience with the KM test is indicative of this.

“As I recall, you took the test five times yourself. Your final solution was, shall we say—unique?”—Spock

“It had the virtue of never having been tried.”—Kirk

“Saavik was right. I’ve never faced death. I cheated my way out of death.”—Kirk

Even Nick Meyer commented on why he thought it was important to portray Kirk as flawed, and how he justifies the notion that Kirk might be a ‘cheater':

“There’s a distinction to be made between heroes and gods,” he explained, “which I think we sometimes get confused about. […] let me explain my theory of heroism. If a man jumps into a raging torrent to save a drowning child, he performs an heroic act. If the same man jumps into the same torrent to save the same child, but does so with a ball and chain attached to his leg, he’s not less heroic; he’s more heroic.”

” ‘How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life…’If you look at the heroes of antiquity and myth, they all have flaws. It’s something that they have to overcome; their flaws are something that they have to act in spite of. The challenge is not to defy your fate, but to endure it. That is heroic.”

547. Michael Hall - November 22, 2008

“I plan to enjoy the film ‘with’ my kids, and every bit as much as I enjoyed watching TOS in syndication for the first time in the 1970’s, or sitting in the theater in 1982 enjoying a similarly alternative take on Star Trek produced and directed by a couple guys far less familiar with the franchise than the members of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” of STXI.”

Fair enough. However, in the follow-up to The Motion Picture you still had those same actors on (pretty much) those same sets inhabiting the same fictional universe. On the surface, only the costumes were significantly changed, though of course what was emphasized in other areas was also quite different than what had come before. Abrams’ film really is an entirely different animal altogether.

Nick Meyer has never made any apologies for the changes he brought as a non-fan to Trek (his colorful advice at an L.A. Book Fair panel to others taking over the reins of an existing franchise was “Nail your f**king flag to the mast as high as it will go”), but neither did he make it a routine to go before audiences and apologize for the subject matter he had chosen to take on. And for my money, as a consequence of Meyer’s unfamiliarity with basic SF conventions, The Wrath of Khan is unduly burdened with a lot of silliness. Fortunately, Meyer also brought his love of literature, some powerful universal themes, and respect for the characters (and the actors portraying them) into the mix. At this point, and contrary to what I’ve seen so far, I can only hope against hope it turns out that Orci, Abrams et al have done likewise.

548. Trekkie88 - November 22, 2008

First, in reference to comment #16: What if the biggest secret of this whole film is a special cameo appearance by Scott Bakula? Remember the scene in “Encounter at Farpoint” where a 137 year old Doctor McCoy hands over the reigns to The Next Generation? Well, what if a much older Archer does the same thing?
And in reference to post #27, I agree completely! Why is it great if Quinto emulates Nimoy, & Urban emulates Kelley, but if Pine emulates Shatner it is the worst thing he could ever do? Bill’s acting style has been totally blown out of proportion & caricatured. People who have never seen him act before have an undue prejudice towards him. I would even go as far as calling it “Shatner derangement syndrome.” Furthermore I am completely certain, without a doubt, that if NBC hadn’t insisted on replacing Jeffery Hunter as captain of the Enterprise, & re-doing the pilot that Star Trek would not have made it past the pilot without Shatner.

549. montreal paul - November 22, 2008

547. Michael Hall

The characters in TMP were more evolved than the same characters in TOS. The same can be said of this new Trek.

As for your comment about JJ apologizing for taking on Trek.. he never said that. All he said was that he was not a Trek fan.. he was more of a Star Wars fan growing up. If he didn’t want to do Trek.. he wouldn’t have accepted it. When Meyer’s Trek came out, he faced the same obstacles from the fans as JJ is.

Meyers changed the uniforms.. changed the bridge.. had Chekov and Khan know each other… killed Spock… made the character of Kirk more flawed.

Hmmm… does this all sound familar?

550. McCoy - November 22, 2008

538: Closettrekker,

Just because they found a clever way to get Nimoy into the film through time travel, does not mean this film is not a reboot. It is a reboot.

True, this is not a prequel. The events which take place in (at least most of) this film do not lead the adventures we grew up with. Many of us wanted a prequel for the timeline we all know and love.

551. McCoy - November 22, 2008

It would of course be better than awesome if somehow the timeline is “restored” at the end. A great way to show the timeline was restored would be to have Enterprise convert back to something much, much, more familiar. Including the bridge. No, not hoping for exact replicas…just much closer with greater detail. Then the interior becomes more consistent deck to deck. A change of class structure.

552. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#550—“Just because they found a clever way to get Nimoy into the film through time travel, does not mean this film is not a reboot. It is a reboot.”

I strongly disagree with that description, based upon what we know so far. If it were a “reboot”, the story would disregard the continuity within the long sequence of events we know from the original timeline, and simply start over.

This story does not do that. That continuity is, in fact, essential to the story. Otherwise, Nero cannot take action to alter the past, nor can Nimoy’s Spock take action to try and stop him (or, at least, control the damage).

This story does not fit neatly into the category of a ‘reboot’, just as it does not fit neatly into the category of a ‘prequel’.

Since it must follow the events already established in the original timeline in order to take place, it is a ‘sequel’ (however unconventional).

553. krikzil - November 22, 2008

“I’ve never attended a con, so I’ll take your word for that.”

Denise and I are going have to kidnap you and take you to a con!

“It certainly did not come off that way to me when I saw it. My reaction was, “why are McCoy and Spock looking puzzled? Don’t they remember what happened to their friend’s brother?” It certainly played to me as if they did not understand why he would say he “lost a brother once”, until he added that he was lucky to get him back.”

Interersting how perceptions vary. I thought they instantly got it about Kirk losing Sam and their expressions were one of discomfort because of his grief over it and what he might be about to say.

You know, I’ve always thought the original episode kinda screwed up. The banter at the end over Spock’s restored sight was a fun moment but it seems that Kirk has completely forgotten about his dead brother given its lightness.

554. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#553—“Denise and I are going have to kidnap you and take you to a con!”

I’m afraid you would have to include my wife on that, otherwise she might get the wrong impression of what was going on!

:)

It does sound like a fun idea, though.

“Interersting how perceptions vary.”

Oh, definitely. If they did not, how boring would this world of ours be?

“…I’ve always thought the original episode kinda screwed up. The banter at the end over Spock’s restored sight was a fun moment but it seems that Kirk has completely forgotten about his dead brother given its lightness.”

I agree completely. They missed the mark there.

555. thorsten - November 22, 2008

@552 I am with CT here…
but be warned, this is not our fathers Time Travel. This one has consequences that stick around.

556. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#555—“I am with CT here…
but be warned, this is not our fathers Time Travel. This one has consequences that stick around.”

I am okay with that.

The timeline we know was often threatened in TOS, as it was in “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, or “City On The Edge Of Forever”…

It was also threatened in TAS, “Yesteryear” (a wonderful entry, IMO, by DC Fontana).

It could be argued that it was effectively altered in episodes like TNG’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, or the film First Contact.

The notion that our heroes might not be able to prevent at least ‘some’ permanent alterations (given Orci’s reference to the “final solution” awhile back) may not be without a concrete precedent, but the possibility of that has always been very much ‘canon’.

It’s okay with me because I recognize that Star Trek’s message and vision is a good one, and if it needs to be presented in a storytelling style and setting more appealing to a broader and younger audience—so be it.

As long as it does not compromise the vision of a future in which Humanity (despite some of our fears) does ‘not’ end up destroying itself—but instead—unites to conquer some of the social ills which plague us as a people and bands together with other species to explore the final frontier with peaceful intentions….I can’t see anything wrong with it.

So the ‘original’ timeline becomes a prelude to this one…So what?

I cannot ignore the benefits.

—-We get more stories featuring my favorite characters in the Star Trek Universe

—-Those characters can actually be placed in real dramatic jeopardy, as opposed to stories being handicapped by the audience already knowing their fates

—And perhaps most importantly, my kids and their peers get to see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy presented to them as heroes, as well as the vision I want them to have of an optimistic future for the human race

Not such a bad deal, IMO.

557. thorsten - November 22, 2008

perfect analysis, CT… I need to get back to my Starlogs and read “Yesteryear” when I am through with “Spocks World”…

I have a slightly different idea about the timelines, but it doesn’t matter because the positive consequences you described will be the same either way. It is always a pleasure to read your posts.

558. Bill Peters - November 22, 2008

I don’t see a problem with the movie..so it not what we are used to. we need trek to survivie and for it to survive we have to get a new people into trek and at least to me it is always exciting to see trek from a new perspective….

559. Bill Peters - November 22, 2008

I think we need to keep open minds tell we see the film and if it not quite like TOS I am fine with it..this is Trek for a new Generation and a new Century…we can’t always be stuck in the past…to young people having a clone of the orgnial TOS will not work…it needs to be relvant to more then just the fans.

560. STfan440yrs - November 22, 2008

#556 “—And perhaps most importantly, my kids and their peers get to see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy presented to them as heroes, as well as the vision I want them to have of an optimistic future for the human race”

Exactly, it is about the characters. As long as they are growing towards the heroic Kirk, Spock, etc that we know and the friendship dynamic that exists between them, then who cares whether we get back to a timeline where Kirk couldn’t drive a car.

561. Holger - November 22, 2008

Anthony, thanks for this balanced review.

562. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#557—-” It is always a pleasure to read your posts.”

Thank you for that compliment, Thorsten. I am equally appreciative of your willingness to share what you took from the 20 minutes of footage shown to you, and your contribution to this site (my favorite site on the net).

#560—” As long as they are growing towards the heroic Kirk, Spock, etc that we know and the friendship dynamic that exists between them, then who cares whether we get back to a timeline where Kirk couldn’t drive a car.”

I agree.

563. Closettrekker - November 22, 2008

#547—-“Nick Meyer has never made any apologies for the changes he brought as a non-fan to Trek…”

Nor should he have.

“… but neither did he make it a routine to go before audiences and apologize for the subject matter he had chosen to take on.”

I’m assuming that you are referring to Abrams’ attempt to open the minds of people who have either ignored (or even ridiculed) Star Trek for decades. I certainly didn’t take that as apologetic, by any means.

I think that fans who take it that way are being overly and unnecessarily sensitive. In my opinion, those fans should try to understand that Abrams has not only the burden of making a Star Trek film that established fans will appreciate, but the even more pressing burden of justifying Paramount’s enormous investment in him and his ability to attract new interest in a franchise hampered by preconceived notions about it in the general moviegoing public.

The strategy of attempting to disarm those preconceived notions seems to be a “no-brainer” to me. While the other four members of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” of STXI are established fans of Star Trek, JJ Abrams was never more than casually interested. That will probably serve him well, as he can connect with people who have always had similar feelings about Star Trek in the past, while trying to promote this film to a broader audience.

The proof, as they say, will be in the proverbial pudding. The “pudding” will be how many of those potential moviegoers show up to see this film in May.

564. Ian B - November 22, 2008

552-

“just as it does not fit neatly into the category of a ‘prequel’.”

It can’t be seen as a prequel at all, since the adventure of this young Kirk, Spock et al does not precede the adventures of Kirk Spock et al we’ve already seen (if the timeline change we are presuming is correct). It precedes a new set of adventures we haven’t seen yet. It’s also not a retcon either, because of the link to the “Prime” timeline. A “requel”?

Also, your discussion of jeopardy regarding prequels- just to add, it’s not just character jeopardy that is closed down. No events of any significance can occur- for instance, a storyline in which the Federation and Klingons are making peace overtures. We know already they cannot succeed because they did not make peace until The Undiscovered Country. Nobody can go through a life changing experience (such as Kirk meeting then losing his son). Everything has to be trivial, and/or have a dissatisfying thwack of a reset button at the end.

565. Bob - November 22, 2008

This movie will suck and tank.

566. montreal paul - November 22, 2008

565. Bob – November 22, 2008
“This movie will suck and tank.”

what an completely uninformed comment. Have you seen the ENTIRE movie? Have you seen anything more than the 2 minute Trailer? Stop trolling.

567. The Underpants Monster - November 22, 2008

I have no problem with young Kirk being rebellious – what gives me pause is the fact that he’s being made out to be some kind of preternatural young prodigy. There will have to be some awfully creative ‘splainin to do before I can swallow somthing that big.

568. Dennis Bailey - November 22, 2008

Boborci, have you seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfv4hBXPzSM

Pretty clever. LOL

569. NTH - November 22, 2008

Star trek the motion picture brought with it a lot of changes.You had a re-imagined Enterprise with better special effects being employed in the context of a serious but engaging storyline.It was however somewhat humourless and I believe placed to much emphasis on the special effects and this took away from the developing human interest story surrounding the central characters,our favourite heroes.It was of course wonderful to see Star Trek back on the screen but I believe it was in Star Trek TWOK that the characters were re-ignited and therefore more engaging.With this new film,from what we have been told so far, we again have a re-imagined Enterprise with special effects returning after a long hiatus.What makes me hopeful about the new film is its apparent emphasis on the development of the main characters from a point in time that we have not seen before to perhaps a more familiar point in time .I would be somewhat anxious about this new movie if like Star Trek TMP the human interest story was simply secondary to the special effects,particularly in the context of new actors playing the main parts.The reported use of humour in the movie is also very reassuring.

570. Irene - November 22, 2008

Wow, so well done, my son!!!

Mom

571. Xai - November 22, 2008

565. Bob – November 22, 2008
This movie will suck and tank.

I asked you the last time you made your prediction.
Why?

572. Xai - November 22, 2008

#570 Irene

I assume you are Anthony’s mom.

I agree with your opinion… He does good for us everyday.

573. Anthony Pascale - November 22, 2008

yes that is my actual Mother…so everyone sit up straight and be on your best behavior

574. Xai - November 22, 2008

lol.. finishing my milk

575. Mr. Curtis - November 23, 2008

i was under the impression that both spock will meet each other at some point in the movie. and i hope that there’s more nimoy in the movie, other than the scene in the ice planet.

576. thorsten - November 23, 2008

@575 You were under the right impression, Mr. Curtis.

And Hi Irene, have a great sunday!

;))

577. Art•Rob - November 23, 2008

Anthony,
Did you get to see the Concept Art at the presentation? Will we get to see it soon? Thanks for all you do thus far.

578. Art•Rob - November 23, 2008

“all you’ve DONE” jeez

579. Trekkie88 - November 23, 2008

First, in reference to comment #16: What if the biggest secret of this whole film is a special cameo appearance by Scott Bakula? Remember the scene in “Encounter at Farpoint” where a 137 year old Doctor McCoy hands over the reigns to The Next Generation? Well, what if a much older Archer does the same thing?
And in reference to post #27, I agree completely! Why is it great if Quinto emulates Nimoy, & Urban emulates Kelley, but if Pine emulates Shatner it is the worst thing he could ever do? Bill’s acting style has been totally blown out of proportion & caricatured. People who have never seen him act before have an undue prejudice towards him. I would even go as far as calling it “Shatner derangement syndrome.” Furthermore I am completely certain, without a doubt, that if NBC hadn’t insisted on replacing Jeffery Hunter as captain of the Enterprise, & re-doing the pilot that Star Trek would not have made it past the pilot without Shatner. Shatner is Kirk… to ignore his performance just because you don’t like is wrong, and no onw could have played him better. So if Pine does not emulate Shatner, it WILL NOT BE KIRK. Remember, the dramatic pauses in Bill’s acting are not as pronounced as some people would like you to believe. Also the dramatic pauses were appropriate to the scenes! They fit! The scenes would not have been as good if they weren’t there! So Pine needs to emulate Shatner because that is Kirk!

580. Thomas - November 23, 2008

579. Trekkie88,
I think the difference between Kelley & Nimoy and Shatner is that Nimoy’s and Kelley’s respective portrayals of McCoy and Spock have not been held up to caricature the way Shatner’s Kirk has. In the minds of non-fans, that’s their idea of how Kirk is portrayed. I’m not saying you don’t have a valid point, because you do, there are some elements of Shatner’s Kirk that should ideally carry over. That said, Pine has to walk a fine line between being true to the character while making it his own and avoiding falling into a caricature.

581. Rick - November 23, 2008

My hope after seeing the trailer, reading the reviews of footage, etc. is that a good balance of the original TREK is kept somewhat in this one. I hope there is still wonder, humor, drama wrapped nicely into all the action. I do recall some of the humor of the TOS had a more organic feel most of the times. It didn’t seem forced like in the last few TOS films. Reading some of the footage review it sounds like they are going for the more forced humor which bums me out. But hey maybe in the context it well work. I am still excited to see some TOS related material on the big screen. I have come to terms that it will be a homage in some respects to the original, but in the end will be it’s own thing. We all just have to see if it works or not.;) Should be fun either way.

582. Alex Rosenzweig - November 23, 2008

#556 – “So the ‘original’ timeline becomes a prelude to this one…So what?

I cannot ignore the benefits.

—-We get more stories featuring my favorite characters in the Star Trek Universe
—-Those characters can actually be placed in real dramatic jeopardy, as opposed to stories being handicapped by the audience already knowing their fates
—And perhaps most importantly, my kids and their peers get to see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy presented to them as heroes, as well as the vision I want them to have of an optimistic future for the human race

Not such a bad deal, IMO.”

Since I do not hold to the theory that “real dramatic jeopardy” means we have to worry about the survival of our main characters, I don’t believe that any of the above are benefits compromised by retaining the original continuity. No, really, do I care that TPTB can’t retell stories already told, e.g., peace overtures with the Klingons. I’d want new and different stories, anyway, and I think that if the underpinning of all this is to be able to tell fresh, new stories, then retreading ground already covered is defeating the whole purpose.

Moreover, retaining the original continuity allows the touchstone to all other Trek, and would allow this movie to continue to expand that world, instead of pretend that it’s irrelevant. Win-win without the unconventional-sequel-that-acts-like-a-reboot. ;) With it… I’m really hard-pressed to see any sort of positive outcome.

583. Ian B - November 23, 2008

Alex, peace overtures with the Klingons was just an example off the top of my head. THe point is, you can’t tell any story of any significance to continuity already “set”; and since Trek is now so massive, that’s a heck of a constriction. The example you gave, the novel “Prime Directive” shows the exact problem; according to the synopsis, in it the Enterprise is crippled and the crew all dishonourably discharged, and a planet destroyed; all massive events. But at hte end of the novel a big reset button has to be hit so that all these events are entirely undone (and nobody mentions them again- how can they, when the future was already written?) Effectively, it means writers can’t create any new continuity, just slot quietly in between existing events unnoticed. That’s an enormous problem.

Suppose they made a movie of “The Prime Directive”. Anyone who knows canon knows that by the end the Enterprise must be rebuilt, and all the crew put back in their same jobs in exactly the same way, and that the Federation will be as it was before, and so on. There’s no doubt as to what will happen, all the viewer can be intrigued by is the far more minor “how?” Instead of wondering what will happen, you’re just playing a guessing game wondering how the writer will get out of this bind. That’s just not as much fun for most viewers.

584. Alex Rosenzweig - November 23, 2008

#583 – I have to disagree, Ian. For most viewers of ongoing series, the “how” is exactly what they’re coming to see. e.g., Superman, Batman, James Bond, etc. are all characters the viewer fully expects to survive. they want to know how those characters get through their latest adventure. I don’t see Star Trek as any different in that sense.

But in the end, if worrying about whether the main characters will live or not is a real concern, then going back to any established characters is not the answer. That’s when one creates new ones whose fates are unknown.

(Personally, I’d *love* to see a movie adaptation of Prime Directive! The journey on which the characters went in that story is so grippingly told that one doesn’t even think, “Oh, of course things will be set right.” One is just caught up in the story. And how they bring their journey to a close is eminently satisfying *as* a story.)

585. krikzil - November 23, 2008

“I’m afraid you would have to include my wife on that, otherwise she might get the wrong impression of what was going on! :) It does sound like a fun idea, though.”

Hee! In the interests of marital harmony, we’ll kidnap the whole family. Your kids would have a blast at a con. It sure beat Disneyland when I was a kid, oh those many decades ago.

586. Ian B - November 23, 2008

Alex, I’ve made the point a couple of times now that it’s not just “life and death” that is impossible, but any change which affects already extant canon- which in the Trek universe is a heck of a lot. The problem for a prequel writer is to have to fit in with everything already pre-ordained, not just life and death. Far below life and death- they can’t promote a character, remove them, or introduce a new permanent character for instance- nor could anyone e.g. marry, or have a child, or be scarred, or undergo any experience that alters their personality. Take Picard’s “Inner Light” experience. That informed future writing; he could always play the flute after that. Were it written as a prequel, it could not be that character changing experience. Everything must be as it was before. That is an immense constriction. If Prime Directive were a story depicting the “latest adventure” of the crew, the audience would wonder what might be going to happen- perhaps the crew will be permanently demoted etc. As a prequel, nothing can happen. It’s entirely different.

The issue of characters “who have to be here next time” takes us to the issue of suspension of disbelief. We all watch weekly series for instance knowing that the hero won’t die, but that’s “extra-universal” knowledge, not “intra-universal”. We willing conspire in ignoring that extra-universal reality, for the in-universe story. The problem with a prequel in canon is that the certainty invades the intra-universal space. We are asked to doubly conspire, and that’s not part of the usual deal. We aren’t just asked to suspend our knowledge of the outside (real) world; we’re asked to suspend our knowledge of the internal story world as well. To give an example; in a BSG movie that was a flashback, there was a “tense” sequence wherein it looked as if Starbuck would be forced to sacrifice her life. Except there was no tension, because we’d already seen later episodes where she was very much alive. The intra-universe knowledge defuses the story’s tension.

587. scotty's toolchest - November 23, 2008

just got all 3 seasons of TOS remastered. Superbe, magnifique, c’est si bon!

588. Alex Rosenzweig - November 23, 2008

#586 – “Alex, I’ve made the point a couple of times now that it’s not just “life and death” that is impossible, but any change which affects already extant canon- which in the Trek universe is a heck of a lot.”

And yet that hasn’t stopped a whole lot of excellent storytelling, both large-scale and small-scale. I am arguing, flat-out, that what you’re claiming to be an impediment…isn’t.

“The problem for a prequel writer is to have to fit in with everything already pre-ordained, not just life and death.”

Sure, but when you’re dealing with a situation in which relatively little has been pre-ordained, such as the backstories of the TOS characters, it’d not terribly restrictive, even while staying consistent.

“Far below life and death- they can’t promote a character, remove them, or introduce a new permanent character for instance- nor could anyone e.g. marry, or have a child, or be scarred, or undergo any experience that alters their personality.”

New ongoing characters could be introduced, as long as it’s not done in such a way that their absence in a later story isn’t explainable. Again using Trek and the current film as an example, there’s so much room for that that it isn’t even worth worrying about. As for the rest, again, if you want to diverge from what’s been established, why go back to those characters? Create new ones.

“Take Picard’s “Inner Light” experience. That informed future writing; he could always play the flute after that. Were it written as a prequel, it could not be that character changing experience.”

Part of my problem with “The Inner Light” was that aside from the flute, he seemed to take nothing else with him from the experience (or, really, not so much a problem with the episode as with the fact that little of it was carried forward). But that’s a whole other discussion. ;)

With a prequel, though, it could indeed be a character-changing experience, if one is willing to speculate that the character was somehow different in the past, and explore how the character became the person that we know. e.g., again in the current film, the posit is that Jim Kirk was somehow different as a young man, and he went through experiences that will lead him to be the starship captain we know. It’s really only a matter of telling the story in such a way that the change, and the experiences that lead to it, are believable. It becomes a way of exploring and informing the character.

“Everything must be as it was before. That is an immense constriction.”

Not necessarily. It’s all about the story being told and what it means to the characters. I read stories set during the original five-year mission all the time, and the good ones are not harmed at all by that setting.

“The issue of characters “who have to be here next time” takes us to the issue of suspension of disbelief. We all watch weekly series for instance knowing that the hero won’t die, but that’s “extra-universal” knowledge, not “intra-universal”. We willing conspire in ignoring that extra-universal reality, for the in-universe story. The problem with a prequel in canon is that the certainty invades the intra-universal space.”

Why? It’s exactly the same thing. The audience knows full-well that it’s a story set before something else, but we enjoy it *for the story being told*. Now, if I am interpreting you correctly, you’re not much of a fan of prequels, and that’s fair enough, but I’m not really seeing how this is successfully translating to why prequels in continuity aren’t viable.

To borrow another example, would you argue that the forthcoming “The Hobbit” film is going to be beyond suspension of disbelief, because we know full-well that Bilbo Baggins survives to be eleventy-one years old during the events of “Lord of the Rings”? (Yes, I know full-well that the book The Hobbit was written first, but much of the audience may only have seen the “Lord of the Rings” films, and thus for them, “The Hobbit” is a prequel.)

“We are asked to doubly conspire, and that’s not part of the usual deal. We aren’t just asked to suspend our knowledge of the outside (real) world; we’re asked to suspend our knowledge of the internal story world as well. To give an example; in a BSG movie that was a flashback, there was a “tense” sequence wherein it looked as if Starbuck would be forced to sacrifice her life. Except there was no tension, because we’d already seen later episodes where she was very much alive. The intra-universe knowledge defuses the story’s tension.”

I had other problems with “Razor”, but that didn’t bother me. I was more than interested enough in seeing how they got out of the fix, and the read I got from most other folks who’d seen the film was pretty much similar. Some liked the overall film more than I did, and some less, but simply knowing that a character in a tight spot survived wasn’t much of an issue.

I think the sheer number of stories out there that take existing situations and explore how they came to be is testament that most viewers and readers aren’t bothered by knowing on some level what will happen, as long as the story being told *at the time* is sufficiently compelling.

Thus, while I understand the argument you’re making, it fails for me because it relies on premises that I’m not buying into. I think we’re coming at the whole thing from different axioms.

589. Gene Luck Pickerd - November 23, 2008

The biggest problem I have is that the plot sounds too much like some Annapolis midshipman’s wet dream. Some crisis forces ships to be pressed into service, they sneak aboard one of them, the Captain gets killed (who doesn’t see THAT one coming?) and the young cadet is just so damn shit-hot that they are FORCED to make him Captain, a job which typically would take a decade of service to achieve or more in real-life . . .

I can stand the rest of the changes, but plot contrivances like this are just too hard to buy.

590. scotty's toolchest - November 23, 2008

careful Gene, there’s gonna be a slew of comments attacking you real soon for those comments. the JJ crew wants to force you to see this movie and like it and keep your mouth shut. this is JJ and Orci and Kurtzman’s Star WARS, and this board promotes that. this is not old trek. but they want to take the reputation of those characters and trick the frat pack crowd into thinking this is the REAL story. it has to be packed with sex and action and a “destiny of the chosen top-gun hotshot”. Its really a short-cut to thinking to skip the story telling and skip what original trek was about. the journey of humanity. yes, sex and action are part of trek but sex is implied, leaving the imagination to its own uses, which is why these days the didactic crowd relies only on cool images.
this is the Enterprise but even cooler and sexier than that. its Bond. It’s a reimagining. Exactly a reimagining with no imagination.

591. Harry Ballz - November 24, 2008

Exactly why Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge”!

592. New Horizon - November 24, 2008

590. scotty’s toolchest

There IS no ‘real’ story. Star Trek is a show, a series of movies. It’s not history. Nobody is forcing anyone to see it. All anyone on the production team has ever asked is for an open mind, which is in short supply on this board it seems. If you haven’t even seen the film and hate it already, then you’ve already made up your mind….so save your breath and don’t bother going. Nobody here is going to sign their soul over to Paramount, we’re simply being patient, mature and open minded. If we hate the film ‘after’ we’ve seen it….so be it. I have my reservations, but I’m not going to waste my time and energy hating something just because it challenges the fictional history of a show I grew up with. If the movie is true to the characters, entertains and manages to embody Trek in a modern way…then what’s the problem? If it doesn’t, well…feel free to complain then. Until May, 2009, chill the heck out.

593. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2008

527. New Horizon

Sorry to disagree, and thanks for following up on my post above, but Superman Returns was a major dispopintment for me.

Anyone else?

594. Elrond L - November 25, 2008

#568: I don’t know if boborci saw it or not, but that is a scream. I won’t look at the Trek trailer quite the same way anymore. :-) Thanks for the link!

595. Mark Koolers - February 5, 2009

I am so pump about this movie. It has been long over due!

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