Pine Talks Trek Sex + Abrams Talks ‘Big’ Trek Future November 23, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
This has been a busy week in Trekdom and we are still catching up. In the last few days there have been some interviews and comments from Star Trek’s new director and new James T. Kirk which are of interest beyond the ‘it is going to be great’ type of stuff. See below for a summary.
Pine on Trek getting its groove on
On Tuesday Pine attended the GQ Men of The Year party in Los Angeles and while there he spoke to E! about the amped up sexiness in the new Star Trek movie which was previewed in the new trailer. Pine said that the scene with Saldana taking off her top will "become famous." Pine notes the film does have more going on in the bedroom:
It’s trying to be sexed up for a new generation that really isn’t used to seeing Star Trek. It’s a whole new beast.
Chris, this scene is already famous
As TrekMovie reported, Pine is seen in the trailer in bed with (a green) Rachel Nichols. Pine tells E that he did ‘get his groove on’ with Nichols, and described what it was like doing the scene:
It was a lot of fun, but I think that day actually was a 20-hour-day. So by the end, the novelty wears off. After many sandwiches and meals through the day, all you want to do is brush your teeth and go home.
Kissing Rachel Nichols over and over again, take after take…it must be hell!
Pine didn’t make it onto GQ’s Men of the Year list for 2008, but maybe the invite indicates he is on their short list for 2009. Here are a couple of shots of him lookin’ good at the event.
Pine strikes a pose at GQ party (click to enlarge)
SciFi.com also caught up with Pine and posted a video interview, in which Pine described the new Star Trek movie thusly:
What JJ has created and what we have been a part of is really the birth of these characters. Not only their individual journeys, but how they all meet and the forging of that relationship that carries on to the five year mission.
More from Pine on Shatner and surprises and how the film is a ‘character movie’ at SciFi Wire.
JJ on the appeal and future of Trek…and something big
Star Trek director JJ Abrams poke to the UK’s FemaleFirst about his new movie, addressing many of the things on fans minds.
On if the film is a ‘reimagining’
The idea is really to re-introduce these characters in a different way, but they are the characters from the original Star Trek. It’s not a complete re-imagining I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else.
But he was also clear that the film is not jut for the Trekkies, noting:
I think the idea was really to show this movie as an origin story and be as connected to reality as possible, not just this inside joke that people who have seen the other ten movies will get.
And Abrams again noted he wanted to keep with Trek’s optimism:
That humans will not only survive but actually thrive and collaborate with other species. The notion of the final frontier in space exploration is so silly and clichéd in so many people’s minds, but when you actually stop to consider that Star Trek is, whilst a fantasy, our future.
….
I love what Roddenberry was doing and I’m proud to continue that spirit as opposed to doing Star Trek: The Dark Years. Which, by the way, I’m sure would be hugely entertaining and wildly profitable.’
On making the potential sequel:
I can tell you that I would love to see the family, the Enterprise that you get to see come together, what they do next. They are so wonderful, the actors, and seeing them together in these roles is just so much fun that I think there is a sense of wanting to see what’s next.’
Much more at FemaleFirst from Abrams, including why his favorite Trek film is Star Trek II.
And one last quote from Abrams at The Hollywood Reporter has some scratching their heads. In talking about the marketing of the film, Abrams told the trade:
Oh, there’s a whole crazy campaign that is going to … It’s insane. We have a life-size Enterprise, but I’m not allowed to talk about it.
TrekMovie has sought clarification from Paramount, but so far they are keeping mum on specifics for their marketing plan except to say it is going to be big.
Loading ...
Comments»
Feels like the biggest marketing scheme Paramount pulled in ages…
will be fun!
Life Sized Enterprise? First, That doesnt seem bloodly likely, Second, damn that’d be cool! Maybe a blimp of some kind?
Ok, fellow geeks. If there’s a 1.1 scale starship on this planet, it should be visable to GoogleEarth! Let’s go find it!
John
Life size enterprise? Wow!!! My dreams come true
I don’t know. After seeing the trailer and reading about the L.A. showings I’m getting really nervous.
life-size? in orbit too? first post?
That ship? Well, nearly a dream come true. Still a cool idea none the less.
While that would be amazing, I’m sure JJ was just joking. If it really was happening and he wasnt allowed to talk about it, he wouldnt have mentioned it.
Well I like it Big For Trek. I Can’t wait to see what they have in store for the marketing of Trek. Pine seems like he has Trek in his blood and thats a good thing. Would love to see a real life size replica of the Enterprise and man would that make for a fun place to take a 1 month Vacation. Could you just imagine the possibilities.
LIFE-SIZE ENTERPRISE?
How about a “life-size” (within reason) hot air balloon of the Enterprise during Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade?
You heard it here first.
Could this life-size Enterprise possibly have something to do with the re-opening of the Experience? Wild speculation on my part results in something involving VR helmets.
#5 Me too – though the inner child that sat through TOS reruns is still bouncing up and down. It’s all probably healthy – so we don’t raise our expectations *too* much for 2009…
Back in the late ’80s, early in my career in the PR unit of a major corporation, I was asked to respond to a lengthy grant proposal from a creative gentleman who wanted to build a full-sized Galaxy-class starship powered by exploding atomic bombs, similar to the propulsion idea behind the government’s Project Orion. This guy was absolutely serious, including a thick proposal with illustrations and cost estimates. Having read this article, I’m wondering if that guy eventually landed a job as a publicist at Paramount….? : )
I wish this movie wasn’t so sexualized. We never went to the movies all that often growing up, but our family all went to see Star Trek when it came out. I remember them all the way back to the Wrath of Kahn. Best memories I have of my family.
I wish that tradition could continue but there is no way I’m taking my 9 year old daughter to see this from the reports of how much sex is in it. With all respect for everything else JJ Abrams has done with this film, I really wish he’d taken that into account.
I think he’s also losing an opportunity to make even more money with this film. I don’t think that the sex in Star Trek is going to draw that many more people then those who would be drawn by sex but would have seen it anyway because it’s an awesome action flick. On the other hand, how many parents with younger kids who would’ve wanted to continue that same family tradition I was brought up with will not be taking their kids?
“Star Trek: The Dark Years” reminds me a bit of DS9.
I haven’t read an official ST chronology in quite some time, but the war with the Dominion appears to have exhausted the Federation as of shortly after the last movie, or, at any rate, the last season of DS9. The Federation may be somewhat less prosperous than it was at the beginning of the TNG era.
Kind of like where the U.S. is today, actually.
I suppose that I should read the Trek novels for some idea of where the Federation has gone since we last heard of it.
Life size Enterprise, huh? Hmmmm, fascinating!
It’s cool they’re giving this movie so much attention, and that they’ve spent so much on it……and that it seems to be the talk of Hollywood.
I wisht they had done this before with the other films.
If there’s a life-size Enterprise out there, what’s next? A life-size DS9? LOL!
On the series those types of activities were implied, which is as it should be. Less is more.
Nothing on the series ever made me have the impression that Kirk and Uhura ever had any kind of early relationship or ‘famous’ interactions.
The more these people talk, the more it sounds like any other garbage movie of today. For all their talk of preserving the visions of Star Trek, yada, yada, yada, when it comes down to it, they are basically nothing more than money grubbing weasels. :)
I hope it gets savaged by the critics and flops at the box office. But of course it won’t because they are tossing in a heapin’ helpin’ of what sells.
As Abrams said above, “…I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else…” Maybe he should take his own advice.
Let another embarassing round of “This movie is going to ROCK!” begin…
#14, I get where you’re coming from, but you’re wrong about the draw of more sex – it will put butts in seats, plain and simple. I think JJ made the right choice making this a teen/adult movie – it will be taken far more seriously and lose the “geeks only” tag that seems to have attached itself to Star Trek (which I blame on NextGen’s squeaky-clean feel). Alas, probably not good for a nine year old – but the kids won’t be kids forever, and by the time the sequel is out, maybe it’ll be age-appropriate.
It would have been great if JJ could have pleased everyone, but that’s just not how it works. You try to please everyone, you wind up with utter crap.
Nothing against a bit more sex in Star Trek :) Why not? It’s reality.
If Abrams was a wise joice for Star Trek’s future, I can’t say. But with every new comment from him or his henchmen (this movie is not for the fans etc.) I get more angry about all of that. Star Wars Prequels (even if they’re were not very good movies) had proofen that you could combine gimmicks and hints for the old fans aswell telling an adventure for the mainstream audience. The look was different but familiar with the stuff from the old Star Wars movies and get closer to Episode IV with every new movie (the Evolution of the Star Destroyers or the Clone Troopers for example). But this new movie changes nearly everything. I don’t understand why they haven’t done a complete reboot. Maybe they were affraid of losing the entire old fansbase?
I think this movie fits in perfectly with canon, without any time travel etc…
I have a really long explaination for it if anyone is interested, tried to post it yesterday but it was deleted.
All im going to say is 2261/2262 – This is the year Nero invades…
I’m guessing life-size will not be referring to the whole ship. Just a hunch. Ha.
I’m guessing a full reproduction of the Bridge set open to the public in some way.
Or he just misspoke.
21- it depends on if its “sexuality” or just smut. I want to share Star Trek’s vision with my daughter. I am not a prude about what she watches, but if it’s just lewd and dirty I would find it inappropriate. I think it’s all a matter of how it is handled. Nudity isn’t an issue for me, so long as it isn’t “Starfleet Cadets Gone Wild” type content. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again- you could have done the Trip/T’Pol detox scene completely naked, but with full lighting and one full camera angle and it not been as skeezy as what we saw. I don’t need Star Trek for kids, but I think smart kids should be able to appreciate Star Trek.
#22
I’d like to hear it. I have my own theories which I have postulated, but I’d like to hear another one.
25, i could try to post it again???
A life sized Enterprise really wouldn’t be all that difficult to pull off. During the filming of “Star Trek: First Contact”, Paramount released (internally) a comparison sheet of the Paramount Studio Lot with the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-E superimposed over it. The entire length of the ship from stem to stern was just slightly more than the lot’s dimensions from east to west. (I have it scanned in, but not sure how to post it here. Anyone know how??)
Ok, here is the really really long theory :)
I think the New Film is set in 2262:
Chris Pike:
a)Had to be over 31 to even be captain as Kirk was the youngest captain in history at 31, Looks 35-40 in “The Cage” so would be 43-48 or older in 2262
- Greenwood looking older than Hunter is Fine (Greenwood is 52)
b)would still be Captain of ENT till: 2264
James T Kirk:
a)Born 2233
b)13 when living on Tarsus IV
c)17 when back on Earth and at Academy
d)Early 2250s to 2255 Aboard Republic (18-22)
e) 2255 – 2257 Farragut (22-24)
f) 2255 promoted to Lt aged 22
g) 2256-2260 rapidly promoted (24-27) Lt Commander – Punished for Cheating on Kobyashi Maru Scenario [suspended & stripped of commendation?]
h) 2261: Its Revealed how he passed the Kobyashi Maru and is reinstated with a commendation for original thinking.
h) 2262 aged 28/29 Nero Incident (Pine is 27-28) Romantically involved with Areel Shaw. Promoted to Commander after Nero Incident.
i) 2264 aged 31 promoted to Captain (Rest is History)- Only his brother Sam, Sams wife and children were present to see him off (Where were his parents??- Dead)
Spock:
a) Born 2232
b) 2249 Spock joins Starfleet aged 17 (Causes rift with father)
c) Early 2250s Commissioned (18-20s)
d) 2253 assigned aboard the Enterprise aged 21-22 (Spends 11 years with Pike)
e) 2261 visits Earth and meets Leila Kalomi a love interest
f) 2262 Nero incident (Spent 9 years with Pike on Ent already and is 30 Earth Years) [Quinto is 31]
g) 2264 Ends 11 years with Pike as Pike is promoted and joins now best friend James T Kirk (Rest is History)
McCoy:
a) Born 2227
b) Mid 2240s in University meets Dax (aged 18)
c) Not canon but logically he would have his medical degree by 2253 aged 26 (in that time he has done wonderous medical proceedures- probably meets Kirk and Spock in academy)
d) 2262 Nero Incident aged 35 (Urban is 36)
e) After promotion to LtCommander goes to Capella IV
f) Comes aboard the ENT in 2266 aged 39. (Rest is History)
Scotty:
a) Born 2222
b) 2241 joins Starfleet aged 19
[Admiral Archers Prized Beagle incident happens after 2241, Archer would have to be at least 130, possible?? Admiral McCoy was still alive n Kicking in 2364 at 97??)
c) 2262 Nero incident, Scotty is 40 (Pegg is 38)
d) 2265 is LtComander and joins the Enterprise under Kirk, aged 43 (Rest is History)
Uhura:
a) Born 2239
b) 2262 Nero incident aged 23 (Saldana is 30) [Would be in Academy with Kirk etc]
c) 2266 Aboard the Enterprise aged 27 as Lt (Rest is History)
Sulu:
a) Born 2237
b) 2262 Nero incident aged 25 [Would be at Academy with Uhura, Kirk etc...] (Cho is 36!!)
c) 2265 Lt on Enterprise (Rest is History)
Chekov:
a) Born 2245
b) 2262 Nero incident, Chekov has not long joined starfleet and is only a cadet, is 17, but a Genius so asked to come along?? (Yelchin is 19)
c) 2267 assigned to Enterprise aged 22 (was on and off the Enterprise, knew Kahhnnnn!!, did not know Harry Mudd though)
The film being set in 2262 fits in very nicely with canon IMO, the crew are the right age and all have commissions, i wont be annoyed if we see kirk being promoted to Commander in this movie as he’s promoted rapidly and is Captain in 2264!! My only problem with Kirk in this movie is his lack of rank, why is he a cadet??
Spock has been under Pikes wing for years which is why he’s Pike’s number 1 (the real number one is now Captain) as well as science officer, this explains his “Jealousy” with Kirk being put in some kind of authority.
McCoy is all good too, he probably met Kirk and co in the Academy [Medical degrees traditionally take years to pass] and whilst in university/academy he has performed revolutionary medical proceedures so has gone through the ranks well.
Scotty is all good too, hes the correct age and has had a long career already by this point, so is already well ranked and talented, with much experience on Star-ships frieghters etc.
Uhura and Sulu are both perfect too.
Finally Chekov, who’s a gamble IMO, would have only just joined Starfleet so must be a cadet, but because he is such a genius he gets promoted to Ensign quickly- and is trusted even as a cadet
My theory, is that this is after “The Cage”, Pike is abit older, Spock is now his first officer with Number One already a Captain. The Enterprise is a “Repaired and Refitted” Enterprise (The repairing and refitting are all done in Iowa) and our TOS crew are there because they are all talented junior officers [Kirk is a liability at this point, which is why he's not invited] and just like the cadets in TWOK they are forced to “grow up a little bit faster” when Nero and co invade!!
At the end of this movie, some are promoted [Pike - Fleet Captain, Kirk - Commander, McCoy - Lt Commander, Uhura and Sulu - Lt, Chekov - Ensign] and go off and do their own thing until they are all reunited under Kirks command.
The Enterprise also fits in perfectly with my theory. It was commissioned in 2245, so would be 17 years old by 2262, quite old. It might be non-canon, but apparently Admiral Archer was there on its launching and died the next day. This fits in perfectly with Scottys Beagle incident. Pike takes over in the early 2250s and by 2260 the Enterprise 15 years old at
that time, needs a refit and retrofit. Pike then takes the newly upgraded Enterprise to battle Nero, after the Nero incident, the ENT is really damaged so needs another refit n retrofit- ready for 2265.
Spocks Timeship is also a great idea, the film is set after Nemesis, The ENT-E used time travel to get back to the 24th century after First Contact so its possible… also, cant remember what episode it was but in Season 1 of TOS Spock has the formula to push the ENT into time-warp (accidently) why doesnt he use this formula in a timeship?? Also in VOY, the future of the FED is all about time with the temporal prime directive, maybe Time-Ships are intergrated into normal Starfleet activities??
Source – Memory Alpha
What do you think??
I wonder if the marketing will be as participatory as the Dark Knight and Lost campaigns.
The “Sex Sells” angle might reasonably get people riled up, until you realize that, unless they’re aiming for an “R” rating, there isn’t that much that they can put in the movie. Perhaps the “Unrated” version to be released on DVD, yes, but for the most part, I understand that this film will be either PG or PG-13, so it can’t be all that explicit.
Let’s not forget that the Star Wars films had Princess Leia in a slavegirl outfit during significant segments of ROTJ.
Discussion of the merits of sexuality in Trek might also remind some of a similar discussion relative to T’Pol and, for example, her decon chamber scene with Tucker. And that was on TV.
Re: upping the Sex quotient …let’s not forget that Kirk got the girl every week in TOS. That Bill Theiss’s job it was to hang pieces of cloth off beautiful damsels exposing more skin then anyone in television history! Gene Roddenberry loved the ladies and if you can believe what you read, had most of them! Sex was a big part of Star Trek TOS. It was severely curtailed in all the other incarnations. I think JJ is right on the button here.
As for life sized Enterprise …. My imagination has just gone wild. No reason why it couldn’t be true and what a way to up the cool factor. Go JJ!
Sex is tame in any Trek. This isn’t Kevin Smith people.
I think I need a Beer.
“Star Sex II: The Search for Orgasm”
“Raunch Trek: First Contact”
“Star Sex III: The Wrath of Condoms”
Star Trek VIII: “Menage a Troi”
“Life Size Trek”? Bunny Ranch with a JJ makeover.
Sorry Abrams/Orci/Paramount: If I had sex on my mind that much, I’d just wink at my wife. But you’ve just lost a 40 year fan + his wife + his kids and whatever negative word of mouth that implies. Sex is part of life to be sure, but there is no need to further corrupt the young souls that would otherwise be a perfect audience for a new Trek. You could have kept it “over the heads” of children through suggestion and innuendo, like master from Shakespeare to Roddenberry did before you.
Alas, poor Star Trek! I knew him:
Horatio Hornblower in space of infinite jest,
of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
I think very very few people actually care anymore — or did to begin with. Not saying there’s anything wrong with caring, but. . .
A life-size Enterprise? As in….inflatable parade float Enterprise? Or the plywood version I tried to build in my backyard?
A life-size Enterprise….
“Intriguing…” -Spock
Isn’t the E like 330 m long?
referring to question posed by #28
I love Rachel Nichols. Pine is a lucky man to spend a work day on top of her!
#28 Fascinating…
40, it all fits, just a theory though, lol my Mrs thinks im a complete geek now *hangs head in shame*
hmm, I’m actually feeling better about JJ directing this… I mean I was never one of the super-skeptical crazies and I’ve been looking forward to this all along, but hearing his recent comments I’m feeling more confident in this movie… he mentioned how he could have totally reinvented trek and could have made it darker, probably like the new BSG…but he hasn’t, and he’s keeping it focused on the characters, their sense of family, and the optimism which is the foundation of what Trek is… I think he gets it, and that all the new designs, effects, sex, and action is a necessity to survive in today’s market… I can only hope the fans that preach about Trek’s philosophies and characters will look past the flash and see that it’s all still there (hopefully)…
additionally, Chris Pine is hot in those GQ pics! <3
Are we in a recession or is Paramount really going to make a life-size Enterprise?
Somebody better call Congress!
Speaking of big Enterprises…
I did this remake of the original picture back in 2001because I thought the model looked fake, although it was a brilliant idea.
http://tinyurl.com/59ldzp
And this is how big the Enterprise would be next to some famous landmarks…
http://tinyurl.com/6djyrp
:)
Star Trek without sex might as well be “Lost In Space”. With all those short skirts and tight pants on all those uber-healthy, Starfleet Academy bodies? Come on, now.
All the best Trek movies sexed it up a little: Khan with his chest, all the kinda-naked Vulcan chicks at Spock’s tal-for-pan, Spock in his tightie whities mind-melding with a whale, the Borg Queen and Patrick Stewart all sweaty and tied to a table.
TOS had a lot of sex in it for its time and it makes sense to me. Think about it: 5-year mission, 90% of the time with nothing to do but crunch sensor data and run some botany experiments, hot-bodied 20-30-somethings all over the place…and Shatner, of course. And how much did women dig Spock?
Star Trek is romantic! Yes, yes there’s the fighting the Romulans and the ship schematics and the Federation and the photon torpedoes and the boldly going and the blah blah blah.
How can one expect a bunch of brilliant, young, beautiful people living in close quarters for 5 years to be sexless?
I mean, unless you put them all in TMP uniforms…
This movie’s probably going to be PG-13, which means it’ll be less explicit than a music video–and concerned parents need to wait until their children are 13 to see it. BTW, my eleven yr old brother didn’t even notice the girl in the bikini because Jabba the Hut was all gross and cool.
Oh, and I’d sell one of my dogs for a chance to run naked through a life-sized Enterprise.
So how would everyone feel if at the end of this movie they say that this timeline was the correct timeline and the one we grew up with was an alternate? And at the end, this new Enterprise is the “correct” one.
Not to change the subject, but those staterooms sure are large compared to what I remember of the captain’s quarters on TOS.
Also, are the rooms in which Uhura takes off her brassiere and the one in which young Kirk is engaging in extracurricular activity with an unidentified woman supposed to be the same? They look like it. If so, what plot points would be involved that would allow that?
The mind boggles. Sort of.
I’m most excited to see Pine’s performance.
Of all the recasts, he resembles the original actor the least and I think it provides for the most opportunity for interpretation. He absolutely won’t be doing an impression of Shatner and I’m looking forward to what that interpretation will be.
ok so as i suspected all along, the only thing this movie has in common with the TOS we know and love is the names of the character.
Proof …Chris Pine “It’s a whole new beast” And to be fair his are not the only comments to that affect. Added to that we have JJ constantly distancing himsef from trek and the fans that loved it, with the whole “I was never a Trek fan” thing. Really the truest thing JJ has siad about this movie is that “he didn’t make this movie for Trek fans” Well we might be slow, but dang it all, i think some of us are finally getting the message and may just decide give up on this movie all together. As i have said before. Why should I care if Trek continues if it is unrecognizable to me?
44
I love how next to all the ships and buildings you have a tiny little giraffe
life sized Enterprise?
Anyone thought about the aircraft carrier “Enterprise”? Maybe the Space Shuttle??
There are a lot of shps named “Enterprise” and, to quote J.L. Picard: “… a lot of letters in the alphabet”….
“So how would everyone feel if at the end of this movie they say that this timeline was the correct timeline and the one we grew up with was an alternate? And at the end, this new Enterprise is the “correct” one.”
See, this was the possibility I had broached earlier. Furthermore, what if our timeline (here in 2008) is actually only an alternate one — one in which we are never to achieve warp travel? That would be rather unpalatable in a number of ways. We could follow the exploits of the prime-timeline crew in a subsequent movie as they attempt to restore the proper timeline a la Voyager’s “Future’s End.”
Who knows? In the proper timeline, we might never have had a President George W. Bush. (Anyone “remember” a timeline when we didn’t? Is the second George Bush mentioned in any canonical Trek?)
personally, I think the sex scene will be played for laughs. Besides wanting a PG to PG 13 rating, the movie is roughly 2 hours long. Not a lot of time to fit in back story and action, let alone a drawn out sex scene.
So it will probably play out like this: Kirk and Nichols making out; she hears her roommate coming back – Kirk hides under the bed; Uhura starts to undress like no ones there; Kirk sneezes, coughs, makes-his-presence-known; Uhura freaks and throws him out; Kirk runs into an authority figure, cue laugh track.
@47 Hat Rick
I’m not totally sure but I think those are probably dorms at the academy…
@49 A. .S.F.33
Unrecognizable? Perhaps you should get your eyes checked. :P
Life size Enterprise is part of a new Vegas (casino/entertainment complex where there will be a hotel with three different wings, rooms look like TOS quarters, TNG quarters, and a third wing
with ‘movie’ quarters (hodgepodge) Restaurant looks like 10-Forward, complete with ‘window’ that is a space-travel display, diners watch as ship travels from planet to planet. Possible franchise of this restaurant to big cities (based in part on ticket sales of this new movie; ie how many star trek nuts live in the city). Casino has multi-day tourist plans, like a resort that is something like another planet…guests board ‘buses’ that on the inside seem like shuttlecraft, travel to some resort destination that resemble planet. Geek heaven, in other words.
Based on years of study of fan conventions, how far they are willing to travel to these conventions, how much they spend, economic base, etc. Even a trek-themed retirement community is in the works, believe it or not. Aging trekkies. Another idea are trek-themed planned communities.. the home’s interiors (greatly) resemble ship sets/interiors, a TNG street, a TOS street; all very ‘green’ Again, based on long term studies of who goes to the movies,conventions… even info gained from websites…
well….. you’ll seee
How can “the human adventure” be devoid of sex? ;)
I mean, it wouldn’t last very long without it, amirite?!
If you want to be serious about a life size enterprise, this is what you will be looking at. A 1:1 scale image of the enterprise from a front elevation, which would present the smallest area and thus least expense, while also providing an iconic shot. , similar to some of the shots seen in the trailer.
A few passes from a HP’s Scitex XL1500 would probably do it. Below is a 20M x 60 M image created in such a fashion.
ihttp://www.worldamazingrecords.com/2008/09/worlds-biggest-print-digital-image.html
Not only would it be a PR stunt for the ages to drape it across some massive building, it would also smash the world record for largest digital image. Also, most importantly, it would be the cheapest method of doing it. Building an actual full size enterprise would be as expensive as making the movie itself, and take a very very long time. also if they planned to do so, i’m sure they would have used it for the movie itself rather then as a promo device.
So my bet is, if he is not saying it incorrectly, we are talking about a giant digital print here that will be going for a world record.
45 – well said hahahah !!
@57
good idea, elmo… maybe they will wrap the reichstag in Berlin in the print, like Christo did in 1995…
“I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else.” – Well said, JJ!
The more Abrams talks out of his ass, the less confident I am about this movie. The trailer kind of got be on board but…man. Star Trek doesn’t need all that sex, seriously.
I’d like to know when any of the Star Trek movies will EVER live up to the title? Unlike the aptly named “Star Wars,” which is about wars amongst the stars, “Star Trek” is about travelling and exploring – two things that are never really done in the movies.
My main complaint is that when I was a kid, and people made fun of Trek, it was usually a crack about Kirk bedding everything in sight, the cheesy special effects and sets, and the need for a fight to break out every five minutes with Kirk getting his shirt ripped open.
TNG tried to tackle all of these concerns while they were on, and most people now believe that Trek is about passive sexless diplomats who like to attend symposia.
Frankly I’m not sure which I’d rather be ridiculed for.
In addition to my earlier post 28:
The Romulans, a huge canon problem because of Balance of Terror, arnt too much of a ball ache if you think about it “Logically”. The Romulans we are going to see in this movie are from the 24th century,
No-one has seen a 23rd century Romulan, thats what all the spiele is about on Balance of Terror, and is also the reason why Spock and Kirk have that famous “look” when the Romulans appear on screen, they
have only seen a 24th century Romulan. Its because of the Earth-Romulan war and because of the Nero incident that Romulans are considered to be warlike, cruel, treacherous…
Also, this quote is interesting too: Spock says:”…The treaty, negotiated by subspace radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side would constitute an act of war. The treaty has remained
unbroken since that time… Captain?” [Note that this is a question] Kirk replies: “What you don’t know, and must now be told, is that my command orders on this subject are precise and inviolable. No act,
regardless of its severity, will be considered sufficient provocation to violate the zone. We may defend ourselves, but for the purposes of maintaining intergalactic security, both these outposts – and this
starship – will be considered expendable.” – Ok Kirk may be simply refering to the Neutral Zone treaty, but notice how he evades the question. Ok Spock knows the Romulans entered the Neutral Zone and we dont know
what part he plays in the conflict but we do know that Elder Spock swears Kirk to secrecy over some issues. I think because this is a temporal issue, Kirk etc are all sworn to secrecy over the Romulans… just an
idea, kinda makes sense.
Kirk driving a car is also another “dodgy” area:
(Grinding) “Oops! Gears!”
“Yes. Oh… I believe they had a device known as a… clutch. Clutch, captain. Perhaps one of those pedals on the floor.”
(Kirk shifts the car into gear)
“I kind of like this. I’m going to get one myself.”
– Kirk and Spock, on their first attempt at driving an automobile
“Captain, you are an excellent starship commander. But as a taxi driver, you leave much to be desired.”
– Spock
“Must we?”
“It’s faster than walking.”
“But not as safe…”
“Are you afraid of cars?”
“Not at all. It’s your driving that alarms me.”
“I’ve got the hang of it now.”
– Spock and Kirk, before another try at an automobile
The only explaination is that Kirk isnt that bad at driving, maybe his corvette is different and futuristic?? Maybe because its been a while since Kirk drove a car he forgot about clutches?? Maybe young kirk went
for a joyride in the car and doesnt have a clue to use it, which is why he crashes it into the crater??
BTW the crater, is probably reminiscient from WW3, ok Iowa is flat today, but after a huge war, there are some huge crators?? maybe even some mining for precious fossil fuels in the late 21st century??
Just trying to clear up some canon grumles.
Source – Memory Alpha
what i don’t get is, where is this assumption that the movie is full of sex is coming from. do people really think there is going to be an actual sex scene in the movie? A movie with a swathe of merchandising aimed at kids? We have a shot of a topless kirk kissing a female cadet with a bra on , and a picture of a bra wearing main character.
That is not sex. Scenes of a sexual nature yes, but they are not sex scenes. Don’t forget you see more flesh on any scene in a movie on a beach with girls in bikinis. The movie will be rated PG tops and the people having a freakout will look back on their reactions and see mountains where there should have been mole hills.
28–by the time of encounter at farpoint, mccoy was 137 years old
and while very plausible in theory, in prectice your timeline does not quite match up with what is known about the new film…
I don’t what trek you guys remember but Kirk was always getting action, only now they can show more than Kirk putting his boots on after the fact!
65 how so… enlighten me??
For all of you that say more sex and skin in trek is good, would you want people watching your spouse or parent taking their clothes off or having sex in a movie or TV show? I am not just talking Trek, but any movie or TV show. Think about it.
lol life sized enterprise
like that one on googe earth?
I like that Pine with darker hair!
54, if those are dorm rooms, Starfleet Academy must be a very posh university indeed. Speaking of StarAcad, those concerned about the state of the grass in those scenes with the cadets (a shot of which is available on my website) will be pleased to know that the grass has grown in quite nicely. If JJ’s crew wants to do pick-up shots…. Though, of course, in this day of CGI, such things may not be necessary.
Sorry to keep posting but…
Regarding Kirk’s promotions and being a “cadet”:
The chronology of Kirk’s latter days in Starfleet Academy (entry date of 2250), and service aboard the USS Republic and USS Farragut, is somewhat muddled. In “Court Martial”, Kirk discussed meeting Ben Finney at the Academy,
and that they were assigned together aboard the Republic, “some years later”. According to many sources, including the Star Trek Chronology, Ensign Kirk’s tour-of-duty aboard the Republic took place while Kirk was still an
Academy cadet. In “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, Gary Mitchell refers to Kirk a lieutenant while serving in the Academy, but it is not clear if this means a midshipman or a commissioned lieutenant.
In “Obsession”, Kirk stated that Captain Garrovick of the Farragut was “my commanding officer from the day I left the Academy”. In “A Private Little War” (taking place in 2268), he mentioned his first planet survey as young
lieutenant on Neural thirteen years prior (in 2255) – leading many to believe that Kirk had graduated and was serving aboard the Farragut at the time.
Stephen E. Whitfield’s 1968 book The Making of Star Trek states that “Kirk rose rapidly through the ranks and received his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class space ship) while still quite young.” This has never
been stated on screen.
One explanation of Kirk’s problematic promotion history is that he received a brevet rank of ensign while at the Academy, and that his tour-of-duty aboard the Republic took place prior to his graduation as an advanced training
cruise. Kirk would then have returned to the Academy, received a promotion to Lieuenant (or possibily Lieutenant Junior Grade), and served as a student instructor thereby fitting with Mitchell’s statement that he remembered
“Lieutenant Kirk at the Academy”. It then would fit that Kirk would be commissioned from the Academy as a full Lieutenant in 2254 to serve under Captain Garrovick “from the day he left the Academy”. However, dialog from episodes
neither supports nor refutes this conclusion.
Kirk’s days as a lieutenant commander and a commander are likewise vague since there has been virtually nothing discussed in canon regarding this stage of Kirk’s career. That Kirk even held these ranks is unknown, with the
possibility existing that Kirk was promoted directly to Captain from the rank of Lieutenant. Non-canon literature has touched on this subject somewhat, with explanations ranging from Lieutenant Commander Kirk serving as a
First Officer up to Commander Kirk serving as the “Officer-in-Charge” of the Enterprise refit project prior to his taking command
Just trying to clear up some canon grumbles.
Source – Memory Alpha
Jeez guys, who says the movie is going to be non-stop sexcapades? From all I’ve seen, there are two (count ‘em, two) scenes involving a little T&A. You think we’re going to see penetration here? Good grief!
Life-size Enterprise Rent-A-Car maybe.
LOL. Back in the day, Roddenberry would often crack wise about wanting to make a XXX Star Trek someday. Given his own notorious appetites, I suspect he was only half-joking.
Nothing wrong with a little sexuality in Trek–and there’s certainly no more going on here than what was seen or implied in, say, “Mudd’s Women.” (Too bad we never got to see the young Nichelle Nichols strip down to her skivvies, but that “uniform” she wore in “Mirror, Mirror” was almost as good.) I do have to agree, however, with those who have problems with even a casual flirtation in the background of Kirk and Uhura–it really would seem to undermine their mutual professional respect and Kirk’s command authority as depicted in TOS.
(Nice job on the timeline research, #72. Glad someone has time for such things. . . )
#75 can i refer your attention to post 28 :)
in all the star trek trailers, there was never any sexual innuendo. in two minutes of a trailer, there are two sexual innuendo scenes. I’m sure many men have boldly gone into an orion slave girl, but we dont need to see them pullin’ a marvin gaye in the trailer, of all places!
#77
He’s not even kissing her in that scene! When did we all turn into a bunch of prudes?
I hope he’s not referin to the life sized model entirely made out of mashed-potato I’ve been building. That’s meant to be a surprise!
64 – ELMO “…The movie will be rated PG tops and the people having a freakout will look back on their reactions and see mountains where there should have been mole hills…”
Right, the mere mention of the word sex and that’s it, Star Trek is finished. Gimme a break… This vocal, but small, group of nay-sayers is apparently looking for ANYTHING, any tid-bit to try to dismiss this movie. They want to see it fail. You might think the universe, itself, is at stake. Well, perhaps a FICTIONAL universe is at stake, but I’m pretty confident that when the last reel of film is spun out, the world will still be intact.
I think the curiosity factor will also help make this film a hit. There are fans out there who do not visit sites like this, and they do not know very much about the new film. There are young people who will be exposed to Star Trek for the very first time. A lot of people are going to be wondering “What is up with the new Star Trek?” This is the sort of influx Star Trek, in general, needs…
no, they’re just practically naked on top of each other ready to get the friction on. this was NEVER in a trailer before. trek is not about sex, it’s about the human condition and the exploration of new cultures and new worlds whilst teaching us lessons about ourselves. trek never implicitly relied on sex (especially in the trailers) to pique our interest. When I heard there was a new trek, I was a little curious but thought if old Spock is in it, maybe I’ll see it. But in the 2 minutes I saw, INCLUDE ME OUT! And i’m a lifelong trek fan though I only watched it sporadically over 25 years. This is not trek. this is JJ’s chance to do star wars. I really don’t care much about sophomore soft-core trek. But I will go see me some Gran Torino. Now THAT’S a great director.
P.S. Mission Impossible 3 sucked! and I’ve never seen Lost, Heroes or Fringe.
P.S.S. the new enterprise ship looks pretty cool though, good job on that at least.
49. A. .S.F.33 – November 23, 2008
“. Why should I care if Trek continues if it is unrecognizable to me?”
Then don’t go.
Bob Orci has said in these threads that they are asking for an open mind when you view their work. If you can’t conjure that up, no one’s forcing you to view it.
keep an open mind is a modern euphamism for: i want you to think and believe what I think and believe. Just because i dont want to think and believe what you think and believe doesnt mean I have a closed mind. if you dont think and believe what i think and believe it doesnt mean you have a closed mind either. what it means is, we don’t have to think and believe the same thing, just dont try to trash us for what we think and believe. THAT IS WHAT STAR TREK IS ABOUT. you’re young, and that’s ok. it is the natural process of things for each generation to think quite differently and not agree until you are older. that is ok. I won’t go. I don’t want to go. there are not really that many good films out any more. I suppose that is what netflix, itunes, amazon, streaming websites and even downloading is for. and since we still have freedom of choice in America, I will take that liberty and spend the money elsewhere doing sth else. like having a drink with a girl. age/race doesn’t matter. but its unlikely she’ll be green.
re:49. A. .S.F.33 – November 23, 2008
“. Why should I care if Trek continues if it is unrecognizable to me?”
Very good point.
re: 83 Xai
The only way I could possibly have anything resembling an open mind about viewing this would be if I could somehow stop reading the comments of those involved in making it.
81. scotty’s toolchest – November 23, 2008
While you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems fixated on the sex issue. Pine chats it up pretty good, but do you honestly think they will rely on sex to make this movie? I don’t.
TOS did rely on sex appeal. Female guest stars often found the their gowns showing a great deal of leg and chest. Did this “sophomore soft-core Trek” bother you then? TOS was full of Kirk’s “conquests” and partly-clad bodies. And to judge the rest of the film by a 2 minute trailer proves that you formed an opinion before and just need justification of it now.
#85 Stanky
Only you can censure what you read, friend.
#19 – Don’t be jealous of something you can’t have.
#81 – “trek is not about sex, it’s about the human condition and the exploration of new cultures and new worlds whilst teaching us lessons about ourselves.”
I was JUST waiting on someone to start spouting this stuff off about what “Star Trek is and isn’t.” By your definition… Star Trek should NEVER have conflict, space battles either. What Star Trek should be is a large complimentary fest full of perfection.
In fact, I am going to re-write a few of the Star Trek movies just to fit your description.
Some scenes from “The Wrath of Khan.”
Khan : I’ve done far more than save you, Admiral. I’ve helped you. And I wish to go on helping you. I shall leave you, as you left me — safe and protected: poetic justice; marooned in my heart for eternity — feeling alive.
—-
(David has just attacked Jim with a Bouquet of Flowers.)
Carol Marcus: Jim.. this is David, the son we had in wedlock as a sign of mutual respect for each other.
—-
The Collective: We Are The Borg. Please lower your shields so that we may admire you. We have no need to assimilate you as you are perfect just the way you are.”
whilst you have a point xai about the beautiful scantily-clad babes in TOS, it was never in a trailer to promote the movie, which is my point. and they never showed anyone ‘getting it on’ even in the movies which were made up til 91 with TOS (yes, i know they were a bit aged by then). I am now watching Season 1 TOS remastered this as wespeakend. Again, never in the trailers. with 2 minutes to show trek, they could have found sth much more pertinent to the storyline, like perhaps the bar scene in the spoilers or a scene on the ice planet, for example.
now as far as judging the film by 2 minutes, THAT is the purpose of a trailer. except this movie ain’t selling me. i choose what i want to and what i dont want to largely by trailers. every now and then i am wrong (good and bad) but largely, i know what i want to drop my money down on. this trek is unrecognizable at best. this is not trek. I really dont know what it is but interesting is not an adjective that comes to mind.
84 scotty’s toolchest
You read a lot into a little. A little implied sex and the whole movie is about sex. Someone says “open mind” and you have pigeon-holed the statement into your definition of their words.
It IS possible that a writer’s request to view with an open mind is just that and not a sales pitch, an attempt to insult you or brainwash you.
I wish you well on your date.
Some people who are into Trek just amaze me cause a lot of them are so close minded.
#88. Im not gonna feed into your “just waiting for someone to say this”. Really, it’s beneath me. I have my opinion. I am not trying to sell you mine. don’t try to sell me yours. I like what i like and dont like what i dont like. it is people like you trying to forcefeed film to me. all that will make me do is puke. I gave this new star trek a chance by viewing the trailer. I’m simply not interested. But have you seen the trailer for Gran Torino? Bring on the empty horses!
86. Xai,
You are spot-on. If Trek didn’t rely at least partially on sex appeal, then the skimpy outfits and Kirk getting his shirt ripped off repeatedly don’t really make a whole lot of sense, if at all.
#92 – “Really, it’s beneath me.”
I think it actually went over you… just saying.
“I have my opinion. I am not trying to sell you mine. don’t try to sell me yours. I like what i like and dont like what i dont like.”
All that is nice and all, but that has no relevance to what I was responding to. Have you ever seen any other Star Trek trailer? (Apparently not.) When they showed all the space battles, did you stomp your foot and say “Star Trek is not about Space battles, it’s about exploration and everyone hugging each other” and this and that? *That* is what we are talking about.
Xai,
Think you meant “censor” on that one. :-)
Again, TOS was a far-cry from the asexuality of the films and latter series. The sight of Nancy Kovack seducing Kirk did things to my 14-year old self that I wouldn’t care to relate on a family-friendly website.
I have very mixed feelings about what I’ve seen thus far, but keeping an open mind at this point isn’t an unreasonable request on the of the folks who have put this thing together. And certainly, an excess of prudery is unseemly for those who claim to have moved out of their parents’ basements.
#89 Scotty’s Toolchest
A trailer is a commercial for a movie. It’s there to entice you to learn more and see it. They can’t and won’t give you enough information to judge anything. It’s there to get your attention not give you the whole story. And frankly, human interaction is interesting and it’s in the movie. It doesn’t appear to be remotely soft-core for what I’ve seen or read.
I recall a Star Trek :TUC trailer that had Kirk kissing Iman’s character. Did that turn you away from seeing it? They were in bed and Kirk was hoping for “friction” on some level. McCoy even remarked on his sex drive.
Will you stop your date 2 minutes in and decide she just isn’t the right girl? If she wears a daring blouse, will you just say good bye?
Scotty’s toolchest
Cool. You have your opinion and I’ll let you ride with it.
#34 – “Sorry Abrams/Orci/Paramount: If I had sex on my mind that much, I’d just wink at my wife.”
I don’t get into personal comments. But you should seriously reword that as it sounds like all you have to do is “wink” and she’s ready for you.
“But you’ve just lost a 40 year fan + his wife + his kids and whatever negative word of mouth that implies. Sex is part of life to be sure, but there is no need to further corrupt the young souls that would otherwise be a perfect audience for a new Trek.”
Ermmm.. what?
Honestly, is no one using their head when it comes to this? If this is a PG or PG-13 movie do some of you HONESTLY think there will be sex scenes in this movie? BTW, I hope you aren’t talking out of two sides of your mouth C.S. I’m sure all the violence portrayed, the cursing, the middle fingers, the sexual innuendo, the near sex scene shown in “Nemesis,” the bastard children, etc portrayed, you didn’t throw a fit over those either? Because you do have “standards””” after all it seems.
“Honestly, is no one” – Not directed at everybody of course, just those who seem to find this to be a “new” thing in Star Trek.
#95 Michael Hall
Which comment? Lost me..
‘Star Trek isn’t about sex, it’s about the human condition’ —
um, Sex is part of the human condition. Sexuality & love have been part of human storytelling since we first started marks on clay tablets with sticks. The first thing we humans did with clay after that was make satyr figures with massive penii and fertility figures with 44FFF’s. It’s part of the larger human culture since time immemorial.
Good lord, people, have you ever read the Greek comedies and tragedies? Shakespeare? The Restoration comedies? it’s been ABOUT SEX the whole time. Troy, Helen, face that launched a thousand ships (source material for Elaan of Troyius, for you non-readers out there.) And Oedipus, and the Canterbury Tales, all the way up to whatever it is you can download off the Interwebs today.
That said, there are people who are part of minority subcultures here in the 20th century who are freaked out over the fact that they have bodies and urges and whatnot, and try to pretend that they are only beautiful minds trapped in ugly flesh prisons, or that sex doesn’t exist, or they try to rationalize it as The Work Of The Devil or something else — making it out to be somehow sinful.
They get frankly obsessed over not being entirely in control of their feelings all the time, but rather than be adult and mature and admit to being humans (just another kind of mammal), point the finger outwards and blame everyone else — usually, “Hollywood Liberals” or some other such nonsense, if sexuality appears in our wider culture.
I mean let’s put it this way — mature, adult individuals just go about their lives and express their sexuality in a healthy way. (Just do it!) Immature people obsess about what OTHER people are doing, and some take it to an extreme where they feel the need to point out what other people are doing, usually to hide the self-hatred and shame they feel at their OWN sexuality, and worse, they try to bend the wider culture to their minority viewpoint. So we have to live in an infantilized world where everything is made of Nerf.
Sorry, but Star Trek isn’t Nerf. RISK IS OUR BUSINESS, people.
Angsitbation is the exitement of seeing someone in a bra it also describes the exitement of seeing the new enterprise and the reaction to it star trek fans are represented by angstibators and jj abrams statement thet he is not a trek fan tells me he puts his pajamas on befare he goes to bed and not befereo he starts the day I went to a convention once and then sold everything i owned trek related Transformers was a crap movie (dog vomit on your crotch bad)but there is a sequal let trek be what it has to be let it survive in a new world and angstibate no more
Wow, are you people Mormons? You must really hate Bond movies.
life-size big-E…the whole ship would blow me away…but if the enterprise is constructed in 2008-9 then we have a serious canon violation, but too bad. where do i enlist to board her?
Why do people have to trumpet their non-attendance over and over and over again? You’ve decided you won’t like it, so just don’t go! In fact why even flagellate yourself at this site? Are you that starved for an audience?
I’m going to be there to check out the movie in May. Even with all the info that’s been released, I still haven’t decided whether or not I’ll like it. I need to see the whole thing, but I’m optimistically hopeful that the changes will work in this fictional universe. I’ll give it a fair chance
However I will guarantee that this is the last time I’m going to state my intention to attend. I’m not so arrogant to think that anybody gives a rat’s ass whether I do or not.
#102 elactromatic
Punctuation marks are your friend. Please try them.
What does the term you used have to do with the subject? The actress shown is partly-clad. No one mentioned a fetish (is that what you meant?)
#105 cellojammer
LOL, well that’s TWO people going that haven’t decided before the fact that it’s crap.
Who else IS going?
(raises hand)
Life-sized Enterprise.
I was wondering what that big thing being built by Riverside was.
Who wouldn’t have sex with Uhura? She’s hot!
I skipped a lot of these posts because, well…they were losing my attention. But, to all the people who keep referring to “all this sex” and such things…what proof do we have?? A couple seconds of a scene with Pine and Nichols and a second of Zoe taking her shirt off (still leaving a bra, which covers more than a bikini top. Seriously, is there any proof that this Trek is all that “sexed up”?
Also, all the Berman-era Trek “humans” were so bland and sexless and, frankly, boring. I welcome the change in a big, big way.
Can they make a life size Uhura doll! LOL!
But, seriously, how are they going to market this to the playmates kid toy buying crowd with all the sex??
When I was a kid I thought the coolest thing ever would be a life size Enterprise. I had it all planned out: Main saucer, nacelles, and engineering section all helium filled. Essentially three separate “bags” of reinforced rip stop nylon. Tether the sections together with cables/wires. You throw a small gondola on the bottom, with a couple of engines, and off you go. That would not cost as much as you think. The only question is how close to actual scale you can get it, and still have it float. The saucer is so large, though, that it should be no problem. Think big!
#111
Uh, Transformers had a reasonable amount of ’sex appeal’ and I don’t think they had a problem selling kids the merch. Hell, kids are driving Batmobiles and I don’t think The Dark Knight was exactly G-rated fare. Parent’s bought their youngsters Lord of the Rings product, and that was a pretty violent outing. Considering the likely tame nature of the sex in this movie, they shouldn’t have a problem.
Life size Enterprise?
Just viral campaign or propaganda from the master JJ!
But I do feel a fly over at the Superbowl would rock!!!
I just think back to when I was a kid. We were watching stuff like ‘Goonies’ when I was 6 or 7, and that’s not exactly Veggie Tales. There’s swearing, innuendo and a 3 minute scene about a statue’s penis. Plus, the kids are on an adventure to find ‘One Eyed Willie’! ;) Yet, I can’t remember any parents freaking out about their children being corrupted. Kids can handle more than we think. Most of the movies I take my 10 year old niece to are so mind-numbingly safe & sterile that even she hates them. The last good thing I took her to was Wall-E, and that certainly didn’t treat the audience as though they’d overload from an intelligent thought.
The Star Wars movie Revenge of the Sith had Sith killing kids, but those toys sold fine.
Society has gotten its head screwed on completely backwards. I’m not painting everyone in America with a giant brush, because that’s not fair, but as a society…the country has it completely backwards. Sex in movies, is more offensive than violence there it seems. Someone will take their kids to a movie full of fist fights, people acting out against each other in hatred and rage, but as soon as you show people kissing passionately, making out, petting or getting naked…WHOA, DON’T CORRUPT MY CHILDREN!!!! How in the name of hell is showing your children LOVE between two consenting beings a corruption? Give me a break. OH, and don’t show a man’s wee wee..or a woman’s breasts. Heaven forbid we allow that. It’s the human body people..there is nothing perverse in viewing it…..it’s only perverse…when done perversely.
I understand JJ and Paramount is trying to make money. That’s what business do. But regardless of whether or not sex sells, don’t media companies have some kind of moral standard or social responsibility?
I know Star Trek can be sexy without resorting to showing people without clothing on beds. Remember in TOS? Non one really takes clothes off (well… maybe except Kirk, but in fight scenes! Not sex!). And remember Star Trek 3 (Saavik and Spock)? Remember TNG’s Angel One? Outrageos Okona? Emissary? And Tapestry? It can be done.
Even for a PG13 movie, even if the masses doesn’t have a problem with Uhura taking off some clothes, having half naked Kirk and Orion in bed is at best stepping on the line if not over it. And even if it’s the majority opinion is that it is ok, considers that just because every one does it doesn’t make it right.
And regarding a previous comment about “those who don’t like it just don’t see it but don’t come talking about it” kind of comment, we’re all here because Star Trek is something we cared and loved for a long time. What is wrong about those expressing their concern about how something we’ve come to love is being changed into something potentially questionable.
(And before any bar fight starts like in Tribbles) It is my opinion that the Kirk/Orion in bed scene is inappropriate, and those who conceived this scene thinking sex sells should be ashamed of themselves for putting this in mass entertainment.
“don’t media companies have some kind of moral standard or social responsibility?”
HAHAHAHA.
“It is my opinion that the Kirk/Orion in bed scene is inappropriate, and those who conceived this scene thinking sex sells should be ashamed of themselves for putting this in mass entertainment.””’
Right, because love scenes have never been portrayed in Star Trek movies or any movies for that matter?
#111 – “But, seriously, how are they going to market this to the playmates kid toy buying crowd with all the sex??”
Oh boy. How did they do it before? Apparently some think Star Trek is going to be an X rated orgy movie now.
#28
I think your explanation is plausible. With details still relatively sketchy on the plot, your timeline explanation is as good as mine. We don’t know if Spock is at the academy in this film. If he is, then that throughs your timeline off. Even so, one could say the Cage happened during Spock’s Academy years and he was on a training cruise. Either way.
Kirk’s two previous positions are plausible, but not in the length of time that you suggest. I consider both of those positions to have been study aboard programs and training cruises if anything to fit in with the new film. Look at Saavik and Valeris, both were full Lieutenants and were still cadets. Also, Kirk could easily have been a TA (teaching assistant).
As for the Enterprise. I can agree with you that it could have been in Iowa for refit (although putting it onto a shipyard on the ground sounds harder to pull off than just flying it into spacedock). We’ll have to see the film to determine whether the damage is severe enough to warrant a refit.
Pike and April’s commands can fit, but again not necessarily in the span of time suggested by the old rendition of the timeline.
All characters look plausible. As for Chekov, my assumption has always been that he was assigned to the Enterprise from the getgo, but was off duty at the time of the Space Seed and easily could have been on medical or shore leave for Mudd’s Women.
My rational comes from the fact that the sources being used for canon articles and timelines (Star Trek Encyclopedia and Chronology) are nearly 10 years old. They are outdated as they do not contain the last few seasons of Voyager and none of Enterprise. If that’s the case, some of the conjectures that have been held for so long are going to be broken. Until the film comes out and the Okuda’s make another edition of the Encyclopedia and Chronology, the fate and interpretation of canon is up to the induvidual, regardless of how much of a fan they are. If your timeline works logically in your mind, thats fine. If you accept some of my ideas, thats fine too. No fan is right or wrong. Only the show’s writers and producers can make a legitimate claim as to what is true canon, and some are more strict with it than others. So, fans and average viewers alike, no one and I mean no one has a bad interpretaion of continuity. Think up what arrangement of timeline is best for you, and then sit back and enjoy (Personally, I believe this film is predestination paradox just like First Contact was.).
#118. I agree with you 100 percent that showing less is sexier than baring all. Nothing’s as titillating as a burning glance or a well-placed double entendre (”on some lovely. . . . planet”).
But I’ll wait and see the movie before I judge. I keep telling myself this is a new take on Trek, not the old one.
Re: 119. Devon
“Right, because love scenes have never been portrayed in Star Trek movies or any movies for that matter?”
There is a distinction between love and sex. Sex might be one expression of love. One of many. I’m not trashing this movie. I want to like it as well. It is, after all, Star Trek.
Re: 122. Trek Nerd Central
Exactly!
Didn’t Leonard Nimoy invite a kid to the premier at a con last year? I wonder what that kid will think of all this.
i bet the life-size Enterprise is a Blimp… and if it is, i’m sure it wouldn’t look like some goofy Macy’s parade balloon.. would most likely look like the real deal. can you imagine seeing a real Enterprise in the sky!? =P
I stood under a (I think) life-sized inflatable space shuttle at the Los Angeles County Fair in Pomona, CA in 1975. The NASA folk tried to recruit my date. The thing was BIG and very realistic (at least to my 19 yr-old eyes).
I could imagine an inflatable E, but where would we put it? I guess it could be launched from the Goodyear Blimp air fields around the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_PxsFwpc5M
How about a flyover during the Super Bowl?
#123 – “There is a distinction between love and sex. Sex might be one expression of love. ”
And do you think there actually is a sex scene in the new movie, being a PG-13 movie at most and all?
Keep the sex coming where Kirk is involved! That’s his style, he’s the rock star of the galaxy, and always was through TOS, why change that now? How many countless aliens did he make it with in those three seasons – I’m sure someone on this site has counted? I know it’s a considerable statistic. One of the MANY reasons he’ll always be better than Picard in my opinion.
#127. I’m guessing (in fact I’m hoping) that eyeful in the trailer is probably about it. Unless they want an R rating, which would be stupid. And JJ ain’t stupid.
On the other hand, did I read a rumor somewhere (was it on this site?) that in some scene or other, Kirk accidentally grabs Uhura’s headlights?
If so, ick.
“These are the characters from the original Star Trek.” (??)
Perhaps JJ should have said, “these characters are BASED on the characters in the original Star Trek,” because that’s far closer to the truth.
And I hate word mincing- it IS a re-imagining, dammit.
PS- Long live DS9.
The premiere will be shown on board the life size Carrier Enterprise
The problem everyone forgets is
McCoy never went to the Academy…
M5 incident, doesnt know who Captain Dunsel is
McCoy joined Starfleet after his divorce to get away from his wife and memories on Earth
Reading further notes,
Republic is a training vessel, the same one Pike takes it in the face on when saving cadet lives.
People like to think of Republic as a Connie, but it would have been an earlier ship, retired but still serviceable.
Kirk being a lieutenant student teacher or a teacher of a specialized class is plausible. Perhaps he taught 5th dimensional geometry? Or a class on Why Photon Torpedoes Miss.
“… not jut for the Trekkies?”
tsk tsk.. .where’s the spellcheck?
jut is a verb, meaning to stick out. this film does not stick out for trekkies. It does not catch our attention or interest.
# 28
That could work, but I doubt Abrams & Co had so much thinking about the timeline. Kirk is clearly not 17 when he joined Starfleet (watch the trailer). He is more like 25 or 28. The Enterprise is not build in 2245 or even 2250 (shortly before Pike’s first 5-year mission), it is build shortly before 2262 (!). Kirk is named a “cadett” in the movie an not Lieutenant or Commander (Remember: Saavik was a trainee too, but was allways called Lieutenant). The Nero-incident would perfectly fit in the existing timeline, because we know nothing between 2254 and 2265. Even a total refit (as an experiment of course) of the Enterprise could exist in the existing timeline, but it seems that Orci & Kurtzman decided otherwise.
I hope at least they’ll stay with the timeline, but all evidence speaks against it.
To those who say Star Trek was never about sex or was never “sexy”…um, did you ever watch TOS? Did you see the uniforms the women wore? Did you see how many women Kirk was involved with? How many times did he “teach love” to an alien (but still human looking) woman? Enough said.
Wow, get some perspective people.
“Sith killing kids” is fine for a kids movie but Uhura taking her top of in a StarTrek movie isn’t??? I’d rather have more love scenes than more violence…
Maybe Kirk has to teach everyone how to make love, as he did so often in the series….
I think JJ might have been getting a little carried away with the life sized Enterprise. I’m tipping what he meant was a really big model. But wouldn’t it be awesome if it really was a life size model!!!!
it’s really great to see that Paramount is getting behind th emovie and planning a massive marketing campaigh for Star Trek!
It wasn’t so long ago I wondered whether we would ever see Star Trek again on the small screen, let alone the big screen. And now wth the new movie and probable sequals to come, Star Trek is going to be around for a long time to come and I couldn’t be happier!!!! :)
I’m really glad to hear JJ being against a “darker and edgier” Trek, no matter how profitable it would be. Sometimes it works, sometimes, not so much. I get the sense that Trek would be one of those franchises where it would flop. Badly. So hurrah for optimistic Trek!
And I must see this life-size Enterprise. MUST.
If there is a 1/1 ship it will be some kind of illusion done with projections & light. Or..
maybe the USS Enterprise Hotel Casino right on the Las Vegas strip!
28-
Unless there’s money or a pitch meeting involved–II think you have wayyyyy too much time on your hands.
Someone has to, I suppose.
140-
I think he’s pulling your good leg here.
Life-sized Enterprise. Yeah, and I can walk on water, too–provided it’s FROZEN.
Back to the dilithium mines….
…and a 23d Century Bridge littered with three kinds of commercially available Bar Code Scanners and Chain Lamps. Im really not getting having very OBVIOUS (brands and models already identified) Bar Code Scanners sticking up all over the bridge. Is the new Bridge 10 items or less?
Oi
144: maybe that’s for employee check-in and check-out at their stations. ;)
FSL: This is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. You’re going on about ‘moral standards and social responsibility’ in a way that suggests that you’re fine watching Sith slaughter the younglings, but seeing a guy in his underwear or a girl in a bikini is going to cause the Downfall of Civilization.
This is a minority view, and you’re trying to invoke some Higher Authority to impose this view on everyone else in society. You have the choice whether or not to see this film, and a site like ScreenIt.com can provide you complete spoilers if you want to judge whether it is appropriate for your kids. But don’t go around claiming authority over what is appropriate for ME and MY kids.
Secondly, there’s always a bit of sexism involved whenever someone claims that seeing icky Girls In Their Skivvies will cause moral turpitude. It’s that old myth of Eve causing the downfall of Man in the garden of Eden — i.e. that women corrupt noble Men from their Higher Purpose or whatnot. It’s malarkey, pure and simple.
So if you want to imagine Trek populated solely by anatomically incorrect action figures, you are free to do so, but JJ’s vision is, as stated many times, grounded more in reality, and I welcome that.
Morality and responsibility are about choices that affect others, and it seems to me the movie is filled with people doing difficult things because they are trying to save lives and stop those who would selfishly destroy them.
Seeing people making out is neither moral nor immoral; it merely tweaks some people’s long-held cultural taboos. Yes, there’s a time and place for everything, and with thoughtful filmmaking such scenes are never gratuitous, in a storytelling context, but if it is integral to a relationship, the growth of a character and the story, then … so what?
About a potential sequel – Mr Orci, I hope you are reading this ;)
What if Kirk is somehow commended during the second movie. And as a nod to the fans of TOS and to ease their minds about canon/continuity he is commended for some of the deeds he did in the series. For example for how he dealt with the situation of Khan or for how he handeled the situation on the planet Organia (in the episode Errand of Mercy).
This would be a nice nod to TOS-fans and would assure them that the timeline and canon are intact and “new fans” would know “this Kirk seems to be a cool guy, he accomplished some seemingly great deeds!”.
JJ had to come up with something now that George Lucas will reveal his life-size Death Star on Thanksgiving.
Pseudo-intellectuals like to try to pretend that Trek is something it isn’t. TOS was never excessively cerebral and certainly not deserving of a fanatical, almost religious obsession with its concepts.
It was great pulp sci-fi ***entertainment*** which treated its subject matter intelligently. At the same time, it had plenty of sexy women, censorship-baiting costumes, fistfights and space-battles.
By the time we got to the TOS movies, the cast were really too old for that overt sexiness in the films. This film seems to me to be ‘TOS on steroids!’ It looks like a great pulp sci-fi adventure, full of action, humour sex and violence. Good on it! That’s what Trek is what it is!
146. Admiral_Bumblebee
Screw canon! I’m glad the saddo fanatics are getting their g-strings in a twist about this film. Hopefully, when the new film comes out and gains a big new audience, they’ll stay in their basement watching Voyager reruns!!!
There won’t be any “life size” enterprise…clearly he was joking.
JJ doesn’t mention things that aren’t supposed to be mentioned, it’s not his style.
#138. Sebi, I’m not saying (and I doubt anyone else is) that we’d rather have dehumanizing violence over overt sex in the new movie.
I’m actually on your side, there — I think violence is the more damaging of the two, and I work harder to censor that with my own kids. Sexual content in a PG-13 movie is much less troublesome for me, than graphic violence.
I just think the old way of doing things on TV and in movies — i.e., highly coded, but still very highly charged, portrayals of sexuality — was actually much hotter than the bare-all sex we’re used to finding on the screen these days. Bogie and Bacall didn’t get it on in “To Have and Have Not,” but can you even THINK of a sexier moment on film than that scene where she tells him how to whistle?
Or just picture Kirk pulling on his boot in “Wink of an Eye.” Or that look of anguished yearning in his face when he regards Edith (in almost every scene) in “City on the Edge of Forever.”
That stuff is sexy, to me. What we imagine is almost always sexier than what we see.
That’s my own personal preference. But as I’ve said all along, I am giving this movie the benefit of the doubt — as a long-time Trekkie and as a fan of so much of Abrams’ work. I hope and expect it’ll be a good ride.
#149
Yes, very true. And Paramount will not reveal anything, of course, because it ruins their marketing strategy for the film if they give up anything, as the marketing for the film is released over time and is done in a methodic manner so that would be why they are “mum” on anything about it as Anthony wrote about.
Seems no matter what they do with sex in Trek people will complain. First they complained because Kirk was involved with so many women that it made Trek and Kirk look ridiculous. Then many people said how disappointing TNG was because everyone was so passionless and nobody had sex. Then they overcompensated in Enterprise and gave us lots of visual sex – and they complained about that too. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I think TOS did make Kirk look like and idiot after a while because they just had him interested in too many women — it became so cliche and boring to the point that I could fall asleep watching yet again. However, if this is a reboot and they hope to attract newcomers, Kirk will not have been with so many women in their eyes, and we old timers may have to tolerate and forget the “future” LOL.
Throughout TOS, you did get the impression that the characters at least cared about the women they kissed. We never saw kissing or implied sex just for the sake of sex with 2 people who didn’t give a rats rear about eachother. The Orion girl and Kirk however, does seem to have a careless pure sex look to it. If you want to get the TOS feel back, sex should occur in conjunction with relationships that involve feelings for their partners. Sometimes TOS sex involved “using” women for the sake of the mission, but even then guilt, regret and feelings were involved.
#146 … I agree, Admiral. It would be nice to include such a nod. Now here’s a question for you … considering that the TOS timeline is essentially being restarted … do you suppose, just maybe, Khan might actually return in some sequel to Star Trek 2009??
#132 & 133
The scene with McCoy and ‘Captain Dunsel’ doesn’t say one thing about McCoy not attending Starfleet. McCoy was unfamiliar with the term, and Spock explains about the cadet’s use of it – however, it doesn’t mean McCoy was never at the Academy (for one thing, he’s a Starfleet officer and it doesn’t really make sense). For all we know, it was a term command line cadet’s used and since McCoy was health & sciences, he wasn’t as familiar with it. Point being, it’s never explicitly stated but rather is a popular piece of ‘fanon’. As is his divorce, for that matter.
Pike was injured on a J-Class training vessel (so thinking it was a Connie never made much sense). The only other J-Cass ships we’ve seen were those of Mudd & Dr Sevrin, both of which were fairly small.
May have been linked already: a brief survey of JTK’s women, by no means is complete…
http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/Kirk%27s_women
@28,72, et. al
Jay El Jay,
I won’t disagree with some of the responders to your postings that things fit awkwardly.
But I dare say that the setting you offer rather plausibly was the first time regarding this “(not)reboot” I exhaled. I think working and molding your concept- if that’s what they did- would shoehorn the storyline into the extant continuity. They did claim to consult Mem. A. as a source, no?
Thank you for giving me hope. I’m not a hard line canonista, but I was quite unsure of a total revamp of continuity established over 5 decades.
Toying around Mem. A. last week, I found some things I think point to it as a plot cribbing source. Would be happy to share.
Again, thanks.
Maybe the “life-size Enterprise” its a balloon for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.
I found something that looks remarkably like the Enterprise on google earth:
34*15′25.81N
118*51′30.38W
Scratch my last comment it was just clouds from the weather option on google earth.
#28. Wow, Jay El Jay, I just got around to reading your entire dissertation. It is truly amazing.
The only thing I’m still stuck on is Nero — & how he fits into Enterprise crew’s ignorance of all things Romulan in “Balance of Terror.” No one in Starfleet has ever seen one at that point, right?
Could it be the E crew never actually lay eyes on the guy?
As for Kirk’s cadet uniform. . . is it possible, when he’s punished after the Kobiyashi Maru incident, that he actually gets bumped down to cadet? Seems severe, but maybe.
Otherwise, wow. Amazing job you’ve done there, fitting everything into canon — and you’re right, it all falls into place. How long did it take you?
19 – Nothing in the series ever indicated that Kirk had a son either – but we wholly accepted it in STII.
I say – bring on the green boobies!!!
And I’ll say it again – clearly Nero’s incursion into the past throws the whole Romulan thing out the window. Which is fine by me. This is a new timeline.
Or….maybe it gets put back into sync – and then it’s all back in the window.
Hmmm….maybe I’ll wait until the movie to worry about this.
135. scotty’s toolchest – November 23, 2008
“jut is a verb, meaning to stick out. this film does not stick out for trekkies. It does not catch our attention or interest.”
And you don’t speak for anyone but yourself.
shatner was better looking than this pine guy…
plus he was the real kirk.. not an imposter.. :-)
I’ve written it before, but here it is again… It’s just a movie based on a 40+ year old television show. I’m as big a Star Trek fan as anyone I know, but come on, some of you people are elevating this to religious proportions. What is canon, what is not, did Kirk go to the academy at 17 or 18? Who cares? My goodness, it’s just a movie! I gaurentee (sp) that this WILL become a religion about 1,000 years from now, competing with Harry Potter & Star Wars as the one true faith.
Sex IS the Human condition. Without it, uh, no one would be here to complain about how icky it is.
#153
I’m not sure if I would like that. On the one hand, it would be cool as Khan was a great villan. On the other hand we then would have confirmation that the timeline is destroyed and every episode of every series and every movie would never happen. And I think having Khan again would be somewhat lame. They should come up with new villains.
What I would find cool: if there would not be a villain at all in the next movie. Why does it always have to be: bad guy wants to destroy soemthing, good guy kills him?
We had this over and over again. Something new would be cool. But I guess this is the mentality of the Americans, they need some bad guy to focus their aggression on and in the end they have to prevail over him.
#163 = “plus he was the real kirk.. not an imposter.. :-)”‘
No.. he was William Shatner portraying Kirk.
Does anyone here remember the huge Statue of Liberty model at the Cloverfield premiere? Methinks Abrams’ lifesize Enterprise is going to be a gigangic model, or perhaps balloon, at the LA red carpet premiere. Personally, I would love to see a huge model which, when the premiere is over, would be erected above the building where the Experience will be in Las Vegas. One can dream…
Lifesize Enterprise + Mention before Thanksgiving = Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade Enterprise Balloon. That would be awesome, but who knows.
Life size Enterprise, could be in an old blimp hanger somewhere…. hidden out of sight. The Mythbusters have used the old blimp hangers before for indoor stuff.
There can’t be any topless action in this film without drawing an R rating.
I think JJ is a little over confident , he realizes that T4 comes out the next weekend right?
Just to remind you folks, the original series was ALL ABOUT SEX. It was as sexy as the late 60’s got… scantily clad orion slave girls, Kirk getting his groove on with every species he came across, those super-high skirts…
…and remember, Star Trek had the first interracial kiss on television. Between Kirk and Uhura, actually. Kind of wonder if that’s the inspiration for the Kirk/Uhura relationship in the new film…
Yeah Cleeve but don’t forget Kirk and Uhura kissed against their will.
They were being controlled by aliens.