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.
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???
lol life sized enterprise
like that one on googe earth?
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… Read more »
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?