Mark Altman’s Take On The JJ Abrams Star Trek Preview | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Mark Altman’s Take On The JJ Abrams Star Trek Preview November 24, 2008

by Mark A. Altman , Filed under: Editorial,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

TrekMovie Editor Anthony is not the only site contributor who attended the Paramount "Star Trek" preview in Los Angeles last week (see his report). Also on hand was writer/producer Mark Altman ("Free Enterprise"), who weighs on the new Trek from his unique perspective and with his formidable  ‘Trekspertise.’ [SPOILERS]

 

[NOTE: Mark’s comments contain some colorful metaphors]

 

KEEP ON TREKKIN’
J.J. Abrams goes boldly where many have gone before and continues the search for Star Trek

By Mark A. Altman

Last week, against my better judgment, I dropped in on J.J. Abrams private jet & truck tour (I don’t think there were any buses involved with this roadshow) to excite the world about his new incarnation of Star Trek. For months, I’ve had friends, fans and even my wife asking me what I thought of the undertaking and continually dodged the question, including during our Geek panel at San Diego ComicCon last summer while my partners-in-geekdom mostly savaged it (not Anthony, obviously). Well, after seeing about 25 minutes from the film and the new trailer, I feel I’ve seen enough to at least have some more cogent thoughts about the project.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a big J.J. Abrams fan. I’ve been a fan of Alias and Lost and thought he did a great job with Mission Impossible III. But perhaps more importantly, he seems like a real mensch. He’s always been respectful to his source material, whether it be MI or Star Trek, never belittling it, and showing the proper reverence for the series as well as their respective fans of which he is decidedly one. I genuinely feel like he’s trying to do right by the franchise even if he and his co-conspirators have admitted that Next Generation was more of a touchstone for them than the original, crazy talk, for sure (and, for the record, that doesn’t mean I don’t like TNG, I do, it just means that Classic Trek is that much better). I never got the impression he actually wanted to direct this film, but somehow got pulled into like a black hole that sucked him in, but once he was onboard, he gave it everything he got. 

That said, I was very pleasantly surprised by what I saw. Admittedly, I don’t think this Star Trek film is being made for me, nor should it. It’s a re-invention to introduce an entirely new generation to the franchise which is what it should be. The reality is me and my curmudgeonly ilk will be there opening day anyway so it’s not about getting our asses into overpriced theater seats but the High School Musical generation and those crummy teens who grew up on Phantom Menace and thought it was good. You know, the one’s with no taste. That aside, JJ had quite a three year mission for himself: make Star Trek cool. I’m not sure how you do that since it’s never been remotely that, but judging from the footage I saw I’m betting even money he might just pull it off.


Iowa gets a Starfleet bailout and turns out to become the center of the starship construction industry…and what gas mileage.

At the end of the day, all of us complaining about how the movie destroys existing continuity, despite protestations to the contrary from the filmmakers, are right. There’s no way you can get around Kirk buddying up to Pike (an inspirational Bruce Greenwood in full-on JFK mode) as an Academy student when this was clearly not the case in “The Menagerie” or driving a stick shift when he couldn’t in “A Piece of the Action” or battling the Romulans face-to-face when we hadn’t even seen them in the flesh until “Balance of Terror.” But it doesn’t really doesn’t matter because “I am your father, new Trek audience” and this isn’t your father’s Star Trek.  The only reason I find this annoying is because Star Trek continuity is sort of a cool thing, it’s something that made it really fun to grow up on and gave the series a life beyond those initial 79 episodes; first in fanzines, then in Power Records, James Blish novels, the animated series and the movies and TV series to follow. Sure, there might be some convoluted time travel explanation for why this isn’t messing with continuity, but it didn’t have to be this way. As painful as for me to say, this movie didn’t need Leonard Nimoy, it didn’t need to be a prequel and a sequel, for that matter, it needed to be a remake…or re-imagination, if you will, which seems to be the current nomenclature. It needed to be Casino Royale in which everything from Dr. No to Die Another Day didn’t exist (especially A View To A Kill, thankfully). It needed to be Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica in which Muffet the Daggit and, regrettably, Count Iblis didn’t exist. Then maybe, just maybe, us old fucking fogies, wouldn’t care what you changed and the new kids on the block wouldn’t have to listen to long, ponderous scenes like Leonard Nimoy as Spock explaining technobabble to Scotty that he’s from the future and Captain Kirk needs to get Spock emotional to take command. That’s Next Generation, guys, and as much as I loved seeing Nimoy on screen as Spock again, I couldn’t but help feeling it was like dropping Jar-Jar into a scene in The Empire Strikes Back…or if Humphrey Bogart suddenly showed up in The Bourne Identity, an anachronism.

Yes, I know you feel my pain and you’re yelling, but you’re a geek, Altman. For gods sakes, you founded Geek Monthly. You made a fucking movie about lunatic fans who tell Shatner that he should “get a life.” Who cares about all this? It’s about the movie, stupid, not the fact that you spent several decades in a dysfunctional love/hate relationship with the original Star Trek. Ah, that’s the equation! Putting all that aside then: the 25 minutes of footage I watched, kinda rocked.  


Hailing frequencies are open, sugar

And why? It starts with Chris Pine. Obviously, I’m a high priest in the church of Shatnerica and, to me, there’s no way you can recast Kirk. He’s an icon of popular culture that’s sacrosanct. It’s like Rick Blaine. David Soul can’t play him, George Raft can’t play him, only Bogart. There’s only one Shatner, the only man who could get away with asking god what he needed with a starship. But, truth be told, Pine is pretty great in the movie from what I could tell. He captures the bravado, humor, heroism of Shatner’s Kirk without being Shatner which is pretty impressive. It’s ironic considering I thought it was going to be Zachary Quinto who nailed Nimoy’s Spock and, from what little I could see, he didn’t. I’m actually a little worried about Quinto’s Spock. Part of it is because Quinto’s not Jewish and there was always something rabbinical about all the great Vulcans from Nimoy to Mark Lenard which Quinto’s Spock lacks. And that’s no slight against Episcopalians or whatever Quinto is, they’re just not Vulcans, as I once warned Greg Grunberg.

On the other hand, Karl Urban is doing a dead-on DeForest Kelley that’s a joy to behold and Zoe Saldana’s Uhura is a hottie with better lines than Nichelle ever had. That said, I’m still not sure why Anton Yelchin is in this movie. Even the animated series was smart enough to jettison Chekov and given that the character never showed up till the second season of the original Trek, did we really need him in this movie? All the films have failed when they tried to service the ensemble of Trek characters not realizing at its core, despite George Takei’s whining, Star Trek is a star vehicle, about the troika of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And by trying to get Scotty, Uhura and Sulu into the action as well as Chekov, they’re doing the big three a disservice. Chekov’s played for comic relief, much as he was in Star Trek IV, and, at the end of the day, who really needs him.


Beam me down, Sylar

Is there anything that really bothered me? Sure. Scott Chambliss production design, for sure. The bridge looks like an Apple Store instead of the retro pulp look of Captain Pike’s original bridge and will probably date worse in a few years. It actually looks a lot like Alias’ HQ final season which was great for Alias, not so much for Trek. The rest of the ship looks like the Titanic and I’m not sure why. Fortunately, all of the rest of Abrams band of brothers (and, to his credit, he’s the most loyal man in Hollywood) does yeoman’s work from the awesome retro costumes to a great score from Lost tuner Michael Giancacchino.

At the end of the day, this movie looks expensive and epic whereas all the original Trek movies looked cheap and, well, cheap. And there’s a reason: they were. Except for The Motion Picture (which despite its litany of problems, looks and feels like a movie with the best production design of the bunch), they all suffered from truncated budgets and, in many cases truncated ideas. Star Trek II had Nicholas Meyer there to re-invent Trek and he did it with finesse – even though it only looked on screen like a glorified episode of the original (a really good one, but an episode nonetheless). Star Trek VI similarly suffered from the constraints of time and budget and the less said about the eviscerating nature of Star Trek V’s budget cuts, the better. Star Trek III, which had some of the series best character banter, looks like a high school play today and many contemporary fan made films have better production values.


In another universe, I could have called you Hulk

In fact, if you look at that film’s scene in an alien bar and compare it to Abrams bar scene at the beginning of the new Trek film, you’ll see what a difference two decades makes. There’s an alien in that scene, who like Morn in DS9, says nothing and does nothing, but steals the scene which is a delight from star to finish (with the possible exception of when Kirk inadvertently ends up feeling up Uhura which just feels sophomoric). Like that, compare a battle atop a Romulan mining platform to the Styrofoam conflict between Kirk and Krudge on the exploding Genesis Planet. I’ve had enough of that…how can you not be looking forward to J.J. Abrams new Trek? It’s all those images that we dreamed of as kids, reading the novels and the comics, fantasizing we were on the Starship Enterprise, come to life.

Hopefully, in this fucked up world we live in, J.J. can tap into the same sense of hope and optimism that the original Trek captured in the wake of the Kennedy New Frontier and it’s no accident that Obama-mania and the resurrection of Trek have coincided so perfectly. Maybe, just maybe, optimism about the future and not cynicism can be cool again and the human adventure really is just beginning…or maybe we just need to sit back and enjoy it before we really do grow old – like part of our DVD collection.


Any movie with Kirk sleeping with Rachel Nichols as a Green Orion Slave Girl has to be great

 

Reprinted from the January 2009 Geek Monthly (www.geekmonthly.com) with permission of the author

 

As with all editorials here, this is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of TrekMovie.com.

 

Mark A. Altman is the writer/producer of such films as the award winning comedy Free Enterprise, in which two Star Trek fans find out their idol, William Shatner, is more screwed up than they are. He has been called the “world’s foremost Trekspert” by the Los Angeles Times and written several books on Star Trek in popular culture for Little Brown as well as numerous issues of the Star Trek comic book series for both Malibu and DC Comics.

Comments

1. sean - November 24, 2008

Great summary.

2. TonyD - November 24, 2008

Interesting article and POV.

I find myself somewhat agreeing with Altman’s suggestion that it may have been better to omit Nimoy and do a full-on reboot as it would probably have been the easiest way to make a clean break from what came before while still being able to liberally dip into the mythos as necessary.

This article also seems to confirm my fears that the production design on the movie is a far cry from the classic Trek aesthetic. Too far, perhaps?

I’m still excited about seeing Trek on the big screen and May can’t come fast enough. But this movie will definitely need to navigate thru a few potential minefields to escape unscathed.

3. Wolf Trek - November 24, 2008

As far as canon, there are some lines that I would hate to see crossed. The characters have to stay true to what was set down by the original cast. I don’t want to see a sassy mouthed, hip hop Uhura telling Kirk that “if he liked it he shoulda put a ring on it!”, or an alcoholic Spock downing bottle after bottle of saurian brandy because of his inner angst at being half human and half Vulcan and the fact that his father never, NEVER, told him that he loved him. That sorta stuff. Now, if it appears that Kirk met Pike earlier than what was vaguely referred to in The Menagerie – SO WHAT!?
The way I see it, this is Trek for the new kids, and we get to tag along for the ride

4. Fraser Link - November 24, 2008

Interesting take … did nothing to deter my excitement, that’s for sure.

5. 4dog - November 24, 2008

First to say Great Read….HAHAHAHA!!!!

6. Doug - November 24, 2008

You know, now that you’ve pointed out some of the issues with earlier Trek films..production quality….I couldn’t agree more. As much as I love “Wrath of Khan” (and I DO LOVE IT) I never understood how Genesis happened to be designed to look like leftover Giligan’s Island jungle sets.
The Budget dollars didn’t end up on screen in many cases, that’s for sure.

7. sean - November 24, 2008

I definitely respect you Mark, even if I don’t hold all the same opinions (I don’t think Trek MUST be about the Troika, to me this is something fans insist that isn’t necessarily true). And at least you’ve displayed an open mind – something Trek is in desperate need of right now. :)

8. Trek Boy - November 24, 2008

So nobody wants to acknowledge the fact that Nero and Spock going back in time changes the timeline and what we see as “canon”? If Nero goes back in time, then yes, the Romulans will be encountered earlier. If future Spock somehow arranges for Kirk and Pike to meet earlier, then yes, Kirk and Pike may meet earlier.

This isn’t a ‘stick to canon’ prequel…..this is a time-altering event that takes place in the past because someone from the future went there.

Besides, Enterprise did enough to mess up continuity anyway. It’s existence alone messed it up. No canonical material acknowledged the existance of the NX-01 Enterprise.

9. Doug - November 24, 2008

Of course, having said that…there are so many product code scanners (from real life) used as set decoration on the new bridge as to be overkill. Perhaps they’re being used to allow checkout for 10 items or less at any console?

10. RTC - November 24, 2008

As a longtime reader of Altman’s stuff, it’s great to get his insights. I’m still going to have faith that the continuity stuff isn’t as bad as the preview hints.

11. Leon - November 24, 2008

Yeaaaaah, looks good!! Can’t wait for this movie. It’s gonna be kickass

12. Papa Jim - November 24, 2008

Awesome commentary! Thanks!

13. S. John Ross - November 24, 2008

I’m concerned (especially after the trailer) about the quality of the dialogue, and there doesn’t seem to be much commentary about that [most folks who’ve seen the preview scenes preferring to focus instead on the casting, the expansive scope, and “production values”]. Are the scenes being used in the promotional showings too sparse on dialogue to give a strong impression?

14. Anthony Thompson - November 24, 2008

Agree about Chekov being unnecessary. Quinto? I haven’t read any rave reviews yet! Maybe he’s the weak link in the movie. And VERY sorry to see that Nimoy’s scene is less than satisfactory. Set design. I wonder if Engineering was the huge “build” which was sacrificed due to budget constraints? That’s a crucial set. I’m starting to have doubts…

15. DavidJ - November 24, 2008

Honestly I don’t see how this new bridge is going to look any more dated than the previous Trek bridges in a few years.

I mean, go back and look at the early TNG bridge. Yikes! And as much as I love the “retro” thing personally, people have to understand that the vast majority of the audience isn’t going to see it the same way. The TOS designs simply HAD to be rethought.

16. Adam - November 24, 2008

Long time reader, first time poster

Some people have really needed to cop onto themselves for a while now, about what this film is doing to their childhood and how it is all wrong. It nice to see such a passionate fan take a step back and realize, that maybe this might actually be really really good, dare I say it personally, perhaps better than what came before in some regards.

17. Driver - November 24, 2008

There is no fan made film that has better production values than any of the feature films and that also goes for the any of the series episodes including TOS.

18. Duncan MacLeod - November 24, 2008

January 2008? He saw the footage 9 months ago?

19. Duncan MacLeod - November 24, 2008

11 months?

20. Donn - November 24, 2008

Nice article. I don’t happen to agree with Mark, I think Star Trek can be about an ensemble, about ideas bigger than the relationship between three people, but it was nice to read a well-expressed opinion from one of those guys who “pine” for the old days. (Pun intended, shoot me.)

I can totally see where he’s coming from; sure, it might have been better, easier to swallow if they hadn’t done the old-Spock thing, and just said, “You know what, it’s a reboot, plain and simple.”

Here’s the thing, though. If you watch Casino Royale, then you kind of have to accept that From Russia With Love didn’t happen. It doesn’t diminish how damn cool Sean Connery was, it’s just a different take on the character and situations. Can it be that hard to watch Star Trek 2009 and accept that some TOS-and-onward things didn’t happen in the same way, for the purposes of enjoying the new movie? And by the same token, if you prefer, is it so hard to watch The Menagerie or A Piece of the Action and enjoy those for what they are, independent of the new movie?

Still, for the record, I think the changes that have been made are so superficial as to not even bother worrying about. Far larger gaffes have been made in continuity than fudging who served with whom and who met whom exactly when. Did they invent paper printouts on the bridge just for the events of The Cage, never seen before (ENT, correct me if I’m wrong) or again (TOS, TNG, and so forth)? Explain THAT, canonistas.

I can totally understand those that are put off by the style of the new movie, the pacing, the sex, the angst, and so forth. If it weren’t Star Trek, a lot of people wouldn’t go because it is clearly aimed at a younger crowd. But everything I’ve seen plays in my Trekverse just fine.

21. Anthony Thompson - November 24, 2008

Actually, Duncan, that would be TEN months.

22. dav - November 24, 2008

“There is no fan made film that has better production values than any of the feature films and that also goes for the any of the series episodes including TOS.”

QFT (quoted for truth)

23. scifib5st - November 24, 2008

I have been caught prying at the Altman alter in the past. As a looooong time fan who watched TOS when it was on NBC as a 12 year old boy…. I realize to get more fans intrested in ST or it will die. I love the work of New Voyages and some of the others. Roddenberry was telling morality stories with optimisn, today I think we could all use some of this. It’s good to see Altman has an open mind, I hope all fans can open theirs.

24. Anthony Pascale - November 24, 2008

sorry that is the January 2009 issue of Geek Monthly, which is not out yet, Mark sent over his article in advance

25. Tony Whitehead - November 24, 2008

I know I am going to sound like a prude, but one of the reasons I prefer Trekmovie.com over most other sights is the high level of discourse in the feedback sections. We have some very thoughtful folks with some great opinions and the TM staff does a good job of policing the troublemakers.

I am not a father with children, but it seems to me that the one place things get out of hand sometimes is in the actual articles themselves. There is no need for the f-word inside the articles. Anthony, you filter out the boards, why not the stories? At least give a warning for parents to protect their kids, if only a little.

This isn’t AICN, nor should it be. Just my two cents.

By the way, great article, Mark

26. THE GOVERNATOR - November 24, 2008

interesting article, although I respectively disagree with a few things. I think that you can still have Nimoy in the movie and still call it a complete reboot, you just have to think of him as just playing his part. As for those who desire a connection between TOS and this new movie, well you can look at Nimoy as being your bridge. As for the set designs, I love them. Besides, I like Apple Stores :)

27. rodd_berry - November 24, 2008

I don’t want to see this movie anymore.

28. S. John Ross - November 24, 2008

#20 sez: “If you watch Casino Royale, then you kind of have to accept that From Russia With Love didn’t happen.”

But that’s because Casino Royale is a reboot. If the filmmakers for Trek would just man up and admit that their Star Trek is also a reboot (instead of continually, explicitly denying that it is) it would make the whole process so much easier on so many of the fans.

29. JeFF - November 24, 2008

HOORAY! Agreed agreed agreed!

Change we can BELIEVE in… YES WE CAN!!!

30. DavidJ - November 24, 2008

20
“Still, for the record, I think the changes that have been made are so superficial as to not even bother worrying about.”

Agreed. Who cares if the Enterprise was built in Iowa, or Kirk encountered the Romulans a few years earlier than before? As fun as it is to know all this complex continuity, Star Trek has always been a lot MORE than that to me.

It’s about the adventures of the Starship Enterprise, and the friendship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Ultimately THAT’s what I take away from the original series. Not when this or that happened in the timeline.

31. Thehaggard - November 24, 2008

Frankly,
Cannon was lost in the original series. Just go episode to episode and examine cannon for what it is. Cannon was created AFTER the show was cancelled and fans tried to reconcile events and names and places and times into what they wanted. Sure, the makers and shakers of the Trekverse helped and chimed in… but the original series was very poor at continuity and “cannon.”

Then take the events of “Enterprise” – the Borg go back and change things in First Contact and then show up in Archerverse. The Temporal Cold War changed many things. The writers have long used time travel to shake up the cannon and free themselves from it.

So, with TOS cannon being screwed with unintentionally by the episodic nature of 1960s TV and the later variable-geometry cannon used to streamline storytelling and help them break the cannon-barrier, all has lead us to better story telling and a relief and release when arguing cannon.

This was a great article and we give it two thumbs up!

32. Brian - November 24, 2008

Great article, Mark. I agree with you that this film should’ve been a full-blown reboot in the first place so we all wouldn’t have to read all the hemming-and-hawing about canon.

As much as I loved TNG, TOS was always, truly “Star Trek” to me, warts and all. I’m completely willing to give the new film a chance.

33. Izbot - November 24, 2008

“Maybe, just maybe, optimism about the future and not cynicism can be cool again”

I really hope so. I was a big fan of ENT but it did (especially season 3 — which was still great!) come off pretty cynical.

34. GNDN - November 24, 2008

Fanboy, are you afraid of the future? Some people are afraid of the future; of what might happen. I was frightened, really frightened.

No more neutral zone, or hand-picked prime Mexican red chili peppers, or “that-a-way, second star to the right, and straight on ’till morning.” I was used to hating any new vision of Star Trek.

It never even occurred to me to take J.J. at his word. Spock was right. (Star Trek VI: The Untapped Potential [after N. Meyers])

You know something, Mr. Altman, I think maybe Nick Meyers was trying to tell us something about franchises running their courses and the need to regenerate. As a Sherlockian of some note, he would have experience with the joys and frustrations of canon run riot.

If anything, the run-up to this new movie makes me feel like Gig Young in “Walking Distance” or William Windom in “Their Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar.”

Actually, if they are tearing down Gene R’s starbase, I suppose they’ll have to build a new one; the structure will hold, I suppose, so long as it doesen’t exceed the foundation.

“This ship and her history will shortly become the care of a new generation. To them and their posterity will we commit our future.” Or to put it another way, “I feel young;” or “Tell her ‘I feel fine.”

It was never about us. Star Trek is, at its best, about the next generation.

35. Cmdr Data - November 24, 2008

#8 Trek boy

I totally agree. Trek fans in general get too caught up in canon. It makes no difference what series/movie u watch, there are always going to be contradictions.

heres an example from the DS9 Episode – Trials and tribble-ations. Just after Sisko has told the 2 officers from Temporal investigations he’s seen the ‘Enterprise’

—————————————————————————————————-

Dulmur is eyeing Sisko as Lucsly takes notees on his PADD.

DULMUR:
Be specific, Captain. Which
Enterprise? There’ve been five.

LUCSLY:
Six.

SISKO:
This was the first Enterprise.
Constitution class.

—————————————————————————————————-

36. vanedge - November 24, 2008

Mark Altman makes me proud to be from Brooklyn — and a trek geek.

37. Adam Cohen - November 24, 2008

“As painful as for me to say, this movie didn’t need Leonard Nimoy, it didn’t need to be a prequel and a sequel, for that matter, it needed to be a remake…or re-imagination, if you will, which seems to be the current nomenclature. It needed to be Casino Royale in which everything from Dr. No to Die Another Day didn’t exist (especially A View To A Kill, thankfully).”

This is on the money. I think that divorcing this movie entirely from the existing Trek universe would have been a much wiser choice. You could make creative choices that depart from the past and not have to feel accountable for those decisions.

You could have made Sulu a girl, the Enterprise could look like *whatever* you could come up with, and Russell Crowe could have played James T. Kirk. And all would have been well in the universe. No need to half-ass continuity. I think we’re all mature enough to accept a clean break. Oh well…

38. sean - November 24, 2008

#20 & 28

But see, Casino Royale was kind of a special case too because it was both a prequel and a reboot. It wasn’t as if they threw every Bond convention out the window and started from scratch. He’s still a 00, still answers to M (the same M Pierce Brosnan answered to!) and he still drives an Astin Martin every once in a while. They just went to the beginning of Bond and washed away the excess. Including Judi Dench, to me, was a bit like including Leonard in this film. They both serve as a sort of nod to fans that hey, we aren’t completely obliterating everything you love. This is still Bond.

JJ’s just come up with a Trek loophole to create a new universe to play in with the same characters everyone loves. To me, this is a nice way of starting over without wiping out everything that all the fans have become so attached to.

39. Ta'Qkerr - November 24, 2008

#35 Cmdr Data

Your logic is flawed, Starfleet existed before the United Federation of Planets, it is logical to assume that the temporal investigators and Sisko were refering to the Federation Starship named Enterprise. As apose to any vessels prior to it. Otherwise there would have been several more, for example, the NASA space shuttle Enterprise or perhaps the HMS Enterprise.

40. Brian - November 24, 2008

I also agree that Trek is at it’s best when it focuses on Kirk-Spock-McCoy. TOS and TNG were both star-driven vehicles, and not real ensembles.

41. t2 - November 24, 2008

a well-written commentary, i just don’t think we should look so deeply into this when not having seen the whole movie.us no offense but i hope youre wrong about some of your observations…still looking forward to it!

42. Brett Campbell - November 24, 2008

25 – I was thinking the same thing when I read the article. I don’t have kids, but I felt a little concerned and embarrassed for parents who are fans with kids who are growing enthusiasts for Trek and who want to share this experience together.

It seems rather inappropriate, especially when the English language has so many more adjectives to be used that are more precise and appropriate and would serve even better. It’s sad when professional writers, such as even Harlan Ellison, have to resort to this kind of locker room banter to feel as if they are getting their point across. It’s not necessary.

I just hope it’s not a sign of things to come in the movie. I’m not a prude, but I also don’t think we need shots of Uhura stripping to her bra in a Trek film either. Well, maybe I am a prude.

I like the idea of all things Trek being just a little more kid- and family-friendly. And then you have Mr. Pine in interviews saying that Uhura’s stripping will be a classic scene in the future. Anything to sell tickets in May, I guess. Not our fathers’ Trek indeed.

43. Oregon Trek Geek - November 24, 2008

Well, if it turns out that nobody likes the interior of the E, that can always be fixed in the next feature (the one with William Shatner).

There were some bridge changes in the TOS movies (most notably between TMP and TWOK), and we all just went with it and assumed they had a nice refit between movies.

Good points on the ensemble vs. stars. TOS was always about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

44. Cmdr Data - November 24, 2008

#39
Yeah there is always that possibility. As you say it is logical to theorize that this is the case however no facts confirm this hypothesis.. Incidentally, is there not a line in the new movie where Scotty refers to Captain Archers Beagle?

Would that not indicate that indeed there was an Enterprise prior to the Constitution Class vessel?

In my opinion, continuity within Star Trek is not the fundimental principle, it is the optimism and hope.

45. Falvoant - November 24, 2008

Umm Yeah ….but one thing what if…when the movie ends
“All that you know is GONE…”
Throw your DVDs away
Throw your model ships away
Throw your action figures away…
It has passeed into what was….
JJ now controls your picture
He controls the Vetical
He controls the Horizontal
He can sharpen it to crystal clarity
or blur it to dull focus
or erase it from your mind completey

46. drij - November 24, 2008

who the heck is Mark Altman… rofl…

47. Sc00ny - November 24, 2008

Mark A. Altman’s review is quite possibly the epitome of hackerie.
What a pretentious self-important, pompous (non) journalist.

A review of a film that hasn’t been finished!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

48. Darth Ballz - November 24, 2008

Nice-

Mark Altman is right up there with Richard Arnold, a dingleberry on the bottom of Star Trek. Notice that he has to plug that crapola Shatner movie of his to make himself a Trek expert. He makes some good points here but I never thought much of him or his ego.

Darth “AltmanSorB” Ballz

49. Brian - November 24, 2008

I have no problem seeing Uhura in her bra, I just don’t think it’s necessary, nor do I have a problem with Mark dropping an F-bomb….it’s not like the article was one giant blue streak.

50. AJ - November 24, 2008

“Krudge?”

51. Catie - November 24, 2008

I’m personally really glad the Nimoy is in this film. I can’t wait to see him as Spock again.
#20 I agree. So long as the characters feel right I’m not that concerned about the details.

52. Jackson Roykirk - November 24, 2008

Uh oh. Technobabble. I did like TNG, but there were was too much weird science dialog. How many times did we really need to see Geordi invert the main deflector pulse matrix generator to emit an anti-tachion burst into anomaly after anomaly?

Technobabble is fine for serious fans, but it repels newbies like a bad smell. JJ really needs to connect the Trek future to our current reality. Thus, the more things The Kirk and all of his carbon units have in common with us 21st century primitives, the better for the movie.

This is why JJ chose a red Vette for the “cliffhanger” trailer scene instead of some 22nd century anti-grav car-plane. It pulls us in, gets us wondering what kind of maniac would drive it off a cliff, then surprises us with The Kirk as a child. Instant connection. And a not so subtle hint that the ’60s are long gone and JJ is throwing out some of the old stuff.

The movie probably won’t show much at all of how Earth society evolves between the 21st and 23rd centuries, and it doesn’t need to. That’s not the point. But it’ll be interesting to see if JJ’s future Earth is the utopia that Roddenberry hinted at in TOS. With or without technobabble.

53. Scott - November 24, 2008

#37 – I was heartened to know that Nimoy was on board this project, back when it was first being cast. But the more I see, and having read Altman’s piece above, with its barely concealed pain, the more I think you and Mark Altman are right. A clean break would have been better for the guys like me who do fear that Picasso, or maybe Warhol, is painting over the Mona Lisa, and telling me not to worry and to keep an open mind.

With Nimoy in the flick, I’ll be there opening day … fearing I’ll come out of the theater feeling like I’d found out the girl I idolized in high school (TOS, not Nimoy) is now turning tricks. Without Nimoy, I could easily wait for the reviews, and then choose whether to add it to my NetFlix queue or not.

The above sounds negative, but I am truthfully holding out hope that the filmmakers are holding back some wicked good cleverness that will have my apprehensions put to rout in May.

Scott B. out.

54. Rusbeh - November 24, 2008

Agree with #46 and 47.
I don´t really see were the author is coming form and all this “classic trek is the best” thing annoys me hugely. classic trek never had the depth of TNG and DS9, character wise, story wise and regarding the action/production design.after all Star Trek is quality work (even parts of voyager are great, ENT is underrated imo).

the only thing i agree with in this review is the production design. i dunno what the designer thought when he created the bridge and the reports of the other decks view is worrying me hugely. Starship from the Federation are connected to each other regarding design, functionality and continuity. its very disappointing that the new team around the self declared non trekkie director and hardcore trekkie writers simply ignored 40+ years of fanchise hisstory

55. Enterprise - November 24, 2008

Free Enterprise kinda sucked.

56. William - November 24, 2008

I would like to say “Thanks” to Mark. whether you agree or disagree with any of his comments, the artice was obviously well thought out and well written. I think that he brings up some very good points about how Star Trek films have been approached in the past and I appreciate his explaining some of that background. Sure, it’s true that he has only seen 20 minutes of the film but that’s about 18 1/2 minutes more than most of the rest of us have seen. That being said, ulitmately, I doesn’t matter what any reviewer between now and May 2009 says about the film. I’ll be queued up to plunk down my money and I’m counting on being blown away. And yes… as good as the article was, the point could have been just as elquently made without the “F-word”. Time and place.

57. fred - November 24, 2008

What all the whining hardcore fans are overlooking is that if this movie doesn’t appeal to the mass audience and gain new fans, there will never be another one!

58. barrydancer - November 24, 2008

Admittedly, I haven’t seen the film. :) But I agree that ,from what I’ve seen, Nimoy seems superfluous. A way to legitimize the changes in Star Trek and perhaps appease some fans who might be be wary otherwise. A clean break, a new universe with no actual connection to what had come before, would have probably been best in my mind.

Also, I’m confused at all the talk about how we have to make Trek “relevant” to today’s audience. We have to change things to get more people interested. If I want to introduce classic literature to my students, I don’t re-imagine The Count of Monte Cristo or Crime and Punishment in order to make the works more relevant to their lives.

Just my $0.02.

59. G - November 24, 2008

I’m still not convinced that we won’t have some major surprises by the end of the movie. Did the bridge need to be updated and made to be more “grand” in scope and sophistication? Yes. But, did it need to look so dissimilar?? No. In fact, it almost looks.. intentionally dissimilar. Which leads me to believe that there may still be a surprise ‘twist’ or two by the end of the movie regarding ‘canon’ and the Enterprise, etc. JJ Abrams and the writers are no dummies. They HAD to know what they were getting into with all of this, and the risks that came with changing the timeline (and messing with 40 years worth of fans). I have a feeling that there’s something for everyone in this movie. I mean, remember how secretive JJ Abrams was, and how tight security was for the actors and scripts? All the interviews where he said he wanted people to experience the movie without any spoilers ahead of time? Well, suddenly, he’s showing almost a half-hour’s worth of footage to everyone and their sister, it seems. And, the movie is still months away. Again, makes me wonder about any surprises he’s still got left up his sleeve.

I’ll hold off judgment until the credits start to roll.

60. Andros - November 24, 2008

I don’t understand why people throw the canon card all over the place when referring to this movie. Um, this movie involves TIME TRAVEL, meaning that while up to the point in the movie where Nero goes back in time, yes “Balance of Terror” was the first time Kirk meets Romulans. However, the moment Nero goes back in time that immediately erases that timeline. This is a whole new timeline because of it. That’s like saying First Contact never happened because Picard was not mentioned in TOS when Zefram Cochrane appeared.

Think. This doesn’t erase canon, it makes its own.

61. G - November 24, 2008

60.

I am thinking.

If it’s a whole new timeline and canon doesn’t matter, then why does old Spock need to chase him back in time if it won’t affect him?

62. Andros - November 24, 2008

“If I want to introduce classic literature to my students, I don’t re-imagine The Count of Monte Cristo or Crime and Punishment in order to make the works more relevant to their lives.”

But you probably do by comparing it to more recent works that they may be familiar with. If you want them to enjoy classic literature you need to put it in today’s context. Maybe not the actual text, but perhaps the premise.

63. Andros - November 24, 2008

61.

I never said it won’t affect the future, I was just merely stating that what we understand as “canon” may not necessarily apply to this universe. Hell maybe the whole movie ends with everything back to normal just to appease the fans and we see Kirk struggling to drive stick.

64. TrekMadeMeWonder - November 24, 2008

Screw FOX. Anthony you are the winner of the Fair and Balanced trophy.

.

65. G - November 24, 2008

63.

I really don’t care if he can drive stick or not. Just give me the famous signature “Kirk drop-kick” : ) Gotta have that, in any universe.

66. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - November 24, 2008

Altman, Where the F is Free Enterprise II ????

67. steve623 - November 24, 2008

“However, the moment Nero goes back in time that immediately erases that timeline.”

“Think. This doesn’t erase canon, it makes its own.”

Think. You just contradicted yourself within about 4 sentences.

68. Dennis Bailey - November 24, 2008

#58:”Also, I’m confused at all the talk about how we have to make Trek “relevant” to today’s audience. We have to change things to get more people interested. If I want to introduce classic literature to my students, I don’t re-imagine The Count of Monte Cristo or Crime and Punishment in order to make the works more relevant to their lives.”

Your livelihood doesn’t depend upon your students willingly paying for the opportunity to be entertained by you. Even if you teach in a private school, the students aren’t the ones paying and they’re there to learn, not enjoy themselves.

Therefore, the situation is in no way comparable to enticing folks to buy a ticket to a movie. If it were, you’d find yourself making a lot of changes to please and entertain the students.

69. steve623 - November 24, 2008

“A clean break, a new universe with no actual connection to what had come before, would have probably been best in my mind.”

Agreed. If the intent was to tackle these classic characters, then the way to do it was to start from the ground up, and its apparent that they have more or less done that. Fine. Its just a shame they haven’t had the courage of their convictions and have engaged in months of carefully parsed remarks about “respecting” and “honoring” and blah blah blah and flasely creating an expectation in some people that the film was going to be something that it clearly isn’t, which is a legitimate prequel to “Star Trek”. The classy thing to have done from day one was say “We’re so happy to be reviving this legendary franchise for the new millennium, and we feel that the work of Shatner, Nimoy, et al, was so iconic that we think the best way to honor and respect their work is to start from scratch with the characters and the premise” – which is what they’ve done anyway. The bait-and-switch tactics that the writers especially have engaged in shows contempt for the audience. I’m glad I never swallowed their lines in the first place.

70. PDX Trek - November 24, 2008

Cannon, cannon and cannon, what is cannon? (with apologies to the Morg)

Cannon-istas are Trek Fundamentalists. (and to Steven Colbert)

Trek is entertainment with a message and much like many well intended philosophies, many of its disciples have lost its meaning in the minutiae…

71. The Angry Klingon - November 24, 2008

#57
..AND? Whats your point besides finding a way to interject the word whining in to yet another post.
What if there isnt another one? We have 40 years of Trek behind us to enjoy. where does it say that we have to accept the bastardization of something we grew up so that ‘non fans’ will be appeased?
Is Hollywood so out of ideas that they not only had to do a reimagined remake but all the while coming up with justifications about why its NOT a remake.
This may be a good movie but it is NOT TOS Trek regardless of whether Nimoy is involved or not. Mark was right about the Troika. Trek was not Melrose Place about an Ensemble. This was K/S/M. Thats why TOS worked on a level that NONE of the subsequent Treks ever captured.
Canon: Regardless of of the WHY canon got changed the fact is it DID get changed. In THIS Trek universe some of my favorite Trek apparently didnt happen.
This story could have been done without drastically altering Trek Canon by the overused and cliche time travel BS that has grown tiresome. The fact that this is being used yet once again is the first major red flag. The look and effects could have been updated without the clumsy and lazy lackluster design work that is being shoveled off on us.
The bridge is crap. It hasnt been ‘updated’…its white walls and plexiglass littered with IKEA lamps and 3 brands of commercially available BARCODE SCANNER. Thats LAZY. The old bridge had CHARACTER and a defined look. The new bridge is an overly spacious bastard stepchild of the thrown together Trek 3 Excalibur bridge. In updating the look of Trek these folks have ALREADY dated the NEW look with their lack of imaginatiaon and ability. Barcode scanners all over the bridge. That is BEYOND lazy.
Why give them a budget if all they can muster is a quick trip to IKEA with a stop off at STAPLES and the MAC store? To make matters worse (and youll see this when the film comes out) in the same way the Bridge is over the top and cluttered the bowels of the ship look like they were borrowed from TITANIC. The mishapen malproportioned monstrosity that is the new Enterprise looks like someone stole Gabe Koerners design and threw a TMP saucer on it so they couldnt be accused of stealing his design.
Again. laziness camouflaged by ‘re-imagination”. If youre going to be that unoriginal why not take the REAL TOS ‘E’, in all her glory, and giover some surface detail?
So yeah, Fred, save your comments about ‘Whining’.
If thats all you can come up with in light of well thought out articles it shows that you fall in to the category of the football fan that continues to shell out money to see games when his team is 0-9 and justifies it by saying ‘if I dont keep going to the games we may end up not having a team’. Thats fine if youre in to blind loyalty. Im not. .Im the fan who says Ive supported this franchise for 4 decades. Ive worked on this franchise. Dont think for a minute that you can just hand me off something that detracts from that and Ill be happy for whatever canonical scraps you thew in to ‘appease’ me when its clear that the ‘hardcore whiney’ fans who HAVE kept this going for 40 years are NOT who this is being made for.
How sad that Trek canon has been reduced to ‘nods’ and ‘easter eggs’ to patronize us ‘whiney hardcore fans’ that supported this franchise for 4 decades while this movie panders to the ‘Twilight’ generation.

72. Seven of Four - November 24, 2008

Because Quinto isn’t Jewish he doesn’t play Spock well?

Dear God, that’s the stupidest thing I think I’ve ever read in a review.

If Quinto is missing something, it’s the big Spock voice. He doesn’t have Nimoy’s baritone, and that will be a problem, I think. That voice gave Spock authority.

73. Gary Seven - November 24, 2008

I can adjust to Pike and Kirk in the movie knowing each other and working together in this new movie. I will disassociate from how in “The Menagerie” they don’t know each other well at all.
I can deal with Kirk driving a stick in his Corvette and yet being clueless about driving a stick in “A Piece of the Action.” These two examples are minor moments. The fact that the movie negates them does not damage the basic premise of these episodes.

But I do NOT like how “Balance of Terror,” which is a fan favorite (my second favorite episode after “City”) is being completely negated. That’s a bit much, don’t you think? The core plot point that created the entire dramatic tension of that episode centered around how nobody in Starfleet has ever seen a Romulan before.
There is a saying that “The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.” I don’t insist on perfect canon. But Bad is also the enemy of the Good too.

74. NX01 - November 24, 2008

HEY J.J. ABRAMS ITS BEEN LIKE A MONTH HOW ABOUT SOME NEW ENTERPRISE PICS FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES.! HOW ABOUT A BLUE PRINT SOMETHING!

DA** IT, JIM I JUST CAN’T TAKE THE SUSPENSE

75. Brett Campbell - November 24, 2008

49 – I am also a red-blooded male who loves seeing beautiful women in provocative clothing. But my point was — as you said — it’s just not necessary, if overdone, in Trek. (Let’s face it, the original show had costume design at NBC sweating bullets at times.)

I don’t think the expletives in the article were necessary either if we want Trek to be a thought-provoking universe that parents can feel good about introducing their children to — either in the theater or at this site.

But then, I am of an age that I remember my grandfather slamming off the TV set at the end of NBC’s airing of “The City on the Edge of Forever” and wagging his finger at me, saying “That’s it! You’re never watching that show again!” all because Kirk said “hell” at the end of that episode. (Luckily my dad always talked him into letting me watch it whenever I went to visit Bampa, as my father was one of the first Trekkers — despite that and McCoy’s “dammit Jims.”)

It’s a very different world than it was in 1966-69. I just think it will be a shame if a lot of kids have to miss this film because their parents find it too racy, or (even worse) too violent an “enterprise” than the Treks we’ve known through the years.

I just think things should be a little more family-oriented for Trek — that was my only salient point that I was trying to make.

76. C.S. Lewis - November 24, 2008

Mark, the big difference is that Roddenberry &Co targetted Star Trek squarely at ADULTS. It was, to borrow his phrase, “adult science fiction” that just happened to appeal to youngsters.

Aiming Star Sex at pimply-faced teenagers guarantees they will outgrow it along with their zits and their first real woman. End of trek.

A shame to see my favourite work of stagecraft reduced to an afternoon’s lusty diversion for kids too old to be innocent yet too young to drive themselves to the cinema to be debased.

Heavy sigh…

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

77. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - November 24, 2008

Whew. At least I’m not the only one that thinks the bridge looks like a testing facility for a fluorescent tube factory.

Not that there’s anything WRONG with that…..but he’s seen (a lot) more than I have :)

78. Sc00ny - November 24, 2008

#73 I agree.
Nimoy and quinto are cut from the same cloth.
You might have a point about the voice, but Spock is younger, so Abrams could maybe sell that.
Jews/Hebrews/Habiru were always a mixed race anyway, so i fail to see any racial difference. (I am part-jewish by the way). So is Quinto missing any Jewish mannerisms that Nimoy performed in TOS, that I missed?

Altman is a schmuck! Also, Zachary, of course he’s Jewish!
Even if he’s not we’ll have him.

Also, I just found out last year that Shatner was Jewish! Does this mean Chris Pine is sufficiently Jewish for Altman?

Altman: Schlamiel

Shalom,

Sc00ny

79. Dom - November 24, 2008

A well-thought-out article. I respectfully disagree with some of it, but have also been given food for thought by other parts.

One thing I have been wondering is how the chemistry will work out between the Big Three. Everything promotional so far seems to be Kirk and Spock, Kirk and Spock . . . with less mention of McCoy.

And yet from what I’ve been reading, I’m wondering if Pine’s Kirk and Urban’s McCoy might not be the ‘Kirk and Spock’ of the new Trek.

80. Admiral Christian Waugh - November 24, 2008

Good Lord, I want to agree with this analysis but… it’s awful. The comments about Star Trek II are disgusting on as many levels as they are wrong. ( Cheap? An episode? Is this all some sordid joke? )

Sigh.

Of course, the most important part is dead on: the heart and soul of Star Trek is NOT its optimism, is NOT that it is in space… it’s the troika of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Shame on those who can’t face up to it, and continue, as even Altman almost does, at the end, to appropriate it for shameless political ends.

81. Daoud - November 24, 2008

#73 Agree strongly here…

Kirk’s throwaway line in Menagerie of “I met him when he was promoted to Fleet Captain” doesn’t rule out him having been promoted to Fleet Captain while Pike was still running the Enterprise. And it doesn’t mean he never saw him since… after all, he calls him “Chris” later on. This movie would make sense of that… particularly if a baffle plate ruptures later on and saves some cadet Ensign Chekov (who has to go home to recuperate)…

Kirk driving is really silly. The Iotian T takeoff, and the Corvette have completely different shifting patterns, and a completely different clutch system. Why is anyone even seriously comparing them?

As to Balance of Terror. Rewatch it. If only Kirk and Spock and Sulu truly know what Romulans look like… it’s the reaction of Stiles and their reaction to him that is all the more interesting. Perhaps the whole point of following the Romulan was proving that they actually were all Vulcans and that Nero wasn’t exceptional….

Of course, I’m not convinced that Orseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee has completely negated BoT. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet a bag of Doritos they use something akin to the appearance of Ferengi in Star Trek: Enterprise. I think that’s similar to the wink of Uhura ordering a Cardassian drink in the bar scene.

82. Jack - November 24, 2008

Thing is, a reboot (and I also like the idea of a total reboot, and also sort iof wish this had been one) like Casino Royale doesn’t mean that From Russia With Love didn’t happen, it just means that it didn’t happen to this Bond. You can have the same characters without the exact same experiences — because frankly, one can get so bogged down with continuity that it starts to sound like dialogue from Days of Our Lives, where the last 35 years needs to get mentioned constantly in case someone has missed a few hundred episodes or so — “Hey Marlena, remember that time when you married new Roman after old Roman was killed but then he turned out not to be new Roman but a Spy/Priest and then Old Roman came back and then you were possessed by the devil and I asked you to pass the salt? Well could you pass it again.?”

Seriously, I hope there are minimal winks to the fans in this. Make it “real.” Also interesting to hear that Yelchin balked at the “w” for “v” thing and Abrams thought it would annoy fans if that was changed.

83. Brett Campbell - November 24, 2008

70 – “Cannon, cannon and cannon, what is cannon?”

Well, the way you spell it, it’s a large funneled weapon used to hurl iron balls and other projectiles at enemy troops and “wessels.” ;)

84. TL - November 24, 2008

“As painful as for me to say, this movie didn’t need Leonard Nimoy, it didn’t need to be a prequel and a sequel, for that matter, it needed to be a remake…or re-imagination,” THIS IS WHY THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO SUCK!

85. Phaser...where are youuu? - November 24, 2008

Wow, I had to stop reading this article and wash my eyes out with soap. :-x

86. Brett Campbell - November 24, 2008

85 – Ouch.

87. Thomas Jensen - November 24, 2008

I completely agree with the article. I’d have prefered a complete new Star Trek using the original characters without reference to anything done before. It isn’t necessary to connect this movie with the series, unless your going to pay attention to the details. It worked with Bond and Galactica, so this team could have done a great movie without the constraints of the history established.

A three movie arc dealing with events up until the first season of the show would have done fine. There is plenty of back history mentioned in the original series that could have been developed.

However, the movie looks to be entertaining and will have an explaination for the changes.

As I keep saying Star Trek, to me, is 79 episodes and six movies. The rest is somebody’s elses star trek.

88. Dr. Image - November 24, 2008

FINALLY, THE VOICE OF REASON!!
Or, should I say, thank you Mark for summing up all that is right- and wrong- with this approach. Just like First Contact, which was an all-out effort solely aimed at box office, this film (seems to) go even further in eroding Trek consistency by shattering everything mythological about it and heaping upon it a degree of disrespect which, hopefully, won’t last- at least until someone else brings things back in line.

“It didn’t have to be this way.”
No shit.
If that statement doesn’t sum it all up, nothing will.

And if I hear the words “open mind” again, I’ll fkn scream.
Let ‘em enjoy their Kool Aid.

89. The Last Maquis - November 24, 2008

I was wondering when Mark A. Altman would Rear His Multi layered Jowls around Here. Please defend Star wars Now,
Please Do. The Prequels Killed it. God I would have loved To have Seen The Look on Your Face once Jar Jar Appeared. BTW Trek Sooo Wins.

#74. NX01 you can type Damn it, home boy over here wrote FuQ like several times in the Article.

90. InSaint - November 24, 2008

“Admittedly, I don’t think this Star Trek film is being made for me, nor should it.”

WTF does that meen?

91. Mark - November 24, 2008

#70 – It doesn’t matter all that much, but it was actually I, in another thread, who said, “Cannon and cannon! What is cannon?!” And in light of posts like, oh, I don’t know, say, number 31, I renew my request for a sticky at the top of every thread. After all this time, there is NO excuse for use the use of the word caNNon in these posts unless one means exactly that: a caNNon; a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles. And maybe we could count the sticky as the first post, too. :-)

#25 and #42, you are exactly right regarding the use of the F-word in these posts and articles. Regarding Brian’s excusal (#49) of Mr. Altman “dropping an F-bomb,” it wasn’t “an” (singular), but he used the word three times, which was three times too many. With apologies to Capt. Picard, “How many times does it take, Brian, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million?” Especially knowing that children will be reading these articles, one is too many for me.

92. Garovorkin - November 24, 2008

The hell with the canon, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

93. New Horizon - November 24, 2008

90. “InSaint – “Admittedly, I don’t think this Star Trek film is being made for me, nor should it.”

WTF does that meen?”

Understanding what that means is a state of mind. I think you have to find a certain level of understanding and acceptance to truly appreciate and know what that means.

I agree with Mr. Altman on that point.

94. Jax Maxton - November 24, 2008

It might sound strange, but I’m glad to hear an alternate opinion on the footage that’s been shown. So much of it has been praised around the internet that I’m beginning to mistrust some of the positive reviews. A negative is refreshing.

Like Mr. Altman, I was least worried about Quinto. But his review makes me wonder now. I’m still taking a wait and see. One thing that I keep hearing is “IIt had to change to appeal to a new audience.” I’m not sure I buy that, but whatever. I hope it rocks and spawns new Trek tales. Time will tell.

95. Ron Mosher - November 24, 2008

Nice article except for the problem of assuming what’s going on after only seeing 25 minutes of the film. Come on Mark take a chill pill. I liked Anthony’s review much better since he didn’t use profanity to get his point across. I am worried about Quinto playing Spock though and have been since he was cast these reviews have only heightened my worry. Just because he looks the part doesn’t mean he can play it.

96. Captain Spock - November 24, 2008

Fanboys are the worst critics in the world. This is why no one can really enjoy anything anymore. The bottom line is this they wanted to redo the Original Series without just erasing 40 years of continuity. They could have gone the Battlestar Galactica route and started from scratch. The time travel device allows them to essentially start over within the same continuity. They do it in comic books all the time. So the Romulans attack the Kelvin and alter history. Big deal. The time travel alters the original series continuity. I personally like it. I knew that one day Paramount would use younger actors to reboot the franchise. The original series is ripe territory. I’m so tired of the bitching and moaning about Balnce of Terror and Quinto as Spock. Blah Blah. Balance of Terror may not be negated just slightly altered. Anyway I intend to enjoy it. To hell with pissy fanboys.

97. Xai - November 24, 2008

88. Dr. Image – November 24, 2008
“FINALLY, THE VOICE OF REASON!!

Let ‘em enjoy their Kool Aid.”

_And I added extra sugar to mine…(smack)

98. Captain Spock - November 24, 2008

The characters have to stay true to what was set down by the original cast. I don’t want to see a sassy mouthed, hip hop Uhura telling Kirk that “if he liked it he shoulda put a ring on it!”,

What the hell does this mean? Oh since Uhura is black they are writing her as a stereotypical sassy mouthed hip hop Uhura. That is a really ignorant thing to say. Pissy little fanboys got their underoos all in a bunch. Battlestar Galactica got hit because pissy fanboys wanted the robot dog back. Shut the hell up. It’s Entertainment Bitches. So they alter continuity. Big deal. The original series was done in the 1960s. How much of that do you think will translate in 2009? I’m done with this site. I will await the movies opening. It is a movie. It is not real. Andorians are not coming to your house for tea. Sareck is not meeting with Obama tomorrow. Clowns.

99. Brant Hodge - November 24, 2008

Not that anyone cares but…commenting on the author’s pro-Obama remarks..believe it or not but there are some people out here who like Trek as much as the next person and are actually, dare I say it? CONSERVATIVE…and genuinely dread what the Socialist from Illinois may do to this country.

100. Phaser...where are youuu? - November 24, 2008

#86 Brett Campbell
“85 – Ouch”

Sorry, but I think points can be effectively communicated without resorting to repeated profanity.

If the fellow who wrote this article talks that way in real life, that’s up to him…I’m not judging him, but I come to TrekMovie.com to get away from the craziness of my day-to-day world, and that includes hearing folks in my neighborhood use course language and not care that I or my 4-year-old daughter have to endure it.

I’m not some prude or ‘Bible thumper’, but if this is the direction TrekMovie.com’s articles are moving in, I guess I’ll be moving on and erasing this site from my bookmarks. :(

101. Captain Spock - November 24, 2008

Continutiy alteration happens in comic books all the time. I know you clowns have read Crisis on Infinite Earths. Give me a break. The time travel thing has been at the heart of Trek lore forever. It is something that works. I am for this reboot. Shatner is over 70 years old as is the rest of the living members of the cast. They are not coming back. Get over it. I like this new direction. It makes sense and they honored the continuity by bringing in Nimoy and basically passing the baton with his blessing. If Nimoy liked it, then who cares what you think.

He is a smart guy. He turned down Generations which was a rushed mess. Continuity is fluid if you have a genre that deals with time travel. Time travel alters continuity. Every Geek knows that. Im done.

102. cellojammer - November 24, 2008

Captain Spock: You ROCK!! While I was trying to come up with a ‘diplomatic’ way to say things, you cut to the chase.

High Five!!

103. PDX Trek - November 24, 2008

Sorry for the error in spelling.

You missed the point.

104. Andy Patterson - November 24, 2008

Must admit I agree with almost everything Altman says.

To the person who referred to him as a hack…I believe that’s incorrect and or harsh. I loved his “little Shatner” movie.

You had to have grown up, loving the things we did, the way we did, to fully appreciate it. We didn’t have cell phones. We didn’t even have cool approximations of the props to play with. We were the first generation, other than those who were around from the beginning, to get it the first time. We rediscovered it. We breathed new life into it. We were part of the reason such a movie, and by extension, this site even exists. This is the same generation that’s making these movies now. So I still think we have a voice and are relevant. I shant hear it. Again…you can’t convince me otherwise.

Look at Seth McFarland’s work. Every reference he makes is straight out of my childhood. Difference is he’s making something with them and I’m concealing it from the classes I teach (sometimes).

As for the sensibility and heart of the original show….I’ll go down screaming and kicking to the grave with my convictions and love for TOS and Shatner as Kirk. Just watched him on the Thanksgiving episode of Boston Legal which makes me love him all the more.

I also know, as I’ve said, that this is probably not going to be my movie. And I realize that while watching the new movie that I’ll have a jarringly abrupt realization that a certain faction of the world now doesn’t feel the way I do. I think it’ll be bitter sweet to me if I find myself liking this new movie. As silly as it sounds.

And hey Mark, interesting theory on the Jewish element that’s brought to Vulcans by Jewish actors. This Presbyterian always thought there was something interesting there too. I don’t know if Celia Lovsky was Jewish but what brilliant casting for a Vulcan. Seems we’re not casting that way anymore.

And so there. And like that, even.

105. Jack - November 24, 2008

y’all are seriously criticizing the author’s use of f*ck and a mention of the President? Yeesh.

106. richpit - November 24, 2008

I’ve been saying since the very beginning that I wish they’d decided to go with an out-and-out reboot instead of this “bridge the gap” crap with Nimoy. Nothing against Nimoy, but for the franchise to survive, it needs to be rebooted…clean and simple.

That’s all. Carry on the griping.

107. Third Remata'Klan - November 24, 2008

#101 – Captain Spock

Well said!

108. Phaser...where are youuu? - November 24, 2008

Suddenly, the Trek ‘community’ isn’t fun to me anymore. I’m out.

Peace.

109. Enterprise - November 24, 2008

How do you compare Spock to Jar Jar?

110. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 24, 2008

71-

Great post.

Don’t pull any punches. Ever.

Turning the other cheek’ll only get you blindsided, especially around here.

Semper Fi.

111. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 24, 2008

20 Donn — “I don’t happen to agree with Mark, I think Star Trek can be about an ensemble, about ideas bigger than the relationship between three people…”

Yes, I agree. The troika gets old, the ensemble cast makes the troika fresher when it comes to the fore.

Nimoy as Spock is *not* superfluous! It is *absolutely* necessary to have him as a true torch-passer. Keep in mind, when I say this, that I believe Shatner in Generations as a torch-passing device was poorly executed — an unconscionably wasted opportunity — in the extreme. From what I’ve come to understand of the script, they are approaching the torch-passing correctly in this film. In the main, as long as they’re not KILLING Spock Prime in order to do the torch-passing, but letting him save the past in order to save the future, and then return to that future, they are resolving the relationship between the future and the past satisfactorily.

112. SPB - November 24, 2008

I get the feeling that this is really, truly Leonard Nimoy’s FINAL farewell to Spock and STAR TREK. For that alone, my butt will be firmly planted in the seat come May 2009.

I’m sure Nimoy and Abrams (with help from Orci & Kurtzman, and a touch of Michael Giacchino) have come up with something profoundly moving.

113. Jorg Sacul - November 24, 2008

Why reboot/reimagine/reinvent? that seems to be the dividing line on these boards. Either yes or no, apparently, there isn’t any gray area. I’m constantly shocked how people say that all Trek must die because the actors have aged. Well, you know what– Trek *won’t* die. It’s too good of a concept. We’re going to see a new cast and set and ship for the Kirk era, and this won’t be the last version ever made. No more than they quit doing Shakespeare when ol’ Bill and company kicked off.

If the story is good, it will be retold across the generations, and interpreted to relate to those generations. I happen to love TOS, as flawed as it may be. I am open to the idea of loving the next cycle of TOS. And the one after that… Heck, I’d like to see it redone by a new cast IN the 23rd Century!

114. Alex Rosenzweig - November 24, 2008

#106 – I dunno. I think that with that sort of reboot, it would have made it a lot easier to declare it dead, at least as far as the studio stuff is concerned.

Of course, the minute one looks beyond the media of TV and movies, Trek’s never stopped being an active, thriving franchise. And I guess it will be to those other media that a fan who cares about the Trekverse as a more-or-less consistent whole will have to look, going forward, too.

115. P Technobabble - November 24, 2008

This movie actually has a lot going for it: 1) already a lot of buzz; 2) already a lot of controversy; 3) the summer is a more exciting time for big movies; 4) when all those magazines do their Movies This Summer blurbs, JJ Abrams’s name will be mentioned alongside the names of shows like Alias, Lost and MI:III — any fans of those might be curious to see what he does with Star Trek. This movie is, IMO, poised to be a hit. The fact that other “sci-fi appeal” films like Terminator, Wolverine, Transformers2, and maybe Harry Potter, will be showing will help to draw attention to Star Trek. I think the younger crowd are going to dig the look of the film. Everyone else who has some experience of Star Trek is going to go along with it and enjoy it, or… not. I think anticipation is exciting…

116. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 24, 2008

99-

As one of those non-bowling, orange juice over coffee, intellectual elitists who voted for him, I look forward to what he has in store for this country, along with the rest of humanity.

Someone said once, “Nothing you’ve known will never be as it was, ever again.”

Welcome to true canon.

117. Darth Ballz - November 24, 2008

To the person who referred to him as a hack…I believe that’s incorrect and or harsh. I loved his “little Shatner” movie.

Did you actually see it? The characters are based on Altman and his buddy who seems to get laid all the time were in reality they are a couple of dorks. I think one or both of them still live at home were they get free housecleaning and laundry service. Pleeez, Free Enterprise blew…..

Darth “Idon’tstillliveathomeinmy30’s” Ballz

118. cellojammer - November 24, 2008

110.

No surprises that you’d like 71’s post. There’s certainly enough anger and negativity in it to appeal to someone like you.

You should devote your attention and energies to something that will bring you some happiness. This apparently ain’t doing it for you.

119. Altman's Review is Good, but... - November 24, 2008

I love how Mr. Altman speaks his mind, expresses what many of us are thinking & feeling. And the added caveat is: He’s seen the actual footage. Like other reviewers, he talks of production values, the character chemistry, and the scripting.

I trust what Altman has shared. It’s a no-holds barred tussle between his long-time dedication/love of TOS… and this new reimagining. (And, yes, it IS a reimagining.)

Canon be damned. Production changes be nit-picked.

This isn’t the TOS of old.

Yet it is. It IS the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek of yore. It is a hopeful, bright, optimistic future with challenges that pit humanity against the unknown, against itself… and show how we progress against adversity. And THAT is something Mr. Altman (as a TOS fan) fails to acknowledge strongly.

I think Orci and Kurtzman delivered a script that celebrates Star Trek’s strengths. Time will tell.

And I do look forward to Mr. Altman’s review of the actual movie.

FREE ENTERPRISE! (And can we have FE2 sometime soon? Thxs. :) )

120. Cervantes - November 24, 2008

#61 G

*If it’s a whole new timeline and canon doesn’t matter, why does old Spock need to chase him back in time if it won’t affect him?*

LOL! This is why my brain hurt in the first place, on hearing that the current makers had chosen ‘time travel’ as their main Movie device….as a way of rebooting the ‘TOS’ Trek franchise, while giving them total freedom to change *anything* or *everything* at will!…

Okay, I’m gonna try to answer this one anyway….

*Whatever* different-looking EARLY PAST events are now to be shown in this Movie (*even* if they then lead on to a supposed ALTERNATIVE ‘timeline’ by the end, where anything is now possible, but that effectively *replaces* and *eradicates* the events of what we previously saw the in the TOS original series and later TNG series events and Production Design) ….*still* leads eventually to *whatever* older Spock eventually follows on deciding to go back and meddle….

See?….now my brain hurts again! This is why I would rather any dramatically-changed ‘TOS’ crew Movie (as this one is) to have been written as being set in an alternative ‘UNIVERSE’, instead of an alternative ‘TIMELINE’….

I think the alternative ‘UNIVERSE’ route would have more easily been accepted as a concept to explain away all the radical changes in Production Design and ‘established’ canon, that this Movie is showing….rather than this very different-looking production being written to *perhaps* still being able to ‘lead onto’ the early TOS series events eventually, if it ends with an ‘open’ future….

Anyway, that’s all by the by now….as my biggest fear now is the Kirk with enlarged ‘Mickey Mouse’ hands scene!!… Couldn’t he just have been made to break-out in an angry rash or something?

I sure hope the Movie and it’s actors have developed enough general ‘good-will’ by this point in the proceedings for audiences to ‘roll with it’….

121. RJO - November 24, 2008

THIS MOVIE WILL SURPRISE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE END WITH SOME VERYUNEXSPECTED SURPRISES THAT WE WILL NEVER EXSPECT! I ALONG WITH A LOT OF US BABY BOOMER GENERATION FROM THE VERY FIRST STARTREK EPISODE EAGERLY AWAIT THIS MOVIE TO GIVE IT A CHANCE THEN DECIDE AFTER THAT. NIMOY IN THIS MOVIE IS A PLUS BESIDES PASSING ON THE BATON TO A NEW CAST! THE WAY JJ LIKES TO INSERT SURPRISES LIKE HE HAS IN MOVIES LIKE CLOVERFIELD OR LOST OR FRINGETHEN EXPECT IT! MY GUT BABY BOOMER FEELINGS TELL ME WE WONT BE DISSAPOINTED HERES TO YOU JJ I HOPE YOU GET IT RIGHT!!

122. Enterprise - November 24, 2008

I wish some of these “so called old fans” would chill out and enjoy Trek once in awhile.

123. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 24, 2008

113 Jorg Sacul — “Why reboot/reimagine/reinvent? that seems to be the dividing line on these boards. Either yes or no, apparently, there isn’t any gray area.”

Well, I for one have always been an advocate of the gray area.

I love BSG-R, I believe that the Daniel Craig incarnation has made the Bond franchise viable for the first time since Dr. No, and I see Christian Bale’s portrayal of Batman is superior to that under Tim Burton’s direction (even though I like the Burton movies).

However, when it comes to Star Trek, it has been important to me to see that the kernel of what made TOS what it was stay the same. To me, that kernel is:

– The relationship between the characters
– The mission of Starfleet, the prime directive, the temporal prime directive
– The basic shape of the ship exterior
– The basic layout of the bridge
– Certain elements of the technology like Warp drive, transporters, phasers, replicators, shields, inertial dampers & communicators
– The political structure of the galaxy (specifically, within the Alpha and Beta quadrants, who’s on whose side — Vulcans & Humans versus Klingons & Romulans, etc.)

On the other hand, I have been flexible about the *exact* design of the interior and exterior of the ship and the precise details of the crew’s personal and professional history. I am pleased with the changes to the ship hull and bridge because they are variations on what we’ve seen, not radical changes. I am pleased that Spock is half-human & half-Vulcan. I am pleased that Kirk is a Caucasian man, and that Uhura is a black woman. Everyone’s ages are about right.

In short, I can handle tweaks to canon because the GESTALT is shaping up correctly.

124. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 24, 2008

One little follow up to my post @ 123 —

There is variability in the details of TOS. I would contend that all of us as viewers, to the extent we care about continuity, we always overlook certain deviations because what we really care about is that the gestalt continuity be maintained.

One example: In Journey to Babel, we see that Sarek and Amanda Grayson have this weird marital practice of touching each other’s index and middle fingers together. If we don’t see Amanda Grayson and Sarek do this in STXI, will people be up in arms about it? Will they care about that detail as much as they do other details, like how many years (if any) Kirk is portrayed as spending on Tarsus IV?

125. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 24, 2008

^ Because even though this weird marital practice of touching fingers must be regarded as canon, it is referenced, to my knowledge, nowhere else.

126. Brian - November 24, 2008

#75-

Understood; I can’t say you’re wrong.

127. Julio - November 24, 2008

Yeah, Quinto makes a lousy Spock because he’s not Jewish.

Good Lord.

128. Anthony Pascale - November 24, 2008

Captain Spock warning for trolling
Find ways to comment without labeling and attacking other posters

RJO
warning for all CAPS….a huge pet peeve of mine. Find your caps lock key, your opinions are no more important than others

RE: Language in article
I added a language warning. This article is not an ‘indication’ of a new direction. Mark Altman has been a periodic contributor to this site and a respected friend. That is how he has always written for the site. For opinion pieces like this I do not act as ‘editor’ and merely present the article as submitted. It is an honor to have Mark here, but I know that he can ruffle some feathers (and I imagine he knows that too).

RE: Mark’s opinions
It has always been my goal to have TrekMovie.com represent multiple voices, that is why we have multiple contributors (as seen in yesterday’s “deep thoughts” article). I hope to add a couple of more editorials this week from people who attended the event last week. These opinions are not necessarily mine, and I and this site are not endorsing them. I do think it is a good idea to share with fans various points of view, especially on something as big as this film. I expect that when when the film comes out we will run multiple reviews. I will do mine and I hope that we will have other reviews from different perspectives.

129. Brian - November 24, 2008

I think Quinto may seem awkward to us because, like someone said earlier, he doesn’t have Nimoy’s amazing baritone, which gave Spock tremendous presence. If the performance is on the mark I suspect we’ll get used to it.

130. JusticeBoy - November 24, 2008

I loved FREE ENTERPRISE & I think Mark Altman is alright, but isn’t he the guy that couldn’t figure out that Kirk was just tricking the Personality Copier on Exo III so that Spock would recognize the imposter?

Wow, that was a a run-on sentence!

131. Capt. of the USS Anduril - November 24, 2008

Gotta throw in my 2 cents. No matter what the “supreme court” or whatever they call themselves say, this is a “reboot”. I put it in quotes because it’s only a half-arsed reboot. See fellas, it’s what I like to call temporal discontinuity. Simply put, Nero travelled back in time to the time of the USS Kelvin. Nero’s ship wasn’t supposed to be there. It wasn’t supposed to blow the crap out of the Kelvin. Because it did, Starfleet probably upgraded their ships differently. And since Kirk’s father supposedly dies on the Kelvin, it stands to reason that his father did NOT die in the original time line, at least not like that. Nero’s very existence in a timeline not of his own has irrevocably altered the timeline. Thereby rendering all canon questions a moot point. That’s how I look at it any way.

132. FlipperChaz - November 24, 2008

Loved this article.

And I still really want to see “Brady Killer”.

133. McCoy - November 24, 2008

I think a design somewhere closer to the original would have worked much better. Didn’t have to be exact, just a starting point. And, it would have looked more real for everyone. The bridge they have is too busy and the retro outfits don’t seem to belong there.

I agree that Quinto’s voice may be one of the low spots of the film.

134. Captain (beep beep!) Pike - November 24, 2008

I’m not suggesting this movie should have been made with the modest sets and production values of the 1960s TOS. I would have wished it was closer to the TOS that I have admired all these years. The one thing I thought they’d change was the uniforms. But they kept the basics of the uniform and changed everything else.

We only really know a handful of things about Kirk before he became Captain of the Enterprise. This 25 minute preview seems to ignore many of them (maybe he takes John Gill’s class at the academy – who knows).

Maybe Star Trek needs a reboot. But for every successful franchise saving reboot movie I can think of 10 stinkers. I’ll give you Batman Begins and Casino Royale. But what about Superman Returns,The Avengers, Wild Wild West, I-Spy, Starsky & Hutch, Charlie’s Angels, Dragnet, Mod Squad, Sgt. Bilko, Flintstones, Dukes of Hazzard, etc. at nauseum?

It’s not like us TOS Trekkers haven’t already faced our share of shame. We don’t need a sign pinned our backs that says “Kick Me, I like Star Trek”.

135. RD - November 24, 2008

#131 YES!!!!

Canon is MOOT! Abram’s & Paramount are starting from scratch. They don’t care about old geeky Star Trek fans, they want a new crop of kids and fans who would otherwise never go to see Star Trek. Now that Gene Roddenberry is out of the way, there’s no one standing in their way. Canon just gets in the way of their plans, so they jettisoned it with the time travel story.

136. McCoy's Salt Shaker - November 24, 2008

It would be interesting if Nero could alter our timeline so that the new movie was a reboot. Then we could see how many of the people complaining that the movie isn’t a reboot would also complain if the movie WAS a reboot.

There was no way for JJ et al to make everyone happy. None. That doesn’t mean the franchise is doomed or that what came before can’t be enjoyed. I don’t like Voyager at all, but that doesn’t diminish my fondness for TOS. Similarly, I don’t like every decision JJ’s made, but for now, I’m crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

137. Jeffries Tuber - November 24, 2008

Altman’s cool and I love this no holds-barred review. He’s fussy, but aren’t we all?

My instincts have told me the same thing about Quinto’s Spock. I think it was a mistake to make Spock’s hair exactly like the original, because it lends too much verisimilitude. Our eyes end up only seeing the differences, rather than the character. Nimoy’s face is longer, he wore eye shadow and looked ghoulishly thin in his tight shirt. Quinto/Sylar’s underbite applied to Angry Spock is the most offensive part of his characterization so far.

His approval of Pine is big frieken news. He is a very difficult guy to convince. The headline should read: “Altman says Pine is Kirk.”

But Altman’s Spock Prime opinion seems like OG Trekkie fussiness. I look forward to seeing Nimoy give an emotional tour de force.

138. spock's ear - November 25, 2008

#133
McCoy:

Might you be meaning something more like this?
This suite is a try at , and homage to, Matt Jeffries’ original bridge geometry…updated some, of course.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31487060@N06/

139. bellpeppers - November 25, 2008

“Hopefully, in this f***** up world we live in, J.J. can tap into the same sense of hope and optimism that the original Trek captured in the wake of the Kennedy New Frontier and it’s no accident that Obama-mania and the resurrection of Trek have coincided so perfectly. Maybe, just maybe, optimism about the future and not cynicism can be cool again and the human adventure really is just beginning”

I dunno what he’s talking about- especially since Obama’s goin in the White House, I have more fear and dread than ever about the future.
Things are going to get a lot worse… and if anyone truly thinks that Obama will buy their groceries, their gasoline and pay their mortgage- and magically heal this worsening economy , then they have aqnother think coming. Folks who think that the next few years will bring optimism are the same ones who have been bringing is pessimism. How can we have such a great new world with so many hypocrites running around?

140. Mark - November 25, 2008

#99 – you are exactly right. As a libertarian, I have nothing in common with the Marxist that has been elected President, yet I have been a huge Trek fan since I watched the very first episode on 9/8/66. I know Anthony doesn’t like politics (at least those that differ from his) being discussed here, but since Mr. Altman brought it up, hopefully he’ll allow a bit of leeway and diversity.

Mr. Altman said, “it’s no accident that Obama-mania and the resurrection of Trek have coincided so perfectly.” That’s only a coincidence – there is virtually nothing in common. Obama worshippers are going to be sorely disappointed in him. With his current (and near-future appointments) there is not going to be any “change.” All he is doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. As the old joke goes, the commanding officer of a military unit was told, by a subordinate, that his men had not had a change of underwear for months. The officer responded: “that’s no problem: Smith you change underwear with Jones, Johnson you change underwear with Walker, Thompson you change underwear with Adams,” etc. This is the kind of “change” we are already seeing with Obama. Same old people in different positions. He’ll be the third term of Clinton the same way McCain would have been the third term of Bush, but neither address the real issues that have caused the mess we are in, because it is the failed policies of both branches of our single political party that have created it.

While many, including Altman, try to equate left-wing politics with Star Trek (and there certainly was some of that), realize that if Obama had a place in the Star Trek universe, it would be somewhere in the Borg hierarchy, as he is as much a collectivist as they are. Tyranny, which is where all collectivism ultimately leads, is not something that fits with the optimism of Star Trek.

141. Penhall - November 25, 2008

Once again, the contributers on this site have to throw in Obama-worship.

Ugh, cant they just discuss Trek and not get into politics?

58,759,016 people voted against Obama. I wish people would realize that not everyone worships the ground he walks on.

Now how long before my post gets deleted from here?

142. McCoy - November 25, 2008

#134

Agree. I share your worries. And would add that of all the media we grew up with, Trek spawned the largest following. Hhistory or characters, ship designs, etc. Nothing else since the invention of moving pictures compares. It reminds me a lot of Tolkien’s work with all the apendecies of Middle Earth—except that Star Trek’s was written by more than one person.

Star Trek really is a different bird and should not have the same kind of reboot or retooling as other shows. We know we have to have new actors, but I just don’t think I want the history, equipment or ship messed with.

Abram’s movie may be good film technique, but I question much of what I’m hearing about the premise. I may like the action (I can get that anywhere) but I will enjoy the change of history. Why must we also go through that? I’ve said it before: if the answer is because they are trying to reach a different audience—I still say they would have had a new audience no matter what. The core of Star Trek guaranteed that but they didn’t seem to have enough faith in it.

Unless of course all is reset at the end of the film. :o)

143. McCoy - November 25, 2008

Uggh. I can’t type. I’m trying to say I will NOT enjoy the change of Trek history.

144. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

140 etc. — If you think Obama is a Marxist or a socialist, you know *nothing* about the subject.

And, yes, before you start in on me, I do know *a lot* about the subject.

That’s as far as I’m going to go with this subject. Why has this thread turned into a free-for-all discussion of politics? It’s upsetting.

Just because Altman linked Obama to optimism, that’s not a free ticket to get on your soapbox. A great proportion of America is optimistic about the future. Whether they are justified in being so remains to be seen. It’s not about Obama per se, but the perception many Americans have that change in the White House promises change in the economic and foreign policy areas.

145. sean - November 25, 2008

#71

You bring up the ‘barcode scanners’ in nearly every comment you make, yet I guarantee you 95% of the audience will have no idea that’s what they are. Half the props in TOS were repurposed salt shakers. You really need to let that one go.

146. bellpeppers - November 25, 2008

How does the saying go…
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ”
Yup, that’s the Obam-ination: optimism at its finest.
I wonder… in order to achieve the Roddenberry Utopia that the current crop of Obaminators claim to desire, I wonder how many dissenters were conquored.

147. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

^ I just want to clarify that my post @144 is not meant to engage anyone in a discussion of politics. I am merely attacking the argumentative logical fallacy being used by 140 & 99.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

In this case, by reducing Obama’s political stance to Marxism (instead of Nazism, as in the article above), they seek to show Obama in a disparaging light. It is not worth offering all the many reasons why Obama is not a Marzist or a socialist, for doing so would play into the fallacy of the Reductio argument, and would make me just as culpable in diverting the focus of this thread into the political arena.

Instead, I merely point out the fallacy, and accuse them of being agents provocateurs & red-baiting.

148. mikko - November 25, 2008

An interesting, thoughtful, thought-provoking bit of discourse. I don’t quite get how it could possibly qualify as ‘well written'; it seems to be an intelligent piece that sorely needs a copy-editor.

Canon: There’s the option of using our imaginations in one way or another. Alternatively, we’ll either have to reconcile with it, divorce from it, or get over it.

Reboot/Remake/Re-whatever: Sure it is, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It forces those of us who obsess over canon to think of Star Trek in more realistic terms — as a product of the human imagination, like all the other long-lasting series and franchises to be found in our culture.

Nimoy 1: All other considerations aside, Nimoy’s presence may very well be ‘unnecessary'; however, it’s too early to figure that out. All that can be said is that Nimoy’s presence does indeed offer a bridge, over which the older and newer fans may travel to explore the newer – or older – take(s) on Trek.

Nimoy 2: I have always thought of Nimoy — and Kelley, to a lesser degree — as the focal point of TOS. The exploration in Star Trek is in-house, also; the presence of (and interaction with) Spock, and the chemistry between Spock and McCoy, sets it apart from being a simple cruise through space.

Characters: Ultimately, the Kirk/Spock/McCoy group got the best character development. However, the secondaries were all multifaceted in nature. They all could be humorous, anguished, romantic, or high-octane. No character was just for comic purposes, or for action, or for sex appeal. I can only hope that the secondaries in this film don’t wind up becoming as one-sided as the stuff that’s come out thus far indicates!

149. bellpeppers - November 25, 2008

“In this case, by reducing Obama’s political stance to Marxism (instead of Nazism, as in the article above), they seek to show Obama in a disparaging light.”

So, you think portraying Obama as a NAZI will project him in a more positive light?

150. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

149 —

*sigh*

Any kind of “Reductio ad …” style argument is fallacious. Read the article if you want to know more about that particular kind of fallacy.

151. Enterprise - November 25, 2008

Trek was popular long before Obama was even born.

152. bellpeppers - November 25, 2008

I don’t really care to.
At best, the guy’s a socialist. At worst, a communist.
Just because you may like his politics doesn’t change the fact that his policies will ultimately punish the successfull and reward those who haven’t earned. Call it NAZIsm or Socialism or any other ism- none of it is good.
He promises change for all, but in the end we’ll just have empty wallets.

153. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

To get on topic again, I would like confirmation on something Altman says above, “I genuinely feel like he’s trying to do right by the franchise even if he and his co-conspirators have admitted that Next Generation was more of a touchstone for them than the original”.

I seem to recall that JJ & Co specifically said that TOS was what, for them, Star Trek was really about.

Right? Anyone?

154. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

152 – That’s another attempt to drag this into the political arena. I won’t go there.

155. Yammer - November 25, 2008

34 That was beautiful, man.

(slow clap, gradually builds until the entire stadium is full of stomping, whistling, crying spectators)

Re this article: ALTMAN SPEAKS

Respect. Many was the time I spend an unconscionable amount of money to purchase Cinefantastique’s cash-cow Trek issues, in part to read Mark A Altman’s (as opposed to the other Mark Altman) content-rich, blurburific precis of a particular season.

Free Enterprise is a little over-aware of itself and has too many dialogue scenes, but the premise is hilarious and they actually made it, which is better than your movie, probably.

So, interesting takes. And he busts out the iconoclastic, “better as full reboot” meme (already spreading), that Vulcans are rabbinical (interesting, not sure about Stonn), and the Humphrey Bogart reference.

We are suitably impressed.

156. Enterprise - November 25, 2008

Free Enterprise is a silly little movie. I saw it and sighed. There’s much more exciting movies out there to talk about.

157. MrLirpa - November 25, 2008

88. “Trek consistency” rofl now there’s a contradiction in terms.

158. fro - November 25, 2008

u cant really compare star trek to bond because bond always existed in the present time whenever that particular film came out.

159. Poopshock Shakur - November 25, 2008

The subtext I get from Altman’s review is that Star Trek is dead and, from
what Abrams & co. have both said and shown us thus far, I’d have to agree. Paramount isn’t interested in ideals nor hope, ju$t the allmighty dollar. If the New Trek panders to horny, X-treme, “in-your-face”, teen/tween crowd, the crowd that will NEVER accept Star Trek, while alienating the real fans thatt have stuck it out for forty years through thick, thin, and Berman, then I’ll let you folks see it first and post your reviews before I waste ten buvks on this potential Frankensteinian abortion that was cooked up by someone who really knew nothing about the world of Star Trek and obviously knows little more about it now.

160. Devon - November 25, 2008

159 – “The subtext I get from Altman’s review is that Star Trek is dead and,”

I think you are sort of putting words in his mouth or twisting what he says.

“from what Abrams & co. have both said and shown us thus far, I’d have to agree. ”

You should do some more reading then.

“Paramount isn’t interested in ideals nor hope, ju$t the allmighty dollar.”

I’m impressed. You should teach a Business Course.

“while alienating the real fans thatt have stuck it out for forty years through thick, thin, and Berman, then I’ll let you folks see it first and post your reviews before I waste ten buvks on this potential Frankensteinian abortion that was cooked up by someone who really knew nothing about the world of Star Trek and obviously knows little more about it now.while alienating the real fans thatt have stuck it out for forty years through thick, thin, and Berman, then I’ll let you folks see it first and post your reviews before I waste ten buvks on this potential Frankensteinian abortion that was cooked up by someone who really knew nothing about the world of Star Trek and obviously knows little more about it now.

You’re going off the deep end here and assuming more about this movie or the people behind it than perhaps you really do know.

161. Darth Ballz - November 25, 2008

151. Enterprise – November 25, 2008
Trek was popular long before Obama was even born.

Ummm! Obama was born 1961
Star Trek 1966

????????

Darth “Obamaindawhitehouse” Ballz

162. Devon - November 25, 2008

“You’re going off the deep end here and assuming more about this movie or the people behind it than perhaps you really do know.”

This probably applies to Bellpepper as well, especially with comment #152.

163. DJT - November 25, 2008

I used to buy Cinescape regularly just to read Mark Altman’s Trek reviews.

He knows his stuff alright.

164. HisNameIsBrown! - November 25, 2008

Interesting article.

I’m 39 years old. I’ve been an avid, life long Star Trek fan and I’m terribly excited about the new movie!

Wow, this canon debate thing is out of control, isn’t it? I’m half glad and half disturbed by it.

I’m glad because-hey, it’s been a LONG time since Star Trek fans have had anything really BIG to be passionate about, hasn’t it?

On the other hand, I find it a bit creepy.

Can you imagine the following scene: May 9, 2009 Your local cinema is just letting out from it’s first showing of Star Trek. The kids come bursting out of the auditorium and one unlucky 16 year old boy is confronted by a very unhappy 40-something Star Trek cultist in Starfleet uniform.

40 year old unhappy Star Trek dude: So…you just had to come see this new movie they call Star Trek, eh?

Boy: Yeah! It rocked, man!

40 year old unhappy Star Trek dude: Uh-huh. What did you like about it?

Boy: James T. Kirk! He was cool! And there was the Enterprise…and…

40 year old unhappy Star Trek dude: (snapping) That wasn’t the REAL James T. Kirk!

Boy: What?

40 year old unhappy Star Trek dude: Have you ever watched the original Star Trek tv show?

Boy: You mean with Shatner and all of them? Yeah, Ive seen it…

40 year old unhappy Star Trek dude: That’s right, you’ve SEEN it but you don’t KNOW it!

Boy: Ummm…

40 year old unhappy Star Trek dude: The REAL Capt. Kirk didn’t know how to drive a stick shift as shown in the episode “A Piece of the Action”. If you were a REAL Star Trek fan you would know that and you’d hate this movie because of its blatant snubbing of canon. Oh, and while we’re on the subject the damn Enterprise wasn’t built in a stupid cornfield, either!

At this point the unhappy 40-something Trekkie/er becomes overwhelmed with rage and has to sit down and pop a blood pressure pill.

Most people don’t live and breath this stuff like we do (or as much as we do) and they’re not going to be encumbered by years of the minutia generated by older fans. It doesn’t make them any less valid or us any more valid in my opinion.

It seems to me that what attracted us all to Star Trek in the first place was the sense of adventure and discovery of space exploration. I was like 3 or 4 when I first started watching. I believed that the enterprise was truly going where no man had gone before and I couldn’t wait to see what or who they discovered next. As I got older I began to appreciate the characters and their relationships to each other, and when I was older still I enjoyed the whole canon thing and having gaps in the lives of my favorite fictional characters being sketched in. Star Trek has been a 40 year love affair for me…40 years that I wouldn’t want to try to pawn off on some new fan in 2 hrs! Let them have their own discovery and make up their own mind what’s to appreciate and whats to not.

The world is big enough for my canon and your canon and a brand new fresh faced fan’s canon to live in harmony together-at the same time!

If this new movie for whatever reason doesn’t work out for me…I’ve still got my dvds and comic books and novels and audio plays and..and…

165. ScottyGirl - November 25, 2008

God this article was the only really great one on that site. Capturing the true spirit of Trek. Wow…

I’d almost forgotten what it feels like. Well done.

Yeah the bridge does remind one of an apple store, doesn’t it. Not that I don’t like apple, love their products ever since I lost the war against my PC. But this new Star Trek is going along with many other movies in the age of advertising… unfortunately.

I’m sure the majority is going to be crazy about it. I will be part of a minority. However, I’m still glad I read this article, it made me realize what I was missing all this time.

JJ Abrams is not a Star Trek fan and boy does it show. I don’t think I can bear to see this movie after all. The thought of having to sit through another Phantom Menace is cringeworthy and yet I really tried to love it. I was completely open to the whole idea because it’s supposed to be Classic Trek.

…But it isn’t.

ScottyGirl made up her mind, eventually.
Live long and love long

166. Andy Patterson - November 25, 2008

Yeah, sorry Darth, I did like Free Enterprise. In fact you’d be surprised just how many things I relate to in it.

This though is coming from the guy who loves “The Way to Eden” and considers “Omega Glory” and “Patterns of Force” two of his series favorites.

I also like jalapeno peppers on my pizza and grapefruit juice for breakfast. Come to think of it I’ve had that combination for breakfast. Mmmm.

167. Unbel1ever - November 25, 2008

For most parts, I do agree with Mr Altman. A clean break would have been better. Trying something so different and yet mixing it with the old canon – that’s my main issue with the new movie. I like universes which are to a degree consistent in themselves. There may be errors etc. in fact the original canon has many, BUT they’re usually not as blatant. For me a movie is ruined when it’s inconsistent in a obvious way. A prime example for that kind of show would be the thankfully cancelled remake of Bionic Woman.
I don’t like design, but I can live with it. However what I would sorely miss, if it’s not there: a convincing oldstyle warpcore. In my opinion that always was some cool thing to look at and if engineering looks like the Titanic ( some guys shovelling coal into a boiler), that would really kill it for me. I mean, where is the point of looking into a future that looks like the early 20th century ?
Like Mr Altman I totally expected Quinto to nail Spock and was doubtful about Pine’s Kirk. After seeing the trailer, it’s the other way round. Quinto does not seem to have the aura a man like Nimoy had.

168. Phil123 - November 25, 2008

While i sympathise about people who don’t like to see the f-word in acticles, or Uhura in her bra, lets not forget that the mighty Shatner used the B-word a couple of times in the moves (not that bad a word in America, but considered harsher in other countries) and Data used the S-word in generations. as for bras, most guest females in TOS were wearing not much else.

169. Kosher Coder - November 25, 2008

The more I read and see of this movie, I think it will be the greatest fan flic ever. I can’t see me ever considering it real, or canon (which despite a vocal minority, does really matter to most of us). As a fan film, it will be chief.

170. Denise de Arman - November 25, 2008

To those of you who are worried about your kids and “bad” words: in my experience, while teaching kindergarten for a couple years, I learned that “bad” words were used on an almost daily basis by those children whose parents use them in the home. Every day during recess I had to contend with the same kids assaulting others with the language used by the caregivers. If you do not use that type of language around your children and make it clear that it is not acceptable, they will follow your lead. If such were not the case, I would have had every child in the classroom copying the filthy language patterns of two or three. Believe me, as they get older it gets worse and you cannot control every word they hear – just be consistent with them regarding your own family’s value system.

171. star trackie - November 25, 2008

#98 “I’m done with this site.”

Bye! Dont forget to not write!

172. BK613 - November 25, 2008

15 DavidJ
maybe because we already can do this

http://controlrooms.christiedigital.com/Installations/Telecommunications/DeutscheTelekom.htm

In ten years both the above link and the iBridge will look obsolete

173. Julio - November 25, 2008

Oh, my eyes! The F-Word!!!

I can’t unsee it!

174. Spock's Yarmulka (aka ucdom) - November 25, 2008

Oy vey!

So… let’s see. America’s most important Jew, Jon Stewart, was targeted by Nero in an effort to prevent the birth of Spockstein in the future, and hence the resurrection of Data by the Schmanonistas

This thread has gone MENTAL

Amazingly, I read Altman’s review and instantly hated him.

175. krikzil - November 25, 2008

I liked Free Enterprise and this article really touched on how I’m feeling about the movie in general. Thanks Anthony for all the viewpoints!

“Sure, there might be some convoluted time travel explanation for why this isn’t messing with continuity, but it didn’t have to be this way. As painful as for me to say, this movie didn’t need Leonard Nimoy, it didn’t need to be a prequel and a sequel, for that matter, it needed to be a remake…or re-imagination, if you will, which seems to be the current nomenclature.”

He pretty much sums up what I’ve thought all along. It would have been easier for me if they’d just done a complete reboot.

“I wish some of these “so called old fans” would chill out and enjoy Trek once in awhile.”

Been enjoying it for 32+ years, thanks. I’m glad so many of you can accept this new movie whole-heartedly but try to find some compassion for those of us with reservations. I’ve never wished failure for any Trek venture and I’m not about to start now but it’s tough to see something you’ve loved for decades change.

176. John E. Kirk - November 25, 2008

Everyone needs to get a grip, including Mark Altman. The negativity and “continuity” issues are, in my opinion, moot. The franchise NEEDS to be restarted. Get over the past, and look forward to the future. I personally would rather have a “cool” trek out there in the mainstream, instead of a dying franchise that hasn’t been “in” for some time. The writers are admitted trek fans, and have produced “Lost” and “Alias,” their reputations precede them. TRUST THEM.

Get a life everyone, this is going to be a great flick. Embrace it. Stop picking on a film you haven’t seen yet. I’ve said it before, this kind of negativity crap hurts the franchise, and trek fans reputations.

177. Poopshock Shakur - November 25, 2008

Ah, yes…”Devon”: Another internet tough guy, brought to you live from his parent’s basement. Don’t spill any Mountain Dew or semen on your pile of collectibles as you throw imaginary punches at your internet nemesi…

178. CmdrR - November 25, 2008

Amen.

As to the bridge (and other sets)…
…there are at least two more movies for them to tinker with the sets and get them “right.” I’d be happy if they just unscrew 90% of the in-your-face tanning lights.

May is still so far away….

179. JL - November 25, 2008

6

“As much as I love “Wrath of Khan” (and I DO LOVE IT) I never understood how Genesis happened to be designed to look like leftover Giligan’s Island jungle sets.”

HAHAHAHAHAW

180. M51 - November 25, 2008

“I’m actually a little worried about Quinto’s Spock. Part of it is because Quinto’s not Jewish and there was always something rabbinical about all the great Vulcans from Nimoy to Mark Lenard which Quinto’s Spock lacks. And that’s no slight against Episcopalians or whatever Quinto is, they’re just not Vulcans, as I once warned Greg Grunberg.”

Is this guy for real? This has to be THE MOST RETARDED COMMENT EVER!
It’s shameful it utterly disgusting!!!

181. JL - November 25, 2008

Hilarious quote from 121:

“THIS MOVIE WILL SURPRISE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE END WITH SOME VERYUNEXSPECTED SURPRISES THAT WE WILL NEVER EXSPECT!”

Profound.

182. Dennis Bailey - November 25, 2008

#122: “I wish some of these “so called old fans” would chill out and enjoy Trek once in awhile.”

The Moon will fall out of the sky first.

183. Blogosphere buzzes about J.J.’s Star Trek at Geek Feed - November 25, 2008

[…] I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but Altman’s reaction which you can check out here, is a good read. […]

184. Fred - November 25, 2008

I still say that when Spock Prime returns to his (now altered) future, he will find Kirk alive. They’ll film Shatner’s part at the last minute and insert him for a major surpise. After all, the past has been changed… and Kirk didn’t die when he did before. Simple.

185. Schultz - November 25, 2008

On the Obama remarks:

The most apparent parallel between Star Trek and Obama’s upcoming election is that in Trek’s Federation people from different nations, cultures and races join to work together peacefully. In Obama the US Electoral Collage will elect a president, who is not only an African American, but who in addition is not a natural born citizen, because he was British by birth, as they have stated it on FactCheck and Obama’s own website.

Link (bottom of the page):
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

The electoral college will apparently ignore the constitutionally anchored qualification for the presidential office, which is yet another parallel to Star Trek, because (as I recall) they also broke the Prime Directive quite often.

So yeah, “Star Trek” and Obama’s beginning presidency will probably coincide, for better or for worse.

186. JL - November 25, 2008

I think the Jewish angle is based on personal taste rather than a rational, professional one.

As others have said, Quinto looks similar to NImoy but his voice is not low enough (at least in the clip we saw).

Kinda reminds me of the most agregious misstep in all of Raimi’s Spider-Man movies: Spider-Man’s voice sounds like a wimpy teenager, not an authoritative one (ie; “Stop it, Gobby!”). I mean, who would be afraid of that gay voice? They should have switched the voice up from Toby MacGuire to a deeper voice. Some of those action scenes in the Spider-Man films are almost laughable at times because of it.

187. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

185 — it says quite clearly that Barack Obama Jr. (our President-Elect) was born in Hawaii, and is therefore and has always been a U.S. native-born citizen. Since Barack Obama Sr. (“our” Barack Obama’s father) is Kenyan, Barack Obama could have claimed Kenyan citizenship, but never exercised that right. So, he never was a British citizen.

188. JL - November 25, 2008

New Spock = The Goy (look it up)

189. C.S. Lewis - November 25, 2008

140. Mark – November 25, 2008

Thank you, sir. Yours is a courageous stand to make today. It seems to be open-season on tradition and those that hold it dear. I too fear for our future… and as part of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Fannie Mae review team of 2005, I promise “you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!”

Star Trek was inherently “conservative” despite its JFKish 1960s Conservative Democrat add-ons. Why? Because it was written, produced and largely acted by men with deep “life experience” as we say now. World War II and Korean War veterans who know damned well what human guts look like, splashed all over your face. Men that saw the worst of man on the mean streets of LA. But also men that knew Western history, the (ahem) Western (literary) canon and yes, likely Church canon law too, be they Roman Catholics or Protestants (it mattered then, even to laymen).

Nothing I’ve seen so far gives me hope this incarnation of Trek has such a background in life. Abrams is the son of a Hollywood lifer. Orci and Kurtzman are nice enough, and diligent, but their opus seems superficial and largely the product of Hollywood itself – recycled movies and television concepts rather than experience drawn from their own life stories.

Star Trek stood out as a sort of apex, a popular distillation of a civilization just past its peak, but unknown at the time. It was optimistic because of America’s “Can do!” attitude of victory from WWII. The post-war prosperity, a side-effect of bombing our economic competitors to smithereens and bits of charred flesh and bone, seemed endless and well, DESERVED.

Why shouldn’t the veterans of the Greatest Generation dare believe they and they alone knew enough and were destined to remake the world into Utopia? It all seemed so possible, so inevitable.

And then their spoiled brat children came of age (including the last three presidential election winners) and its been steadily down hill ever since.

So to me it is a shame that Star Trek has itself been reduced to an economic engine of sorts, an equation the technobabblers never learnt, “If NPV>0 accept”.

I do not think this time is riupe for producing timeless classics. That age seems gone, perhaps permanently, since it requires an intimate, almost reverential knowledge of the past to produce a timeless classic.

Boomers (and their children) are nothing if not “in the moment” pleasure seekers and so few have shown any sense of commitment to the sacrifices and hard won lessons of their ancestors I think perhaps the chain of civilization has been severed, perhaps irretrievably so. This movie, profitable or no, popular or no, entertaining or no, will be merely one additional symptom of a problem.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

190. Schultz - November 25, 2008

#187 — I quote from the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5), which is on FactCheck.org’s website:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

Since he had a British father, Obama was a British citizen by birth and descent, and since he was born in Hawaii Obama was also a US citizen by birthplace, i.e. Obama had (or has) multiple citizenship. But this is not equal to natural born citizenship, as the Constitution states (II.1.v), where there’s a distinction between “natural born citizens” and other citizens, namely those who were not natural born, but US citizens “at the time of the adoption of the constitution”. No other person is eligible for president. Period. So, unless Obama is over 300 years old, he is factually not allowed to become US president, unless Congress passes a constitutional amendment.

191. Schultz - November 25, 2008

#187 (addition): By the way, when they call Obama “President Elect”, it’s not official, because it’s not correct. He will become the constitutional President Elect after his election by the Electoral College—in December I think. At the moment he doesn’t hold any political office as put forth in the constitution, since he resigned as acting Senator. He’s something like “President Pre-Elect”. ;)

192. thomoz - November 25, 2008

I would like to think that the 2008 election and the “trek reboot”
have nothing in common myself. I have faith in this movie, for example.

Good article. Can’t disagree with his reckoning that the troika and not the ensemble is the key to JJ’s and ST-TOS’ success.

193. Dr. Image - November 25, 2008

Oh, I see, politics is fine as long as it involves Emperor Obama.
I’m sick of the hypocrisy.
It’s bullshit and I am out of here.

194. JL - November 25, 2008

Later dude

195. Edwin - November 25, 2008

This movie could have been easily written using the existing continuity. To simply re-write everything as a result of time travel is just lazy writing. Brannon Braga once stated in an article that they were not going to deal with the Earth-Romulan war on Enterprise because “how can you fight an enemy you’ve never seen without violating continuity?”. Well Manny Coto and colleagues did just fine in season 4 of Enterprise with their Romulan story (i.e. the remote control ship). All it takes is a little imagination and creative writing!

The producers of this new movie should have just done a re-imagining a la Casino Royale and then it would have been more palatable to die-hards such as myself. I will have a hard time accepting this film, if at all….

196. C.S. Lewis - November 25, 2008

172. BK613 – November 25, 2008

Nice photos of DT’s control room.

I volunteer for my county’s department of emergency services. Its (and typical urban) 911 center is state-of-the-art with equipment those outside the world of EOCs cannot even dream about. Thanks to DHS money, certain of these facilities outclass military installations with their capability and situational awareness. The armed service must in many cases make-do with older equipment from the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Don’t even get me gong about my one-time client Westinghouse’s supercomputer nuclear simulation facility!

So yes, the iTrek is already dated from a technological perspective. Abrams mistakes the iPhone for “advanced” and since he has never needed to consider “situational awareness” his vision is limited to the pedestrian and familiar: the Apple Store. Other sci-fi projects. Video game displays.

Roddenberry and Jeffries &co were licensed pilots. Others served shipboard and knew what a ship’s bridge was all about. For that matter, even as a cop Roddenberry had practical experience with the “combat information center” called the police dispatch system.

This is how a civilization dies. To paraphrase one wag, on Hollywood doing Hollywood:

“…they found it’s a trap, like a narcotic, because when dreams become more important than reality you give up travel, building, creating, …

“You just sit living and reliving other lives left behind in the thought records.”

Some might call it abomination.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

197. Johnny Ice - November 25, 2008

Agree about Chekhov being unnecessary for this film. They should have waited for the sequels to introduce Chekhov as cadet.
# 180 I agree strange comment

198. Stefanbkk - November 25, 2008

Hello everyone…

I’ve read post after post in different threads for the past several weeks, but I just can’t keep quiet any more…

Come on guys…. altering history is the ONLY WAY THIS MOVIE AND FUTURE MOVIES CAN WORK!

If JJ didn’t re-arrange history a bit… if he kept things exactly as they were… we’d all be on here posting ad nauseum with comments like:

“Ok, where’s Gary Mitchell?”

“Hey! Where’s that salt monster Nancy Crater?”

“Shouldn’t we be meeting Khan soon?”

”Why haven’t we met Charlie X yet? He showed up early in the 5 year mission… why haven’t we seen him yet?”

“Sulu worked in Astro-physics at the beginning of the mission, didn’t he? Why’s he at the helm now? We still haven’t heard his story about taking a penny and doubling it and becoming a millionaire in a month! I want my PENNY STORY!”

I don’t know about you all, but I have no desire to plop down my money to see JJ re-tell us stories about a mission we all have memorized. That would be silly and extreeeeemely boring.

This is how I’m processing it all… I’m not sure whether I have all the facts straight, but this works for me:

Nero goes back in time and kills Kirk’s father aboard the Kelvin. Without a strong father figure, Kirk becomes a more of a rebel in his youth, and begins flirting with death every chance he gets…. during this time he learns to drive a stick… heck, he might even have started smoking! Because his father was killed while in Starfleet, joining that organization is probably the LAST thing Kirk wants to do so he does not sign up and become the “stack of books with legs” which is why his junior officers beat him to the Enterprise.

Spock Prime goes back in time with the objective of putting things right the best way he can… by getting James T. Kirk into the captain’s chair…. a place he belongs in ANY timeline.

“Commanding a starship is your first best destiny” -Spock TWOK

Spock Prime succeeds. So we have Kirk in command of the Enterprise (as he should be). It might not have happened the same way this time… but he IS in command. He’s probably a bit more of a rebel than he even was before…. due to his misspent youth… but he’s still James T. Kirk. I like the idea of him being a bit of an even looser cannon than he was the first time around!

Because of the kick in the butt that Nero gave history, we can now assume that things will unfold differently for our gallant captain and crew. We might never see Gary Mitchell. Kirk never met him in this new timeline.

(Which if you think about it, probably extended Mitchell’s life tremendously… preventing him from becoming a silver-eyed god… and thus allowing him to pursue a life of religious fulfillment.)

And as unbelievable as this may sound, we may NEVER EVEN SEE A TRIBBLE. For now my fellow Trekkers… we have a whole new set of adventures to experience… with all the same people we’ve come to know and love… without them being tied to a specific chain of events.

I’m excited about this idea. But the way I see it, what’s come before over the past 40 years is not being ignored. I’m sure it will come to be known as “Trek History 1” (the way things went before Nero killed Kirk’s father). And the new adventures of the Enterprise will be referred to as “Trek History 2” (the one where we know the people, the ship and the philosophy… but where we have NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT!) Doesn’t that just get your dilithium cracking? Mine is… and I’m liking the feeling!

JJ has not jumped out of our sandbox and into his own… he simply smoothed over some of the old footprints to give himself the room to show us something new!

Let’s embrace what’s happening. Don’t worry that somehow your favorite episode no longer counts. “Balance of Terror” happened exactly the way we remember it… it just happened in “Trek History 1” or “TH1”.

And when you and your kids watch Kirk strip the gears of that old roadster in “A Piece of the Action” you can show your complete and utter Trek geek-ness by saying to your youngster:

“Now Honey, Captain Kirk didn’t know how to drive a standard shift car in this episode because this show happened during TH1… not to be confused with TH2… where Kirk loses his father and becomes a wild, undisciplined and directionless youth and would naturally learn how to drive a stick. Isn’t that fascinating, sweetie?”

And if you can get all that out before your child rolls his or her eyes and says, “Uh, can we just watch the show, please?” I’ll be impressed.

Well I’ve said my piece. I hope I make sense to you. I make sense to myself, so logically I should make sense to you as well.

Let’s just strap ourselves in and enjoy the ride… without knowing what’s around the next bend.

199. JL - November 25, 2008

You know what would be great? If the Enterprise had a disco like the one in Buck Rogers. Everyone could dance around swinging those light ropes.

pew pew! doo doo pewwwwww!

200. BouncyCaitian - November 25, 2008

I am intrigued. As to Canon….let’s face it guys, it’s permanently kicked intoa tin hat. let’s try for a reboot, which is what this is looking like. I wish the film success

201. AJ - November 25, 2008

189:

CS Lewis:

The authors of this new Trek have the privilege of having been born at the end of, or after, the Vietnam War. No such horrible life experiences for them. The world has changed, and the torch needs to go to the younger generation.

“Star Trek” was written by those who sacrificed in war, but it never glorified war as a breeding ground for ideas, save one: War is Hell. Star Trek was blatantly pacifist.

The “brats” you mention have grown up in a world which is one tic closer to Trek’s utopia than it was in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and their experiences are different to be sure, but no less valid.

202. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

190 Schultz — The rights bestowed upon Barack Obama Jr. by laws in the UK do not negate the rights bestowed upon him in the US by being born on US soil. Until you show me a *US* law that says otherwise, you can quote UK law until the cows come home, it doesn’t matter.

According to US law, if you were born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen.

I know from personal experience. I was born in the US to parents who are not citizens, but have Resident Alien status. I am a natural born citizen of the US. However, if my parents had elected to take me back to their native country, I would have more or less automatically gained citizenship in those countries.

It looks to me that the UK law you cite makes it clear that children of UK citizens have this same automatic right, no matter where the children were born. But, again, there is no reason to believe that this UK law should interfere with the US laws that govern natural born citizenship.

203. AJ - November 25, 2008

I agree with all nay-sayers on the production design,

As CS pointed out, Roddenberry and Jefferies had field experience in the military and Police, and their designs were practical and functional. The 1701 Bridge has been cited as influential to 20th century military workplace design. Subsequent trek bridges have all been functional work areas, save DS9’s space station.

An Apple store is a retail environment designed to stimulate the urge to buy. While his Bridge seems to emulate the original in basic concept, it is not a good working environment. Hot lights and white walls may bring out the primary colors of the characters’ clothing, but it would drive the crew crazy after a while. Also, it’s just “so” 2008.

204. JL - November 25, 2008

201, AJ

“War is Hell” – first TOS-related thing I think of when I see this phrase is “Arena”. The sequence on Sestus III was crazy action when all hell was breaking loose against an enemy in the hills they couldn’t see (the Gorn).

If they had a bigger budget it would have been cool to see a few shadowy Gorn figures off in the hillside…

I wouldn’t want them to be shown clearly as that would have taken the mystique out of the sequence. Like the best horror films, sometimes less is more, know what I mean?

205. Ralph F - November 25, 2008

Great review. And of note:

“… to a great score from Lost tuner Michael Giancacchino.”

THAT is what I’ve been waiting to hear about. Love the work Michael Giacchino (note the correct spelling, eh?) on a number of properties — notably genre films with a recognizable soundtrack past. SPEED RACER, love or hate the film, was dead-on as an updating of the original (and quite memorable) scoring. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III paid nice homage to the original sound.

And how could you not love the music in THE INCREDIBLES, which was a stylistic mash-up of JOHNNY QUEST and the entire JAMES BOND series.

206. AJ - November 25, 2008

Re: Citizenship

It is a fact that some illegal immigrant adult Mexican nationals have been deported back home from the US, while their US-born children have not. They are US citizens.

If Obama’s parents had decided that their son should be a UK subject, they would have gone to the nearest UK consulate to register the birth. Done.

They didn’t, so Obama is a full-fledged citizen with an Hawaiian SS#, etc. His mom is American, and that counts for something as well.

I thought this was the Altman thread, anyway…

207. Ralph F - November 25, 2008

Oh, and lest I forget Michael Giacchino’s work on JJ’s CLOVERFIELD. His score, “ROAR!”, over the final credits calls to mind all the great Godzilla & etc films. Check it out!

I’ve always felt the TREK soundtrack was in great hands, but it’s nice to get geek cred confirmation. Looking very very forward to buying that soundtrack.

208. John from Cincinnati - November 25, 2008

Wow great article Altman!

Did you go into my body and steal my mind and thoughts?

209. Jordan - November 25, 2008

I don’t agree with Mark about Qunito. I think he has the look down for sure, and as for his performance…nobody has seen enough to judge it!

210. sean - November 25, 2008

#190

The British Nationality Act of 1948 is a law of the United Kingdom, and is thus deferent to the laws of the United States within the boundaries of the United States, of which Hawaii has been a part since 1959. Since former Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to Ann Dunham – an American citizen – he is, in fact, an American Natural Born Citizen according to the 14th Amendment. Whether he could claim dual-citizenship is a moot point as he never did so (though Kenya does not allow adults to do this). His father’s citizenship is not the deciding factor. A Natural Born Citizen has ALWAYS been defined as one born within the borders of the United States. The only disputed portion of the NBC clause is whether children born to US Citizens OUTSIDE the borders of the United States are Natural Born Citizens.

Sorry, but there’s no meat to that argument. He is a citizen, he was elected under the appropriate laws governing elected officials.

Sorry if this is vaguely political Anthony, I was just trying to correct a factual error.

211. The Starfleet Conservative - November 25, 2008

#29

This isn’t the election.

212. Schultz - November 25, 2008

#202 (4815162342): There is not a single US law that states what a “natural born citizen” is. A relative of mine has the exact same vita as yours, and nowhere is it stated that he was “naturally born”, he was only a “US citizen” (cp. 14th Amendment to the Constitution). The same applies to your case. As a matter of fact, my relative had a dual citizenship until the age of 21, like Obama. However, in relation to the qualifications for presidential office, the constitution (II.1.v) distinguishes between “natural born” and other US-born citizens. And only two kinds of citizens are allowed to become president: “natural born” and those US-born citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Congress declared McCain a “natural born citizen” in April 08, because his status was legally unclear. Nothing in this respect has been done in Obama’s case, but it’s important, because he had dual citizenship until the age of 21. How can one be “natural born” with a dual citizenship? How can someone become President, when he was under foreign jurisdiction for 21 years?

213. I'm a Doctor not a___________ ! - November 25, 2008

Does anyone here have the quote, or at least the gist of JJ saying what the size (relative to the old enterprise) would be of the new enterprise?

214. Schultz - November 25, 2008

#210 (Sean): Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does the text mention “natural born citizen”. The text only mentions “US citizens”.

Quote: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Does a person born in the US, but with dual citizenship (first UK/US, then US/Kenyan until the age of 21) qualify as “natural born”? You must be joking.

215. AdamTrek - November 25, 2008

#205

The score for The Incredibles was very good. I didn’t know MG did it.

216. Wastedbeerz - November 25, 2008

Ok, gonna just say this… the movie is about as much of a reboot as much as the bridge of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey in Star Trek IV compared to III.

217. sean - November 25, 2008

#214

No, I’m not. Possessing dual-citizenship has NOTHING to do with being a natural born citizen. Nothing. Zip. Nada. The only definition ever upheld by any court or legal authority is a person born within the United States. Obama qualifies as such. His possible citizenship rights in Kenya have no bearing on his status as a citizen born within the borders of the United States. It was merely an inherited right recognized by Britain via his father. Congress was forced to pass a resolution with regard to John McCain because he was not born in the United States and that aspect of ‘natural born citizenship’ has often been called into question. It is neither John McCain nor Barack Obama’s fault that the Founding Father’s were so vague in their definitions. Then again, that’s what we have a Judiciary for.

218. Alex Rosenzweig - November 25, 2008

#195 – “This movie could have been easily written using the existing continuity.”

So far, at least, I agree, though of course there’s so much we haven’t seen that one has to caveat any such conclusion this early.

In some ways, that’s the tragedy of all this. This film could have been an origin story of the characters as we’ve known them, still effectively introduced them to a new audience in a fresh and exciting way, and short-circuited many of the arguments. (To be fair, it still might achieve that in the as yet unseen and un-discussed final resolution.) But it *seems* (and, again, I emphasize that word because there’s so much we don’t know) that TPTB felt they just needed to go in a different direction.

#198 – “But the way I see it, what’s come before over the past 40 years is not being ignored. I’m sure it will come to be known as “Trek History 1” (the way things went before Nero killed Kirk’s father). And the new adventures of the Enterprise will be referred to as “Trek History 2” (the one where we know the people, the ship and the philosophy… but where we have NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT!) Doesn’t that just get your dilithium cracking?”

Sadly, no. I was in mega-serious dilithium-cracking mode about this film right up until I figured out it was throwing away TH1, no matter in how convoluted a way it was doing so. Now…not so much. I’ll still go see it, but I’ve ceased to be really enthused, and once it’s done, I shall pay it little further mind.

I just have to hope the final film proves me wrong, by which I mean that my early guesses about the film’s fidelity to the rest of Trek are off-base because I’ve seen too little to judge it fairly.

219. barrydancer - November 25, 2008

212: Schultz

“However, in relation to the qualifications for presidential office, the constitution (II.1.v) distinguishes between “natural born” and other US-born citizens. And only two kinds of citizens are allowed to become president: “natural born” and those US-born citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution.”

A bit of a correction. The distinction in that line of the Constitution isn’t between different types of US born citizens, it is between native born Americans, those born in the United States, and people who were citizens of the United States at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, i.e. people of foreign birth. Case in point, Alexander Hamilton. He was born in the Caribbean, but the second part of that clause allowed him to become president one day. In fact, contemporaries often accused him of having the “time of the Constitution’s adoption” clause added to the qualifications for president so that he would be eligible to run for the office.

220. Schultz - November 25, 2008

#217 “It is neither John McCain nor Barack Obama’s fault that the Founding Father’s were so vague in their definitions. Then again, that’s what we have a Judiciary for.”

Fair enough. But to my mind the Founding Father’s definition implies that Obama is not “natural born”.

221. Shatner_Fan_Prime - November 25, 2008

#112 … “I get the feeling that this is really, truly Leonard Nimoy’s FINAL farewell to Spock and STAR TREK. For that alone, my butt will be firmly planted in the seat come May 2009.”

Me too!!

“I’m sure Nimoy and Abrams (with help from Orci & Kurtzman, and a touch of Michael Giacchino) have come up with something profoundly moving.”

Let’s hope so!!

222. sean - November 25, 2008

#220

Not to belabor the point, but how so? He was born in the United States. Inherited citizenship has no veto right over that fact. How is he not ‘natural born’?

223. Sc00ny - November 25, 2008

#199.

JL, ROFL, I bet the Shat would’ve lapped up a disco. Kirk would be in his pulling element.
Check out Buck’s hip moves:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NcfnRl0Gwcc&feature=related

Oh dear!

224. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

220 — You still haven’t shown how a dual citizenship negates the “natural born” criterion. Natural born refers to the question of birth, which is to say where the birth took place, without reference to the rights an individual may have in other jurisdictions.

It seems the main flaw in your argument is the assumption that having rights in one jurisdiction negates one’s rights in another. The right to dual citizenship does not amount to the same thing as swearing allegiance to more than one nationality.

225. C.S. Lewis - November 25, 2008

214. Schultz – November 25, 2008

The functional phrase for brthright citizenship is ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. In other words, a foreign ambassador that bears a son on US soil retains citizenship to her mother country; the son is not Amercan – he is not subject to American jurisdiction.

The other wrinkle is that Mr Obama has not produced an actual birth certificate, rather a Hawaiian “certificate of live birth” which is merely a means of registering a newborn’s arrival with the Hawaiian state. It is used mainly by visitors, tourists, service personnel, and others that have newborns with them. Hawaii is far from everywhere else so if a baby is born on a ship underweigh, it is registered with the authorities in this manner! Anyway, the COLB does not claim to identify birthplace, and does not. Neither is it signed by the mother, the physician, the responsible nurse, nor does it indicate a date and time of birth. The COLB simply indicates that a legal registration of a newborn was made. Further, the COLD is simply a computer print-out of a database entry and thus is of no forensic value according to GIGO theory.

This is an issue because Mr Obama’s mother was travelling in Africa very near to his birth, making it possible he was actually born abroad and therefore subject to his father’s citizenship. (US law in 1961 forbade maternal conferrance of citizenship by a minor woman; Mrs Obama was not yet of age and she could not confer US citizenship to her son if he was in fact born abroad.)

Interestingly, the US Supreme Court (the real one, not the pretend supreme court of Trek XI) has taken an interest in this matter. They will meet amongst themselves on 5th December to decide what to do about several lawsuits filed to compel Mr Obama to produce his actual, physical birth certificate as authored at the hospital of his birth.

Whatever one’s beliefs of the man, this is something of an astounding, if little known, development and a fascinating glimpse into a truly Constitutional matter.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

226. Spock's Yarmulka (aka ucdom) - November 25, 2008

#207

Don’t forget Ratataouille Ralph – another great Giacchino score.

I am so excited to hear his Trek score – especially if it has some little background Pizmonim for all the MORONS who think Spock isn’t JEWISH enough!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH

I said this thread was mental, like, a gazillion posts ago. And it’s gotten worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

227. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

I really couldn’t give a quatloo about production values. If the writing and acting are good enough, all that fades into the background as it did in TWOK.

And I’m even flexible about changing canon, if it serves a good, solid, well-told story.

But after reading about this 25-min. preview, I’m having serious misgivings about the quality of the story being told.

228. C.S. Lewis - November 25, 2008

201. AJ – November 25, 2008

Point well taken. However there is a large difference in perspective between the two generations.

Generally speaking, of course, one sacrificed and created, the other benfitted and consumed. It is bound to lead to stark variances in their worldview on matters such as work, entitlement, wealth, goals, priorities and such.

As for being one step closer to Utopia… I must ask if yo’ve read the head lines lately! The Western financial system is no more. “Wall Street” (a creation of the post-1929 crash) is gone. I don’t think the general population understands the enormity of what has happened these past 18 months… You may not realize it, but you live in a very different world today than you did last summer. And it’s not simply the US. UK, EU, BRIC all have undergone potentially catastrophic deleveraging and the worst is yet to come. There are violent riots in Iceland today, the first “sovereign bankruptcy” and more are sure to come as the poison of the go-go 1990s spreads through the sytem.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

229. I'm a Doctor not a___________ ! - November 25, 2008

sooooo….no one huh? …k thanks.

230. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

Because, of course, it had NOTHING to do with Reaganomics or neocon deregulation.

231. Peter N - November 25, 2008

#166

That is not a German breakfast.

232. table10 - November 25, 2008

216. Wastedbeerz

Awesome point!

That particular canon violation, above all others, has always bothered me

And yet, trek 3 and 4 have always been firmly part of canon, with little or no objection from the fans….

233. Closettrekker - November 25, 2008

#28—-“If the filmmakers for Trek would just man up and admit that their Star Trek is also a reboot (instead of continually, explicitly denying that it is) it would make the whole process so much easier on so many of the fans.”

You’re asking them to lie.

It is not a rebbot because everything that occurred in the original timeline still happens. Otherwise, the story cannot progress to the point where Nero (who is a product of that timeline) takes action to alter the past, nor can Nimoy’s Spock (who is also a product of that timeline) take action to counter that.

Everything you know as ‘canon’ (ENT-NEM) is inherently relevant—and, in fact, essential—-to the story. The story in STXI cannot happen without everything else happening first.

A reboot would disregard continuity. This story acknowledges the continuity of that timeline by making it essential to the story.

It is not a “reboot”, nor is it a “prequel”…It would be inaccurate of them to describe it either way.

If anything, it is a highly unconventional “sequel”.

234. Marv - November 25, 2008

Quinto not like spock because he’s not jewish? Wow. So many racist and wrong things with that insinuation.

235. Donn - November 25, 2008

4 8 15 16 23 42 is my new favorite poster. Good stuff.

Re: Amanda Greyson and Sarek touching fingers: It is referenced again, in the Pon Farr ritual Saavik performs with Spock on Genesis. Clearly it is some kind of, if not actual foreplay or sexual expression, expression of comfort and compassion for Vulcans. Given their touch-telepathic nature, that makes sense. (This last is from novels, perhaps not screen canon, but part of the lore, take it or leave it as you like.) It would be consistent to see this in the movie, but I won’t be up in arms if we don’t.

Reboot stinkers (134): It’s true for every Batman Begins or Casino Royale, there are many unfortunate remakes. A key distinction, I think, is that most of the ones listed in post 134 were parodies; they took the original concept and made fun of it. I quite liked Dragnet, actually, but the others were unfortunate. I am so very glad that this is not happening with Star Trek. They are so NOT making Galaxy Quest II.

Canon is MOOT (135): Allow me to quote, “What he said with irony, I say with conviction!” With “Roddenberry out of the way,” indeed, JJ et al are free to explore their own ideas about Star Trek. Canon, continuity and was-that-a-reference-to-Carol-Marcus are all fine and fun, but if it gets in the way of telling a compelling story, canon _should_ be thrown out; so many here would have liked to see a full reboot anyway, according to their comments. As it is, the Supreme Court has altered very little of the canon, and I find that heartening. It tells me that they are trying to keep as close to the original universe as possible, while throwing out the bits that are in the way of the story they are trying to tell. Trying to twist and turn an original story idea around the bits of known canon would look as bad as when Greedo shot first.

Characters (148): A difference here is that the TOS characters had 79 episodes with which to be fleshed out. In a feature film you get 120 minutes, maybe 180 if it’s a real butt-killer. If we only see one facet to the characters this time out, (Scotty is comic relief, Uhura is hot and sassy, Bones is laconic, Chekov is “wessels,” etc) I don’t think it’s damning of where the franchise is going; it’s the reality that there’s only so much screen time to go around.

Spidey and canon: Never minded Tobey’s voice, but where do canon-sticklers stand on his web shooters? They changed them from a mechanical invention to a mutation, I suppose for expediency. It worked for the character in the film, and that’s what’s important.

236. AJ - November 25, 2008

Nimoy in new version of trailer on AICN

237. Marian Ciobanu - November 25, 2008

-TNG and THE MOVIES era is the best of trek…there is no doubt…sorry….

238. McCoy - November 25, 2008

#138

From what I see, with the textures and lighting, YES!…I like that design MUCH better. It’s not the original, but very acceptable at “future” and “Star Trek”.

Good job!

239. Closettrekker - November 25, 2008

#237–There is quite a bit of doubt about that, as evidenced by the contrary opinions of those like Mark Altman, myself, and many other fans who post regularly here…

240. McCoy - November 25, 2008

LOL

Maybe “make it more real” means “make it more like 2008″.

Perhaps JJ can not envision the future….so anything designed to “feel” like the future looks “fake” to him.

241. earthclanbootstrap - November 25, 2008

240 – McCoy

Cap’n, You’re askin’ the impossible! I cannae reboot the reactor; the twenty year old “Genius” up on the new bridge is tellin’ me I have ta upgrade to the new version of iWarp first!

242. JL - November 25, 2008

AJ IS RIGHT (#236) – – – – – I JUST WATCHED IT!

MR. NIMOY’S SPOCK IS IN A NEW VERSION OF THE TRAILER RIGHT NOW ON AICN

GO NOW, HURRY!

243. JL - November 25, 2008

HURRRRRYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

244. McCoy - November 25, 2008

241-

LOL!

Whatever audience member that bridge was designed to please could not possible **get** that which is Star Trek. Conversely, if they are smart enough to understand the philosophy of Trek, then they would not have cared that a more classic bridge was used.

245. sean - November 25, 2008

http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_720p.mov

New Trailer! With Spock Prime! :)

246. dalek - November 25, 2008

Enjoyed the article.

Agree that the Jewish thing doesn’t make sense. Then again I’m guessing Mark Altman is Jewish and it’s a personal preference. If that’s the case, shame on you. There aren’t enough Italian people playing Spock!

Jewish thing aside, I have yet to see anything other than the way he looks that convinces me Quinto is a decent Spock. Pine im more swayed with.

247. JL - November 25, 2008

246

“Then again I’m guessing Mark Altman is Jewish…”

Good guess

248. JWM - November 25, 2008

Article is what it is, which is yet another diatribe by someone who amounts to no more than yet another disaffected geek with a soapbox. Seriously, this type of editorial has become so commonplace and expected that it’s become boring and I have trouble even compelling myself to finish it. Same tired tone and jokes.

EXCEPT…

The Jewish thing makes no sense, and I find it to be a bit racist. He’s saying that only Jews play good Vulcans? I never attached a racial preference to the actors portraying Star Trek characters — in fact, one of the most ironic things about Star Trek is that it broke down racial stereotypes by painting its characters in broad, racial/nationalistic strokes. A good actor is a good actor and casting them makes sense regardless of anything else.

The entire tone of the article was “I’m too good for this type of Star Trek, but I’ll hold my nose and go to it because I have no sense of self-discipline to stop myself from going to see it.” Please, get off your high horse.

249. Closettrekker - November 25, 2008

#244—The notion that the look of the bridge would have anything to do with whether or not an audience member “gets” the philosophy of Star Trek is absurd to me.

How do you even arrive at the conclusion that asthetic tastes have anything to do with intellect, or more importantly, the ability to comprehend the optimistic vision offered to the audience by Star Trek?

250. JL - November 25, 2008

244

“Whatever audience member that bridge was designed to please could not possible **get** that which is Star Trek…”

I could not disagree with you more. That is a blanket statement and 100% baseless.

Who are you or anyone else to predict what other movie-goers or Trek fans will like or “get”?

There ** IS ** no 100% solution to please everyone 100%.

Repeat: no matter what anyone does, it will not please all of the fans.

Meyer threw a huge visual monkeywrench into the works when he took over Trek. And there were plenty of Trek “fans”, real fans, who not only accepted it, but loved it.

Let me borrow your crystal ball and your magic beans when you get a chance.

251. spsblue - November 25, 2008

At what age are these kids that it is being written for? I’m 25 and really enjoying the novels – a lot more of that is being threatened, but they managed to salvage most of it after enterprise. I just need to do more mental gymnastics to force it to fit the star trek multiverse.

252. JL - November 25, 2008

238 & 244, McCoy

Why do you contradict yourself?

253. earthclanbootstrap - November 25, 2008

244 McCoy

Y’know the funny thing is that I think ALL of us, strict canonists and freewheelers alike have grown used to new bridges every go round. Starfleet maintains a strict policy of keeping their interior decorators VERY busy. It’s not so much the fact of a new bridge, it’s what this particular one looks like that I find a little off-putting. Though I will openly admit that the scenes on the Defiant during ‘In A Mirror Darkly’ gave me a thrill…

254. Anthony Pascale - November 25, 2008

RE: politics
guys can you try and veer back to Star Trek?

255. earthclanbootstrap - November 25, 2008

254 Anthony Pascale (esteemed host of the site)

Thank you for dropping in on that.

On the plus side, though, I think I have a pretty good idea what Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are using as their login IDs…

256. JL - November 25, 2008

( it’s all crickets in here now )

257. Jax Maxton - November 25, 2008

I really hope they aren’t turning Uhura “sassy”. That’s a word that has been thrown around in talking about her. Even in the 60s she didn’t have to be a “sassy” black woman. She was an intelligent soldier in a military operation. If they make her a stereotype, they are flat out ruining a character, and doing a disservice to Gene Roddenberry and what Trek was meant to be.

258. Closettrekker - November 25, 2008

#256—-She could be “sassy” when she needed to be…

“Mirror, Mirror” for one…or TSFS.

But perhaps my favorite Uhura scene in all of Star Trek was in “Space Seed”, when Khan’s henchman backhanded her across the face. That ‘scowl’ Nichelle Nichols delivered in defiance really resonated with me.

I don’t know if that qualifies as “sass”, but I liked it alot.

259. earthclanbootstrap - November 25, 2008

257 & 258

I guess she always struck me as usually being very dignified and poised, not so much sassy.For instance even when she was insisting that she had seen Kirk in her quarters during ‘The Tholian Web’ she never struck me as hysterical, which could have been the easy route for Nichols to take, merely upset. She was always played with a certain elan.

Of course, now that I think about it, the new trailer puts that particular scene in a whole new light…

260. Closettrekker - November 25, 2008

#259—-“Of course, now that I think about it, the new trailer puts that particular scene in a whole new light…”

That’s priceless.

261. McCoy - November 25, 2008

250 JL

I guess you are right. I was a bit narrow-minded there. It is true that the core of Trek (optimism and human exploration) is so fundamental, that EVEN someone who likes the new bridge may be able to understand it.

252 JL

No contradiction. I was saying the bridge from post #138 was nice. It can be seen at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31487060@N06/

A “new bridge” is more likely to upset older fans more than an “old bridge” is likely to upset a newer audience. If the new, cooler, hipster fans come for the sex, Chris Pine or the women, then they wouldn’t care that the older fans had a more classic (but updated) bridge.

262. McCoy - November 25, 2008

On a scale from 1 to 100—with 1 being the exact same bridge from TOS and 100 being the set from Wheel of Fortune, I’d say JJ’s bridge has us at about a 60.

I would rather be at about 20 or 30.

263. Cobalt Ben - November 25, 2008

What made Mark A. Altman’s review so cool is that he used the F-word so many times. Doesn’t that make him hip?

264. Spock's Yarmulka (aka ucdom) - November 25, 2008

#263

No

265. Gene Luck Pickerd - November 25, 2008

There are so many things from the original canon that are difficult, if not impossible, for us to relate too.

– An Earth without money? Communism was tried, it failed the test of history. Why shouldn’t the crew of the Enterprise here their latest humanitarian mission applauded on a subspace broadcast of BBC WORLDS or have a General Dynamics hull design powered by a Bechtel Warp Reactor?

– Nuclear conflict is unlikely, but the idea of humanity having to “learn their lesson” was always so contrived and patronizing. How many times did humanity destroy itself? Bioweapons, Eugenics Wars, Drug-addicted soldiers, Nukes, Knives, Sharp Sticks? Things were supposed to get a whole lot darker before they got better, but conflict and extreme poverty have been reduced to their lowest point in recorded history, ongoing conflicts included.

– A eugenics conflict didn’t happen in the 90s, which is nice because we never had to launch Khan into deep space (would have been cost prohibitive). The Indians and Chinese are more interested in moon mining than launching political prisoners into space, actually scratch that, the People’s Party just found a new way to hide pesky political activists, “what Dalai Lama, we thought he was with you? we haven’t seen him”.

– The environmental movement has gone mainstream and is openly excepted by both major parties of the US (much thanks to ST:IV) yes we have problems, but we are already working on them as a planet, and that is very Star Trek, but very NOT canon.

– Evolving beyond religion? Doubtful, religions have gone global, become divorced from their original cultures, and this has enabled them to spread to every corner of the planet, and maybe beyond, show me a Muslim Vulcan, or a human that believes in Sto’Vo’Kor. The idea that people will all be forced to adopt Humanism is just as offensive as someone forcing their religion down your throat.

A new Trek can embrace these very positive trends, and offer hope tempered by an acknowledgment that we will always have challenges in regards to our own human nature. Hell, the UN has a demographic study all the way out to 2300, wanna go see what the population of the earth will look like the day NCC-1701 is commissioned?

North America – 520 million
Latin America and the Caribbean – 700 million
Oceania – 47 million
Europe – 590 million
Africa – 2.06 billion
India – 1.34 billion
China – 1.25 billion
Rest of Asia – 2.23 billion

Where are all the Asians and Africans on the Enterprise? Did they get way-porized?

Make Star Trek big again, make it a force for social change again, even if you have to start over.

266. McCoy - November 25, 2008

I agree that Trek’s history prior to Starfleet does not fit with our actual history and should not be commented on in the film of course. However, if you take away the kind of world the characters were living in (evolved beyond religion and money) then you take away a big part of Gene’s vision. I would not be in favor of that.

267. Ian B - November 25, 2008

265-
“Evolving beyond religion? Doubtful, religions have gone global, become divorced from their original cultures, and this has enabled them to spread to every corner of the planet, and maybe beyond, show me a Muslim Vulcan, or a human that believes in Sto’Vo’Kor. The idea that people will all be forced to adopt Humanism is just as offensive as someone forcing their religion down your throat.”

TOS was before Roddenberry got carried away by the fans into believing his sci-fi show was some kind of philosophy, and doesn’t betray any post-religious humanism anyway. Kirk tells Apollo that they find “the one God quite sufficient”. Uhura goes into that odd sunday school moment about “The Son” at the end of Bread and Circuses. Religious references abound- “The Apple” for instance. It’s not post-religious, it’s written for a typical 60s audience living in a politically secular but privately religious society.**

As to Gene’s “vision” about having no money, and thus no trade, and thus no economy- or rather, in practical terms, a total command economy; that’s pure drivel and there’s no politer way to put it. Who decides where you live if you can’t buy a house? One of those Federation Commissars? Why do people work? Because they’re told to? Because they’re allocated a job by the Job Allocation Committee? Brrr. We can do without visions like that, I think.

**Disclaimer: I’m an atheist.

268. krikzil - November 25, 2008

“TNG and THE MOVIES era is the best of trek…there is no doubt…sorry….”

While I wasn’t really a TNG fan (but had nothing against it really), I do hope the movie (despite all my doubts) can bring Trek back to the level TNG enjoyed — it was incredibly popular at one point and brought a lot of fans into the fold. Cons were packed.

269. TL - November 25, 2008

It interesting to read how many people are buying into JJ’s vision of Star Trek which differes dramatically from the look of TOS as well as the continuity of the original. I suppose it would be asking too much from people to think logically of how breaking away from the past will alter the Star Trek universe. JJ and Paramount had an opportunity to revist TOS and bring it to the big screen, yet they are doing this in a way which is completely out of sink with what the audience already knows. Some think is is progress, I think it’s a big mistake and will turn off a lot of fans.

270. Sc00ny - November 25, 2008

I hope we can get a saple of M.G.’s music soon, Maybe on the next trailer?

271. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

#267, I think you may be taking the “no money” thing to an extreme. Just because the economic system is different from ours – and I don;t see how it could fail to be, what with the complete collapse of society in between, amazing leaps in technology that make things like transport and medicine so much more readily available, and influence of alien cultures – doesn;t mean there’s no system of remuneration whatsoever. That’s a pretty big assumption to make. When Dr. Soong said, “People needed money back then,” I think that is supposed to be seen as another way of saying, “People had to do without things they needed.”

272. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

Also, we saw many examples of trade in very series. No currency does not equal no trade.

273. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

Good design and effects will not make a poorly executed story into a good movie (I’m looking at you, Matrix sequels) and bad design and effects won;t keep a well-executed story from being a good movie.

274. Ian B - November 25, 2008

271-

It seems pretty clear that the “no money” thing is meant to mean “no trade” in some kind of ideological way, at least between individuals in the society. Money is itself just a tradeable commodity that everyone agrees has value and which acts as an intermediary to barter. I don’t think it’s meant to suggest that it’s a barter economy. The sight of Picard pompously lecturing that defrosted businessman in “The Neutral Zone”(?) seemed to make it clear that nobody accumulates wealth in the Trektopia- they work for the social good, or something, which is the communist ideal; the creation of a “Soviet Man” who would have no selfish desires and would work for the good of society (i.e. for the state).

Sort of on this subject, something that has bothered me a lot about post-TOS Trek is the strange society it depicts or, really, rather fails to depict. In TOS, it’s excusable- it’s a weekly adventure series of the 60s set on a ship on patrol, a military show, and the “ideology” is not in evidence. But there are hundreds of hours of TNG-era Trek- and the creators seem to have steered well clear of what goes on outside Starfleet. It’s like all of life in the Federation is Starfleet. There is a Federation president for instance, but nobody has ever mentioned an election. We know that Romulan Ale is banned, so it appears that the Womens Christian Temperance Union are still in existence and ruining everybody else’s fun, but there’s no indication of what kind of polity creates such laws. There are various council type structures shown or alluded to, but these seem to be oligarchical bureaucratic constructs, like some awful interstellar European Union. The Picards own vineyards- but who decides they can own this land? Or do they own it or does the State? For a show which supposedly has a deep social philosophy, there’s an eerie lack of any kind of coherent society outside Starfleet. Indeed, it appears that the only way to get ahead pretty much is Starfleet.

It’ll be nice if J.J.’s take on the thing broadens the social canvas a bit- it occurred to me that the reason that boy Kirk in the motor car seems so jarring is that we’ve barely seen Earth before in Trek. It’s like a break with the canon for somebody to have a normal life outside Starfleet.

275. Alex Rosenzweig - November 25, 2008

#265 – “There are so many things from the original canon that are difficult, if not impossible, for us to relate too.

– An Earth without money?”

Well, I agree that that’s a bit farfetched, but TOS never suggested a lack of money. They had credits as their monetary unit. I think the one reference to that was probably about a lack of cash, and we’re headed toward an increasingly cashless society *now*.

“Communism was tried, it failed the test of history. Why shouldn’t the crew of the Enterprise here their latest humanitarian mission applauded on a subspace broadcast of BBC WORLDS or have a General Dynamics hull design powered by a Bechtel Warp Reactor?”

The Federation isn’t a communist economy Never has been. Moving on. :)

“- Nuclear conflict is unlikely, but the idea of humanity having to “learn their lesson” was always so contrived and patronizing. How many times did humanity destroy itself? Bioweapons, Eugenics Wars, Drug-addicted soldiers, Nukes, Knives, Sharp Sticks? Things were supposed to get a whole lot darker before they got better, but conflict and extreme poverty have been reduced to their lowest point in recorded history, ongoing conflicts included.”

This is one of those areas where canonical Trek is a bit contradictory. TOS suggested we avoided a nuke war, TNG suggested we had it. I always imagined that if we had it, it was really limited, because a full-out nuke war is tantamount to racial suicide.

“- A eugenics conflict didn’t happen in the 90s, which is nice because we never had to launch Khan into deep space (would have been cost prohibitive).”

Ahh, but the Trek Universe isn’t ours, and therefore the fact that such things didn’t happen in reality is of no consequence. I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to focus on that conflict unless I had enough time in the story I was telling to build the alternate history, but even today we still worry about the consequences of genetic engineering, so the story involved is no less relevant.

“- The environmental movement has gone mainstream and is openly excepted by both major parties of the US (much thanks to ST:IV) yes we have problems, but we are already working on them as a planet, and that is very Star Trek, but very NOT canon.”

Huh? Why not? What in Trek’s canon would be contradictory to that?

“- Evolving beyond religion?”

Interestingly, TOS never implied any such thing. TNG flirted with the idea, but DS9 went the other way.

OTOH, i wouldn’t write off the idea that religion could evolve into some forms we might consider quite unrecognizable, so who knows?

“A new Trek can embrace these very positive trends, and offer hope tempered by an acknowledgment that we will always have challenges in regards to our own human nature.”

Maybe I’m being liberal in my interpretation, but I don’t think we need a new Trek, ’cause I see much of what you’re saying already embodied in the existing one, even if there are a few minor oddities.

“Hell, the UN has a demographic study all the way out to 2300, wanna go see what the population of the earth will look like the day NCC-1701 is commissioned?

North America – 520 million
Latin America and the Caribbean – 700 million
Oceania – 47 million
Europe – 590 million
Africa – 2.06 billion
India – 1.34 billion
China – 1.25 billion
Rest of Asia – 2.23 billion

Where are all the Asians and Africans on the Enterprise? Did they get way-porized?”

It was American television. ;) Though the thought did occur to me that if there was a nuclear conflict centered in southern Asia, that might account for some of the population shifts. I just don’t see that as a big canonical issue; just show more non-Anglo characters as the saga goes on.

Maybe I’m just flexible enough to think that the Trekverse could adapt to some of what you’re saying without having to throw away its fictional history. I still don’t see the problems, though.

276. Ian B - November 25, 2008

Also, regarding the ready availabilty of medicine, canon tells us there are three types. The first type, the majority, can be synthesised in starship sickbays. The second type, required to cure planetary plagues, can only be manufactured or found someplace else, and need to be transported at high speed by starship to where they are needed. The third type, kironide, is extremely rare and has no known medical use, but can be found in Dr McCoy’s medical bag.

277. Claude A - November 25, 2008

Sorry, I can’t jump on the reboot bandwagon. If there was a need to “change” Star Trek, then do a whole new crew. One of the main reasons Star Trek was so successful was the adherence to the Trek continuity. You can’t compare this to James Bond. Bond can be perceived as an ongoing institution, where the 007 position of “James Bond” is filled was needed. The legacy of the Enterprise should be kept in order. There could be plenty of stories of Kirk and crew during the period between the time he took command from Pike and the episode “Where on man has gone before”.

278. Alex Rosenzweig - November 25, 2008

#274 – “It’ll be nice if J.J.’s take on the thing broadens the social canvas a bit- it occurred to me that the reason that boy Kirk in the motor car seems so jarring is that we’ve barely seen Earth before in Trek. It’s like a break with the canon for somebody to have a normal life outside Starfleet.”

I guess, again, there’s an advantage in not limiting one’s view of the Trek world to just what’s on film. Much of the broader canvas you describe has been explored quite intriguingly in the pages of the books. The politics, the non-StarFleet aspects of existence in that world…even Kirk as a not-yet-sterling example of humanity. It’s all there, waiting for you, and it didn’t break canon in any way to show it. :)

279. Ian B - November 25, 2008

Alex, if you care about canon :) books etc are a waste of time; they aren’t canon. So anything they may claim to say about the Star Trek universe isn’t in-universe “real”. As such they’re kind of professionally commissioned fanfic. That’s why I’m not interested in them, because however good a story they may tell they “never happened”.

280. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

>>It seems pretty clear that the “no money” thing is meant to mean “no trade” <>The sight of Picard pompously lecturing that defrosted businessman in “The Neutral Zone”(?) seemed to make it clear that nobody accumulates wealth in the Trektopia-<<

There’s a difference between accumulating wealth and accumulating wealth for its own sake, just to see who has the most toys. In a society where it was possible for everybody to meet their basic needs, I can easily see being able to say that you had more “stuff” than other people would cease to be thought of as a life goal in and of itself.

281. The Slitheen (parp!) - November 25, 2008

To the prudes:
Shield your kids from the lying politicians on your TV, and evil businessmen that wreck this poor planet in the chase for personal wealth. Shield them from war causing religions, and from the idea of joining the army and going off to fight unjust wars halfway around the world. They’ll all do FAR more harm to your kids than a couple of comparatively harmless expletives in an internet article, and a shot of some actress removing her bra in this movie! (Like Gene R wouldn’t have done the same if he could…..*especially* with the historically overtly sexually charged character that was Uhura! C’mon…think about it.)

Now then….I’m looking forward to this film. Like others have pointed out, canon has been ‘damaged’ by all the previous incarnations of Trek before it. Canon is increasingly a needless burden around the neck of anyone wishing to write for the franchise. The same Trek fans that are begging for canon to be observed are often found playing Trek video games that pay not a jot of respect to all that is canonical. You also don’t hear them complain that Klingons went from distinctly normal/human looking fellas with beards to otherworldly looking humanoids with bizzare cranial ridges and fangs, with barely an acceptable explanation given as of yet (only hinted at). It is only anyone that dares to mess with the canon *they’ve* come to love, or with *their* childhood, that should be hung out to dry.

Trek is now classic pop culture and it belongs as much to us oldies as it does generations not even born yet. I’m all for JJ Abrams rebooting the franchise, whether or not he calls it that, if it brings in new fans. It needed someone with the stones to be fearless in the face of the rabid established fanbase….and JJ Abrams is definitely that. If he weren’t, this movie wouldn’t dare crawl out from Shatner’s shadow….as it seemingly has.

Take my word for it – the enemies of this franchise are not directors, writers or actors…..they are the fans themselves. Well, some of them. Reading the comments here, I’m heartened by the thought that they might not be the majority of us. Roll on May!

282. The Underpants Monster - November 25, 2008

#275 – I remember reading that Roddenberry said he had to content himself with believing that the portion of the Enterprise crew that wasn’t seen onscreen contained more women and minorities.

283. The Slitheen (parp!) - November 25, 2008

Gene also fought the men-in-suits (and lost) to have two gay alien characters in TNG. He fought for the interracial Kirk/Uhura kiss. The man was before his time I tell you, god bless him. He wrote Uhura sexy…..end of discussion. It’s there for all to see. This film is only doing what Gene would have done had he been allowed to get away with it. The short skirts of the female Enterprise crew was already seriously taboo back then. If he could have shown a bra scene…..he would. It really is no big deal. For adults *or* for kids.

I’ve often wondered why Sci-Fi is the only genre whose fans react badly to the idea of sex scenes. My own take on the matter is that they must remind geeks that they don’t have girlfriends. Otherwise, are we to assume space travel negatively impacts the libido…and/or that these characters never have sex lives? Please! Trust me boys, when you sell the model ships, cut the apron strings, move out of your parents basement and get a wife….you’ll wonder why the sight of Uhura’s bra ever troubled you. My only concern is that even with her glorious paps out on show, she couldn’t ever be as sexy as our beloved Nichelle.

284. Brett Campbell - November 25, 2008

281 – I never once got the impression that the TOS Uhura was a “historically overtly sexually charged character” (and that’s quite a string of adverbs, by the way). I always viewed her as a professional with a strong sense of compassion, humaneness, and a good sense of humor. Apart from TV’s first interracial kiss with Kirk, under mind control from aliens, I don’t recall her ever having anything remotely close to a love scene.

285. The Slitheen (parp!) - November 25, 2008

Of course she was a very sexual and flirtatious character (which made her no less professional, compassionate, humane or funny, BTW). If you can’t see that, you must be one of those blokes who always miss what is under their noses. [Brett’s friend: “Brett…that girl over there fancies you!”, Brett: “No she doesn’t…does she?”] Sound familiar? ;)

I suppose you also don’t recall Uhura provocatively dancing/singing on the sand dunes to lull horny men into a cunning trap? Or her rather OBVIOUS flirtations with Scotty?

286. Brett Campbell - November 25, 2008

285 – Okay, but I was thinking more about the original 79 NBC episodes.

As for your other comment about missing statements like those and does it sound familiar. Well, sadly it does.

If you’ll excuse me I’m going to go down into my mother’s basement to cry. ;) …?

287. The Slitheen (parp!) - November 25, 2008

135 – “Now that Gene Roddenberry is out of the way…”

Go away and wash your mouth with soap, man! The fans, Paramount….anyone and everyone to do with Star Trek and/or who loves Star Trek would *never* use such language when discussing such a great man. For anyone that knew him or loved his work….his passing was deeply felt. The fact he is no longer with us can never be construed as a positive thing, which is what you’re making out.. How dare you!? Can you not use words such as “passed away”, “died” etc?

Am I the only one to find that sentence 100X more offensive than the use of an F word in Altman’s article? :/

288. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 25, 2008

235 Donn — Thanks! And thanks for enlightening me. Not only do I hate STIII:TSFS, but I especially hate the Pon Farr stuff, so I am liable to skip that scene when I review the movie. So much for that example. But I still contend that most viewers forgive the little inconsistencies in Star Trek, TOS included, because of the consistency of the gestalt.

289. Anthony Brooks Fellows - November 25, 2008

152-

George Bush’s done a splendid job of emptying your wallet, even more, I imagine than Rick Berman did in his tenure.

Quaint, isn’t it?

290. Barona - November 25, 2008

Well, I’ve been reading for days now what so many different people have been writing about this new movie, and I’ve decided it’s time to weigh in. Not sure what more I can say that’s already been said or hasn’t been said, but anyway, here’s my take:

I grew up watching Star Trek in syndication in the early 70’s, so you could say I’ve almost watched it from the beginning. When I was a kid watching this TV show back then, it didn’t matter to me that there was a black woman or an Asian man as part of the bridge crew. In fact, the historical significance of those characters playing a part in this show was completely lost on me at that time. I was after all, only 5 or 6! No, the race or color of the actors didn’t make a whole lot of difference. What was important to me was that here was this really cool show, with cool characters, doing cool stuff on this cool ship! And while Kirk was the ladies man and got most of the girls, sometimes, Spock and Dr. McCoy got some action too, and this was accomplished without having to use sex to sell any one of the episodes. Although the “Theiss Titillation Theory” played a large part in the sexiness of the series. Thank you, Bill Theiss!

Year’s later, I realized the significance of Mr. Roddenberry placing those inter-racial characters on his starship, and what that meant to so many. For me, they were revered characters, and I remember the thrill that it was to first see them on the big screen in 1979.

So I suppose I can be placed in the mix of the so-called “fanboys” and “canonistas” if you will, since I sort of grew up with TOS. But for me as a fan, I have also personally enjoyed ALL of the various incarnations of Star Trek, and while TOS will always be my favorite, I came to love TNG, DS9 and Voyager. To a lesser degree, I enjoyed Enterprise, however the 3rd and 4th seasons of that series remain my favorites. In my mind, each series stands on it’s own. No doubt, there were some episodes in each series that were terrible, (Spocks Brain, anyone?). But there were also many well-written, wonderfully crafted episodes in each series, along with some mediocre shows as well. I disagree with those who mercilessly malign Rick Berman and Branon Braga. Because in spite of some mistakes they made, they were responsible for some very fine hours of Star Trek on television. Now personally, I will say that their decision to kill off Kirk in Generations was unforgivable, and I feel that in some ways, Star Trek’s decline can be traced back to this instance. I wish something could be done to fix this, to resurrect our hero on screen, and not just in the novels. However, I have also felt that Mr. Shatner bears some of the responsibility for this as well. He could have refused to take part in that particular movie, or refused to do the death scene and demanded a re-write. In any case, this one event is what led us to the delimma today regarding Mr. Shatner’s unfortunate lack thereof with regard to participation in this current movie. But that particular issue has been written about up one side and down the other, so I’m not going to re-hash it here, because as of this point, it’s history.

Above it all though, each series has the same common denominator: A group of people, different races, different colors, different ethnicities working in harmony together to accomplish something. Did they always agree? No they didn’t, but that was OK, because at the end of the day, the mission was accomplished. That’s what has always drawn me to Star Trek, and why I’ve enjoyed each series.

So here we are with this new movie set to hit theaters next May. There are a lot of people already saying they’re not going to go and see it, because of the possible “canon” violations that may exist or because of some other reason. With only a few minutes from a trailer and assorted images, I’m not sure how you can make such a decision, but I suppose if one does decide as such, so be it. I would point out that many times, some of the scenes in the trailer end up on the cutting room floor, so some of those things we’re seeing may or may not be part of the movie. I would venture to say though that those bothered by the possible violations in the movie or some other aspect of it are probably part of my generation, the ones who grew up with Classic Trek. Those who are enthusiastically embracing the new movie, it’s probably safe to say they are from what I will term the “Next Gen” crowd and younger. I’ve noticed that this group seems to get VERY upset when those from the Classic Trek era already criticize the movie or point out a possible “canon” violation. They get all pi**ed off and try to tell the Classic Trek crowd “You don’t have to go see the movie if you don’t like it!”. Stop. Stop telling them they don’t have to go see the movie. Like it or not Next Gen crowd, YOU need them. If this movie is to be successful, the core Trek audience is needed. If it weren’t for the Classic Trek crowd like myself, you wouldn’t have a new movie to look forward to or to write about. JJ has acknowledged this by including Leonard Nimoy in this movie. IMHO, this is his nod to the Classic Trek generation. It was this generation that kept the hope for new Star Trek alive during the lean years of Star Trek. Thanks to their continued interest through conventions and other means, Star Trek came back in 1979 and has been, for the most part, thriving since. Unfortunately, while there were some good episodes, one does wonder if things may have turned out differently had ST:Enterprise not been attempted. Again, IMHO, I feel that another part of this decline to Trek ocurred because the well was tapped too many times. As a result, even the Classic Trek generation become skeptical of the efforts of Berman and Co. I feel that, had Nemesis ocurred earlier in the Next Gen film franchise, it would have been one of the top grossing Star Trek films, instead of one of the lowest. In any case, what I and so many other of the Classic Trek generation are concerned with is the fact that unlike any other SciFi franchise, there is 40+ years of ST history to contend with, and in the case of TOS, a series with characters that are much beloved. For us and as it relates to this new movie, we can’t just forget about or throw away that history. So yes, I am concerned about some of the perceived “canon loopholes”, such as Pike & Kirk meeting sooner, the appearance of the Romulans, Chekov’s presence, and the building of the Big E in Iowa, among other things. But none of these are enough to make me disregard the film. Do I think the designers could have stayed truer to the original Enterprise, while yet working to slightly update it? Yeah, I do. IMHO, the exterior design of the Enterprise in history is non-negotiable, and I think this should have been stayed true to. However, having said that, while I’m not crazy about the “new” old design, I don’t hate it either. As for the iBridge, yeah I also think that the designers could have updated the look of the 60’s era bridge without making such a radical departure from what has been established. But again, for me, this is not enough to make me dismiss the movie, and certainly in the 60’s there was no way to know how far technology would come, so the producers obviously had a huge task on their part, where this was concerned.

Now by the same token, Classic Trek generation, we NEED the Next Gen crowd! If this movie is to be more successful than the last Trek movie, then we need them as well, along with the general viewing audience. The iBridge and Classic E on steroids, is JJ’s nod to them. I for one am glad to be going back to the Kirk era of Trek. James Cawley has proved that it is possible to go back to that era and successfully re-cast these classic characters and tell new stories. And James Johnson has proved (albeit rather slowly), that it’s possible to go back to that era and create new characters. My point is, a great story that is well-writen will potentially transcend these other issues that concern those of us in the Classic Trek generation. A great story and exciting action will bring out the Next Gen crowd and the general movie audience. So far, it looks to me like we’re in for a GREAT STORY!

So I hope for the success of this movie, because who knows what may come in the wake of such success! So as with every other Star Trek movie, I will be there on opening night to see the beginning of what will hopefully be a great addition to the Star Trek mythos.

291. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - November 26, 2008

290 Barona — A well-written, thoughtful and considered entry. I agree with most of what you say. In what we don’t agree on, it doesn’t rankle me because you’re respectful of the difference of opinion among your fellow fans, as am I.

To use a quote from your post, “Did they always agree? No they didn’t, but that was OK, because at the end of the day, the mission was accomplished.” That’s how we should be with each other as fans, because we all care about Star Trek.

292. McCoy - November 26, 2008

It’s OK. There’s no fire in the theater. Trek will not die if this movie fails. It’s a myth.

Star Trek is STILL huge. It’s the biggest fan base in the history of TV. Science Fiction and fantasy are alive and “geekdom” thrives. If Cawley can make his adventures and Galactica can come back strong, there’s plenty of room for another TOS remake if we don’t like this one.

We just have to remember that it’s OK to not like this movie. It’s just someone else’s vision. It’s of course also OK to like it. But either way, it’s not the end.

:o)

293. McCoy - November 26, 2008

Star Trek didn’t **need** a reboot like Smallville which is a reinvention of how prime characters meet and interact. A change of the history of group of characters. It doesn’t have to be pushed to a new audience.

Star Trek needs good stories, good acting, good direction, good effects and (because it’s Star Trek) it needs great and recognizable classic art direction. Updated only so far as needed. Yes, that place does exist.

294. Mark - November 26, 2008

# 269 “JJ and Paramount had an opportunity to revist TOS and bring it to the big screen, yet they are doing this in a way which is completely out of sink with what the audience already knows.”

That’s because Scotty finally had to put the kitchen sink into the impulse power.

295. Robert H. - November 26, 2008

Speaking as a hard core Trekkie, if people are too concerned about canon, which Star Trek from the very beginning had a devil of a time trying to maintain, then they lose the very thing that makes Star Trek, Star Trek. But damning the movie over 25 minutes of …. let’s say 120 minutes in not logical. In fact it may just be the lousiest 25 minutes of the movie, it might not be. WE DON’T KNOW!

As far as we know, much of the accepted canon might be in the movie that was not shown. How did Kirk go from cadet to Captain? Did he go from cadet to Captain first of all? And second, how can Saavik from Star Trek 2 be a Lieutenant while being a cadet? Cadet may be inaccurate, but trainee.

How do we know Kirk wasn’t in Starfleet before? In the sections we didn’t see, he might have been, but left due to Captain Garrovick’s death, which he blames himself for. And when he is at the academy, he might be a brash young Lt. Commander being trained to be a full commander. How do I know? I don’t.

And if true that may be the case, Antonia might be mentioned. I don’t know. But I am basing everything on what I do know. But many of the naysayers are basing everything on what they don’t know. Most illogical.

But also, don’t forget Ro Laren from Star Trek: TNG who went to school for special training and became a full Lieutenant. From the episode “Preemptive Strike.”

How do we know that the Enterprise was built in space before this movie? We don’t. It was never canonized.

Fact is we are making grandiose assumptions based upon what little we do know. As far as we know, most of the accepted canon can still be preserved. And also remember, how much of canon is based upon assumptions? Like Carol Marcus being the blonde lab technician Gary Mitchell steered Kirk towards and nearly married?

296. Alex Rosenzweig - November 26, 2008

#279 – “Alex, if you care about canon :) books etc are a waste of time; they aren’t canon.”

I’ve never limited my perceptions of the Trekverse to what’s on film. I think that’s needlessly restrictive. Really, the only reason I even pay attention to the distinction at all is because it’s relevant to other folks’ perceptions. But I still think anyone who thinks the books are a “waste of time”, is seriously missing out on some rockin’ great stuff.

“So anything they may claim to say about the Star Trek universe isn’t in-universe “real”. As such they’re kind of professionally commissioned fanfic. That’s why I’m not interested in them, because however good a story they may tell they “never happened”.”

My approach is, until and unless they’re contradicted by something on film, they’re as valid for the Trekverse as anything else. And why not? Without some overt contradiction, who’s to say they couldn’t have happened?

Riddle me that, Batman. :)

297. jpd13 - November 26, 2008

Mark,

Always love your reviews. I agree with what you said about the cannon. I’m a bit of a continuity nut myself. This could have been solved by just calling this reboot or “Star Trek 2.0″. Simple as that sounds, for me it would make all these continuity concerns go away.

Regardless, that’s how I’m going to look at this and sit back and enjoy the ride.

Loved to hear your thoughts on the new redesigned Enterprise

298. Alex Rosenzweig - November 26, 2008

#292 – “It’s OK. There’s no fire in the theater. Trek will not die if this movie fails. It’s a myth.”

Of course it is. Trek will endure, one way or the other. I’d argue, in fact, that the diffusion of Trek into multiple media and multiple formats ensures that it’s survival is far more assured than if we were in an eggs-in-one-basket scenario in which the film was all there was.

The trick is to get folks to quit thinking small. ;)

#295 – “Fact is we are making grandiose assumptions based upon what little we do know.”

Absolutely true, and I’m as guilty of that as the next guy. But at least I know that the ideas I’m playing with are preliminary and subject to revision as time goes on. I think we all have to be open-minded enough to understand that we don’t yet know all there is to know, and we might not ’til May.

That said, the speculation can be a fun way to pass the time. ;)

299. earthclanbootstrap - November 26, 2008

292. McCoy
&
298. Alex Rosenzweig

I guess what it comes down to is that those on both sides of the divide over this movie are operating on incomplete info. The proof will ultimately be in the pudding (i.e. the COMPLETE film). What I find um… interesting… is the sense that a lot of the gung-ho supporters tend to smack down on those who have doubts about this project because “they haven’t seen the whole thing” but seem to have no problem saying it’s going to be the greatest thing since cracked dilithium based on THE EXACT SAME INFO. At the end of the day, the only thing that really concerns me is that from here on out ALL of the licensed stuff produced will have to conform to this “new reality”. If that’s the case, which I would strongly suspect to be the case, well… the Trek that I grew up with and love, which DID weave a fairly consistent “historical” tapestry will have died. I may have my memories, but my future with Trek will be gone. Sigh…

300. Alex Rosenzweig - November 26, 2008

#299 – “At the end of the day, the only thing that really concerns me is that from here on out ALL of the licensed stuff produced will have to conform to this “new reality”. If that’s the case, which I would strongly suspect to be the case, well… the Trek that I grew up with and love, which DID weave a fairly consistent “historical” tapestry will have died. I may have my memories, but my future with Trek will be gone. Sigh…”

See, now that’s something that concerns me, too, though it may not be that extreme. Much, of course, depends on how different the “new reality” is from the previous one. If, in the end, only some TOS character backstories and the look of some things have changed, it will have a relatively small impact on the licensing overall.

Even if there’s a larger variation, how it will impact licensing for TNG, DS9, VOY, and even the feature films may be unclear, given Paramount/CBS’s penchant for treating all their aspects of Trek as distinct entities.

Moreover, Trek *might* end up following the comic book model, and simply treat the different realities as separate, with a whole new licensing realm for the movie and whatever might spin off from it. (That would concern me, because I’d have to wonder if there’s really room for two versions of TOS out there in the general market.)

Ironically, one other part of Trek will likely be unaffected… “Enterprise”. ;)

I think it is a jarring and uncomfortable thing for a lot of fans who followed Trek and saw that, with as many different aspects of it existed, the people in charge were still very true to the idea that it was a single world, even if things weren’t always seamless in how they fit together. (Yeah, try creating any single fictional work with a few hundred creative participants and see how seamless it is! ;) ) For a lot of us, that’s been part of the magic, and why we resent being dumped-on by the people who don’t care about it, as if there’s something wrong with us for supporting that creative choice.

A few years back, I predicted that if Trek ever did have the misfortune of a continuity-busting reboot, it would divide fandom in ways that made the arguments over “Enterprise” look like a walk in the park. So far, I am seeing nothing in the present situation to prove my prediction wrong.

301. earthclanbootstrap - November 26, 2008

300. Alex Rosenzweig
“For a lot of us, that’s been part of the magic, and why we resent being dumped-on by the people who don’t care about it, as if there’s something wrong with us for supporting that creative choice.”

I usually try to avoid posts that are basically “Yeah, what you said!” but…

Yeah, what you said!

That quote from your post crystallizes very succinctly a bit of what I’ve been feeling lately as I’ve followed the threads here. I totally understand being excited and pumped for this movie; it really wasn’t until I saw the trailer that I myself started having reservations. But that’s where my head is at right now, for better or for worse. A lot of people seem to want to believe that those who have doubts are doing it simply to p*&% on their wheaties and that is certainly not the case in my instance. Rather it comes from concern over the future of a franchise that I have adored since I was 5 years old or thereabouts and whether I’ll really be able to put my heart into the new product being put out from here forward.

302. McCoy - November 26, 2008

300 and 301.

Very clear and concise. I agree.

The problem with the hype in favor of the film or “wait and see” is that it implies you have to actually go to the film to find out if you were screwed or not. I prefer to know if someone has wrongfully altered Trek before I subject myself to it. No matter how good of film it is in terms of telling a story, it will “alter the reality” of the Trek world we know (aside from the uniforms).

I was excited about to hear about the prequel —to learn “how the characters came together.” However, it does not look as though we are getting that either. The way our characters come together in this film is different.

Having said all that, if I hear that there is a reset button at the end of the film, and everything goes back to something much closer to “normal” (including history, bridge, ship and equipment design) then I will happily go see the film.

303. Alex Rosenzweig - November 26, 2008

#302 – I honestly doubt there’ll be a total reset. After all, what would be the point of making all the changes if the whole thing was going to be wiped out?

What I think is the best we can reasonably hope for is a close-to-reset, a la “Yesteryear”, in which a few things are different (probably the “look” of things), but in which the overall flow of events remains essentially similar to the original universe.

304. McCoy - November 26, 2008

303

I know, I know. I guess I just have that last hope. “Close-to-reset” may be acceptable. After all, we have to swallow the fact that they are new actors.

Perhaps all the changes were made to tease us and to bring the new audience in? Then at the end, once they have the younger crowd “poof” and all goes back to something closer to the original.

305. The Slitheen (parp!) - November 26, 2008

No chance will kind of full reset happen, and for good reason. The changes have been made because the old design of the ship/bridge, as good as it looks to those of us who have grown up with it, will simply not appeal to non-Trek fans. This film, its fairly big budget and all the changes that have been made are to entice new fans. There is absolutely NO reason why that has to be at the expense of us established fans, and clearly those of us who are prepared to flexible will allow ourselves the chance to be entertained by it. Those of you who are clearly not flexible and are pulling your kites because they have deviated from what you find aesthetically pleasing about the ship, or because they have made canonical deviations, will not allow yourselves the chance to be entertained.

Note, though, don’t go and see the film and you forfeit a right to an opinion on the movie. I’ll be buggered if I’m going to argue the merits of a movie with those foolish enough to think they can have an opinion based on a trailer, second hand reviews and word of mouth. But of course you could go and pay your money, watch the film, have a right to an opinion – end up disliking it for whatever reason, and have the hope that it made enough money to continue into the future, where some other creative team get their hands on it and make a movie you *do* like (although I’m convinced that would be nigh on impossible for the mindset of many of the naysayers)

306. The Slitheen (parp!) - November 26, 2008

I’ll also dare to guess that 75%, as a rough estimate, of those who say they won’t go to the theatres in May, will end up going anyway. The curiosity will (quite understandably) get the better of them. Further, reading many forums and Usenet groups, they belong to what is anyway a quite pathetic minority, therfore any lofty ambitions of denting the profits made by this movie, as some kind of silly fanboy protest, will have little or no impact at all. You’ve all been reading the same forums and threads as me, how big a percentage have actually said they won’t go? 10%…if that? :/

Of those, many will end up paying to see the film anyway, of that you can bet your life. If I were an exec, I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over the doubters. I’d be only concerned about the neutral movie goers and the prospective younger audience. And they, like the majority of established fan base, have been making very positive remarks. There is absolutely no reason why this film won’t be a total success at the box office.

307. dennis hotston - November 26, 2008

Starlog magazine said something about TNG when it was starting:
We get to see Star Trek again.Embrace it.
(I’m paraphrasing from memory)
I’m going to see Star Trek again in May/09.
I intend on embracing it.
Star Trek is so bloated with canon its becoming difficult to tell a fresh story.
So as Kirk says in the new trailer: ” Buckle Up!”
I’m looking forward to the ride.

308. Alex Rosenzweig - November 26, 2008

#304 – “I know, I know. I guess I just have that last hope. “Close-to-reset” may be acceptable. After all, we have to swallow the fact that they are new actors.”

Well, to be fair, there’s not much choice if those characters are to endure in the filmed medium. :) I have to say that the cast are not one of my concerns. I’ve liked just about every casting announcement I’ve heard.

“Perhaps all the changes were made to tease us and to bring the new audience in? Then at the end, once they have the younger crowd “poof” and all goes back to something closer to the original.”

Story-wise, perhaps. After all, presumably older Spock has gone back to make some sort of correction to the timeline, and I still have trouble imagining that they’re going to tell a story in which Spock goes back to “fix things” and completely fails to do so. I don’t think they’re out to slap fans in the face *that much*. ;)

But I don’t think the look of it will change that much. And I think that for two reasons. First is merchandising. There’re a lot of tie-ins to the film, and perhaps quite a bit of money being risked on it. To end the film with a big magic-wand-wave and exclamation of “just kidding!” is not likely to be a good marketing base for selling stuff, and I seriously doubt they’re getting licensees on board with the intention of said licensees not selling stuff. Second, from the point of view of the new audience which the studio hopes to win with this film, I think there’s a certain level of dishonesty in setting up the whole elaborate storyline and showing them all sorts of stuff, and then telling them at the end that what they’ve just seen for two hours doesn’t matter.

Ergo, I think it’s fair to say that much of what’s been created for this film will survive going forward. By the same token, I think that the final resolution will in some way also justify the convoluted time travel story. Otherwise, why would there be any point to having it in the first place?

Personally, I think they’ve made some questionable choices, both in storytelling and marketing, but at the same time, as has been noted before, it’s tough to draw reliable conclusions from only 15-20% of the film. All we can reliably discuss *right now* is what we feel about what we’ve seen so far.

309. Thehaggard - November 26, 2008

#91 – Mark –
You know… I live in a country where english is a second language. I have learned to let people make little grammatical and spelling mistakes in casual conversation and correspondence. When correcting students, I rarely use spiteful sarcasm. When it is clear to me that a particular mistake in English is nation wide and I know I can’t change it… I live with it and just sigh. I have fewer migraines now. You should try it. Let it slide. Even educated men like me write quick notes, allowing spelling correctors to auto-correct things and not looking too closely. My Masters is in Theology and Philosophy so I do INDEED know the difference between caNNon and canon as it MATTER in professional writing. But this forum is NOT professional writing. So… Cut some slack. Pet peeves are hard to house break and often drive away guests.

310. Paul - November 27, 2008

Gary Mitchell should have been a major character.
Chekov should have been saved for the second movie.
Kirk should have had his hand on Janice Rand’s boob, not Uhura’s. It would certainly explain a lot more about their later realtionship!

Apart from those few things I’m not massively overly concerned about Canon, although I’d be happier if they explain any inconsistencies as part of the time travel plot.

311. Notbob - November 27, 2008

I have not seen the film or the twenty minutes. I have read many descriptions of the scenes that some have seen. They went into great detail in describing what they saw.

I should first say that I am a huge, huge Star Wars fan. I like Star Trek too, especially the original show and crew; but I love Star Wars more. It’s just an opinion thing.

With that said, Star Trek must NOT become more Star Wars like! Like I said, I love Star Wars. Moreso than Star Trek. But I also think that it’s cool in that they are both different from each other. And it sounds like this is trying to replace Star Trek’s feel with Star Wars Episode 4.

Look, there is a bar scene–with interesting aliens. Kirk is there and meets who will eventually become his crew mates. A fight breaks out. Kirk is beaten somewhat. This clip alone would be one thing. One coud argue, that a bar schot with alines and a fight doesn’t mean they were mimicking Star Wars’ cantina scene. And Captian Pike is Obi-Wan. He tells Kirk he served with his father. A great warrior was he. I’m getting a feeling that Pike will probably be offed in the wrong way. He’ll be cut down, instead of being crippled for life.

But then Kirk drives along on his motercyle and stops and stares at the Enterprise being built. He’s a farm boy! He’s looking away towards the future. Towards adventure. We already know that his old man is out of the picture somehow and he’s being raised or was raised by an uncle. If that uncle is named Owen I’m gonna laugh.

The bad guys have a weapon. That weapon is gonna be used in an attemtp to blow up a planet. Kirk and crew will fight it off. Kirk will be a victor and will undoubtedly jump rank past all of those who joined up after him, in the original show.

I don’t know if I’m right. It’s what it sounds like to me. And if it isn’t just my imagination going wild, I wouldn’t be shocked if the sequel will have Kirk and crew end up on a city of clouds with Spock frozen in carbonite.

Like I said, I love Star Wars, but I hope Star Trek keeps it’s unique qualities and doesn’t turn into Star Wars. It’s like America. I love America. But if I go to Europe, I would be a little disappointed to see the countries of Europe being just like the U.S.A.

This should have just been a reimaging or restart of the series rather than being connected to the original show. I would gripe a lot less. Pike barely knew Kirk. Kirk told us this.

And the odd thing is is the actors who worried me the most seem to impress me the most. Pegg looks like a better Scotty than Quinto is Spock. Urban looks a better McCoy than I had thought. Bruce Greenwood as Pike seems pretty cool too. But Uhura, Chekov, and Spock sound wrong. Pine as Kirk seems fine. It’s just the writing that has me worried. Sounds like there is a lot of “funny” stuff that is not funny in 2008. It may have been 30 years ago. A lot like the awful attempts at humor in the Transformers.

312. Claude A - November 27, 2008

Although there are some inconsistencies in the events of Kirk’s past, there are documented facts from various TOS episodes about his time prior to commanding the Enterprise. Many people making posts here state that there are events not documented by the series (eg where the Enterprise was built). For al those who need to be refreshed, read The Star Trek Chronology, The History of the Future, written by Michael & Denise Okuda. They were technical advisors for the TNG. This book is considered the Canon. It was researched taking data from all the tv episodes and the movies, and is very precise in the Trek history. The changes are just wrong, and go against the foundation that built the great Trek empire. It was the core fans that kept Star Trek alive for 40 years. If the younger crowd wants to jump on, then accept it for what it is. I will probably still see the movie because I hope that at the end, someone wakes up from a bad dream.

313. McCoy - November 27, 2008

So, here’s my theory:

JJ has never identified with Star Trek and has therefore always wanted to make it more like Star Wars. It’s always been one of his pet peeves.

He was able to talk to somebody in charge of the ST movie franchise. Given JJ’s experience working with actors and camera equipment, he was able to convince said people that he could bring a “new” audience (i.e. younger demographic = more money). JJ then sat down with Orci and Kurtzman and explaned to them that he “would only do Trek if…” they could find a way to reintroduce the characters in a new way using a Star Wars template (bar scene, father figure, binary sunset, voyage in the stars, battle alien with planet killer).

Orci and Kurtzman tried hard to find a way, using existing Trek history to do this and settled on time travel. JJ agreed—he was happy to have a new version of Trek. JJ then proceeded to change what ever else he wanted. So, whatever we have that resembles the past (Uniforms, basic shape of the big E, starfleet logo) is a result of long, hard-fought battles by someone on the inside who had more reverence for Trek than JJ (probably Orci). Although, if everyone is a good soldier these days, Orci may have left JJ alone to work with his art director. Once the bad sets were created, what’s a writer to say about it?

In short, if the director and art director are not the leaders of the “let’s pay tribute to what came before” express, it won’t get done. If JJ tells the writers “I won’t do Star Trek unless you change the history of the characters”, then it’s a stomp on Trek history at the top, from the start.

314. McCoy - November 27, 2008

Hey Anthony. What happened to the article with that German interview with JJ? Was is a magazine called “SET” ?

315. Anthony Pascale - November 27, 2008

the article was removed due to issues with the translations, it will be reposted after double checking

316. Paul - November 28, 2008

Ironically, my biggest problem with Star Wars 3 was that they tried too hard to fit it in with canon – blatantly revealing plot points from the later movies and adding an extra half an hour to explain stuff to us that we already knew.

Sure WE already knew it but in 30 years time when my great grandchildren watch the 6 films in order I think they’d be more impressed NOT knowing who the second twin was and NOT knowing who Darth Vader is. If they’d edited those elements out it would have been a shorter and better film.

With Trek, the things they seem to have changed have been for the sake of convenience, which is annoying. They could allude to Kirk being a bookworm simply by featuring Gary Mitchell in once scene referring to Kirk as a bookworm. Job done.

317. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and is happy TOS is back - November 28, 2008

Nice review, and interesting observations.

But why can’t Altman avoid dropping the F-bomb three times? It detracts from his credibility. An otherwise cogent article is cheapened by the use of that word. Doesn’t add a thing. Not cool. And believe me, I’m no prude.

He’s a good enough writer to not need it.

318. NOTBOB - November 29, 2008

Normally, I wouldn’t do this sort of thing, but I am curious, if I am alone in seeing the Star Wars Episode 4 scenes in the descriptions of the Star Trek scenes?

I really want to like this movie, the trailer gives me the feeling that this looks really cool. I honestly get the tingles in the back of my neck when I see the trailer. But when I read the descritptions of 20 minutes of the film, it sounded like someone kind of just aped Star Wars. And the other thing that kind of bugs me is that it seems like I know more about the characters and who met who than the writers. And Abrams is a really talented guy that if he wants to do a film like the original Star Wars he could without blatantly copying them.

I want to like this film. It looks cool. But I am now kind of worried.

319. April Roberts - November 29, 2008

#57

So you think the classics fans should be completely alienated after years of selfless devotion? Discarded like a used kleenex? Told they no linger matter? That they arent entitled to an opinion about something they care deeply about? It’s not whining, it’s CARING.

I had forgotten that people here were only entitled to their opinions if they praise JJ and his upcoming, perfect work of art.

Any effort that sacrifices old fans for new ones deserves neither.

320. Dom - November 29, 2008

April Roberts. I know nothing of your personal habits and hygiene, so I can’t really comment on the Kleenex!

No one is discarding anything. As happens with all heroic myths, a new version of that story is being told.

No one is saying the new Trek is the greatest movie ever. But most of us (at 33 years old, I saw Star Trek from its second UK run onwards and grew up on TOS) are fans who are excited to see these characters return and are enthusiastic about the film.

You’ll find that most of us are happy to discuss the new film, while the knuckle-draggers are directly out to spoil our party, rather than contribute anything beyond ‘This film will suck!’ After two years of whingers saying little else, you’ll understand why the inhabitants of site called ‘TrekMOVIE.com’ are getting a bit tired of the endless, witless vitriol.

321. Claude A - November 29, 2008

April, I’m with you. For all the revisionists: If Star Trek had only lasted from the TOS to the first movie, I would be open- minded about a ‘new version’. However, Stark Trek evolved into a 40-year adventure, built upon a foundation of consistent storytelling. Each iteration developed in part on the history of it’s previous series. That cohesion, plus good writing on the Human Condition is what Star Trek is all about. Trek was not just science fiction, but a vehicle to address social and economic issues affecting man through a sci-fi vehicle. That was the uniqueness of Trek. If you just want sci-fi, chases, and gun battles, watch Star Wars. If you can’t understand the Trek legacy as is, then its not for you. They should have either left history alone and wrote around it, or created a story around another ship and crew, where they could make it appeal to the “other audience”.

322. Mark - November 29, 2008

#309 – I was not using “spiteful sarcasm.” I *was* being sarcastic, but it was more meant in fun than spite.

And to you, my apologies, since English isn’t your first language. But I’m sure that in excess of 90% of the cases, the posters here using ‘cannon,’ when they mean ‘canon,’ do not have your excuse (which you don’t have, either, really, since you not only admitted, but INDEED admitted you know the difference between – and how’s that for grammar?) Additionally, the fact that posting on this site is not “professional writing” is irrelevant. As I (and others) have said many times previously, there is no excuse for it. They are two different words, two different spellings, with two different meanings. If it was a one time deal, you could chalk it up to ignorance, a typo, whatever. But when it has been pointed out over and over and over and over, how many times does it take for people to see it? So, no slack cutting will be forthcoming. It’s ignorance and laziness that you can’t make excuses for since so many people have made such an issue about it. Everyone needs to learn the difference between the words, use them correctly from now on, and forget about it.

And a belated thank you to Anthony (who is probably the only one reading this thread at this point.) I appreciate that he let the political discussion re Star Trek/Obama go on for a while. We were able to discuss it without it getting heated, and I was pleased to see the different perspectives and mildly surprised that so many people here are concerned about Obama and aren’t taking part in the media-inspired worship that seems so common. My impression is that there are many more Trek fans at the left end of the political spectrum than on the right (the true right; real conservatives and libertarians, not the neo-cons like Bush et al, who are at the left end with the other big government folks), and it’s nice to see I’m not the only Trek fan that doesn’t buy into the collectivist mentality. (Sorry for that little jab, but that’s how I see it, and I appreciate Anthony allowing some leeway and diversity as I said before. And I withdraw some of my previous snotty remarks now that he’s practicing some true IDIC.:-) )

323. cellojammer - November 29, 2008

321. Claude A. wrote:

However, Stark Trek evolved into a 40-year adventure, built upon a foundation of consistent storytelling. Each iteration developed in part on the history of it’s previous series. That cohesion, plus good writing on the Human Condition is what Star Trek is all about. Trek was not just science fiction, but a vehicle to address social and economic issues affecting man through a sci-fi vehicle

——

That’s arguable at best. The 40-year adventure is rife with jarring inconsistencies as well as wild fluctuations in quality. It has missed the mark as many times as it has hit it…painful but true.

Also, it’s too early to declare that the new movie is bereft of social commentary. Since Mr. Orci is a huge Trek fan, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that he ‘gets’ what makes Star Trek work. Mr. Nimoy’s participation also gives me cause for optimism.

324. cellojammer - November 29, 2008

Or could I put it another way?

To many, Trek is a beautiful lady….and we love her.

But more often than not, Trek is a bunch of pretty flowers…that smell BAAADDDD!

;-)

325. Brian - December 2, 2008

This period stick-shift shtick in “Piece Of The Action” people comment about … We all know that Kirk liked to periodically irritate Spock. As Kirk knows how drive a stick it strikes me that, with a little guile, James T. had a ball shaking Spock’s seated composure about; … and it took us ALL 40 years to appreciate the completeness of the situation. Pretty funny jokester, that Kirk.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.