Abrams Talks Star Trek Cast, Characters, Themes and More in New UK Video Interview | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams Talks Star Trek Cast, Characters, Themes and More in New UK Video Interview November 30, 2008

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The UK’s Sky Movies Channel has a ’35 Mil’ show dedicated to the new Star Trek movie with an excellent exclusive interview with director JJ Abrams. Being that this interview was done at the time of his recent ‘preview tour’ and release of the trailer, Abrams is very forthcoming about the cast, characters, themes and the future of the franchise. Full video below with transcript.

 

[Mild spoilers]

VIDEO (airing in the UK on Sky Movies Channel and also available online)


[Direct link at Sky Movies]

 

Partial transcript:
Here are some excerpts from the interview, for the video challenged.

JJ Abrams on challenges making the movie

Star Trek has been around decades and decades. One of the challenges was to embrace what they were doing originally – the spirit of what Gene Roddenberry created – but to do it in a way that felt legitimate and new. My big fear was doing something that felt campy or silly. …. Movies like Galaxy Quest so successfully satirized this universe. It was important to make this as real as possible.

…on casting Kirk and Spock:

It was tricky – the hardest part was Kirk, because with Spock we were lucky to meet Zachary Quinto fairly early on. He was clearly born to be Spock. The first meeting we had with him, I couldn’t believe his likeness – it was eerie. Spock, I thought was going to be the hardest one, but Kirk was the hardest one for real. Because William Shatner brought a number of things to that role. He was incredibly cocky. He was incredibly smart – his wit was sharp. He had a great sense of humor. He was everything in this package. He didn’t have anything to hide behind, no pointy ears. … It was all about his attitude. I knew I didn’t want to have them impersonating the original actors, and have them do their own thing playing these characters. Finding someone who would come in and be simultaneously brand new and also familiar was really challenging and Chris Pine came in and it was like finding a movie star that is unknown. …He had this incredible confidence, that was not obnoxious. He was great looking, but not ‘oh come one, give me a break.’ He just had all of these – he is so smart, as an actor and a guy – he asks great questions. He was wonderful collaborator. The only other movie I directed [M:I:3] starred Tom Cruise and every day, Tom who is sort of an icon, was there as a sort of sherpa with me helping me do all the heavy lifting. And this was sizable movie without a movie star. And so a lot was riding on Chris and Zach’s shoulder’s to make this thing work and they just brought their ‘A game.’

…on the film’s themes:

First of all Star Trek is an incredibly optimistic world that Roddenberry was basically positing that not only do we live, but we thrive. And not just racially, but inter-species. The idea of ‘Star Trek’ is trekking through stars and trekking through space and discovering the final frontier and it is something you take for granted or may thing is silly, but when you actually think about that notion it is a very optimistic one. So part of what I love about the world of Star Trek before you even get to this film, I live its optimism. And I think specifically with this movie – this is an origin story about people who come together. This is a family on this ship. To see Kirk, who is at the beginning this incredibly cocky – when we first meet him he is aimless guy who is looking for his place, he doesn’t know how to use his power. And then you got Spock who is this logical character, but also conflicted because he is half human. And you have these two characters and they are sort of yin and yang and they come together and it is sort of like two brothers in a way, their story.

I think the themes of the movie beyond. There is definitely good versus evil. Eric Bana plays an incredibly scary bad guy [Nero] who has a great story and is incredible in the movie. so you definitely have good vs. evil, but even the good is defined in this movie. You see it coming together. So it is a very optimistic film in that way. To me it is the thing that I am happiest about, that we realized that goal which is to invest in and love the characters and go up against the bad guy.

On the new trailer:

The idea was to begin Earth-bound. You hear ‘Star Trek’ and you expect some space ship…The idea was to show the scope of the movie, but also make it clear that this is a story about these two characters – Kirk and Spock – and their conflict – it is essential to the movie. And give a taste of the movie. You may know Star Trek, but the version of Star Trek you are about to see is unlike any you have seen before.

….

For the most part, the movie assumes that you haven’t seen this world before. The movie that we have done was not made for fans of Star Trek, it has really been made for future fans of Star Trek. I hope that when you see this or when you go to the movie you don’t feel like you need to know anything about Star Trek. This is literally a ground floor, starting from scratch, brand new experience.

Is this a repositioning of the franchise?

I didn’t look at the thing as a brand or a franchise, I sort of looked at it as a story of these characters. I was excited to get involved as a producer, but it wasn’t until I read the script that Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci wrote – that I loved it and I felt so jealous of anyone who got to direct these people and these characters and this story. It is a very intimate story told against a huge epic backdrop, sort of both big and small.

Will it lead to future movies?

Yes…I believe so – ideally it would be fantastic. You love these people and want to see what they do next.

More Star Trek coverage at Sky movies.

 

Thanks to Charles for the link

 

Comments

1. Captain SLow - November 30, 2008

interesting

2. Dennis Bailey - November 30, 2008

“Tighter than one of William Shatner’s facelifts.” LOL

3. Xai - November 30, 2008

Very complimentary toward Shatner and TOS as a whole.

4. Sloan47 - November 30, 2008

This is exactly what Star Trek needs… fresh blood. I love everything that has been done so far. I welcome the change!

5. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

Very generic talk. I just don’t want to be bitterly disappointed when this thing finally shows. I remember two notable “genre” films that were so bad, I felt humiliated allowing myself to dare think they would carry on in their respective traditions: The Planet of the Apes (I walked out it was so barftastic) and the fourth Star Wars movie, whatever the devil it was called.

Both were silly. Both were fantastic in a bad sense. Neither seemed to have any but the slightest of superficial connecxions to their namesakes.

Honestly, I felt somewhat like a chump. The night before the Apes fiasco, I viewed the Robert Wise classic on my big screen tv. It was remarkably relevant and withstood the test of time. In fact, the production values were and are still first rate. Goldsmith’s score is a classic in iteself!

So after those con-jobs, I swore to myself, NEVER AGAIN!

Perhaps I should wait for the TrekMovie.com reviews before I go and drag the family to a potentially public embarrassment!

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

6. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

“The movie that we have done was not made for fans of Star Trek, it has really been made for future fans of Star Trek. ”

Trying to distance yourself from a crowd that kept the franchise alive for 42 years is a risky move.

7. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

My fondest hope is that it fits right into the Trek mythos and universe we love, requiring just a small leap of faith to reconcile differences in visual style and backstory. Without invoking an alternate universe or timeline.

If it turns out that this is not the case, well I’ll be open to that too. Just so long as it’s entertaining and enlightening!

8. Boborci - November 30, 2008

6 agree with you.
But I say the movie is for both.

9. Chris Basken - November 30, 2008

#6: “Trying to distance yourself from a crowd that kept the franchise alive for 42 years is a risky move.”

Define “alive.”

10. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

Did anyone else catch Abrams’s comment on Shatner’s hair?

He said, “Shatner was great in bringing Kirk to life because he couldn’t hide behind pointed ears…or crazy hair….well, maybe crazy hair”

He spoke those last few words very quickly and in a low throw-away voice, but a very funny quip none the less!

11. Kirk's Revenge - November 30, 2008

#6

Yeah, a little too risky for my tastes.

12. Xai - November 30, 2008

#5 C.S. Lewis

Going into a movie with the worst expectations is not a great way to enjoy yourself.
You are correct. See a review before you go.

13. James - November 30, 2008

@6:

Arguably, we didn’t keep it alive, ‘cos it was cancelled.

They are taking a risk – a very big risk. But I can’t see that they’d commit $150m to this if they didn’t think it was going to be successful. They’ve aimed it at a more general audience, and that will be where it generates its success. The question is, will it resonate with all us die-hards as well?

I guess we’ll find out in May.

14. montreal paul - November 30, 2008

6. Q Macedonia
Trying to distance yourself from a crowd that kept the franchise alive for 42 years is a risky move.

I don’t think it was alive anymore.. if it was.. barely. This WILL invigorate the franchise. If it wasn’t for THIS movie… Trek would be dead. And i don’t believe he is distancing himself from the fans… the fan base is there.. he want to create more fans.

15. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

6.

I’m part of the crowd that kept the franchise alive but I don’t feel distanced at all. I’m pumped up for this new movie. Bring it on!

16. bdrcarter - November 30, 2008

Sorry…off topic:

When will we get the review of “The Cage” from TOS-R Season 3?

17. DEMODE - November 30, 2008

I am soooooooo excxited for this movie!

I think I understand what JJ is trying to say… by his comment that it “wasn’t made for the fans of Star Trek.” My impression of that comment was that this film is for a new generation of fans who were not familiar with classic Trek. I dont think he wants to alienate classic fans though. Why else would Nimoy be in it? I think he simply wants a film that can be viewed and understood by someone who has never seen Trek before.

Star Trek does have alot of history, and sometimes that can weigh the storytelling down. I have faith that this will be an amazing film.

18. maffc - November 30, 2008

Maybe when he says “future fans of Star Trek” it’s not about fans of future Star Trek productions to the exclusion of what has gone before.

Maybe the hope is that having seen this movie, casual viewers will want to see more, watch TOS to see the continuing adventures and become fans.

19. Falvoant - November 30, 2008

If the franshise is so dead
then why are we here fighting over it ?

20. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

Bob I’m glad to hear that, but your comment will be read from a few hundred trekkers. And JJ’s interview will be viewed by millions i guess. I tottally understand why he is doing this. I’ve done the same with freinds while showing them the trailer. Check this out it’s tottally new stuff. it’s nothing like you’ve known before about Star Trek. But when my friends (I hope) go to see the movie, I want them to say “Hey… so that’s what he was all crazy about this past few years.” And not “Hey, screw you, this is my Star Trek and this has nothing to do with your nonsense that was before JJ.”

I hope you see my point. As I said, i understand JJ, but i would be more selective of the words that he is using.

#9 Alive is a franchise that has 10 movies. Eleventh is on it’s way. 5 TV shows, one animated. Franchise is alive when to this date is inspiring people, on moral and scientific levels. And when Klingon language is studied at universities in England. And when Paramount wants to ride on the Star Trek wave… I say that that franchise is pretty much alive.

21. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

#12 Xai

Please, I don’t see the need for personally snide comments, which seems your speciality. It is chancy enough to air publicly one’s private feelings about a silly television franchise (not unlike laundry on the clothesline).

It’s quite another to endure snarky snickering from those I hoped would appreciate my concerns if not share them to one degree or another.

So I ask you please to stop.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

22. Stanky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 5 C.S. Lewis
“The night before the Apes fiasco, I viewed the Robert Wise classic on my big screen tv”

I must have missed the Robert Wise version of Planet of the Apes.

23. allister gourlay - November 30, 2008

4. Sloan47 I totally agree!
Bring star trek into the 21st century and to a wider audience.

24. Falvoant - November 30, 2008

21
Did I miss something ?
Personally snide comments?

Going into a movie with the worst expectations is not a great way to enjoy yourself.
You are correct. See a review before you go.

Sounds like good advice to anyone to me….
unless Isee this isas Out of Context ?

25. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

#13 and 14

The franchise was never dead for me. It just had setbacks and nothing more.

TOS was cancelled in 1969 but look at us now.

#15 I don’t feel distanced at all.

Bob’s words are quite reassuring. :)))

26. Stanky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 12 Xai
“Going into a movie with the worst expectations is not a great way to enjoy yourself.
You are correct. See a review before you go.”

I will do that. Oops, I guess you weren’t talking to me. :)

27. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

Stanky! Good to see you here!

Tell me, has your opinion changed regarding the movie as compared to your position of a year ago?

28. OneBuckFilms - November 30, 2008

I think JJ gets what Star Trek is really about. I’m optimistic, personally, but we’ll have to wait until May to see if the optimism translates onto the screen.

29. Xai - November 30, 2008

21. C.S. Lewis – November 30, 2008
“#12 Xai

Please, I don’t see the need for personally snide comments, which seems your speciality. It is chancy enough to air publicly one’s private feelings about a silly television franchise (not unlike laundry on the clothesline).

It’s quite another to endure snarky snickering from those I hoped would appreciate my concerns if not share them to one degree or another.

So I ask you please to stop.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis”

-My comment was neither snarky or an insult, unlike yours. You are reading far more into my post than I wrote. I basically agreed with you… read a review before viewing since you are very skeptical.

30. Xai - November 30, 2008

26. Stanky McFibberich – November 30, 2008
“re: 12 Xai
“Going into a movie with the worst expectations is not a great way to enjoy yourself.
You are correct. See a review before you go.”

I will do that. Oops, I guess you weren’t talking to me. :)”

-It applies double to you, old friend, and quit reading other people’s mail. :-)

31. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

Xai’s suggestion was both reasonable and fair.

It would seem someone is LOOKING for an argument.

32. Kirk's Revenge - November 30, 2008

I just hope this movie doesn’t dumb itself down for the new audience. Hopefully, it will have a good dose of the intelligent humor and biting social commentary that made TOS so good. This movie doesn’t need violent, scenery-chewing Romulans to be good. It doesn’t need white bras and scantily clad Orion slave girls to be… uh…

I’m sorry. I forgot my point. :)

33. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

Mmmmmm, scantily clad Orion slave girls………..can’t talk, drooling!

34. Stanky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 27 Furry Spheres
“Tell me, has your opinion changed regarding the movie as compared to your position of a year ago?”

Basically, no. The more information I see about it, the more it seems my original opinion is being confirmed.
Although I will not be chomping at the bit to see it on opening day, I suppose I will go see it sometime so that I may fairly judge the final product. I will let you know more then.

How about yourself?

35. Falvoant - November 30, 2008

Star Trek has always had a Moral to the story
A Life’s Lesson as it were
What is the Moral to this story?
(Don’t go back in time and screw everything up?)

36. Snarky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 30 Xai
“-It applies double to you, old friend, and quit reading other people’s mail. :-)”

Sorry. For some unknown reason, it just seemed like you speaking directly to me.

And please, knock it off with the snarky comments. You are well known for your snarkiness and if you continue this snarkiness people will have to let you know about all that snarkiness and stuff.

37. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

#35
What is the Moral to this story?
(Don’t go back in time and screw everything up?)

Hahaha. Nice one.

Besides my negative comments on the promotional campaign that JJ is doing, I am very much on board with this movie. And sincerely we cannot expect a lot of Life Lessons and deep Moral stories from this movie. Or any Star Trek movie. I just expect from this movie to make the way for a new TV show where the people behind it can address this issues. I don’t think that kind of stuff work on the Big screen.

38. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Galaxy Quest was succesful?

39. MattTheTrekkie - November 30, 2008

Well… I’m still pumped. Probably will still be pumped when the movie comes out.

I think the Idea of an off shoot time line and an off shoot story arc would be cool. I’ve always wondered about what would happen in the alternate time lines that were constantly brought up in Star Trek. Now we actually get to go into detail about one of them.

Watching what happens to everyone once Vulcan is destroyed and the federation has to fight off a bad guy from the 24-25ish century. Totally epic :D

40. Will - November 30, 2008

This movie will do big for the same reason Cloverfield did- JJ and company are brilliant at marketing. Keeping things secret inherently makes people want to know more.

I must admit, though, I agree, saying this movie isn’t for fans of Star Trek is risky beyond reason… but then, so is redesigning the Enterprise and the bridge… one risk after another… but this movie will do huge numbers in spite of its genuine worth as a movie(be that good or bad) because marketing is key.

That said, from what little I have gathered about the story, the story to me seems fine… for me, it’s the excessive amount of flash crammed in for the ADD movie goers… that and the (in my opinion) awful redesigns seen thus far(both in and outside of the Enterprise).

41. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

25. Q Macedonia

#15 I don’t feel distanced at all.

Bob’s words are quite reassuring. :)))

—————–

You’re damn right they are. I’ve been a fan since the 70s (caught a couple episodes in the 60s but was too young to apprecate them), and I’m very reassured that this movie was written by a Trekker. I have a good feeling Mr. Orci really gets what makes Star Trek work.

42. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - November 30, 2008

Stanky!! It’s nice to see the One Who Named Me (that’d be you) comment again!!

I really wish that Abrams would stop talking about “Galaxy Quest.” He needs to be less concerned about leaving off the cheese and more concerned about delivering a quality story. He should be comparing his movie to TOS, not Galaxy Quest.

43. OneBuckFilms - November 30, 2008

5 – The Original Planet of the Apes was directed in 1968 by Franklin J. Schaffner, and sported a fantastic score by Jerry Goldsmith.

It is an all-time classic, and Charlton Heston was terrific.

44. kye - November 30, 2008

i for one am gonna welcome the new fresh ideas that this movie will have! I have been a fan for 35 years and i am soo happy that they are throughing a fresh new look to star trek . I for one am looking forward to see how pine will do as Kirk and Quintos has spock down to a tee .

45. Xai - November 30, 2008

Harry Ballz

Good to see you Harry.

46. TOS Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Re: 5

The Planet of the Apes (1968) was Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner NOT Robert Wise.

And just so you know, the screenplay was based on the novel by Pierre Boulle
and was written by Michael Wilson and Rod Serling (of Twilight Zone fame).

47. D - November 30, 2008

Okay, well…it’s been said about plenty of other things…

So, you were given all the rope you asked for.

Come May, we’ll find out whether you made a fun swing…or you hanged yourselves…

48. Xai - November 30, 2008

36. Snarky McFibberich – November 30, 2008
.

And please, knock it off with the snarky comments. You are well known for your snarkiness and if you continue this snarkiness people will have to let you know about all that snarkiness and stuff.

Ok, fine.
Snarky… isn’t that a Muppet’s name?

49. Xai - November 30, 2008

#47 D

Fair enough, but a rather morbid analogy.

50. Salamander Cakes - November 30, 2008

Trekker? What the hell is a trekker? I hate that term. It sounds so conceited and holier-than-thou. I reference Roddenberry who dismissed that term. For me who has been a trekkie since a small boy to someone who just learned about Star Trek, it feels nicer to say, “C’mon, let’s go be trekkies together!”. Sorry, just a little rant. Otherwise, about the movie, only time will tell whether this a great movie or not, but in the meantime, let’s just be optimistic.

51. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

#34 Stanky “How about yourself?”

Well, like you, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. If I go to see the movie expecting nothing then I will probably be reasonably entertained. I think Abrams did a fairly good job on MI:III (quite a statement from me as I can’t stand Tom Cruise).

If I attend the film expecting the “old magic” of TOS, I will probably be disappointed.

I WILL say that it takes balls for them to want to try a time-travel angle….very few films have ever pulled that plotline off!

So, here I am, stuck in the middle where I neither hate the notion of this relaunch, nor do I look forward to it as I drool all over my shoes.

So, in a word……..m’eh!

52. A. .S.F.33 - November 30, 2008

8. Boborci -
“6 agree with you.
But I say the movie is for both.

Glad to hear you say this Bob

I have been saying all along that JJ should stop, or at least tone down his comments which seem to distance himself, and this movie from the fans of Trek. At first, I thought this interview was a nice change since most of his other interviews start out wiith the “I’m not a trek fan” thing . But alas we’re almost to the end and BANG in come the “i didn’t make this movie for Trek fans” thing and once again it feels like a smack in the face to fans who have loved and supported Trek all these years. Along with all these new people JJ HOPES to attract to this movie; it would be nice to include the existing fans in his comments rather than making it sound like he doesn’t care one iota about us. I really don’t think it’s wise to risk alienating ANY segment of the ticket buying public and these kinds of comments are off putting to many Trek fans.

53. sean - November 30, 2008

#5

Last time I checked, Robert Wise didn’t direct Planet of the Apes. Are you talking about Star Trek: TMP (which was directed by Wise, and scored by Goldsmith)?

54. Spocks Brain is between his vulcan ears - November 30, 2008

>This is exactly what Star Trek needs… fresh blood. I love everything that >has been done so far. I welcome the change!

give me a break!!!!

this movie is gonna be horrid.. change with intelligence is needed..

not some director who never was a trekkie

55. RedShark - November 30, 2008

Am I the only one who’s getting tired of JJ Abrams insisting that he isn’t making Galaxy Quest? We get it, it’s not a parody. I don’t want a parody – if I did, I’d just watch Galaxy Quest again – and I’m not expecting one. What’s his big problem with Galaxy Quest? I love that movie, but it really has no relevance at all to Trek. Here’s hoping Abrams doesn’t end up making a movie that fans view as a parody rather than a legitimate Star Trek movie.
-RedSharkBait

56. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

#45 “Good to see you Harry”

Thank you, Xai….it’s good to be seen!

I’ve been hiding in the “chat” section for the past year now. It’s kind of the “Nexus” to this website. You should join our discussions. You would be most welcome! You too, Stanky!

57. Xai - November 30, 2008

#56
Harry

I’ve peeked in the chat.

Discussion? Don’t you mean… flirtation?

LOL

58. TOS Enterprise - November 30, 2008

RE: 54

Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer were never Trekies before they took the reins of Star Trek and made Star Trek II.

59. Spocks Brain - November 30, 2008

“tighter than shatners facelifts.. ”

THIS GUY NEEDS TO BE SMACKED IN THE FACE !!!

how stupid!

60. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

#57
Xai

Flirtation?

Hey, everybody needs a hobby!

61. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

54.
“give me a break!!!!

this movie is gonna be horrid.. change with intelligence is needed..

not some director who never was a trekkie”

Give EVERYONE a break!! You don’t know it’s going to be horrid. It might be, but it’s too early for ANYONE to say unless they’ve read the script. How do you know it will lack intelligence?

And frankly, I think the combination of Trekkie writers and a non-Trekkie director is a VERY GOOD THING!! It tells me the script has a good chance of being true to the spirit of the source material, and that it will be given a fresh presentation by an outsider.

Who knows at this point? It could suck and I’ll be one of the first to say so. At the proper time. Until then, it would behoove you stop embarrassing yourself with these bold psychic pronouncements. I choose to be optimistic.

62. barrydancer - November 30, 2008

55: RedShark

I agree. He likes to bring up Galaxy Quest way too much, and overinflates its importance. People have been laughing at and with Trek for decades. Having a loving spoof out there isn’t going to kill your movie.

“How do you make Trek after Galaxy Quest?” Thats like asking “How do you make Star Wars after Spaceballs?” Ep.1-3 had a heaping number of problems, but I don’t think the fact that Star Wars had been spoofed by one of the best comedians in the business had anything to do with it.

63. Devon - November 30, 2008

#8 – Thanks for the reassurance. I have said elsewhere, but perhaps J.J. should expand further when he says that, as the way he says it can rub fans the wrong way, and obviously I don’t think he has it out or is against Trek fans of course. But it’s still good to clarify what he means each time for the record.

64. D - November 30, 2008

In my personal experience…life is morbid.

65. Vulcan Soul - November 30, 2008

“My big fear was doing something that felt campy or silly. …. Movies like Galaxy Quest so successfully satirized this universe. It was important to make this as real as possible. ”

And he continues to proclaim this crap, all the while his movie’s set design looks even more of a parody than Galaxy Quest ever could and this movie presents a vision of the future that cares more about slick coolness than realism – certainly more than the shows did that he keeps deriding.

66. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - November 30, 2008

#58 – And that’s exactly why TWOK sucked and isn’t canon as far as I’m concerned. :)

67. TOS Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Further to my 58 post (for Spock’s Brain is between his ears):

From Wikipedia:

…Bennett realized he faced a serious challenge in developing the new Star Trek movie, including the fact that he had never seen the show.

Introduced to Bennett by a friend at Paramount, Meyer was brought in as a potential director for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but immediately also became involved in re-writing the draft scripts for the film, which no one had yet been happy with. He impressed Trek’s actors and producers by delivering a superior draft in only 12 days. In fact, the reason he is uncredited as a writer on the film is because the draft had to be completed so quickly, he agreed to forgo the negotiation of any sort of contract or credit in order to ensure he could complete the draft in the needed time frame. He went on to direct the film and his stylistic touches, particularly giving the film a Naval feel, created a lasting impression on Star Trek, and those influences can be seen in every subsequent Star Trek production. Meyer and Bennett together created a film that was engaging while also being cost-efficient and avoiding the production fiascos of the first film. The Wrath of Khan went on to be a success at the box office, and is considered by many to be the best Star Trek film to date.

Meyer described his script as “‘Hornblower’ in outer space”, utilizing nautical references and a swashbuckling atmosphere. Sallin was impressed with Meyer’s vision for the film; “His ideas brought dimension that broadened the scope of the material as we were working on it.” Gene Roddenberry, however, disagreed with the script’s naval texture and Khan’s Captain Ahab undertones, but was mostly ignored by the creative team.

68. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Man, if you guys think TWOK sucked, no wonder the franchise is in such terrible shape.

69. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

#67 There is a difference when making a movie with a 3 season history and canon, and 40+ years.

You cannot put a writer now that doesn’t have a clue what Star Trek is and what he is inhereting.

70. D - November 30, 2008

I am getting a little concerned with his constant “Galaxy Quest” refrain…

If he says it too often, it’s going to start sounding like the person he’s really trying to convince is himself.

71. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

I am too. I watched Galaxy Quest, and found it just plain terrible. JJ should watch Spaceballs.

72. SPOCKBOY - November 30, 2008

#5
I agree CS Lewis (good writer by the way) Planet of the Apes was a masterpiece, but Robert Wise had nothing to do with it, it was directed by Franklin Shaffner who also directed Patton, The Boys from Brazil and Papillon. 3 classic films in their own right.
I had a bad feeling about Burton’s ape fiasco long before it was released as soon as I heard that Marky Mark was slated to play the part played by legendary actor Charlton Heston.
No offense to Walberg but…..COME ON!

peace.

73. Snarky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re:48 Xai
“Snarky… isn’t that a Muppet’s name?”

I don’t know, did C.S. Lewis ever write for the Muppets? ;]

re: 42 Purolator

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

re: 51 Harold Inflatable Sports Bladder

“So, here I am, stuck in the middle where I neither hate the notion of this relaunch, nor do I look forward to it as I drool all over my shoes.”

I wish I had the intestinal fortitude of Xai in holding off on opinion until seeing it, but the evidence keeps mounting that I will have about a 1% chance of liking it.

But, when it comes right down to it, as T’Pau once said, “da moofie iss da moofie….vhat can be done?”

74. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Ah, I love these comedy routines people do in their posts.

75. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

22. Stanky McFibberich – November 30, 2008

Yeah, I did too… Meant to say Charlton Heston. My apologies!

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

76. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

Nice accent!

Yeah, with great actors like the woman who played T’Pau in Amok Time…..how can we ever hope to equal THAT??!!

77. Xai - November 30, 2008

The words get repeated because he’s being interviewed several times and it gets repeated here. 20 years ago, most of us would not have heard his UK interview. Thank the internet.

Some people seem to be trying to find a reason to hate this movie by looking at what was said, then tearing it apart. Are we that scared this might be different? or entertaining?

No one is asking you to stop liking what has come before. Nor does it “erase” what has come before.

78. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

29. Xai – November 30, 2008

Thank you for the clarification Xai. I meant no offense and am glad to know you did not as well. Perhaps I am just too new to posting to understand the nuances. I will work on that, diligently.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

79. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

36. Snarky McFibberich – November 30, 2008

Touche!

80. Xai - November 30, 2008

#76 Harry

ummm..
Leonard Nimoy?
Ben Cross?
Bruce Greenwood?

81. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

46. TOS Enterprise – November 30, 2008

Thank you for the correction, sir. I appreciate it! I know of the novel as it happens. I read it in the 1970s, although most of it went way over my head. I was much too young for it.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

82. Xai - November 30, 2008

78. C.S. Lewis – November 30, 2008
29. Xai – November 30, 2008

“Thank you for the clarification Xai. I meant no offense and am glad to know you did not as well. Perhaps I am just too new to posting to understand the nuances. I will work on that, diligently.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis”

- Thank you for acknowledging the post.

83. Quarksbartender - November 30, 2008

I worked at the Experience for years ad there was always this argument or that argument i.e. Kirk or Picard but the one thing everyone agreed upon was the characters the vision and storytelling were the most important things not cannon. I cant wait to see JJ, Bob and Alex’s vision everything they have said rings true to Gene’s vision.

84. Xai - November 30, 2008

#73 Snarkish

Best impression of the day. You win a Zach Quinto T-shirt.

85. D - November 30, 2008

I am going to be watching this movie in May. I just note things that make my brain go, “????”

86. Xai - November 30, 2008

83. Quarksbartender – November 30, 2008

good post.

I’ve not seen your handle, so…to your planet, welcome!

As barkeep, were you in makeup?

87. cugel the clever - November 30, 2008

#6 Q Macedonia
“Trying to distance yourself from a crowd that kept the franchise alive for 42 years is a risky move.”

Wrong. The riskiest move would be to pander to the aging fans who HAVE NOT kept the franchise alive….. it’s on life support. The only hope of keeping it alive is to bring in new fans.

88. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Yeah, I don’t think the older Trek fans don’t care about Trek anymore seeing how poorly the franchise has been doing.,

89. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

69. Q Macedonia

“You cannot put a writer now that doesn’t have a clue what Star Trek is and what he is inhereting.”

———

If I understand what you’re trying to say here, please list the reasons why you think the writers of this movie don’t have a clue what Star Trek is. My understanding is that they are long time Trek fans, so that indicates to me that they *DO* have a clue.

90. P Technobabble - November 30, 2008

Perhaps I’m the only one, but I totally understand the connection to Galaxy Quest, and why JJ would mention it.
I happen to be a big fan of G/Q, and, from the first time I saw it, I couldn’t help but superimpose the TOS cast over the G/Q cast. The film was a terrific parody of Star Trek, and its fanatic fans. One could even say G/Q is as much mockery as parody. I think it would be incredibly important to JJ that people know he was not making a G/Q-like film (even unintentionally), and that he was aware of the possibility of falling down such a hole.
Again, the people who are against this film, who are against JJ, and continually toss out disparaging remarks are (at this point) just pissing in the wind. The movie is coming out May 8, 2009.

91. cugel the clever - November 30, 2008

55. RedShark – November 30, 2008
” Am I the only one who’s getting tired of JJ Abrams insisting that he isn’t making Galaxy Quest? ”

Unlike you, me, and the other ST fanatics in this forum, everyone in the world doesn’t dissect every bit of news about the new ST film. JJ is saying these things to a different reporter each time – in the scheme of things, most people do not even know there is a new ST film, let alone the details about what JJ is saying about it. JJ isn’t doing anything wrong with the promotion of this film. So far, everything he’s doing is amazingly right.

92. Captain SLow - November 30, 2008

The thing with Star Trek is, at its core, it is a cult show – however the paradox is that is got such iconography – everyone recognises it – understand most references etc

However a downside to this is that Trek has always had an identity crisis in my mind:

It tries to carry deep social messages; all the series have attempted this to some degree. It also wanted to combine that with sexy action/adventure (TOS most notably), a sense of being on the frontier -

At the same time it wanted to be a thought provoking mind expanding look at the universes (most obvious is TMP) an attempt at 2001 a space odyssey-

At the same time – whilst keeping all those things in the balance – it wanted to be deeply rooted in science fact – that was developed most in TNG and after –

With all these elements – which trek fans love in varying degrees – we have always hoped Star Trek would become a box office success to guarantee its future – yet it has never materialised on the Star Wars scale – because, I believe, of all those things Trek juggles with (not to mention it was a TV series first).

So to make Trek a box office smash – (something the other Trek films have mostly failed at) it must sacrifice some things to make it appeal to a general audience – it’s just a fact of modern cinema

Most trek fans, I would think, have always hoped trek will do well at the cinema box office – What we have to weigh up is….will (hopefully) making Trek a box office success, take it from what always made Star Trek….well…..Star Trek….

I think I have expressed that the best I can – I think you know what I mean…hopefully.

93. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

88. Enterprise – November 30, 2008

Yeah, I don’t think the older Trek fans don’t care about Trek anymore seeing how poorly the franchise has been doing.,
———–

The Star Trek spin-offs simply stopped speaking to me. I’d always watch the newest series with some anticipation but none kept my interest after the novelty wore-off. TNG was the biggest shock, of course, given its radical departure from Star Trek. The rest seemed to be more of the same with different names in use.

Picard = Janeway = Archer (the standard-issue “company man” commander) although I thought Sisko was an interesting character played by a talented actor.

Spock = Data = Dax = Holo Doc = Flox (“Stranger in a Strange Land” gives an outsider’s perspective on the crazy humans.)

and each new starship seemed much the same as the old starship, even the NX-01.

BTDT a hundred times – what was to gain from following the programs more closely? I’d rather just spend the extra time doing billables for my clients!

So with a few exceptions (“Inner Light” comes to mind) there was no reason to watch, no reason to see sponsors’ advertisements, and no reason to patronise their businesses.

I guess that’s why a program dies.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

94. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Uh, has anyone seen the trailer for this movie? It looks nothing like Galaxy Quest.

95. Snarky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 84. Xai – November 30, 2008
“#73 Snarkish. Best impression of the day. You win a Zach Quinto T-shirt.”

Great. I will put it right next to my J.J. Abrams fake vomit.

96. Gary - November 30, 2008

Guys I hope not to insult everyone but Abrams is doing the right campaign.

Why?

Although his interviews say almost the same, these interviews are made for the general audience of different countries, not crazy trekkies/trekkers who read/watch each interview the man does.

Try to think out of the box.

97. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

I fell asleep at Inner Light. Yes, Picard lives a whole life in 44 minutes, but it have to be so boring? His life on the Enterprise is more exciting, and more fulfilling.

98. SpocksSpleen - November 30, 2008

I hope the canonista’s all jump off a cliff come may 2009! LMAO

99. Stanky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 77. Xai
“Some people seem to be trying to find a reason to hate this movie by looking at what was said, then tearing it apart. Are we that scared this might be different? or entertaining?”

I have yet to see a “remake” type of film with a new cast that I’ve liked. There was a time before this type of practice became more common that I would look forward to such productions, but much like C.S. Lewis, I have been burned too many times. Recasting these characters and then contriving some kind of “origin” story just doesn’t appeal to me.

100. Quarksbartender - November 30, 2008

86 Xai.
Thanks. No makeup I was just a human the original concept was for us to be bajoran workers on the station. Me and some of the other bartenders adopted the idea we were holographic bartenders or E.B.H. because the Ferengis who ran the station were to cheap to pay human laborers.

101. Chris Basken - November 30, 2008

19: “If the franshise is so dead
then why are we here fighting over it ?”

LIVE, DAMN YOU! LIIIIIIVE!

102. The Wild Man of Borneo The Cannonist - November 30, 2008

#98

Leave that to young Kirk driving a 20th century vehicle in the 23 century!

LMAO

In Iowa no less.

103. Xai - November 30, 2008

#102

Did Iowa fall off the planet in the 23rd century?
———

104. Spockanella - November 30, 2008

Anything I say here is likely to be taken amiss by somebody, but hey, to quote an old friend, “Risk is our business.”

I am generally very excited about this movie, but I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t have some misgivings. It always stings a little bit whenever JJ says something to the effect that this movie wasn’t made for the fans, even though I understand his point of view. That’s why I’m making such a deliberate effort to keep an open mind and distance myself from the old Star Trek I knew and loved. Those days are gone and there’s no bringing that back.

So, I see multiple possibilities (and maybe personalities, but that’s a whole other posting):

The movie takes the best parts of Trek and repackages them in some fresh, exciting way, and I love it.

The movie is a complete departure from the old Trek, and I struggle with that, but ultimately I love it.

I don’t love it, and I say a mournful goodbye.

Any way you look at it, I guess the word is “closure”.

But I’m still hoping for “love it!” :-D

105. Brett Campbell - November 30, 2008

C.S. Lewis — First, is that your real name? No offense intended, but I think your prose struggles too much to echo your namesake’s. Second, Robert Wise had nothing to do with the original “Planet of the Apes.” Its first draft was by Rod Serling; its final by Michael Wilson. It was directed by Franklin J. Schaffner who later directed “Patton” and “Papillon.”

This was the most encouraged I’ve felt about Abrams and his new Trek since all the remake talk began. Thank you for sharing this video with us, Anthony.

106. Stanky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re: 103
“Did Iowa fall off the planet in the 23rd century?”

What planet is that, again?

107. Chris Basken - November 30, 2008

TOS: Star Trek’s wild, exuberant, fun-filled childhood where anything is possible.
TMP (and early movies): Trek notices some changes (deeper voice, hair growth, etc) and plays dress-up for a while. Boy in a man’s body.
TNG: Trek grows up, becomes responsible, gets a career. Not a thrilling lifestyle, but it pays the bills and earns some respect.
DS9: Trek starts growing older, matures, finds that “life begins at 40,” but also turns fewer heads when it goes out for drinks with Babylon 5, who seems to get all the girls.
TNG movies: What seemed like a promising, interesting (if not exciting) career is now turning into Just Another Job. Trek is going through the motions, stuck in a rut.
VOY: Trek has a mid-life crisis and starts dressing like its 20 years younger than it really is. Most of Trek’s friends are too polite to mention that it needs to lose a few to really make that outfit work. Still, has loved ones.
Nemesis: Trek contracts cancer.
ENT: Trek finally dies after a long, painful experience. At the funeral, the general consensus is that Trek wanted to die. It simply never got over not being TOS any more.

108. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

#87

I didn’t say that it is the riskiest move. I just said it’s risky to make a move like that. And I totally agree with you.

#89

Quite the opposite. I do believe that the writers (Bob & Alex) know and get what Star Trek is.

I was replying to No.67. His point was that Meyer didn’t know shit about Star Trek but made a great movie. And mine was… that it was different those days. Meyer didn’t have a 40 years of baggage to consider. The writers now have to be fans and have to rely on that baggage.

Sorry for the confusion. I thought I was quiet clear.

109. Chris Doohan - November 30, 2008

I love trekmovie.com, “it’s exciting”.

110. Brett Campbell - November 30, 2008

109 – Mr. Doohan, nice of you to drop by. I sure wish your father were still around to see this film — Deforest Kelley, too.

111. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Does everyone in Iowa glow in the dark thanks to all that radiation from those starships?

112. Q Macedonia - November 30, 2008

#109 Ah. The son of the legendary and original Scotty quoting the new Scotty.

This is why i love TrekMovie. :)))

Nice to have you here.

113. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

108. Q Macedonia

“#89

Sorry for the confusion. I thought I was quiet clear.”

_____________

Ah! Thank you for the clarification!

114. Anthony Pascale - November 30, 2008

very nice Chris! well done. We like you too

115. fred - November 30, 2008

Yeah, if he made it for Trek fans only, we’d never see another trek movie.

TOS was not made for Trek fans either.

116. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Gene Roddenberry created Trek, and he made TMP.

117. Xai, reading by the glow of my wife's hair. - November 30, 2008

111. Enterprise – November 30, 2008
“Does everyone in Iowa glow in the dark thanks to all that radiation from those starships?”

Well we don’t put up Christmas lights anymore…

118. Jeffries Tuber - November 30, 2008

I have resisted seeing GALAXY QUEST, but I am now going to rent it.

119. A. .S.F.33 - November 30, 2008

#73. Snarky McFibberich
“But, when it comes right down to it, as T’Pau once said, “da moofie iss da moofie….vhat can be done?”

Funniest line ever!
Also very true. …For good or bad the movie is a done deal.

120. Jamie - November 30, 2008

Consider the two extreme possibilities:

Which would be worse?

1. The film is exactly like TOS, goes down a storm with fans, but doesn’t win any new fans and Trek fades away over time.

2. The film is almost nothing like TOS, breaks canon, fans hate it, but the film is a huge global hit and Trek is big news again. Then, in future sequels, the mistakes can be “corrected” and the franchise can be brought more in line with TOS, only this time with new life and an allegiance of fans (young and old) behind it.

121. Brett Campbell - November 30, 2008

118 – It’s hilarious. You’ll love it. You’ll find resistance was futile.

122. Sargalab from Spain - November 30, 2008

I think Star trek XI will be only a teenager movie…not the Star trek who loved Asimov and us ,the old trekkies, the most intelligent scifi show;I’m very sad because JJ will destroy the Rodemberry idea with his pseudo Star trek aka Star trek wars:the revengen of Nero aka Battlestar Enterprise…
Mission:Impossible III directed by JJ Abrams, budget $150 million total grosses in USA: $134 MILLIONS…

123. Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Wow, apparently you’ve never seen The Wrath of Khan?

124. Xai, - November 30, 2008

#122 Saragalab

And when did you see the movie to make such a bold statement?

125. Stanky McFibberich - November 30, 2008

re:120
“2. The film is almost nothing like TOS, breaks canon, fans hate it, but the film is a huge global hit and Trek is big news again. Then, in future sequels, the mistakes can be “corrected” and the franchise can be brought more in line with TOS, only this time with new life and an allegiance of fans (young and old) behind it.”

yes…when it becomes popular for being nothing like the series, they will of course go back and make it more like the series

126. Jamie - November 30, 2008

I completely agree with JJ — this film should NOT be made for Trek fans.

If this film was made so that you had to be a Trek fan to enjoy or understand it, JJ would be a poor director. JJ is trying to revitalise a fading franchise for a new, young audience. Requiring the audience to have prior knowledge of Trek would be idiotic, especially given this is an ORIGIN story, not a straight sequel.

It’s simply a matter of logic…

JJ didn’t say he wants to exclude Trek fans, he said he DOESN’T want to exclude non-Trek fans. See the difference? If JJ had made a film for fans, only the fans would appreciate it. But if he makes a film not for fans, EVERYONE can appreciate it.

Consider Batman Begins: that film was also an origin story, and it was made so that you could enjoy it without knowing the story already. Contrast this with the 1989 “Batman”, which was not an origin story and DID require prior knowledge of the franchise (the film makes no sense unless you already know Batman’s identity).

127. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

C.S. Lewis — First, is that your real name? No offense intended, but I think your prose struggles too much to echo your namesake’s. Second, Robert Wise …

———————

No this is not my real name. I posted a few times with my real name until someone was upset enough to send hate mail to me, having Googled me I surmise.

I am sorry about my scribblings. I do not think they, or anything here, are meant to be prose. Unfortunately, my entries are made even worse than otherwise, as they are typed whilst playing with my son!

The nom de plume “C.S. Lewis” stems from my admiration of the man and his works, and because an Anglican minister friend and I were discussing Screwtape that very day. It never occurred I might be mistaken for the genuine (and very dead) Mr Lewis, anymore than other honorific screen names would be so confused.

But yes, I struggle each and every day… to earn my living, to support my wife and children, to do well by my clients, to live a clean life, to stand to be counted when it matters, and once in a while, to let go of my worries and visit the final frontier.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

128. Brett Campbell - November 30, 2008

127 – Interesting, indeed. I was curious as I am writing my doctoral dissertation on Tolkien and Lewis. And don’t be sorry about your scribblings. They are charming, but I would like you to feel welcome here, and I got the impression, especially today, that you were emulating Lewis’s voice rather than being yourself in your own. Perhaps you are doing that (writing in your own voice), and I don’t know you well enough to judge or to criticize. So, apologies for that. In any case, welcome to the site, and good luck with all of your daily struggles. You are not alone in them. Lewis would have understood — better than most!

129. Jordan - November 30, 2008

As a lifelong fan of Star Trek, I say more power to you Mr. Abrams. Make Star Trek cool (again)!

130. RTC - November 30, 2008

Hey folks, I have to say that (with remarkably few exceptions) this thread has yielded the most mature, level-headed discussion/debate about ST XI that I’ve seen here in a long time. We don’t all have to agree, but this proves that we all can enjoy civil discourse about a show — a modern mythology, really — that means a great deal to each of us. Bravo!

131. Chris Basken - November 30, 2008

122: “Mission:Impossible III directed by JJ Abrams, budget $150 million total grosses in USA: $134 MILLIONS…”

But by the time it left the theaters, it grossed almost $400 million. And that doesn’t count DVD sales. It was also the #1 movie for its first two weekends.

Just sayin’…

132. Weerd1 - November 30, 2008

Trek has had periods of dormancy, but I don’t see it dying any time soon. Take a look at the Trekmovie story on Trek Christmas gifts- there hasn’t been a new Trek show in 3 years, and longer than that since there was one with high ratings… Yet there seems to be an awful lot of merchandise which has nothing to do with the new film. I am hoping for the best with the new movie, and I hope it increases interest, but Trek will lope along underground regardless. Can you imagine the fans of the 70s with the internet? People like James Cawley have proved we don’t need Paramount to have Trek, it’s just nice when they do it right.

Back in about 2001, I was the 30 year old guy finishing off his college degree at night school and in one of my classes sat next to a beautiful young woman (no accusatory fingers, I am a happily married man!). Somewhere along the line she mentioned her Mom liked Star Trek- the old one, not the one with the woman that was on then. I offered to let her watch some if she wanted (see? no flirting- you are not serious about picking up a hot 19 year old when you are offering to let her watch your Trek tapes). I gave her the disclaimers to keep in mind it was 35 years old, and TV was all pretty campy back then, but to be mindful of the stories and characters. The next class she came in. She sat next to me for a few moments, then looked over and said without preamble:
“Captain Kirk is hot.” She watched 30 of them before the end of the semester. Classic Trek, to this day for all its 60′s goofiness, will sell itself given the chance. Even if the movie disappoints old time fans (I said if, not when! I am open minded to the possibilities…) some kid is going to be impressed with special effects or cool aliens, and will ask “Is there more?” Wait until that kids discovers there’s 700 more hours of Trek waiting for them, and most of them are actually pretty good!

Mr Orci, I have great hope for your story, I hope this is a great addition to the Trek universe, but if Voyager couldn’t kill it, neither can this movie. Trek is here to stay.

133. SpocksSpleen - November 30, 2008

As a long time trek fan Im ready for a slightly new take on it, trek as we know it run its course and lost site of the founders intentions. Im ready for optimism, action, adventure and wonder..all the things we’ve been missing for a long time. BRING IT ON JJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

134. Dom - November 30, 2008

Gosh, Xai, we do seem to be taking some flak for being honest these days! :) In the time it took me to reply to rely to BK613′s post on the other thread (thanks for the back up, btw) a whole new 3-figure-number-poster thread has appeared. :)

I can understand why JJ is saying this film isn’t about current fans. We’re a given. Most of us will go to see it. Even the the crazy wing of ‘hate-at-first-sighters’ are going to see the film, even if it’s only to see how ‘bad’ it is! The majority of us are looking forward to the film and the only extra persuasion needed is to let us know it’s ‘safe” to get our friends to see it.

So what’s going to bring in the extra audience: the mainstream who want to be entertained for a couple of hours; the macho guys who hope it’s a hot day in May and their girlfriend/date won’t be wearing a bra while the’re sat in the the dark back row, so they can cop a feel; the kids who want to entertain themselves throwing popcorn at people in the stalls below?

Abrams understands that most us current Trekkies (I won’t be PC and say ‘Trekkers’!) are seen as a bit a joke fairly or unfairly. If I suggested taking a na-girlfriend to a Trek movie anywhere between 1999-ish and this year, I might as well have not bothered to chase her in the first place. To say you like Trek in the last decade has been poison to most people. It makes you sound like a sad little gimboid with no life, obsessed with a fictional universe that unrelated to the present day, who gets off over internet scans of autographed Brent Spiner photos!

Star Trek is still a joke to many people and maybe, just maybe, JJ Abrams and his team are getting it back to its populist mainstream roots.

Because, when JJ says he preferred Star Wars as a youth, when JJ says he disconnected with Trek after TNG, he’s speaking for a lot of old-school trekkies as well.

We have to let JJ say what he needs to say and be thicker-skinned about things. He’s vague in order to keep the plot under wraps and he dismisses the lesser aspects of later Trek because they need to be dismissed to make people watch a film with the major aspects.

This is the future. No longer can we have people say such-and-such-a-thing ***cant*** happen in Star Trek!

135. Pete359 - November 30, 2008

I wished he’d stop saying “not made for the fans” and start saying “not made *just* for the fans”.

136. Closettrekker - November 30, 2008

#69—”You cannot put (in)a writer now that doesn’t have a clue what Star Trek is and what he is (inheriting).”

Let’s get this straight…

JJ Abrams is not the writer. Bob Orci (big Trek fan) and Alex Kurtzman (big Trek fan) are the writers/exec-producers. Damon Lindelof (Trek fan) and Bryan Burk (Trek fan) are producers.

JJ Abrams is the director. He was never more than a casual Trek fan, but that makes him twice the fan as Wise, Meyer, or Bennett, prior to their involvement with Star Trek.

This business about Mr. Abrams consistently referring to the risk of parody and identifying himself with members of the potential audience who were never really fans of Star Trek is all about marketing.

Perspective, please…

137. BaronByng - November 30, 2008

Without reading too much into JJ’s words, I think what he’s really been saying all along is that this is a story intended to introduce the Trek universe to people who know nothing about it.

A film critic once said of the Star Trek films that they relied too much on the audience knowing a lot about the characters already; there was a kind of “unearned sentimentality,” easy and manipulative, at work, which never really allows a non-fan audience in or allows anyone to take it a bit more seriously.

TWOK differs because it feels like a proper re-introduction to the characters after 20 years have gone by. Kirk is an instructor, going through a midlife crisis, and his mirror, Khan, is mired in the past as well. Yes, there’s all the Hornblower stuff which is great fun, but, unlike series television where main characters tend to live forever, TWOK killed off a major character at the end. This was important; this was about growth, change, embracing your life (no matter what point you were at). The characters had changed by the end of the story.

Even if you count the events of III and IV as part of a single arc, they’re only loosely joined, and neither sequel continues the theme of growth and change along the way.

If JJ is taking one thing from Star Wars, it’s the Joseph Campbell “hero’s journey” thing, which is essential to an origin story. I think it’s an excellent frame to build a movie around.

That said, it doesn’t take anything away from TOS. It was a product of its time, but how many Stratford actors made something worthy out of what might have become fluff, in lesser hands?

138. BaronByng - November 30, 2008

Without reading too much into JJ’s words, I think what he’s really been saying all along is that this is a story intended to introduce the Trek universe to people who know nothing about it.

A film critic once said of the Star Trek films that they relied too much on the audience knowing a lot about the characters already; there was a kind of “unearned sentimentality,” easy and manipulative, at work, which never really allows a non-fan audience in or allows anyone to take it a bit more seriously.

TWOK differs because it feels like a proper re-introduction to the characters after 20 years have gone by. Kirk is an instructor, going through a midlife crisis, and his mirror, Khan, is mired in the past as well. Yes, there’s all the Hornblower stuff which is great fun, but, unlike series television where main characters tend to live forever, TWOK killed off a major character at the end. This was important; this was about growth, change, embracing your life (no matter what point you were at). The characters had changed by the end of the story.

Even if you count the events of III and IV as part of a single arc, they’re only loosely joined, and neither sequel continues the theme of growth and change along the way.

If JJ is taking one thing from Star Wars, it’s the Joseph Campbell “hero’s journey” thing, which is essential to an origin story. I think it’s an excellent frame to build a movie around.

That said, it doesn’t take anything away from TOS. It was a product of its time, but how many Stratford actors made something worthy out of what might have become fluff, in lesser hands?

139. Harsh - November 30, 2008

“The movie that we have done was not made for fans of Star Trek, it has really been made for future fans of Star Trek. ”

Ok then. I’ve seen every Star Trek film on opening day. All ten. I felt like all of them were made for me. Good or bad. But if you’re saying this one isn’t made for me then I won’t take a pass, but I will take my time in seeing it. Not that it will matter a bit. The movie will have great opening weekend numbers. Just without my contribution. Again, not that it matters. But if you’re gonna make me feel expendable then I’ll just act accordingly.

140. Redshirt96 - November 30, 2008

130 – I agree. As a lifelong Trek fan, but one who cares more about a good story than canon, I have been disappointed by the tone of some of the comments here on these forums. Agree or disagree, look forward to it or loathe it, but we can all be civil. To paraphrase Spock, “We must all learn to govern our passions.”

As for the MAIN target audience of the new movie, I agree with JJ that it should be for the non-fans. Treks’ core audience is huge and passionate but probably doesn’t buy enough movie tickets to warrant an expensive feature. Hopefully, even the strictest keepers of the TOS flame will find something to like.

NOTHING that happens in this movie will invalidate or make any less precious what has come before it.

And finally, if it’s good enough for Leonard Nimoy, it’s good enough for me!

141. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - November 30, 2008

Well, whatever they’ve done, and however they have achieved it… Start Trek is becoming cool again.

When announcers are refering to it as ‘the most anticipated movie of 2009′ – it’s time to close up the arguments and take a breather. Paramount’s decision to kick start Star Trek and give it the right treatment for a world wide audience seem to be working.

Canon aside, some will complain loudly because it isn’t the ‘Trek’ they want, or believe should be. Too bad. They don’t own Trek. Paramount holds that piece of paper.

Bigger audiences will mean bigger revenues. Bigger revenues will mean more Trek in the future. New cast members will mean -among other things – us not having to say out loud… geez they’re getting old.

The only question I have is will it (the new move) let me escape the way Star Trek (TOS) did. I’m not asking for child-like wonder. Just good old escapism. Much of tv Trek after Ds9 had me ‘meh’, the rare exception was in Enterprises last year.

I have now resolved to go see the movie twice on opening day. Have not done that since Return of the Jedi. Yes, I’m that old.

One showing for the wide-eyed kid looking at his heroes again. One so that I can converse with Databrain the following day.

142. D - November 30, 2008

Future fans of Trek…you got it JJ, I’ll be there with my two year old son. Hope nobody else minds.

143. Xai, - November 30, 2008

136. Closettrekker – November 30, 2008

I’ve been waiting for the calvary to come over the hill..

144. Mark - November 30, 2008

Anyone notice that on the sky movies site it says,

“”You’ve always had a hard time finding your place in this world, haven’t you?” questions Zachary Quinto, the new Spock, of Kirk in the trailer’s voice over.” ??

It wasn’t Quinto, it was Greenwood. Kind of a big screw-up for alleged fans.

145. Mark - November 30, 2008

btw, while Offworlders may lump them together, there is a difference between Trekkies and Trekkers.

146. Closettrekker - November 30, 2008

#93—First of all, I’d like to say that I agree with much of what you have to say about the spinoff series, particularly what we both seemed to find lacking in the characters from TNG and the Bermanverse.

However, I have seen many of your recent posts, and I must say that I do not see from where your bitterness about this upcoming film stems.

TOS was sexy. TOS was romantic. TOS had fantastic characters.

It seems to me that this creative team is striving to resurrect those characters, make Star Trek sexy and romantic again, and in doing so, keep alive the vision that is Star Trek at its very core.

It was a vision born out of the horrors of the Second World War, and the feelings of ‘impending doom’ experienced by much of the World’s population in the Cold War that followed.

Roddenberry and Coon experienced Mankind at its worst. They responded artisticly (whether it was a conscious intention or not) by presenting people with a more optimistic vision of Humanity’s future than the general feelings of the population would suggest. It is a future in which the human race does not destroy itself, but instead, unites to conquer the social ills which, to some extent, continue to plague us as a people today. We are allowed to see this vision in a setting that appeals to our curious and explorative nature—-the ‘final frontier’.

What is it about this project which has seemingly convinced you that the vision I have done my best to describe has been compromised?

I do not feel it has been.

I feel that this creative team (4 big Trek fans and 1 very casual fan) have done their best to make a film that will present this vision to a younger audience, and in a manner that “speaks their language”, if you will.

What’s so wrong with that?

So far, I like what I see.

From the tone of your posts, it seems to me that you are reacting to this this creative team with the cynicism you bring from the Berman era, and I think that’s a bit unfair. I could be mistaken, but that is the collective feeling I get from reading not only the post to which I am directly responding, but a series of posts made in your name recently.

147. Closettrekker - November 30, 2008

#143—”I’ve been waiting for the calvary to come over the hill…”

Lol…I’ve never been called that before, but I’ll pretend you said “US Marines” and take that as a compliment!

:)

148. harris250 - November 30, 2008

My strongest feelings about TOS are two. 1. Loved most of the writing and the character development. 2. I always wanted the production values to match the stories. I wanted to be there.

I believe that the production values for this movie are going to be first rate, I hope, bringing the Trek universe to life for really the first time. But lets not forget that the best movies and plays are story driven, that’s why TOS is TOS. A lot of people are upset with Abrams, BUT THE REAL PRESSURE IS ON ORCI.

If these two can combine production values and story, watch out!

149. C.S. Lewis - November 30, 2008

146. Closettrekker – November 30, 2008

Not bitterness, not at all. Call it apprehension and doubt.

Sincerely,

C.S. Lewis

150. tbk1701 - November 30, 2008

I know this is off subject but I just showed my friends on my iphone the new Star Trek trailer and the first thing they said was is this Star Trek? So I thank you JJ and crew for breaking the stereotype of what people believe. I also must say that I love this site. I love the fact that no matter if we agree or disagree here we are all Star Trek. I love how here we really are equal. I love getting to hear from Rick or Bob about there thoughts. They don’t have to participate in our bickering but they chose to. I love that. IDIC is something I feel. It is the only way we as a race can go on. So I cannot wait for May. I think you guys know what you are doing and I have every faith in you. Live long and prosper.

151. Bill Peters - November 30, 2008

I think JJ isn’t insuting the long time fans of trek! I just think he is telling us that this is for a bigger aducance then just us…..we all love trek and we all should give this thing a chance. It may not be quite what we are used to but in the end it is trek…and Fans tried to save Enterprise but failed. Enterprise was felling like TOS in it last season but it is time for some new blood at the healm and new blood in fandom as we know it…..I for one hope this picture does well and I look foward to years of more trek!

152. FSL - November 30, 2008

107. Chris Basken – November 30, 2008

Hahahahahahaha

153. Buzz Cagney - November 30, 2008

Talking of crazy hair- wtf does JJ have on his head?! And does he know?

154. Boborci - November 30, 2008

61. cellojammer – November 30, 2008

You’ve got the right idea, we think.

155. BK613 - November 30, 2008

134
Excellent post.

135
I think I preferred it when he was saying he was making a film for fans of movies in general.

156. Bill Peters - November 30, 2008

Mr. Orci what made you want to do a Star Trek movie?

157. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 30, 2008

You know I hope the JJ & Orci team make a 21st century update of “I Dream of Jeanie”

Can you imagine the CGI? The cool SFX? I hope they redesign the bottle and make it cooler.

Like all shiny & stuff.

But they have to stick to the show’s canon or I just wont watch it.

I hope the first few minutes are in B&W to reflect the first season. And they should keep the original uniforms but redesign them somehow.

And Shakira should be Jeanie because she’s all like hot & stuff.

No! Wait!

Lindsay Lohan should be a misfit Jeanie who thought she was straight but is really gay so all the angsty tweens can relate to it.

158. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 30, 2008

Oh, and if Larry Hagman isnt in it, I’m gonna cry…

159. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 30, 2008

My final thought?

Think of JJ’s Star Trek as the Ferris Bueler version of “The Producers”

Personally, I think the original 1960′s version was funnier, but If Mel Brooks really needs the money…

Ferris Bueler is no Gene Simmons, no Gene whatshisname with the funny hair was married to Rosanne Roseannadanna?

But what the hey, just keep it gay!

160. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

You’re thinking of Gene Wilder!

161. cellojammer - November 30, 2008

154. Boborci – November 30, 2008

“61. cellojammer – November 30, 2008

You’ve got the right idea, we think.”

___________

Not to be all fanboyish or anything, but…

You read my post and responded to it! AH–HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

(Sorry. You must made my day)

–Mike

162. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 30, 2008

Yes, Harry

I was trying to be funny

(shakes head, sadly)

One of these days, Alice…

One of these days…

163. Harry Ballz - November 30, 2008

Humour……it is a difficult concept!

164. Wes - November 30, 2008

Abrams talks a lot and he repeats stuff over and over, Lets see the movie already! And lets hear about Shatner’s cameo!

165. TOS Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Re: 146

Gene Roddenberry created TNG and was heavily involved with the show for its first season. He created the TNG characters. Not Rick Berman.

From wikipedia, comments in brackets are mine:

Roddenberry was the creator and producer of Star Trek: The Next Generation, although he ultimately only had full control over the show’s first season [arguably the worst season]. The WGA strike of 1988 prevented him from taking an active role in production of the second season, forcing him to hand control of the series to producer Maurice Hurley. While Roddenberry was free to resume work on the third season of the show, his health was in serious decline by this point, and over the course of the season he gradually ceded control to Rick Berman and Michael Piller.

166. Canon Father - November 30, 2008

Sorry, but after hearing so much whining in these discussions I’m prone to say that Trek needs new fans desperately. The fact that we aren’t numerous enough any longer to keep a show or movie alive makes that obvious, and necessary, for any future Star Trek.

Besides, there is no way they’ll ever be able to please the hardcore cannonites and purists, so why even try?

I’m terribly excited about this film, and I was there as a very little guy when Trek first aired. I’ve enjoyed the series up through DS9 and I liked about a third of the movies, and I hope my faith and optimism about this new vision will be justified.

I’ve got to at least give it a chance, and why not go in with an open mind and positive feelings, rather than prejudgment and silly fears?

167. Jordan - November 30, 2008

#165 You’re absolutely right. I thought that was already common knowledge. The first season, especially, has Gene’s fingerprints all over it in terms of style, tone, themes, etc. Star Trek became a different force around the 4th season of TNG especially (which is when Gene passed away) and Star Trek very appropriately grew and evolved to suit 90s audiences. You know what? Trek became a different force even with “The Wrath of Khan.” But since TNG actors always commented that Gene felt Trek was all about “looking forward,” I believe he would embrace JJ’s film. What’s important is that all Trek incarnations thus far, even the ones I don’t particularly like, have always been loyal to the spirit of Gene’s vision.

168. McCoy's Gall Bladder - November 30, 2008

Mr Blue Goatee guy figured Gene’s optimism was all a load of hooey and decided to take DS9 in completely the opposite direction.

169. TOS Enterprise - November 30, 2008

Re: 167

… Yes. I believe Gene would embrace the new film. I wasn’t stating anything to the contrary. Just correcting Post 146′s view (and it seems the views of a lot of people posting on TrekMovie) that the only pure Star Trek is TOS because Gene created it. Well, he created TNG, too. That’s all I was saying.

170. Boborci - November 30, 2008

159. McCoy’s Gall Bladder – November 30, 2008

LOL!

Funny.

171. Boborci - November 30, 2008

156. Bill Peters – November 30, 2008
” Mr. Orci what made you want to do a Star Trek movie?”

In a way, Alex and I did not want to do another Star Trek movie, but we felt we were called to serve — like it would have been wrong to refuse the call of duty to take on Trek — as if Star Fleet itself drafted us. We figured, if we didn’t take the job, someone who cared less might have, and we we felt strongly enough about the idea we had to take a swing. And when you know you’re gonna have JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof to help you, how could we say no?

172. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

Hey Bob :-)

For the Record, I really liked the remake of “The Producers” especially the director Roger DeBris

I hope Trek is at least as gay by every definition

:-)

173. Jordan - December 1, 2008

#169: yeah man, I was expounding on what you were saying and helping you expound your original point since I agreed with your original point and was surprised that poster 146 didn’t see our point…. :) LOL. Make sense?

174. Boborci - December 1, 2008

Note to all Trek fans:

I understand how some of J.J.’s remarks can seem insensitive to Star Trek fans, but we need to lay off the man. He has been literally traveling the world, away from his family, after a year of being away to actually make the movie. No one has worked as hard on our beloved Star Trek as he has. Let him sell it to non-believers, and let’s thank our lucky stars we have him to spread the word about Trek.

175. Quarksbartender - December 1, 2008

I agree with Bob, JJ has a tough job imagine making a 150,000,000 dollar movie and making it a success he has to appeal to the fans and non fans so he is down playing the nature of the movie so regular people wont just think oh another star trek movie. I agree with the approach I think it was probably thought out before they even hit the road.

176. Anthony Pascale - December 1, 2008

I agree with Jamie that JJ was clearly not saying he wants to exclude Trek fans, although I also agree with Pete that saying ‘not making it *just* for Trek fans’ does sound better, but in fact I have heard him phrase it that way. In fact he has said as much directly to me. Lets not forget that JJ did the live chat here for the fans and he has been friendly to this site and AICN and other fan friendly sites as well as making sure that there were new posters at three comic cons, Wonder con and the last two Trek cons. If they were ignoring the fanbase, they wouldnt bother with that kind of stuff, and of course Orci wouldnt be here either.

So as Bob says, lets not dissect things, when you look in context it is clear This film does not (and should not) require viewers to be Trek fans.

But in my viewing of the preview scenes I understand what Abrams, Orci and the others ahve been saying about how this is really two movies There are moments that will have extra meaning to the Trek fans, that will go right over the heads of the average movie goers.

I do think people sometimes need to see the forest, or at least in a case like this, watch the whole interview instead of focusing once sentence fragment.

177. Jordan - December 1, 2008

Yeah, JJ would appear to be in an impossible position. He’ll never court and win over every existing Trek fan. Just reading these message boards alone demonstrates how divergent many of our views are, even though we all share an interest in Trek.
So he had to push ahead and make the film that conformed to his vision as a director. If the trailer is any indication, he’s directed a brilliant film.

178. Iowagirl - December 1, 2008

One really must admire the way Bob Orci keeps “polishing” for us die-hards what JJ Abrams says in his interviews. :D Sort of bad cop/good cop…No offense, just saying;)

Yes yes, I’m seeing the forest, but we shouldn’t forget that each forest consists of single trees…;)

And yeah, I also like Abrams’ head of curls much better than Shatner’s, and his glasses are much more favourable, too… Oh JJ, you tried to hard to be nice, but you failed. Never mind, practice makes perfect!

179. MrLirpa - December 1, 2008

I think that it’s pretty obvious that JJ is NOT preaching to the converted, he’s talking to everyone else.

Whether we Star Trek fans like it or not there IS a stigma attached to the star trek brand and JJ has to address that in his interviews by selling this version of Star Trek to a whole new crowd.

I find it remarkable that Bob Orci still visits this site, i’m mean seriously how many people involved in a movie would bother to do something like that!

As a writer the bulk of his work on this movie must have finished months ago yet he still bothers to visit this site regularly. I suspect this is because he is a huge Star Trek fan and probably enjoys this site as much as the rest of us.

The fact that he uses his own name too amazes me too, very brave indeed.

180. Devon - December 1, 2008

#54 – “not some director who never was a trekkie”

EXACTLY. They pulled that crap with “The Wrath of Khan” and look how much of disas…..

Oh wait!

181. Mark Lynch - December 1, 2008

I’m with Stanky.

Not impressed with what has come out thus far. The more that I find out, the less I like.

Will wait for a full review before bothering to go see it at the cinema, if in fact I even do that.

I have been holding out hope for this new movie. But in all honesty, I think that it has been misplaced. I guess it is time for a new generation to ‘mind the store’.

182. Canon Father - December 1, 2008

Bye Mark!

183. Devon - December 1, 2008

It sounds like throughout Mark’s post he convinces himself to like it less and less throughout. Amazing.

184. Sargalab from Spain - December 1, 2008

Ah, the film is for the “future fans”? who are they? the teenagers who love Smallville? bogh. The future Star Trek will be a space Smalville? bogh.
And the old trekkies? I seems that he despises us. I cannot imagine Sam Reimy despising the old fans of Spiderman. He said:”my film is for all:the new fans and the new ones.And for those who are not fans”
This speech is logical and reasonable. JJ’s words, not.
I don’t like JJ. For me, the man who we need was JOSS WHEDON, and not a… ferengi.

185. thebiggfrogg - December 1, 2008

Good versus Evil? A big theme? Come on! I am rapidly losing faith in this project. Good versus Evil is Star Wars simplicity. Darth Vader versus Luke. Emperor Palpatine versus Yoda. Trek always tried to delve a bit deeper. Remember the “cerebralism” of The Cage. I hope that this movie isn’t just some great villain with a standard coming-of-age story thrown in. Nothing wrong with a great villain (Khaaaaannnn!), but Trek’s movies have done this ad infinitum with mixed results (Got really sick of Picard fighting the movie villain of the year mano a mano, I could puke). I’d like Trek to be about more. Perhaps this is too much to ask from a blockbuster movies. Perhaps Trek is best suited to TV. I hope I’m pleasantly surprised.

186. Warp - December 1, 2008

I’v seen this interwiev on the You Tube almost two weeks ago. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez__hQvncm4&eurl=http://www.stcentar.com/index.php?id=3599&feature=player_embedded

Old news.

187. A. .S.F.33 - December 1, 2008

#174 Boborci Hey I “get” what JJ is doing but one thing he appears to forget is that it was Trek FANS that revived that little throw away show called Star Trek. I highly doubt there would be a movie made today based on a forty year old obscure failed Sci Fi show. Without the fan intervention that took place way back then, Star Trek would be nothing more than a forgotten, failed idea. Ya know, go ahead and sell this movie to the hoped for new audience, but don’t disrespect the existing fan base in the process, just because you think our presence is a given….

188. Holo J - December 1, 2008

52 & 187 A. .S.F.33

I have to agree with both your posts that you have made.

As you have said, without the fans “Star Trek would be nothing more than a forgotten, failed idea”.

Also when I hear Mr Abrams make that kind of comment it makes me think this is a total reboot despite being told its not. I know some people don’t care about Star Trek canon but I still hold out hope that this movie does tie into it in a respectful way. I hope the new timeline doesn’t destroy all we know and love of Star Trek’s “History of the future”.

I am a fan of JJ Abrams work I think Alias is the only thing I have never really watched of his recent work. I know all of the shows he has involvement in have a high production level and look very slick and from what I can see from the trailer it looks like he is bringing that to Star Trek. I just hope he hasn’t left out the spirit of Star Trek in his bid to make it accessible to the masses.

Its great both Bob and Alex are both Fans and that Bob takes the time to post here.
I am dying to find out the canon explanations to all those apparent changes. I am sure they are going to make perfect sense to all of us ;)

Off topic I was watching The English Football (Soccer) team play Germany recently and was looking at England’s Manager Fabio Capello thinking he reminds me of someone… then it hit me, he looks like JJ Abrams but 20 – 25 years from now… lol

See what you think

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/81241935.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934B869679A269F9CCAF9F26E3DA5A8B4F5A5397277B4DC33E

189. Devon - December 1, 2008

#184 – “I seems that he despises us.”

I don’t understand how some people can come to this conclusion, it’s just plain stupidity to no end. Maybe it’s a language barrier, but then a few english speaking fans are putting this in their own heads to.

Unless J.J., for whatever, says something like “The fans who kept this alive are worthless” or “I despise the older fans” THEN you can complain. But he has never even said anything remotely like this and I’m not sure what the logic would be of doing this. What would he have to gain from doing this? In the meantime, you are more than welcome to provide proof and quotes where J.J. has said and shows despise for Trek fans (which again, I think is absolutely moronic and ridiculous to even think beyond belief.)

That doesn’t mean I think maybe J.J. could word this “not for fans” a little better, but at the same time I think a few people are honestly convincing themselves of things or thoughts that don’t even exist or have never been said, and are putting words in his or anyone else’s mouth.

190. Devon - December 1, 2008

By the way, sorry to be out of line. That is for some of the people who get these really funny ideas and start implying things which out and out have proven not to be true.

191. Wrath - December 1, 2008

What! JJ Abrams is trying to sell to non-fans? He’s confessing he wasn’t a Trek fan as a kid!

What a disgrace. Reminds me of that non-fan Nicholas Meyer, who treated the subject matter seriously and turned in some of Trek’s finest moments, giving Kirk the best story and character development he ever had and making the best Trek film to date, a movie which has become a sequel standard bearer not only to its own franchise, but across the genre spectrum.

192. Sargalab from Spain - December 1, 2008

Canon is sacred.
Created for 40 years of Star Trek’s history.
Without canon ST is a senseless speech.
JJ is a star wars guy and he despises it.
We must not allow it with our silence.
If JJ & Paramount despises old trekkies.
We’ll turn into the Maquis ;)
We must say:”this movie is about the ST’s universe mirror” or, “It’s not ST, it’s a fake”
And then,forget it. For ever. (No buy ST XI’s DVD, for example)

193. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 1, 2008

Star Trek is more than just a franchise. It is becoming more of a culture. And as for canon, I think canon should be flexible. I mean history itself has been revising. Remember, when we were all young and we were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered america. Now it’s either the vikings or the Chinese that discovered america on the most recent records. Star Trek is actually bigger than Kirk or Spock. Indeed, they set the foundation, but Star Trek grew beyond them. That is what makes Star Trek so special. It’s not like Star Wars, in which it is totally focused on the Skywalker family, and that it is based on those 6 movies. Star Trek birthed not just ten movies and five television series, but also conventions, the animation series, fan made internet shows and movies, novels, comic books, languages, and even a role playing online world. One director’s vision is not destroying Star Trek, but to make it more mainstream so that every facet of the audience could discover THIS world of one its core main themes: OPTIMISM.

194. banned - December 1, 2008

Deleted by admin

195. Devon - December 1, 2008

>>>Canon is sacred.

Not as sacred as some seem to pretend it was.

>>>Without canon ST is a senseless speech.

So, Star Trek has nothing to do with good stories, philosophies, the endless wonders of our future? Star Trek could be about how two elephants mated and how a guy drank his own urine, but as long as none of that is contradicted, it will stay true to Star Trek?

>>>JJ is a star wars guy and he despises it.”

He despises being a Star Wars guy?

>>>We must not allow it with our silence.”

. . .

>>>If JJ & Paramount despises old trekkies.

PROVE that he or Paramount do. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake a few others are, just repeating the same false rhetoric over and over without any proof.

>>>We must say:”this movie is about the ST’s universe mirror” or, “It’s not ST, it’s a fake””

*We* don’t have to do anything just because a few fans convince themselves of their own certain “facts.”

>>>And then,forget it. For ever. (No buy ST XI’s DVD, for example)”

See you in line at the theater!

#194 – “If you are going to change every thing , why do it?….. ”

Why not do it?

>>>does this sound familier. ”

Only because a few people keep treading on the same argument.

“This movie will suck worse than cloverfield, worse than Godzilla, I predict this movie to suck more than monica lewinsky.”

It’s a good thing you presented a well rounded and thoughtful argument.

196. Paulaner - December 1, 2008

#184 “Ah, the film is for the “future fans”? who are they? the teenagers who love Smallville?”

I was a child when I was first introduced to Star Trek. What’s wrong about teenagers?

197. The Underpants Monster - December 1, 2008

If it’s a good story, it’ll be a good movie. That’s always been the core of what makes Trek good. So, fingers, toes, and all internal organs crossed.

198. Paulaner - December 1, 2008

Talking about directors/writers that have to be fans, in my opinion this is the wrong way to make movies. First of all, you need a *professional*, not a fan. A smart, capable, *professional* director will have no problems understanding what he has to do and what he has to write. TWOK is the finest example, but I’m sure that very few Trek directors were hard-core fans. We are not talking about fan productions, made by fanboys for fanboys. As a Paramout producer, I would trust a well established professional, not a Trek fan.

199. New Horizon - December 1, 2008

“174. Boborci – December 1, 2008
Note to all Trek fans:
Let him sell it to non-believers, and let’s thank our lucky stars we have him to spread the word about Trek.”

Absolutely! We already know Trek…let the man do his job, and don’t crucify him for trying to convert the masses. We’re not children, if we want Trek to survive…learn to share it.

200. Dr. Image - December 1, 2008

I don’t get it.

JJ could have stuck closer to the look/events/history of classic Trek and STILL made a movie that everyone would enjoy.
It could have, and would have, worked.

The changes we’ve seen are far too drastic.
Will it make money? Probably.
Were the changes warranted? NO.

Change without constructive purpose is highly illogical.

201. cellojammer - December 1, 2008

200. Dr. Image

“Change without constructive purpose is highly illogical”

____________________

So is criticism without seeing the movie.

202. Chris Basken - December 1, 2008

It amazes me how many people think Trek is their own property despite having literally zero stake in it.

There are secret cults out there that wish they could muster the control over their flock the way Trek has.

203. screaming satellite - December 1, 2008

***NEWSFLASH***- Abrams in a new interview

Filmonline – So you’ve directed the new star trek movie

JJ – *shrugs* – yeah..

FOL – So why did you want to do it?

JJ – Cause they waved 3 million dollars in front of my face

FOL – Ok-eey do you like star trek?

JJ – nope cant stand it!

FOL – Oh well what about the fans

JJ – Nope don’t like them either…in particular I despise the older fans of star trek

FOL – So…whos gonna go see it then?

JJ – I made the film primarily for fans of star wars…hopefully they will go see it since theres no new SW films out….that way loads of people will go see it and it’ll make over 600m and I’ll get a nice big chunk of royalties..I got points u see…

FOL – U cast leonard nimoy but not William shatner – why was this?

JJ – Shatner was being an ass…wanted 15 million and wanted to play the 30 year old kirk with a little CG wrinkle smoothing…besides I was told he was killed off in one of the films or novels or something…however nimoy was open to 5 million for 10 days work….think iill switch to his agent!

FOL — Well good luck with the movie

JJ – Thanks man…and remember ‘I despise star trek fans’

204. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

Yeah, who needs canon in the established mythology of a series? Look at the new Sherlock Holmes film now in production: Holmes and Watson are gay and Moriarty is a Chinese woman!

No worries, won’t make a bit of difference since canon is irrelevent!

205. James - December 1, 2008

@203:

I’m not quite sure whether you’re joking or not, but I was laughing my ass off anyway!

206. Brett Campbell - December 1, 2008

204 – Hope Moriarty is played by Lucy Liu or Michelle Yeoh. I’m in!

207. captain_neill - December 1, 2008

I hated his comment that this is not for the fans.

Each comment only deepens the hole and harder for him to get out of it.

No matter what I will go and see this film and I hope my misgivings disappear but I am more convinced now that JJ is screwing up Star Trek.

These future fans are going to be ones who will not get proper Star Trek, they will only watch the new ones. Same as these inferior remakes in which this generation prefers over the original.

I have almost no faith left now.

208. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

Bob & Anthony

WOW

I never got the impression that JJ hates Trek. I watched the interview again, and I suppose if I turn the sound off and make up my own dialog, maybe I could imagine JJ being anti-Trek.

I like what you two nice fellers said earlier.

Over analyzing things is dangerous folks. JJ’s not a head of state or anything. He’s not Ronald Reagan calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire” or anything.

He has to talk in generalities and avoid answering direct questions and seem obtuse because he doesnt want to SPOIL the movie.

It doesnt bother me any.

209. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

Holmes and Watson are gay?

You know there was a rumor that Kirk and Spock were gay. Gene had to write a little “no we’re not” into his novelization of TMP.

Gene was a homophobe who had to prove he wasnt gay by shagging every young nurse in the Pacific in WW2. It took a long time for him to be comfortable with gays. Why he worked in Hollywood I’ll never know. You know Tony Curtis just came out recently?

I know the actor that played David was gay. We all know about Takei. I’m sure there have been others.

Hollywood should be gay, just like Broadway. Just like the Producers, keep it gay!

210. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

Yes, McCoy’s Gall Bladder

I was trying to be funny

(shakes head, sadly)

211. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

One last grouse

The way some of you “fans” act makes me glad he didnt make the movie for you.

I was joking when I said Nurse Chapel should shag Spock finally after 40+ years of waiting. That’s what the fangirls wanted to see in the 70′s. There’s a ton of Spock sex fantasies out there. For some reason Spock was sexy to women in the 60′s. I suppose it was because he liked to talk about his feelings and cuddle after? Ladies can you explain?

Infact, are there any ladies?

What possible movie could you fanboys have made? I tried writing fiction in my early days. It’s harder than you think.

You darn kids get off my lawn!

212. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

Sorry Harry, I just got up. ;-) Being old sucks.

Think of me as the old man in Family Guy.

Can you be my paperboy?

ha ha :-)

Love ya Harry!

213. Gatortrek - December 1, 2008

If the goal was to bring in new fans i believe they will succeed. this Thanksgiving i had seven nephews over ranging in age from 13 to 22. I showed them the trailer with original spock on the end. The reaction was amazing. As a whole i could never get them interested in Trek as a whole. Every one of them wants to see this movie when it opens and they liked that they don’t have to know any Trek to enjoy the film. It was a plus for them. I have been a fan from the beginning and i look forward to the movie, but something that propels the franchise into the future and builds a new audience that can enjoy it throughout their lifetime i think is good news. One redeming comment from one of the nephews is he wants to see all the origfianl episodes before the movie opens. so i will be hosting marathons at my place until the movie opens.

Live long and prosper!!!!

214. Charlie Jade 2070 - December 1, 2008

- Trek producers always tried to lead their shows to another kind of audience…but the results were a total disaster for the saga…

215. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

“Think of me as the old man in Family Guy”

That character’s voice is hilarious!

Old? I’m 53. You?

216. screaming satellite - December 1, 2008

On the flip side id be incredibly concerned if JJ came out with ‘im a huge star trek fan…this film has been made specifically for the fans….’

as has been mentioned before neither Harve Bennett nor Nicolas Meyer were fans…did that stop them making not just the best Trek film but one of the best Sci Fi films of all time?

In fact id even go so far as to say that one of the requirements for the job of directing a trek film is NOT to be a fan..but to be understanding of star trek and the fans…

When you get a fan directing they tend to go overboard with homages, – see Superman Returns and King Kong 05

217. Paulaner - December 1, 2008

#216 “When you get a fan directing they tend to go overboard with homages, – see Superman Returns and King Kong 05″

Right. That’s why I don’t like fan productions. My respect to their effort, but they are overcrowded with references to characters and events from the TV shows. As I was saying: directing a movie requires a professional, not a fan.

218. Charlie Jade 2070 - December 1, 2008

- A real example for ‘trek total disaster’ is this need to return to the roots..i like tng era..it’s more complex..more rich in feelings than the original series…( although i hate it’s ‘sweetness’)but i prefer now to wait to see the movie before i start to make another comment..maybe because i like the producers..

219. AJ - December 1, 2008

217:

Yes, but Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy is also a “homage,” and it was wonderful. With that complex tapestry, if you don’t know the territory, you can get lost.

Trek is far simpler, especially as it’s an alternate timeline origin story.

Interestingly enough, “Empire” is considered by many to be the best of all the SW films, and Lucas gave to Irwin Kershner to direct. A non-fan of Star Wars made the best Star Wars film (before going on to destroy Robocop)

220. Sargalab from Spain - December 1, 2008

Canon is the most important thing.It’s the structure that support the building. Specially, in the universes of Fantasy or Sci Fi:Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel, DC, Lord Of The rings, Conan’s world,Asimov’s Foundation, Lovecraft’s Cthulu Myths…
Key word is credibility.
Canon flexible?yes.Exemple:Star Trek:Enterprise.I like Enterprise.
But to alter the canon is something different. And a very serious mistake.
And, in addition, why? The vanity of a ferengi?
JJ is the worst threat for ST since 1969.

221. Sparks Brain - December 1, 2008

So will this become a TV series?

222. Canon Father - December 1, 2008

wow.

I’m so embarrassed by so many of the “fans” here who condemn this film without even seeing it yet. It’s truly pathetic.

This site has always been a challenge to enjoy because of the inflexible, screaming, immature minority that dominates these discussions. I guess the “purists” and cannonites don’t have jobs, because they post here at all hours. It’s like they have nothing else to do but think of ways they hate the movie, which they haven’t seen yet.

I’d like to assure Bob and JJ that there are indeed a lot of intelligent, mature Star Trek fans out there, but we have lives and not a lot of time to comment here. You have the support of a silent majority. And this old Trek fan has been there from the beginning.

223. Paulaner - December 1, 2008

#220 “And, in addition, why? The vanity of a ferengi?”

Well, Paramount is clearly thiking that a change is needed, because the audience abandoned Star Trek. You know, the franchise died or has been left in agony.

224. Charlie Jade 2070 - December 1, 2008

- I like the ferengi

225. Kirk's Toupée - December 1, 2008

Wish JJ would have kept in the black pantyhouse………….. :-(

226. AJ - December 1, 2008

Canon Father:

Thanks for insulting many of us in your quest to stand out from the crowd. Many fans do have jobs and lives, just like you.

If you took your limited time to read more posts, you’d find purists and canonites who support the film as well.

227. Kirk's Toupée - December 1, 2008

Ooops, typo I meant black pantyhose…thank you

228. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

By the end of the feature films for the original crew, Uhura could only fit into “pantyhouse”!

(runs and hides)

229. Weerd1 - December 1, 2008

I am not against a different take on Trek per se, and perhaps this is the incarnation it needs to take, but I really don’t get this “Star Trek is dead” thing. What we’re really saying is Star Trek is not making as much money for Paramount as it used to. DVD sales are good, merchandise is all over, and a simple Google search for “Star Trek” brings up thirty seven MILLION hits. I don’t mind Paramount wanting to reignite the cash-cow they had in the nineties, but the fact we are all here talking about this on one of 37 million sites, while many of us are waiting on fan films, or buying novels or comics, on on our THIRD or FOURTH video incarnation of TOS… I don’t think this is a dead thing, I think it is just settled into a specific niche. A lot of people bag on Enterprise on Voyager (including me with Voyager) but DVD sales are respectable- And as I have said before, be this film a success or a failure, Trek will get on just fine with those who love it.

230. Canon Father - December 1, 2008

AJ – I’m not trying to stand out from the crowd. If I was I’d stay here for hours and keep posting and arguing with everybody and otherwise dominating the discussion with my self-important comments.

I’m not bashing all purists and cannonites. Just the ones who already condemn this film without having seen it. I mean, how stupid is that? And those are the ones who post comment after comment when somebody like me calls them on the carpet about their ridiculous behavior.

For those people I have only insults, because that is all they have to offer. If you haven’t been condemning this film then my comments aren’t directed at you and you have no reason to feel insulted. If you support the film, bless you for your efforts. You’re smart not to judge something before it’s been seen.

But you can rejoice that I don’t come around every few minutes to post another annoying comment. Isn’t that awesome?

231. New Horizon - December 1, 2008

The ‘vocal’ majority of the fanbase behave like spoiled children. “Staw Twek is mines…give me…give ME!!!!”

Wait till May. Until then, can people shut up about how important canon is and go do something useful with their lives?

232. TOS Enterprise - December 1, 2008

I’m starting to dislike Star Trek fans.

Can’t wait for the new movie though. Is it May yet?

233. Paulaner - December 1, 2008

#229 “DVD sales are good, merchandise is all over, and a simple Google search for “Star Trek” brings up thirty seven MILLION hits”

OK, but when a series gets canceled, and no more movies are in the making, and there is nothing new to watch, a franchise is in serious trouble. The DVD are ok but, you know, I have already seen them :))

234. Trek Nerd Central - December 1, 2008

#222. Canon Father, dude, you must relax.

Yeah, this site has its canonistas and sticks-in-the-mud, but there have been plenty of welcoming voices from the beginning — as Abrams & Orci know full well from reading our posts. If & when they do.

All I know is, people I personally know who aren’t Trekkies by any stretch seem to be pumped about this movie. I like the idea that it might reach, in Abrams’ words, “future fans of Star Trek.” And, like many people on these boards — if not everyone — I plan on giving it a chance.

235. Trek Nerd Central - December 1, 2008

Oh, and I meant to say: It’s nice to see JJ appreciates Shatner’s work on Trek. The old boy doesn’t always get credit for it — usually people are too busy refering his “staccato delivery” or “hammy style.” In fact he did did quite a bit of charismatic, kick-butt acting on that show.

236. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

This is the Age of Aquarius….

let the sun shine in! Aquarius!

Lets all hug and hold hands and not be Herberts okay?

With a name like Harry Balls I figured you were in your 20′s LOL :-)

237. Sargalab from Spain - December 1, 2008

230: Canon Father:
For JJ the TNG episode “The mesure of a man” is “bored”.
Only because of it, does not deserve to direct ST.
He does not love ST. He’s only a frustrated star wars kid.

238. star trackie - December 1, 2008

#235 “The old boy doesn’t always get credit for it — usually people are too busy refering his “staccato delivery” or “hammy style.” In fact he did did quite a bit of charismatic, kick-butt acting on that show.”

So sad, but so true. More often than not, the accusation of his “bad” delivery or “ham fisted” acting comes from people who obviously never watched the entire body of work that he did for the show. Mis-informed or not, they just like to ride what they think is a popular bandwagon.

For some inexplicable reason, many fans just can’t stand the fact that this man is so successful. Weird.

239. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

People are being criticized for having concerns regarding the new movie. They are being asked to be supportive, not negative.

The argument put forward is, “how can people be so negative without having seen a foot of film?”

Of course the very same argument could be posited, “how can people be so positive without having seen a foot of film?”

Here’s an idea…..why don’t we all take the approach of having NO OPINION regarding the film until we have seen it?

I am officially declaring that this new position be called…THE NEUTRAL ZONE!

Now, who’s got an opinion on THAT?!!

240. the quickening - December 1, 2008

Whether the film is made or not made for the general public or the fans isn’t the issue for me. Whether it is a shallow, dumbed-downed action movie, or a smart, intelligent film, are my concerns. The scenes with the computer not understanding Chekov’s accent, when all he has to do is speak Russian, doesn’t seem like smart writing. Thoses are the kinds of things I’m worried about.

241. cellojammer - December 1, 2008

237. Sargalab

“For JJ the TNG episode “The mesure of a man” is “bored”.
Only because of it, does not deserve to direct ST.
He does not love ST. He’s only a frustrated star wars kid”

______________

For me, “The Measure Of A Man” was a very good TNG episode. However, it is all dialogue and no action. That might work for a weekly episode but it would not carry a major movie.

And so what if Abrams didn’t like it? There is so much Trek available now so people should be able to pick and choose what they like. If their tastes are different from yours, it doesn’t mean they are unqualified to make a good Trek movie.

As I’ve always maintained, it could be a good thing that Trek fan is not in the director’s chair.

Relax my friend. We’ll see how good it is in May!

242. Captain Dunsel - December 1, 2008

I’m still in the air over what to expect from this film. We all know how far trailers can be from the actual film, and I don’t remember any movie producer ever getting up and saying, “Yeah, we’re pretty much finished with this film and it generally sucks. We’re gonna miss the mark on this one and it’ll tank at the box office.”

I never saw “MI: III”, so I can’t judge the quality of what Mr. Abrams did in that franchise realm. I walked out of MI: II and I really WISH I’d walked out of the first one – and yes, I know JJ Abrams wasn’t involved in I and II, but the dreadful nature of the first two is why I never saw the third one.

I *had* to walk out of Cloverfield – pure physical nausea on that one.

I watched the first episode of “Alias” and went – “BLEAHHH!!” – Never watched another.

I’m belatedly watching Lost – I’ve seen about the first half of the first season in the massively irritating online viewer at ABC.Com, and really like what I’ve seen.

I’ve been watching Fringe, and enjoying it – for a while. (Starting to get tired of the number of miraculous things the Dr. was involved in 17 years ago in which he can apparently still match and surpass today’s most devious scientific minds…)

So – a very hit-and-miss track record in what I’ve seen. I remain cautiously optimistic.

And contrary to some advice here, I don’t think I’ll read the reviews before I go. I’m old enough to remember what that damned LA Times reviewer did when he reviewed “Soylent Green”.

243. star trackie - December 1, 2008

This movie will be wildly successful and the VERY few squeaky wheels who are cying about how this violation will shake the earth off it’s axis will see no oil. The movie is in the can folks, too late to change anything. I find it inetersting that my nephew and his freinds had the very same possitive reaction as the previous poster when it was screened prior to James Bond. They are in the 16-19 year old range and they all know nothing about Star Trek and really have no opinion, for or against, and they all want to see this movie.

Bottom line is, the movie looks damn good and people want to see it. Detractors, few that they are, will not change this. 24th century fans and original classic die hards can either get onboard or be left behind, but their support, while desired, is not required to make this movie work.

244. star trackie - December 1, 2008

#233 “OK, but when a series gets canceled, and no more movies are in the making, and there is nothing new to watch, a franchise is in serious trouble.”

Didn’t apply to Star Trek. Nothing but re-runs, novels, fan fiction, conventions, shameless merchandising and hope kept the classic original alive for 10 years after cancelation. Then, after the first movie, the adventures of Kirk and his legendary crew just kept on going. Hasn’t stopped yet.

245. Kirk's Toupée - December 1, 2008

#228………………..LOL!! Just sprayed my cup of tea all over the computer…hahahaha!!!

246. Sargalab from Spain - December 1, 2008

“¿How can people be so negative without having seen a foot of film?”
Because We have seen the teenager -popcorn -pseudostarwars trailer.
And because we have read his speeches. He despises today’s star trek fans. And his words are very clear about it. Star Trek belongs to us and he wants steal us

247. There's no enough scots in starfleet! - December 1, 2008

I gotta say that really the people who are banging on about canon are so hypocritical its untrue!

Star trek has always buggered its canon. Throughout TOS, the movies and the subsequent spin offs, the trek canon is screwed.

Personally i feel this new film will breathe life into the franchise and will hopefully lead on to a new age of Star Trek. I dont feel that the franchise is alive and kicking and ANYTHING that comes along to reinvigorate it should be welcomed. I will not pass judgement untill i see the film. But i am really looking forward to it!

248. Chris Basken - December 1, 2008

214: “- Trek producers always tried to lead their shows to another kind of audience…but the results were a total disaster for the saga…”

Yes. Wrath of Khan was such a flop!

249. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

#245

Thanks, that was my intent!

250. Trek Nerd Central - December 1, 2008

Wow, we’re a cranky bunch. What happened to all that tryptophan y’all digested over the weekend? (I mean, the Yanks among us.)

251. Devon - December 1, 2008

#239 – “I am officially declaring that this new position be called…THE NEUTRAL ZONE!”

Brilliant. That’s my position at least. I will officially have an opinion of the film on May 8 2009.

252. Devon - December 1, 2008

240 – “The scenes with the computer not understanding Chekov’s accent, when all he has to do is speak Russian, doesn’t seem like smart writing.”

And Scotty talking into a computer mouse is?

253. Anthony Pascale - December 1, 2008

Sargalab from Spain
warning for trolling

you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts and saying JJA ‘despises’ the fans is over the line. I have met the man several times and read pretty much everything he has said about this film and the fans and you could not be more wrong.

I know some people are afraid of change and new things and that is fine, but do not start turning your fears and paranoia into citable facts

254. Jeffries Tuber - December 1, 2008

GALAXY QUEST was weak. It was a parody of Star Trek for people who don’t like or have only seen clips of Star Trek.

The fact that RFK/MLK were assassinated in the same year Original Recipe Trek was cancelled and have been jointly reincarnated in the form of Obama, who becomes President the year Extra Tasty Crispy Trek is blowing my mind.

I brought this up in that last political digression, but JJ’s comments about optimism are spot-on. Not just creatively, in terms of what goes on screen, but socially, in the sense that optimism died between ’68-’73. Replaced by pessimism, fantasy, irony and anti-heroism… Star Trek’s return, and the potential to reignite some optimism and vision is the most exciting thing to happen to science fiction in a generation.

255. Trek Nerd Central - December 1, 2008

#254. Weak? Not for me it wasn’t. That scene with the killer babies had me in stitches.

256. Trek Nerd Central - December 1, 2008

#254. Should have said – I agree with the rest of your post, though. I love the old dystopian saga as much as the next geek, but I’m thrilled at the return of a more optimistic vision of the future.

257. Captain Balki - December 1, 2008

Abrams wouldnt be getting the negative feeling from the fans if he casted Shat in just the last 5 min of the movie with Nimoy in an alternative future. Heck Corky from Life Goes On could have made that ending up!

Sadly I with all the fighting with Shat, Takai, and now Abrams this film is gonna get publicity alright but not because of the movie.

Film would be lucky to get 120 million at the box office.

258. Kirk's Toupée - December 1, 2008

#254…great post, I share your optimism :-)

259. YARN - December 1, 2008

The great unspoken fear is that this film (canon or not, familiar or not) will fail, because the general public is simply not interested in Trek movies anymore. Trek wore out its welcome in the 1990′s with spin-offs and sequels. Better hope JJ brought his A-game to this movie or there won’t even be bad Trek to complain about.

260. New Horizon - December 1, 2008

254. Jeffries Tuber – December 1, 2008 – GALAXY QUEST was weak

Galaxy quest was brilliant. I’m a Trek Fan of 30 years and I loved it. It hit all the stereotypes right out of the park. It wasn’t for people who didn’t like Trek or hadn’t seen it….it was for those people and fans of Trek. I just watched it again a few weeks ago, and it’s still as bright and funny as it was the first time. There were so many wonderful inside gags. In many ways, I enjoyed it more than I had enjoyed real Trek in years, because it was honest and it played the characters as real people…not the caricatures that both the original series and next gen characters had become.

261. Jeffries Tuber - December 1, 2008

I’m glad many people enjoyed GQ, and I won’t overtly trash the film. But Alan Rickman’s character is one-dimensional and doesn’t really relate to Nimoy or Stewart in any way.

The movie doesn’t have very much affection for GQ: The Series. it’s plays up the cheesy sets, the desperation of the actors and their willingness to appear in costume. I just think that, as satire, it’s weak. It only comments on Trek in the broadest of senses, merging TOS and TNG elements in a dismissive way. And in defense of our actors, I don’t think they ever appeared in costume, let alone make-up.

As I say, glad some liked it. I think it was a missed opportunity, and not even 1% as funny as any of the countless Trek gags on FUTURAMA.

262. The Underpants Monster - December 1, 2008

I think it would be not only possible, but easy to make a movie that pleases both old and new fans. TNG had a very wide audience that included both.

That’s what I’m hoping the new film achieves. Only time will tell; each new piece of news seems to change the likelihood of it one way or the other. I guess it’s just frustrating to not be able to do anything but wonder about it.

263. JL - December 1, 2008

RE: MY POSTS BEING DELETED

Well, that’s it. I don’t think I’ll be coming back here for a long long time.

I have been a positive contributor to this site for many months but no more.

I even stuck up for AP when someone attacked him at one point.

Anthony the Webmaster continues to delete my posts for no aparent reason and with no explaination.

I have been trying to get an answer as to why I am being deleted. That has yet to happen.

Maybe I’ll stop back when the movie opens next year. See you guys

264. JL - December 1, 2008

(although that one probably gets deleted too)

265. Captain Robert April - December 1, 2008

“Extra Tasty Crispy Trek”

I’ve never liked Extra Crispy. Too many crumbly bits to dig through to get to the chicken. Always been an Original Recipe man, meself. Perfect analogy. Seeing lots of crisy crusty bits without a hint of chicken anywhere.

As for the fans showing up opening night being a given…well, they thought the same thing with Nemesis, too, even after all the abuse the fanbase had put up with via Voyager and Enterprise. You’d have thought that fiasco would’ve cured ‘em of the notion that it’s a given that we’ll all show up for their little dog and pony shows without a care as to whether or not it’s any good, but, as usual, they learned the wrong lessons and proceed to dig the whole even deeper.

266. Captain Robert April - December 1, 2008

I’ve had more than a few of my posts deleted, too, apparently for no other reason than that I wasn’t being all “happy happy joy joy” over this thing.

Kinda hard to buy the line about overwhelming fan support when you know active censorship is being practiced.

267. New Horizon - December 1, 2008

“261. Jeffries Tuber – December 1, 2008
I’m glad many people enjoyed GQ, and I won’t overtly trash the film. But Alan Rickman’s character is one-dimensional and doesn’t really relate to Nimoy or Stewart in any way.”

His ‘character’ within the galaxy quest show is one dimensional, but the actor he plays grows throughout the film and learns to embrace the character he plays.

I mean, if you’re going into Galaxy Quest expecting some kind of life changing experience, you’re bound to be disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but I think you’ve arrived at it by trying to make the movie out to be something that it’s not. It does primarily parody Trek, but there is some Lost in Space in there too.

268. Weerd1 - December 1, 2008

If Rickman’s growth as an actor in Galaxy Quest accepting a character he feels typecast into isn’t reflective of Nimoy writing a book in the 70s called “I am Not Spock,” then following it up years later with “I AM Spock,” I don’t know what is.

269. Dr. Image - December 1, 2008

#201 Cellojammer

“So is criticism without seeing the movie”

Since seeing the entire movie is presently impossible, criticism of what we have seen so far is of value to all, hence not illogical.

Lack of critical thinking is not something to be proud of.

#265 Capt. April
As everyone knows, “extra crispy” is the term used to describe the silver diamond-plate on the classic phaser one!

270. Jeffries Tuber - December 1, 2008

Captain Robert April:

Thanks for appreciating my Extra Tasty Crispy Trek line. I’m proud of that one.

I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, though. Special Effects, bolder, faster more complicated space battles, and all the detail don’t preclude excellent character work and advancement of theme. That’s Closettrekker’s argument: addition does not mean subtraction.

JJKO’s comments have been very consistent and on-point about Trek’s optimism, the core relationships (though I believe it’s a troika, and the Kirk-Spock thing is reductive), and some of the wildcard elements that made Trek a phenomenon–like sexy alien women, Kirk’s peculiar fighting style and the best battle music in scifi history.

With respect to JL above, I’m not all, ‘Rah Rah’ about the movie. I just happen to like most everything I’ve seen. And I could smell the dirty diaper a mile away when I saw the trailer for THE PHANTOM MENACE.

The TNG movies were tragic… far too focused on the TWOK+Humor formula to ever do justice to the characters. Watching those movies now, the inordinate focus on Data is nauseating. Frakes got screwed.

271. AJ - December 1, 2008

263/266:

I think Trekmovie.com is extremely liberal in the breadth of opinions that come through here.

As for “censorship,” this is not a public forum, but a business, and repeated personal insults or negative bashing by one poster make it a less attractive place to visit for the other few thousand that show up every day.

If you sat in a restaurant and repeatedly yelled at the other patrons about how bad the food is, or what bad choices they made, the manager would toss you out. Just because we are typing anonymously doesn’t change it.

272. Chris Basken - December 1, 2008

257: “Film would be lucky to get 120 million at the box office.”

Is it too soon to start a pool on opening weekend revenue?

273. cellojammer - December 1, 2008

269. Dr. Image – December 1, 2008
#201 Cellojammer

“So is criticism without seeing the movie”

Since seeing the entire movie is presently impossible, criticism of what we have seen so far is of value to all, hence not illogical.

Lack of critical thinking is not something to be proud of.

__________________

Neither is pre-judgement. You’re making blanket statements about an entire work based upon “what you have seen”, which ain’t much. My critical faculties are just fine, thank you.

274. Canon Father - December 1, 2008

Harry Ballz – I’m not taking to task people who have worries about the film. I’m criticizing those who have already made their decisions without seeing the film.

Has anybody seen me saying the movie will be awesome and wonderful? I’m not, because I don’t know. But those who are trashing the film and JJ are premature and need to be called on it.

Sure is easy ruffle feathers here. For the record, I don’t care for anything Abrams has done in the past. I disliked M3, Alias, Lost, but I recognize that most artists and creators can turn out something good even if most of their stuff isn’t. The vast majority of art is crap.

In spite of this, I’m withholding judgment, which is the smart and mature thing to do. I can’t stand people who tear things down without ever having seen or experiencing them. That’s just hostile ignorance.

I’m not asking them to be supportive, but I AM asking for some intelligence to be used, and some frickin’ human decency as well. Making ridiculous statements that Abrams hates Star Trek fans, or that the film will be crap reflect a lot more than simple concern over the film. It’s pathologically creepy.

Star Trek doesn’t belong to the fans. Look up the copyright and trademark laws.

So I choose to be positive and look forward to the film. I may wind up not liking it, and will admit such, but what good does throwing invective and outright lies do for any of us?

275. AJ - December 1, 2008

274:

“Star Trek doesn’t belong to the fans.”

Star Trek’s history puts the fans front and center. The fans saved TOS for a third season after it was canceled by NBC because the Nielsen rating system in use at the time was flawed.

Three seasons is barely enough to justify syndication, but in those early days, it did, and Trek grew to the point where it went back into production first as a new series, and then as a film. The “fans” had everything to do with that.

Say the same thing about the New York Yankees or KISS. An active fanbase is not to be taken for granted, and Trek seems to never forget its roots. From a marketing perspective, we are all ‘ambassadors’ who will take friends and family to see the new film, and spread the word.

276. Dom - December 1, 2008

$120 million at the box office. Hmm. Let’s see. There’s a low-level buzz already been created by Abrams’s tour. We have major promotions in fast food outlets to come. We’ve more trailers, the EPK being distributed, JJ’s clever use of the ‘I wasn’t a Trek fan either, but now I am!’ schtick.

I’m pretty certain that if the marketing aimed at the general public is good, there’ll be enough mainstreamers on top of the Trek fans to make it a success. Remember, one of the biggest failings of Nemesis, apparently, was that even hardcore Trekkies didn’t go to see it more than once.

277. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 1, 2008

Nimoy and Shatner worked hard not to be type cast.

Sadly it was Doohan & Kelley especially, then Nichols, Takei and Koenig who really suffered typecasting and suffered.

Nimoy and Shat have their good points, but they’re just as flawed and human as the rest of us and I’ve seen Nimoy act like a spoiled baby on two occasions when he didnt get what he wanted. Shat’s a born shmoozer. I’d rather spend my time with him.

278. Canon Father - December 1, 2008

I stand by my statement. Fans can help, or in some cases, harm a franchise, but they never own it, even if they come to think that way.

That just leads to the rabid fans insisting it be done their way, and it never will be. Especially when trying to reinvigorate a failing property.

I’m not disputing the impact of Trek fans and their loyal support. But Paramount owns Star Trek. If you’re going to disagree with me, disprove that statement.

Remember, folks, the root word of “fan” is “fanatic.”

279. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

MGB

please elaborate on the two occasions where Nimoy acted like a spoiled baby!

I gotsta know!

280. YARN - December 1, 2008

275

AJ, you seem to be missing the point. The fans are a source of embarrassment.

They don’t want the film to die because of associations/connotations with its “ambassadors”.

Shatner disavowed his own fans on SNL, which was a gag, but many a true word is spoken in jest. Even Trekkies/Trekkers are self-conscious about their geekdom.

Given the choice between “making a movie for the fans” and “making a movie for the general public”, they are obviously choosing to make a film for a wider audience.

To facilitate this, they are disavowing, as politely as possible, the core group of fans so as to reach out to casual viewers.

Sure, in the old days, the fans mattered. They kept the series on the air. But the fans did not save Nemesis (which was made for the fans by all accounts). The Trek fan base is ageing and they want the infusion of young blood.

Even if they are working as hard as possible to be as true to the original as possible (to the letter of the technical manual or the spirit of the characters), it makes sense for them to disavow and downplay the idea that the film fits within any narrow mold.

281. Xai - December 1, 2008

269. Dr. Image – December 1, 2008
“#201 Cellojammer

“So is criticism without seeing the movie”

Since seeing the entire movie is presently impossible, criticism of what we have seen so far is of value to all, hence not illogical.

Lack of critical thinking is not something to be proud of.”

I know you weren’t responding to me, but you think it’s valuable to critique incomplete information?
That’s like pulling a spark plug out of an engine and using that as the sole diagnostic to answer why the car won’t start.

282. AJ - December 1, 2008

278:

I own 700+ episodes of Star Trek + 10 films in various formats. CBS owns the TV shows and Paramount the films. Viacom has taken a lot of my (and others’ here) cash to own the whole thing.

I’ve watched the show loyally since 1972, and I feel I have some ownership in the success of Trek during those times. Viacom owns all the rights and titles.

The key is that the rabid fans are not the demographic for a mainstream film. And Mr. Abrams knows it. Bob Orci lurks around here taking the temperature from time to time because I think he actually cares.

283. Dom - December 1, 2008

In fairness, most Trekkies aren’t the problem. There’s a fanatical hardcore brigade who get the publicity, but they represent a tiny portion of the greater breadth of Trek fans.

Most Trek fans will never go to a convention, never buy a uniform and will express surprise at even meeting anyone else who’s a fan!

I’d argue that even most people here fall closer to the casual fan category. We like the show and buy the DVDs and discuss the franchise, but so do fans of The West Wing, M*A*S*H and Buffy! Only a small interest group live Trek.

As far as I’m concerned, Abrams can say what he likes about the hardcore wing of fans. I’m not one of them, anymore than most of us here is. I’m in this for fun!

284. YARN - December 1, 2008

#283

This only proves that fandom IS an embarrassment.

You go to lengths to dissociate yourself and “good” fans (casual fanatics?), but note that the “bad” fans get all the press. Hence, JJ and Co. need to separate themselves from negative associations/connotations.

The movies “Trekkers” was not about casual fans. The Shatner skit on SNL was not about casual fans. Galaxy Quest did not poke fun at casual fans.

All fans, therefore, have to be disavowed (however politely), so as to tell the audience that it is OK to watch THIS Trek.

285. AJ - December 1, 2008

283:

Dom: You hit it on the head.

There’s lots who own all of “Friends” or “Seinfeld” or “Sopranos,” but don’t dress the part.

Talk about casual fans, Anthony Pascale once said that only 10% of visitors to the site post (Correct me if I’m wrong, AP).

Lots of casual fans.

286. Anthony Pascale - December 1, 2008

RE: 285
actually the number is less than 1%. Kind of like talk radio…how many people call in vs. listen. That being said I think a lot of visitors also read the comments as part of the entertainment.

More than once when talking to someone about the site they have said:
‘I love your site and reading what all those people post…some of those people are crazy’…which may be a compliment I guess.

And even though it is less than 1%, it may be higher as a percentage than other sites. For example we had more comments about the recent exclusive nimoy clip at AICN than they had at AICN, but that site gets more visitors by a large margin.

But I am always happy to see regular visitors ‘delurk’ and join in on the fun and that is why we do what we can to make sure the comment environment is welcoming and not a scary place where people might be afraid to join in

287. AJ - December 1, 2008

OK, Anthony.

You’re a marketing guy.

How popular is Star Trek now, and what chances do we have come May 2009?

(runs and hides)

288. Dom - December 1, 2008

YARN (284)

Honestly, mate, I’m not trying to disparage people wanting to do a bit of cosplay (although if they kept it to their bedrooms sometimes, it might be more seemly ;))

But the people who do that sort of thing are a minority in terms of actual Star Trek fans, albeit ones who will get the press because they’re so damn obvious!

Most people who are Trek fans have better things to do 22 hours of the day! The hardcore are the exceptions. Doesn’t mean they’re not nice people, but they can be a little off-putting, even to most fans!

289. Chris Basken - December 1, 2008

282: “I’ve watched the show loyally since 1972, and I feel I have some ownership in the success of Trek during those times.”

You may feel that, but you don’t, sorry. You may rightly feel that you *contributed* to the success of Trek, and we all have (those of us who watched it, bought it, went to the movies, etc). But contribution is not ownership.

The owner of something is the person (or group of people) who has the power to decide how that thing is used or disposed of. You (or I) do not have that power, therefore we have no ownership.

290. Xai - December 1, 2008

#289 Chris

Good point well made

291. AJ - December 1, 2008

289/Chris:

You guys have lost the spirit.

Of course it’s not legal ownership. Jeez Louise.

It’s a romantic understanding that fans make a difference. Look at the Grateful Dead: No albums for most of the ’80s but sell-out concerts constantly. All fans. No album sales whatsoever.

Maybe it’s not ownership, per se, but I feel like I was part of the revival as a kid that allowed TMP and everything afterward to come about.

I think many of the canon-people and purists also come from this era. Truth to tell, Paramount used to do a much better job with its fans than it does now. I loved Dan Madsen’s fanclub.

But now, thanks to this site, we get access to extremely interesting insiders who want to talk

Anyway, Blah Blah.

292. Dr. Image - December 1, 2008

#281 XAI– “I know you weren’t responding to me, but you think it’s valuable to critique incomplete information?
That’s like pulling a spark plug out of an engine and using that as the sole diagnostic to answer why the car won’t start.”

You short-sighted smartass:
Excuse me, but aren’t you being MORE than a little hypocritical???
This forum is about free discussion. Since WHEN is it now forbidden to express one’s opinion?
I suppose as long as someone AGREES with you, it’s ok???
Are there suddenly new rules?

There have been threads that have surpassed a thousand comments based on “incomplete information!”
Very many people think it’s valuable.

Grow the hell up.

Oh, and… I WASN’T TALKING TO YOU ANYHOW!

293. Xai - December 1, 2008

An open letter to fans.

I see fellow fans writing posts that are full of venom toward JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and the rest of the production team because of what they THINK they said or meant.
We have fellow fans that say they are so pissed off they would not go to this movie because they just “know” it will “rape” their childhood (I hate that phrase). It will forever ruin all that was good and etc, etc.
Some of that is because of this “ownership” thing. Some people really act like they should have been consulted before anything happens to their beloved vision of Star Trek.
We come here because we like Trek in some form or another. I like all Trek, others pick just a series or two.
And that’s completely ok… until we all get freaked about the little things…
I can only speak for myself, but I think there’s far too much “freaking out” on the site right now. I’ve been caught up in it myself. I have my pet peeves and I’ve let them show and I know I just can’t do that anymore. I feel strongly that this movie should not be pre-judged and hate it when I see that happen. I have to start letting that go… among other things. I can’t continue letting things bother me to the degree that I’ve let happen in the past. I have to let go more, smile more and relax more. My heart reminded me of that today.
……………………………………
I want this to be a enjoyable movie for all of you. So if I may offer some things to consider. Just friendly advice to be taken or left.

Despite what some think JJ meant or he said, they want this movie to be for “the fans” too. Orci has said it here and he wouldn’t be a consistent visitor here if we didn’t matter.

Remember that the “idiot poster” is thinking the same of you… and he/she may be right. I vote for a calmer more civil discussion. Be kind to the other guy, he’ll wonder what the hell happened.

Avoid feeding the trolls. I constantly get caught on this one.

Thank Anthony Pascale, our host, profusely. He and the site staff do a hell of a job for us poor Trek souls.

Enjoy the stars. I’ve spoken to Bob Orci, Rick Sternbach, and others and found it very, very cool. And their presence is a tribute to Anthony.

I urge you all to attend this movie in May. Give it a chance and an open mind. If you can’t do that, go with the thought of seeing Trek from a different point of view. It doesn’t mean you sinned against the Church of Gene, just go for the hell of it.

If you go with the thought of critiquing it during the film, I or someone else will give you a Diet Coke bath. So hush and have your dramatic fit after the credits, please.

Don’t sweat the minor stuff.

Take a deep breath.

Thanks for reading,
Xai

294. Chris Basken - December 1, 2008

291: “You guys have lost the spirit.”

It’s funny. People who are liking the changes and telling the purists to lighten up are saying the same thing. “You’ve lost the spirit.”

Obsessing over continuity details is *not* the spirit. Worrying about Kirk being in Iowa at 12 when he should be on Planet Xexor 9 is *not* the spirit. Getting one’s knickers in a knot over the detailing on the starship is *not* the spirit.

The last time the core fans actually had any significant influence on the course of Trek’s history was 40 years ago. For those of you playing along at home, we’re talking about nearly HALF A CENTURY. Core Trek fans didn’t make TNG a success — that show had “broad audience” written all over it. Core fans couldn’t save Enterprise. Core fans couldn’t muster enough excitement to make Nemesis a financial success.

If Trek is to survive, it needs to find a broader audience, the way it did with TNG. That means modernizing the style so it can keep up with the Joneses. That means DELIBERATELY jettisoning a lot of the continuity so the writers can stretch their wings and use their imaginations again.

295. Xai - December 1, 2008

292. Dr. Image – December 1, 2008

And aren’t you being a little over the top?

Take a breath.

296. Dom - December 1, 2008

Hey Xai! Well said!

When people start dissing the film, all I feel is deeply disappointed at the closemindedness!

297. cellojammer - December 1, 2008

295. Xai

Agreed!

To Dr. Image, I believe you were responding to one of my posts. Frankly, I’m surprised at the amount of emotion you put behind it. If I in any way offended or upset you, please accept my apology. That was not my intent. I’m sure if we were having a friendly cup of coffee, body language and tone of voice would have more accurately conveyed my meaning.

Instead, I meant to express disagreement with your choice to formulate an opinion on this movie based on what little information has been made available. But since you have made that choice, so be it. It won’t ruin my day or my experience of the movie when it comes out.

Honestly, I don’t think a TV/movie franchise is worth getting into a pissing contest over. Most reasonable people would consider that to be rather absurd.

(BTW: See you in in line next May!)

;-)

298. Harry Ballz - December 1, 2008

#293 Xai

Xai, as always you are eloquence personified! I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion!

I used to write out lengthy dissertations like you just did, but somehow I have neither the energy or inclination anymore! Good for you!

299. Xai - December 1, 2008

#297 cellojammer
Thanks

He was responding to me. I jumped in (again) when he responded to your post and he didn’t like it.

. . . . . . . .

298 Harry, #296 Dom,
Thank you both.

I had some concerns today and felt the need to try and vent them out here.

300. AJ - December 2, 2008

294/Chris:

The “spirit” should be “Rah Rah Star Trek!”

And that is what I’ll always feel.

I think this film will sink or swim on its own merits as a story, and how cool it is to the kiddies. I will take my kids to see this film. They’re 6 and 8, and have no interest in Trek, despite my best efforts to displace Pokemon and Star Wars.

New “Trek” has to be mythic and accessible to several generations. I just hope it will succeed and be a good film at the same time.

301. cellojammer - December 2, 2008

299. Xai

I’m just trying to declare a bit of peace around here. I think it’s recommended in one of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition!

8^D

302. Jordan - December 2, 2008

#294:
I think you’re right. “First Contact” reached a broad audience, which can explain it’s remarkable critical and commercial success. But the two follow-up films didn’t appeal to the non-fan (and disappointed many of us “core fans.”)
All I know is that a lot of people around me who are admittedly NOT Trek fans in any way whatsoever are all talking about the Trek trailer. Several of my friends and family who saw the trailer also remarked that it is a film they are more than willing to go and see. The fact that the new picture is “an origin story” also encourages “outsiders.” “Nemesis” was written by a fan for fans so jokes about going to a Betazoid wedding naked probably fell flat with the non-fan.

303. Captain Robert April - December 2, 2008

If they’d just admitted from the get-go that this was going to be a ground floor reboot, there wouldn’t be nearly as much drama going on around here and other boards. The thing would be judged on its own merits and faults, without this implied threat to the already established continuity.

But this “not really a reboot” feldercarb, trying to reshuffle the deck while still claiming an attachment to what’s come before (and by doing so, overwriting it in the official record), THAT is where we start getting into “fightin’ words” territory.

Allow me to just be blunt: WHO IN THE HELL DO THESE BOZOS THINK THEY ARE!?! Not even Berman and Braga at their most arrogant ever thought they could pull off something this far off the mark! And I particularly resent being expected to just shut up, get in line, and hand over my money for a product that, to every indication I can see, has about as much resemblance to Star Trek as an old episode of “The Real McCoys”.

Uh uh. Doesn’t work that way anymore.

You want my money, JJ? You’re gonna have to earn it, and from where I’m sittin’, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I plunk down anything to see a show that played a pivotal role in forming my views of the world and my fellow life forms be treated like a ratty old dishrag.

304. Captain Robert April - December 2, 2008

Maybe “The Real McCoys” was a bad example.

“F Troop” is probably more apt in this instance.

305. Mark Lynch - December 2, 2008

#182
I’m not actually going anywhere right now. Just a possibility of not going to the cinema in May 2009… :)

#183

What I find amazing is that you find my post amazing. Is it that you cannot believe someone who does not have blind faith in this film?

When news of this movie first emerged, no one was happier than I.

I have simply stated that I have become less and less convinced, as time goes on and more is said and seen about this movie, that it is going to be for me. Especially the more I hear from J.J. Abrams. Obviously he has to reach a wider audience to make the money back which Paramount has thrown at this project.
But my serious misgiving is that the underlying message of Star Trek, hope for the future, will be so diluted as to be unrecognisable. I heard Abrams use the ‘optimism’ several times in his interview. But I don’t know whether he really gets this or if it is just sound bites.

My feeling now about this project is that it will be Star Trek in name only.

If others are excited about this movie, great. I hope it is enjoyed by a lot of people. However, I do not think that I will be one of them, alas. And this is from a 35 year fan. For me, Star Trek peaked with TMP in 1979 (and was cemented there by the directors edition DVD)

My gripes are many and varied, too many to bore others with here. But essentially it boils down to three main things for me.
1) Change for the sake of change (I don’t mean the actors, as that is a given)
2) Using altered time line malarkey to throw pre-established character events and characters out of the window.
3) Excessive redesigning of the exterior and interiors of the ship (i.e. iBridge)

No doubt some will agree with me, some will not. Such is life.

But just because I am currently of the opinion that this film will not be for me does not mean that I am not interested in and about it. So before any of the real pro-Abrams crowd get in and tear me and my post apart, bear in mind this is my feelings on the subject and as such are just as valid as anyone else. But they may not jive with yours.

Perhaps as time goes on, I may be swung back the other way. Believe it or not I would prefer that.

306. Mark Lynch - December 2, 2008

Actually, perhaps I just have two main gripes, as points 2) and 3) are really an expansion of 1)

307. Cygnus-X1 - December 2, 2008

Who talks in a faster/quirkier manner — Martin Scorcese or JJ Abrams?

308. Alec - December 2, 2008

#303, Captain Robert April (and many others): I understand your point of view. And I have a few similar worries of my own:

We know that this film creates an alternative time-line. I am not sure whether this happens before or after Kirk is born or by how long a time frame. We know that young Kirk’s environment (read social conditioning) is very different from Shatner’s Kirk. If this film ends in an alternative time-line from the one in which Star Trek has existed, for the vast, vast majority of its 40 plus year history, then temporal continuity between young Kirk and Shatner’s Kirk is severed. If the time-line is altered before Kirk is born, then young Kirk and Shatner’s Kirk may even have different genetics; i.e., if they were conceived at (even ever so slightly) different times. The long-and-short of it is that young Kirk in Trek XI is a different person to Shatner’s Kirk. The different environment will result in different abilities, personality, values, beliefs, etc. If they have, in addition, different genetics, they will be completely different. So when (if) we watch this new young Kirk, we’re not seeing James T. Kirk, as we know him. We’re seeing something tantamount to a mirror universe Kirk who, for some strange reason, is, we are told, going to act like James T. Kirk, despite, first, having completely different social conditioning; second; occupying a different time-line and having a completely different life in terms of the events that unfold; third, maybe even having different genetics. So the Trek XI team were right when they said this isn’t a reboot. It’s more than that. Much, much more. The new Kirk, Spock, etc., have the same names as the original crew; and that’s all (with the possible exception of having the same genetics).

It may be a great film. It may make a huge amount of money. But is it Star Trek? At best, we have two different branches of the franchise: on the one hand, JJ’s alternative Star Trek; on the other hand, the forty years, 10 films, 6 TV shows, etc., that we already have.

I remain open-minded; but undeniably concerned.

309. KIRKBRAZIL - December 2, 2008

JJ thinks he is Francis Ford Coppola.. or even Steven Spielberg…! HELLOOOO JJ! YOU HAVE ONLY “LOST”! This guy will screw up TOS and Star Trek… I´m very much concerned about it…
The fans are the most importante thing in ST World… have bring this show into all this years, and then he throw up us AWAY?! What the hell he is thinking about?!

I think this is just for justified errors there will be in his stupid time-line.

310. New Horizon - December 2, 2008

303. Captain Robert April – December 2, 2008
“And I particularly resent being expected to just shut up, get in line, and hand over my money for a product…”

Nobody is going to expect that. You’re free to spend your money as you please.

The point is…the movie is finished. Whether you pay to see it, or find other means to view it is up to you.

The other point is….’IT’S JUST A MOVIE”. In the grand scheme of life, it doesn’t matter one bit. This movie, like all others…will come and go. Years will pass, we’ll all die and none of this will matter.

If human beings put as much energy into fighting for something important as they put into pointless shit, maybe we would have a chance of achieving Roddenberry’s ideals.

We’ve had ‘our’ Star Trek. I don’t know if I’m going to like this movie, but I’ll give it a chance at the Theatre.

The film makers appear to be staying true to what matters most. If some other details get rejiggered along the way, I’m fine with that.

In any case, I see very few fans living up to the Trek ideals they so violently scream about protecting. You’re all just afraid to let go. Well, go right ahead…kick and scream to the bitter end. I’m going to pour a cool glass of iced tea, and wait until May. Then I’m going to go the movies with my wife and be entertained for awhile. If I like it, great…if I don’t…life moves on, and on….and on.

I think one of the main reasons I’m not upset about this movie and all the ‘gasp’ changes, is that I love my life more than I love Star Trek. Star Trek was my escape to a better place while I was growing up…well, now that I’ve grown up…I would never want to be anywhere else than where I am right now.

If the details of a movie get people this worked up, there is something seriously wrong.

311. AJ - December 2, 2008

Alec:

Kirk in this film grows up without his dad, and becomes an aimless rebel instead of the bookworm that TOS says he was.

He lives in Iowa with his mom, uncle and brother, and is somehow mentored by Captain Pike, who, seeing his father in him, motivates Kirk to join Starfleet and he eventually achieves his captaincy by another road.

So, it is an alternate Kirk who has not had the life experiences of Tarsus IV, the Republic and the Farragut, but who has the same genetic makeup.

Unfortunately, it means that this Jim Kirk has big huevos, but no experience when he finally sits in the center seat.

Of course I haven’t seen the film, so we’ll have to wait and see how the boys fill in his backstory.

312. Xai - December 2, 2008

#303
Then don’t go see it if you think they are Bozos.

313. AJ - December 2, 2008

310: New Horizon

That was a great post.

“Years will pass, we’ll all die, and none of this will matter.” LOL

But, we’re all like this. Look at European football fans, and US sports fans. Fanaticism is part of our blood.

The ones who post here truly care about the product, and because this a Star Trek forum, they vent about Star Trek. Where else are we going to do it?

I think people here should stop asking why participants in Trekmovie.com are so vehement in their opinions and understand that this is the place to be vehement in one’s opinions about Trek.

Also, people here should understand that most people are fanatic about something. Some Trek fans are vilified by other Trek fans for being too serious about it, as if the “more serious” ones are in mom’s basement while the “less serious” ones go home to the wife and kids.

That’s all a big cliche.

314. cellojammer - December 2, 2008

Man. Some people here are really scary. I guess I’ll no longer call myself a Star Trek fan, but rather, someone who is entertained and occasionally enlightened by Star Trek.

315. krikzil - December 2, 2008

313/AJ — exactly.

We all care. We are all fans. We are also all one-percenters. And we all aren’t going to agree.

316. Weerd1 - December 2, 2008

Captain April, Mark in 305- excellent arguments. I don’t want to badmouth the film, but I as a LONG time Trekker (yeah, I said Trekker, what of it?) am not the target audience because long time fans are a small percentage of the possible audience. In the grand scheme, that’s OK- movie studios are out to make money. But I am not sure this is a Trek I can identify with. I could be wrong, it might be the best Trek I have seen in YEARS, and they might be able to completely sell me on the altered timeline, and the new Enterprise might completely blow me away when it blasts off from Iowa. Right now, I am not on board; interested, intrigued, but not sold. I wasn’t on board for BSG’s reboot either, but I am glad I bothered to tune in.

I do think Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman’s hearts are in the right place- but so were Berman and Braga’s when they gave us “These are the Voyages” and John Logan when he wrote “Nemesis.” I hope they pull it off. This trailer, these 20 minute preview descriptions, this interview with JJ Abrams, don’t convince me. I want to be convinced, but I am not there yet.

You can’t tell me a vehement Trek fan being concerned about this movie is any worse than someone who gets worked up about Brett Farve or how bad their favorite team is handling the draft, or who really enjoy somethign like professional wrestling. We all have our geek- Trek is mine. This is where I like to get in the Trek groove. The choice where I grew up was be a geek or smoke pot. I think I chose wisely.

317. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#165—I thought I had made the distinction clear with the phrase “TNG and the Bermanverse”. If I wanted to suggest that Rick Berman had created the TNG characters, I would have just said “Bermanverse”, without feeling the need to distinguish TNG from the other spinoffs.

#169—”. Just correcting Post 146’s view (and it seems the views of a lot of people posting on TrekMovie) that the only pure Star Trek is TOS because Gene created it. Well, he created TNG, too. That’s all I was saying.”

I’m afraid you misinterpreted my “view”.

The fact that I enjoy the characters from TOS better than anything after has nothing to do with who created them. The truth is that, in my eyes, Mr. Roddenberry (with the aid of writers like Dorothy Fontana) scored huge with the characters in TOS, while fell rather short with the characters in TNG.
Just because I like what Mr. Roddenberry did in the ’60′s, doesn’t mean I have to like what he did 20 years later.

But please do not put words in my mouth.

I never said anything about “pure Star Trek”. I am not so arrogant as to believe I can tell other fans what is or is not ‘Star Trek’. I simply inferred that the characters in TNG did not have the same appeal to me as Kirk/Spock/McCoy, etc. It is a personal opinion, and nothing more.

318. AJ - December 2, 2008

It’s obvious that, even in Trek fandom, people feel ashamed to show their true colors.

“I have a life, and you don’t” seems to be a mantra for people who don’t feel comfortable liking Trek. And in these forums, judgment is handed out much too quickly.

I’m proud of my Trek fandom. My ex-wife and I walked out of the church to the TMP theme played by a huge organ, and we handed out Spock ears to the wedding party as we cruised to the reception. People asked “What was that song from the church? I’ve heard it before. It was beautiful.” And no-one in our diverse group of friends thought it was ridiculous.

If you feel uncomfortable that you like it too much, just walk by a sportsbar in a major US city on a Sunday afternoon. Look at all the jerseys and hats and listen to the screams, and the discussions about the bench and management of the teams.

Listen to sports talkradio. Hang out with someone who listens to Howard Stern all morning at 90db.

If it’s not Trek, it’s something else Don’t be afraid to like it!

319. YARN - December 2, 2008

#314

“Man. Some people here are really scary. I guess I’ll no longer call myself a Star Trek fan, but rather, someone who is entertained and occasionally enlightened by Star Trek.”

This is why they have break with canon and reboot everything.

It takes courage to renounce the undesirables (as you have), but the future of the franchise depends on it.

320. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#181—”I guess it is time for a new generation to ‘mind the store’.”

You have that part right, but those of us who minded that store (as fans) for decades now do not have to close our minds to the point of abandoning the ship before it even leaves spacedock.

“Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.”

I haven’t gone to see a Star Trek movie in the theater since TUC. For this one, I’ll be there opening day.

I’ve been disappointed by Star Trek “for a new generation” before, but it certainly doesn’t mean I’ll be disappointed by this one.

My favorite characters are back, and in youthful form. I’ve been waiting for this for twenty years or so.

321. cellojammer - December 2, 2008

318. AJ
If it’s not Trek, it’s something else Don’t be afraid to like it!

___________

Oh, it’s not the “liking it” part I’m renouncing. Always have, always will.

It’s the fact that I don’t feel I have much in common with the sometimes-rude, conclusion-jumping, obsessive fanatics who seem to think they have a monopoly on the franchise.

So much negativity. I’m going into this looking for things to enjoy. Life’s too short for anything else.

322. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#308—”We know that this film creates an alternative time-line. I am not sure whether this happens before or after Kirk is born or by how long a time frame. ”

We do know that the attack upon the USS Kelvin by Romulans from the future occurs 4 days before the birth of Jim Kirk.

” If the time-line is altered before Kirk is born, then young Kirk and Shatner’s Kirk may even have different genetics; i.e., if they were conceived at (even ever so slightly) different times. ”

Assuming the Kelvin attack is the first timeline incursion, then Winona Kirk is in the final days of her third tri-mester when the timeline is effectively altered.

There would therefore be no differences in genetic makeup between Shatner’s Kirk and Pine’s Kirk.

The only differences will be a result of the altered environment in which he develops in this timeline.

Since this is a fictional story to begin with, fans can accept the notion that Jim Kirk is a mythological hero-type, that is, one who is predestined to become the hero. That may be the easiest way to accept it.

I choose to look at it this way. My personal view is that leaders are not so much ‘made’, as they are ‘born’.

Some men are born to be classic “alpha males”. Jim Kirk is certainly one of these men. Now of course, being predisposed to leadership ability is not the same thing as being predisposed to becoming a hero. An “alpha male” can become a villain just as easily as he can become a hero.

I think the writers have created a scenario in which Jim Kirk still becomes the “hero”, while his path to that is somewhat different than in the timeline with which we are so familiar.

323. AJ - December 2, 2008

322:

Closet,

You are the Grand Poobah of Trek Temporal Mechanics ;-)

Question: Is “Old” Spock from the established “TOS” timeline that we all know, or is he from the one created by Nero’s incursion, coming back simply to make sure his role in an established universe is fulfilled?

You have 60 seconds….

324. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#323—-I think he is from the TOS timeline, otherwise the writers would need to explain how he is aware that anything is wrong with the timeline in the first place.

I think he must travel back in time simultaneously with Nero, ala First Contact.

I suspect that he somehow gets information on Romulus regarding Nero’s plan, and must act swiftly to prevent its success. Of course, the prequel comics could shed some light on the road to that point.

325. Jeffries Tuber - December 2, 2008

I think Trekophobia has the same relationship to being a Trekker than homophobia has to being gay: it’s prima facie evidence that the Trekophobe holds some deeply held emotions and fondness for Star Trek.

This kind of touches on Shatner’s remark in the Raw Nerve article, but I never believed JJ’s “never a fan” malarkey for just this reason.

People who really don’t like science fiction, or do, but never clicked with Star Trek, usually just say so. The haters are often engaging in schoolyard posturing.

326. AJ - December 2, 2008

324:

So the much hoped-for negation of everything that occurs in STXI will put our friends right into the already-known TOS timeline. They’ll go to Delta-Vega, meet the First Federation, and deal with salt vampires and Mudd’s Women.

I don’t think so. I think Abrams will clear the air and give the crew an open future.

Of course, if he remade WNMHGBH as a high-budget sequel film, just imagine how terrific it would be…

327. AJ - December 2, 2008

Sorry

WNMHGB

328. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#326—-I don’t think that Nimoy’s Spock is likely to be successful in totally preventing Nero’s plan from altering the past. I think he will, however, be partially successful. I think the result (or final solution) will be that a subtly altered Enterprise and crew will embark upon a five year mission in another timeline, created by Nero’s interference.

I don’t think that the Enterprise (under Pike’s command) will visit Talos IV, although Vina will still be there amongst the Talosians, since her ship crashed there before the timeline incursion.

I don’t think that Kirk ever lives on Taursus, serves aboard the USS Republic, or aboard the USS Farragut under Captain Garrovick.

Perhaps he will never meet Gary Mitchell, Carol Marcus, or Finnegan.

McCoy may never meet Nancy Crater.

Basically, anything which occurs after the attack upon the USS Kelvin in 2233 is in doubt. But, as a subtle nod to fans, there may be mention of things that suggest some of these events still take place.

I fully expect the 5 year mission to happen, although things may occur somewhat differently.

While an incursion by a Romulan Bird Of Prey across the Neutral Zone may still occur, there appearance being similar to Vulcans may not be such a surprise.

Kirk may still fight the Gorn on Cestus III, defeat the Doomsday Machine, and discover the SS Botany Bay adrift in space. He may still run into Kor on Organia, Harry Mudd’s ship, and Cyrano Jones/Koloth aboard Space Station K-7.

While Kirk may never spend time on Neural and McCoy may never visit Capella IV, their missions to those planets may occur anyway.

The biggest thing for me is that it is not as if the original timeline is suddenly irrelevant to Treklore, as you cannot have this ‘altered’ timeline without the events depicted in the previous one.

And while the original timeline may never be restored, it is difficult to ignore the benfits of keeping the altered one.

Future stories will not be hampered by a lack of dramatic jeopardy for these characters. If their eventual fates are unknown, the characters can still be placed in real peril.

I suppose I have warmed up to the possibility that this timeline will become dominant. Why not?

It doesn’t take anything away, but simply offers something new in addition.

329. Weerd1 - December 2, 2008

Closet, the new timeline may not be “dominant” but rather “current.” The Prime timeline will still be out there for novels and purists… or the unlikely possibility the movie crashes.

I have to believe Nero has affected a lot more than just Kirk’s life. Something has caused Starfleet to change their shipbuilding methods, bigger badder ships, etc. It almost seems Nero makes the Romulans a constant threat from 2233 on…

330. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#329—”The Prime timeline will still be out there for novels and purists…”

Of course, and as long as stories are not added beyond the point in that timeline where Nero disrupted the past, they will not contradict the ‘canon’ established by STXI.

“I have to believe Nero has affected a lot more than just Kirk’s life.”

Absolutely. Such an event as the attack upon the USS Kelvin, the destruction of 40-something Klingon ships, and later, the attempt to destroy Vulcan, will affect the lives of everyone and the course of history within the Star Trek Universe.

It would be akin to the Battle Of Hastings, the attack on Pearl Harbor, or the 9/11 attacks and their effects upon the course of events on Earth. The World might look very different without any of those events taking place exactly when and where they did.

These events would affect the politics within the known portion of the galaxy, and in particular, threaten the balance of power (which, I would assume, is Nero’s goal to begin with).

Kirk’s backstory, while merely a small part of that, just happens to be what has so many fans up in arms.

331. Weerd1 - December 2, 2008

As much as I am kind of miffed about the historical overwrite, the idea of a Federation putting aside the war this young upstart Kirk finally finishes off and getting out to explore strange new worlds again is kind of a turn on.

pleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegood

332. Jordan - December 2, 2008

#320: how brilliant that you invoked Kirk’s word’s in Trek 3: “young minds, fresh ideas, be tolerant.” LOL. That definitely applies to those of us who are skeptical of the new film.

333. Weerd1 - December 2, 2008

332- Aye, and if me Grandmother had wheels she’d be JJ Abrams. ;)

334. sean - December 2, 2008

I’m baffled by all this ‘made for me’ talk. Nobody made any Trek production ‘for you’. I never went into a Star Trek movie with the absurd notion that it was ‘made for me’. I certainly didn’t think Trek V was made for me! ;)

I think a lot of us fans have an unusual sense of entitlement when it comes to Trek that we really need to get over. Nick Meyer wasn’t making Trek II for Trekkies, nor was Leonard Nimoy making Trek IV for us (in fact, maybe JJ borrowed some of his attempts at broadening Trek’s appeal from Nimoy’s example). In fact, the only time I seem to remember someone saying a production was ‘for the fans’ was Rick Berman with Enterprise’s finale – and we all saw how well THAT went!

335. Xai - December 2, 2008

Why are people thinking that this movie erases the original TOS?

It can’t and doesn’t. It’s a fork in the road, not replacing the other.

336. Closettrekker - December 2, 2008

#331—-But it is not an “historical overwrite”. By postulating that Nero and Nimoy’s Spock come from the same timeline with which we are all so familiar, the story acknowledges that timeline, along with all of its “history”.

In fact, this story cannot take place without it. It remains very relevant (and essential) to the overall Trek mythos.

“…the idea of a Federation putting aside the war this young upstart Kirk finally finishes off and getting out to explore strange new worlds again is kind of a turn on. ”

And what a terrific message that would be…that despite the villain’s heinous actions, the ideals and perserverance of humans and their allies to boldly go where no man has gone before is undeterred.

337. Weerd1 - December 2, 2008

Ah yes, the old Trek timetravel debate! When the past is changed, does the present immediately alter, or is there just an alternate universe a la Schroedinger’s Cat… Did the Enterprise in Naked Time replace the one from three days prior? Was Data’s head ALWAYS waiting under the Presidio to be discovered? Could Cochrane have completed the warp drive without the E’s help? Terminator does a good job of sidestepping this as well. I am willing to buy the Prime timeline still exists (I have it on DVD, it must!), but fully realize this film is intended to say future stories will take place in the altered version. This is Star Trek’s Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Let me state for the record, this old guy does not see any inherent problems with that. I just want them to convince me they have done it in a fashion I find acceptable. The end result is still Paramount’s obvious intention to continue future Trek production in the new Post-Nero timeline. I would imagine, like the new BSG we will see story elements of the original but retold to match the new facts. That may be just fine… just not my preferred tract. But, there are always… possibilities.

338. YARN - December 2, 2008

#336

“By postulating that Nero and Nimoy’s Spock come from the same timeline with which we are all so familiar, the story acknowledges that timeline, along with all of its ‘history’.In fact, this story cannot take place without it. It remains very relevant (and essential) to the overall Trek mythos.”

Yeah, it’s not a reboot at all. It’s just an alternate timeline where everything is different.

If a character (portrayed by the same actor) from the old world is the one who mucks up the timeline, then everything is OK. If, for example, Takkei/Sulu were to appear in a timeship and kill the senior crew members as children, destroy the Enterprise while it was under construction and then ensure that Starfleet would dissolve by giving the Romulans superior technology – it would still be canonical Trek, since an original actor collected a check to portray the character in the film.

339. Jeffries Tuber - December 2, 2008

The answer has to be multiple timelines, because we’ve already seen this in “Yesterday’s Enterprise.”

And, just as Original Recipe Kirk’s life and all of the crew’s experiences added up to a threat that Nero saw fit to extinguish…. it’s the Extra Tasty Crispy Kirk, steeled by the death of his father while in vitro, who is/will be capable of defeating Nero.

340. Jeffries Tuber - December 2, 2008

Moreover, if the new movie carries forth with the altered timeline, it allows for suspense in the future films… even when they’re facing down threats we’ve seen in the Original Recipe timeline–like the Doomsday Machine and Khan.

341. Jeffries Tuber - December 2, 2008

Boborci – Would you or the SC categorically rule out remaking an episode like DAY OF THE DOVE, which was pathetically small and silly relative to its galactic impact?

342. YARN - December 2, 2008

#339

“The answer has to be multiple timelines, because we’ve already seen this in ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise.’”

This is the ecumenical solution. The original timeline is not overwritten, but is merely supplemented by the creation of a new timeline. It’s simply an alternate timeline. “Hey, it’s OK for us to change everything so long as we use sleight of hand semantics and the fig leaf of time travel.” In short, you can do anything you want (if we are only going by this logic), just so long as you acknowledge this world as emanating and diverging from the old world. “Yes, this is the alternative timeline where Kirk became and executive chef and where Spock became a spoken word poet frequenting poetry slams. But it’s still Trek because we explained that it is.”

Again, I have high hopes for the film, but whether or not it “feels like Trek” will have more to do with the characters and story they put on the screen than any sort of preliminary justifications.

343. Jeffries Tuber - December 2, 2008

Watched “Who Mourns…” the other day. There’s just no way they could have built a futuristic set that resembles TOS sets without some suspension of disbelief. So if you would have to explain why suddenly the overhead screens [above Spock and Uhura] are not static images, then why not cut loose and use the same explanation for a complete makeover.

BTW, the sets we’ve seen are Pike’s Enterprise… not Kirk’s. There’s nothing saying Kirk won’t dim the lights a bit when it’s truly his ship.

344. AJ - December 2, 2008

“Yes, this is the alternative timeline where Kirk became an executive chef and where Spock became a spoken word poet frequenting poetry slams.”

Kirk: “Order up! Table 12!”

Spock: “Give me a minute. I am making a cappuccino”

McCoy: “Dammit, Spock! Table 8 should have had that cappuccino 10 minutes ago! Where’s my prime rib for Table 10? What’s this?”

Kirk: “Chix Parm deluxe for table 12″

McCoy: “Chekov, take this out to table 12! We’re slammed tonight! Where’s my prime rib?”

Kirk: “I’m not working on a prime rib.”

McCoy: “Spock?!”

Spock: “Sorry. I’m still holding onto the ticket. Prime Rib dinner for table 10.”

McCoy: “What is it with you Spock?

Spock: “I’m a poet, not a waiter.”

McCoy: ‘i’ll say.”

345. The Quickening - December 2, 2008

240 – “The scenes with the computer not understanding Chekov’s accent, when all he has to do is speak Russian, doesn’t seem like smart writing.”

#252 – And Scotty talking into a computer mouse is?

And who said that wasn’t silly as well? It’s just not as gross an example of what Roger Ebert called the “idiot plot” as Chekov’s scenes are, nor was Scotty’s lame joke carried on in ST: 4 continuously as Chekov’s in the new film is suppose to.

346. Yspano - December 2, 2008

@ 345
Haha, I can already imagine Ebert, who ranted about the shields on the Enterprise continually running out of power no matter how advanced technology got, complaining about a 23rd century computer on an interplanetary spacecraft (“Interplanetary, mind you,” he would probably repeat) that only knows English! (But maybe if the rest of the movie turns out good, Ebert will be in a forgiving mood!)

347. AJ - December 3, 2008

346:

Roger Ebert is apparently extremely ill.

If he’s around to catch Trek XI, I will happily seek out his review.

If it is a bomb, he will skewer it. And that’s a pleasure to read.

348. Closettrekker - December 3, 2008

#337—-”Ah yes, the old Trek timetravel debate! When the past is changed, does the present immediately alter, or is there just an alternate universe a la Schroedinger’s Cat… I am willing to buy the Prime timeline still exists…”

Here’s the problem with the theory that an alternate timeline can exist parallel to the old one…

When McCoy disrupts the timeline by preventing the death of Edith Keeler (“City On The Edge Of Forever”), the landing party cannot contact the Enterprise because it is no longer there. The Federation no longer exists. If McCoy’s actions simply result in a new timeline that does not interupt the existing one, why the change? Shouldn’t the timeline in which the Nazis did not win the Second World War continue parallel to the new one?

Why is it even necessary for Captain Christopher to be returned to a point in time prior to his encounter with the Enterprise and her crew (“Tommorow Is Yesterday”)? Shouldn’t his absence from the timeline simply create a spinoff timeline which does not interfere with the progression of the other?

Likewise, why should the absence of Selek (Spock) from the younger Spock’s experience with the Kas-Wan ritual (“Yesteryear”)result in a change in their own timeline, rather than a spinoff timeline that has nothing to do with theirs?

That theory, despite its possible merits, is contrary to long established canon. It therefore cannot be accurate, at least within the Star Trek Universe.

If Nero’s interference results in a permanently altered timeline (meaning Spock is unable to restore it completely), the other timeline must cease to progress. If not, there is no real need for Spock to bother following Nero into the past at all. Nothing would really be in jeopardy, would it?

Liken Nero to McCoy in “COTEOF”, although McCoy’s disruption of the timeline is actually unintentional. He commits an act which alters the course of history.

Hypothetically, what if Kirk and Spock had been unable to prevent McCoy from interfering the next time around?

This is where Nimoy’s Spock is in STXI—a postion where he is forced to interfere with the course of history himself in order to ensure that the “bigger picture” plays out as it is supposed to in the timeline he knows.

It would be like Kirk and Spock, having failed in their attempt to stop McCoy (for the sake of discussion), taking action to ensure that the Nazis do not prevail, and that the United States’ entry into WWII is not delayed (despite Edith Keeler).

349. Lore - December 3, 2008

#343 With Kirk’s reputation I’m sure he’ll be “Diming The Lights” every chance he gets.

350. Falvoant - December 3, 2008

343 maybe he will sell the pricing guns and get rid of the cosmetics counters

351. Yspano - December 3, 2008

@ 347
He’s ill?? Oh no! I know he underwent surgery for throat cancer, but I was under the impression he’s fine now.

But I agree though. Ebert’s scathing reviews are a pleasure to read. (His review of “Nemesis” left me laughing, simply because his observations were so true!)

352. ponnfarr9696 - December 11, 2008

I think the new film will most definetely be a good enough film to see,…Not all of us have the same resources available to us ,not everyone that enjoys Trek eats it for breakfast,lunch and dinner,I guess I am just too down to earth ,I have enjoyed everything trek I have ever seen….Although some episodes/species /storylines/series/ships/captains/times/dimensions/officers/actors/stations/authors/relationships/characters/Producers/spinoffs /opinions/Klingons/romulans/vulcans/ferenghi/cardassian/changeling/veridian/gemhaddar/positronic androids have different opinions…..It makes no sense that people should pick anyones (especially Gene Roddenberrys)…visions apart……I mean who really cares If episode 14
season 6 storyline is not represented properly in 2008 because the bathrooms on the lower deck of the Enterprise are reversed from east to west?….Some people actually live in rural areas where there has never been a star trek convention……..That does not make us underlings……That is why I have always been reluctant to call myself a “trekkie”…….Because of this very thing….I have a deep love for Star Trek and its characters but dont hold a doctorate in starfleet history……..the movie hopefully will appeal to others like me…..and take some of the smarmy intellectualism out the the fandom…or at least level the playing field.

353. ponnfarr9696 - December 11, 2008

I stand corrected……..YOU ARE POSITRONIC!………..(posted before any response) also betazoid…lol….The new movie sure has a lot of trekkies working on it……But are they purist trekkies?( if not … they are all drunk on romulan ale)……I think there is a good balance here……My favorite of all the movies has to be WOK+SFS….mostly because it is one movie(aside from recasting Saavik)….Dealing with many elements in all of the Characters ….(Kirk/David, Spock/McCoy, Kirk/Klingon hatred,Old vs new,……and a little bit of the sexy side of uhura…..It had deep philosophical meaning (spock)…Lots of action and Idealism….I hope the new films represent some of this.

354. Trabalho Sujo » Arquivo » Leitura Aleatória 220 - OESQUEMA - December 15, 2008

[...] O melhor da nudez de celebridades em 2008 6) Felicidade P2P? 7) Uma entrevista com Patti Smith 8) J.J. Abrams fala sobre Jornada nas Estrelas 9) Murmur, 25 anos 10) Pessoas que inspiraram canções Postado por Alexandre Matias às 17:29 | [...]

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