Leonard Nimoy Sends A Message Regarding (Some) Fan Reaction To New Star Trek Movie December 4, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Nimoy, ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Leonard Nimoy wants to set the record straight. TrekWeb reports that actor who reprises his role as Spock in the new Star Trek movie sent in a message to that site ‘regarding some of the negative feelings expressed by some fans about the new movie’ at TrekWeb.
A wonderful film:
Nimoy’s brief statement reads in part:
There are some directors who can manage a grand scale and some who can deliver great personal character elements. Not many can do both. JJ Abrams is one of the few. He has given us a wonderful film.
See TrekWeb for the full statement.
The Nimoy has Spoken
Mr. Nimoy’s endorsement of this new film and the film makers is not insignificant. It is worth noting that Mr. Nimoy came out of retirement to do the new film, even though he refused to partake in Star Trek Generations over a decade ago. In our first interview with the actor conducted when his involvement was first announced at Comic Con 2007, Nimoy addressed the issues of canon head on saying:
I think these writers and J.J. have taken great pains to see to that they honor the Star Trek history and the Star Trek canon. I don’t think there is going to be any problem with that at all…this is not an issue. I have seen quibbles on the Internet with people very nicely concerned. Saying “who else can play Kirk and Spock…it is not possible.” Well it is possible. Don’t worry. Once people see this film and see how good it is all those quibbles will go away. Are they respectful? Are they trampling on history? Will the canon be intact? None of that stuff is going to happen.
And last summer, after he had completed his work on the film, he was even more enthusiastic, telling TrekMovie:
I was concerned stepping into a character that I have been out of for eighteen years. I was concerned as an experience, what I might find as a handle. What I might find as an entry point into the character. I really believe those concerns went away when I got on the set and started working with JJ Abrams and my fellow actors. That has always been the touch point — how is it working with the director and my fellow actors, and the script of course. If we are given opportunities and set up in such a way — the set, the directors, the cameras and so forth — that the actors and establish and successfully their relationships with each other, find their dramatic and comic moments in the scene, then everything falls away and I think that was certainly the case with this movie. I had a wonderful time and I felt totally secure in the hands of the director and the script and I worked with some terrific actors. These are very very good people. I really came way extremely pleased. I think the audience is going to find these actors really quite wonderful and they are going to be extremely well liked. I think the audience is going to take them into their hearts.
See Spock(s)
If you haven’t seen it yet, AICN released an exclusive version of the Star Trek Trailer, complete with Leonard Nimoy as Spock.
Click to see the new Trek trailer in HD, Quadruple Spockfied
More Nimoy – The Nimoy Logs
Read the ‘Nimoy Logs’, brief blogs from Leonard Nimoy written before, during and after the production of the new Star Trek movie.
Loading ...
Comments»
Its great to hear Mr. Nimoy giving his full support! Very important.
Nuff said
He is a class act
Well…..that boiled down to a lot of nothing being said IF you ask me.
Nimoy’s personal endorsement says a lot for the new movie.
I love being second.
and i love Nimoy.
His appearance in the new trailer has been a selling point with a few folks that I know. Perhaps they should be exposing his involvement more with the non-trek public.
I believe public Spock awareness is being underestimated.
Nimoy has spoken. People should just go see the film and then make up their minds afterwards. Lets not judge it before we’ve seen it in its entirety. I not fair on those involved who have worked hard to bring us fans, and film fans in general, a great film and will fit within canon and be fun and exciting.
Encouraging….. maybe he can even explain the barcode scanners.
Oh well. We’ll see.
He should know.
….Frakes calls Insurrection a “wonderful film” too.
(Actually, in that case, I agree- and I know I’m not alone.)
If Mr Nimoy, who is Star Trek for me, endorses this film, supports canon and all the rest… well enough is said for me. I rest in peace (and impatience) until May…
Thank you Mr Nimoy, thank you JJ
LLAP
“About two months ago my wife,Susan, and I saw a near finished version of the new Star Trek movie. Some special effects and new score were not yet in place. Susan can be a very honest and tough critic. When it was clear that the story was wrapping up she turned to me and whispered, ‘ I don’t want this movie to end !!’ ”
That is ‘exactly’ how I want to feel in the theater this coming May…just like Susan Nimoy did.
#4
It is a shame that Nimoy should even feel compelled to make this statement. His participation is sufficient validation for the project.
No, no one WAS asking you, but at the end of the day I think we can all give the benefit of the doubt to the man who has been with the franchise longer than any of us.
it looks like that Spock looks just like his father Sarek with his hair gray and white. Is it a copy of Sarek?
I still think there will be one or two cannonites who will feel they know more about Spock, than Leonard Nimoy.
I wonder if there will be an argument with themselves leading to the inevitable evil robot meltdown, ala Classic Trek
Spock says it is right.
But Spock is wrong.
Spock can never be wrong.
But the Spock is wrong.
The Spock is right.
The Spock is wrong.
Cannot compute… cannot compute….
*BOOM*
In any case, still totally juiced to see this movie. (2x on opening day!)
#8—-”….Frakes calls Insurrection a ‘wonderful film’ too.”
With all due respect to Jonathan Frakes, he’s no Leonard Nimoy!
LEONARD NIMOY IS OUT OF HIS VULCAN MIND
ARE YOU VULCAN KIDDING ME?!?!
“….Frakes calls Insurrection a “wonderful film” too.
(Actually, in that case, I agree- and I know I’m not alone.)”
Frakes also directed and was a star in the film…what did you expect him to say?
I won’t be convinced until I see it. At the end of the day, Nimoy is just another actor talking about a movie he’s in, not a god or a canon-master. With all due respect, he may not know what he’s talking about…
It is, of course, too much to hope for that this statement will finally, at long last, hush up the canonbawling. But for a brief, fleeting moment there, I did allow myself to dream…
Well… here’s hoping!
But yeah, lets be fair: see it first before writing it off.
#9—”…Mr Nimoy, who is Star Trek for me…”
For me too… at least the character that he, along with Roddenberry, Coon, Fontana, etc., helped bring to life for us so many years ago.
Spock is the one character that really stirs my ‘emotions’, and as Admiral Kirk said, “Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was most…human.”
#11—”…at the end of the day I think we can all give the benefit of the doubt to the man who has been with the franchise longer than any of us.”
Longer than ‘anyone’, since he is the only one remaining of those who actually made “The Cage” back in 1964. I don’t think there is anyone left who was part of Star Trek that early one, and certainly no one who is ’still’ involved in working to bring it to the fans.
Leonard Nimoy’s endorsement remains the most encouraging part of the build-up so far I think. From what I have read, he was right on the money in shepherding the franchise through the mid-1980s film era after Roddenberry was moved aside by the studio and before Next Gen introduced Rick Berman as its new overseer. So his opinion I think carries huge weight.
I think he will have focused really on the characters and the plot, and whether these rang true to what Star Trek stands for. So that is a great comfort. Of course I suspect he will have been less concerned with things like nacelle design, the bridge layout and where the 1701 was built, etc. That kind of stuff I guess a lot of people feel is less crucial. I pretty much agree, but am a little sad that it could have sailed closer to canon in these little details without detracting from plot. But a movie that gets the soul right and the room’s colour-scheme wrong is infinitely better than the reverse.
17: ..who cares about the minutia of canon if the story & acting & directing SUCKS. You might say First Contact was canon for example, as a movie it failed. Give me a better movie over 100$% canon ANYDAY
If Leonard Nimoy had been given the creative reins (director/writer) of the Next Generation films we would have had better Next Gen films. Period. The man exudes talent, is very smart, and has good taste. I mean had sense (and taste) enough to know that Generations had problems and if those problems could not be address he wasn’t interested in being a part of it.
So there you go. All you basement momma’s boys trekfans, let it go. The new film will be fine.
Can’t wait for May 2009. Live long and prosper Mr. Nimoy.
Hey I liked insurrection. Along with all the other movies. I look at it like I’m reading a book. As long as it’s cool and has a good story, I’m down wid it.
Enjoyment of this film, indeed enjoyment of all things in life, comes down to what your expectations are. If your expectation is that this film is supposed to cater to every personal fanon notion you have ever had about Star Trek’s pre-history, you are doomed to be disappointed. Indeed, it is already very clear to those who have have this wish/expectation that this is not the case, so they are already upset before even having seen it. If, on the other hand, you expect to see an original movie with an inspired yet respectful re-imagination of Star Trek and how things came to be, as assured by the original cast member with the most respect, knowledge, and experience about what Star Trek is, then I believe you will have a rewarding experience.
Re: # 10, 14
Hello Mr. Nimoy.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the making of this film, & for your ringing endorsement. It means alot. We love you!
There ya go… Cannon is going to be respected AND all of the descrepensais (spelling) will be explained, probably by Nero altering the timeline…
I can live with the crappy looking Enterprise if that’s the story.
If I have the same reaction as Susan Nimoy to the movie, I’ll be very happy.
I am willing to put stock in Mr. Spoc… Mr. Nimoy’s opinion until I can see for myself. More than anyone on this planet he (along with the Shat) IS Star Trek…
Not that i endorse such language but the first comment on the article on TrekWeb is priceless.
I have my doubts, but Leonard Nimoy knows Star Trek, and if he thinks there’s something there, then there is.
The new Enterprise isn’t crappy looking and I would still be excited for this movie even if Nimoy thought it was a disgrace to canon.
Be happy we’re getting any Trek at all people! If this movie fails, it’s done.
Don’t let the propoganda fool you – Nimoy is just as bent as everyone else about the whole Enterprise being built on land and in Iowa while Uhura serves Budweisers in her bra to cadet Kirk.
I suspect the omission of Gary Mitchell and Number One alone have made him distance himself from this project significantly.
Obviously, he has no scenes on the bridge of the new enterprise and was told that the ship and all the sets would be the ones from 1966.
I anticipate that he will open up about all of these issues when he appears on Shatner’s Raw Nerve sometime this Shatcember™. The first scene is of Nimoy walking out of the bathroom as Shatner waits to use it, and Nimoy says, “DO NOT GO IN THERE” ala Ace Ventura. “in there”, the lavatory, of course being a metaphor for this new trek movie. dot com. dot org.
Hey AP – any decision on “FanMade™ by hitch1969© exclusively here at trekmovies.gov”? Not to press or anything. Was just wondering.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
#17—”With all due respect, he may not know what he’s talking about…”
Compared to whom, a poster on the internet that hasn’t seen a frame of the film beyond a two-minute trailer?
“At the end of the day, Nimoy is just another actor talking about a movie he’s in, not a god or a canon-master.”
Nor does he need to be…Since the possibility of alternate timelines being created by interference with the past is in itself ‘canon’, the writers have already handed JJ Abrams a very large canon loophole anyway.
And exactly what is a canon-master? Would that be one of the reported half dozen or so ‘canonistas’ that Abrams himself hired just to make certain that a tricorder was carries on the proper side of any member of the crew that beams down to the surface of a planet?
Orci (huge Trek fan and one of the writers), Kurtzman (another huge Trek fan and writer), Lindelof (yet another Trek fan and producer), and Nimoy (44 year Trek star and reprising original actor) have all asserted that anything seemingly contradictory will be explained canonically.
With that in mind, what exactly is the source of your doubt—-that they might all have conspired to lie to you?
Ridiculous.
Until they give me reason to believe otherwise, I’ll take them all at their word that they honestly intend for this film to be every bit as legitimately ‘canon’ as anything in previous filmed Trek. I think that they have all put a great deal of effort into this, and I choose to be appreciative of that.
I haven’t been this excited about a Star Trek production since standing in line to see TWOK in 1982.
Nimoy’s enthusiastic endorsment for this film has single-handidly done more to boost my confidence about this film than anything anyone else involved with the project has said or done. Not that the rest of the cast and crew has not inspired confidence in me, but Nimoy has such a history with the franchise that his endorsement carries much more weight.
Think of his directing of III and IV, and his refusal to become involved with the shoddy project that was Generations.
Live long and prosper, Mr. Nimony.
The master has spoken.
That’s enough for me.
15. For Those About to Spock, We Salute You
Lol, hahaha! Best nic I have seen for a long time! AC/DC and Trek, what an excellent combination, well done :-)
it’s hard to believe that Mr. Nimoy hasn’t done the character for the last 18 years…it seems like just yesterday that I was watching him as a guest on TNG. It will be good to see him again.
It is encouraging to hear this. My hope is that the story wont be as silly as it sounds.
20:
According to IMDb: Peter Duryea, Laurel Goodwin, and Malachi Throne are all still alive, although not active in TREK.
And let’s not forget our Number One: Majel!
22. MkailaJ – December 4, 2008
17: ..who cares about the minutia of canon if the story & acting & directing SUCKS. You might say First Contact was canon for example, as a movie it failed. Give me a better movie over 100$% canon ANYDAY
Um, First Contact was a failure. It grossed over $100 mil at the box office second to ST:IV. It is widely regarded as fan’s favorite trek movie or a close second. So I guess yeah, it was a total failure. I’m sure JJ Abrams would sign up for his Star Trek to do what First Contact did. But hey, if the new movie rakes in $20 mil like nemesis did but is a good movie that follows cannon, but no one sees it I guess that makes it a success by your reasoning
#34
‘I haven’t been this excited about a Star Trek production since standing in line to see TWOK in 1982.’
Seems like yesterday I was waiting in line to see TMP… it never gets tired.
22. MkailaJ – December 4, 2008
17: ..who cares about the minutia of canon if the story & acting & directing SUCKS. You might say First Contact was canon for example, as a movie it failed. Give me a better movie over 100$% canon ANYDAY
Um, First Contact was not a failure. It grossed over $100 mil at the box office second to ST:IV. It is widely regarded as fan’s favorite trek movie or a close second. So I guess yeah, it was a total failure. I’m sure JJ Abrams would sign up for his Star Trek to do what First Contact did. But hey, if the new movie rakes in $20 mil like nemesis did but is a good movie that follows cannon, but no one sees it I guess that makes it a success by your reasoning
if its good enough for mr nimoy its good enough for me.
looking forward to it immensley
Greg
UK
As for Nimoy’s endorsement, I do believe it’s heart-felt but ultimately, no actor, director, writer, producer or any other production member sets out to make a bad film. They pour their hearts and souls into it. (But even the film’s Nimoy was involved with contained some canon boo-boos.)
And technically it becomes “canon” simply by virtue of being a Trek movie so it’s an easy out. And it’s “canon now” because of Nero is also an easy out to me — the whole time travel resetting timeline. Oh, before you all jump me for being “negative” and not waiting for the film….I totally expected changes since it’s a reboot, reinvisioning, whatever. My concern just stems from the actual choices made in these changes (from what we have learned from the 20 minute preview), not that they changed it per se.
Ultimately, I do look forward to seeing Nimoy as Spock, one last time.
#8
You’re not alone. Insurrection is good, though not quite as good as some of the other Trek films.
Spock has spoken. Naysayers, please kindly be quiet, at least until you’ve seen the freakin’ movie….
Closettrekker must be an attorney. He/ (she?) masterfully dismantles others’ argument.
fun.
I repect Nimoy, however JJ has to still prove himself. With everyone coming out to support JJ, it seems the people behind the new Star Trek film are doing everything in their power to push back the tidal wave of fans angered by JJ’s recent negative comments about not making the movie for the fans.
What a mensch.
#47
JJ has to prove himself?
Alias
Lost
Heroes
Fringe
MI:III
Cloverfield
Yeah, it’s a shame Paramount chose such a rookie. He could probably direct a blockbuster in his sleep. Clearly he didn’t with this movie. In fact he has put his career on the line, and has openly stated how challenging a project it was. He is quite talented as Nimoy himself acknowledged, and also deserves a benefit of the doubt.
We should consider ourselves fortunate that Paramount, JJ and Nimoy himself are willing to take a chance on reviving the franchise for everyone.
I love Nimoy and he definitely knows more about XI than anyone of us. But that doesn’t mean that I stop having an opinion myself (which might be verified or not in May 09).
I won’t start liking the “new” E just because Shatner says he does like her, either. :)
Well, I haven’t seen the film, but I know much more about this then Leonard Nimoy. I know Leonard Nimoy was ACTUALLY in the movie, and has ACTUALLY read the script and has ACTUALLY seen the movie, but why should we take his word for it? I know it will stink and trash canon. Me and my other canonites haven’t seen it, but we can tell you that it is a travesty– a travesty I tell you!
nero goes back – changes the time line – everything changes…
wipes out TOS, TOS movies, TNG, TNG movies, DS9 etc….
canon intact cause it no longer exists!
I thank you.
Also Sprach Mr. Spock!
I’m a big Nimoy fan and appreciate the support he has giving this production and incarnation of Star Trek.
#49: “Heroes”
Heroes? What did JJ have to do with that?
#34 – “Since the possibility of alternate timelines being created by interference with the past is in itself ‘canon’, the writers have already handed JJ Abrams a very large canon loophole anyway.”
Precisely so.
That’s why simply talking about “canon” is insufficient. A multiverse is a concept already firmly enshrined in Trek’s canon.
But for those of us who had hoped that this film would contribute to and enhance the Trek Universe–read, the nominally-single continuum in which we’ve played for so long–the concerns arise from the idea that it will do something quite different, to wit, sidestepping away from that world. That’s not a canonical issue, but it is one of continuity.
All that said, there are also elements of the film we don’t know about, and Bob Orci has spoken, here at this very site, of a final resolution which–reasonably enough–we know nothing about. And since it’s probably the climax of the film, I daresay they’d prefer we not know about it ’til we see it on the screen. ;)
Ergo, while it is possible that Mr. Nimoy has very carefully couched his comments in terms similar to those used by others, i.e., that the canon of Trek will be intact because this movie, in creating an alternate universe, will not in fact disrupt the “prime continuum” in any way, it may also be that there is a resolution that will ’set things right” in ways we don’t yet know (see previous paragraph ;) ).
I think that very uncertainty is what has those fans–including me–dedicated to the idea of continuing to build an at-least-conceptually single Trekverse concerned. But equally, we still won’t know ’til May if what we hope won’t happen actually won’t–or perhaps will–in fact happen. Until then, it’s all speculation and expression of reaction, whether it be praise or concern, to the tidbits we’ve seen so far.
55,
No kidding. Why know the end of a movie before you’ve even seen it?
We need to be patient and actually watch the thing. Speculating does not help anything.
#54
Don’t you remember Slusho?!
#34-
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Leonard has always impressed me as a down to Earth straight shooter. He passed on directing and particiapting in Generations because he had issues with the story… He wasn’t thrilled with STV script. He didn’t appear to like TOS remastered effort… what did he say, “they should be ashamed of themselves”? IMHO, some things about TOS remaster were great, like the new artwork, the CGI stuff was a real missed opportunity…
So, if he thinks the new movie will be great. I believe him. Too bad it appears that we lose the (iconic) (and far supperior) exterior of the original E.
#56 – “We need to be patient and actually watch the thing.”
Indeed.
“Speculating does not help anything.”
True, though neither does it hurt. And, after all, speculating about the unknown has been a part of the human condition for a very, very long time. ;)
I am worried but I do trust Nimoy. He is my last hope.
60,
“True, though neither does it hurt.”
That….. is debatable. I think it’s good to speculate, but I don’t think that we should take those “possibilities” as facts. I fear that is what too many people are doing.
I’m not going to have a problem with the resetting of the timeline at all…I just can’t get past the enterprise…it looks horrible. (just above the ugly “D”)
With that said,
I think the story and everything about it I’ve heard sounds TREMENDOUS.
Can’t wait, and like so many others have said, I know NON-TREKKERS such as my wife who can’t wait to see it. (mostly for the new kirk and his looks)
Well, I’m not sure how much more the naysayers need to hear. Leonard Nimoy hardly seems like the kind of man who could be easily bought into saying something he doesn’t agree with. This is the same man who turned down a part in Generations because he considered it a “glorified cameo”. If he felt his incarnation of Spock was not properly portrayed and respected, he’d never take part in it. He has far too much pride in the character and too much love for the fans.
Still, I’m waiting for at least one *EXPLETIVE DELETED* to show up here and say something like:
Sorry. Not convinced. This movie will still suck. Not seeing it. Childhood = raped. Abrams = death of Star Trek.
or some other such nonsense.
#44—-”And technically it becomes “canon” simply by virtue of being a Trek movie so it’s an easy out. And it’s “canon now” because of Nero is also an easy out to me — the whole time travel resetting timeline.”
“Easy outs” and “hard-fought outs”, what’s the difference? You still need three of them to retire the side. They all count the same.
And while you make a point about the fact that filmed Trek is automatically ‘canon’, I think that what most people mean to do is question whether it will be contradictory to what has previously been established as canon.
The ‘alternate timeline angle’ may very well be the equivalent of a pop up to a golden gloved centerfielder, but it will end an inning every bit as quickly as a diving catch along the third base line.
I don’t see how anyone can argue the legitimacy of that as a canonical explanation, whether you see it as “too easy” or not.
So, what exactly is the fear about then? The sanctity of the TOS backstories?
None of it becomes suddenly irrelevant. It all has to happen just as it did in the original timeline in order for the story to progress to this point. It is therefore just as relevant (and essential) to the overall Trek mythos.
Kirk (Prime) still must evolve in the manner in which he did as suggested by episodes like “Obsession”, “Court-Martial”, “The Conscience Of The King”, “WNMHGB”, and “Shore Leave”—for he is very much an intregal part of the timeline from which both Nero and Spock (Prime) enter the broader story.
This “alternate timeline” cannot exist without the other existing first. This is why STXI cannot be defined as a “reboot”, nor can it be categorized as a true “prequel”.
Is it an unconventional sequel? I say yes, and I think its potential is quite intriguing.
Nimoy’s Spock trying to repair what he can of the damage to the timeline of events he knows is the equivalent of what might have happened if he and Kirk had failed to prevent McCoy from interfering with Edith Keeler’s death in the 1930’s.
They (Kirk and Spock) would undoubtedly have tried to ensure that, despite Edith Keeler, the United States entry into WWII was not delayed, and that the Nazi regime did not develop atomic weapons with which to arm their V-2 rockets and bring the Western Allies and the Soviets to their knees.
In similar fashion, it should be interesting to see how Spock, despite a terroristic timeline incursion which seemingly mirrors the 9/11 attacks in some respects, ensures that the United Federation Of Planets and its ideals remain intact, and that Kirk and company embark on their historic five-year mission anyway.
I very much look forward to this and future stories featuring my favorite characters from the Star Trek Universe. And whether, this time around, young Kirk learns to operate a manual transmission is completely irrelevant to me.
Is he still the same intelligent, courageous, loyal, charismatic, brash, confident, even arrogant leadership figure who can stop the “Doomsday Machine” or defeat the Gorn on Cestus III?
Is Spock still the conflicted, somewhat tormented, individual with human emotions trapped beneath a facade of Vulcan stoicism?
Is McCoy still the humanistic measuring stick who is quick to tell it like it is?
That’s what is left to be answered, IMO, and somehow I doubt they got any of that wrong…
As real die hard TOS follower, ditto #65.
I meant ditto #63…
From what I know of with JJ Abrams, this will not fail. He is a master of storylines, tying everything in with… well…. EVERYTHING.
I have watched Fringe come together over the last several weeks. I have heard my roommates tell me the glories of Lost and how everything works. I have seen Cloverfield, read the story behind it, did the research….
I wouldn’t trust this movie to ANYONE else.
Would you feel better if it were in the hands of Lucas?
And I have this feeling that I’m about to receive hate mail for 68…
Alias – became a mess
Lost – a boring mess after the first season
Heroes – see Lost
Fringe – liked it better as The X-Files
MI:III – entertaining
Cloverfield – mostly hype
Still plenty to prove says this observer.
Ah Leonardo, I will believe anything you say, my love. Just do not try to tell me Chris Pine or Zach is sexier than you…
I like Leonard…and love Spock. However, Leonard didn’t address my concerns with his comments (purposely altering 40 years of character history and set design just to get a younger crowd).
This movie may in fact have the right ingredients for a normal ‘good action movie” with heart, but it still appears to take liberties where it didn’t have to.
I loved the interaction of Kirk, Spock and McCoy in TOS (leadership, logic and stern guided morals respectively) In many ways, we lost this in the films when Spock died in WOK. It through all remaining adventures off. Although I love Leonard’s impact on my life, I’m not convinced his recommendation indicates we are safe from a complete new vision.
You may have deleted my negative comment – so I will just simply say , that the film is Box Office Adventure Rubbish !!!
Darfyn, I think we need to get the Heisinberg compensators to adjust that attitude of yours…
I remain open-minded about the film and intend to carefully listen to my friends who see it on opening night, to help decide if I’d like to see it as well.
#55—”But for those of us who had hoped that this film would contribute to and enhance the Trek Universe–read, the nominally-single continuum in which we’ve played for so long–the concerns arise from the idea that it will do something quite different, to wit, sidestepping away from that world. That’s not a canonical issue, but it is one of continuity.”
As you know, Alex, I can’t help but view those as narrow terms.
I believe it will be, in fact, a single continuity—regardless of the ‘final solution’.
I know that you (and others, like the Okudas) have worked hard to piece together the series of events depicted in more than 4 decades of filmed Trek. I have done so as well, if only in my own head for the purposes of self-entertainment.
That continuity remains intact, and in fact, essential to the ongoing overall Trek mythos. It cannot come to this ‘potentially’ altered timeline without every bit of that continuity you have studied and perhaps even documented yourself.
If anything, this has the potential of giving you additional material in a new timeline that does not supercede, but rather supplements, the continuity of events established in 5 Trek series and 10 other films.
Some events may be specific to one timeline or the other, and other events may be common to both.
The important thing is (to me, anyway), the “original timeline” maintains its relevancy, quite inherently within the very concept of telling this kind of story.
*“Easy outs” and “hard-fought outs”, what’s the difference? You still need three of them to retire the side. They all count the same.
And while you make a point about the fact that filmed Trek is automatically ‘canon’, I think that what most people mean to do is question whether it will be contradictory to what has previously been established as canon.
The ‘alternate timeline angle’ may very well be the equivalent of a pop up to a golden gloved centerfielder, but it will end an inning every bit as quickly as a diving catch along the third base line.
I don’t see how anyone can argue the legitimacy of that as a canonical explanation, whether you see it as “too easy” or not.
So, what exactly is the fear about then? The sanctity of the TOS backstories?
None of it becomes suddenly irrelevant. It all has to happen just as it did in the original timeline in order for the story to progress to this point. It is therefore just as relevant (and essential) to the overall Trek mythos.
Kirk (Prime) still must evolve in the manner in which he did as suggested by episodes like “Obsession”, “Court-Martial”, “The Conscience Of The King”, “WNMHGB”, and “Shore Leave”—for he is very much an intregal part of the timeline from which both Nero and Spock (Prime) enter the broader story.
This “alternate timeline” cannot exist without the other existing first. This is why STXI cannot be defined as a “reboot”, nor can it be categorized as a true “prequel”.
Is it an unconventional sequel? I say yes, and I think its potential is quite intriguing.
Nimoy’s Spock trying to repair what he can of the damage to the timeline of events he knows is the equivalent of what might have happened if he and Kirk had failed to prevent McCoy from interfering with Edith Keeler’s death in the 1930’s.
They (Kirk and Spock) would undoubtedly have tried to ensure that, despite Edith Keeler, the United States entry into WWII was not delayed, and that the Nazi regime did not develop atomic weapons with which to arm their V-2 rockets and bring the Western Allies and the Soviets to their knees.
In similar fashion, it should be interesting to see how Spock, despite a terroristic timeline incursion which seemingly mirrors the 9/11 attacks in some respects, ensures that the United Federation Of Planets and its ideals remain intact, and that Kirk and company embark on their historic five-year mission anyway.
I very much look forward to this and future stories featuring my favorite characters from the Star Trek Universe. And whether, this time around, young Kirk learns to operate a manual transmission is completely irrelevant to me.
Is he still the same intelligent, courageous, loyal, charismatic, brash, confident, even arrogant leadership figure who can stop the “Doomsday Machine” or defeat the Gorn on Cestus III?
Is Spock still the conflicted, somewhat tormented, individual with human emotions trapped beneath a facade of Vulcan stoicism?
Is McCoy still the humanistic measuring stick who is quick to tell it like it is?
That’s what is left to be answered, IMO, and somehow I doubt they got any of that wrong…*
Verbose, isn’t he?
Changing the timeline and thus the much and recently hated “canon” makes the backstory of the original series irrelevent to all future Treks in anything but the broadest sense. And that obviously gives you goosebumps. Good for you. A lot of people also obviously think its a shame and a wasted opportunity, and that’s also a valid point of view, if a minority one on this site. Its too bad the majority is so intolerant of the minority, especially for a group who claim to be as socially enlightened as Star Trek fans.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
#73 Adjusting compensators !! Oooh Oooh , I think there there is a fault !!!
I think we need to loosen up on the whole canon thing. I think the “canon” part of the franchise is over now. Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart, Frakes, Brooks, Mulgrew, Bakula – we’re unlikely to see them in action in these roles ever again. The era of “canon” Trek is really over.
The franchise is now evolving into a modern legend in the way King Arthur is a legend or Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes is a legend. It is a setting, a set of characters and a vision. Over the coming decades new people will come and have a go at making Star Trek. Some will be fans with limited resources, some like James Cawley will be fans with the good fortune to have very impressive resources, some will be established movie professionals with the backing of a studio and a multi-million budget. They’ll all be pitched slightly differently, and they’ll all have something to offer in the way of entertainment to those who love the legend.
This isn’t a bad thing. It is what will keep Star Trek going in years to come. It’s just that we’re bound to start to see very personal, idiosyncratic takes on the concept.
Well, if what Nimoy said is the reality, I really don´t understand a lot of statements given by JJ Abrams. If Nimoy is right, this is for the fans AND THE FUTURE FANS. But, I´m concerned about that… Nimoy in any circunstances will not tell “This movie sucks, it´s horrible, I didn´t like Berman, but now I miss him”.
Let´s hope, Nimoy doesn´t have made marketing, and it´s telling the truth.
#69 And I have this feeling that I’m about to receive hate mail for 68…
Nah, Lucas would not be the right fit.
#70
Alias – huge Trek-like following
Lost – see Alias
Cloverfield – $170 millon worth of hype
Fringe – developing like Lost and Alias
Heroes shouldn’t be on the list – brain cramp on my part
Perhaps if JJ would not be SO secretive about any potential alternate timeline aspects, people wouldn’t be bitching so much.
He can at least suggest it to a greater degree without giving away much at all.
It would very much serve to satisfy fans concerned with major canon violations. (Oooohh, those horrible people!!)
My turn for hate mail…
Nimoy is too cool! Does anyone remember him singing ‘The Balad of Bilbo Baggins?’ “In the middle of the Earth in the land of the shire. . . . .” I think it’s on youtube: it must have been during filming of TOS, right around season two (summer ‘67) b/c he still has the Spock haircut, complete with turtleneck, Malibu Jacket and beatle-boots. Cutesy go-go girls too-Groovy!!!
@ #72: Wow, that didn’t take long at all! Damn, I should’ve placed bets.
Regarding canon and the undoing of the established timeline, I tried to look at it from the Doc Brown perspective at first. Recall, if you will, the scene from Back to the Future 2 where Doc Brown explains to Marty that Future Biff giving the Sports Almanac to his past self caused the timeline to split, creating a parallel reality where Biff became rich and powerful, killed Marty’s father and married his mother. This reality runs parallel to the one Doc Brown and Marty came from. The parallel timeline idea sort of falls apart, however, when it’s pointed out that if they travel to the future, they’ll be in the future of the parallel reality.
So, while Nero’s attack on the Kelvin is allegedly the point where the timeline was skewed, creating an alternate reality where Kirk’s father was killed in the line of duty, forcing Winona Kirk to raise her son with his uncle, and Starfleet’s scientific and technological progress is altered, one could speculate that the proper reality, the one we’re all familiar with, still exists. Considering the existence of the Mirror Universe, I’d say it’s at least possible, although the Mirror Universe wasn’t created as a result of some time traveler’s intervention…at least, that we know of.
#76—”Changing the timeline and thus the much and recently hated “canon” makes the backstory of the original series irrelevent to all future Treks in anything but the broadest sense. And that obviously gives you goosebumps.”
As opposed to the “narrow” sense?
I don’t know how anyone could fail to grasp the concept that you cannot progress the story to the point where Nero takes action to alter the past (and Nimoy’s Spock taking action to stop him), without everything happening exactly as it did prior to that—-in other words, without “canon” remaining relevant and intact within the original timeline.
And I am not sure where you get the idea that I would get “goosebumps” from the idea of canon violations. I simply argue that there are no canon violations yet evident, since anything we have seen depicted occurs after the timeline incursion of 2233 (the attack upon the USS Kelvin by Romulans from the future).
I am not some sort of canon hater. On the contrary, I have enjoyed the concept of “canon” for decades of my own fandom. I will likely continue to do so.
“A lot of people also obviously think its a shame and a wasted opportunity, and that’s also a valid point of view, if a minority one on this site. Its too bad the majority is so intolerant of the minority, especially for a group who claim to be as socially enlightened as Star Trek fans. ”
I hope you are not suggesting that I am part of this group you see as “intolerant” toward a dissenting minority opinion.
Or do you equate the willingness to engage in quite civil debate with intolerance?
Unless you have been one of my Marines in a combat situation, I do not feel as if I have ever been “intolerant” of dissention to you or anyone else.
Since my life, yours, and anyone else put in my charge is unthreatened, dissent all you want, but that doesn’t mean I won’t argue with you.
Disagreement is not intolerance…
Can a Vulcan lie?
This movie has the excitement that i felt waiting for the first movie, Star Trek the Motion Picture, it has the feel of Wrath of Khan and Voyage Home. The movies are different from the tv shows,they expand what we see and know, i have followed Star Trek for 40 years. I have met most of the actors including Mr Nimoy, the actor make the characters come to life. This will bring new life to Star Trek, new blood that is what everyone has been asking for. JJ is that new blood
Who gives a turkey about canon, this is SCIENCE FICTION, trying to hold to a certain framework only limits the storytelling, new ideas new adventures.
I used to visit the TREKWEB site, gave up found other websites, Trekweb was full of people who are bullies who want to protect their little world. This idea that we have to follow canon, letter, page and verse, is the same ridge thinking that happened back in 1960’s and is still happening in the world today.
IN MAY A NEW STAR TREK FILM COMES OUT.. CANNOT WAIT!!
Keep on Trekkin Forever
If Mr. Nimoy says the movie is good and respects the past Trek, then I’ll trust that statement.
LOL Abrams knows he’s alienated most of the fan base and now he’s praying that a Trek veteran can actually validate this film.
Just YOU AND ME™, simple and free… OH, OH, H to the O-V.
old h69 just did a lil mashup there ala DJ AM and travis barker, now innit?
This new trekmovies will kind of be a mashup of the classic and the new, Nimoy and Quinto. A lil OrcSter with your DC Fontana.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
#79—”The era of “canon” Trek is really over.”
‘Canon’ has always existed in the minds of those of us who care about its maintenance. I have yet to see or hear anything which violates its integrity, since what is seemingly contradictory is explained within the confines of that very ‘canon’.
So I don’t see how it’s over at all. This will merely expand existing ‘canon’. It’s hardly irrelevant now simply because the timeline is presumably altered. It is canonically altered, and cannot be so without the timeline of events we know from all 5 series and 10 other films occuring first.
STXI will simply expand the broader mythos…
#89—-”Abrams knows he’s alienated most of the fan base…”
He has? When did that happen?
I am keeping my mind open, and things like this do help. Though to be fair, though my respect for this marvelous gentleman is great, he isn’t as big a fan as I am. I don’t mean that negatively, but it is true. I would still prefer the Nimoy oriented framing story to take place in the 24th Century only, and then the plot simply cover the period we know. However, if they give me a film which tastes like Trek and is chewey and delicious, I can deal.
#80 – “Nimoy in any circunstances will not tell “This movie sucks, it´s horrible, I didn´t like Berman, but now I miss him”.”
He has rejected a role in a Star Trek movie that he didn’t feel was worth his time. He didn’t reject this one, so you do the math.
The more they try to assure us that the Kool Aid is good, the more I think they have put something in it.
Look, if they know that they are sitting on a kick-a** movie already, if they know it’s a guaranteed hit, then why are getting all of this delicate reassurance?
#70.
Lost is NOT a boring mess! Yes, the first season was amazing, the second slightly less so, the third problematic .
But from the end of the third season and all the way through the fourth, it’s been first-rate, sophisticated storytelling all the way. Realy, an incredible narrative feat.
My two cents.
I think this movie will explain how the universe where Worf & Troi were married gets created.
Lost is great. One of the best shows on TV. The characters are surprising, and the plot is always excellent.
Is this a Christmas message , maybe so ?!
#87 It is true the Movies are different from the Series ! So what is Canon ?!
Well I am a Constructionist which is probably a little different from Canonista ! Constructionists like the weave of the storyline , and are always hunting for the links and little trivia . Canonista probably see the overall story and make sure everyone else is aware of it !
So Canon is Continuity ! And the Star Trek Writers love to play it against these Two Groups . Hence we have those destabilizing themes of alternate timelines ; which we are led to believe the new movie is about .
Oh , and we have a large third Group , who don’t really care for the details or story , and just love the action . We will have to think of a name for them – Actionista ! I’m sure these trekkies are going to have a Rock’n Movie to see !
I remember another commenter here , saying the trek community had splintered . I believe this to be so ! The statistics of the Series support it . Paramount could no longer make the Series , because there wasn’t enough interest . What will the canonista and constructionists do . We will do what we have for many years . We will go back to our little clubs and work on our own fictionista ! And of course , keep a quiet eye on trekmovie !
Hasta la Vista …
#93—-If it took place in the 24th Century (a Trek period I never warmed up to), I would bother paying to see it, just as I never bothered paying to see any TNG-era movie.
The only reason I am interested at all is the return to 23rd Century Trek (holodeck free at last!!!), and my favorite Trek characters.
Only Kirk, Spock, and McCoy Trek were ever really big screen worthy…at least for my money.
#17
“canon-master” ??????????
grow up, shut up, and get a life.
#79 “STXI will simply expand the broader mythos…”
Emperor Palpatine: “If you wish to become a complete and wise fan, you must embrace a larger view of the Trek corpus. Not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Canonites.”
I haven’t seen the fim, so I can’t say. Then again, unless you are a Hollywood insider, you haven’t either, but you are furiously shoveling this stuff like some sort of gospel of truth.
#71– I reach my sister!
” I think that what most people mean to do is question whether it will be contradictory to what has previously been established as canon…I don’t see how anyone can argue the legitimacy of that as a canonical explanation, whether you see it as “too easy” or not.”
What I was getting at is how when someone does post with worries along these lines, the “pat” answer is that it will all be fixed or that it’s canon simply because, well, it is — as everything we see on the big or small screen becomes no matter how troublesome. ;) I don’t think it helps those who are really upset , or even those merely concerned such as myself.
“The ‘alternate timeline angle’ may very well be the equivalent of a pop up to a golden gloved centerfielder, but it will end an inning every bit as quickly as a diving catch along the third base line. ”
Baseball illiterate here. ;) (Blasphemy, I know!)
“So, what exactly is the fear about then? The sanctity of the TOS backstories?”
Not fear. Just disappointment because I have to be honest, some of the choices just seem silly or far fetched. Which disappoints me because I think they overcame some amazing hurdles. No one thought this idea of redoing TOS most horrible than I when I first heard about it — mostly cause I could not image recasting. Yet I was very pleased with most of the choices. I was also pleased with all the reverant statements made by those involved. Yet, at least to me, this hasn’t entirely panned out.
“Kirk (Prime) still must evolve in the manner in which he did as suggested by episodes like ….”
The Kirk as rebel doesn’t ring true to me but maybe the loss of his dad due to Nero can make this so. However, this does change his evolution and it makes me wonder if he can be the same Kirk in the end. We are a sum of our life experiences.
“I very much look forward to this and future stories featuring my favorite characters from the Star Trek Universe. And whether, this time around, young Kirk learns to operate a manual transmission is completely irrelevant to me.”
Oh the little things like stick shifts aren’t that important. However, I guess my concern simply is: ARE these the characters I’ve loved so long? Some of what we’ve heard sounds good; some not so much. Just my honest reaction.
Wow. I can’t believe it’s sank to such a level that Leonard Nimoy has to explain himself to the fans.
The only word everyone needs to post is: LOGICAL
“He has rejected a role in a Star Trek movie that he didn’t feel was worth his time. He didn’t reject this one, so you do the math.”
In fairness, this movie offers a much bigger role. Generations — what 3- or 4 lines? An insult to be sure. And yes, he was offered the director’s chair on Generations but the script was already set and couldn’t be changed so he declined. Don’t blame him. It’d be real difficult to direct material you had no confidence in…..although I think he might have made the end product better –somehow — than the mess we saw.
As for the canon thing.
Sure, logically you could go into the past and shake things up radically. Yes, you could hop in your time machine, arrive in the deep past, step on a butterfly, and stop humans from evolving. And you could live your entire life in this timeline.
The question remains, however, as to whether, in the case of the new Trek, this will prove to be an aesthetically pleasing/valid move. There is the question of whether they will stay true enough to the things that truly matter (the characters, the story, the tone) that what we get will satisfyingly carry forward the mantle of Trek (as opposed to simply doing something completely different with it). If the movie is 90210 in space with explosions, then being different, in and of itself, will not turn out to be a virtue. They have a double duty to discharge (since they have claimed the name of Trek) 1. They have to produce a good movie. 2. The movie has to be more than good. It has to be recognizable as something that warrants the name that it carries. Let’s hope for the best.
re: 17. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator – December 4, 2008
“I won’t be convinced until I see it. At the end of the day, Nimoy is just another actor talking about a movie he’s in, ……With all due respect, he may not know what he’s talking about…”
I have been a great fan of Mr. Nimoy’s portrayal of Spock over the years, but I must agree with Purolator that just having him say it’s good is not enough to convince me. Even if Mr. Nimoy believes what he is saying, it’s basically just promotion. You’re not going to get anyone connected with it to point out any of its flaws.
There are those who think it will be great and there are those who think it will not be. No one will really know until they see it and then there will still not be full agreement.
I happen to prefer to remain skeptical about things until things are proven otherwise. I am more often right than wrong.
Nimoy is a sweetheart as long as he gets his afternoon nap…
He’s fond of cookies and tea with milk. (And that’s all I’ll say)
I still love the guy, I still grok Spock.
MI:3 was a cliche ridden mess. I know JJ didnt write it, but he did direct.
Think this through: Nimoy has to come out to DEFEND the movie. Poor guy. I think a lot of the negative comments are uncalled for. He should be on tour schmoozing it up like Shatner. I remember when they shmoozed for Trek 4. It was like we were all old friends, and lets have a happy time. Almost as if we were sharing pizza and Michelobs with them. I wish I had those interviews on tape.
Will I see the movie, of course! I dont have a problem with the story, just the set designs. I poke fun some of the time, but I do it out of love.
108. Stanky McFibberich – December 4, 2008
“I happen to prefer to remain skeptical about things until things are proven otherwise.”
I don’t believe you:)
Any concerns some Trek fans may have can only be answered either by actually seeing the film or by having truly extensive knowledge of the film. Neither condition is likely to be satisfied before May.
I’m very aware that, in this film, when we see young Kirk and Pine’s Kirk, we’re not seeing a Kirk who shares temporal continuity with Shatner’s Kirk. I.e., it’s a mistake to think that, in seeing young Kirk in this film, we’re seeing young Shatner’s Kirk. Shatner’s Kirk has a completely different childhood. I’m also puzzled as to why some fans think these different Kirks will act in the same way. I understand that they share the same genetics. But environmental factors play a huge role in determining which genetic predispositions are actualized. These Kirks have completely different environmental factors with which to contend. As a result, they ought to have different abilities, personalities, values, beliefs, hopes, etc. Shinzon and Picard share the same genetics; but they led different lives because of their very different environments. I don’t see why Pine’s Kirk would re-enact many of the familiar events in the life of Shatner’s Kirk. The popular example on this site is fighting the Gorn at Cestus III. Why would both Kirks do this? Is there a fight-Gorn-at-Cestus-III gene at play? No. Just as their pasts are completely different, so too will be their futures, assuming an alternative time-line continues. If new Kirk is depicted as re-enacting many famous scenes, it’s just the filmmakers acknowledging previous Star Trek.
(sigh.) This actually makes me feel much better. Thanks Leonard!
85: Closettrekker
“I don’t know how anyone could fail to grasp the concept that you cannot progress the story to the point where Nero takes action to alter the past (and Nimoy’s Spock taking action to stop him), without everything happening exactly as it did prior to that—-in other words, without “canon” remaining relevant and intact within the original timeline.”
I grasp the concept, but to me, at least, such a scenario necessarliy creates a paradox. A through D had to happen for Nero to time travel to begin with, but by altering the past, even with what little we’ve seen, doesn’t he change the conditions that caused A through D to originally occur? Some things that we’ve seen already obviously don’t play out the way they did before the timeline was altered (Pike and Kirk’s crew together, for instance).
When the time comes that Nero is born, then, he will grow up in a totally different world, one that may end with this new Nero never needing to go back in time. If that’s the case, how did he go back to begin with?
All of this may be wonderfulyl explained in the film, we’ll just have to wait and see. But at least to my mind, the everything has to happen as it always did approach falls apart after the timeline is initially altered.
Just my $.02, as always.
I don’t think that Nimoy is “defending” the movie at all…
…he’s trying to reassure unfound concerns, based on the fact that he’s seen the finished product and we can’t for 6 months.
hey OrcSter… you handsome son of a buck, you.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
Aw. fuggit. I don’t have time to split temporal hairs; hell I already need to be cloned so I can squeeze 48 hours into my 24 hour days. Bob, just gimme a good movie. I’ll even add you to my DVD library. :-)
Well. Mr Nimoy who was With Trek from the Very first Conception has Endorced the Movie. What a great way to get the new one Started. Nimoy Turned down doing Star Trek Generations and that was a smart thing to do as Berman probly would have killed him off along with Kirk. For Nimoy to come out of retirement is a huge thing. He Does not need the money and he does not need the fame. He did this movie to help make Trek great Agian and he would not have done it if the script was bad or if cannon was being trampled on. So As much as i hate waiting for the movie I must Wait and when i see it i know i will see it again and again and again. Live Long and Prosper.
Leonard, along with Harve Bennett, Nick Meyer, and a few others, know what makes good Trek. His participation in the film is what intrigued and assured me about the project. Leonard wouldn’t step out of retirement to make garbage. And as Mr. Orci will tell you, they made a point of making sure that they wrote a part for him that he’d have a hard time turning down.
Sit back and enjoy the ride, guys….Star Trek hasn’t had this much excitement and curiosity surrounding it in a very long time.
I certainly hope Nimoy is correct. I hope this is turns out to be a fantastic film. We’ll just have to see.
In 1980, a film was made which was written and directed by the brilliant Buck Henry and which starred the hilarious Bob Newhart. It could not fail. Prior to its release, comedic master Bob Newhart said, “If this isn’t funny, I don’t know what ‘funny’ is!”
That film was “First Family.”
Only shows Nimoy doesn’t know the canon
You GO Leonard, that’s RIGHT!! Tell these ninny-minded Trek nitwits what’s what.
I TOO am tired of all the negative feedback and all the doomsayers.
Some people just love to moan and moan and moan.
I’m looking forward to this new STAR TREK film!!!
You know what all you ‘Canon-Nuts’ can do with your Canon?
In the words of Scotty “Up yer shaft!”
Hi bill hiro (70)
‘Alias – became a mess’
After Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci moved on to Lost
‘Lost – a boring mess after the first season’
After Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci moved on to MI:III
Heroes – see Lost
Nothing to do with this team
Fringe – liked it better as The X-Files
Not seen it, but love The X-Files so will give it a shot
‘MI:III – entertaining’
And Abrams admits it was a major learning curve!
‘Cloverfield – mostly hype’
Produced by Abrams, not written or directed by him
‘Still plenty to prove says this observer.’
Abrams’ shows’ biggest problem seems to be that, as a ceaselessly creative mind, he’s always moving on to new things and, perhaps, the people who take over the day to day running of his shows find him a tough act to follow. With Abrams 100 per cent directing, producing and doing some of the writing on this film, we should be very positive!
Hey krikzil 106
‘ . . yes, he was offered the director’s chair on Generations but the script was already set and couldn’t be changed so he declined. Don’t blame him. It’d be real difficult to direct material you had no confidence in…..although I think he might have made the end product better –somehow — than the mess we saw.’
Hell yeah! If they could’ve waited six months and got Nimoy and perhaps Meyer and Flynn involved, Star Trek itself could have gone in a very different direction! Sadly there was very much a ‘bury TOS literally and metaphorically’ agenda in the film!
Just imagine: Generations given a decent redraft that’s acceptable to Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. A genuine torch-passing could have taken place, alongside a necessary retooling of TNG to make it work in the cinema. People would have left with a spring in their step, feeling that rather than seeing a Star Trek TNG film, they’d seen a proper continuation of Star Trek.
Instead, the feeling from ST:G was that the TNG gang walked in, hijacked TOS, killed Kirk and made a big issue of separating TNG from TOS. A stupider, more mainstream-hostile decision could not have been made! It took a couple of films to bite, but by Insurrection most people no longer cared!!
As for the ‘contradictory’ details of the new film being mentioned around the place, Closettrekker’s been coming up with some good ideas!
You have to think: how important are all the backgrounds of these people in the greater scheme of things? As long as someone is in the right place to sort out Vejur and the Whalesong probe, does it have to be Kirk? Does it matter, 25 years down the line, whether Kirk was a bookish young man at the academy or a ‘Rebel Without a Cause’ type, as long as he’s on hand to save the whales?
Even when there’s a great comment about this movie from one of the most respected actors/directors in the franchise, there are still people on here looking to be negative.
This film looks fantastic.
Again and again, I will say to all the negative folks out there…
Patience.
Even though you “think” you know what you’re talking about because you are “Trek” experts, you’re really looking foolish because you haven’t seen the film. Your negative opinions are therefore meaningless. Period.
I am a Trek trivia expert. Have been forever. I am not concerned about “canon” because we’ve been told time and time again the writers and advisors have the utmost respect for the franchise.
It’s a good thing Trek is being reborn. Again, as I’ve said before, a thriving franchise that entertains is a much better choice than no film at all.
There’s coffee brewing.
Some of you guys/gals need to wake up.
Live for the positive, and get ready for a ride that no Trek film has ever given a fan before. It’s going to happen.
122-
Orci and Kurtzman had nothing to do with Lost whatsoever. That show is in the very, very talented hands of Damon Lindelof(Trek’s producer) and Carlton Cuse.
#81 stop dissin heroes its had almost as many trek actors in cameos as boston legal, if it werent for heroes zach quinto wouldnt have bee well-known enough to be chosen to play spock, and theres more heroes fans around than youd like to admit (does vulcan nerve pinch on captain shroom)
live long and prosper, bitch xdxdxd
There’s no winning, no matter which TOS cast member promises it will be a great movie, there’s always going to be some angry fan mashing his keyboard about how JJ and his team got the movie completely wrong. I mean come on, the movie looks great, just give it a chance.
There was a time when Trekweb was the King of all news relating to Trek. Trekmovie has taken the crown. Thanks Anthony!
Although I still enjoy perusing Trekweb’s discussion forums; what a bunch of maniacs (aka hardcore-Trekkies)!
Maybe this will silence some of the criticism from the dies hard brigades.
111.
“environmental factors play a huge role in determining which genetic predispositions are actualized. These Kirks have completely different environmental factors with which to contend. As a result, they ought to have different abilities, personalities, values, beliefs, hopes, etc. Shinzon and Picard share the same genetics; but they led different lives because of their very different environments.”
Alec, you are missing the point.
The biological balance between genetic and environmental determinism is not the question here. The question is whether “punky Kirk” (ridin’ his chopper to the shipyards — “Highway to the Dangerzone!” should be blaring in the background) will prove to be a GOOD Capt. Kirk. That is, will we have enough shared features with the original character that the name Kirk will be justified for this character, and will his character be a fun character to watch (will he entertain and fit with the chemistry of the story and with the other actors/characters)? It’s a dual duty that must be discharged. It does not mean that he must be the exact shape of Shatner or share his exact peculiarities of reciting his lines. Then again, you can’t just do ANYTHING with the character under the auspices of time travel or environmental determinism.
Sure, for new fans it does not matter if he is ANYTHING like the old Kirk. But then again, you could make “a” film and NOT call it Star Trek. To pick up the Trek name and continue Trek characters alleges some sort of continuity (or why else claim to have James T. Kirk waiting in the wings in 2009?). You might have a good film, but we are hoping for a good Star Trek film. You might have a good character, but we are hoping for a good Capt. Kirk. And that is a hope I think we all share.
To 113. barrydancer – December 4, 2008.
I agree with you:
Does it even make sense to say that Nero, or anyone, could ‘change the past’? In wanting to change an event or a set of events in the past, it follows that this event or set of events occurred. But if Nero were to go back in time and successfully change one or more of these events, then, in the future, having already successfully changed these events, he would have no reason to alter the past. Why, then, would he travel back in time to begin with?
I think I’m right. But I now have a headache.
This guy Takes Photos of naked Chicks all Day.
Good to be Nimoy I say.
P.S. Dammit That Rhymed…..
How is it that these time travel plots (Terminator included) always wind up with only two independent variables (the good guy or force from the future and the bad guy or force from the future)?
If time travel were as easy as it is depicted in “canonical” Trek (i.e., timeships, whipping around the sun, alien devices on deserted worlds, etc.), wouldn’t you have MANY interested parties going back in time all of the time? Wouldn’t you have multiple parties going back to cheer themselves up in highschool or give stock tips, or change a battle, or stop a disease?
If timelines simply do diverge with timetravel (which is a popular theory espoused by apologists for the new film), then why should Spock go back in time at all? He should say, “Well, everything will stay the same here, in this timeline, let Nero go muck around in some other past.” If on the other hand, time travel does muck up a preferred timeline (i.e., the Back to the Future theory is correct), then apologists are wrong, the original timeline is being destroyed by the changes introduced in the new film.
Looks like the horns of a dilemma, don’t it?
As for the Barcode Scanners: When I was a kid, I had a triangular shaped electronic game (I can’t remember the name of it now). that same triangular game use to sit on the tables in Ten Forward on TNG.
Hi Brian (124)
‘Orci and Kurtzman had nothing to do with Lost whatsoever.’
My mistake: thought they’d written a few earlier episodes! Still the point remains: while Abrams was still very much there, day to day, people had a different perception of the show! Personally, I still love the show!!
I have been on this forum pretty much it’s existence and during all that time I have wondered what it would be like if movie news, particulary Star Trek news, was delivered like in the old days. you know Starlog, Parade and the occasional newspaper article.
I know I am giving away my age, but I remember when news first hit about STTMP. Damn, you couldn’t find enough info on the movie and Starlog would just put out enough to make you want more.
My point is why do people want to tear down any movie regardless of genre because they can due to the net and instant access to info and yet still have not seen the final product. Remember Batman Begins?
If Mr. Nimoy says this movie is OK then I believe him. Why would he want to invest his time and energy in a product when clearly he doesn’t need the money!
You boys living in your Momma’s basement need to get real.
Leonard to the canonistas: Grow up, get a clue, get a life, get over it. God bless him. The idiocy you see on trek bboards about this movie is literally the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
Personally, I think the movie’s gonna rock, and it’s cool that Leonard has issued a statement supporting it. Just to be a contrarian, though, I have to ask: does anyone have any words of praise from Mr. Nimoy regarding STV?
No matter. Hopefully this statement will calm those who need something like this to be calmed.
134 (Dom)
I agree that JJ seems to have a very short attention span…he definitely has a habit of starting projects and then disappearing. He hasn’t been directly involved with Lost for at least two seasons; although like I said before, the show is in very capable hands.
#47
I wouldn’t call them a ‘tidal wave’ so much as I’d refer to them as a drop in the bucket. I guarantee you the ratio of fans excited about XI to fans up in arms about ‘canon violations’ is lopsided in favor of the former not the latter.
Ultimately, I doubt Leonard cares much about canon, and I don’t either. Sounds like what we both value is a rip-roaring tale, and from everything I’ve heard/seen, that’s what we’re getting.
Brian (138)
Yeah! I always wait to watch Lost in seasons on DVD, so I’m picking up season four for my birthday in January. Can’t wait!
140 (Dom)
Yeah I’ll be picking that up shortly myself….they always include some cool extras.
37. NoRez – December 4, 2008
“Just to be a contrarian, though, I have to ask: does anyone have any words of praise from Mr. Nimoy regarding STV?”
It was the Captain’s turn in the director’s chair, and Spock was not going to abandon him after his own turn in the director’s chair twice in a row.
#95
Look at who they’re directing those ‘delicate reassurances’ to – the hardcore fans that write on sites like TrekWeb and TrekMovie, and lose their minds if a door is in the wrong place or if the Enterprise doesn’t look like a piece of plastic on strings. Are these statements being made to the general, moviegoing public? Nope. In fact, JJ is talking to them on equal terms, explaining he was never a big fan. Think of them as different market segments, that require a different focus. I see nothing ‘kool-aidish’ about this.
130: Alec
“I think I’m right. But I now have a headache.”
You, me, and Kathryn Janeway.
I’m not as good as typing thoughts down as some of you are, but I would like to help clarify a couple of things.
There is more than one element of concern with any revision of ‘Star Trek.’ And with 40 years of history, any concerns are valid until the movie comes out. It’s logical that there are more concerns about a Trek movie than, say, a Batman movie.
The key word is continuity. Both visually and historically. Writing a time-travel story that justifies the revision in character backstory, to make them suddenly more appealing to a younger audience, is still “cheating”, for lack of a better word. There are those of us that would have enjoyed seeing the Kirk we know at the academy—and the Spock we know.
Things could have been different, and at the start, it was sort of implied that even though we had new actors playing these iconic characters, we would still have other anchors to that universe. Alas, if you change the history, everything is new. Perhaps too many changes?
Nimoy’s blessing is huge, now if we could just get the same from the shat………all would be well in the universe
Boborci:
How are you sleeping at nights? Any second guesses?
146. Richard Daystrom – December 4, 2008
“How are you sleeping at nights? Any second guesses?”
No second guesses. Still can’t sleep.
I’m glad they’ve got Spock’s ears looking right again!!! Check out Star Trek V… WHAT went wrong there?!? Lol!
Cannot WAIT to see dear Leonard as Mr Spock again – I think I’m gonna tear up. MUST. BE . STRONG!!! 17 years since he last played Spock… incredible! Will be interesting to see how the character has evolved in that time. Will he be more emotional again aka. The Cage era Spock, or more reserved and comfortable with who he is as in The Wrath of Khan?
- Mugz
“17. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator – December 4, 2008
I won’t be convinced until I see it. At the end of the day, Nimoy is just another actor talking about a movie he’s in, not a god or a canon-master. With all due respect, he may not know what he’s talking about…”
Is there some place where we can make nominations for most asinine posts made here, because I think that one is a winner
#125
stop dissin heroes its had almost as many trek actors in cameos as boston legal, etc…
No ‘dis’ intended. The original list was of JJ Abrams past and present projects (see post #49). I inadvertently put Heroes there because of all the Trek and Cloverfield tie-ins.
Please withdraw your Vulcan neck pinch…it was ineffective anyway ;)
I for one am tickled to see this movie become a reality. Judging it before seeing it has as much street cred as a Bill Clinton pickup line.
Nimoy knows good Star Trek. He has proven that. I am quite pumped!
And #4…..I’m asking. What is it that set your Romulan ale to boiling?
Well, if Leonard Nemoy says cannon isn’t being violated, then I know it’s really going to be Star Track.
Well, Mr. Nimoy gives his official okie-dokie to this little project! That’s much more than Mr. Shatner did. “Aahhh, I’m not in the movie! I’m being replaced by someone younger and better looking, AAHHH!!!”
I think all you arm chair convention attending Admirals need to shut the hell up!
148:
Bob: Hopefully you’ll sleep well when this film breaks $ 1 billion, and you’re driven home after a bottle of 1982 Dom Perignon has made you numb, along with unabashed giddyness and pride.
Canon.
I think Leonard Nimoy knows more about Trek canon than many. He was there for a lot of it and probably learned more while writing and directing films like…. Star Trek.
I am still cautiously optimistic for this film and Mr. Nimoy’s new comments help to further that optimism.
I choose to believe in this film for now. I am comfortable with what little we have learned and fully realize that it could fail in May. But I hope not.
I hate seeing fellow fans trash this movie before we know the story and can see the whole thing.
That’s a shame, but their choice.
Hey Xai (156)
I think a lot of haters are people who got invested in the ‘extended universe’ of revisionist spin-offs like TNG and its cohorts.
I think the whole ‘canon’ thing is a bigger deal for them than to old-school TOS fans like me who are happy just to see a new Kirk/Spock/McCoy film. The trouble is, if there isn’t some screw-up in the timeline, changing future ‘history’, where will there be any tension in subsequent films. The problem with conventional prequels is that you get shown what you already know happened and future story-telling is also limited.
With this new film throwing in some curveballs, the future becomes undecided, so once again we have a ‘who-lives-and-who-dies?’ tension that wouldn’t be there if the film fitted perfectly into already-established history!. It even allows for actors/characters to jump ship in the future.
BLAH BLAH BLAH to the fans so concerned about cannon. I really hope one of them isn’t sitting next to me when i see the new star trek in may 09 complaining about ever litte thing that bothers them about this movie while watching it. GET OVER IT. Star Trek wasn’t created just for you! It’s for everybody. Remember “the needs of many out weight the needs of the few, or the one” Star Trek needs the many right now, so lets all calm down and just wait to see the finished project.
BTW Thank you for your comments Mr. Nimoy – can’t wait to see you in action one more time!!!
#125
I *was* a Heroes fan. I even held myself back and sat through the middling Season 2. But Season 3 is not just an insult to fans, it’s an insult to intelligence. Characters are wildly inconsistent from one episode to the next, and the attempts to cram in every possible character only hurt the show more.
Love Zach Quinto, and hope he has a good career ahead of him post-Heroes. But let’s face the music – it’s a sinking ship.
Actually, I have been somewhat perplexed at all this adulation Nimoy gets. I have never forgotten that Nimoy’s and Shatner’s salaries ate up a huge portion of the budgets of the STAR TREK films, which where extremely low to begin with, forcing the productions to look even more puny and TV like than they already where. Shatner gets the bulk of the criticism from people, but Nimoy was just as guilty… and greedy. He just doesn’t come off as a hero of mine.
And, why he continues to speak of Abrams, as if the guy has directed several films is questionable. Months ago, he called Abrams a great director, now he’s that rare director who knows how to combine both character elements and epic scale in a film–like he’s directed several of them and a pattern has emerged; he’s only directed two. I certainly didn’t see those in MI3. I personally think he’s exaggerating and spinning.
The Quickening (160)
Erm . . . Shatner and Nimoy were the stars. The movies might have been under-budgeted, but they made Paramount a fortune.
Why shouldn’t Shatner and Nimoy demand a healthy sum of money for being instrumental in bringing Paramount ***huge*** amounts of money. They aren’t a charity y’know! ;)
#121 Jenkins , I would like to know how Long is this Shaft for the Canonista ?!
Some Actionista actually know more about the Movies than the Canonista !
^122 Dom wrote an interesting question,
“You have to think: how important are all the backgrounds of these people in the greater scheme of things? As long as someone is in the right place to sort out Vejur and the Whalesong probe, does it have to be Kirk? Does it matter, 25 years down the line, whether Kirk was a bookish young man at the academy or a ‘Rebel Without a Cause’ type, as long as he’s on hand to save the whales?”
I believe it does matter what kind of men these are, Dom. It is my experience in life that constant vigilance is required in life to do the right thing, from boyhood to manhood. As Aristotle put it, it is easy to bend the sapling but the oak will crack and fall. Looking back over the years, I can think of no “rogue” that transformed himself into a hero. Some went on to lucrative careers, to be sure. But most ended up on the police blotter, on drugs, in prison or dead before my twentieth class reunion.
I don’t want my Kirk to be a 1970s style anti-hero, or a too easily rehabilitated “rogue” (a cute name for a wicked person). I want my Kirk to be honorable and disciplined such that he set the example for the children who will view this movie by the millions. We need such men desperately!
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
121. Spock Jenkins – December 4, 2008
You know what all you ‘Canon-Nuts’ can do with your Canon?
In the words of Scotty “Up yer shaft!”
grow up
“Will the canon be intact? None of that stuff is going to happen.”
There it is. Leonard Nimoy has confirmed canon will not remain intact! (Not what he meant, I know.)
Seriously, do you really think anyone connected to the project is going to bad mouth it before its release? It just isn’t going to happen. At a minimum, it’s a matter of professional courtesy.
#161
Some actors work for scale, or take cuts in salary on projects they love and make sacrifices to help out the production. Those kinds of actors are heroes of mine. Nimoy and Shatner could have taken that position, they didn’t. The TREK films could have been better looking films, if more money was available. Thanks to these two, that didn’t happen.
I pay money to see the STAR TREK concept–stories of adventure, character, theme, plot, philosophy, not to see Nimoy and Shatner. Could care less about them. Writers, directors, producers are my heroes.
XAI #156
I agree with everything you said.
Is that a sign that the end is near?
160 – “Actually, I have been somewhat perplexed at all this adulation Nimoy gets. I have never forgotten that Nimoy’s and Shatner’s salaries ate up a huge portion of the budgets of the STAR TREK films, which where extremely low to begin with,”
Other than Star Trek 5, I always thought the Star Trek films looked pretty good, but that’s just me.
“I personally think he’s exaggerating and spinning.”
Since he seems to be referring to this film, I don’t think you can objectively say that.
Who cares about canon and stuff? Star Trek has been going against their very own ‘canon’ for years, anyways.
As long as the story’s good and it appeals to new audiences that it will merit sequels after sequels, then I’m fine with it.
Isn’t it obvious that this film takes place in some type of alt universe?
166
Don’t be silly! :0
Star Trek films are big commercial films. Actors have a right to be paid properly. Star Trek films aren’t indie movies: they’re commercial films intended to make money for the studio!
If Paramount weren’t willing to stump up the cash to pay for other aspects of the movies that’s Paramount’s fault! Why should the actors be expected to take a pay cut for a major studio film?
#163 These are very good points about the movie hero (or real life heroes) . And a lot of heroes in movies today are anti-heroes . I think I am going to have bring up Anthony’s and John’s favorite call in regards to this : demographic . And definitely the answer is a big one as opposed to being simple . Who is this movie going to appeal to ? Or what age group is it made to appeal to ?
#165 – “Seriously, do you really think anyone connected to the project is going to bad mouth it before its release? It just isn’t going to happen. At a minimum, it’s a matter of professional courtesy.”
I agree with what you say, but unless I am mistaken, this appears to be something that Nimoy did on his own freewill that he didn’t have to do at all. So maybe if he went out of his way to do this unprompted (as in a request, etc) then it could be more that he feels something about this movie to stick up for passionately.
#73: Box Office Adventure Rubbish…(BOAR)….
are you saying the movie will be a male pig?
163 – C.S. Lewis – You make some very excellent points indeed. But I can think of one man in particular who was on a sure path to becoming a rogue (by his own admission) but who went on to become a true hero of the twentieth century: your namesake.
Re-read Lewis’s spiritual autobiography “Surprised by Joy.” He said of himself that before his conversion (which was greatly influenced and aided by his good friend J.R.R. Tolkien) that he was influenced by others as a young man — teachers and peers — to take pride in becoming something of a rather a callow cad and a bully. Fortunately for him, for us, and for the world of literature and apologetics, that route was diverted and he became the man who God intended him to be.
So I see the possibility of this happening with others as well. However, that being said, I also agree with you that that is not the back story I had come to believe about James T. Kirk, nor the one that I believe that Roddenberry and other formative writers of TOS had envisioned in the 1960s — even though rebelliousness and nonconformity were at their peak of shallow social fashion during those turbulent years. I believe that Kirk was a hero throughout his fictional life, and never any sort of reluctant hero or, even less, any sort of anti-hero — no matter how “cool” it might have been to have depicted or interpreted him as one during that decade of unparalleled change in social mores.
Best to you,
Brett C.
#163 C.S. Lewis
You and I don’t see eye-to-eye at times, so understand… I am not picking on you with this post…OK?
I short, I don’t think this Kirk is a “rogue” or a rebel by nature. We see him wrecking a Corvette that (I think) was stolen from an abusive uncle, but we don’t know the why of that. We hear he hit on Uhura in a bar, got in a fight and it looks like he meets a young green girl for some very Kirk-like action. The narrative describes him more like someone destined for more… not a rebel, but someone special looking for his path.
The TOS Kirk, although once described as a bookworm, did declare that “risk is our business” and did what he had to do to save the moment…orders be dammed. He had a half-dressed woman in his arms nearly every episode.
I am not disparaging either version, but it seems that excepting some historical changes, these two Kirks are not too far apart. Again… we learn more in May.
167. VOODOO – December 4, 2008
XAI #156
“I agree with everything you said.
Is that a sign that the end is near?”
Maybe WE are in that Alternate universe…..Suddenly I am left handed…..
(shudder)
:-)
#174 ..OINK.. (Original Interesting Nuisance Knowledge) !!
It’s a funny thing, though, that a number of writers, including Diane Carey and, indeed, William Shatner himself have assumed some sort of early low-level criminality where Kirk is concerned.
I think Kirk mostly would do the ‘right’ thing whether it was strictly legal or not. And that, in itself, fits perfectly with the rebel image!
1. If the original timeline exists alongside the new one, why would Spock need to chase after Nero? He could stay in his own unaffected timeline.
2 . If a new parallel timeline is created everytime someone journeys into the past, sh ouldn’t Spock arrive in a past different from the one Nero arrives in?
Now, a teen-aged Spock doing bong hits with T’Pring in his parents’ basement while watching reruns of “Lost in Space” — THAT I can believe! ;)
I have been a Trek fan since the first episode aired in 1966, I was 9 years old. I have faithfully watched all of the series on TV. I was thankful when a series began, and was heart-broken when a series ended. I was overjoyed when I found out that Paramount was making a Trek movie (STMP). I was, and still am thankful that our beloved Star Trek is still with us 42 + years later. What saddens me the most is the “supposed” Trek fans out there who bash various aspects of a movie they hardly know anything about. You don’t like the Director? The Enterprise is ugly? Canon is violated because the Enterprise is built in Iowa instead of San Francisco? Too bad you won’t see the movie because it doesn’t measure up to your standards. As long as it stays true to Gene’s vision I will support it. Obviously, not everyone will like the movie, but don’t post your opinion until AFTER you see it. Personally, I’m glad that the Trek franchise is not dead!
I am going to point out something very very bad. I WILL get burned for this, and I can understand. But please…. forgive me. I only speak the truth:
Star Trek is old. It is boring. I am 18. My generation barely knows what the Enterprise is. Yes, they can say that it’s “that ship from Star Trek,” but aside from that…. they honestly could not care less. Most have never seen a single Trek episode in their lives, because it is “stupid” (is the most common response I’ve seen).
Trek NEEDS this. I’m sorry, but this is NOT for the older Trek generation. It is for a new generation. You cannot have it both ways.
Trek needs the refit. And honestly, for those who think that the Enterprise should look EXACTLY the same, it was a poorly-made model that was made in the 1960’s on an extremely low TV budget. It was crap.
I am glad beyond reason that the show is getting a refit.
You all should be too. If you don’t, that’s it. That’s Trek. It’s done. It’s finished. It goes Warp 9 into the Galactic Barrier and shatters into a massive explosion of antimatter/matter.
81: “Heroes shouldn’t be on the list – brain cramp on my part”
Thank God. Heroes sucks.
183,
I’m 39 and I feel the same way.
183,
I’m sorry, again for going apeshit, but it needed to be said. Sorry. Venting… needed to happen.
It just feels like all the “original” Trek fans forget that there are younger people. I personally have been a fan of Voyager, some pieces of Enterprise, DS9, etc.
I just feel like people are trying to take away MY Treks, all Treks, by spreading the words of “Trek Fundamentalism.” You need to let it expand beyond you. I’m sorry. There are others. Don’t EVER think that Trek is dead.
Trek is not about the ships or the characters, it’s about what it has taught us. I have based SO MANY of my personal beliefs and morals off of Trek. And most of them came from Voyager and TNG. Just saying.
PLEASE remember that there are others. The world of Trek exists outside of Kirk.
183. That One Guy
It’s far from old and boring, but Trek does need a refit.
The enterprise model was far from poorly made, it was and is fantastic. Nor was it crap. I still think a revamp is good for Trek though.
No offense to your generation, but it is possible to appreciate the old as well as the new. Many in the younger generation need to work on attention spans.
Also, why are people associating Abrams with “Heroes?” To my knowledge, he’s not involved in it… at all…. It’s created by Tim Kring.
Someone prove me wrong? Please, I would honestly appreciate it.
187,
I love the old Trek, personally. But speaking from a broader perspective… people simply don’t care. I have an incredible respect for the old Trek. The very first Trek episode I ever watched was “Trouble with Tribbles.” Then I followed that with “Amok Time.” Both I got from the Orange County Public Library. Then once Voyager hit in 1995, I was there for the first episode.
But to be honest, I was never one for the original grey Enterprise. The refit version introduced in TMP was simply AMAZING.
I have every confidence in Trek.
I know it will continue.
I can only say this for it:
It has been, and always shall be, my friend. It has lived long and it will prosper.
Now let’s see what it can do with a whole new generation. This way, people can start out with this “origins” story, and then go back and watch all the series.
183
I’m 33, grew up with TOS before any of the watered down spin-offs. I’m old enough to remember not getting into the cinema to see TWOK, because there were no seats left. I can’t wait for the new film. It’s as much for me as your age group, so cut the possessive cr@pola huh! ;)
That Trek needs this film is obvious to anyone in any generation who isn’t anal about spin-off series continuity! I’ll be in the queue for the new film, as will my 72-year-old Dad and 61-year-old Mum!
Trek needs a younger generation alienated by the spin-offs to get to grips with Kirk, Spock and McCoy, without question. Equally, though, my few pounds are needed too!
#171
Given the genre, and compared to the money spent by other popular films in the genre, Star Trek films weren’t big commercial productions at all. People expect first rate production and design in these kinds of films. The TREK movies weren’t indie films, obviously, but like indie films, they were low budgeted productions that would have benefited from less money spent on actors and more on the production. It may have been Paramount’s fault–initially, for sure, but once the budget was set, it was the actors who could have stepped up and thought first of the project at hand. Neither Shatner or Nimoy did, and because of this they simply aren’t heroes of mine. On one film, if memory server, their salaries almost ate up a quarter of the budget.
191 Dom,
My apologies. I’m not trying to get “possessive.” It’s simply all the “canonistas” and “purists” that annoy the crap out of me because they won’t accept anything besides the VERY original. They won’t even touch the Remastered.
All m to rephrase this:
This movie is for all Trek fans and a whole new audience. But it is NOT for the “canonistas” simply because things change. And if they can’t accept that….
I do hope that Mr Nimoy is correct- however he is being payed (quite handsomely I assume) so isn’t exactly going to come out and trash the film. I’ll see the film and make my own mind up. I’m sure he’ll understand that.
TOG#183- You know I love you, but them is fightin’ words. Crap? Old? I am coming to your dorm to drag your roommates into your room and tickle you to death… Yes, I understand your point J, but you did not like the original Enterprise model at all? How often have you seen it? You must understand that, for the time in which it was designed , it was a brilliant, totally original model. I suppose everyone has their opinions, but when I watched ST in syndication as a child I thought it was a beautiful ship then and still do.
Defining “Canonista:
Noun:
Someone who takes The Original Series as the only source of Trek. There is no other Trek. Things from TOS cannot be changed. Ever.
Just trying to clarify, because I do know people here who don’t like the idea of it being changed, but will at least give it a chance.
These constant canon/ design “errors” arguments won’t slow down until this thing is released, will they. Seriously, the same folks are making the same arguments on pretty much every topic that gets posted. Whether the post be about action figures, Shatner getting a new weave, Chris Pine being sexy — all the comments come down to “damn JJ for making this like Star Wars.” Brutal, guys.
Denise,
Remember: the amount of qualifiers I have used in this are ridiculous. There are many.
I love TOS. My generation does not. They are morons.
I’ve also grown up in the CGI era, which is not always better. We’ve seen this many-a-time. CGI can do amazing things, but it’s not always great. Personally, I love the Enterprise (NCC-1701, no bloody A, B, C, D, or E) after it was remastered. But the original model…. not so much. Not on the TV.
On the other hand, the thing looks AMAZING sitting in the Smithsonian.
May 8, 2009 cannot arrive soon enough. To me, this is bigger than Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.
fwiw, there are at least two Marks posting on this site. I have been posting for quite a while on these boards, and some new “Mark”shave come along, and I know there’s not really a way to distinguish the older posts, but from this point forward, I will be Mark C. I posted #153 above, mildly harassing the people that can’t tell the difference between canon and cannon (or Nemoy or Track). I did not post #51.
One of the most significant conclusions I draw about Leonard Nimoy’s statements is that they totally dispel the complaints of those who are cynically calling this “Star Trek 90210″.
Nimoy and his wife are surely not apologists for the “MTV generation” and “Instant Messaging generation”.
I conclude that the story is engaging and satisfying, and that is paramount (no pun intended).
#196
Rigorously defining “what a canonista is” is as silly as the quest to pursue canon.
#199 With all due respect, hoping that Trek resembles, in any way, shape, or form, “The Phantom Menace” is a bad idea. TMP was horrible and a horrible let down. Are you trying to jinx the new film?
Yes TPM, that horrible let down that made over 900 mil at tbe box office and is still talked about to this day?
All Star Wars fans over the age of 10 at the time The Phantom Menace came out were seriously disappointed with it.
I hate Ewoks with a passion, but Gungans are insufferable. Meesa no kid yousa.
I can’t imagine JJ Abrams and his Supreme Court would allow this movie to devolve to that level (JJ only likes the OG SW movies, ya know).
^ The only good Gungan is a dead one, or one played for laughs on Robot Chicken!
That One Guy:
You are wise beyond your years. Any observations of “Trek Fundamentalism” are spot-on. Some of the posters on this board make the rest of us look like the geek caricatures that the rest of the world loves make fun of. Thanks for being one of rational voices here that dilute the loud and proud “Star Trek is my Religion and i am unable to wrap my head around anything but TOS” set.
“I hate Ewoks with a passion, but Gungans are insufferable”
-I just spit red wine all over my keyboard.
LOL
Hey, That One Guy (193) No worries! I think canonistas are morons too! They drove me nuts through the TOS-R project. why I have certain qualms about the ultimate quality of some of the CGI, I had no issues with some of the ‘improvements’ and, indeed, would have dared to go considerably further with changes, had it been me!
The Quickening (192) Dude! Really! The lead actors’ pay taking up quarter of a film’s budget is nothing unusual! It’s nothing to do with Shatner and Nimoy being unheroic or whatever. Trek movies were nothing like indie films. They certainly weren’t low-budget. They were a under-budgeted for what they were, sure, but no actor worth his salt in Hollywood does a franchise film for scale when they play the lead. As with any freelance, what you get paid for one job affects what you get paid for another. Only a complete lunatic would accept a pay cut to appear in a franchise that is a major source of his or her income.
203. Enterprise: that horrible $900 million-grossing film that is talked about to this day as a benchmark for shoddy scripting and fanbase-alienation! After Revenge of the Sith, few Star Wars fans have a kind word to say for George Lucas and I suspect many of them now wish the prequel trilogy had never been made!
206,
Hardly. I am not “wise beyond [my years].” I clearly have my own personal biases, just like everyone else. My rationality is based off of my own experiences, just like them.
I can only hope that everything works out. That’s all we can do.
Oh and That One Guy (193) my definition of ‘canonistas’ would actually be people who are obsessed with tying 40 years of flabby (dis)continuity together to the extent that a story set in Kirk’s era can’t be allowed to happen because of an off-cuff remark by Janeway 26 minutes into episode 24 of Voyager! Essentially Star Trek’s potential for exploration is handcuffed by itself!
Most TOS fans, in my experience are pretty chilled about ‘canon!’ It’s the fans of the later Treks who are up in arms, because their neat ‘canon’ house of cards has been blown up in the air. I mean, to force 45 real years and several hundred years of fictional Trek history into your head and care about it that much means you must have psychological issues of some kind!
As a TOS fan, frankly I could care less about what the new films does to the spin-off shows’ existence. TNG was one interpretation of the future of Trek, as far as I’m concerned, created by the guy who made TMP (the most visually and conceptually ambitious movie, but the worst Trek film in terms of characters) but had had no other real influence on Star Trek since about 1968.
JJ Abrams is now making his interpretation of Trek. Hopefully at some point in the future, someone else will recast Kirk, Spock and McCoy and we’ll see their interpretation! Maybe we’ll even see a different interpretation of the TNG Trek universe, although frankly, the ‘Next Generation’ experiment was hopefully a one-time-only thing and we’ll see Paramount stick to Kirk, Spock and McCoy in future!
#76 – “#55—”But for those of us who had hoped that this film would contribute to and enhance the Trek Universe–read, the nominally-single continuum in which we’ve played for so long–the concerns arise from the idea that it will do something quite different, to wit, sidestepping away from that world. That’s not a canonical issue, but it is one of continuity.”
As you know, Alex, I can’t help but view those as narrow terms.”
Perhaps. Nonetheless, I remain in that group of fans who find it particularly compelling that, for the most part, the world of Star Trek was considered, at least thus far, a single fictional world, not one in which it would become necessary to qualify every statement by saying, “This happened in Universe A, but not in B,” and so forth.
“I believe it will be, in fact, a single continuity—regardless of the ‘final solution’.”
Honestly, I find that, as stated, almost impossible, considering that the backstory and assorted circumstances surrounding how these characters came together is–apparently–quite different than what was established the first time. So far, I believe that the changes were unnecessary, but will reserve the right to change that opinion based on learning more about the story as time goes on.
“I know that you (and others, like the Okudas) have worked hard to piece together the series of events depicted in more than 4 decades of filmed Trek. I have done so as well, if only in my own head for the purposes of self-entertainment.”
Indeed. For several decades now, I have also maintained a chronology of the Trek Universe, perhaps more far-reaching than the Okudachron (since i went far beyond the limitation of only including filmed Trek), though less detailed than the James Dixon timeline. I’ve also been published three times as part of a team creating a timeline for the various Trek novels.
I’ve also written somewhere in the vicinity of a million words of storytelling set within Trek’s universe.
So, yes, I think it safe to say that the idea of Trek as a single, mostly-cohesive world is just a bit important to me. ;)
“That continuity remains intact, and in fact, essential to the ongoing overall Trek mythos. It cannot come to this ‘potentially’ altered timeline without every bit of that continuity you have studied and perhaps even documented yourself.
If anything, this has the potential of giving you additional material in a new timeline that does not supercede, but rather supplements, the continuity of events established in 5 Trek series and 10 other films.”
I so get where you’re coming from, but I also can’t help but believe that the effective result of this film will become either a) when new material is created, it will follow the new backstory for the characters, in an attempt to capture and hold the hoped-for market of people drawn in by the new film, or b) the resources of the licensees will be split up, with material being set in one continuity or the other. (I suspect it will end up with TOS-related material being mostly set in the new continuity and the other series remaining in the original one, though it’s hare to say that for certain until we know how far-reaching the changes wrought by the new film will be.)
Since TOS is by far my favorite of the filmed series, that is of no small significance to me. ;)
(The only part of the rest of Trek that will apparently be intrinsically common to both continuities will be “Enterprise”, which I find quite ironic given that series’s red-headed stepchild status among so many fans.)
“Some events may be specific to one timeline or the other, and other events may be common to both.”
That provides a degree of uncertainty, itself, which does not make me excited about this new film. The minute one creates a situation in which someone can say, “But this is a *new* timeline, and maybe that didn’t happen…”, one has lost me as a supporter. As I’ve said previously, too, this is not limited to Trek. For me, it’s the case with any well-established fictional world.
“The important thing is (to me, anyway), the “original timeline” maintains its relevancy, quite inherently within the very concept of telling this kind of story.”
Except that I think the outcome of this story could seriously place in question the “relevancy” of the original timeline, though to be perfectly fair about it, much will depend on the degree of change created. But as an easy definition for how I look at it, if the level of change is sufficient that one is able to say, “What was previously established no longer matters going forward”, it’s gone too far. Compared to that question, all the rest is semantical hair-splitting.
As a reminder, it’s not just “canonistas” vs “complete open mindedness”. There are those of us somewhere else along that spectrum.
This movie could have been made much better (less fan criticism) with different choices along the way. It’s a balance of change vs continuity using art direction and character history. For example, if they wanted to change the way the characters came together, they should have stuck with a much more familiar Enterprise exterior and interior (the general audience would not have cared). The added visual continuity would have softened the changes in their backstories. Conversely, if they wanted to change the visuals into something that appeared more futuristic than we knew in ‘68, they should have kept the character backstories we are familiar with.
Change one or the other, not both.
The new cast looks great, but to also saddle the fans with a different bridge, different starship AND different character backstory will be too far for some.
I must admit… I had serious doubts about this picture, especially after seeing the first pics of the enterprise (which I still don’t particularly like), however, the more of it I see, and especially after hearing Nimoy’s enthusiastic endorsement, I’m looking more and more forward to seeing it. Still don’t like the E, but I’m beginning to think there’s a reason for it looking like that (and not just because they felt like doing it like that). As though something in time is changed and that’s the result, and when Spock sets things straight, we’ll get a more familiar version.
I want to see this movie.
Alright, coming in a bit late here, but what the hell?!?!…Star Trek is what gets me going, or rather, did. The original cast movies coupled with The Next Generation was the center of my formative years. Those days are OVER. I never felt any sort of devotion to a set of characters in any other show, until Lost. I’m very sorry that there are those of you that have become so jaded, you can’t enjoy a well-spun tale anymore. I’m very pleased that J.J. and his team are engaged with the Trek universe. For those of you saying Lost became boring after season 1, perhaps you should stop watching American Idol and Dancing With The Stars and get back into serialized television. Come to think of it, those of you that hate on Lost, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes (even though Heroes has lessened), WTF do you watch and enjoy?!?! I am thrilled beyond words that Trek will be back and better than ever.
I agree with the perspective that up to this point, Star Trek has been a single fictional world with a “history.” This “history” is every bit as important to ‘Trek’ as the ‘Silmarillion’ is to the ‘Hobbit’ and the ‘Lord of the RIngs’ trilogy. Tolkien included pictures and maps with the novels—Trek has video and film.
#85 – “And I am not sure where you get the idea that I would get “goosebumps” from the idea of canon violations. I simply argue that there are no canon violations yet evident, since anything we have seen depicted occurs after the timeline incursion of 2233 (the attack upon the USS Kelvin by Romulans from the future).”
But, see, there’s the root of the thing. Forget the word “canon” for a moment, because it becomes almost irrelevant once one realizes that a multiverse is a canonical thing for Trek. What you’ve highlighted here is the idea that it becomes possible to dismiss any concerns about divergences from established continuity by simply saying, “It’ in the new timeline, so it’s not a problem.”
That may be thrilling to some people, but to me it’s just an easy dodge to avoid having to concern oneself with what others have spent decades building.
#166 – “Some actors work for scale, or take cuts in salary on projects they love and make sacrifices to help out the production. Those kinds of actors are heroes of mine. Nimoy and Shatner could have taken that position, they didn’t. The TREK films could have been better looking films, if more money was available. Thanks to these two, that didn’t happen.”
If my recollection is correct, in at least one instance it did happen. Both took deals that tied their payment for “Trek VI” to the film’s final gross, rather than large up-front salaries, in order to smooth the way for the film to be made.
#169 – “Star Trek has been going against their very own ‘canon’ for years, anyways.”
How so? I’d argue that it really hasn’t. Oh, they’ve gotten an occasional detail wrong, but in large part, the consistency has been quite remarkable, given the body of material involved.
#183 – “Trek needs the refit. And honestly, for those who think that the Enterprise should look EXACTLY the same, it was a poorly-made model that was made in the 1960’s on an extremely low TV budget. It was crap.”
I fully agree that the Enterprise should not look EXACTLY the same in a modern feature film as it did in a 40-year-old TV series (though I think that with a very few changes, the model that they are using could have been made to look more like the original with no real compromise to its design, and the reasons why that’s the case have been argued to death elsewhere).
However, I must disagree that the original model was poorly made, and that the budget for Star Trek was low. Neither was the case. The model was very well-made, which is one reason it is even still with us 4 decades down the line. It did everything that it was needed to do, and held up very well. That it wouldn’t stand up to modern VFX doesn’t make it “crap”. It simply is a product of the environment in which it was made. As for the budget, I will say once again, at the time Star Trek was produced, it was among the most expensive shows in production…which was one reason why it only lasted three seasons.
I’d argue, BTW, that the refit it got in the Remastered episodes, and in modern portrayals of the design, such as Kuramura’s model of the Defiant, as well as the relative fidelity of even the new version for ST09, prove the longevity and fundamental quality of the original design.
“Actor Praises Director”
“Actor Praises Unreleased Film”
“Dog Bites Man”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad Anthony reports all things Trek, both big and small, but people reading the story need to keep things in perspective. I’m sure Eddie Murphy had great things to say about Norbit before it was released too.
Mr. Alex Rosenzweig: I completely agree about the need to keep the Trek history “cohesive” and that doesn’t make me or you an obnoxious or rabid fan by admitting that. Who wouldn’t want continuity in a universe as vast as Trek?
When canon is overlooked or dismissed or “violated” in some way, then to me it almost invalidates something that came before. I take great comfort in Leonard’s sort of “endorsement” of the film and I’m totally excited to find out how the Spock of the future (presumably the 24th century) discovered the need to time travel to repair or prevent whatever needs to be repaired or prevented in the past.
I loved TPM, and ROTS is easily one oif the best SW movies. The people that hate TPM and the prequels wanted the movies to be carbon copies of ESB.
RE: 217 and others who say ‘just an actor doing what he has to’
it is pretty clear that you actually dont understand what the word ‘perspective’ means. As noted above, Nimoy didn’t need this job, he was fine taking pics of fat naked women. He turned down past Trek. He did this because he believed in the team and the script. So no, he is not just another actor doing his job as a pitchman.
I think it is so sad that some people are so stuck. It is like they want this film to fail and to suck. I think some people had some perfect movie in mind (another Tng movie, an ENT movie, 25th century movie, etc) and since they didn’t get what they want, they are crying and refusing to even hope.
Sure this film might suck, but it looks pretty cool so far and shouldnt we all want it to be good. Isn’t optimism part of Trek?
How sad that some people have to attack Leonad Nimoy, the most revered living Trek legend, just to hold on to their hate. Pathetic
I love how everyone’s trying to reassure us that this movie’s gonna be great and its gonna be cannon, but so far I have at least my serious doubts on the cannon issue, mainly with the construction of the enterprise and kirk meeting pike. Seems like theyre going to totally destroy any idea of how Roddenberry wanted Kirk to get his start. Still not saying its going to be a bad movie, but it seems like all these people are just feeding us these bits with not a lot to back them up.
It’s so sad that fans are hung up on canon, when it’s clear the Trek writers and creators never were. Let it go people.
220 Enterprise — “I loved TPM, and ROTS is easily one oif the best SW movies. The people that hate TPM and the prequels wanted the movies to be carbon copies of ESB.”
I hate TPM but like AotC and love RotS, so don’t lump everyone who hates TPM into “Prequel haters”.
Mr. Nimoy speaks about the plot. It can respect things from TOS or TNG etc., but it doesn’t solve the “visual” problem – the ship has nothing common with TOS – yes, the number and name – but that is all. I know, it was said after the negative reactions, that the special promo picture of the ship, surely carefully chosen, was a picture in a “bad angle”.
it’s funny when there’s paycheck involved they’ll say anything
#225 So there’s no saucer section, no twin nacellesand no secondary engineering hull holding the lot together??? wow when did you see that picture?
Personally I have the new enterprise on my desk top and although if i’m truley honest with myself i would have liked a slightly longer engineering hull I have to admit that i’m in love all over again with this new E iteration.
she pretty and sleek and I can’t wait to a model of her next to my other Enterprises.
I also can’t wait to see her in action next may unlike #212 who has apparently seen this film already as they talk about the movie in the past tense. “could have been made much better”???
Stop the hate and spread some love! IDIC
#183 “Trek NEEDS this. I’m sorry, but this is NOT for the older Trek generation. It is for a new generation. You cannot have it both ways.”
Actually you can. The funny thing is, you and many of your young friends just won’t realize it.
I hate the Phantom Menace because of the whole Anakin origin. Divine virgin birth? Anakin is supposed to be Jesus in one movie and George “Either with me or against me” Bush in another.
Besides all that, the acting was lame. The actors were staring at green screens reacting to NOTHING. The acting on Jack Webb’s Dragnet was better.
The pod racing scene was lame.
And the space battles… SPACE is huge. No starship commander worth his salt would come so close to another ship in combat. Besides running the risk of collision, if your guns cant hit another ship outside of visual range, what are you using? Rocks?
Think back to the Bismark and the Hood. Real world ships can hit each other tens of miles out. A cruise missile can hit anywhere in the world.
Oy! (shakes head)
It humors me how people use this forum to go off on their dislike of Star Wars.
“Think back to the Bismark and the Hood. Real world ships can hit each other tens of miles out. A cruise missile can hit anywhere in the world.”
In those terms, TWOK was a comic book then, considering all the point-blank space battles between Reliant & Enterprise. And, so the scanners didn’t work in the nebula. How about posting some crew members at the windows to ‘visually scan’, i.e. LOOK for the other ship?
Oh yeah… it’s just a movie, and it’s done for suspense. Action. Drama.
Nice to see Nimoy put his two cents in about the film. I value his opinion based on my many years of hearing him speak on various topics and reading his published writings. Anyone else is free to say he’s just a shill, that’s their opinion. But, like I said, I value *his* opinion.
Trek has DIED long ago. Let it rest in peace and please do not destroy it with projects like this one. PLEASE. At least if they do a film which respects canon and the spirit of Star Trek and not an action movie like this one. WHY? WHY?? WHY??? Paramount already has a LOT of money from the Star Trek franchise why do they want EVEN MORE? Please…
Come on! Nimoy got money for acting in this film and he wants it to become a a success, so he won’t say “It’s pretty bad, please don’t watch it”.
220: “I loved TPM, and ROTS is easily one oif the best SW movies. The people that hate TPM and the prequels wanted the movies to be carbon copies of ESB.”
While ESB was the best SW movie, I didn’t want a carbon copy. Two things would have made the new SW movies 10x better.
1: No Jar-Jar. Lucas figured this out by AotC, so we were good there.
2: A Han Solo character. Someone who represented the audience. Who, after the third or fourth conversation-scene discussing the seriousness and importance of the Force, could turn to the audience and wink, “yeah, RIGHT!” Imagine how lame and dull the original movies would have been without him. Well, you don’t have to, that’s what the new movies were like.
It’s nice to hear from Mr. Nimoy regarding his take on the quality of the film, even with some of the SFX and music missing. And if, in that form, it’s engrossing enough to cause his wife to say she hoped it didn’t end, then you’ve got to figure those of us who see it in its finished form on May 9 and thereafter will feel the same – for the most part.
Let’s remember – here is a person who actually HAS seen the movie. And this is a somewhat biased take on the film – after all, he was in it. But given his credibility and personal standards, it’s not likely he would have given such a review if he thought it stunk, even given the fact he endorsed the script prior to principal photography.
To Mr. Nimoy: Thank you for taking the time to make your opinion known.
maybe spock will sing row, row, row your boat.
#208
True. One quarter of a HUGH sci-fi budgeted movie wouldn’t make a difference. A low/under budget TREK/sci-fi movie would make a difference, though. The TREK film series was a strange animal. It was a little better than low/under budget films series like FRIDAY THE 13th, HALLOWEEN, etc., but not in the same league as the STAR WARS, 007, LOTR film series. I would agree with most of what you are stating for the latter kinds of film series I mentioned above, but not the TREK films. A little sacrifice from Shatner and Nimoy would have made a difference in the look of the films. I simply admire those kinds of actors, people who make those kinds of sacrifices and Nimoy and Shatner just didn’t measure up. I can only speak for myself. Now that I think about it, I remember reading that they had a stipulation in their contracts that whatever, one actor received, the other had to receive an equal amount–further illustrating my point. I have no problem with high paid actors, sports figures, etc., making money–as long as their salaries doesn’t hurt the very thing they are working in. Those are my standards… and what I look for in my heroes.
217. Red-Shirted Monkey – December 5, 2008
“Actor Praises Director”
“Actor Praises Unreleased Film”
“Dog Bites Man”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad Anthony reports all things Trek, both big and small, but people reading the story need to keep things in perspective. I’m sure Eddie Murphy had great things to say about Norbit before it was released too.”
The man came out of retirement to do the film and probably went right back to retirement after. He likely got his pay post-production so if he wanted to, he could care less about the resulting box office. Plus he would be part of the pre-release interview curcuit, but that would be much closer to the movie release and more mainstream.
I think he spoke now because he cares about the film.
215. McCoy said: ‘I agree with the perspective that up to this point, Star Trek has been a single fictional world with a “history.” This “history” is every bit as important to ‘Trek’ as the ‘Silmarillion’ is to the ‘Hobbit’ and the ‘Lord of the RIngs’ trilogy. Tolkien included pictures and maps with the novels—Trek has video and film.’
With all due respect, Lord of the Rings and its fellows are literature and pretty much high art that have been adapted in many different ways, with many different actors. Lord of the Rings was created by an academic, an expert in ancient literature and language to tell a very clever form of faux-mythology. Much English literature was lost in the Dark Ages and Tolkien tried to create something substantial in its place.
Star Trek, by comparison, is a trashy sci-fi franchise, created to make money for a studio and sell washing powder during commercial breaks. It does not deserve mentioning in the same breath as Lord of the Rings.
This is where people fail to understand Star Trek on any level: it’s not high art. It’s not saying anything beyond a few third-rate moral platitudes. It’s entertainment pure and simple. Unfortunately, its occasional self-important tone makes certain weak-minded people think it’s more special than it actually is.
Accept Star Trek for what it is: a bit of fun that kills a couple of hours that’s a bit more intelligent than a lot of other mainstream entertainment sci-fi franchises and you’ll actually be a lot happier! :)
229 McCoy’s Gall Bladder — “I hate the Phantom Menace because of the whole Anakin origin. Divine virgin birth? Anakin is supposed to be Jesus in one movie and George ‘Either with me or against me’ Bush in another.”
I don’t want to spend too much time arguing SW on a ST board, but in RotS at least they hint at the actual explanation of that irksome virgin birth thing: Sidious picked up Plagueis’ trick of creating life from the Force. It’s heavily implied that Sidious used that knowledge on Shmi and voila! Anakin was a secret instrument of the Dark Side all along, just like the Clone Army.
238:
Yes, Vader is basically a clone prototype created using the Force. I thought it was made pretty clear in RotS.
Sometimes I put a Tribble in my pants and don’t tell anyone.
Is Mel Brooks around still? I’d love to see a Space Balls with a Trek theme :)
Nimoy said, I believe it, that settles it.
I don’t understand why some many so called fans what this film to fail.
#237
Good post, Dom. I’ve often laughed at the idea that Star Trek represents some sort of “vision”. It’s a freaking TV show. And a movie franchise.
One that I LOVE, mind you…
Hi Julio (243)
Yeah I love Trek too (particularly TOS). That said I’m not looking at it as anything beyond good entertainment!
#203 “Yes TPM, that horrible let down that made over 900 mil at tbe box office and is still talked about to this day?”
And you think you are actually saying something here?
a. TMP was guaranteed to make money regardless of quality.
It was the first sequel in many years to the most popular film franchise in history.
There is not a massive swell of interest in ST as there was for SW in 1999. The prospect of a new SW in 1999 was a cultural event. The prospect of a new ST in 2008 is an idle curiousity, at best. Moral: Star Trek won’y get to suck and ride the coattails of it predecessors to a big box office haul.
b. Making money is not a reliable enough sign of quality.
The Spice Girls “Wannabe… …became the highest debut ever in the Hot 100 chart by a British band, beating the Beatles “I Want To Hold Your Hand”. The next two singles, Say You’ll Be There and 2 Become 1 made Number 1 in 53 countries.” http://www.thespicegirls.com/facts/biography
And yet no one argues that the Spice Girls are better than the Beatles. In fact, most agree that they suck.
c. Yes, people still talk about TMP. They talk about how much it sucked.
The overwhelming consensus about the film is that it was a let down.
Lucas got rich, we got Jar Jar.
I like Leonard Nimoy very much and I have great respect for him and for his thoughts on Star Trek. These make me feel better about the movie and its integrity than I was feeling two weeks ago. And therefore I really appreciate his comments.
But still, I’d like to put things into perspective a little bit. Did anyone expect him to say that the film he participated in was a total desaster, even if he had felt so? After all, Leonard Nimoy is a professional actor and a Hollywood insider, too. So don’t overrate his endorsement.
Another issue: that someone is a Trek star does not automatically imply that he or she is also a canon buff. I remember, for example, that Jonathan Frakes was asked about some canon stuff when he was on stage at a FedCon (I believe it was in 1995). He replied that as an actor you’re usually preoccupied with learning your lines and making your performance believable and strong and you never even think about canon details and such stuff.
Leonard Nimoy surely knows his Trek, and no one knows Spock better than him, but I don’t know whether he cares much about such canon details as the at-warp effect. Maybe, maybe not. I do, that’s for sure.
# 232 “”While ESB was the best SW movie, I didn’t want a carbon copy. Two things would have made the new SW movies 10x better.
1: No Jar-Jar. Lucas figured this out by AotC, so we were good there.
2: A Han Solo character. Someone who represented the audience. Who, after the third or fourth conversation-scene discussing the seriousness and importance of the Force, could turn to the audience and wink, “yeah, RIGHT!” Imagine how lame and dull the original movies would have been without him. Well, you don’t have to, that’s what the new movies were like.”"
I have seen a version of TMP sans Jar Jar – it still sucks.
And you didn’t need a Han Solo character so much as you needed actually direction. Lucas took people who have established that they can act (in many films) and turned them into wooden monotonous bores in the prequels. He even sucked the vitality of SLJ. The dialogue was bad too.
Sight unseen, I’ll bet that the new Trek film is better than TMP.
Leonard Nimoy ran over my dog because its ears were pointed. no love lost for that guy, let me tell you.
#227 So there’s no saucer section, no twin nacelles and no secondary engineering hull holding the lot together??? wow when did you see that picture?
Yes, there is saucer section, 2 nacelles and secondary hull. This „equipment“ is the same, but it’s like with the women: they have all the same „equipment“, but some are considered to be nice, pretty and beautiful and some not. The new Enterprise has nothing beautiful for me: the proportions are strange, also thy pylons for the nacelles, the secondary hull…for me, there’s no elegance in it. Of course, I respect different opinion.
247: “And you didn’t need a Han Solo character so much as you needed actually direction. Lucas took people who have established that they can act (in many films) and turned them into wooden monotonous bores in the prequels. He even sucked the vitality of SLJ. The dialogue was bad too.”
Lucas could have done a lot worse than have Kasdan write his scripts, but apparently Kasdan wants nothing to do with him any more after Lucas gutted his RotJ script.
I guess I mean a Han Solo character played by someone with the ability and guts (to play him how he knows will be accepted by the audience) of Harrison Ford.
We’ve been LUCKY to have had many Very Good Trek films…but who knows…Why is it so Inconceivable to some…that this one could be the BEST of them all. Mr. Nimoy is a Gentleman of proven taste and Class. If he says its good. ITS GOOD! …There I said it.
251.
Even though this film may have good direction, good acting and good effects, if it still purposely invalidates the timeline we grew up with, it will leave a bad feeling for some of us. Plus, if all we are after is a good story, the art direction for the big E bridge and exterior should have been closer to the original.
Sorry… rehash
#252 …But how do we know that the ‘Canon Violations’ won’t be corrected by Spocks time travels….Maybe when all is said and done…things will return to the way we know and love them…
237. Dom
You said it all! Trek is like a big jelly donut fortified with a few vitamins.
I love it but don’t elevate it to such an exalted status that it’s untouchable.
(but there was a time when I did…)
253. Derek
If that happens I will be a very, very happy person. ;o)
#255 Me Too :) I realize that time marchs on….But TOS is like Family to me…And for me Trek will only be TOS…I’ve watched some of ALL the others…But…uh sorry not the same…I wish that they could have made 10 more movies with the TOS Actors…
#103—-”The Kirk as rebel doesn’t ring true to me but maybe the loss of his dad due to Nero can make this so. However, this does change his evolution and it makes me wonder if he can be the same Kirk in the end. We are a sum of our life experiences. ”
This is particularly interesting. Conventionally speaking, this is absolutely true, of course. We are the sum of our life experiences.
The question to me is, is Kirk really—as suggested by Nick Meyer, a “mythological” hero?
If he is, then can he not be considered a ‘predestined’ hero? What I mean is, despite the “new” challenges, could he not be destined to become the same hero, no matter the changes to the timeline?
The same destination….by a different path?
237.
Seems almost like an attack on Trek…I wasn’t comparing the purpose or genesis of Tolien’s work over Roddenberry’s. I enjoy both. Both are entertaining and both are forms of art. Trek has misfired here and there but hardly comes across as “sci-fi trash”. I can think of a few episodes of ‘Buck Rogers’ that certainly hit that mark.
My purpose of comparing Tolkien to Star Trek was to highlight the fact that Trek does have a world with a history. You can argue about the quality of Trek in it’s various incarnations or episodes, but the events which have taken place and the back stories that have been referenced should be considered part of the fabric of that world and due respect taken. With Trek, the design of vehicles, equipment, logos and uniforms are part of that history. Just like Gondor must have 7 levels, the Enterprise and her bridge should look a certain way. Just like Gandalf was once a Maia, Kirk was once a bookworm. The difference is that Trek design is open for less interpretation because we have video and film of those designs. Not just the printed word.
#253 “”But how do we know that the ‘Canon Violations’ won’t be corrected by Spocks time travels….Maybe when all is said and done…things will return to the way we know and love them…”"”
You don’t get it. The film IS the way things are supposed to be NOW (i.e., 2008 where we are rebooting the franchise). This film carries the torch and is now the preferred timeline (in the sense that it is still “alive”).
The TOS timeline is now, more or less, an aberrant timeline where Kirk was a bookworm. The old timeline does not really violate the New Canon (since we have the figleaf of causal emanation), but it is no longer relevant or “authoritative” canon.
258. It’s not an attack. It’s just a common sense appraisal. Trek is a burger at a fried chicken joint: enjoyable here and there, unhealthy in large amounts, as the weird behaviour of Trek obsessives proves. ;)
Let’s not pretend it’s more than it is: fun, trashy entertainment with lots of sex and violence and nice line in self-deprecating humour to offset the potential pomposity of some of the moral discussions. It’s good melodrama!
Tolkien’s material is on a different level. And, as it stands, has been adapted into a famous radio serial with one cast that included Ian Holm as Frodo and a blockbuster series of movies with a different cast that included Ian Holm as Bilbo! Both adaptations had loads of deviations from Tolkien’s text, yet are acceptable as adaptations of Tolkien’s work.
If you take TOS as a ‘text,’ Star Trek was adapted, quite faithfully as a cartoon series and was adapted quite differently for the movies. The other shows, like TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are also adaptations of ideas brought about by the original Trek show. But they’re only one group’s adaptation.
The new film, similarly, is an adaptation that is tackling Star Trek from a different angle. It’s been done with everything else Why should Star Trek be any different?
End of the day, it’s just another franchise, same as Bond, Batman, Bourne or whatever! trekkies need to stop thinking Star trek is more than it is!
This is what I think of Meester Neemoy, that thieving rascal!
Don’t call me half-Vulcan
I been here for years
Trekkin for years and puttin Klingons in fear
Makin my ears point up like a BUFF-oon
Listen to the bass go BOOM
Explosion, overpowerin
Emotions be damned, I’m towerin
Orion women flirts, when I drop these lyrics that’ll make you call the redshirts
Don’t you dare stare, you betta move
Don’t ever compare
Me to the rest that’ll all get sliced and diced
Federation’s payin the price
Spock is gonna knock you out
Spock is gonna knock you out
Spock is gonna knock you out
Spock is gonna knock you out
“If he is, then can he not be considered a ‘predestined’ hero? What I mean is, despite the “new” challenges, could he not be destined to become the same hero, no matter the changes to the timeline?
The same destination….by a different path?”
Closet–Ah so very interesting indeed. Predestined is the key so perhaps. I love this stuff. As Spock would say, FASCINATING.
“End of the day, it’s just another franchise, same as Bond, Batman, Bourne or whatever! trekkies need to stop thinking Star trek is more than it is!”
Um, sorry, by virtue of being here and posting (less than1%, remember), it’s clear you, i and the rest of us have elevated Trek beyond the norm.
#246—-”I don’t know whether he cares much about such canon details as the at-warp effect. ”
Or perhaps, he (like myself) does not consider that to be a “canon detail” at all. Many of us consider “canon detail” to be something like McCoy’s relationship with Nancy Crater 12 years prior to the Enterprise’s visit to Planet M-113. The “at warp effect” is not something which impacts the story or overall Trek mythos, whether you’re talking about STXI or “The Man Trap”.
It’s window dressing, and nothing more (IMO).
I think that some fans have a much broader net cast over what they consider to constitute “canon” than others.
To me, Star Trek was never about the asthetic detail surrounding the vehicle that gets my favorite characters from point A to point B. Therefore, the term “canon” does not encompass any of that to me. “Canon”, IMO, refers to what takes place at point A, point B, and everywhere in between. I couldn’t care less about what special effects serve as window dressing to that story (which inevitable vary according to the available options and creative interpretations of those involved in production). I only care about the story and the characters. I would imagine that is the way Mr. Nimoy views “canon” as well.
Now, to be fair, Nimoy is not infallible in judgement of adherence to what I consider to be “canon” either. Admiral Morrow’s line in TSFS about the age of the Enterprise is an example of where Nimoy felt comfortable in retconning the established ‘canon’ from the original series. It is something I have long wished did not happen. I didn’t see anything wrong with the age established in the first season of TOS. I guess Bennett and Nimoy must have.
260. Dom
You are so still missing the point. I am not comparing the quality of Trek vs Tolkien’s work on Middle Earth. Tolkien used words, maps and other drawings and was a single, glorious source. I love the Tolkien novels AND think Peter jackson did a superb adaption or the ‘Ring series. From the images we have seen, the new Trek is not as reverent to it’s source.
The point is that it was inevitable that over the last 40 years, a Trek world has been established. A fictional Trek world exists like a fictional Middle Earth exists. Both have histories.
Even the very worst of Trek is not trash. Not really sure how you can think that way and still make an effort to come to this site.
264. I think the incorrect age of the Enterprise was simply a mistake!
#259 – “The TOS timeline is now, more or less, an aberrant timeline where Kirk was a bookworm. The old timeline does not really violate the New Canon (since we have the figleaf of causal emanation), but it is no longer relevant or “authoritative” canon.”
Well, there we have one of the strongest justifications for being concerned about a continuity-busting reboot, no matter what sheep’s clothing it’s concealed in.
That which has been around for 40 years, and been the underpinning for one of the greatest shared-worlds in human history, is now to be considered aberrant? Thanks, but no thanks.
#265 – “The point is that it was inevitable that over the last 40 years, a Trek world has been established. A fictional Trek world exists like a fictional Middle Earth exists. Both have histories.”
Precisely. I have always found it interesting to compare Trek to Tolkien, in that in both cases, vast, sweeping, richly-detailed fictional worlds were created, but in one case, it was done by one man, while in the other, it was done by hundreds of people.
Imagine the reaction of Tolkien fans, if Peter Jackson had portrayed Frodo as a drunken ne’er-do-well who had to be dragged out of a bar-brawl by Bilbo and subjected to a long-winded speech from Bilbo, Sam, and Aragorn before he’d even consider embarking on the quest to bring the ring to Mount Doom.
#266 – No, it was a deliberate choice. Mr. Bennett has discussed this previously. They felt that, given that Star Trek was approaching its 20th Anniversary at that point, the general audience might be confused by a reference to the ship as significantly older, so they used “20 years” in the script. Personally, I think it was a rather silly choice, but it was one made consciously, not out of ignorance.
267. Alex Rosenzweig: ‘That which has been around for 40 years, and been the underpinning for one of the greatest shared-worlds in human history, is now to be considered aberrant? Thanks, but no thanks.’
Give me a break! We’re talking about a TV show, not The Bible! Sense of perspective needed badly!
‘I have always found it interesting to compare Trek to Tolkien, in that in both cases, vast, sweeping, richly-detailed fictional worlds were created, but in one case, it was done by one man, while in the other, it was done by hundreds of people.’
Not in the case of Star Trek: we rarely met more than one or two characters from any world and most of them lived in some sort of ‘global capital-city-c um-spaceport!’ Rarely did we get any glimpse of the internal politics of any of these worlds. Most Trek non-human races consisted of a mix-and-match of deformed noses and peculiar foreheads, mixed with a vaguely racist parody of races from Earth! One or two races got a little more detail: Klingons, Vulcans, Bajorans. Trek is shallow compared with Tolkien. Trek shouldn’t even be compared with Tolkien. It’s in a different, much lower league. Still good entertainment though!
‘They felt that, given that Star Trek was approaching its 20th Anniversary at that point, the general audience might be confused by a reference to the ship as significantly older, so they used “20 years” in the script.’
Oh well, quite honestly it didn’t matter much in the context of the film and I reckon most people who went to the film didn’t care two hoots. Actually, since the Enterprise is shown being built in the new film, the age kind of fits with the new continuity.
‘Imagine the reaction of Tolkien fans, if Peter Jackson had portrayed Frodo as a drunken ne’er-do-well who had to be dragged out of a bar-brawl by Bilbo ‘
imagine if Peter Jackson portrayed Pippin and Merry as laddish ne’er-do-well scamps. Oh wait a minute . . . ;)
264, I feel the same.
Production differences do not constitue canon violations.
For example, compare a later TNG episode with “Encounter at Farpoint”. Everything looks and feels quite different (including the special effects). That’s what happens over time, production changes. It doesn’t affect the story though.
You can watch a dozen different productions of Romeo & Juliet, but it’s still Romeo & Juliet. Just because their clothes change doesn’t mean Shakespeare is spinning in his grave, shouting: “NO! JULIET HAS TO WEAR MAUVE SHOES, YOU IDIOTS!”
Roddenberry surely won’t be spinning, either. This film (in concept alone) is the highest tribute to him and his show.
I understand the apprehension. The whole world is just really nervous after the torrent of garbage re-makes such as Phantom Menace, Transformers, Superman Returns, etc.
But this time it’s different. We know this film has been in good hands all along, with fans of the show at the heart of the team. And Simon Pegg’s praise for the film says it all. No one is more passionate and protective of sci-fi franchises than Pegg. And now with Nimoy himself giving it so much praise, this film is almost certain to go down well with fans.
Staying with the Lord of the Rings trilogy for a minute, if you look at where the TV or film history was for Tolkien in 2000, just prior to the release of ‘Fellowship’ you could say that LOTR was dead or dying (since there was little activity and much less than current Star Trek activity). You could have said that the Tolkien fan base was small and that the novels were too complex to produce for a mass audience.
Peter jackson and the LOTR team could have come to the same conclusions we hear from JJ’s group: sex it up, add some action and change things to get a larger audience. But they didn’t. They stayed extremely close to the source material not worrying that wizards, dwarves or elves would turn large crowds away because they were not “cool.”
I really believe that a good story with new actors and lots of action could have revived Classic Trek in theaters using the existing (but detail enhanced) ships, uniforms and equipment. It would have been cool to be retro and here would not have been any continuity issues. After all, if it’s only a movie, then let’s have fun with the how the future used to look.
Yarn — You’ve confused me terribly with TPM versus TMP… TPM=The Phantom Menace, TMP=The Motion Picture. In your posts, I think you’re mostly talking about TPM but writing TMP….
McCoy (270) Lord of the Rings has always sold healthily for a literary series, as demonstrated by the many editions and spin-off materials, and was in no way near the state of Trek before the LotR films.
Jackson and his team did ’sex up’ LotR for the movie with the substantial additional material written for Arwen Evenstar,as well as radically altering the characters of Merry and Pippin. There were also a number of ‘cool’ scenes added for Legolas. The second volume, The Two Towers, was also substantially restructured.
If anything, the movies are more an adaptation of the BBC Radio series than the novels.
The simple fact of the matter is that retro-cool will not sell this Star Trek film to the mainstream audience. This is supposed to be a film about the future, so our starting point has to be the present day. The TOS designs look like something from the 1960s. The TNG designs look 1980s. Neo-Trek’s designs have a starting point in the aspirations of the present day!
What you’re asking for is a film about Star T rek, rather than a Star Trek film!
272
Lord of the Rings was no more popular with the literary world than Star Trek was with the science fiction world.
I’m very well aware of the LOTR modifications per the novels. There are no bras or stripping scenes in the LOTR movies. No heros about to engage in sex. The Arwen and Aragorn relationship was “romanced up”. Not “sexed up”. Yes, there is a difference.
TOS designs would have worked with more details. It would have looked like Trek. No one really knows what the future looks like. Changing the set lighting scheme would have done wonders for realism.
#268 – “267. Alex Rosenzweig: ‘That which has been around for 40 years, and been the underpinning for one of the greatest shared-worlds in human history, is now to be considered aberrant? Thanks, but no thanks.’
Give me a break! We’re talking about a TV show, not The Bible! Sense of perspective needed badly!”
We’re actually talking about 5 TV shows, 10 films, and hundreds of novels and comic books, all set in the same fictional world. And that’s just the licensed stuff.
I still stand by the assertion that, based on the sheer number of people who have contributed to it, Trek qualifies as among the largest “shared worlds” ever (and, yes, in this context, “shared world” or “shared universe” has a defined meaning).
That all said, I also stand by the assertion that the fictionally continuity of the Trekverse is intrinsically valuable, and should not be abandoned. And I say that knowing full-well it’s an entertainment franchise.
” ‘I have always found it interesting to compare Trek to Tolkien, in that in both cases, vast, sweeping, richly-detailed fictional worlds were created, but in one case, it was done by one man, while in the other, it was done by hundreds of people.’
Not in the case of Star Trek: we rarely met more than one or two characters from any world and most of them lived in some sort of ‘global capital-city-c um-spaceport!’ Rarely did we get any glimpse of the internal politics of any of these worlds. Most Trek non-human races consisted of a mix-and-match of deformed noses and peculiar foreheads, mixed with a vaguely racist parody of races from Earth! One or two races got a little more detail: Klingons, Vulcans, Bajorans. Trek is shallow compared with Tolkien. Trek shouldn’t even be compared with Tolkien. It’s in a different, much lower league. Still good entertainment though!”
That might possibly be true, maybe, if one limits oneself to only filmed Trek. You might sell me on the idea that Trek is shallower than Tolkien, but I’d then argue that it’s also broader than Tolkien, touching on many more worlds and situations, even if not going into as much detail.
Once you abandon the limitation to only Trek on film, Trek becomes every bit as rich and deep as Tolkien, if for no other reason that characters and situations only briefly touched upon on film have been explored and enriched in the books.
” ‘They felt that, given that Star Trek was approaching its 20th Anniversary at that point, the general audience might be confused by a reference to the ship as significantly older, so they used “20 years” in the script.’
Oh well, quite honestly it didn’t matter much in the context of the film and I reckon most people who went to the film didn’t care two hoots.”
Likely so. Most folks noted the oddity, chalked it up to an easily-dismissible throwaway line that had little bearing on the actual story, and moved on.
“Actually, since the Enterprise is shown being built in the new film, the age kind of fits with the new continuity.”
Yup. I noticed that, too. Interestingly, if one were to treat the feature films as a franchise unto themselves, separate and apart from Trek on TV, a number of things may hold together fairly well.
I have wondered, from time to time, if that line in “Trek III” was thought of by the “Supreme Court” when setting up the idea of the Enterprise being built later than we had previously imagined.
” ‘Imagine the reaction of Tolkien fans, if Peter Jackson had portrayed Frodo as a drunken ne’er-do-well who had to be dragged out of a bar-brawl by Bilbo ‘
imagine if Peter Jackson portrayed Pippin and Merry as laddish ne’er-do-well scamps. Oh wait a minute . . . ;)”
Heheheh. In the novels, they were still closer to that, though, while Frodo most assuredly wasn’t. :)
#270 – “Peter jackson and the LOTR team could have come to the same conclusions we hear from JJ’s group: sex it up, add some action and change things to get a larger audience. But they didn’t. They stayed extremely close to the source material not worrying that wizards, dwarves or elves would turn large crowds away because they were not “cool.” ”
To be fair, Jackson chose to focus on things a little differently than Tolkien had originally. e.g., the battle of Helms Deep gets about two paragraphs in The Two Towers. But what Jackson never did was start rewriting the story, so that characters or situations were radically different than they’d been previously portrayed. I was profoundly struck by how very close to the original material Jackson stayed, while still making huge films that clearly resonated with the audience.
“I really believe that a good story with new actors and lots of action could have revived Classic Trek in theaters using the existing (but detail enhanced) ships, uniforms and equipment. It would have been cool to be retro and here would not have been any continuity issues. After all, if it’s only a movie, then let’s have fun with the how the future used to look.”
To be fair, as a fantasy, it was easier for the LotR films to stay very close to the world of Middle Earth–as imagined by a number of artists–then it might have been to effectively reproduce the world of Trek, which trends closer to hard sci-fi, as it had been shown on Tv 40 years ago.
I’m willing to cut Abrams and the team some slack in the visual representations. To be sure, they could have gotten closer to the original material, but quite a bit of what we’ve seen hasn’t been that bad.
I’m much less willing to accept the idea that the character backstories and “history” needed to be redone. I think we know just enough about the characters’ histories, in some cases, that they could have built a lot of fresh storytelling on those very few hooks. (And in the cases where we know next to nothing, the slate’s pretty clean, anyway.) I’m hesitant to speak conclusively, simply because there’s so much we don’t yet know, but just on the realism/believability level, I think they may be missing the boat in possibly not portraying Kirk as a young, but still experienced officer before he becomes CO of the Enterprise (and I say possibly because the final version of the film may yet show us more of that than what’s been released so far suggests, and I don’t want to jump to conclusions), and in not following the original (and clearly stated) idea that the Enterprise was a ship with some significant history behind it before Kirk became CO.
That’s just a feeling I’ve had, though.
#272 – “The simple fact of the matter is that retro-cool will not sell this Star Trek film to the mainstream audience. This is supposed to be a film about the future, so our starting point has to be the present day. The TOS designs look like something from the 1960s. The TNG designs look 1980s. Neo-Trek’s designs have a starting point in the aspirations of the present day!”
I lean a bit more toward this idea, I must admit, though I also think that the original Enterprise sets and ship designs could have been vastly updated and made more “of the now”, while still remaining fairly close to the original designs. Really, I think Ryan Church did a fairly creditable job with the ship, though I agree with the folks who have suggested that a somewhat more substantial secondary hull, placed a bit further back, would have served the design well. I’m tending to react to the bridge as somewhat overdone, but there’s a whole lot I would have done to even the original set to update it that would probably have irritated some folks. As for the rest, I’ll reserve judgment ’til I see more and can assess it fairly.
237 – “Accept Star Trek for what it is: a bit of fun that kills a couple of hours that’s a bit more intelligent than a lot of other mainstream entertainment sci-fi franchises and you’ll actually be a lot happier! :)”
Only to the extent that ignorance is bliss.
Hey Alex. Hope post 268 didn’t sound too aggressive! Could’ve used a couple of smileys in there! :)
264: In my view, everything which was shown on any of the five Star Trek TV shows and 10 Star Trek movies (regrettably including Nemesis) is canon, not sure about TAS and not sure what to think about all those continuity glitches, but that’s the general direction.
That’s a lot of stuff by now. But even if you don’t care so much about these window dressings, there’s also something like a continuity of visual appearance in Star Trek, and I think that’s important, too. TV and cinema are visual media, after all.
277. Holger ‘TV and cinema are visual media, after all.’
And part of the fun of the visual medium is seeing it being reinterpreted as the years go by!
#22
First Contact failed as a movie?!?!?
Not the version most of us saw…
279.
Well, I suppose in terms of it looking cheap and like a TV movie with an arse-over-tit structure, it failed as a major cinematic film. But it was best Trek film to come from the TNG stable and I enjoyed seeing TNG played with a darker, earthier streak not seen since ep one of The Best of Both Worlds!
A pity Ricky-boy bitch-slapped Jonathan Frakes down and exerted more control over Insurrection, as Frakes himself was certainly showing potential.
If Berman had been sidelined and a new producer brought on board, Frakes could have been the TNG movies’ equivalent of Leonard Nimoy!
#267—”…it was a deliberate choice. Mr. Bennett has discussed this previously. They felt that, given that Star Trek was approaching its 20th Anniversary at that point, the general audience might be confused by a reference to the ship as significantly older, so they used “20 years” in the script. Personally, I think it was a rather silly choice, but it was one made consciously, not out of ignorance.”
I agree, on all counts. But it is what it is. It is contradictory to information established in “The Menagerie”. If the events depicted in TWOK/TSFS take place roughly 15 years after the Enterprise discovered the SS Botany Bay adrift in space, then the first visit of the Enterprise to Talos IV could not have taken place when the dialogue in “The Menagerie” suggests that it does, since the vessel would not have even been built yet.
I have heard several rather ‘reaching’ explanations for the contradiction in the minds of some fans, but none of them really make sense.
For instance, the suggestion that Admiral Morrow is simply mistaken about her age is a highly unlikely scenario. A Starfleet Admiral who has already indicated that he personally participated in the decision to decommission this storied vessel (”We feel her day is over”) would certainly be informed as to her correct age.
#274—”I have wondered, from time to time, if that line in “Trek III” was thought of by the “Supreme Court” when setting up the idea of the Enterprise being built later than we had previously imagined.”
I think that is a foregone conclusion. They have already acknowledged that it was necessary to make certain “rulings” where canon might already be contradictory, and I think it is clear that this is one of those choices they made. I can hardly blame Orci and company for that choice, as I believe that they are clearly following the logic that TSFS is the “later entry” between the two already contradictory schools of thought on the age of the NCC-1701.
This is not, IMO, a continuity violation which can be laid at the feet of the creative team behind STXI. It was, as you said, a deliberate choice that Bennett and Nimoy made 25 years ago.
The design would fit in a 1701 C-D era but NOT in the TOS era. It’s like trying to pass a 2008 lux sports car as a Ford Model T. This will never be a USS Enterprise to TRUE TOS fans. Just like the NX Enterprise will never be considered Roddenberry Canon.
Enterprise & most of Berman Trek as well as This Enterprise & Abrams Trek should never be considered part of Roddenberry’s Trek Universe. Now had Abrams wanted to make THE 1701 he should have taken the classic design & added subtle changes.
For example the cassette sized storage devices from the 60’s would be thumb drives today. The paper photo Monitors on the bridge would be replaced by HD wide screen monitors. The Main View screen either a large plasma screen or a projection system.The computers be replaced by modern ones. The controls on the bridge station more updated.
beyond that & a digital sickbay Abrams should have left the rest alone.
THEN and only THEN would he have made a REAL prequel.
#282—”This will never be a USS Enterprise to TRUE TOS fans.”
Who are you to determine what constitutes a “true TOS fan”?
“Just like the NX Enterprise will never be considered Roddenberry Canon… Enterprise & most of Berman Trek as well as This Enterprise & Abrams Trek should never be considered part of Roddenberry’s Trek Universe.”
By whom?
You should only speak for yourself.
I don’t care much for the Bermanverse either, but I would never presume to declare it as non-canon. In fact, I don’t consider what Berman did any worse than what Roddenberry started with TNG. No matter who was behind it, it still wasn’t the Star Trek I loved (TOS and the original films).
“THEN and only THEN would he have made a REAL prequel.”
They haven’t made a “prequel”.
Since everything from ENT-Nemesis is required to occur before the story can progress to this point, STXI is neither a “true prequel”, nor is it a “reboot”.
It is, rather, an “unconventional sequel”.
282. Ike
Define a ‘true’ Trek fan! ;)
282. Ike – December 6, 2008
“This will never be a USS Enterprise to TRUE TOS fans.”
Sorry, but no.
I am a Trek fan. I like this design and you don’t get to determine who is and is not a Trek fan.
Of course Nimoy supports the movie. He’s IN it for heaven’s sake!
#286—-”Of course Nimoy supports the movie. He’s IN it for heaven’s sake!”
Nimoy was also in STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ‘89…
I don’t recall him making such bold statements about how great that one was, despite the fact that his very close friend was in the director’s chair.
Not surprisingly, we didn’t hear much from him about it (a tribute to his loyalty for sure)…certainly not like this!
It should be significant to note that Nimoy didn’t need this job, and has turned down a chance to appear as Spock at least one other time (Generations). He also needed quite a bit of coaxing to reprise that role in 1979 and in 1982.
He apparently found this script to be immediately worthy of his participation in the film.
I cannot help but find his approval of it significant. It doesn’t make much sense to dismiss it just because he is in it. That isn’t who Nimoy is, and it never will be. He has always been particular, especially in determining what is worthy of his time and what is not. He has been honest. Generations was crap and he avoided it, despite the potential for a big payday.
That argument just doesn’t hold water.
282 I have to agree with you. Not 100%, but in general.It is difficult to say, who is a TRUE TOS fan and who not. I think people like or dislike the new ship only because of there feelings and emotions, not because they like this or that serie, but I may be wrong of course. I find myself as true TOS fan and I don´t like the new Enterprise, for me she ship is something strange. I agree with you, that some reasonable changes would be necessary. But not a complete redesign, especially after all the words of the creators, that they want honor the original show. The ship doesn´t fit me in the 23rd century Trek design.
If the movie is about good story, they could have let the original crew be and make a really new movie. But the name James T. Kirk sounds stil like the best bussines. That´s why there is a redesign and not something new.
283 “unconvential sequel” – well said.
#288 William Kirk
Seems my #285 is for you too.
Rather insulting to think that someone who doesn’t know me wants to define if I, or other people, are truly fans.
289. Xai
“Rather insulting to think that someone who doesn’t know me wants to define if I, or other people, are truly fans.”
I wouldn’t worry about bro’. After seeing how some self-anointed “true fans” behave here, I don’t know if I want to be counted among their number.
I’m just someone who likes Trek.
Realize that this is coming from someone who really does “get” Star Trek, and does know what it is all about. I can’t beleive there are people in here who think they have a better understanding of Star Trek than Nimoy, someone who made Star Trek what it is. Nimoy realizes this is about its characters, spirit and philosophy, not about the way the bridge or ship looks. Nimoy says this movie does keep all these things intact. If Nimoy says it, then how can you not believe him?
I think what is feeling strange about the movie are the choices the creators made to try to please what they thought were two distinct camps of movie goers: the mainstream people who thought Trek wasn’t cool and the hardcore Trek fans. It could have been a space movie with a completely different set of characters, on a different starship in a different universe that was much more likely our future…or it could have been exactly like the Trek we grew up with in every detail. This divided abyss caused the developers to make choices in an effort to keep it Trek and bring both “camps” in. That’s where the awkwardness began. Because that premise is in itself flawed (IMO).
The Trek world is in fact already much larger than Kirk, Spock and McCoy (although it’s the genesis of it all, and my favorite). The series spin-offs were, in their own right, other attempts to bring Trek to a new generation. There are several episodes of Next Gen that are some of the best Sci Fi TV ever broadcast.
I was eager to watch a TV series dedicated to the time period before Kirk, Spock and McCoy (Enterprise). I would have loved to follow a new set of characters, on Earth with the various nods to what is to come spread here and there. I lost interest fast when they got on a ship and went back to the same formula as classic Trek. I was ready for a new formula with a classic look. Not a old formula with a new look. ‘Enterprise’ only succeeded when it tapped into the classic Trek look in ‘Mirror Darkly’.
This new mix we have, classic uniforms, strange bridge and ugly Enterprise will feel weird no matter what. Are there elements to the story that will ring true as Trek? Sure. Nimoy is there…goosebumps will happen.
But the choices along the spectrum could have been much better. The premise was wrong (IMO). The division was not real. If they wanted a “fresh” Trek set in a “more real” future, they should have used new characters and set it past TNG. That’s how you create a revitalized Trek with fewer “canon” issues. But if you want Kirk, Spock and McCoy, you HAVE to stick with the history that has been made. Both character history and visual history (added details for the big screen are very welcome!).
If you build classic Trek with a good story and they will come. The platform was solid. The general audience would not have cared what the art direction was.
Mr. Nimoy,
I just want to say thank you for attempting to put our fears to rest (no need in my case – I have been a fan for 35 years and can’t wait for this film), and I want to apologize for the negativity that pervades posts on this site. This is certainly not representative of all of us – as a child Trek in general, and Spock in particular, taught me a lot about optimism, patience, learning to think rationally and evaluating something carefully before arbitrarily hanging a label on it. I wish Trek had the same meaning for the nay-sayers and rabid canonnites as it has for me, and other fans, I’m sure. I will continue to be optimistic about this film, and the world in general, because that’s what Trek taught me, what it meant and still means to me. Thank you for creating a character that had such a positive influence on this Trekkie.
Live long and prosper!
Mr. Nimoy,
I also would like to thank you for your portrayal of Spock through the years. Star Trek, and Spock specifically, has also had a large impact on the way I look at life and rationalize facts. I was dearly upset to see Spock die in WOK and the effect it had on his character in all remaining original cast films.
Although I am reluctant to label the new movie as “great”, I am also reluctant to label the movie as “bad”. Fans simply do not have enough information yet. After I have seen the movie, I will not only judge it as a “film” but also how it fits into the existing Trek universe. This is important to consider because, as you know, Trek has been around for many years and many people hold it very dear.
I will always be encouraged, under the premise of diversity of ideas, to express my opinions about the film based on the information presented.
No matter what happens, I know I have already seen the best clip from the film. “Live long and prosper.”
I adore Mr. Nimoy
But I still don’t love this movie
- IMHO this movie should be great…
278 Dom: I don’t know. I have more fun with something original than with those endless reinterpretations of classics. And when it comes to Trek I prefer continuation over reinterpretation.
297. Holger
‘when it comes to Trek I prefer continuation over reinterpretation.’
Sadly, that’s just not possible in the real world. Maybe if they invent holodecks in a few years time they can direct whole new Trek episodes with facsimiles of the original cast at the right age.
I like to see new approaches to old material. As it stands, though, we’ve not seen how the crew meet and we get to see a new adventure with Captain Pike. That suits my definition of original! And a sequel to neo-Trek, equally, can be an adventure that takes place somewhere during the five-year mission.
295. ScottyGirl – December 7, 2008
“I adore Mr. Nimoy
But I still don’t love this movie”
See it first. Then your opinion might be valid.
298
It is true that no matter we think of the JJ version, it has already been completed. For fun, here’s one more attempt at what could have been (I can see it’s just not sinking in with some):
1) new actors playing iconic characters
2) slightly modified uniforms
3) slightly modified Enterprise (some mods coming from TMP Ent.)
4) enhanced bridge detail (probable removal of many switches in favor of touch)
5) great story
6) cameo by a member(s) of the old cast
The altered character history, and altered version on how they met sort of came out of left field so we have to add a #7:
7) same history
@299
I don’t want to waste the money. Things are getting tighter now…
I’ll take a pass.
301. ScottyGirl – December 7, 2008
“@299
I don’t want to waste the money. Things are getting tighter now…
I’ll take a pass.”
Then how can you say that you “still don’t love this movie”. You can’t. Just like the rest of us, you haven’t experienced it so your opinion is baseless.
300. McCoy
‘1) new actors playing iconic characters’
Check! That’s in the new film!
2) slightly modified uniforms
Check! That’s also in the new film!
3) slightly modified Enterprise (some mods coming from TMP Ent.)
Erm . . . that’s in the new film!
4) enhanced bridge detail (probable removal of many switches in favor of touch)
I think that’s in the new film too!
5) great story
JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. That’s pretty much guaranteed, given some of the stuff I’ve seen of their’s down the years!
6) cameo by a member(s) of the old cast
We’ve got that, but in your version, it would run the risk of being 1990s-style self aware and would distract from establishing the new actors in their roles.
7) same history
But where would the dramatic tension come from? We know these guys survive in the original history, so all we would see is a few gaps being filled in. Much as with the Star Wars prequels, we simply see what we already know. This way we set up a new timeline where anyone can live or die at any time.
303
Nice try but maybe you missed my implied “only” on 3 and 4. The Enterprise exterior and bridge hardly fall into “slightly modified”.
I give the new film 3 “checks”
√ 1) new actors playing iconic characters
√ 2) slightly modified uniforms
3) ONLY slightly modified Enterprise (some mods coming from TMP Ent.)
4) ONLY “enhanced” bridge detail
5) great story (sorry, must also take place in real timeline, duh)
√ 6) cameo by a member(s) of the old cast
7) same history
You could get away with history changes caused by a time travel issue if the Enterprise and bridge designs were closer to the originals. I have said before and still maintain the bridge not only doesn’t match, it’s one of the worst science fiction bridges I’ve ever seen. And, yes, it’s important because it is Star Trek.
The TV show had dramatic tension in every episode even though we knew all main characters would survive. It’s Trek. Red shirts and guest stars carry that tension. :o) Classic Trek fun.
“√ 1) new actors playing iconic characters
√ 2) slightly modified uniforms
3) ONLY slightly modified Enterprise (some mods coming from TMP Ent.)
4) ONLY “enhanced” bridge detail
5) great story (sorry, must also take place in real timeline, duh)
√ 6) cameo by a member(s) of the old cast
7) same history”
GAH! We haven’t seen the movie yet! Why can’t people just WAIT?
When, at what point, did the human species throw out every ounce of logic? You CANNOT judge something you haven’t seen. For the love of Kahless, WAIT!
The bridge and ship are changed because they were built in the year 1966. This is the year 2008. The changes have nothing to do with an alternate timeline.
269,
You make an interesting point. “Hamlet” is occasionally done with the actors wearing jeans and t-shirts. It’s done simply because it says “the details don’t matter. Pay attention to the story!”
Naturally, there will be people who hate it. But why don’t we just call it as we see it? AFTER we see it, preferably…
Back home before heading for a few hours’ sleep!
305. That One Guy: ‘GAH! We haven’t seen the movie yet! Why can’t people just WAIT?’
Insufferable, isn’t it?
304. McCoy: ‘The Enterprise exterior and bridge hardly fall into “slightly modified”.’
The bridge isn’t much different from that at the end of Star Trek IV, which I don’t mind since it’s a 2009 movie and we’ve never seen an unrefitted Enterprise bridge on a 2009 movie screen! Personally, I love it.
The Enterprise saucer looks a bit like the TMP one. The secondary hull is hardly that much different from the others: it’s a bit of a mix of the TOS and TMP ones with a bit of 21st century pizazz!
‘The TV show had dramatic tension in every episode even though we knew all main characters would survive.’
coughTashaYarcough!
We didn’t know they’d survive in the 1960s when the show was still running. Hindsight’s a fine thing! Had Phase II happened in the 1970s, Kirk was going to be killed off in the first few episodes, leaving Decker in charge!
# 301 cellojammer
In fact, I was quite fond of the idea in the beginning. The first trailer blew me away. I was still fond of it when the movieposters came out and I saw the new uniforms (brilliant), when I saw the ship (beautiful) and the cast (looked really good). I was excited then.
But the second trailer was such a disappointment. I don’t want to go into detail and tell you why. Lets just say, it didn’t feel right. Plus there were continuity problems. Uhura and Kirk being in the Academy at the same time when she was in her late twenties during TOS and Kirk was in his mid-thirties. Checkov being an ensign under Pike when he was only 22 during TOS season 2. And so on and so forth.
Well and then I read a review about the pre-viewing of four essential scenes from the movie. The scenes were described in all details and now I pretty much know most of the content of the movie, I mean how long can it be? Right. So…
Um, to put it mildly, it’s going to be a great flick for the masses but it can’t convince the sentimental fan who adored Star Trek for what it was before the TOS was added to it.
It was a series of great morale stories, a wagon train to the stars kind of thing. Yes, it was a very commercial show but it was also highly ethical.
I guess after the first trailer my expectations were set to high. It will be very difficult to repeat that sort of thing… Because Star Trek, created in the 60s, was a unique mix of the right story writers, the right ideas, the right cast, the right time and the right spirit. It was right for it’s time. But mankind has changed dramatically, society has changed.
Well, I don’t have a problem with this movie. It can’t destroy anything for me because it is clearly not the Star Trek that I love. Sure, I could go and watch it. And then again: Why should I?
Hey, I would have loved to feel the old Trek spirit again, to see that happen all over again. Especially because I wasn’t even born when Star Trek first came out. Anhow, now I’m really seeing that it probably won’t happen again. And it’s because of the people. It’s the people, that’s what’s wrong…
The majority of people don’t know how to love. So how could they understand a Star Trek that was more than just entertainment? How could they understand a Star Trek that used to be a religion in its time?
Of course, it could still happen all over again… And maybe it won’t…
More opinions based on third and fourth hand experiences. And how can this movie destroy anything?
Unbelievable.
yo i love “that one guy”
sorry dude, you can shout your logic all you want but these people wont listen.
I’ll take you up on your deal, though. can’t wait to see it.
310
We know enough Xai to come to the conclusions we are expressing. They are all personal.
It’s not just about how good of film this is (in which case we won’t know until seeing it from end to end). It’s about seeing Trek again. Perhaps we’ve all drawn the line in the sand at different spots along the spectrum. The 20 minutes that was shown to others has been heavily communicated. From what I hear and see to date, they have crossed my line. It’s OK.
#312 McCoy
I can’t make anyone here do a thing. But I make up my own mind based on my own experiences, not someone else’s, especially since they haven’t seen it all either.
“It’s not just about how good of film this is (in which case we won’t know until seeing it from end to end). It’s about seeing Trek again.” #312 McCoy
That’s the point. We have fellow posters saying “I won’t see it” based on what little info is available.
313
“That’s the point. We have fellow posters saying “I won’t see it” based on what little info is available.”
And they are allowed to say that Xai. There are other posters saying they are sure it will be an awesome experience. They are just as wrong.
People love Trek and guard it within themselves. The people who say they won’t go see the film have heard enough details. There is only one detail that can make them happy: a reset; ending in normal history and Enterprise and bridge designs that are much closer than the one’s we have. I have already said I will be skipping a week or two…maybe more. I may also never see the film. I am allowed to express that.
You see, we wanted more Trek too. But for us, classic Trek is more than just the core. Continuity is important to us. We wanted more ties to the old.
#314 McCoy
AS I said, I can’t make anyone go and people can say whatever they like. I am saying that to decide without having complete information, while it’s their choice, makes little sense to me.
#303 – “7) same history
But where would the dramatic tension come from? We know these guys survive in the original history,”
The same place it comes from in any ongoing series/serial with continuing characters…in *how* they deal with the events of the story, how they resolve the situation, and what effect it has on them.
I’ve said this before, but…
In a Batman, Superman, James Bond, or similar type of series, do you really ever expect that the titular character is going to be permanently and irrevocably killed? Of course not. The fun is in seeing *how* our heroes overcome the obstacles placed before them. Star Trek is no different in that sense. The fun is in seeing *how* this family of characters deals with whatever the universe can throw at them, and there is no less dramatic tension in that for knowing that in the end, they–as true heroes–will triumph.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t read, or watch, fiction waiting around for some great pronouncement on whether the main characters–especially in an ongoing series–will live or die. I read, or watch, for the reward of the story being told.
#305 – “When, at what point, did the human species throw out every ounce of logic?”
“Whoever said the human race was logical?” – Gillian Taylor
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist. ;) )
#308 – “Had Phase II happened in the 1970s, Kirk was going to be killed off in the first few episodes, leaving Decker in charge!”
Umm… Not in the first 13, at least! There had been some discussion of transitioning Kirk out at some point in the series, but it was by no means definitively settled as to how or when.
#309 – “Well and then I read a review about the pre-viewing of four essential scenes from the movie. The scenes were described in all details and now I pretty much know most of the content of the movie, I mean how long can it be? Right.”
To be fair about it, those four scenes add up to about 20 minutes, IIRC, of a 120-minute movie. So that’s five-sixths of the movie as yet undocumented. I’m not trying to either defend or condemn the film here, merely noting that to conclude that you know most of the content of the film from coverage of, let’s be generous and say 20%, really doesn’t track.
#310 – “More opinions based on third and fourth hand experiences.”
FWIW, one thing I tried to do before drawing any conclusions was to read all the different scene descriptions, on the theory that individual people would likely focus on different things, just because, as human beings, we all have our biases. I drew my conclusions about *those scenes* (not necessarily the whole movie!) based on the total information I gathered from 4-5 different descriptions. Thanks to Anthony and his correspondents for all those links!
#314 – “Continuity is important to us. We wanted more ties to the old.”
Speaking solely for myself, my only real “want” was for the old not to be outright contradicted, in order that, for storytelling purposes, at least, this film would be consistent with TOS.
309. Scottygirl
“Well, I don’t have a problem with this movie. It can’t destroy anything for me because it is clearly not the Star Trek that I love. Sure, I could go and watch it. And then again: Why should I?”
Fair enough. That’s your decision and I wish you all the best with it.
For me, the trailers didn’t lead me to the conclusion that this is not the Star Trek I’ve known and loved. There was simply not enough information given. The scene descriptions were simply that. Written descriptions. I didn’t experience the pacing, the actors’ nuances, the music…all of the things that create emotion and mood. Nor do I know how these puzzle pieces fit into the big picture.
Since this movie is being made by respected professional filmmakers, many of whom have a long-term love of Trek, I’m more than tantalized to see what they’ll come up with. That alone makes me reserve judgment in the face of the reported changes to the design elements and presumed canonical “facts”.
I don’t know that it’s going to be great, but I choose optimism. If it’s good, but not the Star Trek I grew up with, that’s still incredibly cool. If it delivers entertainment and enlightenment along with a bit of escapism, I’ll be a very satisfied ticket buyer. I’m willing to gamble the price of admission and a few hours of my time.
@ 310. Xa
You misread my statement entirely.
This movie can’t destroy anything. To me, the old Star Trek will remain untouched and intact no matter how this movie is going to turn out. The magic of TOS can not be broken.
I was always open to the idea of a new TOS era movie. I am still generally open to it. I’d love this movie to be a success. And I think it will be, even though I am probably not going to see it. I was so excited when the first trailer came out. But the second trailer didn’t reach me. Now, don’t try to blame that on me. OK. Hey, they want feedback from the fans. And this is my feedback. I am not bashing here. Or trolling or trying to influence other people in their opinion. I only voiced my own, honest opinion. Remember, I also pointed out the things that I did like.
Now it’s up to the team JJ, Orci and so on to accept an opinion for what it is. And a good Producer / Writer is going to reflect on it and learn. I am not saying this movie is bad. I only said what it is not for me.
I respect everybody for the work they put into it. And the uniforms are beautiful and the cast is beautiful but, sorry folks my feelings I can not deny.
I don’t love it.
298 Dom:
” ‘when it comes to Trek I prefer continuation over reinterpretation.’
Sadly, that’s just not possible in the real world.”
That’s where I disagree. I believe a straightforward prequel to TOS which is appealing to a larger crowd would have been feasible. It starts with the possibility of updating the Big E without replacing it, and I believe that the characters of Kirk and Spock and Bones are exciting enough without placing them in alternate timelines.
If you were referring to the new actors, I don’t see that as a problem, that’s unavoidable.
269 “You can watch a dozen different productions of Romeo & Juliet, but it’s still Romeo & Juliet. Just because their clothes change doesn’t mean Shakespeare is spinning in his grave, shouting: “NO! JULIET HAS TO WEAR MAUVE SHOES, YOU IDIOTS!” ”
I don’t think you can compare this. A dramatist knows his drama will be played on different stages with different actors each time. That’s the way dramas are intended. If you read a drama, you basically find only the dialog in there, usually complemented by a minimum of directions.
That’s a different game than creating a fictional universe, like in Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars.
269: Re-imagining Star Trek should rather be compared to re-WRITING Shakespeare, IMO.
319. ScottyGirl – December 8, 2008
@ 310. Xa
“You misread my statement entirely.”
Sorry, no.
I was making a broad statement based on other posts as well. I generally reference the post I comment on or respond to by name and post number.
Other posters have said “this destroys the old TOS”. I understand what you are saying overall, I just don’t agree on how you got to your decision. Whatever you end up deciding,… Happy Holidays.
@ 323 Xai
Sorry, the error was on my side. I thought you were specifically responding to my comment.
I accept and respect your opinion for what it is. As for myself, I based my opinion on all the information that trekmovie.com offered to us and only on that information.
Anyway, Happy Holidays to you too.
319 ScottyGirl
Very well said. I wish my typing skills and brain power were able to express my thoughts and concerns to your ability.
If we agree that not every movie is for everyone, all we have to make our decision on whether or not to see a movie is the marketing or buzz behind a film. We now have that for ‘Star Trek’. I have also concluded that this movie is not for me.
Nope, this film is throwing out everything you ever knew from TOS. Once Kirk’s father was killed prematurely, the entire universe is open to evolving differently. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. The most important thing is that the characters remain: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, the Klingons, the Romulans. These are great characters. What hasn’t always been great about them is the writing. To say re-imagining Star Trek is like re-writing Shakespeare is laughable, to even compare ST to Shakespeare is ridiculous! “Spock’s Brain” destroys that analogy with the title alone. Besides, Shakespeare rarely came up with original stories, but rather penned unforgettable dialogue, he often completely re-told classic stories, but cast the characters in completely different settings and plots. Trek is no different. As long as the characters are intact, putting them in new situations with no connection to the earlier series stories may well improve the franchise as a whole. It could also tank, but not because canon wasn’t adhered to, it’s because the writing is bad. Frankly, it’s best to forget a lot of the canon established for the Star Trek universe by feeble minded producers and networks tampering with Rodenberry’s original formula, which was established brilliantly in the first 6 episodes.
317. Alex Rosenzweig – December 7, 2008
“Speaking solely for myself, my only real “want” was for the old not to be outright contradicted, in order that, for storytelling purposes, at least, this film would be consistent with TOS.”
322. Holger – December 8, 2008
“269: Re-imagining Star Trek should rather be compared to re-WRITING Shakespeare, IMO.”
#326 – Hmm…. Is this film going to *tell us* that Kirk’s father is killed prematurely? Because if it doesn’t, we don’t even know that *that* is a contradiction, ’cause the elder Kirk’s fate was never established on film. ;)
326
If this film is throwing everything out, then it shouldn’t be called Star Trek.
Classic ‘Star Trek’ is more than the characters.
#328
Really? Do elaborate. Are you by chance referring to the philosophy behind the series? If so, I suggest the philosophy is intertwined with the characters and not mutually-exclusive. Kirk, Spock and McCoy can’t be the characters we know without the universe they were created within (By the way, did I mention The Enterprise is a character too?). Suggesting Classic ‘Star Trek’ is more than the characters basically implies that a single episode of the series couldn’t stand alone. What if “Where No Man Has Gone Before” was the only episode of Star Trek ever shot and never went to series. Would that episode be more than the characters and the universe they exist in? What else of the universe would you know? Nothing. If Abrams & Paramount are effectively wiping the slate clean, then they have license to pick up where the original pilot left off. Moreover, they have the Cage to temper the the changes made in WNMHGB – talk about getting back to the original philosophy of Star Trek. Canon is not what classic Star Trek is about. Star Trek is a philosophy embodied by the characters created to breath life into a universe of optimism not seen at the time. All you need are those characters true to their ideologies and a representation of the universe they subsist within. As long as the stories are true to the philosophy they embody, you have Star Trek. And without canon, they are free to create new stories that are more relevant to a modern audience facing different challenges and ideals than they were 40 years ago.
I think what people are objecting to is as follows:
1) The spiteful attitude that J.J. Abrams is publicly displaying towards all previous ‘Star Trek’ technology/effects/et al … with obsessive compulsive frequency. We get that you didn’t like TOS very much, JJ. We get that you kinda think it’s ridiculous. And we get that you feel the need to say this over and over again in interviews.
*You* should get that the way you keep doing that in interviews, replete with a semi-snarky grin and condescending attitude…well, it kinda makes us not like you.
Whose bright idea was it to yet again put a non-Trek fan who has had success in other very different kinds of films in the director’s seat for the latest Trek film? They did that with Stuart Baird for Nemesis and the result was both box-office disaster, and a very unhappy set/crew (because the director didn’t “get” or even *like* Trek and kept fighting the idea of embracing Trek).
2) I like Leonard Nimoy and always will. Having said that, simply saying over and over and over that “this film will be true to canon” does *not* make it so. This film is factually NOT true to canon – that is a fact, and I’m not talking about the different people in the roles. The ship is completely different – inside and out – and just about every physical detail (uniforms even) is changed too. It’s as if JJ went out of his way to make sure that every possible thing, little or big, that could be changed, *was* changed – spitefully making sure that the fans would not get their way. Anyone who has seen the trailer *knows* this is a re-boot.
And see, talking to us like there’s something wrong with *our* eyes, with our perceptions, as though we’re stupid when we say this isn’t true to canon…that kinda makes us irritable.
If JJ and Nimoy et al would just admit that it is a re-boot and try to play up to the alleged strengths of that, it would nip some of the bad will in the bud. Just be friggin honest, please. The film’s not remotely true to canon.
It may be a great film – it may even be great Star Trek – but it’s not remotely true to canon. When Nimoy says “uh yeah it is”…he either thinks I’m stupid, or blind, and not worthy of an honest answer…and its difficult to not be irked by that.
3) Lastly, I think many are irritated by the fact that not only were we lied to…not only was the overall level of change spiteful, unnecessary and disrespectful to 40+ years of fans…not only has the director (a non Trek fan) continued to describe TOS as a pitiable joke that he’s “saved” somehow by re-imagining it…but the changes that were made, aren’t particularly good ones, and represent a departure from scientific believability and functionality (things which have served Trek well since its inception).
The changes we’re seeing are more about change for the sake of change…and blockbuster movie glitz. “Who cares whether it makes any sense or not – it looks cool! Just look at that reflecting gleam and sloping curve!”
I’m also gonna say this since I haven’t seen anyone else mention it yet: Paramount, you might want some of your money back. Those huge video-game joysticks on the helm console now? They look quite plasticky and cheap.
4) The new movie assumes that Star Trek was somehow no good anymore – that what had gone before was bad, and ergo this will be good by comparison. Is it any wonder that we fans aren’t pleased with this underlying concept?
In conclusion, I had been willing to give the movie the benefit of the doubt, and had even managed to semi-suspend my disbelief re: the new folks in the roles. I still believe they’re fine young actors and I wish them all the best in their careers.
But I no longer want to see this film. I won’t be going to see the film. I don’t even want to see it for free. In fact you would have to pay ME a significant amount of money before I’d sit through it.
When CBS/Paramount is ready to stop treating Trek fans with contempt (i.e. the day that Mr Les Moonves is fired, most likely) and make Star Trek again, on television and the big screen, we’ll be waiting and ready to support such. Until then, I’ll keep buying & reading the books…and the TOS Remastered DVD sets (a graciously awesome project that Moonves didn’t manage to stop).
Rachel :)
Star Trek has changed!
Deal with it or shut up! It’s over, the film is made now, there are going to be lots of new fans and they will love it! There is absolutely NO POINT in bitching about this anymore, folks. Most people are positively interested in this film. The tiny group who aren’t have taken to posting here en masse and are spoiling the site for everyone else at this point!
Just accept, if you must, that new team are taking Trek in a new direction. If you can’t take that journey with them, move on. Life’s too short to devote so much energy to so much pointless bile.
As for JJ and his team, they’ve been nothing but charming about Trek and its fans and to say other wise borders on libelous.
What it boils down to is that Star Trek has a lunatic fringe who treat it as more than a bit of fun. There’s a little bit of perspective needed about an entertainment franchise!
Most people don’t even know what ‘canon’ is. None of us outside freaks who sacrifice virgins (each other?) on altars watched over by autographed photos of Scott Bakula will ever care. We want to be entertained for a couple of hours watching a Star Trek film. We’ll get that in spades!
Anyone who expects any more than that should get lost! :p
“Deal with it or shut up! It’s over, the film is made now, there are going to be lots of new fans and they will love it! There is absolutely NO POINT in bitching about this anymore, folks. Most people are positively interested in this film. The tiny group who aren’t have taken to posting here en masse and are spoiling the site for everyone else at this point!”
Sheesh. A tad dramatic, no? As the saying goes, if you can’t handle the heat, get outta the kitchen. People have every right to debate and discuss this film, both pro and con. Wouldn’t it be rather dull if everyone was in total agreement? Personally, I’ve always loved the debate that goes on in Trekland and find all the different perspectives fascinating. What I don’t get is folks like you who feel the need to command others to go away simply because they share a different viewpoint. It’s also rather disingenuous to mock certain fans as being too fanatical when in fact you yourself are part of a fringe minority repeatedly posting on this board with the rest of us. Pot, kettle.
332:
Just wait for the debate come May, 2009…
AJ — oh, I can already image it! I suspect the divisiveness will only escalate.
I’m looking forward to seeing all the viewpoints, even the ones I don’t agree with, cause it always fascinates me how we all see things so differently. I loved all the TOS films but I also had some criticisms for each and every one. Doesn’t make me “less” of a fan. Just honest. This film will be no different.
Yeah, but the thing is, I come here for fun. For chat. These guys are bona-fide, tub-thumping, luddite, quasi-religious, intolerant, closeminded, no-life freaks! A fringe minority of a fringe minority. Jerks!
They don’t want to discuss anything. All they do is go back over the same turf: JJ=Stuart Baird (like hell!) the team disrespects ‘cannon’ (sic) and that means we have to throw away our DVD collection (yeah right!), JJ’s mean about Trek and his fans (no he’s not!)
There’s plenty of positive discussion to be had about the film: what do we think such-and-such will be like? How do we hope something or other will be portrayed?
Instead we get every thread hijacked by a lunatic fringe slagging off the film because they ***suspect*** it might not meet their freak approval.
Y’know what? I really hope they do boycott this film: they’re such a tiny minority that they won’t affect box office at all. The thought of sitting in the cinema with them sat behind he wittering inanities about canon contradictions while I’m trying to watch the movie is enough to make me puke, quite frankly!
Dom — you know I really enjoy a lot of your posts. But, I don’t get why you let some folks get to you so much. THEY can’t ruin your fun unless you let them and I’m never a fan of telling anyone to SHUT UP. Calling people the “lunatic fringe” also helps nothing in my opinion. Some would say you and I and all of us ARE lunatics for caring about Trek as much as we do. (Pox on them, lol!)
Fact is, some folks are truly upset over this movie and I can understand that even if I don’t agree to the same level. But where else can they go to vent? To discuss their reasons but sites like this? We all know our friends and family in RL don’t get Trek as we do. ;) Oh, please believe me, I’m not defending those that post simply to antagonize folks — but Anthony is more than capable of ridding us of the true Trolls.
I believe my points in the post above yours stand, Dom. There’s no need for (or sense in) J.J. Abrams’ taking seemingly every opportunity during interviews to talk about how awful TOS was, or how he thinks it was ridiculous, silly, etc.
Where is the sense in going out of your way to really rub your disdain in the faces of the huge audience that made Trek so popular and profitable for 40+ years?
Yes Star Trek is an entertaining franchise. But it is also an inspiring one that represents something dear and innate inside mankind: the desire to know, to explore, to see what’s out there. It was Trek fans that convinced NASA to name the first-ever space shuttle the U.S.S. Enterprise, in honour of the 23rd century starship. I don’t think we should mock people for having been inspired in their personal lives, or for having their imaginations fired, by Star Trek, any more than we should find fault with someone for being entertained by it.
I *know* Star Trek is a television/film/book franchise – I’m not part of any “lunatic fringe” as you put it. But it’s not just a simple show like any other – and many shows do not share equal footing with it. I don’t know any show in television’s history, for example, where people across the globe were willing to give millions of dollars for, if only to see one more episode (see TrekUnited, SaveEnterprise campaign – $3.14 million USD in less than 2 months)…do you? Trek is special. It is singularly unique.
Its endurance and success despite the odds, despite cancellations and studio dislike of it etc etc, have made it something to cherish – and many fans simply don’t appreciate being tossed aside suddenly by a non-fan director who openly mocks that which we love, that which has inspired us…who brags about how this film is being made for “people who have never seen a Star Trek episode or film before” – essentially taking us out of the equation. There would BE no Star Trek film to be made now were it not for us.
I’m sure some of the new target audience people will like this film, and as I said before – it may be a great film. I acknowledge that possibility. But what is also true is that Trek fans have been belittled, lied to, and subsequently attacked by some for not quietly shutting up, lining up for this new film with quatloos in hand & being good little CBS Thralls.
There is room for opinion on both sides on this film’s legitimacy and/or goodness/suckiness as Trek – however, the facts I stated in post #330 of this thread stand firm. Whether Trek is just an entertainment to you or an inspiration, those facts are worth considering…by fans, filmgoers, and CBS/Paramount.
I think this film will probably do so-so in the box office – probably a large opening weekend (as the result of curiosity), followed by a significant drop-off from there on. One should remember – the target audience is young people who have never seen Star Trek before – non-fans. I don’t believe that this film is going to inspire the kind of viewer/customer loyalty, and profits, that Star Trek has. Especially with Abrams giving the rude/cold shoulder to all of us Trek fans.
Personally, I believe the intentional snub of the fans is a mistake, and with at least half of the core Trek audience staying home (a conservative guess), that snub will leave this film floundering to break even in light of the money spent on it.
Hopefully someone at CBS/Paramount will finally get it through their thick heads that we – WE – the viewers, the fans – determine what is profitable and what isn’t. There is no profit in spiting (or biting) the hand that feeds you.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a Rule of Acquisition along those lines.
Rachel
I’m a big fan, and I have not seen anything JJ has said as offensive. Heck, he created LOST, so he knows genre fans quite well. Beyond Nimoy, he’s probably the closest to a real fan we’ve ever had behind the lens.
When he and the team came on this site from the Bridge set, it was the exact opposite of a “rude/cold shoulder” to the fans. For that, go talk to Tim Kring from “Heroes” who called his fans “dipsh*ts” recently.
I also predict a much higher core turnout for this film next May, #337, than you. If the film has great reviews, or even just mediocre ones, it will do well for the studio. On this site, I have seen maybe 10 posters who say they won’t go. That’s out of thousands of Trek fans who visit, an millions and millions who attend summer films around the world.
337 It is was very well sail. I agree with you, because I see it in the same way.
337
I agree. I see Star Trek the same way too. Thanks for expressing your thoughts.
337. Rachel S: ‘Where is the sense in going out of your way to really rub your disdain in the faces of the huge audience that made Trek so popular and profitable for 40+ years?’
He hasn’t. He’s pointed out that Galaxy Quest was such a superb send-up of Star Trek, it has to be substantially retooled. And frankly his ‘disdain’ for the franchise has been echoed by many full-blown fans for many years!
‘But it is also an inspiring one that represents something dear and innate inside mankind: the desire to know, to explore, to see what’s out there.’
No, it’s an action adventure franchise that had fit men in torn shirts and fit women in short skirts whizzing around the universe having violent, sexy adventures, the by-product of which was some intelligent discussion about ‘Life, the Universe and Everything.’ God bless William Ware Theiss!
‘It was Trek fans that convinced NASA to name the first-ever space shuttle the U.S.S. Enterprise, in honour of the 23rd century starship.’
It was Star Trek fans who joined NASA, inspired by the sexy, violent pulpy, witty, intelligent space adventures in Star Trek, who thought Star Trek was cool, who then listened to the fans’ campaign!
‘I don’t know any show in television’s history, for example, where people across the globe were willing to give millions of dollars for, if only to see one more episode (see TrekUnited, SaveEnterprise campaign – $3.14 million USD in less than 2 months)…do you?’
I don’t know anyone that stupid . . . thank God! Give the money to a children’s charity or a local hospital . . . do . . . something . . . intelligent with it!! To be suckered by alleged con artists so easily. Jeez, that’s dumb!
‘. . .many fans simply don’t appreciate being tossed aside suddenly by a non-fan director who openly mocks that which we love . . .’
You aren’t. He hasn’t.
‘. . .who brags about how this film is being made for “people who have never seen a Star Trek episode or film before”‘
That is something to brag about. If he gets the punters in then great! Trek needs some fresh O-Positive to counteract the prevailing AB-Negative!
‘. . .essentially taking us out of the equation.’
If you choose to take yourself out of the equation, that’s your choice, not his!
‘But what is also true is that Trek fans have been belittled,’
Not true.
‘lied to’
Bordering on libellous
‘. . .and subsequently attacked by some for not quietly shutting up, lining up for this new film with quatloos in hand & being good little CBS Thralls.’
Possibly because these so-called fans aren’t fans at all. They’re peculiar zealots who have a big ol’ axe to grind, are utterly prejudiced and have seen so little of the film that their gripes are pointless. I guess they didn’t listen to Kirk’s speech in Star Trek VI about prejudice, eh? And there’s nothing about being in a thrall to . . . ahem . . . Paramount because most people are looking forward to this film. it’s just weirdoes who can’t accept that Star Trek is no longer just about them and their grotty, smug, exclusive little ‘in’ group that are suffering from stress-related impotence!
‘Whether Trek is just an entertainment to you or an inspiration, those facts are worth considering…by fans, filmgoers, and CBS/Paramount.’
It is, it has been and always shall be. It’ll also hopefully make a steaming wad of cash and Abrams and co can make lots of sequels.
‘Personally, I believe the intentional snub of the fans is a mistake, and with at least half of the core Trek audience staying home (a conservative guess), that snub will leave this film floundering to break even in light of the money spent on it.’
That is probably the most hysterically funny remark ever made on this site! We all know full well that even the loonies are going to see this film, if nothing else just to see how ‘bad it is!’
Look, clearly this film isn’t for you. Go take some Valium , have a lie down and it’ll all be better in the morning, eh? ;)
#337 – “I believe my points in the post above yours stand, Dom. There’s no need for (or sense in) J.J. Abrams’ taking seemingly every opportunity during interviews to talk about how awful TOS was, or how he thinks it was ridiculous, silly, etc.”
Rachel, I never really got that sense from him. I think that he was trying to get across a viewpoint that the mainstream audience which has long ignored Trek could identify with, in hopes that they’ll come and give this film a try. The best way to start drawing folks in is to get them to identify with you, and I think that’s what he’s doing.
Obviously, for those of us who’ve already been involved with Trek for years (or more!), it’s easy to see it as an “outsider” mentality, but I think it works better if one tries to put oneself in the mindset of the outsiders in question. Then it’s not nearly so bad. :)
{snip}
“Trek is special. It is singularly unique.
Its endurance and success despite the odds, despite cancellations and studio dislike of it etc etc, have made it something to cherish – and many fans simply don’t appreciate being tossed aside suddenly by a non-fan director who openly mocks that which we love, that which has inspired us…who brags about how this film is being made for “people who have never seen a Star Trek episode or film before” – essentially taking us out of the equation. There would BE no Star Trek film to be made now were it not for us.”
That may or may not be true, but he really does have to reach outside the existing fanbase, because by most objective metrics, the existing fanbase has been deserting Trek. Many of the long-time fans weren’t there for “Nemesis”, and weren’t there for “Enterprise”, and the implication to the bean-counters at the studio is that they no longer constitute enough of a market to support a new film on their own, so reaching out to a new, younger audience is deemed necessary.
I’m not really that fond of the approach they seem to be taking to do so, but the fact that such outreach is necessary is beyond dispute.
“I’m sure some of the new target audience people will like this film, and as I said before – it may be a great film. I acknowledge that possibility.”
We certainly can’t know until we see it how well it will work. So we have to allow for all possibilities. :)
“But what is also true is that Trek fans have been belittled, lied to, and subsequently attacked by some for not quietly shutting up, lining up for this new film with quatloos in hand & being good little CBS Thralls.”
I don’t really know about belittled, at least not from the people involved in the making of the film. The different factions of fandom have gone busily ahead belittling each other, though. (From where I sit, the contempt shown to folks who care about continuity is striking, and scary, but I’m also biased and might see it from a less-than-objective point-of-view, to be fair about the whole thing. :) ) Personally, I always thought it was a huge mistake for each incarnation of Trek to be so deliberately apart from the one(s) before it, in part because it led to a fanbase that’s divided and sharply partisan.
I do, though, feel that we were–if not directly lied to–at least misled. The writing team spent a great deal of time implying that this film would not ignore or reject existing continuity, though they were careful to couch it in terms that were just vague enough to give them some wiggle-room. I had caught onto this, and for a number of months asked Bob O. a very specific question: To wit, is the fictional universe in which the film ends the same one as the one we’ve known for the past 4 decades? His silence on the matter spoke volumes, and made me wary.
“There is room for opinion on both sides on this film’s legitimacy and/or goodness/suckiness as Trek
{snip}”
Agreed.
“I think this film will probably do so-so in the box office – probably a large opening weekend (as the result of curiosity), followed by a significant drop-off from there on. One should remember – the target audience is young people who have never seen Star Trek before – non-fans. I don’t believe that this film is going to inspire the kind of viewer/customer loyalty, and profits, that Star Trek has. Especially with Abrams giving the rude/cold shoulder to all of us Trek fans.”
I’m not sure on that, really. I think the existing fan base is already so fragmented over this film that what could have been a very enthusiastic and unified core has been sacrificed. But to be fair, even among the existing fan base, Star Trek is viewed in so many ways that Mr. Abrams is almost certainly right that he had no hope of pleasing everyone. The fans specifically of the latter-era shows are out in the cold; almost ditto the fans of “Enterprise”. And even the fans of TOS are being offered a sort of quasi-TOS that may end up serving as a sort of lead-in to the show we’ve loved for so long, or maybe not.
Faced with that, Mr. Abrams pretty much *has to* reach outside the existing fans, and hope that the general audience will reach back.
What worries me more than the fragmented fan community is the fact that it’s already shaping up to be a tough season at the box office. There’s gonna be a lot of competition for limited entertainment budgets. And a film whose creators have already shown a willingness to push aside much of its natural core audience is one that’s dragging a millstone.
“Personally, I believe the intentional snub of the fans is a mistake, and with at least half of the core Trek audience staying home (a conservative guess), that snub will leave this film floundering to break even in light of the money spent on it. ”
I’m not so sure of that guess. I think a lot of the core audience will still go to see it, at least once. But will it get the sort of committed, repeat viewing it needs to become a true blockbuster? Therein lies the rub. If the as-yet-unspoken final resolution doesn’t set a lot of things “right”, it’ll cost itself a couple of C-notes of my money in repeat viewings, and one would think I’d be a natural core audience: a huge TOS fan who loves those characters and that world and enjoys seeing movies repeatedly. What will happen to the much more casual audience which is ready every week to move on to the next thing?
Now, before I get all gloom-and-doom here, let me also say that there’s still a market for good sci-fi out there, and this film may find a spot among general sci-fi fans, even if the core Trek market isn’t comfortable enough with the choices made. And until the film comes out, such variables as how the presentation itself will resonate with viewers are also fundamentally unknowable. I think the best we can say is that it’s a heckuva gamble, but who can say what might ultimately happen? Folks may yet be surprised.
Rachel S.and Dom:
This debate will not abate anytime soon.
Let’s just hope, as we approach Opening Day, that Mr. Abrams is more specific in his marketing blurbs than he has been vis-a-vis Trek and its fans.
Nimoy’s statement above could be considered “more lies,” which would is just strange.
First of all, they, and Roberto Orci’s statements on this site say that canon will not be destroyed. “None of that stuff will happen.” Those statements, made in public forums, are controlled communications from Paramount, and they cannot be potentially deceitful to consumers without the disclaimer that “opinions expressed are those of the individuals, ” etc. They’re not, as they’ve all signed agreements to that effect.
I saw “Galaxy Quest” on TV last weekend. It was terrific. It’s a parody, and has a lot of heart, paying tribute to dorky fans and potentially typecast actors. Abrams’ perception of TOS was influenced by this parody. He grew up with TNG, anyway.
I’d go back and read his statements again!
krikzil (336) Hello mate. I know where you’re coming from! I really wish this site had smielys and winkey, devil signs and so on, because sometimes people come at these posts all wrong. But I fail to understand why people are so upset about this film. It’s only a movie! Star Trek TOS, to all intents and purposes finished in 1992. Star Trek TNG and its accompanying series finished nearly half a decade ago.
Star Trek was voted on a number of polls next to Last of the Summer Wine as the show people would most like to see finish. Star Trek had things to say that were relevant to some of the people who chose to watch it, but beyond that it ceased to be relevant (not that I ever think it was relevant in the first place) to anyone.
As JJ Abrams pointed out correctly, the original Star Trek began was a show set in the future where humans were trying to put aside their differences to explore the universe. But humans weren’t perfect. There was still Kodos. Thee was still Dr Adams. There was still Ben Finney! There was still Janet Lester! We got to see the attractive crew of the USS Enterprise (a 50s flying saucer with knobbly bits) whiz around space using ‘warp drive’ to defy the laws of physics and use a ‘transporter machine’ as a magic door to get them to planet surfaces. It was cool. it was a touch psychedelic and had the old-school gee-whiz quality about it.
Down the years though, some people started to take it all way to seriously, including, it appears Gene Roddenberry. To these people, Star Trek became less about entertaining people and more about running some sort of atheist-yet-religious cult. I mean there are seriously people who treat this stuff like it’s the Bible, the Koran or the teachings of Xenu! And like it or not, these people were spoonfed a lot of this garbage by some of the shows as well. I mean, I’ve got Mormon friends who are less uptight and humourless than the characters in later Star Treks!
And that’s where the division between ‘fans’ becomes obvious. Most rational people who pay the rent, have a day job, go out for a few beers, bum the odd cigarette of a friend, wake up with a bit of a hangover here and there are going to enjoy the new film. They’ll actually be able to take a girl on a date to this film and might even get laid after! I mean that has to be a first since . . . like . . . The Voyage Home! ;)
Unfortunately, the other bunch will be sat there comparing the cuts of their new DS9 uniforms (variant 2) and complaining that something Chris Pike says twelve minutes into the new film contradicts something Neelix says 26.5 minutes into episode 12 of Voyager. Patently this film isn’t for them.
And, as I’ve said before, if you don’t like the sound of what they’re doing, move on! I mean, I’m desperately disappointed with the new Doctor Who, the original version of which I was a huge fan, so do I spend all my time on Doctor Who forums moaning that it’s rubbish? No! I stopped posting on them and moved the hell on! if people like the show, then good luck to them. Similarly, I’m shocked and disappointed with the Dune continuation novels, so I post on Jacurutu, which set up for fans of Frank Herbert’s novels only! (Now if you want to get into science fiction that is genuinely deep, complex and bordering on Tolkienesque . . .)
So sometimes I guess I really want to snap the ‘Church of Trek’ crowd out of their stare-eyed trance and reconnect them with the real world, the same way Kirk did in ‘The Apple’ or ‘This Side of Paradise.’
Then again, I guess that lot are still smarting at Bill Shatner telling them to GET A LIFE on Saturday Night Live! Classic! ;)
343. AJ: ‘Abrams’ perception of TOS was influenced by this parody. He grew up with TNG, anyway.’
Erm . . . that would have me worried! Abrams is older than me and I saw two full runs of Trek before TNG even starrted in the US! I’m not that old!!!! ;)
Abrams, apparently was a fan of TOS (at least that’s before he started doing the tour to sell the film to the sort of people who don’t like Trek) and watched all of TNG, before ‘disengaging’ with the franchise.
To be honest, that’s the case with most of us. I’ve seen all the movies since STIII at the cinema, including the TNG films: even Nemesis! But Star Trek ceased to be must-see TV way back in the 90s when TNG finished, the abysmal Generations being my moment of ‘disengagement!’ I became a move-only Trekkie at that point.
The events of Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise are mere blips on most people’s awareness. A lot of people who went to see the other Trek films, believe it or not, never watched it on TV. They went there to be entertained for two hours (or, in the case of the original cut of TMP, bored rigid) and wouldn’t think about it again until the next Trek film.
And before people get too high and mighty about Trek, the most famous moment in TNG in most peoples minds goes as follows:
That well-known Royal Shakespeare Company thespian Patrick Stewart appears on the viewscreen:
‘WHIRRR-KA-CHUNK! WHIRRR-KA-CHUNK! I am Locutus of Borg! Resistance is futile! WHIRRR-KA-CHUNK!’
Good drama. Hardly high art though, eh! ;)
I became a movie-only Trekkie at that point . . . even! ;)
“I’m desperately disappointed with the new Doctor Who, the original version of which I was a huge fan, ”
Dom — Just out of curiousity, what do you think of Torchwood?
347. krikzil
Not a fan either. I have watched it, but it’s often trite and predictable.
Quite honestly, I like The Sarah Jane Adventures best of all. I feel that Elizabeth Sladen is a better ‘Doctor’ figure than either of the last two actual Doctors.
DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were other attempts at retooling Trek. Valid attempts. Using different characters set in different timelines but still within the context of the Trek universe. Each of course had it’s own high points and low points.
Would have bee awesome and largely controversy free if JJ’s group had attempted a film without using existing characters and prop names. They could have had any ship, any bridge and any character meet and greet they wanted. Everyone in the audience would have been able to sit back and enjoy the ride under the Trek logo. His hands would not have been tied.
But he chose to tie his hands. He chose this path. Whatever happens to the success of the film, I hope we remember that.
There is no way the bridge they have is earning them favor with non Trek fans—just because it’s different. They just don’t care.
There is no way the design of the new textured-up ship is going to make non Trek fans any happier then what a textured-up TOS Enterprise would have done. They just don’t care.
“Would have been awesome and largely controversy free if JJ’s group had attempted a film without using existing characters and prop names”
Or maybe a real reboot without using Nimoy or trying to have it both ways? Just do a BSG-type film. I think trying to meld the old and new makes it harder for some fans. I know I could have accepted it a lot easier if it had just been completely new and fresh rather than this time travel scenario.
“Quite honestly, I like The Sarah Jane Adventures best of all. I feel that Elizabeth Sladen is a better ‘Doctor’ figure than either of the last two actual Doctors.”
Dom, I’ve only managed to catch one Sarah Jane but I did like it. I admit that I like Torchwood better than the new Dr Who.
349. McCoy: ‘DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were other attempts at retooling Trek.’
Not really. TNG was less a spin-off than a relaunch of Star Trek itself. DS9 was the very definition of a spin-off show: it spun off directly from events in Star Trek: The Next Generation, took a couple of characters from it and did its own thing, so DS9 wasn’t retooling anything.
Voyager, though, was ‘TNG with a gimmick’: it was set in the Delta Quadrant. But they rarely took advantage of that setting. Enterprise wasn’t a retooling of Trek either. It was another ‘TNG with a gimmick’: this time that it’s set in the past. And because Berman and Braga had no interest in TOS, it was really a prequel to TNG until Manny Coto came along.
‘Would have bee awesome and largely controversy free if JJ’s group had attempted a film without using existing characters and prop names. They could have had any ship, any bridge and any character meet and greet they wanted’
It also would be a very hard sell. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are pop-culture icons. For a 2009 audience, the promise of a completely revamped Trek with cool new designs is tempting. JJ said he didn’t want to do retro. For many people, this will be their first brush with Trek since First Contact or Insurrection.
The annoyance of a small, if vocal, interest group is worth risking if he can get the punters in and create a big new following. The loony fans are less a millstone than a little bathroom pumice stone.
350. krikzil
‘I’ve only managed to catch one Sarah Jane but I did like it. I admit that I like Torchwood better than the new Dr Who.’
SJA is more old-school Who, so I’m cool with it. I’m hoping that the new Moffat regime can improve all the shows, although I suspect that once SJA season two and Torchwood season three are done, Stephen Moffat might be looking to do his own spinoff shows instead!
This is yet-the-next age of iconic characters being made into larger-than-life films. Batman, as a feature film property, was utterly destroyed once they crapped out Batman and Robin. But he’s still an iconic American property with worldwide appeal. And the last two films were smash hits.
Regardless of how Trek diluted itself in the 1990’s and 2000’s, Kirk and Spock are still iconic American properties.
Not Captain Jill Bloggs and Mr. Blipp, the half-robot, half asexual Romulan-Human hybrid who wants to understand humanity in the 25th century. Characters like that need a TV show with story arcs to flesh them out over time. One thing JJ’s generation knows, IS that the TOS crew are iconic, and that they can be fleshed out in short strokes on a large screen.
As fans, we know the depth of character the TOS crew has, and we’ll judge their relationships based on that special knowledge. From the trailer and photos, I’m irked that Zach Quinto just seems like a pissed-off teenager. But it’s a plotpoint, I’ll wait to see his whole performance.
“From the trailer and photos, I’m irked that Zach Quinto just seems like a pissed-off teenager. ”
AJ — isn’t that the most unexpected of all? I had absolutely NO worries on the Spock front once Quinto was cast. And then the trailer. Sigh. Now it looks like Pine might have what it takes to be Kirk — although I sitll don’t buy the whole new rebel without a daddy arc. They quite possibly can be interesting characters and work for the new fans due to their superficial icon status, but I can’t help but wonder if they will be the characters I’ve loved for so long. As Closet and I discussed earlier (here or somewhere, too lazy to look up), people — even fictional characters — are the sum total of their experiences. You change those experiences, you change the character.
352. AJ: ‘I’m irked that Zach Quinto just seems like a pissed-off teenager. But it’s a plotpoint, I’ll wait to see his whole performance.’
But since Kirk’s making Spock behave like that on the instruction of Leonard Nimoy’s Spock, that scene could be quite funny. Who better to know how to piss you off than an older version of yourself? Gotta say, though, of all the snippets I’ve seen of the various actors, Quinto’s Spock works the least for me, looking too much like Sylar with a basin cut. I admit I favoured Adrien Brody (regardless of his age) for the role in the days when casting was still being discussed, but I’m not going to judge too harshly based on a brief glimpse!
353:
Liz:
I know that Closet subscribes to the theory that the time-change will explain everything at the end, but why spend two hours developing characters who may end up disappearing at the end?
As for Spock, his upbringing on Vulcan may be more in line with the standard TOS timeline. Now he just meets Kirk way earlier,during his ‘emotive’ phase
“..but why spend two hours developing characters who may end up disappearing at the end?”
This is exactly what is bugging me about the whole thing. But you know, I don’t think they will entirely disappear. The timeline is perhaps almost restored and that allows wiggle room for all sorts of new adventures and differences without be beholden to that word – CANON. Heh heh. Again, I’m not even necessarily against change….it’s just the changes we’re hearing that have me worried– the mickey mouse hands, kirk watching Enterprise being built at that age in the trailer, the sneaking of Kirk on board by Bones, Kirk and Spock ending up in command — that just don’t seem plausible in ANY timeline.
“As for Spock, his upbringing on Vulcan may be more in line with the standard TOS timeline. Now he just meets Kirk way earlier,during his ‘emotive’ phase”
It’s odd but I always thought that if anything he’d be super repressed once leaving Vulcan just to show everyone that he IS a good Vulcan. I know we saw a very emotional Spock in Menagerie but I chaulked that up to the fact those scenes were done with a very different character — Number One was going to be the unemotional one in that first pilot. Spock wasn’t Spock yet.
348. Dom
I was thnking of asking the same thing that krikzil asked you. I’ve been thinking about checking out The Sarah Jane Adventures because it looks exactly like the sort of show I would’ve enjoyed when I was about 12-13 years old.
I’m not really crazy about the current Doctor Who either, although I do enjoy it. It can be more than a bit heavy-handed at times, can’t it?
357. Thomas
‘I’m not really crazy about the current Doctor Who either, although I do enjoy it. It can be more than a bit heavy-handed at times, can’t it?’
Yeah, it demonstrates all the heavy-handed, extremist politics the BBC is so often accused of without any attempt to laugh at the ridiculousness of its own views, making it seem extremely self-righteous!
Old Who, like Star Trek: TOS worked well with ***subtle*** allegory and satire of all sides of the debate. Nu-Who rams its lessons down the viewers’ throats (a failing, albeit to a much lesser extent, of TNG as well) which, to me, demonstrates a lack of skill and maturity on the part of the writers. It’s as if, given less, Old Who writers made more of what they had.
SJA, being an out and out kids’ show, running 25 minutes per episode, doesn’t have time to soapbox. it gets on with telling a fun action adventure yarn. Elizabeth Sladen is wonderful as the older Sarah Jane, bringing all the quirkiness and maturity I’d expect of our favourite Time Lord. She’s the best Doctor in years ironically. She even gets the Brigadier involved at one point apparently (not seen that episode yet!)
For me, Nu-Who is desperately badly paced. It’s way to manic, not helped by the OTT manner in which Eccleston and Tennant have been required to play their roles. You really want to shake them and tell them to stop packing the speed pills!
What I’d really like to see is the spin-offs deal, at some point, with past companions. There have obviously been a lot of them and, like Sarah Jane, can’t have all gone back to a ‘normal’ life! Whatever happened to characters like Jamie, Zoe, Nyssa, Dorothy, Turlough, Leela and so on? I mean the Virgin novels even hinted that Leela and Andred were The Doctor’s parents!
Seeing Sarah Jane in action proves that you can’t just go back to a normal life after travelling with the Doctor!
What a pile. I would not be surprised to read in the next post how JJ Abrams eats dead babies.
And before one of you scolds me about “allowing people their opinions..” don’t bother
I don’t have a magic button to delete posts, so rant away. Some of the half truths and misconstrued bs I see posted amazes me. And assumptions galore. We see Spock (the younger) have an emotional moment on a two minute trailer and it’s assumed he’s a raving loon. JJ makes ANY kind of statement on fans, or movies for fans or not fans and he’s killing the franchise, killing someone’s childhood or hates Trekkers, Trekkies or the like.
I know you all want it NOW, but quit reading between the lines to see what you want to believe.
And the “lied to” statements… give me a break.
It’s a movie about a beloved story…but don’t have a stroke over it.
A lot of Trekies or Trekers need to remember that the time line has changed. In First Contact, when the Enterprise crew went back in time and met Zefram Cochrane, that pretty much affected the future. Everything that occurs after that has been altered slightly if you believe in the butterfly effect.
Xai, my compliments………….tell me, how did you become so rational to matters of the heart?
(dead serious question)
326 RD: “To say re-imagining Star Trek is like re-writing Shakespeare is laughable, to even compare ST to Shakespeare is ridiculous! “Spock’s Brain” destroys that analogy with the title alone.”
To wit, I was not comparing Shakespeare to Star Trek, I was comparing re-imagining Trek to re-writing Shakespeare.
361. Harry Ballz – December 9, 2008
Xai, my compliments………….tell me, how did you become so rational to matters of the heart?
(dead serious question)”
Dead serious answer, Harry.
I believe people should speak up and have opinions. I also believe that if you don’t have facts to back opinions, you can look like an as*. There are not a lot of facts floating around this yet.
I absolutely am tired of people being insulting toward the director and writers and hiding behind an internet handle. In my opinon, this is unwarranted and callous. IF this movie dies, then legit concerns can be raised. That potential date comes in May ‘09, not December.
I am “type A” and need to let go of this… because my heart literally can’t take this and what the economy is doing to me.
It may make some other posters cheer, but I am truly thinking of just reading the articles and not the posts. I need the information, but not the stress.
I depise the callous venom.
Thank you Leonard Nimoy for your endorsement of the new movie. I am looking forward to seeing it.
I just hope it has the ”feel” of the original TOS and not the 21st century feel of over emphasis on special effects, action and violence.
The only true way they can recapture the original TOS experience is when CGI gets to a point where they can flawlessly do CGI versions of Kirk Spock amd McCoy themsleve, and thats a ways off