Abrams, Orci, Moore, & Shatner Talk About Reviving Sci Fi Classics & Star Trek December 5, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, Orci/Kurtzman, Shatner, Star Trek (2009 film), TOS , trackback
For this Sunday’s LA Times there is an excellent article on the state of science fiction, with a focus on three franchises which have gone through (or are going through) ‘revivals’: Star Trek, Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica. The piece has quotes from Ron Moore, Roberto Orci, JJ Abrams, William Shatner and more and is a must read. Some excerpts below.
It is worth reading the entire LA Times article ‘Hollywood remakes sci-fi classics‘ which is online now.
Shatner takes both sides
William Shatner (the original Kirk from Star Trek) weighs in on ‘why does Hollywood keep looking to the past?’, and he seems to take both sides of the issue, first saying they should find something new:
Science fiction should be about ideas and what it means to be human, it should always be about the new and the challenging
but he also notes:
‘Star Trek’ connected with so many people for so long, and ‘Star Wars’ is the same way. There’s a thrill for fans to see the heroes they know.
Moore cites Shakespeare + reveals a BSG/Star Trek 2009 connection
Veteran Star Trek writer and producer Ron Moore defends bringing back (and reinterpreting) franchises for new audiences
In the same way that Shakespeare’s plays can be revisited again and again in new ways and settings, with things like ‘Star Trek’ or ‘Battlestar Galactica’ there is enough of the core mythology there that you can change and adapt all the things around it for something very new and worthwhile. New generations can make it their own. Strong new interpretations build on the past, they don’t repeat it.
and specifically on the return of Star Trek, Moore states:
There was enough there that it appealed to multiple generations and influenced creators. Some of those creators want to go back and work with these properties they grew up loving.
Moore also talked to the LA Times about his visit to the set and said that ‘Abrams even confided that there is “a shout-out” …that “Battlestar” fans will absolutely catch.’
Abrams on making Trekkies happy
Star Trek director JJ Abrams talked to the LA times about how he got some flack for saying that he is making this movie for a wider audience:
These are people who really care about these characters and these stories and the details. But I have to tell you, I’m not going to make a movie that tries to make every hard-core Trekker happy, because it’s not possible. I’m making a movie for fans of movies. I want it to be an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate and everything. I feel a great responsibility to these characters and everything that has come before, but I need to make a film that is not paralyzed by all of that.
Orci on balancing the SW and BSG approach
The article talks a lot about how the recent Star Wars and BSG franchises have charted different courses in relation to their 70s counterparts, and Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci says the new Trek goes for a balance:
We’re trying to do something in the middle, something that holds on to everything that makes ‘Star Trek’ what it is but also take it into a new place. One thing about the original show was its inherent optimism, and we very much wanted that in this movie. This is a future you would want to live in. And we hope it’s a future people want to watch.
For more, read: LATIMES: Hollywood remakes sci-fi classics‘.
Loading ...
Comments»
Nice to hear from the guys at the helm!
cool!!!
Why doesn’t JJ just come out and say that he has no intention of respecting canon and that this is a reboot, instead of pussyfooting around the issue?
If I’m first great, if not, oh well.
JJ is on the right track.I think alot of people forget that all of the original movies were designed to bring in a larger audience, so this movie is no different. Frankly I think that Nemesis attempted to be too fan centered and it failed because it tried to please all the fans and anyone who has ever looked at the message boards knows that’s not possible.
>>Moore also talked to the LA Times about his visit to the set and said that Abrams told him the new Star Trek movie would have a “shout out”
Does he mean a shout out to BSG?
3 CDR Cooties – December 5, 2008
“Why doesn’t JJ just come out and say that he has no intention of respecting canon and that this is a reboot, instead of pussyfooting around the issue?”
Because that would be incorrect.
Where are the promised “The Cage” Remastered Review????
Minor quibble on the quotes above:
The quote attributed to Moore on “feeling trapped” by TREK is a Roddenberry quote, according to the article.
I’ve often wondered myself why Hollywood keeps going back to the same well over and over and over.
Can we see anything original?
The cage will be reviewed before the end of the month, we appreciate your patience, and please stop diverting threads….there is a feedback section for questions
http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback
#3—”Why doesn’t JJ just come out and say that he has no intention of respecting canon and that this is a reboot, instead of pussyfooting around the issue?”
Because for one, it isn’t a reboot, since everything before (ENT-NEM) is required to occur before the story can progress to that point. Calling it a “Reboot”, which suggests that previous material is disregarded, would be very accurate.
As for respecting canon, it would be difficult to argue that utilizing an altered timeline to tell a slightly different story is disrespectful to canon, when it must be acknowledged that the existence and possibility of alternate timelines resulting from interference with the past is in itself “canon” (and has been since the very beginning).
In the strictest of terms, canon is being adhered to, regardless of whether the alternate timeline remains or not at the end of the film.
So, what you’re really saying, is that you would rather him ‘not’ be truthful in answering those questions, and just pretend that he’s making a reboot which does not respect canon?
A BSG homage in a Trek movie? I thought I’d never see the day.
Am I the only one here who’s not really bothered by the fact that JJ wants to make a Trek film that would reach a wider audience?
Sometimes I think the reason why it doesn’t bother me is because I haven’t been a lifelong fan of Trek. I came to Trek in about ‘99 through VOY. I enjoyed it and started looking back at some of the older stuff. I didn’t really grow up with Trek, so the characters weren’t childhood heroes of mine. I didn’t grow up watching daily reruns of TOS or any other series. I enjoy Trek but it isn’t that big a part of my life.
Good to see the LA Times showing some positive interest by presenting such a well-balanced article.
You just have to look at all the people excited by those crappy mego doll remakes or whatever the heck they are to know some ‘fans’ are always gonna be crippled by their adherence to cannon..so sad
>These are people who really care about these characters and these >stories and the details. But I have to tell you, I’m not going to make a movie >that tries to make every hard-core Trekker happy, because it’s not possible. >I’m making a movie for fans of movies. I want it to be an adventure and fun >and sexy and scary and epic and intimate and everything
FAIL! lol thats exactly why your star trek will fail!!!
Sure it will make money.. but it will be forgotten far faster than any of the first 5 star trek movies…
I grew up reading Trek novels. They always seemed the “core” reality to me, and the onscreen stuff just an interpretation. Kirk was a character, not William Shatner.
6
every time some one involved in this project refers to the canon issue. they all thend to say the exact dsame thing.
“HONOR canon”
“HONOR what came before”
sounds like the nda at work
Notice how no one says FOLLOW canon. fans tend to notice these things.
Look the only way youll bring me over to your side is if the ship and EVERY thing else looks EXACTLY like the cage/wnmhgb at the end of the film (maybe)
15
faster then LIS?
17
i posted a similar thought but it got yanked.
Trek IV reached a wider audience, So did First Contact. What’s wrong with that?
16. Chris Basken – December 5, 2008
Interesting. Have often had similar feelings.
Just a note about canon… this is what Roddenberry himself thought of canon:
“it has been noted that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon. People who worked with Roddenberry remember that he used to handle canon not on a series-by-series basis nor an episode-by-episode basis, but point by point. If he changed his mind on something, or if a fact in one episode contradicted what he considered to be a more important fact in another episode, he had no problem declaring that specific point non-canon.”
you cononistas should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
boborci — For crying out loud; the Christmas competition for Trek would have been ‘Valkerie!’ Couldn’t you just forget about May and give us a surprise present???
#12—-”Am I the only one here who’s not really bothered by the fact that JJ wants to make a Trek film that would reach a wider audience? ”
Absolutely not!
Sounds great to me.
21. CmdrR – December 5, 2008
“boborci — For crying out loud; the Christmas competition for Trek would have been ‘Valkerie!’ Couldn’t you just forget about May and give us a surprise present???”
Tell me about it — believe me, we’re all thinking the same thing.
look bob its simple
a writer has a great imagination can to all kinds of things.
but when they step into some one elses work you have to work with in those constraints. period.
if you hit a wall (hey it happens). a GOOD writer can find a way to make it work with out changing the canon or charactor etc.
we can understand that this film is for the non fans (sure we would live to increase our base) and not all released info is sent to trekmovie or like genre media. and that it is also for us. so where is the fan base pics/trailers etc that would ease our fears?
cause im not seein it.
your in hot water with half the fan base.
help us help you.
I betcha the shout-out to BSG is somebody using “frack” as an expletive.
JJ hit the nail on the head when he said that if he takes the characters and canon with great responsibility but can’t be paralyzed by it.
The idea of Star Trek and its vision needs to be accessible to all members of society and not just hard-core fans. If Star Trek is to survive at all and bring it’s wonderful vision into the 21st century, they need to build a new audience base.
His point about Shakespeare is also perfect! I go to stage theatre all of the time and have seen numerous plays and musicals put on in so many different ways, but the spirit of the show was recognizable and while I may not have been happy with some from an artistic point, I wasn’t against it simply because it wasn’t the “original.”
Imagine if no one wanted to see Hamlet, MacBeth, Cabaret or Rent simply because they were being performed by the same actors on the same set, etc.?
I love that more and more fans are accepting this movie and not judging a book by its cover just yet, but there are certainly fans out there that need to get a grip and take a breather (oh and get a life too!)
I want Trek. I want Trek.
Even when I want to pout because JJ’s not “making a movie for Trek fans”, I have to admire the way he sticks to his guns. What’s the point of preaching to the converted? We need to reach out to increase our pool of converts, right?
#26—”your in hot water with half the fan base.
help us help you.”
Lmao!
18
I’ve been wondering about that too.
I’m a fairly new fan (a little over a year) and I love TOS. But being new, it means I missed the movies in the theaters. Growing up I was aware of the movies with Khan and the whales but other than that I was more interested in Star Wars. I got burned on the prequels and started looking elsewhere.
I feel like I’ve really missed out and without this movie, I’ll probably never get to experience what a lot of older fans have – to see Star Trek on the big screen!
I would think having it compared to Shakespeare would be considered a plus and not leaving it to die with the actors who originally played the parts would be considered wonderful.
I just want the adventure to continue I guess.
#17 “LOL” so are you just kidding, or did you just say that so that all the other members of this board will not tar and feather you for blasphemy?
The Original Trek had all of these things too, the only real difference being the time and budget constraints inherent with making a TV show rather than a movie. For crying out loud, Give the movie a chance!!! We’ll gladly ignore you as you bash the movie AFTER you’ve seen it, but please watch it first.
I for one think May can not come soon enough :D
Biggest thing in that very good article is that they’re saying Caprica will screen and go to a series. Since they interviewed Moore for that article and everything else pretty much checks out, factwise, I’m wondering when we’ll more about Caprica!
28 If Star Trek is to survive at all and bring it’s wonderful vision into the 21st century, they need to build a new audience base.
ok
so. what? Star Trek is now Mission Impossible? F the original series and its fans? we’ll do it our way and make new fans?
Modern Hollywood has no clue what science fiction is, funny that Shatner is the only one who seems to remember back from the 1960s. A good example is the Hollywood version of Solaris. They took a fascinating tale about alien intelligence and the difficulties of communicating, let alone comprehending it and turned it into “Romance in Space”. D’uh. Now Abrams takes a tale about a metaphorical trek to the stars and turns it into “an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate” (sic). Something dumbed down and tangible for the clueless masses, that’s what it is.
Science fiction was never about characters first and foremost, it is about *ideas*. The name for the former is “soap opera”.
34. Enc
Geez! Don’t you read any of the past articles? It is to bring in MORE fans. NOT get rid of the existing fans.
I have to admit that the new star trek guys making the movie are doing the right thing ! They’re making this one for a new generation , and thats verified by a majority of posts in favor of their style . I’m the older trekker that represents what has gone before (that is still my interest) . It seems most of the commenters here are under 45 , and they want their own !
Interesting news about the new Battlestar Galactica . I followed the original from the 1980’s and that was really great – very much in the space-western style and with one of those dark conflicted villains (probably one of the first anti-hero types) played by John Colicos .
I watched the start of the new BG , and the roles from the original had been re-interpreted . Again a new version that I didn’t take to well , but they have an interested active online community !
32
is that cause you think jj and co are great?
or
you think its gonna be great based on what weve seen so far?
or
or simple cause theres been no new trek for a while?
it cant be cause of what youve heard. youn cant belive what other people say. remember ‘dont judge a book by its cover’.
31. – Elise
Thanks for making a point that I sometimes think we all tend to forget. This movie is going to be AN EXPERIENCE for some younger viewers as well as new Trekkies that have never had the joy of sitting in the theater and being truly immersed in a Star Trek film. I have to admit that my first true experience didn’t come until Generations. (I nearly made it to VI, but things didn’t work out.) Let me just say that none of the movies (good or bad) are experienced quite the same as when you first get to see the Enterprise (1701, A, B, D or E) fly across the big screen.
So, just as a side note to the haters – don’t forget the joy that these new Trekkies would be missing if this new film was not to be made. It may not be exactly what we all wanted, but even as the preview gave a lot of us chills, I can only imagine there will several moments in the actual film that will certainly do the same. To me, to experience the Big E on the screen one more time (no matter how she looks) is worth the price of admission!
It’s possible that as Kirk, Spock, McCoy of whatever alternate timeline they might be in at the close of this movie eventually encounter the Guardian in “City On the Edge of Forever,” perhaps these alternate timeline heroes don’t succeed quite as well as the Prime versions did. Perhaps these alternate timeline heroes actually end up altering the universe starting in 1930. If that’s the case, then perhaps even the pre-Trek “Enterprise” series is altered.
It looks to me that everthing (er, everytime) that the heroes go, including 1930 Earth, could now be altered.
34 – I’m not saying that exactly…I’m saying that they can create a movie trying to bring in a lot of new fans and not worry about those fans out there who have been crying like babies.
I’m a die hard TOS fan and have a very valuable TOS collection, but I just don’t get some of the fans who seem like they’ve never seen the light of day because they’ve been kept up in their rooms watching Star Trek every second of their life. Even if JJ wasn’t doing this movie and say he did a TNG movie…Trek fans are so particular and so critical they would still be complaining. That’s all we do is complain about every movie that comes out and every series that was made.
Essentially, Trek fans are like spoiled brats who get upset when they don’t get what they want.
#34—”so. what? Star Trek is now Mission Impossible? F the original series and its fans? we’ll do it our way and make new fans?”
That’s not what he said.
It seems as if the only Star Trek you are willing to accept is one which abides by some “by the numbers”, very formulaic approach.
I never felt that TOS was ever that way at all. Many of the better episodes stand apart because they were innovative and different. Some of the weaker ones stuck too close to the “planet of the week” formula, IMO.
Each individual established fan may very well decide for himself/herself whether this incarnation of Star Trek appeals to him/her, just as I discovered that most of the TNG-era Trek wasn’t for me.
This one will be afforded the same opprotunity for me, as a thirty (plus)year veteran Star Trek fan, to appeal to me.
My favorite characters…The 23rd Century….No holodecks…No android pinnochios…no ’ship’s counselor…no USS Hilton…
Sounds pretty good to me so far.
#29—”What’s the point of preaching to the converted? We need to reach out to increase our pool of converts, right?”
Spockanella’s right on target!
boborci—another reason to push up the release date of the film…by may not many people in the US might have any money to spare to go see the film…
Vulcan Soul (35)
D’uh. Now Abrams takes a tale about a metaphorical trek to the stars and turns it into “an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate” (sic). Something dumbed down and tangible for the clueless masses, that’s what it is.
Words like: ‘adventure,’ ‘fun,’ ’sexy,’ ’scary,’ ‘epic’ and ‘intimate’ all describe TOS very well too!
Jeez! I swear people think that Star Trek shouldn’t be enjoyable and should be read out in cod-Shakespearian style while everybody sits there poker-faced.
Star Trek is FUN!!!! It’s perfectly ok to enjoy it on that level. Cheer up people!!
Why do they even bother to ask them the same questions, they always answer the same way? When somebody has something NEW to say about SCI FI then I’ll give a rats…..
Darth “Lucas Colon” Ballz
As one that appreciates Roddenberry’s vision of the future, I am very excited at the thought of people who see star trek as something for “geeks” coming out and maybe finding something to relate to in this new representation of his vision
People complain that “new representation=dumbed down for a wider audience”
… because it’s different than previous Trek films, somehow this means it’s dumbed down. Get off your high trek horse and realize that there are seriously very few good trek movies out there, not to mention “smart” (in my opinion II, IV, VI, and first contact… the best part of TMP was the enterprise reveal, and generations is half and half in my book, that’s 4/10 good films).
Please keep an open mind and see it first before you complain. All we’ve seen was a trailer… and rumors of the 20 mins of footage, which I have yet to read a reviewer who came out of it disliking the film’s direction.
In the end, isn’t it more about Roddenberry’s dreams of our future in space exploration than little canon issues which future writers just came up with to piece the whole story together for fans (and already has many holes in its so called “canon” )? Not to mention that there’s already been confirmation from the writers of the new trek AND Nimoy (who has contributed two great Trek stories to our archives with IV and VI) that the story follows canon and Abrams is giving us a good movie .
Star Trek was never about Shatner. Star Trek was never about the convoluted detailed story that future writers pumped out to keep this money making franchise running.
Star Trek is supposed to be about the optimistic look into mankind’s future beyond earth. I believe that was Roddenberry’s dream… and from everything I’m hearing (including NIMOY) THIS is what will be honored () You think Nimoy would come out of retirement for a film he didn’t believe in? He wouldn’t even come out to play Spock in Generations.
If the film sucks, it sucks… but please quit belly-aching until you see it (or if you’re boycotting it, whatever, i believe star trek is capable of going on without you… the trek fan base’s presence certainly didn’t do nemesis any help).
#35— “an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate” …
Sounds like TOS and/or the original films to me.
Bringing those elements back to Trek does not equate to “dumbing it down”, unless you think it was “dumb” to begin with, and in that case, I would have to question why you are here in the first place….
Hmm, if you go to the article what he said was there was a shout out to Ron Moore, not BSG. It’ll be interesting to see how that comes off.
sire JJ n the orcster, sittin in a tree.
making classic trek, not TNG
first comes canon
then comes reinvention
then comes scoring some hollywood hookers, my man!!! yeah!
and a tony montana pile o’ yayo. “say hello to my little friend!”
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
#35
Interesting, so all stories that focus on characters are ’soap opera’? I can think of a few thousand writers that would disagree with you.
Hello Bob Orci,
After a lot of thought, it seems I have one question to put that would address my worries:
Is your version of Star Trek written for grown-ups … or children?
I would be grateful for a straight-forward answer. (It is possible to appeal to both, as did Star Trek, but I trust you understand my question in its full sense.)
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
#26 – I think you are presuming to know more than you really do.
47 – Star Trek is supposed to be about the optimistic look into mankind’s future beyond earth. I believe that was Roddenberry’s dream… and from everything I’m hearing (including NIMOY) THIS is what will be honored
JHC thats star trek 101. if thats what they are trying to aim for then we are in trouble. that kind of thing is suppost to be the easy part.
Nimoy (and the uniforms for the most part) are the ONLY thing this movie has had going for it thus far. to me any way. everything else is a waste of material.
54. Enc
easy enough.. don’t go see it if you feel that way.
#26 – “your in hot water with half the fan base. ”
Proof?
“help us help you ”
Help him do what? Go back and change a movie that is already done just to “get in hot water with the other half of the fan base” according to you?
#36 montreal paul
the problem lies in the fact that the new movie looks like it’s probably going to radically alter a lot of what I and plenty of other fans have always considered one of the back bones of the franchise, it’s fairly consistent (fake) historical and visual tapestry. If all of that is swept away simply to facilitate telling this particulare story, well, then it’s not really the Star Trek that I grew up loving. Part of the appeal for myself and a lot of other people was the game of Star Trek’s backstory. Saying “Well, there was some time travel, so all that has changed” just doesn’t cut it with me. In my opinion that’s a crap justification, if it even really counts as one at all.
I’d like to ask Mr. Orci if he appreciates the fact that to many people it appears as if this is the case. And before anybody points out yet again that my old DVDs aren’t going to disappear in a swirl of temporal paradox, that’s not the point. Of course I will always have those. This is about what Star Trek will be GOING FORWARD and I have a hard time understanding why the established “facts” had to be wiped out in service to the story they wanted to tell. It’s not necessarily a deal breaker for me, but it automatically predisposes me (as well as a good portion of the fan base) to be EXTREMELY sceptical if not slightly hostile to the whole premise of this movie. Quite frankly and with all due respect to Mr. Orci et al, a cutesy explanation that time travel changed the course of history, so that’s why things are different just indicates to me that they should have called it a reboot and been done with it. The explanation that seems to be operative here just seems like a cop-out to me. I’m truly sorry if that comes across as a bit harsh, but this DOES NOT look like classic Trek to me and if the background details have changed, fair enough, but have the conviction and faith in your work to say, “This is OUR take on Trek”. The “Everything has a canon explanation” due to time travel just seems like a cop-out and quite frankly comes across as a bit insulting as well as patronising to those of us who do revel in the historical details of Trek precisely because that’s been part of the entertainment value of Trek to us for, quite literally, decades. Given the fact that it is going to be so radically different in those details, if I do enjoy Trek 2009, it will be on it’s own merits, so don’t try to tell me I’m buying a classic 1969 Dodge Dart GTS with a Hemi and a Hurst short shifter when what you’re selling me is a 2008 Charger with an autostick transmission. Mr. Orci, if by any chance you are reading this I do not in any way mean to be insulting, I’m just trying to voice some concerns and frustrations that I think some of us are feeling. Your thoughts and reactions would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
a very typed out earthclanbootstrap
52. C.S. Lewis – December 5, 2008
I think children will hopefully love it, but it’s for grown ups.
There’s a shout out . . .
Spoiler Alert!
Kirk is the Final Cylon.
^58 boborci
Superb-o. I won’t need about redeeming that money-back guarantee you promised ;-)
Now, I’m off to finish my annual reading of “Pilgrim’s Progress” for Christmastime.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
#15 – “FAIL!”
Your post described perfectly. LOL boom bam BOOYAH yayyyy.
Arghhh…. I hate IE7. #60 was meant to read, “I won’t need to worry about redeeming” etc etc.
A thousand apologies,
C.S. Lewis
56
i was looking for tptb to release some stuff for the fans eyes only. something that would quite our concers about canon.
63. Enc – December 5, 2008
I would argue Nimoy was for the fans eyes. Reminds me of a joke:
A man fell overboard from his little boat and was thrashing around in the water when another boat pulled up.
“Jump in,” shouted the boater. “We’ll save you.”
“No”, cried the drowning man, “God will save me.”
The scene was repeated twice more, before a helicopter finally arrived and hovered over him. Once again, the man refused help on the same grounds … God would save him.
The man finally drowned and as he crossed the Pearly Gates he gazed into God’s eyes with obvious confusion.
“I placed my faith in you and you let me drown,” he complained.
“Let you drown?”, exclaimed God. “I sent three boats and a helicopter.”
#63
So all the photos from the set, Trek Movie exclusives and a trailer modified just for us on AICN wasn’t enough?
” I’m making a movie for fans of movies”
…Someone needs to explain to Abrams that this statement does not mean what he thinks it means. A Movie for fans of Movies is a film such as That’s Entertainment. A remake/reimaging of an existing property does not fit that definition.
Shout out to BSG? Spock prime tells young Kirk to pull his frakkin’ head out and take command.
Anthony — in defense of #7: I’m sure that that poster did not mean to divert the thread. I don’t think that most of us intentionally do that when we ask questions like the one #7 asked. I think that many of us — especially we newer posters — just were not aware that there is a feedback page for questions and comments we have that are not necessarily related to the article or topic under discussion.
Thank you for making it known in this thread. I’ve now bookmarked that page, and I am sure other posters with queries not directly related to the issue-at-hand will do likewise.
Best to you,
Brett C.
57. earthclanbootstrap
and you know this because you have see the whole movie or have a copy of the script? Chill until you see the movie… you’ll give yourself a heart attack if you worry about everything before you actually see the movie. I am not making any assumptions or judgements about the movie until I have actually seen the whole thing. I prefer to think good things about this movie because without it, Trek is basically dead. If, when I see it, and it does blow chunks… I wil lbe the first to admit it.
When waiting for TUC and most of TNG movies.. I was the same way. i didn’t like insurrection or Nemesis… but I went in there with an open mind. I still bought all teh movies.. even the ones I didn’t really like… to add to my collection. I have even watched them again.
Like I tell my 9 year old daughter. I have no problem with her not liking a certain food.. as long as she tries it first.
57. earthclanbootstrap
What you see as a problem with a potential new time line, I see as a huge opportunity. They (JJ, Orci, et al) are not in the business of killing Star Trek, but reinventing it for the big screen in a way we’ve not seen it before.
Think about the possibilities.
We’ll always have (Paris) the original series. We can revisit that part of our youth forever – cause they can’t take it away.
But we could potentially have so much more. It is the proverbial ‘win win scenario’ – adventure, story telling, and from Paramount’s point of view a potential start of something new.
After 2 movies, and before a third goes into production – Paramount announces a new Star Trek TV series –
“Star Trek – The Next Generation”
New cast. New stories. Retelling old stories. New effects. High def recordings. Revisiting old storylines with a new take. Maybe the same old Q just for good measure, who’s first line is “This isn’t right!” and then just goes along with it.
Maybe a new “Deep Space Nine” series that follows.
And best of all, Voyager never goes to the delta quadrant.
Ah – the possibilities.
64-Bob
With some folks, it will never be enough.
This is getting to be the Civil War of Star trek:
My brother and I are going round and round talking about this film.
He’s quite the fundamentalist when it comes to design, while I couldn’t be more excited. It seems generational, since i’m more TOS and TNG while he’s more TNG, DS9, ENT etc…perhaps it’s due to later series emphasis on canon.
Hasn’t come to blows yet.
We’ll see what happens when th e next trailer comes out.
66 — That is a very interesting and astute observation. Perhaps Mr. Abrams will re-think how he has been phrasing this statement that has appeared multiple times in articles and press items related to this film. Perhaps something along the lines of a film for “fans of adventure and (or) science-fiction films” might qualify his meaning a little further.
#66
Reminds me of Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
That being said, I think JJ is right on target. He’s saying he’s making a movie for people that love everything about movies that differentiates them from other media. I don’t see a problem.
#64. boborci
So You Are WELL into Planning the Sequel Already right??
I mean You’ve Had How long since this Movie’s been Finished and It Still Hasn’t been released Yet?
Enough People (Execs. and Film makers) Have Seen It Already and have Given it Their thumbs up.
According to The Articles Here, So What Will it be called? And When is The Release date, Before 2036 Right?
#74
I am Both Awed and Confused by your creative use of Capitalization.
72. Brett Campbell – December 5, 2008
I believe what he means is he is making a movie for people who simply want to see a good movie, as opposed to a good (fill in the blank) movie. Because a good (fill in the blank) movie allows people to say, “I don’t like (fill in the blank) movies!”
31, 39– Thank you! You touched exactly on what I’ve wanted to say.
What I see happening all the time in other fandoms (Batman, Watchmen, etc.) is that newer fans get trashed all over, and luckily this hasn’t been a problem at all since I’ve been a Trek fan. People have been so accepting even though I’m not a life-long fan, haven’t. But when it comes to the new movie I feel like it’s a completely different thing. Sometimes I feel like I shouldn’t be eager to see this because it’s considered ‘not really Trek’ or ‘dumbed down’ or aimed at stupid, MTV-raised teenagers who “grew up with Star Wars ep 1 and liked it.”*
I mean, I can accept that older/long-time fans have problems with the concept of the new movie, the sets, the actors, etc., that’s fine. You have opinions and I respect them, of course, but I’d really appreciate being able to enjoy this movie for what it is to me: an exciting, fun, first-time event! I’ve never seen a Trek movie in theaters; the last one I was interested in came out when I was a year old, and I couldn’t even make it to the Menagerie screenings last year. (Now THAT was disappointing.) The XI trailer was the first time I had ever seen Star Trek on the big screen– even if you didn’t like the trailer, or think it’s an abomination or whatever, can’t I be excited? I got to see the characters I love (don’t shoot! I really think they might be good) up there, and can imagine being able to see the whole thing up there in –God willing– glorious IMAX format.
Do you know how frustrating it is to watch the TOS movies, seeing the scope and adventure and the epic feel they have, but having to watch it all constrained to 23 inches? I want to see those ships up there on the big screen, larger than life and looking awesome. Maybe my sorry, ADD-afflicted 21st century brain has just been taken in by all the OOH SHINY CGI, but I thought the trailer looked neat. I wanna see all that for real, and I’m looking forward to this movie big-time.
And I haven’t bothered anyone about not liking the movie, so I’d like to not be bothered about wanting to see it and hoping it kicks ass. :D
*P.S., some of us grew up with it, loved it when we were nine years old, and grew out of it upon realizing it just isn’t that good of a movie. Taste is not age-exclusive. ):
65
you remember the chat from the set pic
dark cant see a damn thing ‘cept what looked like a TOS style key/button layout?
that had promise.
but it looks like JJ’prise has a 2 t/e bridge. a ramp under the cpt chair.
Heck even the teaser construction didnt look like the pre/tos ship of fame.
NO
those are pics only. just something to SELL it to some one. some one else. I dont see any TOS in there at all.
it lloks more like some one took some trek names something with only a vague description of its tech/ships and slapd the name ‘Star Trek’ on it.
Tab Murphy called himself a fan of starblazers and wrote a movie script.
The fans rejected it.
I hope the film works with kids
I fell in love with trek when I was a kid, as I bet most here did as well. I hope a new generation of kids fall in love with trek via the movie and then discover the past trek shows, movies, books, etc
#78
I don’t think there’s much they can do to convince some without giving away the whole farm. Some people are just going to have to pay their $10 on opening night and decide for themselves. That’s when I’ll be making up my mind.
What is it you want? They’ve given us a trailer, TONS of set photos, pics of all the main cast, 20 minutes of footage that has been described on a dozen or more sites, and a trailer that gives us the OG Spock, Leonard Nimoy. What more can they give us without just streaming the movie online?
Roberto,
Can you please get some information re: Giacchino’s score? Obviously, it won’t be released for several months, but any chance we might get a snippet of the theme(s)?
Curious to know if/how he interpolates/weaves/ignores Courage’s classic theme, and if leitmotif is a factor in his score, or if we can expect more of a Media Ventures style effort? Judging him based on such work as “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille,” I don’t doubt he can give film score nerds, such as myself, something to “geek out” over!
Surely you’ve heard something he’s written for your “Trek,” haven’t you? If so a short report would be great, besides “Thanks, it is great.”
I knew he would nail sci-fi just from the score to the Pixar short, “Lifted”. Give that short a spin and see what I mean…
Gracias!
Red Shirt out…
79
but if you are say young and fall in love with the new one and then over the years you go back and see the original work and love that too. wont you ask yourself. ‘then why did they change it’
why change Mission Impossible?
why change Bond?
why change Star Trek?
sure they all have their good days and their bad days
at what point does a property deserve or Have to be remaked?
76 – Mr. Orci — I see your point. But isn’t that also along the lines of saying that one has written a book for people who love books? There are many people who love books and films and are not fans of certain genres in either of these media. I love movies, but can’t stand musicals. I love reading, but never touch westerns or mysteries. Do you see what I mean here? With all do respect to your friend and collaborator, Mr. Abrams, I can understand #66’s point that the statement does have some ambiguity to it.
I can appreciate Mr. Abrams’s statement to some extent, and I do not necessarily agree with 66’s comment that Mr. Abrams “… statement does not mean what he thinks it means,” but I also have not fully understood what Mr. Abrams has meant by it. Thank you for your effort to make it clearer.
In any case, and regardless of the genres involved, I hope that you and Messrs. Abrams, Orci and all involved have given us a great film that we will enjoy and thrill to in May and enjoy over repeated viewings for years to come. I hope that shows some appreciation and understanding of Mr. Abrams’s claim.
I greatly look forward to seeing your film. Thank you for reinvigorating a mythos that I have loved for forty-two years and counting.
Best to you,
Brett C.
Huh. All men had an interesting perspective. And given where Star Trek ended up commercially and creatively after Nemesis, it was clear that we had to eliminate the old parameters and star somewhere fresh, all the while respecting the spirit of the franchise.
On the subject of creating new sci-fi that is successful in box office terms the defining factor lies less in sci-fi itself and more in relating it back to the people and views/mood of the day.
I guess to learn & absorb something new we first have to relate.
It seems simple and many of us already know this … but when you apply this reasoning to various sci-fi successes & flops the fundamental failings become quite apparent.
Certainly the signs are there for all to see that this new Star Trek has been made by people that realise these fundamentals.
It looks to me that we have a movie with people at its heart on a great adventure. Can’t wait!
I hope there’s plenty of Dr McCoy!
@ 79.
I too got into Trek when I was a kid. I think it was Search for Spock to be specific…
Regardless, Trek was never geared towards kids directly, and had a sort of adult-element to it that made me want to know more about it…the characters were heroic seemed to know what they were doing, making it easy for me to look up to them
If the new Trek pulls this off, then I think the new fanbase it’s directed towards will be established fast
Mr. Orci — Re: my post #83, it should of course have read “all DUE respect …”
I really wish the canon ites would give up already
So much has been pointed out over many threads that TOS was self contradicting because they were inventing it at the time, making it up as they went along. They used a different writer every week, and certainly they hardly communicated with each other. David Gerold, D.C. Fontana and a couple others may have consulted to keep the story straight, but Gene did rewrites of every script at the last minute, and one episode actually ended on an earlier stardate than it began because it was such a wild hodge podge mess. And that was half the fun!
Contrast that to the overly conferenced TNG where every idea had to go into committee much like a politburo in a Soviet State. Berman Braga reduced Star Trek from a western to a soap opera with story arcs and lame relationships and teasers and oddball shows that had no point like the one about the little aliens that sat in your brain and the death of Tasha Yar. The New Galactica wasted so much time on Lee & Starbuck making out and not enough time on killing Cylons, who made the Cylons, space adventure, and whatnot.
I dont care who makes out with who on TV. That bores the crap out of me. I want to see action, adventure, killing, destruction, and general mayhem.
Science Fiction, and TOS were about exploring strange ideas. Kirk & crew visit planet X, wherein society says this about that, and Kirk realizes that it’s harmful, shameful, or otherwise needs a kick in the ass, and he delivers it.
In real life, you’re not allowed to go around killing people, that’s why we go to see James Bond, Jason Statham, and others do it on screen knowing full well it’s fake.
I’ll never get to space. I want Trek to take me there in my mind. I dont care who “dies” in the process.
I just wish they’d had a real life ship builder there to advise them.
#82
I fell in love with Trek as a kid. For me, it was the film series. Later on, I went back and watched TOS. It didn’t ruin me to see that they’d changed A LOT. I mean, in some ways the film version of Trek is an almost entirely different property than TOS. Heck, a lot of people think of TNG as a reboot, and we know there’s an entire generation that turned Trek fan via TNG. I think you might be overthinking this.
#12: Star Trek IS my life and that’s why so many of us are cautious. Cautiously optimistic is perhaps a better way to describe it.
#16 – “I grew up reading Trek novels. They always seemed the “core” reality to me, and the onscreen stuff just an interpretation. Kirk was a character, not William Shatner.”
I came into Trek with the novels alongside the original series. For me, the result was that my appreciation of Trek and its world was never restricted to the medium in which it was presented. Ergo, print Trek has always been just as “valid”, neither more so nor less so, than filmed Trek. Personally, I think Paramount hugely missed the boat by not embracing Trek as a truly multi-media phenomenon.
#25 – ” 21. CmdrR – December 5, 2008
“boborci — For crying out loud; the Christmas competition for Trek would have been ‘Valkerie!’ Couldn’t you just forget about May and give us a surprise present???”
Tell me about it — believe me, we’re all thinking the same thing.”
Historically, it’s seemed that the holiday season has been kinder to Trek releases than the summer season. Irrelevant of my concerns about the new Trek film, this is a huge gamble on Paramount’s part. We can only hope that it pays off.
#71 – “This is getting to be the Civil War of Star trek:”
A few years ago, when some of the first clamorings for a universe-changing reboot for Trek began, I opined that to do something like that would divide fandom on a scale that would make the debates over “Enterprise” look like a picnic in the park. So far, even the prospect that this film will do something akin to such a reboot has resulted in discussions that have done nothing to make me believe that my original opinion wasn’t spot-on.
I’d like to hope that the film will resolve in such a way that it will bring the fans together a bit more. I am concerned, though, that it will not.
#73 – “I think JJ is right on target. He’s saying he’s making a movie for people that love everything about movies that differentiates them from other media. I don’t see a problem.”
Agreed.
#79 – Mr. Pascale: “I hope a new generation of kids fall in love with trek via the movie and then discover the past trek shows, movies, books, etc”
My hopes and wishes exactly. I hope that they will be able to see beyond the limited production values of the era of TOS and become enamored of its heart: great storytelling, characterization, imagination and possibilities…
Anthony,
I watched Trek and Apollo XI and XIII on a 6 inch black and white TV back in the day. Shag carpets, Chevy Luv Wagons, 8 tracks, butterfly collars, Afros, the who nine yards.
We wuz po’
I loved it :-)
#88
“I dont care who makes out with who on TV. That bores the crap out of me. I want to see action, adventure, killing, destruction, and general mayhem…In real life, you’re not allowed to go around killing people, that’s why we go to see James Bond, Jason Statham, and others do it on screen knowing full well it’s fake.”
Yikes! At first I thought we might be on the same page, but toward the end there, ya really lost me. Suffice it to say, some of us want more than that.
@89
Yeah…I totally get you… Being introduced to Trek during the TOS Movies and TNG, gave me a different perspective on the franchise as a whole than older fans.
To me it seemed TOS was a throw-back, and what they were doing with the movies and TNG seemed more tangible in a way. Not to say I don’t enjoy TOS for what it is now…it’s just that what was current then seemed more appealing to me at the time, allowing me to immerse myself into the franchise as a fan
#69 montreal paul
I’d never give myself a heart attack over it; after all, it is just an entertainment franchise and far from the only one I indulge in… ;-)
I really want to be excited about it, and I actually was before I saw the trailer. However, the trailer left me at best absolutely cold and to be truthful just a little bit horrified. The best way that I can describe it is that car analogy I used earlier. The salesman is saying, “No, really, this is a super sweet ‘69 Dart GTS; Hemi header, Hurst short throw shifter, original paint, the works.” and what’s sitting on the lot in front of me is a 2008 Charger. The modern Charger is far from a piece of crap, but it can’t be registered at the DMV with Historical Vehicle license plates. I don’t take well to being told that everything is canon mostly because even from what little we have seen in the trailer it is patently obvious that it is not.
88. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
“I just wish they’d had a real life ship builder there to advise them.”
You mean like NASA?
#75 – re: # 74: LOL!
I thought something along similar lines when I enjoyed this poster’s style in another thread yesterday. I wasn’t sure if perhaps this wasn’t Trekmovie.com’s “reverse-e.e. cummings.” ;)
Sean,
My point is that it’s escapist fantasy.
We experience the mundane everyday, that’s why it’s called mundane.
#88
You’re argument against strict adherence to canon had me up until this point –
“I dont care who makes out with who on TV. That bores the crap out of me. I want to see action, adventure, killing, destruction, and general mayhem. ”
“In real life, you’re not allowed to go around killing people, that’s why we go to see James Bond, Jason Statham, and others do it on screen knowing full well it’s fake. ”
To each his own, I guess…
Is it May yet?
99 – During a really typical boring week, I experience mundane, tuesdane, wednesdane, thursdane …
Paul,
No. The shuttle is just for short trips, not “five year missions”
The Bridge would look good on a Sultan’s yacht, when he only uses it to entertain guests for hours at a time. The white gives a sense of “clean” and wealth.
Real ships need supplies, and spaces to put them.
A carrier is gray all over because it’s easy on the eyes and psyche of the crew that has to be on the ship for five years.
You want to drive someone crazy? lock them in a bright white room for a few hours. I’m not kidding.
96. earthclanbootstrap
“I don’t take well to being told that everything is canon mostly because even from what little we have seen in the trailer it is patently obvious that it is not.”
No one has ever said that everything is canon. What was said that anything that doesn’t look canon will have a canon explaination.
Furthermore.. no one stated that this is the 1966 original NBC/Desilu Star Trek starring Willian Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley… as you stated in your car analogy. This is a new Trek for 2009 with new actors (except Nimoy). Sit back and enjoy the ride… no one is trying to deceive you. Like I said.. go see the movie and bases your judgement on it then. I have no problem if someone will hate it after that. Who knows.. maybe i will hate it after i see it… though i doubt that. ;)
102. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
Well as far as I know.. there are no REAL ships built for a 5 year mission yet.
As far as the ship being grey… where did you get that from.. TOS and movie Enterpises were blueish white.
Fact of the matter is.. we have NO idea what ships of the future look like.
Oh.. have you seen how white and bright th einside of the International Space Station is?
For that matter, he said as he hijacked the thread one last time, Just because Jim Morrison is dead, does that mean that the other doors cant keep being the doors?
I was extremely lucky, at the time I was only 5 – 6 years old, & was taken by Dad to Star Wars, Star Trek TMP & Superman within a short space of time. Needless to say they all left an impression on me (& a couple of others).
Being very young the impression Star Trek TMP left on me was one of wonder … the highlight being the Enterprise launching from drydock. Star Wars just amazing in its story, depth, detail – great, great characters & Darth Vader. I left Superman absolutely convinced that he existed and had several school yard arguments on that fact.
I like Star Trek in many of its guises over the years for different reasons. I guess the original crew were always special when they appeared as there was that “history”… they were old friends. I came to like the Next Gen as I liked the story telling (especially as the show matured) … Picard was a great character also.
Today, I am so very happy that Star Trek is being given the quality treatment & resources to realise its potential. Like many I always wished that it had been given the budget/resources of Star Wars.
Funnily enough the modern Star Wars experience now shows that money does not necessarily results in something better … and as I said above, I can only say how pleased I have been that the creators of this new Trek have placed the characters, story and general audience first.
My son will be 5 just after the movie comes out … and he’s coming with me!
SCI-FI FANDOM CAN BE A REAL BITCH.
Either the casual fan (general public) doesn’t seem to have ANY tolerence for science-fiction special effects more than 10 years old (necessitating the “need” for so-called SPECIAL EDITIONS or “remastered” projects)…
…or the die-hard fan allows absolutely no deviation from so-called canonical details, leaving no wiggle-room for imagination or reinvention.
I don’t envy Abrams, Moore, Orci, et al, at all!
104 – I haven’t seen the inside of the International Space Station, but the inside of the alien ship that abducted me was a surprisingly tasteful mauve.
103
if you start with the original material it can be said you are honoring it.
but if you make sonethign that only looks similar you are only being influenced by it.
It’s all too easy to approach Trek solely from an adult point of view, worn down as we are by cynicism, paying the rent, holding down a job, grieving for a generation of family members that has died since our youth.
What did you hope for when you went to see a Trek movie as a child?
I grew up wanting to see TOS, with all it’s colour and melodrama, turned into movies. As a child I was shocked when I saw TMP on VHS in the early 80s, having grown up with TOS. It felt like a ‘reboot!’
None of the movies quite had the colour and the outlandish, fantastical quality of the original shows. Everything was more grey and ‘rational.’ TNG and its successors then followed the more ‘grounded’ approach of the movies. Arguably TNG is a sequel to TMP, rather than a sequel to TOS!
Not for TNG the bonkers Spock’s Brain, the floating cities of The Cloud Minders, the Greek god Apollo. As a child these fantastical ideas were truly mind-expanding. They were why I love Trek. That and the weird sound effects, psychedelic music, strange costumes and planet surfaces.
I also read the novels through that era, so looked at Trek as a bigger entity than just shows and movies. Final Frontier, by Diane Carey, and Strangers from the Sky were favourite novels, along with James Blish’s text adaptations of TOS scripts.
What it appears Abrams and co have done is blend elements of the old movie style with the colour and flamboyance of TOS.
When I consult the 8-year-old version of me that lives in my head, the 8-year-old is very excited about the film!
If you’re in your thirties or older, think about how you would feel as a 10-year-old in the 1980s going to the cinema and seeing the new trailer!
Paul
are you aware that Russian cosmonauts carry firearms into space to kill themselves if they have to?
Been doing that since Soviet days
I know the Canadian navy only has five ships, Paul. US ships are expected to last 50+ years. And they are gray throughout.
Being trapped in a white room is a US military stress test…
109. Enc
“if you start with the original material it can be said you are honoring it.”
As far as I am concerned, this is exactly what they did.
111 – Could also be that gray paint is the cheapest.
This message is dedicated to all those canonistas…
They’re not going to respect canon…
Spock will shoot laser beams out of his ears… Kirk will have a bionic arm… the Enterprise will run on lithium batteries instead of dilithium.
They will start out with a canon sequence, and then Kirk will wake up like Bobby Ewing (he will be fat, bad and 300 lbs) and say “Whew, that was a bad dream, I hate space travel”…
Muahahahahahahahah!
I know the movie is going for PG-13 which is means my son won’t see it (he’ll only be 4 when it comes out). He loves the trailer and wants to see the movie. He’s even acting out the trailer at home. He has power wheel atv and he drives it around the yard, stops, walks up to me, stomps his foot and asks “What’s your name?” and I have to say “James Tiberius Kirk” and he loves it. Maybe after it comes out on DVD I’ll be able to show it to him and edit out any inappropriate stuff.
111. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
The Enterprise is not on a navy vessel, nor is it staffed with Russian Cosmonauts nor is it one of the 5 – 50+ year old ships that the Canadian Forces have.. it is a sci-fi, futuristic space ship. Like I said.. the CURRENT space station interior is bright and white.
The Enterpise from the 60’s and the movies weren’t grey.
Whew, that’s a relief…!
I let one of my kids watch a PG-13 movie once, and he turned into a serial killer… that’s how Hannibal Lecter started, ya know…
OOOH I wanna see a laser eye Spock!
I wouldnt mind a Bobby Ewing Shatner reveal.
You know the final episode of DS8 was supposed to be the alternate Sisko (the writer in the crazy ward) as a script writer or director calling “cut, that’s a wrap” as they pull the cameras back and reveal the DS9 sets.
That would have been cool.
science fiction at its metafiction best!
please note, funny farm rooms are not white either but gray green…
Hey I’m a fan of movies and can’t wait for this to bring in a whole new generation of fans. Bob any chance your going to do some conventions?
Let’s see… a little Google and …
the floor of TOS Bridge was black, to simulate hull metal I suppose. the walls were blue gray, the consoles black with multi colored buttons (that I loved!) and red doors and red trim. Not bright, but a workplace. Even surgeries arent done in a room as bright as the iBridge!
I’m old, I’ve had a lot of surgeries, I know…
#103. montreal paul
okay, okay, I’ll admit it… you caught me out in a somewhat faulty analogy. But it sounded so damn good at the time…
Any way, I guess this whole “everything will have a canon explanation” thing kind of peeves me because I feel like I’m being patronized. Something along the lines of “Okay JJ, here’s the deal- we’ll just keep saying that everything we’re changing will have a canon explanation and that will shut up the fan boys damn bitching”. The problem with that is that if everybody is honest, the only way that holds any damn water at all is if the canon explanation is that the timeline has been changed by Spock and Nero’s interference blah blah blah ad naseum. I’ve seen that sort of plot device or deus ex machina or what-have-you way too much in Trek the past decade and a half and to quote Johnny Rotten, “Boring, Sidney, boring.”
by the way, kudos for having the patience to type out my user name in your earlier response!
The refit Bridge was mauve
who said mauve before?
give that man a cookie… ;-)
I agree with the guy that went on about all the colors.
The burgundy jackets made me think of British Redcoats. I would have preferred a nice USAF blue. but 30 years later, I’m over it.
okay, last time,
They did a white bridge for all of five minutes in Trek 4, then quickly carpeted over the whole thing for Trek 5 before switching to a mostly black and gray bridge for Trek 6
121. earthclanbootstrap
Thing is, you could have ended up with people who cared less about the fans saying ‘Screw the fans!’ and doing a Hollywood-style complete reboot ignoring everything before. In this film Shatner will play the bar-tender while Matt Damon’s Kirk feels up Uhura, Nichelle Nichois is seen on a telephone in the background, Walter Koenig cameos doing the ‘nuclear wessels’ spiel and Deforest Kelley is CGI-ed into the background of sickbay.
instead, the makers have bent over backwards (and forwards) to try to be respectful to Trek fans and try to give an in-universe explanation for a big revamp/restart. And for the most part they’ve dealt with an ungrateful, vocal minority who don’t realise how lucky they are with this film!
# 123. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
And I think we can all thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy that they never did one in puce, ecru and pistachio…
20: boborci “Interesting. Have often had similar feelings.”
You don’t know how warming it is to hear you say that. Seriously, not sarcasm. At the risk of tipping over to complete fanboy, I’m beginning to believe this movie could be the validation of an entire childhood.
I also think it’s why, while I like continuity and appreciate when it’s reinforced, it doesn’t bug me too much when an individual author brings his or her own ideas to a story. Virtually none of the novels were “in continuity” with each other and most of them offered their own interpretation of things. I loved The Final Frontier’s explanation if internally-metered pulse (aka “I.M. Pulse”) drive. It made me think that in The Cage, they were firing L’Ajeur guns.
Breaking continuity is fine (for me) if the result is a better story. If the story isn’t the best it could be because of a continuity obstacle, then the obstacle should go.
I was psyched before. Now I’m, well, more psyched.
111-
“are you aware that Russian cosmonauts carry firearms into space to kill themselves if they have to?”
The gun is to be used in case of an off-target landing and the crew needs to ward off wild animals in the Russian wilderness.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23131359/
“I know the Canadian navy only has five ships, Paul. US ships are expected to last 50+ years. And they are gray throughout.”
The Canadian Nvay has at least 33 ships and possibly more.
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_fleet/fleet_e/fleet-home_e.asp
I’m just trying to keep the facts straight.
The bridge redesign for IV would’ve stayed the same for V but the set got rained on and destroyed(true story) and we ended up with that budget-looking disaster for V; not one of Herman Zimmerman’s finest moments. Nick Meyer changed it up a bit and made it a bit more palatable for VI.
123. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
‘okay, last time,
They did a white bridge for all of five minutes in Trek 4, then quickly carpeted over the whole thing for Trek 5 before switching to a mostly black and gray bridge for Trek 6′
That’s because Herman Zimmerman in TFF wanted to . . . ahem . . . bridge the styles of the movies and TNG. Nick Meyer, sensibly, rejected this approach for TOS and went back to the metallic look, bringing back some red!
123. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
why do we care if an operating room is white or not? Your original point was that the bridge was too bright and white and that they should have consulted a real ship builder. Well, with the fact that the space station interior is bright and white.. maybe they did consult a real “ship” builder.
Oh.. by the way… the mainframe computer room at the station I work is bright and white. What does this have to do with Star Trek? The same as the operating room colours or the fact that Canada’s navy has 5 ships.
When did having a sense of humor go out of style?
20, 126. Yeah, me too! Before the TNG era, the books provided my expanded view of the Trek universe!
131
When people started to take Star Trek too seriously, so quite a while ago! ;)
Everyone talks about the bridge as though white is the only color present. Yet, I see blues, oranges, grays, blacks and even translucent elements. But all anyone can talk about is the white…it isn’t even as bright as the Star Trek IV bridge!
134. sean
Exactly! Thank you Sean!
122 – Chocolate chip, please. ;)
#43: Thanks, dear!
131
“When did having a sense of humor go out of style?”
It’s really nothing personal but for me it was post 88.
And the fact that many of the people on this board that are professing their hatred of this movie before they have even seen it are throwing around a lot of facts that aren’t really facts. “Facts” about canon and “facts” about what the team behind this new movie are thinking.
Again, it’s nothing personal against you. I’m just a lifelong Trek fan that has never been to a convention, or dressed the part, or been to a Star Trek forum before this one and have come away distressed at the general lack of civility and self-righteousness of some of the so-called purists.
Nothing personal…
Bottom line: TOS was a product of the 60s. Ergo resulting canon is tied at best to an idealized version of what man perceived the future to look like within the constraints of 1960’s society, not to mention the network’s continued insistence that Rodenberry deliver the Wagon Train to the Stars he promised with the pilot. To honor all of the resulting canon would be unduly restricting to filmakers attempting to update a fantastic storyline and group of characters which evolved out of a completely different time, particularly when it is an effort to introduce those characters to a new audience for the first time. Whether you call it a re-boot or not, it is for the best canon is tossed out and these characters are re-created in a manner which will be relevant to filmgoers of the 21st century. It is no surprise that this new film will be an origin story, which erases everything we know about TOS going forward via a time-travel device. SYmantics are bogging this discussion down along with die hard original fans. I’ve been watching the Re-mastered episodes and you know what? They really show their age, despite all the updated graphics. If for no other reason than they represent the state of this planet 40 years ago. Much if it should just be forgotten, take the best parts and get on with it.
ST II is a perfect example. Checkov wasn’t even a glimmer in Rodenberry’s eye when Space Seed was written. But did that little fact really ruin what is arguably the best movie of the franchise, by not only including Checkov in the original story but also pointedly making him the catalyst of Kahn’s revenge? Not at all. From a canon perspective that was a huge violation for the hard core fans. But today, keeping all the baggage once thought vital to sustaining the franchise with Trek’s core fanbase simply gets in the way, as did trying to write ST II around any other character but Checkov (and believe me I’ve tried to figure out a better way to do it and maintain canon). It is absolutely NOT vital when you have such a phenomenal collection of elements represented by TOS. So what is Abrams wants to pick and chose the things that turns him on? Arguably all of the spinoffs, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT all had one thing in common: they assumed the core fanbase would watch and as a result they all suffered and became more and more predictable and formulaic and indeed “geeky” as they evolved. Ultimately, even a devoted fanbase could no longer take the warmed-over plots based solely on canon and failed to appeal to a new audience as they were so steeped in canon mythos and holy grail to offer anything an “outsider” could grasp onto.
Why doesn’t Abrams just come right out and say this? Duh, because it’s bad marketing. The more the core fans get worked up about it, the better for publicity. Remember, this is a gamble no matter how you slice it – every movie is. Not to mention that this has the odd-movie curse going against it as well. LOL So even if it fails to find a new audience, it should at least re-coup costs from a core fanbase, even if they hate it. So don’t hate the player, hate the game. And get ready for a complete re-boot!
#124. Dom
You do have a point; however, that almost certainly would have been utterly counter productive on their part if their goal is to have the movie succeed. I don’t think that they EVER would have gone that route. To make this clear, I really do have respect for all of these guys as talented and effective artists who have all produced some work that I’ve really enjoyed and I can’t imagine them ever being that incompetent. But on the other hand, I don’t think honest criticism is out of line if a fan has genuine concerns; they’re no fools and they knew what they were getting into when they took this puppy on as regards it’s devoted fan base. Do you feel that everyone who is holding doubts is “ungrateful” or is there some room for dissent and mutual disagreement? ;-)
Redshirt
you should go to a convention!
They are a hoot!
I miss the old TNG conventions. Frakes is every bit as nice as you think he is. I never met Spiner or Stewart. I did meet Dorn once. I saw Shatner at one very special convention which centered on him and his ego before Priceline, but in retrospect, I can see how those original ads came about.
99% of Trek fans are cuddly goofballs that just wanna have fun. Think tribbles but larger.
Some of the cats on here are bugs in the head, but that’s anywhere. I keep my sense of humor so I can survive those clowns. Try doing eight years in the Air Force and twenty five with IBM working with jerks and otherwise miserable people who cant see beyond their own noses and their projects and what not.
Most days I wish I was in space…
You know, we should issue a 1% patch similar to the Hell’s Angels patch to the Trek 2009 haters.
Bob, I never had a problem with the story
The “odd” movie curse was that the werent written by Harve Bennet or directed by Nick Meyers. It was their magic that made Wrath, Home and Country great
Frakes did a great job with “Boooooooooorgs in Space!”
a joke about Pigs in Space, for you kids that never heard of the Muppet Show
McCoy’s Gall Bladder –
I reach you brother.
It’s like the difference between those that hate the design of the new Enterprise (both inside and out) because of their artistic tastes (you can’t argue with that – beauty is in the eye), and those that hate it because it’s not a replica of what was designed 40 years ago. I just can’t relate to those that are angry because of the latter…
I’m still wondering what JJ Abram’s definition of a “hard-core Trekker” is…
Am I a “hard-core Trekker” just because I regard it as a design flaw that the new Enterprise’s warp nacelles look like jet engines and hold some elements dear which were established in MORE than just one episode without ever using the word “canon”? – Dunno…
Wow, I thought I was passionate about Star Trek. At the risk of being called an idiot for not reading the entire thread before posting, I’d like to drop my 2¢ on this new voyage.
I remember groaning when I heard about producer Bob Bennet’s idea for a Star Trek Academy film after ST5. The concerns I had then, are the same ones I have now. before expressing those concerns, I want to say I am a strict canon observer. With that said, I think it is very difficult to go backwards on the ST timeline and show new things while trying to maintain the same blah looking sets and aesthetics of the period, or an aesthetic that pre-dates the original series. Star Trek has evolved, and with it, it’s technology, as one would expect in the natural order of things. I believe that the “Retro Star Trek Aesthetic Faux Pas” was one of the things that hurt the show “Enterprise”. No matter what you do, going back before the original series (or during it) and showing boxy set pieces with Light-Brite bulbs in them won’t work. Today’s savvy, techo-sophisticated audience wouldn’t stand for it. So, by default, a new aesthetic is developed that is out of synch with the already established canon.
O.K. – time to land this plane. To avoid all of the stuff above I just mentioned, my feeling is that you don’t go backwards, you go forwards. For me, going backwards is tantamount to an admission by Paramount that their newer ST projects were failures, and I would agree with that. The problem is that people like to escape, like to see actors do things they can’t necessarily do in real life, hence Mr. Larger-Than-Life-Captain Kirk.
I think what hurt the later series was all of the politically correct crap infused into Star Trek that was not present in the original show. They say ST mirrors our American culture, well there it is. Where Picard was more at home practicing “conflict resolution” with adversaries firing on his ship, Kirk would simply drop a couple of torpedoes in their ass before opening hailing frequencies. Paramount could launch a new series with that kind of gusto, but it looks like they’ve opted for comfortable ground. Well, I hope this new gig works, so far I’m not too impressed with the new Enterprise. God I hate the way the warp struts connect to the secondary hall at such an obtuse angle!! Here’s hoping it all works out.
#144. Redshirt96
Those two viewpoints can also be intertwined to a certain degree. I honestly just plain think this Enterprise is fugly; that is a fully aesthetic decision on my part. It seems sort of…Frankensteinish to me, with chunks of different starships stuck together. A kitbash, if you will. But underlying that is, I will admit, a bit of indignation, however unfair, at the fact that it’s not the classic Enterprise reproduced in A Full Glory Never Seen Before. Overall, though, I’ll begrudgingly admit that some kind of new treatment of the ship for this film is only to be expected. I just wish it was a better one.
#52. C.S. Lewis
When I was six years old back in ‘72, I would rush across the field between my house and school each day to get to the TV in time to watch this really cool space show I’d just discovered. I never watched space shows before, mostly Paladin, Bonanza, Beverly Hillbillies or Adam 12. If I was late, we’d be watching some cooking show that Mom needed to see. I was never late for that show again. It took a while to realize it was in re-runs, and just what a re-run meant, but I could care less. I could not get enough of it…alien worlds, a space navy fighting space brigands with lasers and super-fast ships. Hot alien chicks and loyal friends who were brilliant and dependable, on a daily adventure on to who knew where next. I would never be the same again.
My point is, I was just six years old. And utterly riveted. As an adult I can now appreciate just how valuable I was to that studio as a very young fan. I would be diverting unreasonable sums of whatever personal wealth I had clawed away directly to their coffers for decades to come via merchandising and ticket sales. So, if you want Star Trek to survive you’d better get young uninitiated fans through the turnstiles in very large numbers with a new movie, exactly because they AREN’T the ones buying up those TOS boxed sets, remastered or no. No my friend, that would be you and I and the ‘generation’ that followed, whose numbers, interest and effectiveness as a spending fan base are relentlessly diminishing. The young far outnumber the likes of you or I, and always will, ergo they must be inspired by something fresh for this franchise to proceed with any hope of financial success.
You and I carry a torch that we need to remember must be passed to another someday to keep the legend alive. So this movie had better appeal to children on some level. If we’re lucky and it does, they’ll inherit all we love about Star Trek and our icons will live on through them.
140. earthclanbootstrap
Thing is, there’s little really to get wound up about yet. If people see the film and hate it, they can wax lyrical (we know they will!) But we haven’t seen anything like enough yet to generate the level of opprobrium thus far seen from some people!
Thing is, we have to be realistic: this film will drive away a section of fans. That’s life. Don’t like what they’re doing? Move on!
I think most TOS-only fans are pretty chilled about the whole effort. We didn’t have all the canon issues the fans of later shows had: most of us got our Trek fixes from non-canon comics and novels before TNG, so change and contradiction is the norm for us.
There also wasn’t the Cult of Roddenberry where TOS was concerned, since we always saw TOS as a group effort.
The greatest irony is that they nearly recast the characters in the 1980s before TNG happened. it was mostly the original series actors who put the kibosh on that. Foolish really, since they probably would only have made two more films with the classic cast anyway!
The thing is, in the cycle of any franchise, a ‘next generation’/'children of’ is inevitable, as is a ‘go back to the beginning’ storyline. We’ve seen it countless times with comics, with Sherlock Holmes and with movie series.
Neo-Trek is part of the cycle of things. Star Trek isn’t special in that respect. It’s just following a natural evolution.
82
Because the five year mission ended in three. I want more.
#141
Spot on!
Sometimes, people need to take a breath about this. Am I skeptical? Yes, you’d almost have to be after Nemesis (the book was better IMO). But I’m still willing to take a “leap of faith”. Not because it’s something with a Trek label on it, but because being a Herbert about it seems to be unproductive.
149. Dom
I completely agree with you that the “DC Crisis” model is a valid approach when somebody takes on a franchise/mythos of this magnitude. It could also be said, however, that Star Trek is pretty unique in having a reasonably consistent overall backstory with an interesting mix of minutiae, history and apocrypha that’s been pretty painstakingly built up over the years by production teams and fans alike. Do you approach that as deadwood or as ambience? Either approach is valid, I just tend to have a soft spot for tradition.
147. earthclanbootstrap
I agree about the exterior design of the Enterprise. At first glance – I was underwhelmed. But it HAS grown on me. The more I look at it, the more I get comfortable with it. It is, after all, just a piece of the set. It’s what happens within the overall framework of the move that will matter. If I love the movie, the design won’t be an issue. If I hate the movie, well…
It’s sort of like the movie “Nixon”. At first I was disappointed that Anthony Hopkins didn’t look more like tricky Dick (and I’m old enough to remember him well.) But after about 15 minutes, I was so engrossed in Hopkin’s performance, I believed I was watching the original.
For me, the performances and the story will be the deciding factor. Design ideas and canon won’t matter a bit.
Hi earthclanbootstrap (152)
It might almost sound cowardly, but I take the ‘Don’t show, don’t tell!’ approach to these kinds of revamps.
Essentially all that we saw before remains fuzzy. We don’t know exactly how things work out in the new timeline, but our knowledge of the old version informs and comments upon our perception of the new.
Look at the new Battlestar Galactica: in the original show’s Pegasus storyline good old Commander Cain, gosh darn it! was out there kicking Cylon butts rather than leading a fleet. But he was still a good ol’ boy! The major repercussions of his approach were never really dealt with. The new Galactica gives us the chance to see a different view of Commander/Admiral Cain’s strategies. Much of new Galactica mirrors the old, but the different approach casts new light on the original show!
Galactica, like neo-Trek, also has the in-universe ‘reboot’ principle, with regards to the ‘cycle of time’. We are told everything has happened before and everything will happen again. Leoben tells Starbuck that maybe in a different cycle of time, she’ll be strapped to a chair and he’ll be torturing her. The presence of Richard Hatch as Tom Zarek in the new Galactica lends weight to that argument.
In the new version of Star Trek, the Enterprise is the most advanced ship in the fleet, as it was in TOS, last time because of a probable refit, this time because it’s a brand new ship. Who’s to say that Pike and April didn’t serve on another Enterprise that looked exactly like the TOS version before though? They might not directly tell us that, but it exists in the realms of possibility, the same as the antique Cylons and ships in new Galactica resemble those from the original show!
The exciting thing about these kinds of overhauls is that some of the best moments in a series can be examined from a fresh perspective. Certain details will change, but at the core, Kirk is still the man he was in the earlier version, although he reached his destination via a different route. Christopher Pike is probably still doomed, but, hey! maybe they’ll still take him to Talos IV.
It’s exciting, because the old universe had all these wonderful moments, some of which might happen again and others might happen differently.
Far from losing these moments, we might have a chance to live them again from a different perspective!
@boborci:
Hello Mr. Orci,
I am a German Star Trek fan since TNG started here when I was 7 years old. I followed every development of the franchise as good as possible since then which is of course much easier in times of the internet. Every single of the Star Trek incarnations onscreen meant a lot to me because it was not only about Sci-Fi Action but about characters and especially feelings. The main thing I connect with the franchise are very strong feelings and nostalgia which made Star Trek so unique compared to other franchises. And now I am very enthusiastic about everything I hear from you and the new movie. This really reminds me of my childhood when I just had a short message on my pinboard in 1990 which said: “SpaceShip film on Friday 4 pm”, although I did just know a little about it because I was seven and was just impressed by everything that played in space.
And now I have the same feelings like 18 years ago looking forward to the feelings your movie will hopefully give to me which I am confident about.
Now I just want to thank you for your effort, especially for posting here, because it shows you know the feelings I am talking about.
Greetings from Germany
Sincererely,
Stephan Seifert
141. McCoy’s Gall Bladder – December 5, 2008
I spent two years at Palmisano’s IBM Global Services via the PricewaterhouseCoopers consulting acquisition. It must have been something to experience in the heyday.
153. Redshirt96
At the risk of sounding like I’m softening up, I do have to say that the costuming that I’ve seen so far blows me away. I really think they hit a home run with the fleet uniforms in particular. In regards to the starships, I love the Kelvin’s design; it just… feels like Starfleet.
You cannon dudes… my god. Don’t you ever get tired of saying the same things over and over again?
#154
Precisely the way I’ve approached this effort. Nicely put!
boborci:
I always enjoy your posts and interaction with the fans!
If anyone was given an almost impossible task to do, it was your creative team with the new film.
You won’t please everyone and the movie may or may not be a ht. It looks like it can and should be from the trailer! Can’t get enough of it! Nimoy just brings chills!
I am grateful because without your efforts we would probably not have seen Trek in any form for a long time.
Just wanted to say that from the look of things we can be prepared for one hell of a ride in May. I don’t think anyone will be able to justly say that you intended and attempted anything less!
Thanks for giving Trek and especially TOS new life!
154. Dom
I’m willing to bet a beer that both of us watched not only ‘The Living Legend” but also ‘Pegasus’ on their initial broadcasts, am I right? Ron Moore’s treatment of the Galactica mythos is, in my opinion, a thing of beauty. And the fact of the matter is that the only reason that it is a thing of beauty is that it completely freed itself of the constraints of the previous incarnation. Ron Moore, though, was bluntly up front about taking that approach. On the other hand, the current Doctor Who brilliantly not only acknowledges the past but integrates it into the current version in a remarkably organic fashion. I’m just not picking up either vibe from the new Trek right now.
119. Quarksbartender – December 5, 2008
“Hey I’m a fan of movies and can’t wait for this to bring in a whole new generation of fans. Bob any chance your going to do some conventions?”
Let’s see how the movie is received first!
55. Stephan Seifert – December 5, 2008
Thanks, Stephan — hope not to disappoint you!
162. Boborci
Bob, even those of us who are skeptical are a lot like tribbles… our squeak is a lot worse than our bite. We do, however, reproduce like the dickens…. ;-)
boborci
You stopped returning my calls. Was it something I said?
Oh that’s right. You have no idea who I am and I never actually called you. Must have been the voices in my head.
So, what’s the word on Timmy? All this canon crap is fine, but the real important part of this movie is the big Timmy reveal. All the rest is just plot filler and ships blowing up.
And when did you change your name to Closettrekker? (that’s just a joke–I know Closet is actually JJ)
148. c0mBaTkArL – December 5, 2008
I believe children (such as we two) can be entranced by adult works. At the same time I watched Star Trek reruns (much the same way as you experienced) I remember reading “Julius Caesar”, “Gulag Archipelago”, “1984″, “The Count of Monte Cristo”, and stacks of field guides to rocks, stars, fish, weather. All were written for “grown ups” – but all appealed to me and I was very earnest in grasping everything I could from them.
There were a few other books I read even younger than I was for those above: The Making of Star Trek; The Trouble With Tribbles; and The World of Star Trek. All three, especially The Trouble With Tribbles which touched on very “adult” themes, were written at the college level or higher.
They in turn inspired me to learn and understand as much as I could about the grand themes presented in Star Trek — leading to that first bibliography and countless hours with my parents, talking about the meaning of it all.
This is what I mean by writing for adults. To my mind, it is a grave error to pander or otherwise condescend to the lowest common denominator. I believe we all understand the consequences of that failed 1970s’ philosophy!
I also hope you agree with me, Karl. My experience likely differs little from yours and little from countless generations before us.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
161. earthclanbootstrap
Yeah, I saw BSG, first run, here in the UK! I’m 33.
But, then again, you see, I think nu-Who is a sick vanity project for Russell T Davies and find his kisses to the show’s past insulting.
Personally I think his treatment of the show has utterly dumbed down the whole concept in order drawn in an extended audience of morons to bulk out the ratings around the intelligent people who put up with his rubbish in the hope that other writers do a better job.
Russell T Davies is probably the most overrated writer working in television today. His work is smug, in-jokey and utterly vacuous! He can’t write The Doctor for toffees and he has no ability to write for female characters beyond demographic stereotypes. When Chris Carter or Joss Whedon wrote an episode of their shows, it was an event. When Russell T Davies writes a Who episode, most fans watch from behind the sofa because they dread what garbage he’ll soil the show with next! The sooner the infinitely-more-talented Steve Moffatt takes over, the better!
New Galactica, like I say, allows itself potentially to co-exist with its predecessor. Frankly, classic Galactica fans were few and far between and nobody in their right mind would give a rat’s ass about telling them to get lost. Doctor Who and Star Trek fans are noisier, more obsessional and definitely scarier!
Neo-Trek had to tie itself in a little bit with the old show, if only to bring in the likes of Leonard Nimoy!
I think the next time (if there is a next time) that Paramount decides to make a Star Trek movie, they need to make it under another name and film it in Russia of somewhere overseas. An example: Instead of Star Trek The Voyage Home just film it as The Voyage Home, who would think it is a Trek movie.
Don’t tell Trek fandom until a week or two before it’s release date. Then we wouldn’t have to go for months obsessing over every detail of the movie.
161. earthclanbootstrap
In fact, come to think of it, I think I first saw Commander Cain in Mission: Galactica, which was a compilation movie merging The Living Legend and The Fire in Space!
26. Enc – December 5, 2008
“look bob its simple
a writer has a great imagination can to all kinds of things.
but when they step into some one elses work you have to work with in those constraints. period.
if you hit a wall (hey it happens). a GOOD writer can find a way to make it work with out changing the canon or charactor etc.
we can understand that this film is for the non fans (sure we would live to increase our base) and not all released info is sent to trekmovie or like genre media. and that it is also for us. so where is the fan base pics/trailers etc that would ease our fears?
cause im not seein it.
your in hot water with half the fan base.
help us help you.”
My word… a threat and an insult all rolled into one. Enc.. aren’t being extremely demanding?
Original Series Canon: Women are not Captains of Starfleet vessels…
Star Trek Voyager had a woman captain…
Get over canon already…
167. Dom
“The sooner the infinitely-more-talented Steve Moffatt takes over, the better!”
Amen to that, brother!
Unfortunately, I know exactly where you are coming from in the criticism of Russell T Davies. There have been some moments that made me cringe and you are dead on about his inability to write convincing, engaging female characters. At least he never got his claws into Romana. On the balance though, he has done some really fun stuff. My little pet gripe is that he didn’t somehow manage to convince Sir Derek to remain as The Master, if only for a little bit longer.
171. Rangerone314
That’s arguable. While it might have been the writer’s intention at the time, it’s sentence spoken by a sick woman and could simply be a comment on the behaviour of male starship commanders. So there’s no real ‘canon’ that there are no female starship captains in TOS!
171. Rangerone314
You can pick out any one particular iota of info that contradicts another and hold it up as a violation, of course. Nothing is perfect. The overall… tapestry, gestalt, milieu, what-have-you… is fairly consistent in both it’s broad and fine strokes. That’s part of it’s charm.
“These are people who really care about these characters and these stories and the details. But I have to tell you, I’m not going to make a movie that tries to make every hard-core Trekker happy, because it’s not possible. I’m making a movie for fans of movies. I want it to be an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate and everything. I feel a great responsibility to these characters and everything that has come before, but I need to make a film that is not paralyzed by all of that.”
This scares me.
172. earthclanbootstrap
Yeah, I’d have kept Jacobi’s understated menace over John Simm’s gurning any day of the week.
I hope the Patterson Joseph rumour is borne out. He was wonderful as de Carabas in the TV version of Neverwhere, written by Neil Gaiman, who is being tapped to write for the new show. When I saw his de Carabas in the 1990s, I remember saying to my Dad, ‘If they ever decide to cast a black man as The Doctor, it’s gotta be this guy!’ he completely nailed how I’d like to see The Doctor played!
One of my biggest frustrations with nu-Who has been that Russell T Davies has ignored the talent pool of excellent SF and Fantasy writers in the UK and beyond inn order to hire in his mates. The original Star Trek thrived on contributions from the likes of Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson and Harlan Ellison (a big fan of Doctor Who himself!)
176. Dom
And don’t forget that Larry Niven wrote an episode of TAS!
I’ve never seen anything with Patterson Joseph; he seems to get sterling reviews on his work, though.
As regards The Master, don’t get me wrong; in a perverse Shatneresque sort of way I think Simm’s take on the role is brilliant. And hell, I managed to circumvent my Company’s policy on Halloween costumes by going this year as Harold Saxon…
Yeah, I liked John Simm.
Maybe his Master can be reconstituted from the mysterious ring that was on his finger and he can return in a slightly altered form.
Certainly he was so bats**t crazy that he was really quite disturbing to watch!
If you like old school Who you could do worse than pick up Neverwhere on DVD, by the way! it’s pretty cheap! Neil Gaiman’s novelisation is a good read and there’s even a good graphic novel adaptation!
Dear Enc,
Time is always in forward motion. What was exciting to some 40 years ago isn’t anymore. With the advances in filmmaking and the ability to do things now that couldn’t be done before, it is only fitting that some of the greatest franchises be treated with the best of the best. TOS will always be there. I will always love it. So will everybody else that likes it now. Hopefully, a lot of people will like this new movie too. You see, new generations come around, believe it or not, and they want to see something made for them, not something made for their grandparents. If this movie is a true success, it will please the entire spectrum. And don’t worry, your Star Trek will always be there. Give it a rest. The new movie is done and its going to hit the big screens and people WILL like it.
“I want it to be an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate and everything. I feel a great responsibility to these characters and everything that has come before, but I need to make a film that is not paralyzed by all of that.”
Star Trek was _already_ all of those things. To make Star Trek “fun and scary and epic and intimate and everything,” all you have to do is not f*ck it up.
I’m reminded of the Monty Python sketch about the brontosaurus theory. Remember that one?
#175
Really? Makes me feel better.
This pointless arguing over canon has become rather tiresome.
I grew up with TNG, occasionally enjoyed DS9, and was appalled by VOY and ENT. The world changes, tastes change, and the steady decline in the quality of recent Trek works (for the love of god, how many books are they going to write about the Borg that include drawn out chapters about battles that amount to little more than a wet dream for fanboys?) has pushed Trek to the brink of irrelevancy.
When Picard said “Let’s see what’s out there…” Trek was redefined for a new generation (no pun intended) and there was a sense of adventure and reinvention. We went from TNG to shows, films, and books that were literally lost in space.
Back to the canon argument, I think a lot of diehard fans still miss the point that strict adherence to canon is what turned potential new viewers away from Trek. Who the hell has had time to watch every episode of every series twenty times and learn a wealth of knowledge on fictional topics that could matter less to Jane and Joe new-viewer.
If Trek is going to survive, if it’s going to become a viable vehicle again, then it NEEDS reinvention. We need to reintroduce the brand to new viewers and those who never really considered it – we can’t continue to make films and shows that appeal to one particular segment that ALREADY watches and buys tickets.
A rebirth of Trek comes from new ideas, new ways of telling stories, and admitting that strict adherence to canon has handicapped any chance of making the franchise exciting again. Trek should be about a voyage into the unknown, not a voyage where you have to check an encyclopedia about what button Scotty pushed in an episode.
Quite simply, a lot of people who continue to bash the movie BEFORE they’ve seen it – who continue to whine about canon – are the very people who almost pushed Trek over a cliff. GET OVER IT.
180. S. John Ross ‘Star Trek was _already_ all of those things.’
Fun . . . not lately!
Sexy . . . Sexless or safe sex more like!
Scary . . . not since First Contact!
Epic . . . not on the budgets Trek had!
Intimate . . . intimacy requires some connection with the characters. i’d argue that there hasn’t been a Trek character I could relate to since TOS!
Abrams understands the appeal of TOS, all right! :)
178. Dom
I’ll have to rein myself in; I could talk Who of any flavor all night. To try to steer myself back to Nu-Trek and yet follow through on the casting line of reasoning, the whole ensemble that Abrams and his team put together is pretty impressive. The one that really piqued my interest is Bruce Greenwood as Pike. I find it a little surprising that the folks that have seen the twenty minutes of footage have been underwhelmed by Quinto, but Pine seems to have impressed everyone.
180. S. John Ross
“Star Trek was _already_ all of those things. To make Star Trek “fun and scary and epic and intimate and everything,” all you have to do is not f*ck it up.”
Priceless!
But then, I’m a self confessed skeptic.
182. SUPRN0VA
“Trek should be about a voyage into the unknown, not a voyage where you have to check an encyclopedia about what button Scotty pushed in an episode.”
Then why step into the minefield of doing an origin story for the TOS crew, for cripes sake?
You know I’m kind of miffed that Bob is ignoring me :-(
I say we get Neil Gaiman to write the next Trek movie
I’ve noticed over the last few threads that hitch is off his meds again ;(
What the hell is wrong with people?
Quit moaning and crying about the tragedy of the change of Star Trek and embrace.
I (and several other millions!) can’t wait to see the wonderful re-invention that is Star Trek and i have been a fan for many years and am a devoted fan of TOS.
get a life you miserable swines.
go boycott the film. Who gives a shit
good on you JJ. May cant get here soon enough!
Man, all these comment box things always end up in the same arguments.
I love Star Trek… watched every episode of every iteration… own all the movies. But I gotta say this…
It’s a FREAKING television show. The pedestal that it’s been built upon has been built by the CONSUMERS not the CREATORS. They’re just running the gimmick as far as they can.
Here’s what I care about regarding the new movie…
It entertains me.
I don’t care about canon (although I like reading about the ST fictional universe), I don’t care about some mythical “higher purpose” the Star Trek shows have as far as moral lessons, I don’t care if there’s lots of sex and action and whatever. I just care that the movie is good.
#57 earthclanbootstrap
Yet another Voice of Reason!
Whew! Some people actually ARE thinking!
This movie might just end up as a footnote in Trek History.
An anomaly.
An aside.
A…. mistake?
Hopefully not.
192 posts and only 2 cannons. Yer getting better, folks. But let’s shoot for zero, ok?
#171 – “Original Series Canon: Women are not Captains of Starfleet vessels…”
Definitely one of those things that’s best ignored, yup, though it’s also been “explained” that that concept was mostly in Janice Lester’s head, which seemed a reasonable way of dealing with the oddity.
“Star Trek Voyager had a woman captain…”
As did “Star Trek IV”, episodes of TNG, DS9, ENT, and innumerable novels.
#174 – “You can pick out any one particular iota of info that contradicts another and hold it up as a violation, of course. Nothing is perfect. The overall… tapestry, gestalt, milieu, what-have-you… is fairly consistent in both it’s broad and fine strokes. That’s part of it’s charm.”
Precisely. Well put.
#182 – “I grew up with TNG, occasionally enjoyed DS9, and was appalled by VOY and ENT.”
I’m that odd duck who enjoyed them all, but found TNG to be the weakest of the bunch, overall. Of the more recent series, DS9 and ENT are by far the two that I prefer. I’m a TOS fan above all, though.
“The world changes, tastes change, and the steady decline in the quality of recent Trek works (for the love of god, how many books are they going to write about the Borg that include drawn out chapters about battles that amount to little more than a wet dream for fanboys?) has pushed Trek to the brink of irrelevancy.”
Well, hopefully the Borg are done now. ;) I won’t say more, but do invite interested folks to check out the “Destiny” trilogy. I finished it this morning.
“When Picard said “Let’s see what’s out there…” Trek was redefined for a new generation (no pun intended) and there was a sense of adventure and reinvention. We went from TNG to shows, films, and books that were literally lost in space.”
See, I don’t think we did anything of the kind. But, then, I’ve never held to the idea that Trek, overall, declined in quality to that degree. Personally, I think that many of the Trek books of the past few years have been some of the best Trek ever, putting most of the filmed material to shame.
“Back to the canon argument, I think a lot of diehard fans still miss the point that strict adherence to canon is what turned potential new viewers away from Trek.”
I don’t think they miss it. I think they think it’s a false assertion.
See, the reality of it is that adherence to canon shouldn’t be any sort of turn-off, as long as the necessary information is provided to viewers in the story being told. Thus, in part, why the only one of the films to be a direct sequel to a previous episode still is held up as one of the best of the films; all the necessary story background is provided in the film, so one needn’t have watched “Space Seed” at all to understand what was going on.
It’s only when the storytelling is such that one has to have seen or read a previous story to comprehend what’s going on that it becomes a problem, and that’s still less of a problem of canon/continuity than of poor writing.
“Who the hell has had time to watch every episode of every series twenty times and learn a wealth of knowledge on fictional topics that could matter less to Jane and Joe new-viewer.”
See above. That should never be required. If, as a result, folks who know the backstory have to hear it again for a few seconds, well, them’s the breaks.
“If Trek is going to survive, if it’s going to become a viable vehicle again, then it NEEDS reinvention.”
What it needs is a fresh approach to the storytelling, not the arbitrary eradication of previous continuity. More than anything relating to continuity, what worked against TV Trek toward the end of the Berman era was that the method of presentation of a typical episode hadn’t changed significantly since the 1980s, even though almost two decades had passed and TV had evolved.
“We need to reintroduce the brand to new viewers and those who never really considered it – ”
Agreed here. A TOS “origin story” was a good idea. It’s just a shame that it seems that TPTB felt that the existing backstory, even as skeletal as it was, wasn’t good enough for the film. I’ll reserve judgment ’til I see the film, but from what I have seen or read, I’m really not seeing the new backstory as better at all. But check back with me in May and we’ll see if I still feel that way. :)
“A rebirth of Trek comes from new ideas, new ways of telling stories, and admitting that strict adherence to canon has handicapped any chance of making the franchise exciting again.”
Yes, yes, and no, respectively.
#194
You make valid points, but some of them are a bit – well, in my opinion, indicative of what has pushed Trek to the brink. Well said, however.
In regards to TNG, we will respectfully disagree. I believe you simply need to watch “The Inner Light” to see the brilliant moments TNG reached with simple dialog (devoid of ridiculous technobabble or flashy effects).
It should always be the STORY, not a ridiculous fascination with the minutia of a backstory. You can connect the past to the future WITHOUT dragging someone through a technical manual or explaining the verbose fictional geo-political climate of – what is, in the end – FICTION.
194: “See, the reality of it is that adherence to canon shouldn’t be any sort of turn-off, as long as the necessary information is provided to viewers in the story being told. Thus, in part, why the only one of the films to be a direct sequel to a previous episode still is held up as one of the best of the films; all the necessary story background is provided in the film, so one needn’t have watched “Space Seed” at all to understand what was going on.”
But then that movie contains glaring continuity flubs and the hardcore Trek fans gave them a pass because the story was so entertaining. It works both ways, you see.
Strong detail continuity validates the long term fans’ sense of self. They’ve spent years accumulating mountains of trivia about Trek and they use this to define themselves in contrast to the broader fans who don’t know what a confinement beam is, let alone that it’s annular. This self-definition carries a bit of pride, but as with a lot of things, a bit of insecurity, too.
If this new Trek movie was slavish in its continuity detail, these long term fans would feel as though all that time storing all that information wasn’t wasted or unappreciated. But because Abrams is (apparently deliberately) ignoring a lot of that data, the long term fans feel as though their job as “custodians of Trek lore” was worthless (or worth less). They’re put in the same boat as the casual fans, in terms of knowing what’s going on. I can see why this would upset the long time core fans. Leveling the playing field is never fun when you previously had the advantage.
195. SUPRN0VA
I would submit that as brilliant as ‘The Inner Light’ is, ‘Cause and Effect” is it’s equal.
Moore says:- “Strong new interpretations build on the past, they don’t repeat it.”
Well Ron… Strong new interpretations build on the past, they don’t re-invent it.
I tend to belive what these people say about the movie,they have seen it..
#14
You’re probably right – if I were to adhere to a cannon, I’d be crippled, too, sooner or later…
#16
I love the novels, too, and I don’t care that much that they aren’t considered canon. But if you read carefully you’ll find that the description of many of Kirk’s mannerisms and characteristics in the novels are based on Shatner’s portrayal.
194: Alex Rosenzweig
“A TOS “origin story” was a good idea. It’s just a shame that it seems that TPTB felt that the existing backstory, even as skeletal as it was, wasn’t good enough for the film. I’ll reserve judgment ’til I see the film, but from what I have seen or read, I’m really not seeing the new backstory as better at all. But check back with me in May and we’ll see if I still feel that way. :)”
I think you hit the nail on the head for me, as well.
#195 – “In regards to TNG, we will respectfully disagree. I believe you simply need to watch “The Inner Light” to see the brilliant moments TNG reached with simple dialog (devoid of ridiculous technobabble or flashy effects).”
Oh, I won’t disagree that TNG had some superb moments. “The Inner Light” is one. “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is another. And there are others, too. I didn’t think it was a bad show by any stretch, but I just connected, overall, to TNG less than to the others. It’s entirely a subjective thing.
“It should always be the STORY, not a ridiculous fascination with the minutia of a backstory. You can connect the past to the future WITHOUT dragging someone through a technical manual or explaining the verbose fictional geo-political climate of – what is, in the end – FICTION.”
Oh, definitely agreed. There seems to be this odd idea that maintaining continuity requires subjecting an audience to unnecessary minutiae or gratuitous references to other, unrelated events. I’m really not sure how this idea got started, but I don’t agree with it. Really, all maintaining continuity requires is that if it’s been established that X happened a certain way, don’t later claim that it happened a totally different way. It doesn’t mean that a gratuitous discussion of X needs to be crammed into 5 other stories that have nothing to do with X whatsoever.
#196 – “194: “See, the reality of it is that adherence to canon shouldn’t be any sort of turn-off, as long as the necessary information is provided to viewers in the story being told. Thus, in part, why the only one of the films to be a direct sequel to a previous episode still is held up as one of the best of the films; all the necessary story background is provided in the film, so one needn’t have watched “Space Seed” at all to understand what was going on.”
But then that movie contains glaring continuity flubs and the hardcore Trek fans gave them a pass because the story was so entertaining. It works both ways, you see.”
Except it really didn’t contain flubs that were all that glaring. The biggest one that usually gets mentioned is Khan recognizing Chekov, when Chekov wasn’t in the episode. Except that’s really a non-issue, because it wasn’t stated anyplace that Chekov wasn’t on *the ship*. Ergo, he might have been someplace at the time other than on the bridge. Folks from Greg Cox to Walter Koenig to Vonda McIntyre dealt with that fairly neatly.
Maybe one could argue the “two hundred years ago” line? But in 1981, the exact dating of Trek was still a bit fuzzy. That didn’t get firmly settled for another 7 years.
Maybe the movie-era StarFleet uniform belt buckle on Khan’s necklace? Perhaps, but how impossible is it to believe that somebody might have stuck a StarFleet arrowhead on a ring? It certainly was never explicated that such a thing couldn’t have existed. And so forth.
Again, adhering to continuity doesn’t require that one cannot establish something that wasn’t established previously. And most of what are typically referenced as continuity issues in TWOK fell into that realm, i.e., “How could it be so if it wasn’t mentioned before?” Call me liberal in this matter if you wish, but that sort of thing doesn’t bother me. ;)
“Strong detail continuity validates the long term fans’ sense of self. They’ve spent years accumulating mountains of trivia about Trek and they use this to define themselves in contrast to the broader fans who don’t know what a confinement beam is, let alone that it’s annular. This self-definition carries a bit of pride, but as with a lot of things, a bit of insecurity, too.”
Well, as with anything, the more detail one chooses to include, the more there is to pay attention to. It was often easier in the TOS and post-TOS era of fandom, because all the technical terminology hadn’t been established yet. Obviously, even today, the best way to avoid having to worry about getting the technobabble right is not to use it as much. e.g., TOS managed to do pretty well with a minimum of obviously technical terms. But if one *is* going to use it, there’s nothing wrong with expecting it to be used consistently.
“If this new Trek movie was slavish in its continuity detail, these long term fans would feel as though all that time storing all that information wasn’t wasted or unappreciated. But because Abrams is (apparently deliberately) ignoring a lot of that data, the long term fans feel as though their job as “custodians of Trek lore” was worthless (or worth less).”
Really, no. It’s not what’s being ignored, nor is it about a whole pile of extraneous details not being pushed into the script for their own sake. It’s what’s being (apparently, and with the usual caveats about us not knowing all there is to know about he film as yet) deliberately and consciously contradicted, especially in terms of character and situational backstory. There’s a difference, and it’s a pretty important one.
202. Alex Rosenzweig
“Really, no. It’s not what’s being ignored, nor is it about a whole pile of extraneous details not being pushed into the script for their own sake. It’s what’s being (apparently, and with the usual caveats about us not knowing all there is to know about he film as yet) deliberately and consciously contradicted, especially in terms of character and situational backstory. There’s a difference, and it’s a pretty important one.”
That, sir, is about as succinct a distillation of my feelings on the subject as I could ever hope to hear articulated.
There does seem to be this… well, a misconception or a mischaracterization, I’m not sure which… that everyone who tends to care and pay attention to the background stuff and the fiddly bits are dogmatic and intolerant. That is simply not the case.
Iowagirl
My favorite trek novel is the one where they fight dinosaurs
There are some consistent messages though. It’s going to be epic, respect (though not be a slave to) canon and have a new direction.
There is also time travel and by the look of things an altering of the timelines by Nero and/or Spock Prime.
TNG did a whole new timeline and altered things fundamentally TWICE and no one is complaining about Tasha Yar MK II are they?
All of which I’m comfortable with except WHERE did the franking shuttlebay go??!?!?!!
Some thing are just sacred ;-)
#88 I really wish the canon ites would give up already
I dont care who makes out with who on TV. That bores the crap out of me. I want to see action, adventure, killing, destruction, and general mayhem. ”
Just a guess, but you’ve not exactly grasped the basic principles of IDIC, have you (along with the other “canon-ite haters” on here).
The people who have cared about this series for 40 years, and who would LOVE to see this movie succeed, have some concerns about seeing the established continuity (and the design of a beautiful starship) being trashed.
They are perfectly entitled to voice those concerns and their opinions.
And, quite honestly, if the new film has been made to meet YOUR requirements, it is going to lose the support of the original fans forever. And if you think that doesn’t matter, ask yourself how many ‘Batman’ conventions there have been lately. Action-film fanboys do not a loyal fanbase make.
And I know some people are bored by the canon debate, but post 202 et al surely prove it’s one of the more interesting debates on the new film. Tying all this stuff up is a hoot and I can’t wait to see how it all plays out.
Part of the passion comes from a deep down belief that Star Trek is *real*. Any canon violation risks ruining that fondly held illusion. (And while I use the word illusion, I obviously don’t think that, but my analyst might be reading).
15. Spocks Brain – Is there something else you can do than come here? Is there another site where you can go make ridiculous accusations based on no evidence and state opinions like they are fact? You should look and see.
206 – chasco – I don’t have a problem with your opinions as long as you realize that one person’s trash is another person’s treasure. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so. But I have cared about this series for 40 years a swell, and I don’t know if they’ve trashed anything yet or not. You know why?
I haven’t seen the movie! That’s what we “cannon-ite haters” have a problem with. Irrational behavior and rash judgments based on little evidence and knowledge are the playground of fools.
208. Canon Father
“Irrational behavior and rash judgments based on little evidence and knowledge are the playground of fools.”
I would agree that blindly assuming that this will be an orgasm of cinematic perfection is as foolish as assuming that it will be as rancid as a pair of foetid
dingo’s kidneys.
Off topic: If Harlan owns the rights to the Guardian of Forever, how was Fontana able to use it in her “Enterprise Experiment” comic books?
Off topic: Those comic books read in their entirety as one peice incorporated Amerid, Organia, the Guardian, Romulans, Klingons, Gorn space, Arex, Joana McCoy…she brought the house down with possibly one of the best Star Trek stories I have ever ever enjoyed.
I know this is a thread about revivals and such, but you gotta hand it to Dorothy…she paid homage to the whole original series making it more epic than the scrapping together low budget problems/behind the scene stories they had making the show those three years.
Cheers to DC!
88. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
‘I want to see action, adventure, killing, destruction, and general mayhem.’
Dude! You have to check out The Punisher: War Zone! :)
45 Dom -
I don’t argue against a story having all that. I argue against a story consisting *of nothing else* and from what Abrams & Co. have been saying (and how they derided “talk fests” etc.), I can see this is what they are heading for – empty entertainment for the masses, flashy and enjoyable no doubt, but devoid of any challenging idea or vision or commentary.
49 sean -
Soap Opera is entertainment that has no point and content beyond presenting characters, their lives and petty relationships. I.e. these things are not meant to say or symbolize anything but exist in their own, boring right.
206. chasco – December 6, 2008
<>
IDIC = Independent Dividends from Incoming Cash flows
IDIC was designed by Roddenberry such that he might sell copies of the emblem through his mail-order store at a good markup. The actors and production team balked at its imposition but he insisted. When considered with his treatment of composer Alexander Courage and the theme music royalties, maybe it is one piece of “canon” best forgotten.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
212. Perhaps you should wait to see the film before making such a sweeping judgement! TOS was an action adventure series and manage to cram in some good ideas too!
Does anyone out there besides me just skip through all this repetitive arguing and just look for whatever Bob Orci has posted?
Mr. Orci, did it ever occur to you that you might have been better off writing a remake of Captain Nice? I don’t believe that sitcom’s fan base would ever throw the word canon at you.
I for one am looking forward to the E Ticket Ride you folks are preparing. The new trailer told me you folks are preparing something magnificent and I thank you for helping make it all happen.
Maybe it’s just not possible to find the middle ground Bob Orci and also JJ Abrams are looking for. Maybe you can’t find a reasonable trade-off between real Trek and crowdpleaser movie, or between reboot and prequel.
I’ve never been a strong believer in trade-offs and lukewarm solutions, particularly when it comes to making art. When you’re trying to please many different tastes you often end up pleasing no one. Do or do not, as Master Yoda advises.
As much as I like Spock, Bones and Kirk and TOS, I’m wondering if it would have been better to make a new Star Trek, a straightforward original solution.
Ok so canon and continuity is unimportant…nothing matters except making sure you make a movie that will appeal to the masses. So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this new film is a hit with tons of new fans and there is a highly anticipated sequel to this movie. How would all these new fans feel if the established storyline (canon,) charaxter history, and continuity from this first movie, is totally changed in the second one?…For the sake of a good movie of course..Come on folks let’s be real….whatever changes that MAY take place in this new movie, will be BUILT upon in the future and all the new fans that may love this new version, would probably cry foul if that were not the case. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt Mr. Orci, JJ etc will start all over with another new version of Trek if there is a sequel to this one. They will most likely, build upon what they establish in this movie, so it’s clear they do understand the importance of continuity and canon. So please don’t criticize those of us from the “old” days who are just saying the same thing. And it’s rather funny, but they themselves will be started down the slippery slope of canon and maintaining this new “history” they have created. lol.
What I don’t know as of yet, is how close their version of continuity, and canon comes to mine. Based on what they have CHOSEN to reveal so far, I do have my doubts about that, but, I’ll wait to read reviews and fan opinions on how this issue is resolved before deciding whether or not to see this movie.
#204
C’mon, that was too blatant. Next time, try harder. :)
Re: 198
You’re wrong. Ron Moore is correct.
The play, Hamlet Machine, is one example.
Or the recent “re-imagining” of MacBeth by the Royal Shakespeare Company staring Patrick Stewart as a Stalinist MacBeth where the Weird Sisters rap.
Or the filmed version (re-imagining) of Richard III in a 1930’s fascist England.
Or the filmed version (re-imagining) of MacBeth titled, Scotland, PA.
Or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, an absurdist, existentialist tragicomedy by Tom Stoppard, that expands upon the exploits of two minor characters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
#183: I said “Star Trek,” not the spinoffs, man :)
As I have have stated many times before, for myself I’m not so much about canon as I am about continuity!!! Being an “old-school trekker” and NOT a “right winger canonista” — I really had no problem at all with Chekov and Kahn recognizing each other, to me it was no big deal. Most of us should not have been surprised by that since Pocket Books released the novel nearly one month in advance of the movie’s release. I remember reading the novel and saying to myself — this will be an awesome movie and it was! Perhaps — the novelized version will be released prior to the movie and we will have our answers a head of time. I do have a lot of concerns about this movie and to me the so-called “canon-violations” are way too numerous to count. Having said that (and I’ve said this many times before) — I want to embrace this movie, I want to it to be the best ST episode/movie EVER!!!! We should all ROOT for this movie to do well, because if it does, we all benefit!!!
4. Nemesis found a way to not please everyone…amn amazing asccomplishment
220. S. John Ross
Sorry! :)
I’ve been caught out for not saying TOS before too!
#79. Exactly my thoughts too. It can’t be said any better or more simply than that.
222. paustin
Nemesis truly was Star Trek: TNG’s nemesis!
202: “Really, no. It’s not what’s being ignored, nor is it about a whole pile of extraneous details not being pushed into the script for their own sake. It’s what’s being (apparently, and with the usual caveats about us not knowing all there is to know about he film as yet) deliberately and consciously contradicted, especially in terms of character and situational backstory. There’s a difference, and it’s a pretty important one.”
Yes, I mentioned that it was, in all likelihood, being deliberately ignored. It’s not that the creators of this new Trek are ignorant of the mountains of lore. It appears as though they’re actively discarding stuff.
That’s intentional, I believe, and being done for the specific purpose of leveling the playing field between hardcore, long-time fans and casual, broad-based fans. We all go into this movie knowing the same about who these people are and what this whole “Star Trek thing” is about.
My point was that of course this is going to upset the hardcore fans. Up to now they had a kind of advantage with regard to Trek. They could cite chapter and verse about anything in Trek’s history. The more casual fan could never keep up, and I think (and I think JJ Abrams thinks) that this turned them off. Trek was perceived to be impenetrable. I’m sure the hardcore fans liked their Fortress of Technobabble, but catering to an insular, aging market demographic is death. Trek has to break free of that or continue to slide down the slope of “cultural curiosity.”
Maybe that’s what some hardcore fans want. I highly doubt it’s what Roddenberry would have wanted.
Enc says Bob and JJ are in hot water with ‘half the fans’
where exactly does this statistic come from. certainly not half the commenters here (even though people like Enc post over and over and over and over) to try and build up their side. And in the current poll only a tiny minority seem hung up on the ‘canon’ issue
so lets not over estimate the supposed ‘controversey’ Since this film was announced it was clear that some small fraction, maybe 10% of the hard cores were going to oppose it. But, as Abrams notes, there is movie that would placate 100% of fan. There are fans that hate and love each of the last 10, even STII has its detractors.
So bob, just make a good fun movie. The fact that you are here and seem as nerdy as the rest of us, is good enough for me
#223: I often find myself uncomfortable with the term “TOS” [and TAS, for that matter] … it feels kind of unfair to slap those three-letter codes onto it, retroactively, just to make the original shows fit the “colon-and-three-characters” format necessary to distinguish the spinoffs, tie-ins and films.
On the other hand, I guess it’s the equivalent of Joe Schmoe retroactively becoming “Joe Schmoe senior” when he names his son “Joe Schmoe junior” And I certainly dig that it makes communication clearer … but I’m inconsistent with it, because in my daily life the Trek fans I hang with are, like me, basically “Star Trek” fans first, middle and last, with any appreciation for the spinoffs being a separate and very subordinate matter :)
228. S. John Ross
Yeah, I really dislike the ‘TOS’ suffix. It kind implies that this version of Star Trek is no more important than any of the others, which is patently ridiculous.
It’s grotty, nasty, irresponsible marketing that goes back to Berman’s constant attempts to bury TOS in favour of his shows!
#229: Yeah, exactly. Calling Star Trek “TOS” kind of pushes it into the rank-and-file of the spinoff material, while calling it “Star Trek” makes it very clear that THIS is the thing from which all other “Treks” descend.
While I retain a mix of hope and concern about the new film, it does at least make me grin that it has no subtitle :)
The shoutout to BSG is probably a character named Ensign Frak.
229: “It’s grotty, nasty, irresponsible marketing that goes back to Berman’s constant attempts to bury TOS in favour of his shows!”
Has “TOS” ever been officially used? On startrek.com, TOS is simply referred to as “Star Trek.”
TOS is, I believe, pretty much a fan-ism.
@231 – Or probably a reference to “Starbuck’s” somewhere near the Academy grounds. (geez, two coffee references in the same sentence.)
Overall, here is my take on those of you who don’t believe this incarnation of “Trek” will follow in the footsteps of the original. You may recall from reading Stephen Whitfield’s book “The Making of Star Trek” that Trek was originally pitched to the network (at the time, CBS, ironically enough) as a “Wagon Train” to the stars, referencing the popular western with Ward Bond. This meant that the “wagon train” (the “Yorktown,” later the “Enterprise”) would serve as a way to meet new and interesting characters along the way, and the drama would be all about the interaction between the crew and the guest stars. You gotta remember that’s the way drama was done in the ’50s and ’60s.
So, if you want “Trek” to be more like a western than sci-fi, that’s OK. But remember that’s the real roots of “Trek,” not the optimistic look at the future and our places in it (which is, frankly, what Gene Coon and D. C. Fontana and John D. F. Black and David Gerrold and others made it. Roddenberry simply jumped on that particular “wagon” and rode it for all it was worth).
I really want Trek to be a Western in Space ;-)
But then I remember Bonanza, the Virginian, and The Lone Ranger
I too am getting tired of hearing the same old rants and tired still more of having to defend my position to people that cant see beyond their own dreams. Le Sigh, Le Sigh, (a pepe le pew reference for kids born after tiny toons)
230 S. John Ross
‘While I retain a mix of hope and concern about the new film, it does at least make me grin that it has no subtitle :)’
Maybe sequels to the new film should used the suffix ‘Star Trek’ as Star Trek IV did in some territories.
So we get titles like ‘The Medusa Cascade: Star Trek Part II’ or ‘The War in Heaven: Star Trek Part III’
234 – It’s because “Star Trek” had to compete with shows like “Bonanza” and “The Wild, Wild West” that we saw a number of fisticuffs scenes in the show and landing parties had phasers at the hip.
I’ve heard that a number of Paramount execs have been reading through some of these threads and have decided on a tentative title for Trek XII: “The Trouble with Quibbles.” ;)
#165—-”And when did you change your name to Closettrekker? (that’s just a joke–I know Closet is actually JJ)”
:(
I know it was you, THX…You broke my heart….You broke my heart!
:)
Wasn’t Wrath of Khan released as “Star Trek: Wrath of Khan” in some places? No “II”?
I kinda like the current trend of not having a master title: subtitle. Batman Begins, then The Dark Knight, and hopefully The Dark Knight Returns at some point. They should title Trek movies the way they’ve titled Bond films — just a title.
One thing I do have a question on. I haven’t been a basher and been generaly supportive despite a few of the visual things I may not have liked.
If Bob Orci could address this, that would be great. Canon is a huge issue with a lot of fans here obviously. Older press accounts and things people have said gave the impression that this film was going to stay very true to canon.
For instance, J.J. saying: “I’m completely respectful of the Star Trek canon and I feel that there’s a great movie to be made.”
Then something from Alex which says:
“It’s a really good mix of people because I think it will ultimately allow us to stay very true to canon and also bring something new.”
There is quite a bit in the new movie, or at least from what some can deduce, as canon violations already. For instance, the crew already serving under Pike on the Enterprise’s first voyage which does seem to throw the timeline off a little, and a younger Kirk and a young Chekov on the ship when it was said in the original series they were something like 12 or years apart. Then there is the redesign of the Enterprise and bridge. Funnily enough, I’m not worried about things like Robert April, or even if the ship was built on the earth or space (though with the dedication plaque it made more sense to have it in California than say Iowa, which is a left fielder.)
I’m curious, when things were said that this “Stayed very true to canon,” was this really dependant on what that particular person perceived as staying true to canon? Because there are some fans crying foul and calling J.J. a “liar for making false promises.” Is there perhaps more to the story that can relax fans with these fans? Just in general, I’d be interested in a comment or a word regarding the press statements and then what we were given so far. I am keeping a benefit of a doubt, but I am very curious about this.
“Is there perhaps more to the story that can relax fans with these fans? ”
That should be “relax fans with these concerns?”
227. Just a Fan
“so lets not over estimate the supposed ‘controversey’ Since this film was announced it was clear that some small fraction, maybe 10% of the hard cores were going to oppose it. But, as Abrams notes, there is movie that would placate 100% of fan. There are fans that hate and love each of the last 10, even STII has its detractors.”
grabbing statistics out of your ass does not constitute a valid rebuttal to someone who has grabbed statistics out of their ass. Unless, I suppose, y’all just wanna grab ass…
239. Devon “Is there perhaps more to the story that can relax fans with these fans? ”
The scale model of Zefram Cochrane’s warp ship from First Contact, a few years back, looked a lot like a device that makes people relaxed! ;)
“Canon is a huge issue with a lot of fans here obviously.”
No, it’s a huge issue with a minority of fans, a number of whom have been banned for posting under multiple aliases!
Sure it’s provoked debate, but use of words like ‘violation’ make it sound like they’ve committed a heinous crime. All we have are a few changes and one or two contradictions that can easily be explained!
#242 -Dom
Re: canon.
“No, it’s a huge issue with a minority of fans, a number of whom have been banned for posting under multiple aliases!”
No, they’re not a minority.
They’re the ones who are actually THINKING
.
And, (JJ) their money is as green as everyone else’s.
“These are people who really care about these characters and these stories and the details. But I have to tell you, I’m not going to make a movie that tries to make every hard-core Trekker happy, because it’s not possible. I’m making a movie for fans of movies. I want it to be an adventure and fun and sexy and scary and epic and intimate and everything. I feel a great responsibility to these characters and everything that has come before, but I need to make a film that is not paralyzed by all of that.” – JJ Abrams
That paralysis you’re feeling has a name: Lack of Creativity. Making a movie that is satisfying for both movie fans and Star Trek fans is not a mutually exclusive undertaking.
241
Just A Fan was probably citing the current poll on this site (on the right with all the ads). right now it states:
Concerned – primarily over canon issues (9%)
…so actually his 10% is a little high. It is interesting that when you look at that poll vs the comments there seems to be a disconnect but I think it has been said that very few of the visitors comment and it could be the ‘canonites’ are more likely to be ’squeeky wheels’
“No, it’s a huge issue with a minority of fans,”
Which is still quite a bit ;) Perhaps I should have worded that better. I didn’t mean to imply that it was a majority.
My question revolves around the statements by the creative team of “staying very true to canon,” and what quite a few fans felt this meant (based on reaction in past articles and elsewhere when such things were said).. and then we start getting into the “changing what you know” category and then the more that is leaked it seems to be painting a different picture than what some had come to expect based on what was said I am not too bothered by the canon discrepancies per se (other than some of the visual things,) but I sorta saw what some people meant with what had been said in the press early on seems to be rather not the same picture that is being painted when it comes to that issue (though as you say, a couple of things aren’t blatant differences.) Maybe I’m wrong. And obviously the writers and J.J. at one time felt it important to state this position.
Again, I am not doubtful or arguing the issue itself. BTW, they use the term violations in sports! ;) I state the word in its context only and don’t mean it to be too harsh.
#243 – “They’re the ones who are actually THINKING”
For the record, I was not implying that one group was actually using their heads and the others weren’t and I do not want to be seen as someone that is in that camp that is going to dispell the rest of the fanbase (which includes myself) as being brainless for supporting this movie or whatever else that can be clung too out of desperation, etc. Dom is right when there were people who were trashing this movie who tried to make their voices a little bigger by posting under multiple names (and I am sure the same on the other side of the fence was done as well.)
#239—”There is quite a bit in the new movie, or at least from what some can deduce, as canon violations already.”
If “City On The Edge Of Forever” and “Tommorow Is Yesterday” are canon, then there is no yet evident canon violation. The existence and possibility of an alternate timeline being created as a result of interference with the past is a concept that is very much canon in itself.
Anything which occurs after the timeline incursion of 2233 (the attack upon the USS Kelvin 4 days before the birth of JTK) is subject to change.
It is not in violation of established canon, as long what is different can be traced to the ripple effects of Nero’s interference with the known past.
If George Kirk’s father is killed aboard the USS Kelvin, then there will undoubtedly be significant differences in Kirk’s upbringing. That “new” upbringing may be somewhat in contrast to what is suggested by “The Conscience Of The King”, but the fact that it stems from an altered timeline makes it still canonically legitimate.
Likewise, seemingly contradictory tidbits like Kirk meeting Pike prior to his promotion to Fleet Captain (”The Menagerie”), or Kirk’s ability to operate a manual transmission (”A Piece Of The Action”), are probably the result of changes in the timeline.
Since the absence of his father apparently results in delaying Kirk’s entry into SFA, he may never meet a midshipman named Finnegan (”Shore Leave”). He may never serve with a man named Ben Finney aboard the USS Republic (”Court-Martial”) or under Captain Garrovick aboard the USS Farragut (”Obsession”). He may never have a relationship with Carol Marcus (TWOK) or teach a class as a young Lt. at SFA (”WNMHGB”).
You can be critical of the creative choice to depict a backstory which puts those events (at least in this altered timeline) in doubt, but it is absolutely not a violation of canon.
If Nero interferes with the past, events may be altered. ‘That’ is canon, and therefore legitimate as part of the Star Trek Universe we know.
It should be noted that none of this invalidates TOS or renders it suddenly irrelevant to the Trek mythos. On the contrary, everything occurring exactly as we know it from ENT-Nemesis is absolutely essential.
Without every bit of that taking place, the story could never progress to this point in the first place, especially since both Nero and Spock (Prime) presumably come from the timeline which with we are so familiar.
The poll suggests that 9% of fans who participated have concerns over canon issues with this film.
That isn’t the same thing as the number of fans who place a premium on adherence to canon (whether conservatively or liberally).
I have enjoyed the aspect of ‘canon’ since I can remember (about 30 years of fandom). Canon is an issue for me.
The canon question pretty much becomes a moot point though, once it is affirmed that events depicted occur in an altered timeline.
Like it or not, that is a giant canon loophole as old as the Original Series itself.
#216 – “As much as I like Spock, Bones and Kirk and TOS, I’m wondering if it would have been better to make a new Star Trek, a straightforward original solution.”
I can understand the marketing draw of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and it’s a compelling one. However, I, too, wonder if it might have been a better idea to tell an entirely new story, with entirely new characters.
Maybe next time? :)
#226 – “That’s intentional, I believe, and being done for the specific purpose of leveling the playing field between hardcore, long-time fans and casual, broad-based fans. We all go into this movie knowing the same about who these people are and what this whole “Star Trek thing” is about.”
That’s the argument, really, for creating an entirely new set of characters. No matter what they do with the existing set(s), there will always be some people more familiar with them than others, and that shouldn’t matter. If the folks already “in the know” have to sit through some exposition of material they’re familiar with for the sake of the newbies, that shouldn’t be an issue. Well, IMHO, at any rate. I’d be cool with a few seconds of explanation of what I already know so that the new guy who’s never seen Trek before can follow what’s going on.
“My point was that of course this is going to upset the hardcore fans. Up to now they had a kind of advantage with regard to Trek. They could cite chapter and verse about anything in Trek’s history. The more casual fan could never keep up, and I think (and I think JJ Abrams thinks) that this turned them off. Trek was perceived to be impenetrable. I’m sure the hardcore fans liked their Fortress of Technobabble, but catering to an insular, aging market demographic is death. Trek has to break free of that or continue to slide down the slope of “cultural curiosity.” ”
But my argument is that most hardcore fans are not interested in it being an exclusive club. They just don’t feel that what was previously established needs to be thrown away in order to welcome new friends into that club. See previous comment about necessary exposition.
See, the thing is, if TPTB were introducing entirely new characters, that exposition about who they are would be necessary, anyway. So treat Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. as new characters in that sense, but make use of the existing backstory elements that are necessary for telling the current story. I don’t really see this as terribly complex.
#233 – Actually, the whole “Wagon Train to the Stars” thing was mostly a way to sell the optimistic future sci-fi show to network execs who wouldn’t know sci-fi if it walked up and smacked them in the head. ;)
243. Dr. Image – December 6, 2008
“They’re the ones who are actually THINKING”.
Riiiigght.
.
#244—”Making a movie that is satisfying for both movie fans and Star Trek fans is not a mutually exclusive undertaking.”
I think he’s acknowledging that some things are beyond their control.
Ultimately, he cannot accurately predict what each individual audience member (established fan or otherwise) will find satisfying.
If it is strictly about adherence to canon, where is the violation?
Is the potential for an alternate timeline being created by interference with the past not canon?
There are millions of Star Trek fans around the World, and any number of different preconceived notions about what kind of origin story would be satisfying. It is impossible to make such a film that will ultimately “satisfy” all of those individual notions.
That was never going to happen.
Even the spinoff series had varying degrees of success in satisfying established fans.
I never liked TNG. Some TOS fans did warm up to it. I didn’t. I still do not care for it. It never “satisfied” me. The fact that Gene Roddenberry created it made no difference. It wasn’t the Star Trek I wanted to see. This may not be the Star Trek you want to see.
I’ve been waiting for these characters to be recast and reintroduced to another generation for a long time. I plan to enjoy it.
If it is a thoughtful and entertaining story, and I feel that, in the end, these characters are back—–then I most likely will.
“The existence and possibility of an alternate timeline being created as a result of interference with the past is a concept that is very much canon in itself.”
But is it the same thing as “staying very true to canon?” In fact, we went from “Staying very true to canon” to “Changing what you know.”
And again, I have no problem with the concept of changing canon itself. But I see the point that some have made that at face value, what was said in the press has sort of morphed itself over time and especially when some of the things leaked.
245. Ghost of Star Trek Future
One can’t authoritatively cite a completely unscientific poll. At the end of the day we’re all just Star Trek goofballs. I strive to avoid any kind of fatuous blanket statements and if I do unfortunately succumb to that temptation in the heat of the moment I certainly don’t rely upon the pathetic fallback of the ubiquitous “They”. Those that resort to that kind of demagoguery are just sort of lame.
RE: Statistics
Some articles here can generate up to 1000 comments in a day, but I would be wary to say that the commenters are a true cross section of fandom. Although this site is the number one ranked trek news site (by Alexa), it certainly is not true that all fans visit (in fact many fans dont even go to any website, relying on the magazine and even conventions for their trek interactions). Also only a tiny fraction of visitors to this site even comment. So it is a fraction of a fraction.
Although still only a fraction, those who vote in the polls are a larger group than those who comment on a given day, so it is likely to be a more statistically significant group. I also checked the current poll against the theory that the ‘canon concerned’ are more likely to post and it turns out that is true. Although the majority of poll votes have never made a comment, those who voted “Concerned – primarily over canon issues” are two times as likely to have made a post on this site (since it started in 2006), than those who voted “very optimistic”
I have noted over the course of many polls that around 10-25% of poll voters fall into ’strict canon’ category, depending on the subject.
For more fun with stats, the history of polls on this site is worth checking out
http://trekmovie.com/about/index/pollsarchive/
#253—”But is it the same thing as ’staying very true to canon?’ ”
Yes, at least by my interpretation. And in the strictest of terms, I don’t see how anyone could argue that.
Alternate timelines are every bit as “canon” as anything else in Star Trek, and they are–in fact—a very significant part of the overall Trek mythos, as evidenced in the number of times in 5 series and 10 other films that element (or at least the potential for it) is dealt with.
They are not suggesting by this story that anything we saw or heard in TOS did not happen exactly that way, just that it happened in another timeline—one that was not disrupted by an attack upon the USS Kelvin and later, an assault upon Vulcan.
In fact, without the “original” timeline, this one could never exist. It (the original timeline) has to play out exactly as it did before. Otherwise, Nero (who comes from that timeline) can never take action to disrupt it, nor can Nimoy’s Spock (who also comes from that timeline) take action to try to stop him or control the damage he is causing.
Without the element of an altered timeline, then no—this story would seem to be a total reboot which disregards canon. With that element inherent in the story, it is indeed “true to canon”. So yes—it is precisely as they have suggested all along.
I simply love the fact that Star Trek inspires the kind of passion it does, right down to one of the writers responding on a message board like this. Love it
~Semper FI!
Hi Alex Rosenzweig (250)
The majority of the mainstream audience knows the pop culture icons that are Kirk, Spock, and McCoy and the supporting cast. TOS is the most frequently referenced of all the shows carrying the Star Trek name. People still know the lines: ‘Beam me up, Scotty!’ ‘He’d dead, Jim’ ‘Khaaaaaan!’ and “Live long and prosper!’ From TNG, they might remember ‘Engage!’ From DS9, Voyager and Enterprise? Nada!
The studio knows where Star Trek’s brand recognition lies with the general public. Why do you think the first thing we hear in the trailer is ‘James Tiberius Kirk!’ People know that name. It has an impact.
Had the boy climbed out of the quarry and said ‘Jean-Luc Picard’ would it have had the same impact? I’d wager not.
Artistically, maybe it might be nice to have new characters. Commercially, it makes perfect sense to go with what the audience know, relate to and like!
Hi Anthony (255)
Historically, people shout louder when they’re annoyed than when they’re happy, eh? :)
#257—-”Semper Fi”
And an “oorah” from a fellow Marine!
259
cant be derrived from the stats, but maybe true
I looked for the latest poll on canon, here are the results
October 23, 2008: How do you view Trek canon
* Strict constructionist (24%)
* Believer in ’spirit of the law’ (63%)
* Rebootist / don’t care (13%)
So it is true that the ‘change nothing’ crowd is larger than the ‘change everything’ crowd, the majority are somewhere in the middle (as I am).
I guess it is a spectrum or a bell curve perhaps. But as noted by one of the above posters, some people who take things very seriously often post over and over in the same threads, which can throw perception things off balance. The most blatant example of that was back during the ‘put Shatner in the movie’ days when the ’shat or bust’ crowd would spam almost every thread over and over
#261—”* Strict constructionist (24%)
* Believer in ’spirit of the law’ (63%)
* Rebootist / don’t care (13%)”
What I take from that is that most fans care about canon to some degree.
But in stark contradiction to that, the current poll suggests that only a substantially smaller group describe themselves as “concerned” about the upcoming film due to issues over canon.
“Very optimistic (53%)
Cautiously optimistic (26%)
Wait and see (12%)
Concerned – primarily over canon issues (9%)”
What that poll doesn’t tell us is “why” some fans remain cautious in their optimism. 26% is a very significant number. Given the archived poll you reminded us about, it is reasonable (IMO) to conclude that at least some of them are so “cautious” due to issues concerning canon (since 87% described themselves as fans who value canon either as strict constructionists or believers in the “spirit of the law”).
Using a time travel plot devise to jettison the established back-story, continuity, and aesthetics, while claiming to adhere to canon, is too cute by half. The contention of people associated with this project that canon is being respected miss the point. Re-imagining what has come before is not what is wanted because we love how it was *originally* imagined, especially if it is done for the convenience of someone who admittedly was “not a fan” and “didn’t get it”.
STXII could start with William Shatner as Kirk waking up with a gaggle of alien babes in the shower realizing STXI was a nightmare a la Dallas/Bobby Ewing. That would adhere to canon too, wouldn’t it?
I had no idea my stats comment would kick off a stat war. Yes I was talking about the current poll. I am amused to see one of the canonites try and wrap himself up in the 87%. From looking trhough the polls it is clear that there is a spectrum of views. Of course as trek fans visiting a trek site, there is a love of trek history.
Sorry to bring religion up, but ‘canon’ is really a religious thing and i think the analogy is apt. How many americans are christians vs. how many are ‘fundamentalist christians’? Certainly a majority of Americans are christians, but the fundamentalists are a minority.
I for one love the canon, but it is not the most important thing so I too am in that centrist group and by no means a ‘canonite’. I voted for ‘cautiously optimistic’ but the only reason is that so many Trek movies and the last two trek series were dissapointments, I guess, even though it is a new team, that I have got used to being dissapointed by Paramount, no matter who they put in charge. So my ‘caution’ is merely based on past performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
Here you go.. everything you wanted to know about Trek canon and more… please have a read. Seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
#263—”The contention of people associated with this project that canon is being respected miss the point. ”
It is not only the opinion of ‘those associated with this project’. I am in no way associated with anyone involved in this project, except to the point of sharing some of their affinity for Star Trek, and yet I feel as though canon is being respected.
Moreover, I am what many here would call a “canonista” or “canonite”…
Furthermore, why is it so easy to accept something like the blatant canonical contradiction in Khan’s dialogue with Chekov/Terrell in TWOK (”On Earth, 200 years ago…I was a prince—with power over millions”), or Admiral Morrow’s clear canon gaffe in TSFS (”The Enterprise is 20 years old…we feel her day is over”), but not the alternate timeline angle that was established in the very first season of TOS as canon?
“Re-imagining what has come before is not what is wanted because we love how it was *originally* imagined…”
I love how it was originally imagined, but none of that has changed.
That timeline is still very much a part of Treklore. It is even inherently essential to the story in STXI!!!
It may not be the story I would have told, but Paramount didn’t give me $150 million to make a Star Trek movie…
I would be disappointed if it disregarded previously established canon, but it doesn’t appear to do that to me. In the absolute strictest of terms, it absolutely ‘embraces’ canon.
“STXII could start with William Shatner as Kirk waking up with a gaggle of alien babes in the shower realizing STXI was a nightmare a la Dallas/Bobby Ewing. That would adhere to canon too, wouldn’t it?”
Yep. I would have to say that it would, although “canon” wouldn’t really be the issue there. That would just be dumb, just as it was “dumb” in the 1980’s tv drama, “Dallas”.
A story which adheres to canon and a ‘good story’ are not necessarily the same things. It can be one or the other, or it can be both.
I have yet to see or hear anything which prevents this from being a ‘good story’.
261 . Anthony Pascale
Okay, real life is coming into effect and it’s time to go to my nephew’s first basketball game, but I would like to take the time to thank Anthony for being the sort of guy who not only runs a great web site but is also willing to delve into… statistics. You, sir, are a braver man than I am . Truly, thanks for everything you do for all of us.
Oh, and
GO PURPLE TEAM!
(I kind of wish Hitch was here to say something about the women…)
Re: #8 — “I’ve often wondered myself why Hollywood keeps going back to the same well over and over and over.”
The main reason is that those in charge of the purse strings are attempting to hedge their bets. They feel that something which has a proven record is a safer investment than something original. They used to call this utilizing “pre-sold” properties. This includes re-makes, as well as adapting plays, books etc.
This is also why most (not all) of your early television shoes were adaptations of radio counterparts (Dragnet, Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Wagon Train, The Detectives, Naked City , The Lone Ranger, ad infinitum – ad absurdum).
I have always found it curious, though, that they seem to forget that those hits were all, at one time, original ideas.
263. Red-Shirted Monkey – December 6, 2008
Using a time travel plot devise to jettison the established back-story, continuity, and aesthetics, while claiming to adhere to canon, is too cute by half. The contention of people associated with this project that canon is being respected miss the point. Re-imagining what has come before is not what is wanted because we love how it was *originally* imagined, especially if it is done for the convenience of someone who admittedly was “not a fan” and “didn’t get it”.
No one is getting rid of anything and you don’t speak for anyone but yourself. I love the original and look forward to seeing how JJ and crew get this story done.
You are making far too much out of JJ’s “not a fan” comment and I don’t see where it was done a a convenience to anyone. Trek movie successes have come from “non-fans” as well.. and they changed stuff.
Perhaps practice some judgement and SEE what’s been done in May before assuming the best…or the worst.
268 – “…I don’t see where it was done a a convenience to anyone.”
It’s right up there in the article. JJ says, “…but I need to make a film that is not paralyzed by all of that.”
What’s amazing is that so many of these very threads validate Abrams’ statements.
A lot of people are absolutely paralyzed with fear that the canon will somehow be violated. They’re refusing to see a movie that they really know very little about on that basis alone.
A fear with zero evidence to support it and plenty of evidence against it!
269. Red-Shirted Monkey – December 6, 2008
268 – “…I don’t see where it was done a a convenience to anyone.”
It’s right up there in the article. JJ says, “…but I need to make a film that is not paralyzed by all of that.”
That is not a convenience to him. There is a story they want to tell. If you don’t look much at these boards, Bob Orci has stated that things will be explained. I think this is not a prequel, it’s a sequel (as Closettrekker points out). TOS and all that followed were needed to get to the events of this movie.
I am not going to convince you of a thing. You have already assumed the worst based on a trailer and some snippets out of a few interviews.
That said, all the love for “The way Trek is already” also has little evidence. Or was it the stunning box office for NEMESIS or the amazing ratings for ENTERPRISE there that are supposed to prove the franchise is just fine the way it is?
#271 SH Cone
Bingo.
#269—-I think that is a reference to the point that he wants to make a film that people who have no knowledge of previously established canon will be able to enjoy. If he made a fanboy film, he would still inevitably upset and possibly split that established fanbase by contradicting one or the other factions’ preconceived notions of “fanon”, and he wouldn’t really succeed in convincing the average moviegoer to forgo his/her own rather negative and equally preconceived notions about Star Trek in general.
They wanted to tell an origin story for the original crew. They also wanted it to involve Leonard Nimoy reprising his role as Spock. The most logical way to tell that kind of story is through the use of time travel. It also has to be compelling to moviegoers and epic, thus the timeline is threatened by a villain. Spock (Prime) is obviously trying to inact some damage control, and ensure that certain things still happen in this altered timeline that he believes are most essential. One of those things is obviously James Kirk in command of the Enterprise.
I think it is an intriguing story, and one that may ultimately define James Kirk once and for all as exactly what Nick Meyer described him to be—-a “mythological hero”.
Mythological heroes—-like Perseus, for example—-are “predestined” heroes. Their destinies cannot be prevented no matter what measures are taken to do so.
Acrisius was warned that he would one day be killed by the son of his daughter, Danae. No matter how hard he tried to set the stage for the impossibility of that prophecy, Perseus (Danae’s son) would eventually kill him…and he did, albeit accidentally.
Likewise, James Kirk (if he is indeed the mythological hero described by Meyer) may be seen as a “predestined hero”. No matter how things play out, all roads lead to the same destination. James Kirk will become that hero, no matter the obstacles in the original timeline— or in this one.
But most importantly to me, the sanctity of the Original Series is protected by the filmmakers’ adherence to established ‘canon’.
Not only is the previously established canon not interrupted, but it is absolutely essential for this story to ever take place at all.
I understand if this is not the story you wanted to see, but at least allow yourself the opprotunity to enjoy it for what it might be.
Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
Love these discussions
#276 Boborci
Ditto
earthclanbootstrap,
you are welcome, but I am a bit of a stats junkie and so when someone brought it up I had to dive into the data and see for myself what was up.
Of course Mark Twain is reported to have said
“There are liars, damned liars and statisticians”
however I believe that statement is only 66.6667% accurate
oh and hi bob,
I love that you love these discussions as well. hey maybe you should do a DVD special feature on them.
Paul,
Do you see on that page that separate paragraph that says canon is only what Gene decides it is on that day, and he can contradict himself at any time depending on his mood?
In otherwords, let the movie be what it is, Gene aint here to say what is and is not canon anymore, so there isnt any.
Bob when you make the straight to DVD “Star Trek: Civil War”
Can you have the crotchety old men faction squaring off against the uppity young buck faction?
and
Can I play an old fat 1960’s fumanchu Klingon ala Kor? (RIP Colicos)
Boborci,
Raising Atlantis as well? You get all the great sandboxes, don’t ya?
Can you share any word on that project?
#275 – “I understand if this is not the story you wanted to see…”
Yes, because I’ve already seen it. A young, angst ridden, hot-shot, hero-in-waiting (Maverick/Siberious) struggles to find his way. He is mentored by (Viper/Pike), who served with his father when he was killed in action. Along the way our hero stares longingly from his motorcycle out over the facility that represents his destiny (airbase/starship construction site), competes with his rival (Iceman/Spock) who he eventually befriends, and woos the object of his affection (Charlie/Orion girl et al). In the end he overcomes his obstacles and wins his fight against the bad guys (Libyan-like stand-ins/Nero and his cohorts).
This is the story that is soooooooo important to be told that the fictional history of TOS, the most beloved show in the history of shows, has to be rewritten? Jeez, I hope Kenny Loggins is being consulting on the sound track.
That DVD feature should be entitled, “The pre-debate of ‘Star Trek XI: The Rebooted Search for Cash’”
#215 – Captain Dunsel:
YES — well said! Scroll, keeping half an eye on the endlessly frantic, albeit impassioned, arguments, until it’s time to hear another reality-inducing comment from Mr. Orci.
If JJ isn’t lurking or posting himself, Boborci must be having a ball relating these ‘minority within a minority’ how many angels can dance on the head of a pin Civil Wars, if only ‘to amuse his Captain’.
I’ve been a major fan for 42 years and can’t wait for the huge breath of fresh air/CPR coming on May 8th. I’ll be in line with my family and friends, wearing my ‘Risk Is Our Business’ shirt, clutching my E Ticket, go on what I hope is a hell of a Ride, and then come home, click on this site and watch the Internet melt down.
Happily, with the Net gone, there won’t be an online mode to scream about XI and the prospect of XII. But alas, as Einstein said, ‘I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.’ The canonistas will find a way.
#281 Red-shirted Monkey
Then the only point you are really making is that you have it all figured out and won’t be seeing it. We get that… you’ve made it plain.
And knowing that won’t keep me up at night.
282/ksmsscu
your point about CPR is well made. Some around here act like Trek is massively popular right now and there are tens of millions of hard core Trekkies just waiting for a shot for shot remake of the CAGE right down to the bridge railing color. Well sorry to burst the bubble, but the franchise is dying. Trek has been in serious decline both creatively, and finanically, for a decade or more. And it is indeed time for some serious CPR.
And like it or not, all the crappy Trek made in the last decade was ‘in canon’ and that sure didn’t make it good. There is a lot more to entertainment than canon. Why do some think canon is the be all and end all. I really couldn’t care less as long as it is in the ballpark and we get some fun entertaining stuff with some cute guys and laughs. It is just a form of entertainment, not a way of life or a religion.
Now lets see more pics of the cast!
281. Red Shirted Monkey
“This is the story that is soooooooo important to be told that the fictional history of TOS, the most beloved show in the history of shows, has to be rewritten? Jeez, I hope Kenny Loggins is being consulting on the sound track.”
Gee…well I guess since you’ve figured it out AND did us the favor of spelling it out in plain sight there’s no need for me to go to the movies in May.
Thanks!
I saw this and thought it was worth repeating.
“Another thing that makes canon a little confusing. Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn’t like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was not canon. He also didn’t like a lot of the movies. So he didn’t much consider them canon either. And – okay, I’m really going to scare you with this one – after he got TNG going, he… well… he sort of decided that some of The Original Series wasn’t canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in The Original Series, and he told me he didn’t think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.” — Paula Block, 2005
#284
Amen to that.
#258 – “The majority of the mainstream audience knows the pop culture icons that are Kirk, Spock, and McCoy and the supporting cast. TOS is the most frequently referenced of all the shows carrying the Star Trek name.”
Yup. Precisely why I commented that the marketing logic of going back to TOS is compelling.
The best way to craft a spinoff in that sense would be to introduce new characters in the process of interacting with the known ones, e.g., Kirk and the Enterprise work with another ship and crew at some point, and we follow those other characters in a spinoff project, if the audience likes them. And so forth.
#271 – ‘A lot of people are absolutely paralyzed with fear that the canon will somehow be violated.”
I don’t see paralysis so much as concern or unhappiness. A few of us are even busily concocting ways that the story of the movie could have been told in continuity, not because we expect to change anything, but for the dual reasons of a) it’s fun, and b) to sow that it could be done. That’s a pretty far cry from paralysis in my book. ;)
But what can I say? I’ve never seen continuity as a straitjacket. For me, it’s always been a foundation and support structure for launching new ideas. {shrug}
#279 – “Do you see on that page that separate paragraph that says canon is only what Gene decides it is on that day, and he can contradict himself at any time depending on his mood?
In otherwords, let the movie be what it is, Gene aint here to say what is and is not canon anymore, so there isnt any.”
Well, that paragraph said that some people make that argument. But it obviously falls short, because a huge amount of Star Trek has been done without Mr. Roddenberry’s involvement, so obviously using his seal of approval doesn’t work as a barometer of canonicity.
#281 – Put the way you did, the parallels are indeed a bit unnerving. ;) I have a feeling, though, that the rest of the film’s story may reveal more differences than similarities between ST09 and “Top Gun”.
#286 – Exactly the reason I stopped caring what Mr. Roddenberry thought sometime near the end of the 1980s. ;)
288. Alex Rosenzweig ‘ The best way to craft a spinoff in that sense would be to introduce new characters in the process of interacting with the known ones, e.g., Kirk and the Enterprise work with another ship and crew at some point, and we follow those other characters in a spinoff project, if the audience likes them. And so forth.’
Agreed! Personally, I think they should have shot a straight-to-DVD film on the new sets while they were making the new film, just as they’ve done with the new Get Smart.
Actually, they should have done that as far back as TWOK! TWOK gave us the Enterprise as a training ship. Some of the youngsters could have been built up more and set up as a replacement for Kirk and his team as they got older.
288. Alex Rosenzweig: ‘Exactly the reason I stopped caring what Mr. Roddenberry thought sometime near the end of the 1980s. ;)’
Agreed. Something is either completely in or completely out! You can’t cherry pick bits of it! That’s just silly!
250 Alex Rosenzweig: “Maybe next time? :)”
Hopefully next time! :)
But this is something which worries me: How do we go on from this movie? I don’t worry so much about a one-movie alternate timeline adventure, this may actually be fun (or it may not be, depending on the quality of the movie).
But then? If there’s a next movie, do we stay with this alternate timeline? Do we re-tell the adventures of Kirk, Spock and Bones in a fast-cut flashy Speedracer style? That’s a re-imagination then, be it created through a canon loophole or not, and I do not care to see the five year mission retold the way JJ Abrams and millions of teenage moviegoers think it should have looked.
But now we seem to be in a dilemma: If this movie is successful, then the next movie will have to be the same as this movie (Hollywood logic), which means good bye to the original timeline. If the movie is not successful, Star Trek will probably go to sleep again for several years before Paramount dares another shot at it, maybe with an original approach then.
290: “Agreed. Something is either completely in or completely out! You can’t cherry pick bits of it! That’s just silly!”
In ST3, Morrow says the Enterprise is 20 years old, which is nonsense because that would have meant it was built sometime DURING Kirk’s five year mission. And it couldn’t have been that ST3 takes place less than 20 years after TOS, because in the previous movie Kirk says he hasn’t seen Khan in 15 years. So we know ST2 takes place at least 15 years after Space Seed, which is a second(?) season TOS episode. Since Spock had been on the Enterprise about 13 years prior to that time (via The Menagerie), the Enterprise can’t be younger than 28 years old at the time of ST2.
So you can pick out that bit (Morrow was mistaken, or he was talking about “twenty years since some significant upgrade,” or just plain ignore what he said). But wait, you can’t cherry pick bits out of it! So ALL of ST3 has to go! Wipe it, it never happened.
That means Spock being alive in ST4 is one massive continuity violation! And since when is the Enterprise destroyed? And David Marcus is dead? What the hell? This movie makes no sense!
291. Holger: ‘That’s a re-imagination then’
As if anyone’s ever been in any doubt that that’s what this film is! ;)
292. Chris Baske: ‘In ST3, Morrow says the Enterprise is 20 years old, which is nonsense because that would have meant it was built sometime DURING Kirk’s five year mission.’
Yeah, but no one important cares about that. It’s pointless minutiae that only offens basement dwellers. There are lots of ways to retcon around it. Maybe, after Where No Man Has Gone Before, Kirk and his crew were given a new Starship that was named after the previous ship, but they didn’t bother changing the registration! Maybe there were enough repairs done to make it a bookmark point in the ship’s lifespan. Fans should spend less time demanding answers and have fun using their imagination!
‘But wait, you can’t cherry pick bits out of it! So ALL of ST3 has to go! Wipe it, it never happened.’
Dude! That’s bonkers and blatantly not what what I was saying! I was referring originally to the fact that Rodders said all of TAS was uncanonical . . . except for a couple of little bits, which is patently stupid. Frankly, if he’d had his way, he’d have ditched TWOK-TUC and season three of TOS! :0
There was a song by Negativeland called “I’m so bored I could drink bleach”
OK, here goes:
Wrath happened 15 years after Seed, Search happened a week after Wrath, and Home happened six months after Search, so the whole mini-series happened 15 years after Seed even though they were filmed 4 years apart.
The ship of course is 40+ years old.
Search and Home were so fantastic and magical. I’m sure Trek 09 will be just as magical, baring the James Anikin Kirk scene.
Did anyone else notice that Seven’s real name was Anika?
294. McCoy’s Gall Bladder
“Search and Home were so fantastic and magical. I’m sure Trek 09 will be just as magical, baring the James Anikin Kirk scene.
Did anyone else notice that Seven’s real name was Anika?”
Let’s just hope that we don’t find out that midichlorians are the secret of Kirk’s command style… ;-)
#232
Actually, StarTrek.com *does* use TOS. They just don’t abbreviate it, and call it Star Trek: The Original Series. In fact, the link to the TOS page on StarTrek.com is http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/.
Personally, I find TOS a useful term, because there has been a lot of Star Trek produced over the last 42+ years. Putting aside anyone’s feelings as to whether subsequent shows were ‘Star Trek’ or not, it’s just an easy way to quickly and efficiently identify what show I’m speaking of. I never felt it reduced the original series in any way to use the abbreviation.
I believe (and I could be wrong) that the first use of the term was by the Okuda’s in their ‘Chronology’ books.
293: “I was referring originally to the fact that Rodders said all of TAS was uncanonical . . . except for a couple of little bits, which is patently stupid.”
So should all the Star Trek novels be considered canonical?
Anthony, I wish you’d just left the last choice on the current poll as “concerned.” I’m concerned, but I don’t give a wet slap about canon (in fact, most days I’d just as soon GIVE canon a good wet slap).
297
Um. I just wrote a lengthy reply and it’s not appeared! Drat!
I was talking about retrospectively DEcanonising bits of something broadcast that was previously canon.
I never mentioned the books, some of which – since Rodder’s (and probably Richard Arnold’s) needlessly sweeping statement on their validity – are canon and were intended to be, eg Jeri Taylor’s Voyager books.
End of the day, books are a licenced offshoot produced by people generally unrelated to the ongoing TV show. They have nothing to do with my remarks about TAS (or STIII!)
297,
It just seems to me that “on screen” is pretty arbitrary a measure of canonicity. Why can’t the novels be considered canon? It’s all well and good to declare that on-screen Trek is “real” and books are not, but in the end that’s just a judgment call you’re making. And your (or Mike Okuda’s) judgment call is really no more inherently “true” than mine or Roddenberry’s or Abrams’.
The point I’m trying to make is that Trek — TV, TAS, movies, comics, and novels — is Trek, and all forms are valid. But they’re all contradictory in many ways, and not just across media. There are TOS episodes that contradict TOS episodes.
The only real way around this is to either accept all the variations at the expense of the very idea of a consistent continuity, or pick and choose which bits are canon and which bits aren’t in a process that, in the end, is pretty arbitrary. There’s nothing inherently stupid about deciding TAS isn’t canon (especially when that decision is made by Trek’s creator). It’s just a judgment call, and no different than you saying “no one important cares” about Morrow saying the Enterprise is 20 years old.
What it seems to me Abrams and Orci and these new guys are doing is the first option above. They’re accepting that all Trek is Trek and sacrificing the idea of a consistent continuity. Rather than focus on the errata, they’re distilling Trek down to its core essence and building up their own errata. When you consider that that mountain of old (now discarded) errata is functioning as an obstacle to Trek, that seems to be a smart course of action.
Er, 299, not 297. Whoops. :-P
299. Dom
Slight grammatical nitpick: When you say “retrospectively”, I think you mean “retroactively”. Am I right?
302
Retrospectively, I could have said could say ‘retroactively’, but retrospectively is equally valid! ;)
http://www.askoxford.com:80/concise_oed/orexxtrospective?view=uk
300 Morrow said the Enterprise is 20 years old
1964-1984=20 years – in this point of view, Morrow was right :-)
300. Chris Basken
I think the possibility is that we’re actually agreeing, but thinking we’re not!
I simply meant that rather than pick or choose little bits, Rodders should’ve made his mind up for one thing or the other. Not that it matters really 21 seasons of TV and four movies after his death what his views on canon are anymore. I doubt he imagined Trek would go that far at the time!
Personally, since I think canon’s a load of w**k anyway, I’m more than happy to accept everything as stories set in a stretchy Trek universe. For me, Star Trek is Kirk, Spock and McCoy and I don’t care if they’re on or off the Enterprise. I don’t care that Kirk and ‘Stretch’ were shoved into Starfleet Academy to get out of jail or if they met because of Kirk feeling up Uhura’s boobs in an Iowa bar!
I mean, Sherlock Holmes ‘canon’ is full of contradictions in terms of dates, the number of different Professor Moriatys with different or the same names and so on, but we all accept it!
The X-Files is another good example: you can tell a bat**!t crazy story like Post-Modern Prometheus next to a ’serious’ story about the conspiracy!
So on that level, I see the Trek universe as a big amorphous object that anything can happen in. I adore the fact that the new filmmakers have used names like Winona Kirk (and, hopefully ***Nyota*** Uhura) since, as a youngster reading the novels, they became an essential part of the background of the characters.
Similarly I like the idea that, in the novelisations of the movies there are Galaxy-class starships in the Andromeda Galaxy! Also, many of the books have been way better than any of the TV shows!
So yeah, I say throw it all in the melting pot and see what we come out with! I think it’s fun! I wish more people were more serious about taking Trek less seriously! ;)
302. Plus, it’s a vocab issue, not a grammar issue! ;)
You’re still here? Go home!
Night shifts running directly into days shifts! I need a good sleep! ;)
Very good! Intelligent! Well-thought-out. Right on the money!
OK guys! After digitising for 40 hours in the last 50, I’m finally done. I’m knackered from doing night shifts, then slipping into dayshifts with very little sleepy time between. Thank you everyone for keeping me company!
God bless, live long and prosper etc! :)
I’ve got to say that the one thing I got out of the L.A. Times article was what I’ve faced as a producer interested in totally doing the next “original” space series … and one that honored earlier efforts without copying any of them. The timing was all great – it was the small window of opportunity to film 100% digital in a world in Hollywood where be it Unions or Traditions everyone wanted to stay with film. The idea was to get Final Cut Pro, a good prosumer digital camera, and basically do precisely what is being done today in Hollywood – for movies and for TV.
So the window passed, and now everyone is doing what I was going to do anyway. The reason to do that is because it drastically reduces the production costs. It makes it within the capabilities of anyone with a good HDTV or DTV camera to be their own Hollywood. Unfortunately, YouTube seems to be the only logical distributor for this kind of thing, which is why if Star Trek succeeds or not, the Viacom model of expensive movies and TV shows is on the way out as fast as the newspaper business, I’m very sorry to say, and genuinely so.
So I know (from personal experience) that Hollywood isn’t going to put out shows with obscure names (for instance) such as LIBERTY 72 or Endless Wonder. What they will do is take advantage of the fact that everyone knows of, and in great measure is fond of Star Trek – the brand name. It’s sad, but it’s true. In the past, Berman and Braga were a little too lazy in the formula, forgetting that brand name loyalty isn’t enough to keep customer loyalty if a lemon is being produced. That’s why (among many other reasons – starting with the inadequate launch-pad called UPN) Star Trek fizzled out earlier this decade. But I’m convinced more than you know that this movie “has it” and will be perhaps the best Star Trek any of us have seen in the movie theatre in decades. Trust me on this one. But all the same, Rosebud to all of the new versions of something like “Star Trek” that won’t ever stand a chance of even getting to the launch pad, because Hollywood has lost its spine – which is part of the reason Hollywood has lost its glamour and glitter.
#289 – ” 288. Alex Rosenzweig ‘ The best way to craft a spinoff in that sense would be to introduce new characters in the process of interacting with the known ones, e.g., Kirk and the Enterprise work with another ship and crew at some point, and we follow those other characters in a spinoff project, if the audience likes them. And so forth.’
Agreed! Personally, I think they should have shot a straight-to-DVD film on the new sets while they were making the new film, just as they’ve done with the new Get Smart.”
That could be interesting, but I think they’re right to keep the whole focus on this film until well after its release. Even word of something else having been shot would have divided the focus, and I don’t think that’s optimal for what they’re trying to do.
In short, one step at a time. :)
“Actually, they should have done that as far back as TWOK! TWOK gave us the Enterprise as a training ship. Some of the youngsters could have been built up more and set up as a replacement for Kirk and his team as they got older.”
Yup. TWOK, in the end, actually did have an interesting start for a real generational transition, and if there was anything that disappointed me by the end of the trilogy of Treks II through IV, it was that they seemed to have eliminated any sense of progression, with all the characters essentially exactly where they were, down to their typical bridge positions, almost 20 years earlier (both fictionally and in real time). Missed opportunity, IMHO.
#291 – “250 Alex Rosenzweig: “Maybe next time? :)”
Hopefully next time! :) ”
Well, given that the current cast have a three-picture deal, I’d say the best thing to do would be to introduce the potential new characters in either the second or third film.
“But this is something which worries me: How do we go on from this movie? I don’t worry so much about a one-movie alternate timeline adventure, this may actually be fun (or it may not be, depending on the quality of the movie).
But then? If there’s a next movie, do we stay with this alternate timeline? Do we re-tell the adventures of Kirk, Spock and Bones in a fast-cut flashy Speedracer style? That’s a re-imagination then, be it created through a canon loophole or not,”
Well, sure it is, and that’s here to stay, unless the movie fails. What I am more interested in is what Abrams said a couple of weeks back. If the alternate timeline’s differences are just a question of different backstories leading into a start-point essentially congruent with TOS, then going forward, we could still get a story that could fit smoothly into either continuity (excepting the visual window-dressing, of course). I’d ask Bob Orci about that, but I think that any clearcut answer might give away more of the movie’s secrets than he might be comfortable yielding at this point, so I’ll let him off the hook on that question. ;)
#310 – “OK guys! After digitising for 40 hours in the last 50, I’m finally done. I’m knackered from doing night shifts, then slipping into dayshifts with very little sleepy time between. Thank you everyone for keeping me company!”
The discussions have been fun! :)
No matter what I might ultimately think of the movie’s creative choices, I envy Bob Orci’s knowing the answers and being able to read our comments while we can still but speculate. ;)
who knew…Boborci does a Traci Ullman impersonation
312. Alex Rosenzweig – December 7, 2008
“No matter what I might ultimately think of the movie’s creative choices, I envy Bob Orci’s knowing the answers and being able to read our comments while we can still but speculate. ;)”
don’t forget the most important thing that you are going to know before any of us: What you really thought of the movie.
293 Dom:
“291. Holger: ‘That’s a re-imagination then’
As if anyone’s ever been in any doubt that that’s what this film is! ;)”
Bob Orci, for example, doesn’t seem to agree it’s a re-imagination. Neither does Closettrekker.
I myself am in deep doubt.
#314 – There is that, Bob, indeed. :)
#315 – Part of the problem, I think, is that there don’t seem to be universally-agreed-upon definitions for the various terms and how they should be applied, so using them becomes semantically slippery.
e.g., Closettrekker gives the impression (and, Closettrekker, please correct me if I err here!) of applying the term “reboot” in only a specific circumstance (a la what Ron Moore perpetrated upon BSG), but since ST09 seems to be doing it more organically, creating its alternate universe as a consequence of actions by characters who originated in the “prime continuum”, he defines it as something different, i.e., an “unconventional sequel”. By contrast, I’m a little broader in my definition, and–assuming, of course, and that assumption might be wrong, that the net result is that ST09, going forward, is in a different world than TOS and all the rest–I’d still qualify the movie as a functional reboot.
“Re-imagination” seems to be applied equally fluidly, sometimes referring to what Moore did, and sometimes referring to just a visual redressing.
And so forth. In the absence of solid, discrete, widely-accepted definitions for these terms, the best we can do in the short-term seems to be to define what we mean by a given term when we use it.
315: “Bob Orci, for example, doesn’t seem to agree it’s a re-imagination. Neither does Closettrekker.”
When you consider that many people involved with TMP back in the day viewed it as a re-imagining of Trek, I think the line between remake and sequel (and a “prequel” is just a subset of sequel) is pretty durn blurry in this particular franchise.
Although maybe it’s not limited to Trek. Look at the new Bond films. Clearly a reboot, right? Completely new actor and it starts 007’s career over from the beginning. Yet it has the same actress playing M.
I think you can have a situation where, for all intents and purposes, it’s a clean reboot while at the same time retain some original elements.
306. Dom You’re right that it’s vocab over grammar. I just have never heard anyone use “retrospective” in that context.
boborci – if The 1979 film had just been called ’star trek’ (no TMP subtitle) what would you have called this one? as surely there couldnt be 2 films set in the same universe called exactly the same..I know remakes get called teh same but this aint a remake/reboot
Star Trek Phase 2?
Star Trek Origins?
Star Trek Zero?
Star Trek Begins?
Star Trek The Beginning?
Star Trek Universe?
Star Trek Nemesis Part II?
319. screaming satellite – December 8, 2008
Trek
Nice article.
Unfortunately, it’s much easier to reinvent an existing product than to convince the studio management to accept something completely new.
After billion-dollar films like Iron Man, Dark Night and Indy 4, studios want quick risk-free bottom line contributors as tentpoles.
Don’t forget, “Star Wars” was an independent film which was insanely high-risk, and Lucas could barely finance it. These days, it’s a guaranteed money-maker (all 7 films, etc). It will be remade in our lifetime, for sure.
321: “Don’t forget, “Star Wars” was an independent film which was insanely high-risk, and Lucas could barely finance it.”
The original Star Wars was most certainly not an independent film. 20th Century Fox funded the entire $8 million budget and often clashed with Lucas over script elements.
Lucas was smart enough to retain all kinds of merchandising rights to leverage control over the series away, but even Empire Strikes Back had some studio funding. RotJ was the first really “independent” Star Wars.
322:
I seem to remember it was a tough film for Lucas to make. I thought I heard Lucas once refer to it as an “independent” fil because he hat to fight hard for it. $8 million? ;-)
320. Boborci – And pass on “Top Phaser”?
323: “I seem to remember it was a tough film for Lucas to make. I thought I heard Lucas once refer to it as an “independent” fil because he hat to fight hard for it. $8 million? ;-)”
All directors have to fight hard for their budgets. Or at least producers do. Doesn’t make their movie independent.
Star Wars was funded essentially 100% by 20th Century Fox, therefore it’s not an independent pretty much by definition. Empire was mostly independent. I don’t know the breakdown, but Lucas apparently budgeted Empire mostly out of his own pocket with only a little bit of money from 20Cen (who still acted as distributor, but that’s a separate deal). I think that money came from the toys, which Lucas retained total rights to, plus some fundraising efforts of his own (i.e. he got personal loans).
Yes, the original Star Wars had a budget of $8 million, give or take. Empire was more like $14 million, and I think Jedi was somewhere around $30 million. Movie budgets stayed below $100 million and even mostly below $50 million until the early 90s, and often well below $20 million in the 70s. Star Trek: The Motion Picture ended up with a “bloated” budget of $45 million in 1979, and that was considered outrageous.
#315—”Bob Orci, for example, doesn’t seem to agree it’s a re-imagination. Neither does Closettrekker.”
From an asthetic standpoint, I think it is definitely a ‘re-imagination’.
#316—”Closettrekker gives the impression (and, Closettrekker, please correct me if I err here!) of applying the term “reboot” in only a specific circumstance (a la what Ron Moore perpetrated upon BSG), but since ST09 seems to be doing it more organically, creating its alternate universe as a consequence of actions by characters who originated in the “prime continuum”, he defines it as something different, i.e., an ‘unconventional sequel’. ”
I lean toward the definition of the term “reboot” as something which disregards previously established continuity, telling the story as if it is being told for the first time. The 1978 film, “Superman: The Movie” is a good example of a what I would classify as a ‘reboot’. “Batman Begins” is another prime example.
I must admit to never having seen Ronald Moore’s “BSG”, but from what little I know of it (from the numerous mentions of it here on this site), I’ll concede that it also conforms to the criteria of what I consider to be a “reboot”.
What differentiates this project from the others mentioned is, to me, one basic principle which denies STXI that status.
The story exists in the same Universe, even if it is told through the perspective of an altered timeline. Previously established continuity is not disregarded, but is, in fact, essential to progressing the story to that point.
This story cannot in fact be told, as is, without that continuity.
I understand what you mean by “effective reboot” (at least in the event that future stories would remain in the altered timeline), but I still think that the use of the word is inaccurate.
Wikipedia defines the term (as applicable to a fictional story) as this:
“Reboot (fiction), to discard all previous continuity in a fiction series and start anew.”
I obviously agree with this definition. From what we know of the story thusfar, the term certainly does not apply to this film.
While I would accept the term “re-imagination”, albeit solely in regards to asthetics, I cannot accept the term, “reboot”, since it does not meet that criteria. Previous continuity is not only not discarded, but essential to the story.
326: “While I would accept the term “re-imagination”, albeit solely in regards to asthetics, I cannot accept the term, “reboot”, since it does not meet that criteria. Previous continuity is not only not discarded, but essential to the story.”
I risk becoming pedantic here, but I’m curious if Batman Begins would have been even a blip on the cultural radar if there had been no Batman in any form prior to it. It might have survived as a cult film in the vein of the original Highlander, perhaps, but not be anything like a major blockbuster.
Batman Begins relies HEAVILY on the prior existence of Batman in the cultural consciousness.
So is it that a true reboot’s reliance on prior continuity can’t happen in-film, but only as a larger cultural context? And it must have at least that, otherwise what is being rebooted?
John Williams’ theme to the 1978 Superman was mostly original, but he dropped in touches of the 1950s Superman TV show theme as well. Is that an example of prior form appearing in-film? Or am I relying to much on reductio ad absurdum?
Something a little more appropriate, and that I brought up earlier in this thread. Judi Dench plays M in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but this is a clear reboot of Bond. It starts his career over without any in-story explanation why he looks different or that the setting of the movie is contemporary or anything like that. We accept that it’s an unequivocal reboot despite Dench’s presence.
Is Dench playing M like Nimoy playing Spock? Who says the “original” timeline Spock comes from in this new Trek movie is the ACTUAL timeline we’ve been watching all along? Couldn’t it just be another alternate timeline that this new Trek move called the “original” one but is just as much a different timeline as the one we’ll end up with by the end of the movie? Again, Nimoy’s presence as Spock is no indicator; it could just be Nimoy playing what is in effect a cameo. He’s playing faux-original Spock, not actually the original Spock. I mean, if Dench as M doesn’t mean alternate timelines were being invoked in Casino Royale, Nimoy as Spock doesn’t mean the same in Trek.
Gah, I’m starting to sound like a Voyager episode…
#327—-”So is it that a true reboot’s reliance on prior continuity can’t happen in-film, but only as a larger cultural context? And it must have at least that, otherwise what is being rebooted?”
I think you just answered your own question.
“Batman Begins relies HEAVILY on the prior existence of Batman in the cultural consciousness.”
Absolutely, but the criteria to which I am refferring is the discarding of “fictional” continuity.
Surely, the prior existence of Batman as part of the ‘cultural consciousness’ is not fictional. It is fact. The existence of several prior successful incarnations (comics, television series, movies, etc.) is evidence enough of that.
Its storyline material, however, is fictional.
The disregard for much of the previous backstory and storyline material (its continuity) is what defines ‘Batman Begins’ as a “reboot”, and it was very much intended as such.
“Is Dench playing M like Nimoy playing Spock? Who says the “original” timeline Spock comes from in this new Trek movie is the ACTUAL timeline we’ve been watching all along? Couldn’t it just be another alternate timeline that this new Trek move called the “original” one but is just as much a different timeline as the one we’ll end up with by the end of the movie? Again, Nimoy’s presence as Spock is no indicator; it could just be Nimoy playing what is in effect a cameo. He’s playing faux-original Spock, not actually the original Spock. I mean, if Dench as M doesn’t mean alternate timelines were being invoked in Casino Royale, Nimoy as Spock doesn’t mean the same in Trek.”
For the purposes of this discussion, you may assume that all of my thoughts on the film are based upon what we know of it now, and the assumption that both Nero and Spock come from the timeline with which we are all familiar.
While the comic book prequel series intends to explain Nero’s backstory, it apparently does so within the TNG-era (or, more precisely, the post-Nemesis era) we know. While thousands of fanboys/girls may indeed go out of their way to read those, I think that the creative team behind the film would most likely assume that the overwhelming majority of moviegoers will not.
I find that possibility extremely unlikely, particularly given the filmmakers’ stated objective of making a film that the average moviegoer will not need to have prior knowledge of Star Trek to enjoy or fully appreciate.
I think it is rather safe to assume that both Nero and Spock come from the original timeline, otherwise things would be much too confusing for the average moviegoer.
328, two things.
“While the comic book prequel series intends to explain Nero’s backstory, it apparently does so within the TNG-era (or, more precisely, the post-Nemesis era) we know. While thousands of fanboys/girls may indeed go out of their way to read those, I think that the creative team behind the film would most likely assume that the overwhelming majority of moviegoers will not.”
And..
“I think it is rather safe to assume that both Nero and Spock come from the original timeline, otherwise things would be much too confusing for the average moviegoer.”
These positions seem contradictory. If the average moviegoer isn’t going to be bothered to look below the surface, then the idea that the timeline that Nimoy-Spock comes from isn’t the actual TOS timeline we’ve all seen for 40 years won’t even catch their attention.
Here’s a way to see what I mean. Imagine that Abrams couldn’t get Nimoy to play Spock and had to recast the character for his appearance in this movie. If, say, Hugh Laurie played Spock, I think you’d have a hard time finding anyone who would say his native timeline in the movie was the “real” TOS timeline. Clearly, Laurie-Spock isn’t Nimoy-Spock and therefore originates in some kind of different continuity. So no matter how “accurate” Laurie-Spock’s timeline seems (in the sense that it replicates the “real” TOS reality), we’d all be comfortable pegging it as a different timeline, and thus this new Star Trek movie would be, without significant doubt, a true reboot with no in-film connection to the “real” TOS timeline.
So it’s the casting of Nimoy that causes people to insist that there’s an in-film connection to the original continuity. But as I pointed out with Judi Dench, the recasting of an actor to the same role doesn’t mean the character is literally the same from one continuity to the next. M in Casino Royale has no recollection of Bond looking like Pierce Brosnan.
And in Trek, we’ve seen the recasting of the SAME character in the SAME continuity — Saavik. No one had a problem comprehending that Saavik in ST3 was the same person as Saavik in ST2 (well, I’m sure it confused some casual viewers at first, but I doubt anyone was confused by the end of the movie).
So where does this leave us? The casting of an ACTOR is not an example of in-film continuity. Dench is a different M in two different continuities, and Saavik is shared by Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis a single continuity.
The casting of Nimoy as Spock is, as you imply, a method of suggesting to the casual view that when all is said and done, the new Star Trek movie IS Star Trek. The familiar face comforts the audience. But anyone who’s caught up in continuity details (i.e. not the casual viewer), the elder Spock in this forthcoming movie is just as “extracontinuity” as Quinto’s Spock. He just happens to be played by the same actor, which is irrelevant.
my head hurts :(
I’ll bring this up again next time a new thread begins, but we should be keeping an eye on the competitive trailers: ANGELS & DEMONS, TERMINATOR SALVATION and WOLVERINE.
So far, it doesn’t seem like anyone gives a gum wrapper about A&D.
The TS trailer just leaked out of Japan looks like REIGN OF FIRE— WWEEEEAAAK!
And at least the first image of Liev as Sabretooth is kind of kickass.
#329—-I have no reason to believe that Nimoy is portraying anyone but the Spock I know from the original timeline. Otherwise, the “sentimental moments” described in the reviews wouldn’t be very sentimental, would they?
I don’t think you actually believe that either. I think you are taking ’speculation’ and ‘conjecture’ to new levels, my friend.
“Imagine that Abrams couldn’t get Nimoy to play Spock and had to recast the character for his appearance in this movie. If, say, Hugh Laurie played Spock, I think you’d have a hard time finding anyone who would say his native timeline in the movie was the “real” TOS timeline. Clearly, Laurie-Spock isn’t Nimoy-Spock and therefore originates in some kind of different continuity. So no matter how “accurate” Laurie-Spock’s timeline seems (in the sense that it replicates the “real” TOS reality), we’d all be comfortable pegging it as a different timeline, and thus this new Star Trek movie would be, without significant doubt, a true reboot with no in-film connection to the “real” TOS timeline.”
Given that the creative team insited upon having Nimoy on board before even going forward with this project, that seems rather irrelevant. Without Nimoy involved, they would have done something else, or nothing at all.
They have already indicated as much.
I dispute the notion, however, that the actor involved has anything to do with it being a “reboot” or not. Your use of “Saavik”, as an example, is a clear contradiction to that notion.
Whether portrayed by Kirstie Alley or Robin Curtis, it was still the same character, in the same continuity. Moreover, Saavik is not a “throwaway” character in either TWOK or TSFS (although perhaps in TVH). She is, in fact, the most significant (particularly in screentime) secondary character in Starfleet uniform in either film. It did not matter. A different actor portraying the same character did not disturb the continuity of the two stories (but I would argue that both films present other challenges to the maintenance of continuity within the Star Trek Universe).
The characters are fictional, as is the continuity in the equally fictional stories. It is the discarding of that fictional continuity which defines it as a “reboot”, or the adherence to that fictional continuity which prevents it from being a “reboot”.
The actors involved are always replaceable—at least as far as maintaining fictional continuity (which says nothing, of course, about maintaining quality or audience interest).
STXI is, by definition, not a “reboot”…nor is it a prequel, since the origin story is being told ( and quite canonically) in an alternate timeline.
“These positions seem contradictory. If the average moviegoer isn’t going to be bothered to look below the surface, then the idea that the timeline that Nimoy-Spock comes from isn’t the actual TOS timeline we’ve all seen for 40 years won’t even catch their attention.”
It would only be contradictory then, if the creative team was satisfied with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two very different ways. Furthermore, Nimoy’s presence in the film is reportedly one very much of sentiment as well as substance, and what you are suggesting would seem to remove the basis for that sentiment.
For example, he reportedly says to young Kirk (in response to the accusation of cheating) that he “learned it from an old friend”. It is supposedly a wonderfully ironic and even sentimental moment in the film. What is that, if not a reference to the original timeline (and the favorite ST film of the two writers)?
“But anyone who’s caught up in continuity details (i.e. not the casual viewer), the elder Spock in this forthcoming movie is just as “extracontinuity” as Quinto’s Spock. He just happens to be played by the same actor, which is irrelevant.”
Based upon what? Upon what are you basing the notion that Nimoy is portraying a different Spock than the one we last saw on Romulus?
Moreover, how would that “respect canon”, as the creative team has repeatedly indicated that the film would?
I’m afraid I don’t see the point in any of this. Your argument is based upon pure conjecture, without any support whatsoever.
I remain convinced—-without even a shred of doubt—-that Nimoy is portraying the Spock I know from the original timeline, and I am convinced that Nero comes from that timeline as well.
332: “I dispute the notion, however, that the actor involved has anything to do with it being a “reboot” or not. Your use of “Saavik”, as an example, is a clear contradiction to that notion.”
I dispute it as well. In fact, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make here. That Nimoy was cast as Spock is of no use when determining if this new Trek movie is a true reboot or not. However, I do believe that had they cast someone else as elder Spock, no one would doubt it’s a true reboot. After all, it’s a different guy playing the “real” Spock, so therefore he can’t be the “real” Spock and therefore this entire thing is outside “real” continuity.
But while I believe people would think that, I think that’s a fallacy, hence my use of Dench, Alley, and Curtis as examples above. I think people are hung up on Nimoy as Spock and are using that as an example of why it’s impossible for this to be a true reboot.
All I’m saying is that it’s not impossible for this to be a true reboot and still have Nimoy playing Spock. I don’t believe the writers intend for it to be interpreted this way. I’m quite sure Roberto Orci sees Nimoy’s Spock as the same guy from the original series.
“It would only be contradictory then, if the creative team was satisfied with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two very different ways. Furthermore, Nimoy’s presence in the film is reportedly one very much of sentiment as well as substance, and what you are suggesting would seem to remove the basis for that sentiment.”
What’s the problem with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two different ways? Trek has always had two audiences. There are the ones who get into the minutea of continuity detail and obsess over alien languages and the ones who like to see big spaceships and funky aliens and watch Data not get being human. You can be a member of both audiences, of course, but there’s definitely that cultural distinction within Trekdom.
The sentiment of Nimoy’s presence wouldn’t be diminished at all if someone chose to interpret it the way I’ve suggested and that he’s not really the “true” Spock. If you like Nimoy, you like Nimoy.
“For example, he reportedly says to young Kirk (in response to the accusation of cheating) that he “learned it from an old friend”. It is supposedly a wonderfully ironic and even sentimental moment in the film. What is that, if not a reference to the original timeline (and the favorite ST film of the two writers)?”
It’s a reference to the FUTURE friendship of Kirk and Spock, of course. But what’s the big deal? If the movie is capable of being interpreted differently by two different people, wouldn’t it actually serve the movie that lines such as that can be interpreted differently for each of those two people? It’s like a joke having two meanings — that makes it a BETTER joke.
“Based upon what? Upon what are you basing the notion that Nimoy is portraying a different Spock than the one we last saw on Romulus?”
My imagination and the fact that nothing in the movie contradicts this — if indeed nothing does. Haven’t seen it yet, of course.
“Moreover, how would that “respect canon”, as the creative team has repeatedly indicated that the film would?”
By leaving it untouched (or “unsullied,” for those who get emotional about such things).
“I’m afraid I don’t see the point in any of this. Your argument is based upon pure conjecture, without any support whatsoever.”
My argument is essentially that one COULD view this movie as a true reboot and that — so far as I’ve seen, anyway — there’s nothing that prevents it from being one. In fact, this is pretty much how I intend to view it. I have no use for worrying over continuity details and I’m more than happy to assume no connection to prior Trek.
333. Chris Basken: ‘What’s the problem with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two different ways? Trek has always had two audiences. There are the ones who get into the minutea of continuity detail and obsess over alien languages and the ones who like to see big spaceships and funky aliens and watch Data not get being human. You can be a member of both audiences, of course, but there’s definitely that cultural distinction within Trekdom.’
The thing is, I find the intellectual aspects of Trek – the philosophical and ideological stuff – interesting. But I don’t consider the pseudo-scientific stuff made up to get our characters out of fixes – the technobabble and continuity – to be on the same level as that.
I’m cool with this movie being a reboot too. No sweat either way , to be honest. If they need an in-universe reason for the reboot, then they can have that. If Leonard Nimoy is simply playing ‘Older Spock’ from that universe in the new Trek, then I’m fine with that too!
326 Closettrekker: “From an asthetic standpoint, I think it is definitely a ‘re-imagination’.”
OK, I understand a re-imagination to be something like the new Battlestar Galactica, i.e. something where basically everything is allowed, like turning Starbuck into a woman.
Sure, the term re-imagination does not have a strict definition, but since the term is often applied to the new BSG, I take it to imply breaking with canon.
[...] Abrams, Orci, Moore, & Shatner Talk About Reviving Sci Fi Classics … [...]