Star Trek Mag Nimoy Interview Excerpts + STM Planning 3 Movie Issues | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek Mag Nimoy Interview Excerpts + STM Planning 3 Movie Issues January 8, 2009

by Charles Trotter , Filed under: Nimoy,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The new issue of the official Star Trek Magazine has a very delicious interview with actor Leonard Nimoy, who reprises his role as Spock in the new Star Trek opening May 8th. In the interview, conducted in early October, Nimoy talks about J.J. Abrams, the cast, Spock’s importance in the film, Trek’s appeal and his expectations of the film, and much more. Excerpts below.

 

Spock ‘s Delicious Trek
Among the topics touched upon in the interview were Nimoy’s return to the role and what it was like for him, being away from the character for over 15 years. Along these lines, one of the questions he was asked was whether or not the experience gave him any further insights into the character, to which Nimoy replied:

I saw Zachary Quinto [who plays younger Spock] do things with the character that had never occurred to me, which I found quite delicious. I think he really has found a way to expand the character while at the same time, if you can understand what I’m trying to say, being true to the character. He has found ways to enrich the character. He’s wonderful and I’m really proud of what he has done.

In addition, Nimoy was asked Star Trek‘s current popularity and how it has been out of the ‘cultural zeitgeist’ for 10 years…he agreed it could definitely use a boost. He also continued to show his fondness for the word “delicious.”

Star Trek has not been part of the zeitgeist for some time now. My hope is that this group of actors portraying these characters will give audiences a very delicious insight into what Star Trek can be at its best, and they will want to see more of these people doing what they do – solving problems together as a team. That’s my hope – and my expectation, by the way.

Appealing to mass audiences may not be a big problem. As Nimoy pointed out in the interview:

My wife, who is not a major science fiction fan, sat with me and watched the present cut of the movie about two weeks ago. We saw it in its present condition, which is still unfinished. It’s still a work in progress, there’s still some special effects to come, and so forth. But about 20 minutes before the movie finished, she turned to me and said, “I don’t want this movie to end.” That’s how much she was enjoying it.

Much more from Nimoy in the latest Star Trek magazine on his thoughts about director JJ Abrams, his fellow cast members, Spock’s importance in the movie, and more.

The new issue of Star Trek Magazine also has an extended feature on the Mirror Universe. Star Trek Magazine #15 is on newsstands now. It can also be ordered directly from tfaw.com.

STM #15
(newstand edition)

STM #15
(Previews Exclusive)

$5.59

$5.59

Star Trek Magazine Movie Issues coming
Star Trek Magazine is planning on three special movie focused issues in the coming months. These issues will have exclusive new information and images from Star Trek. There will be two movie-focused issues before Star Trek is released (# 17 on sale March 24th & #18 on sale May 5th), plus an additional movie-focused issue (#19) on sale June 9th. CLICK HERE to subscribe to get all those issues and more.

Also, Star Trek Magazine #17 can be pre-ordered at tfaw.com (note the covers shown are ‘dummy covers’) and the final covers will likely have some new imagery on them .

STM #17
(newsstand edition)

STM #17
(Previews Exclusive)

$5.59
(Pre-order -March 24)

$5.59
(Pre-order – March 24)

Or just Subscribe to get all the issues.

 

Comments

1. NCC-73515 - January 8, 2009

Hopefully there will be many new pictures in these…

2. Jason P Hunt - co-creator of COMET TALES - January 8, 2009

It’s very reassuring to hear Nimoy talk so supportively of this movie and the creative team.

While I’m still concerned about the continuity aspects, I’m open-minded enough to want to see this movie succeed and relaunch the franchise in a way that keeps STAR TREK around for a good long while.

As with everything else, this movie will be the sum of its parts, and everyone brings something new to the table.

3. Lt. Nathan Shrike - January 8, 2009

I hope there will be more pictures soon. I’m getting a bit more used to the new Enterprise, but I want to see more. The movie does indeeed look ‘Delicious’ as Mr. Nemoy put it. But we need more.

4. Tony Whitehead - January 8, 2009

Looks Mr. Nimoy’s still got the chops to play the character.

5. AJ - January 8, 2009

Charles:

Who does these mags? Is this the latest version of the “Official Fan Club” mags from years back?

6. Christian S. - January 8, 2009

@2

“Light” Spoilers ahead

Haven’t we established at this point that continuity is unimportant since a new timeline will be created that makes the cannon thing mood ?!?

End “light” spoilers

7. Mark - January 8, 2009

I don’t want this movie to end.
I want it to start…..

8. Scott - January 8, 2009

# 6 ….Mood..” ? You Mean Moot?!

9. Charles Trotter - January 8, 2009

5. AJ

Star Trek Magazine is published by Titan Magazines. It is not associated with the official Star Trek fan club, as far as I can tell.

Star Trek Magazine (formerly Star Trek Monthly) has been around in the UK since 1995. At the time, the US had Star Trek Communicator, which was the main publication of the official Star Trek fan club. After the Communicator was canceled, Titan began publishing issues of their Star Trek Magazine for the US; their issue #128 was our issue #1.

So, to sum up, no, this magazine isn’t the latest version of the Official Fan Club magazines.It’s still a pretty cool book, though. :-)

10. Trekee - January 8, 2009

Considering just how upset some fans are by what we’ve seen so far, can you imagine how much worse it would be without Leonard Nimoy doing such a grand job?

I do think he sounds genuinely thrilled to be doing this, and liked the movie, and that counts a lot for me.

119 days and counting…

11. thorsten - January 8, 2009

Ahh… that delicious zeitgeist!
from when is that Nimoy picture in the top left corner of STM #15 by the way?

12. SupremeDalekOnTheBridge - January 8, 2009

I’ve become very dissatisfied with this magazine in recent years. It seems they have devoted far too many issues to “reevaluations” off past shows. God knows how many Enterprise has been given, and the next issue will “reevaluate” Voyager.

The mag was a far better publication before it went Stateside. I remember when there used to be at least three, sometimes even four pages of letters from readers, and in recent years, we only get one (and if we’re real lucky, maybe even two!).

I used to really enjoy reading (as it was known) Star Trek Monthly, hell, I’d even call it fun. Nowadays, it just feels like a chore. A new movie coming out, and it must be the only magazine left not to have a big feature/cover about Star Trek. The interviews with the cast are fine, but with the ridicoulous amount of secrecy, there all basically repeating themselves.

If the magazine were still monthly, I’d have given up ages ago. I can only hope that with the release of the film, that there will be articles that can compare to the old days. But KRAD’s Mirror Universe Timeline was an excellent piece of work, Well Done.

13. AJ - January 8, 2009

8:

Thanks, Charles.

And wouldn’t you know it, I found just found issue 133 in a box (I’m unpacking after moving to NYC). I must have bought it in Sweden, and packed it. Never read it.

The Doomsday Machine STRIKES!

14. sb - January 8, 2009

#12
“’I’ve become very dissatisfied with this magazine in recent years. It seems they have devoted far too many issues to “reevaluations” off past shows.”

Um, what do you expect? The magazine’s subject is a science fiction franchise that hasn’t had any new episodes or films in several years. Until the new picture is released and more information comes out of the Paramount publicity machine, what else *can* they do, really, except rehash, rehash, rehash?

15. Captain Roy Mustang - January 8, 2009

Im might go get these magazines might find something new

16. Dustin - January 8, 2009

I am a subscriber, but I got the normal cover art :( how can we get the ‘previews exclusive’ cover??? Its much cooler!

17. Anthony Pascale - January 8, 2009

right now there is no official Trek fan club. CBS is working on one, but I dont think there will be a magazine with it, so this one from Titan is it. Titan do a lot of ‘official magazines’ including Star Wars, Heroes, Lost and Indiana Jones

18. Green-Blooded-Bastard - January 8, 2009

Haven’t seen Orci here in a bit. I bet they’re busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest right now.

19. Anthony Pascale - January 8, 2009

To get the previews exclusives you need to order to pick it up at a comic book store (or from an online dealer like tfaw.com).

20. Dustin - January 8, 2009

#19 – What about us UK ones?

21. Anthony Pascale - January 8, 2009

20
ask at your local comic book shop

22. Charles Trotter - January 8, 2009

10. Trekee — you of course realize most people are excited by what they’ve seen so far, right? At least based on the comments I’ve read. Sure, there’s a few things like “the communicator looks dumb” or “I hate the new bridge design,” but overall, people have responded very positively to what has been shown thus far.

11. thorsten — that’s an image of Spock from TNG’s “Unification” (1991)

23. MikeJones - January 8, 2009

theres no way it could be as bad as Nemesis, Insurrection or First Contact so I have very high hopes!

24. McCoy - January 8, 2009

Delicious. Just delicious.

25. NC Trek Fan - January 8, 2009

The magazine is good, but pricey.

26. EM - January 8, 2009

This movie is no longer coming out next year…it is only 4 months away.
I still connot wait.
P.S. I don’t care how upset some fans are by what we’ve seen so far. Some fans gotta “get a life”!!!

27. Mike Ten - January 8, 2009

I’ve been picking up the issues since #1 and even with it’s price near $10.00, I think it is worth it. I miss the official Star Trek Magazine from a few years ago. That magazine was thick and had alot of ship plans.

28. Doomsponge - January 8, 2009

To #22,

That’s all very well and good, but some people will decide they hate, and will do anything to discredit, this film…

Based. On. The. Looks. Of. A. Set.

It’s like claiming a band’s rubbish when they prodiuce twelve great albums and one bad album, and suddenly the bad album is the only thing that declares where the band is. I mentioned regarding Star Wars (Boo! Hiss!) the other day that The Phantom Menace could never have succeeded even if it was the best film ever written (which of course it wasn’t, but oh well) simply because people had already decided what they wanted it to be, and of course it could never be what everyone wanted it to be because everyone has a different opinion of what they wanted of it. So it was killed not by itself, but by what it couldn’t be- a film by committee. Can you imagine how incredibly awful a film would be if we got everyone on this website to write it in a big group? It;’d just devilve into a fight between people who want to try and have fun, and people who’d prefer a film that never once deviated from established canon whatsoever. It’d, quite simply, never get written, or it’d be such a huge compromise we’d end up with the Operation Market-Garden of cinema.

29. bill hiro - January 8, 2009

22. Charles Trotter – “you of course realize most people are excited by what they’ve seen so far, right?”

Most people on this site are excited by what they’ve seen so far. That is not most people. Opinion on other general movie-related sites is rather mixed, an attitude that might be more prevelent here if Mr. Pascale and the contributors to the site weren’t so overwhelmingly and smotheringly enthusiastic about every aspect of the film. Contrary opinions tend to get heckled and shouted down at worst, or mildly chided (like your quoted comment) at best. Either way, there’s a chilling effect, as the message is clear: this site is very much ‘pro’ this movie, and people who are not ‘pro’ this movie have been marginalized, either deliberately or otherwise. And, really, I udnerstand that. The more ‘pro’ the site is, the more exclusive content the site gets from the studio and the principals behind the movie. The more exclsuive content the site gets, the more traffic it gets. The more traffic the site gets, the more successful the site becomes. The more successful the site becomes, the more likely the contributors are to transition into more lucrative entertainment writing gigs, whether as a sideline or full-time. Anything that looks like negative coverage is bad for business, thus there isn’t any.

30. Izbot - January 8, 2009

11. thorsten –
“from when is that Nimoy picture in the top left corner of STM #15 by the way?”

That’s an old publicity shot from the set of “Unification part 2″ way, way back during TNG.

31. AdamTrek - January 8, 2009

Delicious

32. Izbot - January 8, 2009

28. Doomsponge –
“To #22,
That’s all very well and good, but some people will decide they hate, and will do anything to discredit, this film…
Based. On. The. Looks. Of. A. Set.”

Go back and watch the first six Trek movies and look closely at the Enterprise bridge. I changes radically from film to film (only exception is in Trek 2 & 3). The bridge in Trek 5 had beige carpet! In Trek 6 it had what looked like diamondplate steel flooring. The bridge seen for a few seconds at the end of Trek 4 looks nothing like what we saw in 5. And the bridge in TMP is also very different.

Get over it.

33. Charles Trotter - January 8, 2009

29. bill hiro — I was actually referring to people on all movie-related sites. Based on most of the comments I’ve read here, at IMDb, io9, screenrant, Rotten Tomatoes, etc., most people are optimistic or excited about this movie. It’s also the #1 most anticipated movie for men, according to Fandango. Now, I realize all of these sites — include TrekMovie — has had its share of negative comments regarding the new film, but most comments have been positive, as far as I have seen.

As for being “so overwhelmingly and smotheringly enthusiastic about every aspect of the film” … um, huh? Of course we’re enthusiastic about the movie; we have high hopes for it and, let’s face it, it does look pretty awesome so far. I even have friends who either don’t care about Trek or absolutely hate it saying they’re interested in seeing it because of the trailer, the cast, and the images. But I wouldn’t say we’re “overwhelmingly and smotheringly” enthusiastic. We give updates on the movie and report things related to the movie; that’s what the site does. That doesn’t mean we’re “overwhelmingly and smotheringly enthusiastic” about the movie (although some of us are); this is just what this site is here for. But some of us do have problems with the movie, and those issues have arisen on the site.

As for comments on this site, if most of the people who comment on this site say they like what they see regarding the movie, we can’t help that. all opinions are welcome, it’s just that the majority of opinions on this site are either favorable towards the movie or cautiously optimistic. Obviously if someone over the top insults the director or writers or whoever (or their fellow posters), those will get warnings. Negative comments on the movie and its cast and crew is one thing, but there is no reason to flame or insult.

34. sean - January 8, 2009

#29

That’s utter nonsense. The only time Anthony has shut people down here is when they are unmistakably trolling or otherwise outright insulting to other posters. Every single post on this site contains comments from naysayers. In fact, most of the more balanced discussions from both points of view have taken place here, not elsewhere. Anthony’s own review of the test footage indicated he had problems with it, and that’s hardly the action of someone worried about being a cheerleader or hoping for ‘exclusives’.

35. martin - January 8, 2009

this magazine really needs a new look i hate the design. if all its contents were compresed and all the pointless full page advertisements were cut out every issue would only come to an estimate 35 pages instead of 68 pages £3.99 very pricy. this must be the only magazine that has very little coverage on the new star trek movie.

36. boborci - January 8, 2009

18. Green-Blooded-Bastard – January 8, 2009
“Haven’t seen Orci here in a bit. I bet they’re busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest right now.”

LOL

37. Orb of the Emissary - January 8, 2009

I’m buying mine tonight! :-)

38. Orb of the Emissary - January 8, 2009

#2- While I’m still concerned about the continuity aspects, I’m open-minded enough to want to see this movie succeed and relaunch the franchise in a way that keeps STAR TREK around for a good long while.

Couldn’t have said it better! :-)

39. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2009

Hey Roberto! Congrats on wrapping post! CAN’T WAIT!!! =D

40. Orb of the Emissary - January 8, 2009

#17- right now there is no official Trek fan club. CBS is working on one, but I dont think there will be a magazine with it, so this one from Titan is it. Titan do a lot of ‘official magazines’ including Star Wars, Heroes, Lost and Indiana Jones

Don’t forget about the Stargate magazine Anthony! Oops, wrong universe! ;-)

41. N - January 8, 2009

I love Nimoy & Spock but remember Nimoy was thrilled about the ST6 story too. Which was a very lame cold war story. Which I didn’t think was a good one at all. I hate when scifi movies mirror the latest news. No original Idea there. TV does it to death. Nimoy seems happy whenever the story has a lot of Spock. They had to make him director on ST3 & 4 to please him. The only reason he wasn’t in Generations was the fact it was only a cameo. So I take what he says with a grain of salt. I just hope he’s right this time.

42. B - January 8, 2009

Spock: “Curious, Captain.”
Kirk: “Spock. What is it?”
Spock: “Delicious.”

43. Closettrekker - January 8, 2009

#29—“…Opinion on other general movie-related sites is rather mixed, an attitude that might be more prevelent here if Mr. Pascale and the contributors to the site weren’t so overwhelmingly and smotheringly enthusiastic about every aspect of the film.”

I think that Anthony, Charles, and the other contributors are “enthusiastic” about getting the ‘news’, which is something we all want from a journalist. Even with the ‘exclusive’ interviews and such, Anthony has never shied away from asking the tough questions. I don’t recall his views on the answers to those questions being either “pro” or “con”.

As for these general movie sites, the only reviews of what footage has been shown thusfar that I have seen—on any site—seem to be overwhelmingly positive. Even reviewers who admitted going into it with the intention of ripping it apart were positively surprised.

So, let’s see…Comments made by people who haven’t seen any of it vs. reviews by people who have…Seems like a ‘no brainer’ to me.

Are Anthony and company likely to be personally enthusiastic about the film? Sure. Why not? They are Star Trek fans. Otherwise, why would they spend their time putting so much work into the best Star Trek information site on the internet?

Of course opinion on other movie sites is mixed (aside from the actual preliminary reviews—which are overwhelmingly positive)—-most people have preconceived notions about anything with the “Star Trek” label on it! That is a barrier which will only be overcome by news that this film is worth seeing, even if you aren’t already an established Star Trek fan.

Are you old enough to remember the initial fan reactions over the look of the uniforms in TWOK? The ‘fanon-breaking’ revelation that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise during the events depicted in “Space Seed”?

The only difference is, there wasn’t an internet on which to broadcast the initial reaction to some of those things which might be different. There are Star Trek fans who fear change, just as their are people in other demographics who do as well. Ultimately, much of that will be assuaged, so long as it is an entertaining film that, as the creators insist, maintains the “essence” of these legendary characters.

44. Izbot - January 8, 2009

29. bill hiro –
“Anything that looks like negative coverage is bad for business, thus there isn’t any.”

Uh, this isn’t an officially licensed site so there’s no need to worry about what’s ‘bad for business’. Anthony and staff don’t work for J.J. Abrams, Paramount or CBS. And there has been *plenty* of negative feedback alongside the good for this movie. Your conspiracy theory doesn’t add up.

45. Paul B. - January 8, 2009

“I don’t want this movie to end.” (sigh) I haven’t felt that way about a Trek film since The Voyage Home. I hope I feel that way about this new film; so far, I’m enjoying the thrill of anticipating new Star Trek in a way I haven’t since 1985 and the first news about TNG. (Sadly, I never grew to like TNG very much.)

Nimoy points out one of the main reasons I’m happy about the recast/reboot stuff; he saw another actor explore something in HIS character–something new after 40 years of being Spock! That’s why a new cast is exciting: they’ll bring new ideas and fresh approaches to the characters. More than any new technology, it’s that new take on classic characters that will make or break this film.

I don’t think it’s so important that they give us what we already know about these characters; the new cast has to give us something new, some insight into these people that makes us like them all the more.

46. Closettrekker - January 8, 2009

#41—“I love Nimoy & Spock but remember Nimoy was thrilled about the ST6 story too. Which was a very lame cold war story. Which I didn’t think was a good one at all. I hate when scifi movies mirror the latest news. No original Idea there. TV does it to death. ”

Actually, it was an allegory to some of the confusion and wranglings on both sides ‘after the end’ of the Cold War. It’s not my favorite Star Trek film, but “lame”? Compared to what? Certainly not its immediate predecessor!

I take it then, that you also do not like “A Private Little War”?

47. harley3k - January 8, 2009

RE: 28.
Doomsponge says: “It’s like claiming a band’s rubbish when they prodiuce twelve great albums and one bad album, and suddenly the bad album is the only thing that declares where the band is. ”

In this case it’s more like people suddenly hate the band based on a new album’s cover design; without even listening to the music.

It gets old.

48. Kruge - January 8, 2009

got to love the conspiracy theories of the hater wing. One of them in the Orci/Scientist thread was trying to claim that positive posters worked for Paramount. These people just cant get over the fact they they are in the minority. Star Trek is about optimism and so color me crazy…I am optimistic until I actually see the movie.

Sure the comments at Aint It Cool can get ugly, but it is actually pretty balanced there.

As for this site…you want cheerleading, remember startrek.com? And this article is about the magazine…that thing is a total cheerleading thing. I actually think this site is a lot more balanced towards coverage of all the trek stuff than sites like Gateworld or TheForce.net.

49. harley3k - January 8, 2009

RE: 32. Izbot says:
“Go back and watch the first six Trek movies and look closely at the Enterprise bridge. I changes radically from film to film (only exception is in Trek 2 & 3). The bridge in Trek 5 had beige carpet! In Trek 6 it had what looked like diamondplate steel flooring. The bridge seen for a few seconds at the end of Trek 4 looks nothing like what we saw in 5. And the bridge in TMP is also very different.
Get over it.”

Exactly.

I look forward to ST XX, when fans can look back on this movie and say the transporter sound effect in XX isn’t in canon with what we saw in IX.

50. screaming satellite - January 8, 2009

Does anyone know if Titan (or whoever) will be doing an official movie magazine (like they did for the TNG movies) or if those 3 issues are it?

51. krikzil (aka Lix) - January 8, 2009

‘Are you old enough to remember the initial fan reactions over the look of the uniforms in TWOK? The ‘fanon-breaking’ revelation that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise during the events depicted in “Space Seed”?

“Are you old enough to remember the initial fan reactions over the look of the uniforms in TWOK? The ‘fanon-breaking’ revelation that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise during the events depicted in “Space Seed”?”

So true. There’s been an “uproar” pretty much about every movie and series from my recollection. Some of the stuff that leaked about TMP freaked folks out but that was countered by the overwhelming excitement of just HAVING a movie. As for TWOK, oh my god, the hue and cry about Meyer making it “too militaristic” and Spock dying was huge. Course as Closettrekker points out, we didn’t have the internets then. There was actually controversy in fandomland about Spoock being resurrected in #3 since it turned out his death was done so well in TWOK. TVH was chided for being ‘too commercial”. And TNG was a huge drama for the same reasons as this coming movie. Voyager took a lot of heat cause a lot of folks didn’t like Janeway’s voice!

Heh, I personally have no problem with people being critical. I find a lot of the posts very interesting and they make me think about things I hadn’t considered a lot of times. I don’t like it when folks get personal or nasty of course but I see nothing wrong with a good debate. It seems to go part and parcel with Trek fans — the love of minutiae — and genre fans in particular.

52. Scott Xavier - January 8, 2009

I could only imagine an actor coming out and saying: “You know at first glance I was excited by this script, but now after filming I believe it is a steamy pile. In fact I believe the actors are too young and nothing like we were in the original series. Although I make a percentage every time you go see this, PLEASE DON’T go see terminator Salvation instead…”

53. sb - January 8, 2009

A little bit of reminiscence from the Bygone Era of Fandom Past…

I can remember one — and *only* one — Star Trek film whose coming was not heralded by fannish screaming, whining, bitching, complaining, agita, baked beans and Spam. It was, if you take the strictest possible interpretation, the ONLY Star Trek project ever made since the Original Series that has never, as far as I know, been accused of the slightest bit of “non-canonicity” (which probably isn’t even a real word, but work with me here) and is, in fact, the only one of the series where every plot point, costume and set alteration, or character arc was scrupulously respectful of every previously established tenet of the Original Series.

That movie is also widely thought to be terrible, which indeed it was, and is. It was called STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE.

Put that in your canon cannon and fire it. :)

54. Scott Xavier - January 8, 2009

As a climax statement: “Yes, I think maybe I am too old to be playing a hero, but as long as they pay me millions, I’ll keep cashing the checks and doing these press junkets.”

i would love to hear what the real word is about these movies.

55. sb - January 8, 2009

54.

I’m just curious…

You don’t believe Nimoy’s positive viewpoint of the picture, because he’s in it and so must have an ulterior motive. Okay. Fair enough. I don’t agree, but that doesn’t mean anything; it’s a defensible argument by all means.

Similarly, I’m sure you don’t accept anything that JJ Abrams, the screenwriters, the other cast members, or in fact anyone directly connected with the picture have to say about it, probably for the same reasons. All right, I’m hip.

And I guess you don’t accept the raves we’ve heard from Kevin Smith or Edgar Wright, since… um… they’re friends of the director. So that makes them suspect too. Oooookay….

And then there are all those members of the foreign press corps who saw JJ’s 20-minute dog and pony show at the end of last year… most of whom came away and wrote what were more or less rave reviews for their various papers… of course, they’re journalists, so you can’t trust them… I guess… and possibly Paramount served them drinks and cupcakes with the Starfleet logo on them, which I guess amounts to a sort of payoff… I guess… and erm… let me see… we all know that journalists would NEVER think of writing bad things about movie footage that they hated… um… right?

Just exactly whose word WOULD you accept that the picture is turning out well? Or in fact will you only believe someone who tells you it’s terrible?

Like I say… just curious…

56. Star Trackie - January 8, 2009

That magazine is always fun to look through, and has top notch graphics, but it’s crazy expensive and most the info has already been covered online. But it’s good to see one back on the magazine racks. If they’d drop that $10 price tag down, maybe they wouldn’t stay ON the racks.

57. AJ - January 8, 2009

47:

” RE: 28.
Doomsponge says: “It’s like claiming a band’s rubbish when they prodiuce twelve great albums and one bad album, and suddenly the bad album is the only thing that declares where the band is. ”

In this case it’s more like people suddenly hate the band based on a new album’s cover design; without even listening to the music.

It gets old.”

I had to think about this one. I’m an old Kiss fan from the ’70s. They did 6 great studio albums and two great live albums of pretty basic arena-style hard-rock. They then released 4 coordinated solo LP’s of which only one sucked wind. Then they came out in 1979 with “Dynasty,” whose only hit was a disco song.

They truly suddenly sucked because of that album, and everything they did since then sucked. Now they tour as an oldies band, and barely touch anything written after 1977.

To give them some credit, they created a new fanbase outside of N. America, but they ceased to matter to the core base, which in their case, was lots of record buyers.

Trek is all about reinvention, but not tossing the formula. The QM shtick allows the new team some latitude, but they haven’t gone disco by any means, and I enjoy the debates.

58. Kirk09 - January 8, 2009

#36–boborci–i already have a brilliant idea for this film’s sequel…do the mirror universe version of this film…how mirror kirk became captain of the terran flaghip iss enterprise and how the good nero from mirror 24th century goes back to well…you get the idea XD

ANYONE WHO LIKES THIS IDEA PUT YOUR STAMP OF APPROVAL BY ADDING 1701 AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEYRE ABOUT

59. Trekee - January 8, 2009

@22 Charles
Yes, and I do think it’s mostly positive, but there is a large group of fans, including canonistas and traditionalists who are against the idea of a reboot film of any flavour, change is hard.

So my point was that having Leonard Nimoy on the charm offensive has surely helped sway many doubters.

Personally, I like the fact that he is unifying what could be considered polarized views. It’s very Spock.

60. mntrekfan - January 8, 2009

I started getting the magazine but stopped after reading stuff that I already knew from reading this site. I miss The Communicator and the US Star Trek mag that was licensened by Paramount. The would do all those great graphics with the ships and alien bio’s, etc.

61. Doomsponge - January 8, 2009

@#32. Actually, I was belittling those with that ‘I hate it based on what the bridge looks like’ viewpoihnt; I actually agree with you on that point. I happen to kinda like the new stuff. I’m in the ‘hated it, then mellowed to it, then love it!’ camp.

And remember, kids. A nice person will tell you they don’t like something. An arse will tell you that there’s a conspiracy to make them like it.

62. krikzil (aka Lix) - January 8, 2009

AJ — KISS. Oh, I loved them. My brother was a roadie too!

“So my point was that having Leonard Nimoy on the charm offensive has surely helped sway many doubters. ”

Just like having Shatner do Generations and “pass the baton”. Ultimately, it’s always about getting butts in the seats any way you can. ;)

63. Thorny - January 8, 2009

58… “I could only imagine an actor coming out and saying: “You know at first glance I was excited by this script, but now after filming I believe it is a steamy pile.”

Usually, when something like that happens, the actors involved simply refuse to do any promotion work or interviews about the movie at all. They don’t go out and trash the movie, because that will end up just getting more attention to the movie, and that’s the last thing they want.

64. sean - January 8, 2009

#53

I’m a little confused. TMP radically redesigned EVERYTHING. Fans were in an uproar over the redesigned Enterprise, the new uniforms, the sets, etc. It was over analyzed in much the same way every Trek movie has been. I agree with your general sentiment, though.

65. AJ - January 8, 2009

58:

So much for optimism…

In the canonical 24th century mirror universe, Spock is dead, I believe.

66. krikzil (aka Lix) - January 8, 2009

“Just exactly whose word WOULD you accept that the picture is turning out well? Or in fact will you only believe someone who tells you it’s terrible?”

I’ll never understand why anyone else’s opinion about anything is given so much weight or creates so much drama. Who cares what a critic has to say or another poster online? It’s what YOU [not you specifically, I mean everyone] think that matters ultimately. How can a negative post “ruin” the movie for anyone? I don’t get why the super positive reviews bug others either.

67. Trek Nerd Central - January 8, 2009

#63 Thorny, you make a good point, but it’s also true that actors are often (usually?) required by contract to promote their movies.

That said, it’s pretty easy to discern which actors are sincere about the praise they’re dishing out, and which are damning-by-faint-praise. Unless I’m a total sap, which is always possible, it seems to me all these folks are gushing in earnest.

68. Orb of the Emissary - January 8, 2009

1701

:-)

69. DELICIOUS - January 8, 2009

Mr. Nimoy, you never fail to bring such deliciousness in your use of the word “delicious”. If I may be so bold, I think you are delectable in a delicious sort of way. May you continue to boldly go where no delicious man has gone before! MMMMM, DELICIOUS!

70. SB - January 8, 2009

#64…

That’s not how I remember it. I recall being at a convention in the summer of 79 — I was 19 then — and Paramount had sent Jesco von Puttkamer, the NASA scientist who’d acted as technical advisor to TMP, to the convention with a big ol’ pack of publicity slides from the movie. The slides got a *terrific* reaction from the crowd; it was the first set of official stills anyone had seen, and everyone thought it looked great (little did we know), and of course we all gathered in packs after Jesco’s lecture to jabber about what we’d seen. Everyone was optimistic and hopeful — — and I recall Trek fandom in general remaining that way until about a half hour into the movie, when we collectively realized it was a turkey. That’s how I recall it, anyway. I admit we’re talking about a distance of about thirty years.

But you do see my original point, which is that as far as the whole — ugh — canon thing goes, everyone pretty much accepted the picture as flowing naturally from what had gone before. Okay, sure, the Klingons had suddenly suffered an outbreak of turtles on their heads, and Vulcan suddenly acquired a whole bunch of moons, but by and large everyone went with the idea that the ship had been refit, the Starfleet Quartermaster had mysteriously developed an inexplicable fondness for footy pajamas, and none of it was greeted with shrill screams of “NOT CANON! THIS IS A DISASTER!” Which had absolutely no bearing on the inescapable fact that ST-TMP is a steamin’ pile….

71. Lt.Commander Dasalle - January 8, 2009

SB speak for yourself when you call STTMP …”A TURKEY”.

I’d bet you Credits to Navy Beans …,,that many of us here who saw the movie on Friday December 7th 1979 ,were impressed enough to go back and see it a 2nd, 3rd and 4rth time, if not more!

Fact is …STTMP WAS a bonafide Box office Hit, whether YOU like it or not, Mister…

Can’t wait for the new one!!!!

(Credits to Navy Beans or not btw.)

Lt. Cmdr. Dasalle

72. SB - January 8, 2009

71:

Lots of movies have been “boxoffice hits.” Lots of them have been utter pieces of crap. (I can’t be the only person in the world who is mystified by Adam Sandler’s career, surely.)

Success in the marketplace doesn’t automatically mean quality: it simply means that there are enough people in the world who will go see a piece of crap, sufficient to make it turn a profit.

73. Brett Campbell - January 8, 2009

72 – Excellent points. But I would say MOST of today’s BO hits are utter POCs.

I also don’t understand why Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt aren’t confined to magazine covers only. IMHO neither of these pretty boys can act their way out of the proverbial paper bag.

As for Sandler, he should at best be driving a garbage truck with Pauly Shore.

74. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and won't let anybody push around TMP - January 8, 2009

72 sb

I’m about your age, and I remember TMP in ’79 context. I’ll agree that there wasn’t as much hoo ha about the redesign, but as others have pointed out, there was no internet. I imagine there WOULD have been a bigger kerfuffle over the TMP changes had this site existed then.

As to TMP itself, I think you go too far. TMP was a disappointment in some ways, but what it lacked in quality, it compensated for in sentimentality. ST was back, at least.

Fact: to this day, TMP remains the franchise champ. It sold more tickets, meaning more people saw it in a theater, than any subsequent ST film. Any. One. And I don’t buy the Sandler Fallacy, namely that stupid people make crap movies popular. A strong argument can be made that TMP is the most epic, most thoughtful, and enjoys the best production design of the entire franchise.

The Director’s Edition cannot be seriously described as a “steaming pile”. That’s hyperbole.

As the years go by, only the TOS based movies stand up to repeat viewings. And as more years go by, TMP is holding up better and better. Go watch it again.

75. SB - January 8, 2009

74 Gene L

I’ve seen the movie several times over the years, the most recent being the Director’s Edition, and my opinion remains largely unchanged. And before you start crowing about the fact that I’ve seen a “pile of crap” several times, let me head you off. There are things *in* ST-TMP that I enjoy. There are also things in, say, TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE that I enjoy. But that doesn’t make them good movies. I would say, personally, that TEENAGERS has the slight edge; it’s every bit as pretentious, badly acted, and poorly written as ST-TMP is, and it didn’t have to spend 42 million dollars to achieve those qualities.

Let’s face it: very few of the STAR TREK films are, on their own merits, very good. I think Brent Spiner observed, quite correctly, that no one ever asks whether these are objectively good movies: the only question anyone ever asks is, are they good STAR TREK movies — as if the very fact that they’re Trek somehow excuses them from having to tell an entertaining, plausible, well-acted story in two hours.

As far as I’m concerned, only one Trek film stands as a quality piece of filmmaking on its own, and could be judged as such even if it had nothing to do with a starship captain named Kirk and the crew of a ship named Enterprise. That’s the one most people would pick as the best all-around film of the series, WRATH OF KHAN (and the very fact that it is the hands-down favorite in most quarters seems indicative, to my mind).

Clearly you don’t agree, but neither of us was put on this earth to convince the other of our point of view, so I doubt either of us will lose sleep over it. I would say, however, that your out-of-hand rejection of the so-called Sandler Fallacy indicates more wishful thinking that objective observation.

76. Illogical - January 8, 2009

74. As the years go by, only the TOS based movies stand up to repeat viewings. And as more years go by, TMP is holding up better and better. Go watch it again.

Here Here! I agree.

77. Enterprise - January 8, 2009

Ah haters, they keep websites alive. Stay Classy, haters!

78. Jason P Hunt - co-creator of COMET TALES - January 8, 2009

I think the argument over the TMP redesign is purely academic. That was covered in the story – it’s an upgrade for the new ship components, plain and simple. Advances in technology. The uniforms were redone to make room for the medical monitor belt buckles.

I actually like the fact that they added more department colors in the movies. It felt more realistic. Just look at a US Navy carrier. How many colors are on the flight deck alone?

Having said that, I’m still not liking the iBridge. It looks too modern, compared to the time period for the story. But I’m reserving final judgement until I actually see the movie. Same goes for the ship exterior. I’m not stoked about it, but it’s still early, and the movie’s not out yet.

As to the question of box office vs. quality, I’m in the same camp as SB with regard to his opinion that high dollars don’t make a good movie. The Burton & Co. Batman movies are evidence of that. I personally think they were all crap, but they had such eye-pounding visuals, I think everyone was distracted from the poor scripts and lousy acting.

But again, that’s my opinion – which I consider to be somewhat informed since I studied film in school, and make movies now.

79. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and is going to bed - January 8, 2009

75 sb

OK, let’s talk about the Sandler Fallacy in the morning. I think there is an interesting conversation there, but I’m turning in. You make some points with which I agree, though.

Cheers.

80. Brett Campbell - January 8, 2009

76 – Hmmm… It sounds like you hate haters.

Welcome to the club!

It’s the only one that will have us as members, although we hate to admit it! ;)

81. YARN - January 8, 2009

I’m glad that Sylar apprenticed under old-Spock, but would rather that old-Spock had stayed off screen.

82. S. John Ross - January 8, 2009

Man, now I’m craving Zeitgeist. Wonder if anyone delivers it at this hour?

83. SB - January 8, 2009

79

Cheers. G’nite. :)

84. Lt.Commander Dasalle - January 8, 2009

Someday in the distant future when SB finds himself in his rocking chair @ the nursing home.. SB will be in a holodeck 3-d sensor-round version of STTMP and as SB travels with Spock deep into VGER from Enterprise in his own thruster suit…SB will at long last admit that STTMP is after all the best movie of the franchise indeed…

Credits to Navy Beans …Says I’m right!

;-)

Mr. Chekov says we put a dent in the force field…please refer to the TOS Halloween Episode, Catspaw, for further details.

85. sb - January 9, 2009

84:

Someday in the distant future, when “DeSalle” grows up enough, he will realize it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what someone else’s opinion is of a movie he likes. He will just go on liking what he likes and stop bothering about whatever someone else has to say about it.

86. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and wants the Giants to beat the Eagles - January 9, 2009

Hey 80 (BC),

You seem to imply that I am a “hater”. Not sure where you are getting that from, nor do I know what a “hater” is. I was just standing athwart the TMP denigration, yelling “Stop”.

SB,

Good morning. I don’t reject the Sandler Fallacy outright. There are, indeed, bad films that pander to the lowest common denominator that make wheelbarrowsfull of cash. But you imply a direct correlation; that popular movies must be crap, because they are popular, and I was pointing out that that is the Fallacy of Accident, because it is based on a generalization. (A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.).

Anyway, let’s go point by point:

“…TEENAGERS has the slight edge; it’s every bit as pretentious, badly acted, and poorly written as ST-TMP is, and it didn’t have to spend 42 million dollars to achieve those qualities.”

ME: OK, You seem offended by the $42 million. Most of that budget wasn’t spent directly on TMP, of course. Paramount rolled all their costs from trying to launch the TV network around Phase II into the TMP price tag. Their biggest mistake was locking into the hard premiere date, which rushed the whole thing. It is amazing it came out as well as it did, honestly. I wouldn’t go as far as calling TMP pretentious or poorly acted, but the writing definitely is from want. Again, it was rushed.

“…I think Brent Spiner observed, quite correctly, that no one ever asks whether these are objectively good movies: the only question anyone ever asks is, are they good STAR TREK movies — as if the very fact that they’re Trek somehow excuses them from having to tell an entertaining, plausible, well-acted story in two hours.”

ME: TNG guy. I don’t watch TNG movies. But I agree that any movie needs to be entertaining. More on that in a minute…

“…As far as I’m concerned, only one Trek film stands as a quality piece of filmmaking on its own, and could be judged as such even if it had nothing to do with a starship captain named Kirk and the crew of a ship named Enterprise. That’s the one most people would pick as the best all-around film of the series, WRATH OF KHAN (and the very fact that it is the hands-down favorite in most quarters seems indicative, to my mind).”

ME: Can’t argue with the popularity of Khan. Who doesn’t have a soft spot for it?

Overall, I simply disagree with the idea that TMP was awful. Even you admit it has its moments. And the DE condenses those moments. To each his own.

Your larger point about movie quality vs popularity is more interesting. For me, the test is simple: Was I entertained/interested? I realize that I am in for a different experience when I see Lawrence of Arabia or Tommy Boy. All I want is to be entertained. Who wants everything to be an Ingmar Bergman death-off?

Two quick examples:

Capote: My wife and I caught this on cable the other night, having heard about Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance. Obvoiusly a “high-brow” targeted film. It was well done, and held my attention. Had its moments, but needed editing. About two-thirds of the way in I would have paid cash for a car chase.

I happened to enjoy the latest Bourne movie. The fact that the villains turned out to be a cartoon, garden variety “evil republicans” was annoying, but I still enjoyed it. Lazy writing, but you take the good with the bad. I’ve actually never seen a Sandler movie, but the only hurdle he has to clear is “did I laugh?”. If he’s funny, he deserves the cash. Which brings up the argument of comedy vs. drama. Comedy is exponentially harder than drama, and gets no critical respect. But that is another post…

87. I am Kurok! - January 9, 2009

Jolene Blalock looks absolutely smokin’ in the mirror universe. . . .

88. screaming satellite - January 9, 2009

Does anyone know if Titan (or whoever) will be doing an official movie magazine (like they did for the TNG movies…and like the way starlog produced magaines for movies II-VII)

or are those 3 issues it?

thanks

89. Keith R.A. DeCandido - January 9, 2009

#12: While I do not agree with your characterization of the magazine — I think Paul Simpson has done an excellent job, much better than his predecessor or the fan club magazine — but I do appreciate the kind words about the MU timeline, which was great fun to put together. *grin* So thanks!

#53: This is the best post I’ve read on the Internet all day. *laughs* Bravo!

90. Closettrekker - January 9, 2009

#53—-I love TMP.

91. sb - January 9, 2009

#86…

Mornin, Gene.

Okay. Let’s clear up some Stuff!

“I don’t reject the Sandler Fallacy outright… but you imply a direct correlation; that popular movies must be crap, because they are popular, and I was pointing out that that is the Fallacy of Accident, because it is based on a generalization.”

I didn’t imply that; you inferred it.

My exact words: “Lots of movies have been ‘boxoffice hits.’ Lots of them have been utter pieces of crap.” By its very wording, that implies that there are lots of boxffice hits that *aren’t* crap, so you’re reading an implication I simply never made.

I would never be so foolish as to say that something has to be garbage simply because it’s popular. It’s equally foolish to use something’s popularity as sole proof of its quality, as our Mister DeSalle was attempting, and that’s what I was addressing.

Onward:

“OK, You seem offended by the $42 million. Most of that budget wasn’t spent directly on TMP, of course….”

Yep, I’m aware that all of the development costs of PHASE II was charged to the final film, and nope, the size of the budget doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

What you should have been paying attention to was not the dollar figure but my comparison to TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE. What I was trying to say, and what I suppose I could have said more clearly, goes something like this:

Here we’ve got two movies. One has a tiny budget, was written and directed by people of marginal talent, has a silly script, terrible acting, and some of the least special effects ever. The second one was produced, written, directed, acted and designed by a horde of seasoned Hollywood professionals, many of them with manifest levels of great talent that had been displayed many times previously, and had the backing of a major motion picture studio behind it. And yet, it’s talky, dull, derivative, monstrously slow in parts, atrociously acted in others, and downright laughable in still others. TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE has several really good excuses for being a terrible movie; STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE has none.

i think that clears up the major places where we were talking past each other.

Oh, and one more thing: I get the sense that you’re forming a picture of me as an elitist snob who turns up his nose at mass-audience pure entertainment in favor of some idea of highfalutin quality. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, as bad as TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE is, I absolutely adore it, in the same way one loves a retarded child. My movie shelves contain everything from ALPHAVILLE to ZARDOZ, from Bond to Bergman. I love great films and awful ones, classics and clunkers.

Oh, and I really wanted to love CAPOTE, too, since I’d read and enjoyed the biography it was based on. But like you, I started to wish by the halfway point that everyone wasn’t taking themselves SOOOOOO BLEEDIN SERIOUSLY, and I would have sold my mother for the Three Stooges to blunder in and start a pie fight.

92. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and wants the Giants to beat the Eagles - January 9, 2009

91

That “Mornin’ Gene” you wrote reminded me of the old Warner Bros. cartoon with Sam the Sheepdog and Ralph the Wolf…made me laugh.

“Mornin’ Sam.”

“Mornin’ Ralph.” Classic!

Nice note. Love that you picked up my incorrect inferrence from your imperfect implication.

I get your points about TMP. I just like it. (I wish I had the ecomomy of words as closettrekker in post #90.) I just lump all the TOS episodes, cartoons, and movies together. There are good episodes and bad, but they are all ST, and I enjoy them all to some degree.

Never thought you were a snob. Anybody brave enough to actually use the word “retarded” in 2009 is OK in my book. Death to PC! (which is why I never liked TNG, but there’s another thread…) I just picked up on the TMP criticism, and went into defense mode.

Capote would have been improved immeasurably with a little less sympathy for the murderer. And a pie fight.

Coon out.

93. sb - January 9, 2009

A PIE FIGHT???

THAT’S NOT CANON!!!!!

THIS IS A DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!

(hee hee)

94. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - January 9, 2009

74. As the years go by, only the TOS based movies stand up to repeat viewings. And as more years go by, TMP is holding up better and better. Go watch it again.

75. Here Here! I agree.

90. I love TMP.

Count me in.

95. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and wants the Giants to beat the Eagles - January 9, 2009

94. I Am Morg Not Eymorg – January 9, 2009
74. As the years go by, only the TOS based movies stand up to repeat viewings. And as more years go by, TMP is holding up better and better. Go watch it again.

75. Here Here! I agree.

90. I love TMP.

Count me in.

ME: I smell a movement!

96. sb - January 9, 2009

95: I smell it too… but it may be a bowel movement. (BADUMP BUMP!)

No, but seriously folks. Like I said, there are some swell moments in STAR TREK: THE MOTION SICK — er, PICTURE. Fr’instance:

1. Bill Shatner’s single worst performance as Captain Kirk.
2. Brilliantly conceived special effects with enormous matte lines on them.
3. Persis Khambatta, a lovely actress with the acting ability of a snail darter.
4. Stephen Collins, a perfectly serviceable performer under more salutary circumstances. The only reason he’s not wearing a tee shirt reading WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING IN THIS MOVIE? is that it’s written all over his face.
5. A subtle and touching (yes, I really mean this) performance by Leonard Nimoy, whose love for the franchise is so great that he appeared in the film despite his conviction that the script was terrible. (Note: the few places where the script ISN’T terrible were contributed by him.)
6. Robert Wise, normally a wonderful director, being reduced to the level of traffic manager.
7. The Director’s Edition, which even I must confess makes a hitherto unwatchable movie bearable, if not actually good.

Aw, don’t get so upset, everyone. I hate because I love…

97. Brett Campbell - January 9, 2009

86 – I was responding to what I thought was post #76 last night, but now looks to be #77. Really didn’t have you in mind at all. Sorry if I offended you, but I wasn’t even thinking about you.

I was only trying to be a bit clever with some wordplay and add a little levity to some of the … er … intensity that goes on in these threads sometimes. But, as clever wordplay seems to be a bit outside me jurisdiction(ary), I’ll stop. At least for a little while.

Peace be with you, Mr. Coon.

98. Kirk09 - January 9, 2009

#65– a clone of mirror spock, implanted with his memories…goes back in time….as for the optimism thing…roddenberry conceived the mirror universe as a cautionary tale to warn us what might happen if we make THE WRONG choices, which is all the more needed now…

99. Kirk09 - January 9, 2009

#63—-I NEVER SAID “I could only imagine an actor coming out and saying: “You know at first glance I was excited by this script, but now after filming I believe it is a steamy pile.”… PLZ CORRECT YOUR ERROR

100. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - January 9, 2009

96. sb:

I believe the only proper response to that is a good’ ol Bronx cheer. So tbbbpplllttt.

101. sb - January 9, 2009

100:

It’s so nice to see that the art of conversation isn’t dead.

102. Brett Campbell - January 9, 2009

100 – I always wondered how you were supposed to spell a Bronx cheer. Thanks for clearing that up.

Speaking of clearing, how do you spell clearing one’s throat?

103. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and wants the Giants to beat the Eagles - January 9, 2009

102

No offense taken. I’m a big boy. Just goofin’

As John Wayne says in “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon”, never apologize, it’s a sign of weakness!

Clearing a throat is spelled “ahem”.

And, as a NYer, I disagree with the spelling of the Bronx Cheer a little. “tbbbpplllttt” is very good, but it needs a “th” sound at the beginning.
And moisture.

104. Brett Campbell - January 9, 2009

103 – No, “ahem” is what is sown around the bottom of a skirt. Oops. There’s my dreadful wordplay at work again. Or is wordwork at play?

I think Archie Bunker used to spell his Bronx cheers with at least two “t’s” and three “h’s.”

105. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and is going to bed - January 9, 2009

“I think Archie Bunker used to spell his Bronx cheers with at least two “t’s” and three “h’s.””

Ah, but “All in the Family” was set in Queens, not the Bronx. According to canon.

106. Brett Campbell - January 9, 2009

True. It was in Queens, but the Bronx cheer was Archie’s “universal translator.”

Plus, he would have dismissed all canonites as dingbats and meatheads. I’m not sayin’ I would. But you know that lovable ol’ bigot.

107. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and is posting quite a lot lately - January 9, 2009

106 “Plus, he would have dismissed all canonites as dingbats and meatheads. I’m not sayin’ I would. But you know that lovable ol’ bigot.”

They’d be told to “stifle.” “Dummy up, you.”

You got me with the hem gag.

108. Darfyn - January 9, 2009

I’m still a little confused about these 2 magazines – I have seen both the UK version and the US version (replaces the Communicator) on the newstand at the same time , and they both seem different .
Regarding content quality , I give both these mags the thumbs up ! Lots of interesting articles and content !
The only real competitor is Trek Movie , and that’s because it’s online , which by course includes many contributors , and the open feedback which is always interesting !

109. Canon Schmanon - January 10, 2009

How come one of the first guys to comment in these stories always whines about not seeing enough photos? It’s like the guys who desperately need to see more photos stalks this site, and as soon as a story is posted, they strike! It’s like they’ve needed a new story to repeat a tiresome mantra.

Anyway, I’ve had concerns about Quinto, but I suppose if he’s doing a good enough job to get that kind of praise from Nimoy, I should just shut up.

110. One of My Favorite TrekMovie Comment Posts « ab initio. ab intra. - January 10, 2009

[…] Trek, TV, sf   From a user who used the handle of “sb” on TrekMovie, who said this in a discussion of the upcoming JJ Abrams Star Trek film: A little bit of reminiscence from the Bygone Era of Fandom Past…I can remember one — and […]

111. Brett Campbell - January 10, 2009

107 – Did you ever the “AitF” episode where Edith was going through menopause and she shouted at Archie to “stifle!”

It was hilarious and the look on Archie’s face priceless.

Oops. Better get back to “Star Trek.”

I hope the new movie will be good. But I gotta admit I’m going to have a tough time seeing new actors in these roles, as TOS was always my favorite TV show from its original NBC days on.

There, that’s my “profound” comment for the day.

112. Gabriel Bell - January 10, 2009

500 quatlutes on Gene L. Coon, winner of the above debate. Sorry, SB. You were a close second in a two shuttle race.

113. 1701-J - January 10, 2009

I’m always amazed at how passionate people can be (myself included). The reason there wasn’t the huge debates about canon vs. non-canon when TMP came out, aside from the fact that there was no internet, and aside from the fact that they adressed it in the movie itself, was because there wasn’t the canon the way we have it now. There was 3 seasons of a TV show that was remarkably inconsistent within itself. Now we have 40 years of continuity that has been maintained (in most cases, though I still can’t figure out what happened with Chief O’Brien’s rank through the years).

The problem now, as I see it, is different from 1979. In TMP, they weren’t completely reinventing the whole universe. The movie franchise showed the same characters as they evolved, and were played by the same actors, and produced by the same people.

But this new movie is going back to the beginning and starting from scratch. After watching the trailers, all I could think of was “Lost in Space”. None of the major players in the franchise since the beginning of TNG are involved, and the trailers I saw seem to show a standard big-budget blockbuster movie, at the expense of what Trek is supposed to be (apologies to Brent Spiner). Obviously I havent’ seen the film yet, but it seems to me that Roddenberry’s vision of the future isn’t part of it.

I do plan on seeing it, but I can’t say I have high expectations.

114. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and is posting quite a lot lately - January 10, 2009

” 112. Gabriel Bell – January 10, 2009

500 quatlutes on Gene L. Coon, winner of the above debate. Sorry, SB. You were a close second in a two shuttle race.”

Thank you. But we are all one big happy fleet.

And I don’t like to lose.

115. Spock - January 11, 2009

please paramount if you read this
make a movie about riker on the titan

116. Cosmos BD - January 16, 2009

I just believe the movie could have been made for both fans and none fans alike, without making a reboot. This way everybody would have been satisfied. Unfortunatly!

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