Abrams and Orci On Fan Reaction + Bob Meets Brannon | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams and Orci On Fan Reaction + Bob Meets Brannon January 16, 2009

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

We have another Abrams and Orci interview coming out of the Fox TCA event held earlier this week. Access Hollywood chatted to the pair about what it is like to work together on Fringe and Trek, how it felt for Trek to be completed (which Abrams confirmed), and their anticipation of fan reaction to Star Trek. See the video below (which includes an interesting Brannon Braga sighting).

 

 

VIDEO

Access Hollywood talks to Orci and Abrams about Fringe and Star Trek.


Some key quotes:

Abrams and Orci on if they are anxious over fan reaction to Star Trek:

Orci: Yeah. You never want to be so overly confident to think "yeah they are going to blow it away." We are not smug, but pretty confident.

Abrams: I am not worried about fans of the show liking the movie. Fans of the show have seen it and had really great reactions, but I am as excited and nervous — kind of butterfies which I get about everything — I hope people like it. You work that long and hard on something and you don’t want it to be trashed [laughs].

Abrams on working with Nimoy:

Abrams:Leonard Nimoy is in there and is the greatest. He was amazing. It was the weirdest thing, I knew I was going to be working with Nimoy, but the first day…it was surreal to direct him as Spock, because what the hell am I doing there? This guy has been doing it for forty years. It’s like "I think Spock would…" [laughs]

Braga-Orci summit?
By the way if you watch closely at 2:05 you can see long-time Star Trek writer/producer (and screenwriter of two Trek feature films) Brannon Braga (who works on FOX’s 24) say "it was good to meet you" to new Star Trek screenwriter Bob Orci. So apparently they had a chance to meet for the first time and chat at this FOX event. Oh to be a fly on the wall for that meeting of the past and future of Trek.


Braga and Orci – what did they talk about?

 

Comments

1. Gorandius1256 - January 16, 2009

Don’t worry JJ If it’s Star Trek, We’ll like it.

2. Imrahil - January 16, 2009

I like that you guys excerpt quotes in text from these movies, because I -hate- watching movies on websites.

3. Danpaine - January 16, 2009

Enterprise was Star Trek, and I didn’t like most of that…..

4. ObiWanCon - January 16, 2009

I jump out of my seat with fright when I saw Brannon Braga go past J.J and Bob that’s very scary.

5. Aaron R. - January 16, 2009

LOL Are we on B & B sighting alert now? Cool to hear that they are confident.

6. Yammer - January 16, 2009

Brannon Braga wrote some fine TNG eps — “Cause and Effect” is his, isn’t it? The downfall of TV Trek was Voyager.

7. Wolf Trek - January 16, 2009

I would say that the downfall of TV Trek was the first and second seasons of Enterprise.

8. GaryP - January 16, 2009

Last week’s 24 episode was written by Manny Coto and Brannon Bragga. FYI

9. Closettrekker - January 16, 2009

Abrams: “I am not worried about fans of the show liking the movie. Fans of the show have seen it and had really great reactions, but I am as excited and nervous — kind of butterfies which I get about everything — I hope people like it.”

Are we not people?

:)

I am a huge fan of the Original Series and 5 of the 6 feature films centered around those characters. I would like to see it and a have a great reaction too!

It’s fun to hear of a guy who (at least to my knowledge) has never made anything that bombed, and yet still gets nervous about its reception.

” You work that long and hard on something and you don’t want it to be trashed.”

Then I hope he doesn’t take a cue from Bob and spend time reading comments on this site (J/K). There are people here who trash it everyday without even having seen it!

10. THX-1138 - January 16, 2009

I know it’s quite popular to cap on Berman and Braga and blame them for the “demise” of Star Trek, but it really isn’t accurate. They kept Star Trek alive for many years. Did they make some bad decisions with the direction of the franchise? Certainly. But after Gene passed away, they kept Trek on TV for a long time. And say what you will about Voyager and Enterprise, they did have their fans. And TNG was a pretty popular show. I don’t think everyone is being honest when they come on here and say they just hated TNG. When TNG first aired I was among the biggest detractors. How dare they replace my favorite characters with new ones! And the first season stories were a bit shaky. But I came around. The story writing got better. And Patrick Stewart was and is a compelling actor to watch.

And now I’m waiting to be won over by the new movie. But they have to earn it from me.

11. Spockalicious - January 16, 2009

Abrams looks like Rick Moranis…

12. Closettrekker - January 16, 2009

#3—”Enterprise was Star Trek, and I didn’t like most of that…..”;

and,

#7—”I would say that the downfall of TV Trek was the first and second seasons of Enterprise.”

Funny how that works for people of different tastes.

I cared for very little TNG, some of DS9, none of VOY, and only one of the 4 TNG-era movies (I found FC to be ok), but I did like ENT. Go figure.

The first two seasons of TOS and the last season of ENT (minus the ‘TNG nightmare’ finale) may have been the high point of TV Trek for me— qualitywise.

13. Trek Nerd Central - January 16, 2009

I have to say, I’m touched that everyone involved in the movie is giving so much thought to what hardcore fans are gonna think of it. Very sensitive of them to care!

For me, it’s a simple equation.

Good movie = happy Trek Nerd
Bad movie = unhappy Trek Nerd.

14. Zim - January 16, 2009

Can’t get the video to load. But the line that JJ said about not worrying about fan’s reactions? Isnt’t that typical? He didn’t make this movie for Star Trek fans anyway. So why should he care what we think?

15. edubya - January 16, 2009

Trek is Trek….it’s all good. I enjoyed every episode of every series and enjoyed every movie. Some were better than others, of course, but any trek is better than no trek at all!

16. Star Trackie - January 16, 2009

New age Roddenberry, Rick Berman and Braga etal, turned Star Trek into an abomination that I hardly recognized. I’ll never give them props for that.

But to give credit where it’s due…Coto and Braga’s entry of 24′s premiere rocked the Kasbah. Braga can write…he just can’t write original recipe Trek.

17. C. Colson - January 16, 2009

This entire project look like crap to me… Abrams should have stayed away from this if his intention was to change thing around so much. Granted I have not seen it but no one else has and praising it whitout having seen it is starnge to me. I, on the other hand, am critisising on the basis of the redesigning of the ships and sets and on the fact that the Trek universe storyline is being messed up. Uhura should not be there, nor should Checov and the Romulans. I JJ’s not happy with TOS TREK the way it has been put together he should have invented something new on his own. I am very dissapointed in everything I have seen so far…

18. Closettrekker - January 16, 2009

#14—-I think you may have misread the quote.

Here it is again:

“I am not worried about fans of the show liking the movie. Fans of the show have seen it and had really great reactions, but I am as excited and nervous — kind of butterfies which I get about everything — I hope people like it.”

The reason he gives for not being worried is that fans of the show have already had great reactions to it. Still, he has always maintained that not every fan is going to be pleased.

he also told us here at trekmovie.com that he hoped to make a film that both established fans and mainstream moviegoers would appreciate.

Yet you seem only to remember the comment about not making the film for Star Trek fans, but for fans of movies. That’s interesting.

trekmovie.com has a fantastic archive section where you can find plenty of reason not to judge his position solely upon one sentence.

Check it out.

19. sean - January 16, 2009

#17

“Granted I have not seen it but no one else has and praising it whitout having seen it is starnge to me.”

So are we not counting the hundreds of reporters & fans that saw Abrams special screenings around the world? Or Kevin Smith?

20. Mike Stivic - January 16, 2009

It’s an eerie coincidence– as soon as Bob and J.J. start talking about Star Trek, Brannon walks by and talks to Bob. I was watching the video clip not having read that Brannon walks by and it was like, woah, here they just start talking Trek and there’s Brannon!

21. Planet Pandro - January 16, 2009

#15. -Agreed. I think every series/movie of the trek canon to date has had at least a few redeeming qualities, some more than others obviously, but its all part and parcel of the bigger picture. Its like my dear grandmother who loves the Buffalo Bills. She’s a diehard, and says “you have to be along for the ride, for the downs just as much as the ups. That’s what makes a fan.” Although I’m not much for football, I think I have that seed of fandom in me too.

22. Closettrekker - January 16, 2009

Who exactly has praised the film that hasn’t seen it?

That would seem rather difficult.

I hardly think that being “optimistic” about it is the same thing.

23. senwod - January 16, 2009

DAMN YOU BRANNON BRAGA! DAMN YOU!!!

24. Commodore Redshirt - January 16, 2009

Bob Orci and Brannon Braga had a chat.
Is that like when my wife talks with my ex girlfriend?
Awkward.

25. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2009

Another friendly reminder to people that using multiple names is not allowed at TrekMovie, especially when you start ‘agreeing’ with eachother. That kind of sockpuppetting gets you instabanned (and posts deleted)…so say goodbye to C. Colson and his other personas

26. Troubled Tribble - January 16, 2009

Virtually every scipt Braga wrote involved time travel. The guy is obsessed with it. He was probably telling Orci how much he loved the script and how he was right all a long.

27. Captain Roy mustang - January 16, 2009

Im goin to see this movie in may 8th 2009 whether the fans like it or not

28. I am not Herbert - January 16, 2009

The Decline of Trek was caused by that stupid “Enterprise” theme song IMHO

Trek is Dead! Long Live Trek!!!

29. I am not Herbert - January 16, 2009

12. Closettrekker: “The first two seasons of TOS and the last season of ENT may have been the high point of TV Trek for me— qualitywise.”

AGREED! =D

30. Trekee - January 16, 2009

Actually, I liked a lot of Enterprise (theme song apart) and I must confess that I drifted away from Voyager eventually, I just couldn’t force myself to watch it. I even suffered through Enterprise season 3 which was truly, truly terrible in my everso humble opinion but mainly because it wasn’t true to the *ideals* of Trek, it felt warlike and gungho and all that.

But the reason I stopped watching V’ger was that it really was dull and contrived, though fairly true to Trek ideals, so I agree with many of the posts above that it can be as true to Trek as it wants, but my main wish is that it’s a good film. Period.

I do feel that JJ is going to be relieved when this film is finally out and the votes are in *regardless* of whether it’s flamed to bits by us fans or not – the suspense is just killing ME, and I didn’t even get to make it!

:-)

31. Jeff - January 16, 2009

#7, I would agree that the 2nd season of ENT was pretty weak, but one thing that often gets overlooked is that ENT was on a network (UPN) that was imploding and did not properly support the show. I thought the 3rd season was a really interesting experiment in a long story arc, and the 4th season was terrific (except for the crappy finale).

BTW, I think that NX-O1 was one of the best ships they ever produced, much cooler than Voyager.

32. Unbel1ever - January 16, 2009

The first Trek I ever saw was TNG back in 1989. I watched it with my late grandfather. I thought it was absolutely amazing, but didn’t quite grasp all of it. In 1993 we finally got cable and so I was able to watch TOS for the very first time and I loved it. I would reenact Star Trek adventures with my friends (we had our little bridge and I even built a somewhat rudimentary command chair). DS9 came along one year later (here in Europe) and I was not too enthusiastic about the station concept, but it quickly won over me. It’s really hard for me to decide which show is my favourite. It’s really not fair to weigh them against each other. I loved the 4th season of ENT and there are also true highlights in Voy like “Message in a bottle” or “the void”. But here it goes: (It’s really close between the first three)

1. TNG
2. DS9
3. TOS
4. Voyager
5. Enterprise
6. TAS

movies:
1. ST6
2. ST8
3. ST4
4. ST2
5. ST9
6. ST3
7. ST7
8. ST1
9. ST5
10. ST10

33. Edwin - January 16, 2009

Well, they have based the scientific premise of the new film on quantum theory outlined in the TNG episode “Parallels” written by Brannon Braga. It doesn’t seem surprising to me that they would continue with the time travel/parallel universe themes that permeated BragaTrek ad nauseum.

God forbid we return to what Star trek is all about — exploration of space…..

Oh well, a house built on sand………

34. Dr. Image - January 16, 2009

Now Abrams and Braga comparing notes.
I’m getting less enthusiastic by the day.

So any sequels will involve the alternate timeline reality I suppose.
As I was saying…

#1 Gorandius- No “we” won’t! Not all Trek is good Trek!!!!!

35. ensign joe - January 16, 2009

You know watching that clip, given boborci’s presence at this site, made me feel that he was representing us fans in a way.. I guess he does.

36. Ensign Ro- (short for Roland) - January 16, 2009

Wow, Anthony…good eye. I’m glad you keep an eye out for such things because it got past me. Good for you for keeping the abuse of this sight down to a minimum.

As for the “demise of Trek” on television? I find it hard to place blame on any one individual. I think the problem was more along the lines of over-saturation. Trek always had it’s niche market, but if ANY series was airing multiple spin-offs, syndicated episodes, as well as theatrical movies, its bound to run it’s course and therefor need a break. I am a fan of every incarnation of Star Trek and I eagerly await this new movie. Were all the incarnations, episodes, movies top-notch? By no means, no…but they all still held enjoyment for me as I predict Mr. Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman’s take on the franchise will. I for one plan on being at the midnight showing with bells on.

37. Chadwick - January 16, 2009

#33 yea no kidding, what happened to the exploration of space. TOS and TNG did that the best, even though Voyager was the apex of that definition I still thing TOS and TNG and the best kind of good old exploration.

Yea that Brannon Braga walk by was kind of weird, because he knows what they are being interviewed on and that he is no longer at the helm of Star Trek. The fact that he walked by as soon as they start talking about Star Trek was some weird karma.

#9 well Closettrekker um true for the most part. Cloverfield did kind of bomb but that is it. I am VERY confident in JJ’s talents and what Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof have constructed.

#10 I agree everything rises and falls and the fact that Star Trek has had some down time is not their fault. Berman and Braga did some great things with Star Trek and true fans will always be grateful.

Funny DS9 and Enterprise were my favorite with TNG, TOS, and VOY tied. But the thing is though I can watch any Trek movie or TV series episode over and over, I dont really hate any of them. It’s the cartoon that I never liked, never going to own it.

Enterprise was Star Trek and Enterprise was f*cking great! I thought it was a great way to Starfleet pre-federation which is something all fans wanted to see was it not? Because of you fans who hated it, we might have seen the Romulan war but didn’t. I mean for the most part we know up to 2160 do we not want to see the years between Archer and Kirk, which is about 100 years? Not to mention the 70 years between the launch of the 1701 B and 1701 D. I mean there is 170 years of untold history to consider before doing a reboot or going the far future post Nemesis. In the end I am just happy that a new movie is coming out and that there is nothing that any fan can do to stop it.

But I am all for this reboot, it does start off post nemesis so it will tie in nice I think. I would just rather want more movies and a TV show which deal with the afore mentioned 170 untold years rather then reboot movies and reboot TV series. Lets redo the past but not using what we have already seen. Or lets do 26th century Star Trek with Enterprise J.

Regardless of what the future holds or how the past is changed lol…I am going to see this movie May 8th 2009 at the IMAX.

38. T.U.M. - January 16, 2009

I’ll watch it and I’m sure I’ll enjoy it, but I can’t help feeling a bit slagged off – doesn’t it seem like every time Abrams or Orci mention existing Star trek fans they can;t resist making some kind of veiled, backhanded dig? Maybe it’s meant to be good-natured, but it doesn’t come off that way.

39. Edwin - January 16, 2009

Enterprise season 4 was great. It really felt like Star Trek. No more convoluted time travel plots — for the most part it dealt with the founding of the Federation and encountering ‘new ‘ races (which we, the viewer already knew about, but it was ‘new’ from the point of view of the Enterprise crew). We learned more about Andorian and Vulcan culture from this show and season 4, at least in my opinion, was a real treat. Season 4 Enterprise felt like a true prequel to TOS.

40. Izbot - January 16, 2009

Ha! I saw this video on MSNBC a couple days ago and recognized Braga. Strange moment!

41. Mike Ten - January 16, 2009

I don’t think it’s fair to bash an entire season of a Trek show. Even the worst seasons had some good episodes. An example: Enterprise Season Two had great episodes like Future Tense, Dead Stop, and the Borg episode. TNG’s first two seasons sucked but in those seasons we had Q-Who and a few others that made it worth suffering thru the crap.

B&B just put out too much Trek at the same time and stayed too long and ran out of fresh ideas. I remember about 10 years ago being able to turn on my TV and find one of the Trek series playing on one of the channels, mainly from Spike running it for most of the day 5 to 6 days a week. It was just too much of a good thing.

42. Andy - January 16, 2009

Star Trek was about space exploration but first and formost it’s always been about morality plays in space. That’s what Gene was writing about in the 60′s. And to me, that’s what Trek has always been about.

43. Mr. Curtis - January 16, 2009

in the future they should retronym this movie as “jj abram’s star trek” to avoid confusing it with the REAL Star Trek that roddenberry created. apologies to mr. nimoy.

“orci: where not smug” yeah right….

“abrams: I am not worried about fans of the show liking the movie” enough said…my god jim…

44. Paul B. - January 16, 2009

Anthony, I just wanted to come in here and say THANK YOU a billion times over for a great, well-run, well-written site. I’ve been griping over at the “new” Scifi.com because they’ve been really weak lately, so I thought I’d take a moment to send out some praise to those who deserve it.

So, again, thank you to Anthony and the staff of TrekMovie.com for all the hard work, great stories, great format, and both the freedom to speak our minds and limits to what you’ll put up with. Someone already thanked you for the typed excerpts from the videos, and I agree that’s a wonderful feature. But it’s just one more example of the quality and care that goes into this site.

Thank you!

45. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - January 16, 2009

These guys are so full of themselves, it’s incredible. (Sorry OrcSter)

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

46. montreal paul - January 16, 2009

I am a long time Trek fan.. fist loved it with TOS and the original cast movies. I loved each Trek after that… including Voyager and Enterprise. The last season of Enterprise was some great TV Sci-Fi. But DS9 was extremely well written. I still enjoy the reruns to this day.

i found that every Trek series had good episodes and bad episodes. Where I did love all the movies, I enjoys some less than others.

I am really looking forward to this movie too.. I think, from what I have seen already, I am going to see it a few times at the theatre.

In my opinion.. the downfall of Trek was with the creation of UPN. Before that, Trek was sold in syndication. After that it was driven my the UPN network and ratings for THAT network. If they allowed to let Trek (Voyager & Enterprise) flurish in syndication… I feel we would be in the middle of the last season on Enterprise and just starting a new series….

47. Closettrekker - January 16, 2009

#38—-”…every time Abrams or Orci mention existing Star trek fans they can;t resist making some kind of veiled, backhanded dig”

I can understand how some sensitive fans could interpret that in some of Abrams’ comments, but Orci is a dedicated Star Trek fan himself. He probably spends more time here talking about Star Trek (and not just his movie) than you do. I don’t recall him specifically ever taking what could be interpreted as a veiled, backhanded dig at himself or any of the rest of us.

As for Abrams, expecting someone who is (at best) a mild fan to speak as reverently about Star Trek as we do is absurd. He has far more fanboy credibility than Nick Meyer did when he came aboard. Someone had to actually tell him that it was “the space show with the pointed-eared guy”.

And yet he has been, in the eyes of alot of fans, the one “untouchable” director in Star Trek film history.

It is unfair to pick JJ apart for every little sentence he utters without giving him credit for caring enough to direct this movie. Abrams, like him or not (I like his stuff), is the one who brings real box-office credibility to this movie. I’ll take that over someone who patronizes us with reverant comments about how great TOS was. I don’t need him to sell me on it, and he wasn’t brought aboard to sell TOS.

Give the guy a break.

48. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - January 16, 2009

Abrams:Leonard Nimoy is in there and is the greatest. He was amazing. It was the weirdest thing, I knew I was going to be working with Nimoy, but the first day…it was surreal to direct him as Spock, because what the hell am I doing there? This guy has been doing it for forty years. It’s like “I think Spock would…” [laughs] (How do you Direct someone like Nimoy who was playing Spock before you were born. At least J.J gets it and it just had to be a real thrill to Direct someone like Nimoy. )

49. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - January 16, 2009

(#46 In my opinion.. the downfall of Trek was with the creation of UPN. Before that, Trek was sold in syndication. After that it was driven my the UPN network and ratings for THAT network. If they allowed to let Trek (Voyager & Enterprise) flurish in syndication… I feel we would be in the middle of the last season on Enterprise and just starting a new series… You are right. Upn was the wost thing they could have done)You are very right on that. Tng and Ds9 did well because they had no network telling them what to do and With Voyager and Espicaly Enterprise it was just the Head Honchoes who Canceld it and or made it not as good as it could have been.

50. Pat D - January 16, 2009

Weird.

I always make it a point to say bye to people who are being interviewed at the time.

51. Sean4000 - January 16, 2009

“Sockpuppeting” ….LOL. OMG. I love that term.

52. Anthony Thompson - January 16, 2009

Bob, please come forward and tell us about “the conversation”. And please forgive my man hitch for a rare faux-pas. Maybe he needs to be “rehabilitated” again. : )

53. boborci - January 16, 2009

52.

No worries.

It’s a tight rope walk out there on those damn red carpets. So hard to feel or appear natural. You have to be momentarily full of yourself to even agree to stand there and answer a question.

54. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - January 16, 2009

If you don’t want something trashed, then just do it right. How hard is that – seriously?

I, for one, am not going to take whatever is handed to me that has “STAR TREK” slapped on it. I demand quality and that my expectations be met…otherwise, I have no interest in their product and will, in all likelihood, trash it.

55. T.U.M. - January 16, 2009

>>I can understand how some sensitive fans could interpret that in some of Abrams’ comments, but Orci is a dedicated Star Trek fan himself. He probably spends more time here talking about Star Trek (and not just his movie) than you do. I don’t recall him specifically ever taking what could be interpreted as a veiled, backhanded dig at himself or any of the rest of us.<>As for Abrams, expecting someone who is (at best) a mild fan to speak as reverently about Star Trek as we do is absurd.<>It is unfair to pick JJ apart for every little sentence he utters without giving him credit for caring enough to direct this movie. Abrams, like him or not (I like his stuff), is the one who brings real box-office credibility to this movie. I’ll take that over someone who patronizes us with reverant comments about how great TOS was. I don’t need him to sell me on it, and he wasn’t brought aboard to sell TOS.<>Give the guy a break.<<

If you had read my entire post, you would see that I DID give him a break – I said it was entirely possible that it was all meant as good-natured ribbing that just came off wrong.

56. Elfwine - January 16, 2009

#23 and others

For the love of Borg, can you people leave B&B alone?
Yeah, maybe they’ve done some bad things to Trek, but for sure they’ve done a lot of good stuff too!
They are only humans, by the way, not vulkans or The Great Birds something.. Humans sometimes make mistakes.

p.s. Usually I hardly ever comment here, but words like this just really freal me out..

Gratz to Abrams and Co, by the way! Keep up the good work!

57. T.U.M. - January 16, 2009

Well, I fail at formatting on this site! Here goes again.

“I can understand how some sensitive fans could interpret that in some of Abrams’ comments, but Orci is a dedicated Star Trek fan himself. He probably spends more time here talking about Star Trek (and not just his movie) than you do. I don’t recall him specifically ever taking what could be interpreted as a veiled, backhanded dig at himself or any of the rest of us.”

And there are fans who enjoy taking digs at other fans, too – I’m sure you’ve run across them in your day. I don’t think anyone here is particularly sensitive about him- or herself, although we all can be sensitive or protective about the material.

“As for Abrams, expecting someone who is (at best) a mild fan to speak as reverently about Star Trek as we do is absurd.”

I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said – I never mentioned “reverence” for Star Trek, but politeness to its fans.

“It is unfair to pick JJ apart for every little sentence he utters without giving him credit for caring enough to direct this movie. Abrams, like him or not (I like his stuff), is the one who brings real box-office credibility to this movie. I’ll take that over someone who patronizes us with reverant comments about how great TOS was. I don’t need him to sell me on it, and he wasn’t brought aboard to sell TOS.”

I will, too – on that we’re agreed. I don’t see how this dichotomy you’re presenting is related to courtesy toward an established audience.

“Give the guy a break.”

If you had read my entire post, you would see that I DID give him a break – I said it was entirely possible that it was all mean good-naturedly and just came off wrong.

Let me give an example. I recently directed a play that was a real hybrid of mystery, comedy, musical, and supernatural genres. I saw that as an opportunity to really broaden the appeal – I didn’t come out of the gate saying, “Well, mystery fans will probably complain about this, but I can’t really care about that.” I wanted the mystery fans to feel as welcome as the musical fans, beacuse I wanted all the mystery fans to come and give me their money! So I focused on all the things the mystery fans WOULD like. And I did the same for EVERY group – the comedy lovers’ money was no more important to me than the mystery buffs’.

58. Tarrax - January 16, 2009

53. boborci

I understand what you’re saying there Bob. People who are usually quite excited to meet you, fielding random questions all the time with a mic & camera in your face the whole time. No pressure huh? :D

59. Enterprise - January 16, 2009

As long as you don’t get harassed by Ross the intern, you’re fine.

60. CarlG - January 16, 2009

@38: “…doesn’t it seem like every time Abrams or Orci mention existing Star trek fans they can;t resist making some kind of veiled, backhanded dig?”

To be fair, we can be quite, quite bonkers sometimes.

61. Dr. Image - January 16, 2009

#60- And often we can be quite, quite right.

62. Greg2600 - January 16, 2009

Orci, you’ll be okay on the red carpet, but if one of the paparazzi look like Steve Buscemi, run!

63. Xai - January 16, 2009

Neither Orci nor Abrams said anything wrong. Seems like if either of them even breathes wrong it’s interpeted as an insult to Trek or it’s fans.

No one is expecting the fans to just “accept” the movie, but maybe you should trying judging it based on what’s presented on the screen in May instead of bits and pieces from interviews or incomplete information.

Let’s play it fair regardless of the opinion you hold.

64. Spock - January 16, 2009

Interesting Braga sighting?? Ha-ha… just follow the buzzing flies.

65. 790 - January 16, 2009

Brannon Braga is a great guy!

Abrams is lucky to meet up with him.

66. Jeff - January 16, 2009

Brannon Braga is the Dick Cheney of Star Trek.

67. DJT - January 17, 2009

Bob Orci is the man.

68. LorienTheYounger - January 17, 2009

Brannon Braga was a brilliant writer for Star Trek back in the day, but he ended up doing so much that he got drained of all his creativity until all that was left was bilge. The same damn thing happened to Roddenberry himself (TMP anyone?)

69. SciFiMetalGirl - January 17, 2009

It is considered an honor to even be on the red carpet at all in the first place, and Boborci and JJ deserve to be proud of their acheivments!

Congrats guys! Keep up the good work!

70. Steve - January 17, 2009

It looks like Tahmoh Penikett is off to the left of Orci.

71. P Technobabble - January 17, 2009

If JJ wasn’t a huge Trek fan, initially, he is probably an expert on Trek FANS, by now. And I know Bob Orci was a fan, and I wonder if he still is, after some of the bs he’s had to endure?

Whenever I hear any one dissing an artist, the first thing I ask is: is this person bringing up some intelligent, valid criticism? Or: is this person just ranting like Mudd’s wife?

If there’s some valid criticism, so be it. In a civilized society, it is appropriate to criticize, at times, in order to improve what will follow. We (supposedly) learn from our mistakes (although you’d never know it by what goes on in the world). Criticism should also be based on at least some knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. Yes, it’s all very nice to criticize Mr. Orci’s script, but try writing one, yourself. It’s lots of fun to criticize Mr. Abram’s film-making ability, but try making your own film. Most people who even think they can do it, don’t truly possess the instinct, the discipline, or the stamina to write or make films. Those people who actually DO IT – regardless of whether or not their work is judged good or bad (which is a purely subjective matter, anyway) — have my total respect and admiration. To put that idea onto the big screen for 2-3 hours is not like boiling water.

And then, the casual heckler is a product of some of the lower characteristics of human nature — pettiness, envy, jealousy, anger… Such people criticize everything simply because it is something they can do that makes them feel good. Such people should then be forced by society to put up or shut up. I’ll bet the world would be a much quieter place.

Ah, but, then, what would the media have to do?

72. Closettrekker - January 17, 2009

#37—”Cloverfield did kind of bomb but that is it.”

Bomb? I guess we have differing standards as to what constitutes a “bomb”. It is my understanding that Cloverfield was made with a rather miniscule budget and turned quite the profit. Am I mistaken?

73. William Kirk - January 17, 2009

Braga? OMG…now we know, why there will be a time travel in XI :-P

74. Closettrekker - January 17, 2009

#57—”I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said – I never mentioned “reverence” for Star Trek, but politeness to its fans.”

Where was he—in your mind—impolite?

I assumed that you felt insulted by his remarks which seem to imply that a TOS revisitation could easily be “kitsch” or “campy”. The notion that JJ Abrams has said anything insulting (even underhandedly so) to or about Star Trek fans escapes me. I only recall his acknowledgement that the established fans “care about” the show/franchise.

75. martin - January 17, 2009

i grew up on watching tos and tng now and then. i was not a fan at the time. in 1997 i was 11 i really got in to both voyager,deep space nine and the movies first contact and insurection, i thought they was the best trek ever. i hated nemesis, voyager my favorite show fhinished its run so i thought id give enterprise a go the first two seasons was crap but i still watched them the third and forth was fantastic im almost sad it ended when i was just getting into it. only watched 20% of tos and the new movie comming out in may, now im going to see what a great show the original really is?

76. Mr. curtis - January 17, 2009

71.

oh please …you mean we have to be a movie makers criticize a movie? a gourmet chef to to say this food taste like shit? when i say this car is a lemon, should try to build one myself? their selling it to us, they want our money, we have every right to criticize all we want. they knew what they were getting into when they got into the bussiness. if you dont want crticizm, make a movie but dont ever show it to anyone else.

“And then, the casual heckler is a product of some of the lower characteristics of human nature — pettiness, envy, jealousy, anger…Such people criticize everything simply because it is something they can do that makes them feel good.”

unless your clairvoyant, or know these people personally, how can you even arrive at that conclusion. we only criticize, but you judge.

im sure i wouldnt want to live in a society that would force people to put up or shut up.

the irony is that you’re using the comments section of this site to say that.

77. Closettrekker - January 17, 2009

#76—”oh please …you mean we have to be a movie makers criticize a movie? ”

That isn’t what he said. What he ‘did’ say was—”is this person bringing up some intelligent, valid criticism? Or: is this person just ranting like Mudd’s wife?”, and—”In a civilized society, it is appropriate to criticize, at times, in order to improve what will follow.”

He is certainly acknowledging that some criticism is appropriate.

He goes on to say that, “Criticism should also be based on at least some knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.”

What’s the problem with that? It would be difficult to expect your criticism to be accepted as valid by anyone, let alone the artist, without having some idea of what you are talking about.

“unless your clairvoyant, or know these people personally, how can you even arrive at that conclusion. we only criticize, but you judge.”

I didn’t get the impression that the poster in question was generalizing. He identifies the people he has a problem with as “casual hecklers”. There is actually a difference between heckling and criticising, IMO, so I understood completely what he was trying to say.

I think you are correct in asserting that art appreciators do not need to be artists themselves in order to validate their criticism of someone else’s work, but I think your response comes off a bit too harsh. But that’s just my criticism.

:)

78. P Technobabble - January 17, 2009

#76 – Mr. Curtis

I was gonna defend myself, but #77 Closettrekker did a very eloquent job for me! (Hey, Closet, how much do I owe you…?)

In fact, there were things I was being specific about, and things I was generalizing about, but you were generalizing about everything I was saying, in general… my goodness…

I do not think one has to be an artist in order to criticize art, per se. But what is that criticism based upon, then, if not upon any sort of knowledge of the subject? It’s fine to simply “like” or “dislike,” but then it’s not really criticism, it’s just a matter of preference. Then, why should one criticize something simply because they didn’t like it? If one is just looking at a picture, for example, has no real interest in art, has no idea what sorts of techniques or skills went into the making of that picture, and that person says “This thing sucks,” isn’t that opinion based entirely upon some reactive emotion, and not upon anything informed? Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but whose opinion would you put more stock in: the guy who has studied and put his entire life into his trade, or the guy who really knows nothing about it, but feels compelled to comment anyway?

I absolutely do not believe in supressing anyone’s right to speak their mind — that’s for future generations. However, I do feel some people simply should put more thoughtful consideration into their opinions or criticisms before voicing them, if they want to be taken seriously. And this is really what I meant by “put up or shut up,” and, I acknowledge, I was being facetious.

I’m not a film-maker (though I’d like to be), but I am a musician, and I have released 2 cds of my own stuff, with a 3rd on the way. This is my passion in life. I cannot say that I make music specifically for other people, and I don’t think any artist does it specifically for other people. I do it because I can’t NOT do it, my life is simply incomplete without making music. Sure, I could keep it in a box, but artists do want to put their work before the public, this is an ancient tradition. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I think every artist hopes for praise and acceptance. No one “stands before a crowd” with the intention of failing, or producing crap.
Yet, I do not believe any artist is driven by such hope FIRST, and then goes on to produce his/her work. The work “happens” first, it “comes to you,” the ideas appear, you do your thing with those ideas, you perform your “skill” on those ideas. That’s what drives an artist before anything else, including money. (The fact that people have to pay to “get” their work is simply business, it’s not specifically buying anyone an opportunity to criticize).
On the other hand, if every artist refrained from putting their work before the public because they were terrified of getting negative criticism, negative press, etc., then we would probably have no music, art, literature, film… Most sensible people realize that they may produce something that some people will not like, it goes along with the territory. But I’m far more likely to sit down and have a chat with the guy who says, “I didn’t care for the vocal on your last song,” as opposed to the guy who says, “Hey, dude, your music sucks.”

As for being a clairvoyent, I don’t think that quality is necessary to determine the “substance” of a person who finds it necessary and pleasurable to throw barbs at other people they don’t know. A rather famous religious figure once said, “The tree is known by it’s fruit.” Ever been to a comedy club, and someone in the audience is badgering the comedian? I’ve seen it happen. My impression of that guy in the audience was based entirely upon HIS behavior. I didn’t need to get to know him, to know that he was an obnoxious twit.

79. Lil' black dog - January 17, 2009

# 71 and again at #78

Very well said!! I agree that it does take some degree of knowledge to offer believable and justifiable criticism of something. For instance, I too am a musician, but certainly not of your caliber. Yet, being one, I can appreciate the difficulty involved in writing a piece of music, and feel that I am better able to offer an opinion on it than say, my husband, who has no musical talent whatsoever.

In the same vein, I have been reading some fanfiction of late. Some are exceptional, most are mediocre, and some are just god-awful. There is often an option to review these stories and I hesitate to do so, because I know that writing a story – any story – is beyond my skill level. Some of the reviews are downright nasty and I always feel for the author subjected to them. By what right can the reviewer say that their perception of these characters, since it differs from that of the author, is the right one? If you like it, great. If you don’t, there is probably someone else out there who does. To each his own. That’s what makes us individuals. If we all saw things through exactly the same eyes, the world would indeed be a boring place.

And so it goes for this movie. I don’t see how anyone here, unless they are one of the anointed like Anthony and have already seen more than the two-minute trailer the rest of us have seen, can criticize this film yet. You can’t say something will suck based on sheer speculation. Once the film does come out, everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion, but unless they are clairvoyant, they don’t have a leg to stand on at this time.

As a die-hard TOS fan (never really got into the other iterations of Trek), I’m just glad to see someone taking an interest in revitalizing it. If this movie is great, it will add to our enjoyment of Trek. If it’s not, it certainly won’t serve to diminish TOS in my eyes! Just relax people, take a deep breath, it’ll be okay regardless.

80. Jovan - January 17, 2009

Not sure why people harp on Enterprise that much. It wasn’t too well planned in the beginning, yes, but it was a vast improvement upon Voyager.

81. bright one - January 17, 2009

Don’t know why they haven’t done a movie with star trek verus star wars yet. You realize how much money they could make on that?

Also…I wish if they do a star trek 12…they bump it up further in the future. The starfleet uniforms are ridiculous. The only cool ones were the red jacket with black pants from star trek 2-6.

I can’t believe they can’t go back to those costumes. Too bad.

82. Kareem Owete - January 17, 2009

Just curious-

Does JJ Abrams ever wear anything else? You’d think he could afford a bit more of a wardrobe.

83. Mister Bigggs - January 18, 2009

Agreed very much that ENT especially suffered at the hands of a half a$$ed network and had it been in syndication, would have performed much better due to a wider audience, possibly more stable time slots, and better promotion. As it was, it was stuck in limbo-land on UPN; under-promoted, under-appreciated, the black sheep. I enjoyed most all of trek (each series had their dogs) but ENT in particular got an especially bad rap when in reality it was on par with, if not better, than some of it’s predecessors.

1. the network 2. a terribly inconsistent first 2 seasons (but that was true of TNG and VOY also) and 3. the fans who were unwilling to cut the show any slack whatsoever , and killed it off by declaring it unfit to even be called trek. I’ve rarely seen such hate as I have for ENT, and it’s a surprise that the “fans” of trek didn’t bury the franchise for longer than it was in hibernation.

I feel sorry for the set of actor on ENT who really got shafted by the overall community and the inconsistent writing they were forced to perform.

Good luck to JJ – I hope he gets treated with some sort of respect for doing his best.

1. TOS
2. ENT
3. TNG
4. DS9
5. VOY
6. TAS

movies
1. ST2
2. ST6
3. ST4
4. ST3
5. ST8
6. ST7
7. ST9
8. ST1
9. ST5
10. ST10

84. MC1701B - January 18, 2009

#47–Some here may give Meyer a pass, not I. The man is inteilligent, with a good story mind, and a competent director. However, TWOK is not Battleship Potemkin.

Maybe if he actually knew anything about Trek when rewriting the script, he’d have realized that all Kirk and Co. needed to do with the Genesis torpedo was beam it off the Reliant, then out into space on maximum dispersion.

Of course, then he’d have had to figure out another way to accomplish the contractually-required death of Spock, but at least he wouldn’t have commiitted a continutiy error on the scale of the non-rotating shield frequencies in Generations.

And before the teenagers here start howling and calling me a continuity whore and such, let me point out I’ve seen no Trek at all since Nemesis, and my last convention was in 1984. I just think that writing SCIENCE fiction should involve enough intelligence to realize that spaceships don’t have rudders.

85. P Technobabble - January 18, 2009

#84 MC1701B

Your points make perfect sense, and I agree that when it comes to scientific accuracy, most so-called science fiction films break an awful lot of rules.
This is where artistic license comes in… breaking rules in order to satisfy or enhance drama. I recall reading a bit between George Lucas and Harlan Ellison where, while watching a cut of the original Star Wars film, Ellison said something like, “Why in God’s name do film-makers always have to have some kind of rocket sound when a space ship flies by? There is no sound in space!” And Lucas replied something like, “Because that wouldn’t be exciting.”
I think this is really all there is to it. Now, 2001, for example, was an extraordinarily accurate film, and there was no sound at all (other than music, perhaps) when the space ships flew by. But 2001 was not an action-adventure film, and Star Trek definitely has to satisfy the requirements of an action-adventure film.
In terms of accuracy, it is true that huge starships cannot maneuver like a fighter-jet. But, in order to achieve that dramatic tension audiences just adore, it is sometimes necessary to have starships turn a corner at warp 11. Not too accurate, but fun to watch. You simply have to be willing to suspend your disbelief…

86. Mr. curtis - January 18, 2009

who decides what’s valid or not valid criticism, what’s appropriate or not appropriate. to a child, the movie, the godfather must seem boring and dull, he cant help it he doesnt know anything about the mafia. that doesnt make his opinion of the movie any less valid, you cant say you dont know what they’re talking about. this new star trek movie is supposed to be for “fans of movies” not just for star trek fans, if joe moviegoer, who knows
nothing about star trek, watched and hated this movie, can trekkies say..”oh you dont know what your talking about, yours is not a valid criticism”? and what if the opposite happen, instead of negative criticism, people who know nothing about star trek said they like it and its the best movie they ever seen, does that count as valid or not?

clairvoyant is just a funny word on the top fo my head, it could may have been, psycho analyst or criminal profiler, my point is, how does one go
from being a casual heckler (question: who decides what constitue as a heckle or a valid comment? it may just be a poor choice of words on the part of the heckler) …to being envious, jealous, angry. and then further concluding that it makes them feel good criticizing everything. and dont tell us about a guy who heckles at a comedy bar, because there’s a big difference between that and what i was assuming your reffering to as hecklers who post here. of course you can tell a lot about someone by seeing them in action in the real world, here, all you got going is what they type on the keyboard. i dont even understand what makes them hecklers here, there’ no performers here, theyre not disrupting any show, or disturbing audience trying to listen to the show. so what makes them hecklers? and why be bothered if they criticize abrams movie anyway? the comments section are there not just for saying good things about this movie.

im glad to hear that you do not believe in supressing anyone’s right to speak their mind @ 71. it certainly sounds like that you are. the point im was making when i said dont show a movie to anyone if you dont want it criticized, is, if an artist or a musician has a choice between being criticize or not showing their work, of course they’ll choose criticism and show their works. i brought it up because your original post that you said “Whenever I hear any one dissing an artist, the first thing I ask is: is this person bringing up some intelligent, valid criticism? Or: is this person just ranting like Mudd’s wife?” who cares. it goes with the bussiness.Whenever I hear any one dissing an artist, the first thing I ask is: is this person bringing up some intelligent, valid criticism? Or: is this person just ranting like Mudd’s wife? and of course people dont spend money just so they can criticize, come on..that goes without saying.

87. Mr. curtis - January 18, 2009

sorry i forgot to address that to you P Technobabble, and/or closettrekker if he want to defend you again.

88. P Technobabble - January 18, 2009

86 Mr Curtis
Who decides anything? If every one makes their own decision, then it’s up to each and every one. If we turn our attention to some “professional”, then we take his/her word, we allow them to decide for us. Either way, it’s all completely subjective, and a matter of point-of-view, I suppose.
Look, I’m not trying to get into a pissing contest with you, but I think you’re either taking me a little too seriously, or you’re taking what I say personally, or I dunno…
I’m not sure how all this applies, but if this hypothetical child doesn’t like the Godfather because he thinks it’s boring, that attitude is entirely based upon the child’s stage of development and experience, and nothing else. I wouldn’t typically expect a child to be able to offer anything other than his dislike for that film because he would probably much rather watch Transformers. But what other kind of criticism of the Godfather could a child possibly offer — that the plot was confusing, the character’s motivations were unbelievable, or…? How old is this hypothetical child, anyway? If he’s less than 10, I am pretty confident he’s not gonna be diggin the Godfather, except possibly when there’s some gunfire… and isn’t that comforting?
I also do not agree with your interpretation of my position by suggesting that Joe Moviegoer’s potential criticism of the new Trek film wouldn’t be valid because he didn’t know anything about Star Trek. In the context of my original statement, criticism of a film is not strictly about voicing one’s like or dislike of a film. What makes you think Joe Moviegoer would even go to a Star Trek film if he didn’t like Star Trek/sci-fi/space-battles in the first place? While JJ Abrams is making a movie he hopes will appeal to an audience beyond the core Trek fan-base, I don’t think he is expecting every person who goes out to the movies to come to see Star Trek. Some people, like my wife, think anything like Star Trek is stupid, so she won’t be going. But the fact that she doesn’t like Star Trek is not criticism, it is a matter of preference. So, my main point is that criticism is not simply about saying you like or dislike a film. Anyone can do that, even, as you mentioned, if they haven’t seen the film! You are entirely free to like or dislike any film ever made (or not even seen). But don’t try to pass that off as criticism. Criticism implies an analysis of the film, which typically covers every aspect of the film, not just the “good or bad” aspect of it. Every film critic in the world will dissect the story, the acting, the directing, the wardrobe, and so forth… they generally do not say, “This movie sucks,” or “This movie is awesome,” and leave it at that. And they are able to offer their personal insights, interpretations and opinions based on the fact that they have some knowledge about story, acting, directing, wardrobe, etc. Their opinion may not convince you to like or dislike a film, but, again, criticism is not just about voicing one’s like or dislike of a film. That’s all I’m saying…
As far as “who cares?” about who the critic is, and that it is just part of the business, yeh, in some sense that is true. But, (without trying to stir up a hornet’s nest) I confess to no one in particular that I am easily annoyed by rude, ignorant people. Some people of this caliber have found their way to this website. Now, I happen to think this is a fabulous website, and I have a blast here, most of the posters are great, fun people, and I love that we get to “hang out” with guys like Bob Orci and James Cawley and David Gerrold, and so on… I think of myself as a guest here, and, as a guest, I think I should conduct myself accordingly. And guys like Bob Orci, James Cawley, etc. are also guests here, and how do you treat a guest in your own home? It makes me angry, disgusted and ashamed to be a member of the same species these rude and ignorant people belong to, who come in here for no other reason than to harrass guys like Bob Orci, James Cawley, etc. This is what I find inappropriate. I’m sure these can’t be the sort of “critics” you’re defending, eh? In fact, most of these people do come here “ranting like Mudd’s wife” and have absolutely nothing to offer beyond their own adolescent-like attitude. They are hecklers, plain and simple, and they may want to do their thing under the guise of “criticism.” In fact, they are not criticizing anything, they are just being obnoxious. Would I like to see an end to this sort of behavior? Yes, not just in this forum, but throughout the entire species of Mankind. Am I going to sit here speaking my own mind and then suggest that these obnoxious fools shouldn’t have the right to speak their own mind? Of course not, I am all for Freedom of Speech, I’m not a fascist. It’s the CONTENT of their speech (and the minds that formulated such speech) that I find questionable.

89. MC1701B - January 18, 2009

#86–Sorry, but if my 10-year-old thinks “The Godfather” is boring (and he does), whether it actually is boring to him (which it is) is utterly and completely irrelevant.

David Brin once wrote an essay defending Trek versus Star Wars on that basis that the latter is undemocratic, and Trek is very democratic. And that’s what we see in your post–the idea that all opinions are equally valid. Sorry, but NO.

I, as a screenwriter with an MFA, am better qualified to judge film than my son. And I, as a literal lifelong Trekker, am better qualified to call bullshit on a serious Trek continuity error tthan a diminutive Sherlock Holmes expert. Or, for that matter, someone who invokes the dramatic validity of the SFX in Star Wars into a discussion that has nothing whatever to do with dramatic validity.

90. Maphisto86 - January 18, 2009

Well as a lifelong Trekkie (twenty two years old so definitely not a veteran) I can say that I am looking forward to the new movie despite some misgivings, namely the design of the Enterprise, exterior and interior & the fact it is yet ANOTHER time travel storyline. However, a reboot or re imagining could be just what it needs to re energize the franchise. I know that what has already been will never be “replaced” by any new Trek so long as the older series are broadcast on syndication and released for home entertainment. I also hope that new books and (better) video games come out for the old Trek, as well as the new.

91. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#86—-It is perfectly fine for any viewer to say whether he or she feels it is a good movie…so long as that person has actually seen the film. If the viewer wishes to explain why, then it becomes valid criticism. If he or she has not yet seen the film, then obviously, the criticism cannot be valid, since there is nothing upon which to base such criticism.

The Godfather (the film) has been available to viewers since 1972. Anyone who has seen the film may offer valid criticism.

The problem with applying that to Star Trek XI is that very few people have had the priviledge of seeing the film yet. Obviously, few people are in a position to offer such “valid” criticism.

To me, the validity of criticism has nothing to do with knowledge of Star Trek, but everything to do with the prerequisite of having seen the film. That is a “simple enough” premise, in my opinion. Is it not?

92. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

And I will leave alone the notion of showing The Godfather (a film that depicts around a dozen brutal murders) to a 10 year old…

:)

93. MC1701B - January 19, 2009

91. Again, sorry but NO. Anyone who says that “The Godfather,’ perhaps the best film of the ’70′s and on any all-time top ten list worth the ink or pixels, is worse than “Dude, Where’s My Car?”, is an imbecile, whether or not he has seen both movies.

That was the point of my calling out David Brin. Art is not a democracy. There are established standards.

Trek is also not a democracy. While we may quibble about which series is the best, continuity IS the backbone of Trek, as is the attempt for scientific plausibility and consistency which set it apart from “Lost in Space” while the two were on the air simultaneously.

94. MC1701B - January 19, 2009

92. Apparently you don’t subscribe to cable. If you did, you might have heard of American Movie Classics, which shows films in edited form, thus safe for 10-year-olds.

Not that it’s any of your business what I let my kids watch anyway….

95. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#93—”Art is not a democracy. There are established standards.”

I wouldn’t suggest that art is democracy. That implies that there must be a majority opinion to validate its appreciation, or lack thereof, and that simply isn’t the case.

I do insist that the value of art is completely subjective.

“Anyone who says that “The Godfather,’ perhaps the best film of the ’70’s and on any all-time top ten list worth the ink or pixels, is worse than “Dude, Where’s My Car?”, is an imbecile, whether or not he has seen both movies.”

I share your “opinion” of that hypothetical person, right up until the point where you say, “…whether or not he has seen both movies”.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How can you qualify yourself to judge art without seeing it?

But I do think that The Godfather, Part II is actually a better film. :)

#94—”Apparently you don’t subscribe to cable. If you did, you might have heard of American Movie Classics….”

No, I subscribe to Directv, and am quite familiar with AMC.

“… which shows films in edited form, thus safe for 10-year-olds.”

I do not leave what is appropriate for my children to watch for someone else to determine. I have an 11 year old, and there are plenty of things on television that are not restricted legally that I would prefer him not to see just yet.

“Not that it’s any of your business what I let my kids watch anyway….”

If you wish that to be private and not subject to comment, then perhaps you should not post it publicly. Personally, I don’t care what you show to your ten year old. It doesn’t affect me in the least. I only meant to imply that I wouldn’t show it to mine, and that isn’t the same thing. I am certainly not looking to track you down and interfere with your parenting choices, so it really makes no difference whose “business” it is.

96. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#84—”Maybe if he actually knew anything about Trek when rewriting the script, he’d have realized that all Kirk and Co. needed to do with the Genesis torpedo was beam it off the Reliant, then out into space on maximum dispersion.

Of course, then he’d have had to figure out another way to accomplish the contractually-required death of Spock, but at least he wouldn’t have commiitted a continutiy error on the scale of the non-rotating shield frequencies in Generations.”

I recall having similar thoughts about the solution of beaming the device off the ship back in 1982, but then also coming to swift realization that:

1) Khan (who is, after all, gentically enhanced and quite adaptable to the 23rd Century) could easily have constructed (if not outright appropriated from the inventory of the Reliant) a security apparatus which restricts the ability of other ships to lock on to the Genesis Device. It seemed unlikely to me that Khan (simply by realizing that transporter technology exists in that time) would overlook that scenario;

and,

2) Beaming it out into space (maximum dispersion or not, given the limited range of transporters) probably wouldn’t have made a difference anyway. The Enterprise would still have had to regain the ability to go to warp in order to escape the wrath of the impending Genesis wave.

By the way, Nimoy denies ever having his death as part of his contract. According to him (in the dvd commentary of TSFS), it was never contractual, and that was only rumor.

97. Mr. curtis - January 19, 2009

jesus, im about ready write a book here…

@P Technobabble

i dont know you personally, so do take it that way, and i hate writing long comments, so dont think im enjoying this either. i just have a problem with
what you wrote @ 71. pure and simple. having cleared that up, let me say that you have knack for elaborating on the obvious, but missing my point.
sorry just a little critique there. focusing on the example ive given instead of what im trying to say. (how old the child is? joe moviegoer wont even
see this movie? im no lawyer. come on… you cant be serious) i think i made my self clear that im talking about crticism. anyones preference can
become a critique if taken in context. if your going to disect every noun, verb or adjective i use we’ll be here for long time, and you’ll miss the big
picture. i ask the question who decides whats valid or not valid criticsm, to which(and to simplify what) you wrote, you said its SUBJECTIVE, which to
me means, its not for any single person to decide, it changes with each point of view. which is my point all along.

@MC1701B

no need to apologize, because its just your opinion, i can still disagree, which i will. the question of whos BETTER qualified to criticize anything is not what i am saying in my posts. you may may have a better critique than your son, nevertheless, what im saying is theyre both valid. if your son
honestly thinks it the godfather is boring, then it is relevant, to him. unless to plan to show it again to him, it should be relevant to you. atleast now
you know what he thinks of it. the validity of a criticism does not depend on ones age or profession. did i read it correctly, you saying not all opinion
is valid? wow.

@Closettrekker

i was talking hypothetically about the child and joe moviegoer and they both have seen their respective movies in that scenario. why is it that you
guys focus to much on the movies i have given as example, i just choose the godfather because its suits the purpose of what im trying to say. which
is a movie that kids would find unappealing and one thats highly regarded by adults. i could have said gone with the wind or citizane kane.

“It is perfectly fine for any viewer to say whether he or she feels it is a good movie…so long as that person has actually seen the film. If the viewer wishes to explain why, then it becomes valid criticism.”

excatly.

“To me, the validity of criticism has nothing to do with knowledge of Star Trek, but everything to do with the prerequisite of having seen the film.
That is a “simple enough” premise, in my opinion. Is it not?”

amen. this is close enough to what im saying with joe moviegoer. maybe the next time i have an arguement, i’ll choose you, i may not win, but atleast you’ll get what im saying.

98. MC1701B - January 19, 2009

96. If it were beamed out at maximum dispersion, Enterprise would not have had anything to escape, because it would have been a cloud of molecules, not a functional device. Please rewatch the second season of TOS.

Furthermore, Nimoy is lying in the DVD commentary. Ask Michael Eisner, who, I suspect, knows more about the contracts completed with ATL talent at Paramount during his tenure than you or I.

99. MC1701B - January 19, 2009

95. If you don’t care what I show my kids, don’t shoot your mouth off about it in a public forum.

100. MC1701B - January 19, 2009

97. “The validity of a criticism does not depend on ones age or profession.” Yes, it does.

“did I read you correctly, saying not all opinion is valid?”

Yes.

101. P Technobabble - January 20, 2009

97 Mr Curtis wrote (to Closettrekker): “maybe the next time i have an arguement, i’ll choose you, i may not win, but at least you’ll get what im saying.”

Mr. Curtis, I completely got what you were saying. I simply disagree with you. I’m not arguing with you, I was responding to your comments in order to clarify my position in greater detail. I am not trying to “win” anything, nor am I disturbed, upset or unraveled by having this conversation. In any case, I stand by my original post. I was simply being honest, not trying to be right…

102. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#99—First of all, grow up.

Second, read again what I posted:

“I only meant to imply that I wouldn’t show it to mine, and that isn’t the same thing.”

If that doesn’t clear it up for you, then I don’t know what will.

And it isn’t up to you to determine what is appropriate for me to comment upon. If it is posted here on display for all to see, then it is subject to comment. Is it not? Or are your posts special?

103. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#98—”Please rewatch the second season of TOS.”

I don’t need to. I’m quite familiar with it.

You are, of course, referring to “The Changeling”.

I had initially interpreted your use of the term “maximum dispersion” to mean ‘beam it as far away as possible’, but I understand what you meant now.

That solution still does not address the very plausible possibility that Khan has secured the device with a security apparatus which prevents beaming (never mind that it should have been so equipped within Regula-One). We have seen that such technology exists in the Star Trek Universe. I cannot imagine Khan (of all people) making it that easy for his nemesis.

Furthermore, the “Genesis Device” is not Nomad. Who is to say that scrambling the molecular structure of the device could have stopped the Genesis Wave, once the device was already armed? In any case, so,long as Khan has been diligent in his secrity precautions, it is a rather irrelevant point.

Still, as I indicated, the question is vaild as to why Kirk would not have even attempted another solution (beyond merely suggesting that they “beam aboard and stop it”).

Meyer could have easily avoided it with distinctly “Star Trek”-type solutions. The transporter could have been rendered off-line due to battle damage (after all, shields were useless in the nebula), or as I mentioned before, Khan could have appropriated from Reliant’s inventory a device which prevented the transporter from locking on to the device. Either of these solutions would have left the story intact, and the latter can be assumed anyway for the purposes of maintaining continuity.

It doesn’t take much effort to explain that one away, something that we have been doing with seemingly contradictory tidbits for more than 4 decades.

104. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#98—”Furthermore, Nimoy is lying in the DVD commentary. Ask Michael Eisner, who, I suspect, knows more about the contracts completed with ATL talent at Paramount during his tenure than you or I.”

If you recall, Eisner (according to Nimoy) assumed that it was in the contract because he had also heard the rumor. he had not actually read the contract, and why would he? Why would a man in his position have taken the time to read a contract made with a B-level actor for a relatively low-budget movie?
When Nimoy asked Eisner to check himself (since the existing copy of the contract was in the very same building as his office), Eisner declined and said that he would take Nimoy’s word for it.

I haven’t heard Michael eisner deny the vaildity of that story. What makes you confident enough to call Mr. Nimoy a liar?

105. MC1701B - January 20, 2009

103. Your last two paragraphs prove the point of my original post.

106. MC1701B - January 20, 2009

104. Of course, that anecdote comes from Nimoy, not Eisner, and therefore proves precisely nothing.

Look at it this way. Scripts are written and rewritten during production every day. TMP was legendary for this.

Reshoots happen all the time. For Trek precedent, see STV and Generations.

So, as everyone will attest today, and did attest in 1982, if Nimoy was brought into the production specifically on the promise of Spock’s death, and then decided during the production that he was having a good time and didn’t want it to end…

…why were there no rewrites (or reshoots) to keep Spock alive, even AFTER the legendary preview which gave us the “coffin on Genesis” epilogue, if the character’s death WASN’T a contractual commitment?

107. MC1701B - January 20, 2009

And why would Nimoy lie? For the same reasons he wrote a book called “I Am Spock,” after he wrote a book called “I Am Not Spock.”

1. He changed his mind.

2. He intended to do (and did do) further business with Paramount, on Trek and non-Trek projects, and didn’t want to diminish his earnings by being thought of as “the man who killed Mr. Spock” (reference your Eisner anecdote for the kernel of truth relevant to this point).

108. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#106—”Of course, that anecdote comes from Nimoy, not Eisner, and therefore proves precisely nothing.”

Nor does anything you have referenced or suggested prove otherwise. Your contention that Nimoy is a liar is purely speculative.

“why were there no rewrites (or reshoots) to keep Spock alive, even AFTER the legendary preview which gave us the “coffin on Genesis” epilogue, if the character’s death WASN’T a contractual commitment?”

There is no disputing that Nimoy was inticed to play the role again to portray the death of that character, but that says absolutely nothing about what was in the actual written contract.

And I would guess that there were no rewrites because the death scenes were very well done. Without Spock’s infamous death scene, the film isn’t as powerful. If I were Nick Meyer, I too would have resisted such a suggestion.

#107—”He changed his mind.”

He certainly did. But again, that doesn’t mean it was in any written contract.

“He intended to do (and did do) further business with Paramount, on Trek and non-Trek projects, and didn’t want to diminish his earnings by being thought of as ‘the man who killed Mr. Spock’. ”

You’re listing reasons why he may have decided to continue portraying the character in future projects, not reasons why he was supposedly being untruthful.

He has nothing to gain by lying about that, especially when, in the same conversation, he is completely forthright about demanding the director’s chair if he were to reprise the role once again.

He admittedly was reluctant to reprise the role, both in the case of TMP and TWOK. But once again, that has nothing to do with whether it was written in the contract.

He says it wasn’t. He says that Eisner mistakenly believed it was, yet took his word that it was not during their second conversation, and that it was merely rumor. I don’t see why that is difficult for you to believe. Misunderstandings far greater than that occur everyday in the business world.

His claim that Michael Eisner never actually saw his TWOK contract (and based his position upon second or even third hand information) is perfectly plausible—especially given that written contracts for B-list actors signed to work on mediocre budgeted movies would be hammered out multiple levels beneath Eisner’s pay grade. The only reason Nimoy and Eisner had the phone conversation in question at all was that Nimoy was being considered to direct a film, rather than just appear in one.

Without a dispute on the matter from Michael Eisner subsequent to their phone conversation, there is no evidence to support the notion that Nimoy lied.

Where I come from, you do not accuse a man of lying without more than idle speculation to support the contention. He’s never lied to me, so until proven otherwise, I’ll take his word for it.

109. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#105—”Your last two paragraphs prove the point of my original post.”

Not really. This was what I was responding to:

“Maybe if he actually knew anything about Trek when rewriting the script, he’d have realized that all Kirk and Co. needed to do with the Genesis torpedo was beam it off the Reliant, then out into space on maximum dispersion.

Of course, then he’d have had to figure out another way to accomplish the contractually-required death of Spock, but at least he wouldn’t have commiitted a continutiy error on the scale of the non-rotating shield frequencies in Generations.”

Clearly, I don’t see it as a continuity error. I think that is grossly overstated, otherwise, it wouldn’t be so easily explained away in fanon.

The most I have acknowledged is that any question about it could have been avoided by a single instance of throwaway dialogue, but I don’t think we were ever in disagreement about that anyway. The difference of opinion was on the ‘significance’ of the issue, at least on my end.

110. Mark Tardi - November 21, 2010

It was a real treat to see how the crew of the Enterprise met each other for the first time. I felt like i was actually there. What made it special was, it was all so believable. Like it really happened that way, and i was part of the whole experience. I’m sure all Star Trek fans Felt the same way. My hope for the sequal, is that the crew of the enterprise must boldly go where no one has ever gone before. Just like in the original series, whether it’s a five year mission or not, i would once again feel like i was part of the whole Star Trek experience. “Where no one has gone before”. Now that would make a great story line for a sequal! What dangers would Kirk and his crew encounter. What kind of creatures are there that deep in space, and how does the crew ultimately save mankind and the universe. Can you imagine if that kind of adventure for the Enterprise, was filmed in 3 dimentional format for all us fans to expierience? Now that, i’m sure would break any and all box office records! What ever the sequal, i’m sure it won’t disapoint! Thank you!

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