Fringe And Lost Back With New Episodes This Week | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Fringe And Lost Back With New Episodes This Week January 20, 2009

by Rosario T. Calabria , Filed under: Abrams,Fringe,Orci/Kurtzman,Sci-Fi,ST09 Creative , trackback

The ‘Supreme Court’ team making the new Star Trek movie also put on a couple of our favorite TV shows here at TrekMovie, both coming back with new episodes this week. Fringe is returning from its winter hiatus, while Lost is back with the first episodes since last Spring. See below to get back up to speed on both shows.

 

FRINGE
Exec. producers: Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, & Burk. Created by Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman.

“Bound” [Season 1 Ep. 11]
Airing on the FOX tonight , January 20th at 9 PM (8 Central)

Synopsis: A visit from Olivia’s sister (Ari Graynor) and a formal review of the Fringe Division coincide with the investigation of the murder of a famous scientist, which may have something to do with Olivia’s recent abduction.

Need to catch up on the show’s last 10 episodes?  Check out this 5-minute recap:

And here’s the promo for tonight’s episode:

more here and here

Plus JJ Abrams talking to TV Guide about Fringe at the TCAs:

 

FRINGE IMAGES

 

 

more here and here

FRINGE NEWS

Abrams: Fringe "has really found it voice"
J.J. Abrams, co-creator of the Fox sci-fi drama "Fringe", told reporters that the series is just hitting its stride and the best is yet to come:

"I think that now more than ever, the show has really found its voice," Abrams said. "The episodes that are airing starting next week are the ones that for me are far and away the best episodes and what the show is. I feel like Fringe is a show about these crazy experiments, but in many ways Fringe is an experiment. I feel like we just found a way that the show works best. Those episodes are coming up next."

Those episodes, which return on January 20th, include a resolution to the arc of Olivia Dunham and John Scott, but Abrams warns to expect more questions along with the upcoming answers:

"There’s a great resolution that’s coming out in a few episodes, but it takes a lot of loose ends and gives closure to those," Abrams said. "Any show that is working will tell stories, resolve them; other stories will begin, and it’ll just kind of be this staggered thing. That’s where we are. So I really love the episode, and he’s fantastic in it. If you’re watching the show, it explains who he was, why he was doing what he did, why she’s been seeing him."

Abrams is particularly excited about the "slug gigantism" episode: "Wait until you see this next episode," he said. "If you’re a fan of gigantic slugs, don’t miss Fringe. That really should be the billboard."

Fox Pres. Says Season Two Likely
During last week’s TCA winter press tour, Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly hinted that "Fringe" would be returning in the fall for a second season:

"I already know ‘Fringe’ is a keeper," he says. "The show’s been a bear creatively because it’s been very ambitious. They’ve really found the storytelling model now … what you’re going to see in the second half in the year, if you follow the serialized story you will not be disappointed, yet the stories really do reset themselves each week. I would not expect it to take off after ‘Idol,’ but I do think it will tick up another level," he says.

Extended Episodes to Continue?
Reilly was also asked if RemoteFreeTV, Fox’s experiment of using half as many commercials for shows like "Fringe" and "Dollhouse", would continue in the future:

If Fox has its way, yes…When asked if RemoteFree was a success, Reilly says, "For the most part, yes. Viewer feedback was great … advertisers were very happy … studies showed retention was high … but not every advertiser wants to pay that premium."

FRINGE BITES


The Observer checks out the game,
watch a video here

LOST
Exec. producers: Abrams, Lindelof & Burk. Created by Abrams and Lindelof

“Because You Left” [Season 5 Ep. 1]
Airing on the ABC Wednesday, January 21st at 9 PM (8 Central)

Synopsis: The remaining island survivors start to feel the effects of the aftermath of moving the island, and Jack and Ben begin their quest to reunite the Oceanic 6 in order to return to the island with Locke’s body in an attempt to save their former fellow castaways.

“The Lie” [Season 5 Ep. 2]
Airing on the ABC Wednesday, January 21st at 10 PM (9 Central)

Synopsis: Hurley and Sayid are on the run from the cops after stumbling into trouble at the safehouse; the island survivors come under attack by unknown forces; and an old friend offers some shocking advice to Kate in order to ensure that "the lie" remain a secret.

Sneak Peak at the season premiere:


more here and here

LOST IMAGES

 

magazine scans here and here

LOST NEWS

Mathew Fox: Lost Ending will be "very global and epic"
As we head into the penultimate season of the show, star Mathew Fox tells Details Magazine that the show will have a "very global and epic ending":

All of us knew that if the show was strung out indefinitely, it was going to ruin the story. It’s not like a doctor drama, where you have a new case each week. This show started with a plane crash on an island in the South Pacific, and it’s going to have a very global and epic ending.

More on Time-Travel and Island History Planned for Season Five
Here are a couple bits from executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse who held a panel discussion with reporters on Friday [possible spoilers]:

Secondary Characters Are Safe; Ending Written
Producer Damon Lindelof says that knowing the show’s end date — May, 2010 — has allowed they "to do a tremendous amount of pre-planning:

Nestor Carbonell, for example, who plays Richard Alpert, one of the leaders of the shadowy "Others," will be in the series for the foreseeable future…"The benefit of knowing the story ahead of time is that we can lock these actors down," Lindelof said, "and not find ourselves in a situation where we’re waiting for them to be available."

Lindelof also hinted that the ending to the show has been written:

"We got to a point, seven episodes into the third season, where the show reached the point where we all knew it was treading in an area of complete and utter suckiness," Lindelof said. "Is that even a word? I don’t know – but I do know we were in trouble.

 "At that point, we had a decision to make. Are we going to have an end date, or is the show going to be cancelled in, like, a year or a year and a half? Basically, all these flash-forwards, all these idea we’re working with now, are part of the story’s end game.”

LOST BITES:

Comments

1. Captain Jack Bauer - January 20, 2009

Two awesome shows. I am really looking forward to these episodes.

2. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

Can’t wait! Lost is my (and my wife’s) favorite show on the air now.

I like Fringe, but I can go a couple of weeks without seeing it, only to catch up with TiVo.

Lost is one of those shows where I can’t wait to see what happens next.

3. thorsten - January 20, 2009

So we wonder, which flavor of Time Travel will it be…

4. Rat Boy - January 20, 2009

So that’s why the Giants lost. Eli Manning’s apparently not part of the Pattern.

5. Capttravis - January 20, 2009

Perhaps the Observer received the ‘phone call’ from Donovan McNabb… That could explain things.

6. Shatner_Fan_Prime - January 20, 2009

#2 … I think we’re on the same page there, Closet. LOST is my favorite current show too, whereas my all-time favorite is you know what. :-) These are the reasons it was a thrill for me to meet Lindelof at Comic-Con last summer and get to chat with him one on one for awhile about both productions!

7. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#6—”I think we’re on the same page there, Closet. LOST is my favorite current show too, whereas my all-time favorite is you know what….”

Yep…in agreement on both counts!

8. Closettrekker - January 20, 2009

#4—” Eli Manning’s apparently not part of the Pattern.”

Or he just doesn’t get low enough on qb sneaks to gain 6 inches on 4th down.

“Perhaps the Observer received the ‘phone call’ from Donovan McNabb… That could explain things.”

Does that mean he’s only allowed one phone call to him in two weeks? Or did Kurt Warner/Larry Fitzgerald get to the Observer first?

:)

9. thorsten - January 20, 2009

Cuse and Lindelof about Time Travel in season 5:

“Obviously, the big question going into this year is this idea of, there’s only two fundamental approaches to time travel. There’s the “Back to the Future”/”Heroes” approach where you can go back and change things […]
What would happen if you were in the past and tried to change the present as you knew it, would you A)Fail, or B)Succeed, or C)Cause the thing you were trying to prevent. And that’s really interesting to us, because there’s no (do-over’s).”

10. Rat Boy - January 20, 2009

#8 – “Or did Kurt Warner/Larry Fitzgerald get to the Observer first?”

It would explain why Fitzgerald seemed to phase right through the Eagles defense whenever they tried to grab him.

11. Cyberghost - January 20, 2009

The quatragle is complete, at least for the next 9 weeks.
Battlestar Galactica
Fringe
Lost
24

Battlestar Galactica-the best written show currently on TV.

Tivo Bliss

12. Cyberghost - January 20, 2009

And let’s not forget Caprica, the unknown. But I have faith, it’s in good hands.

13. Cyberghost - January 20, 2009

I have watched every episode of Fringe multiple times, has the “CPG” creepy bald guy “The observer” been seen in every episode of Fringe, there are a couple I have not seen him in.

How about a little help has the “CBG” (The Observer) has been every episode of Fringe, including the pilot?

14. Cyberghost - January 20, 2009

Sorry for my last question, but the fringe link says that he has been every episode. Should of done a little homework before posting my question about the observer. :-)

15. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 20, 2009

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the writing team for the new movie would benefit *hugely* by finding out who created Lost and Fringe and then hiring all of them.

Oh, wait.

16. captain_neill - January 20, 2009

am I only one who thinks Lost and Fringe are overrated?

17. Radam - January 20, 2009

#16 – No, but you are part of a very, very small minority. How anyone can marginalize great shows such as these when considering what really is popular on TV these days. Just check out the weekly run down of the top 10 shows…makes me revel in the delights of Lost, Fringe and Battlestar.

18. Trek Nerd Central - January 20, 2009

#6, #7.

Me three.

I haven’t yet seen “Fringe,” but “Lost” is an example of simply fabulous (and fabulist) storytelling — anchored in complex, believable characters. I looove that show. Looooooooooooooooooove it.

#16. Have you tried watching “Lost” from the beginning? I suspect jumping in midstream would be baffling at best.

19. EFFeX - January 20, 2009

I was so happy that Fringe was back tonight, this has easily jumped to the top of my favorite shows on air right now. The show really keeps you guessing the whole ride through.

20. THE GOVERNATOR - January 20, 2009

I think its kind of opposite for me. I just recently started watching Lost, so its not my number one, but I find it to be top notch storytelling. It hits in all categories. I’ve been watching Fringe from day 1 and I love it. Tonight’s episode had me on the edge of my seat for sure. The storytelling is ingenious and it really leaves you wanting more. Can’t wait for next week!!!

21. THE GOVERNATOR - January 20, 2009

Of course anyone here could guess my number one ;)

22. Dave - January 20, 2009

Lost I’m really looking forward to. Fringe? Sweet Jesus it’s bad. I quit after a few episodes. Came back to see if it had gotten better. It was worse. When a show creator is saying “finding its voice” that’s code for – we have no idea what we’re doing with this show.

23. Charles H. Root, III - January 21, 2009

@ 22. Dave:

I agree completely. Fringe is really, really bad.

24. Hallbjorn - January 21, 2009

YAY !!! Fringe is returning !!! It’s been a while…

25. captain_neill - January 21, 2009

i love battlestar and cant wait to see the rest of season 4

26. Kyle Nin - January 21, 2009

“Lost” is no doubt better than “Fringe”, but I’d still watch “Fringe” over the multitude of other shows that are on TV.

27. sean - January 21, 2009

I think the word ‘overrated’ is overrated.

28. Jim. - January 21, 2009

Fringe is ok at best. I don’t usually catch it on tv. I wait and watch on fox.com. Lost, on the other hand, is awesome. I won’t be anywhere but in front of my tv tonight at 7 o’clock.

29. RD - January 21, 2009

“There isn’t any time travel.” — Damon Lindelof, co-creator of LOST (from a 2005 interview)

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/handheld/30246.html

These guys are gonna make the Bush Administration look like a wholesome troop of boyscouts with their web of lies they hoped we’d forget.

30. RD - January 21, 2009

First Abrams turned a perfectly good spy thriller in “ALIAS” into a lame conspiracy about the quest for the Fountain of Youth.

Then he takes a fantastic premise in “LOST” and twists it into this implausible explanation about Time Travel.

Finally, he takes a beloved treasure called “STAR TREK” and completely re-tools it. Meanwhile, they keep market share on all these shows up by denying that they have done any of this. Audiences are baited-and-switched.

I don’t care if you like LOST or not, this is not everyone’s cup of tea. Think about how both of these series started. They were based in something real and tangible and both netted a huge audience when they debuted. Then the ratings started to sag and efforts were made to boost viewership by placing definite end dates on these shows. In the end however, they totally screwed their original fanbase, by taking the shows into some implausible direction.

And now this guy has got his hands on Star Trek. Bob Orci just lost his credibility, since Abrams has already been developing time travel since 2004 as finally admitted about “LOST”. Orci is merely doing Abrams’ bidding. At this point, and in classic bait and switch style, any fan of Star Trek will be disappointed in the lame rendering Abrams has concocted for his feature. He cannot make anything of substance. His series rely on well written scripts, good casting and deceptive marketing. The ride may be good, but in the end, he leaves you with nothing but disappointment.

31. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#30—” Orci is merely doing Abrams’ bidding. ”

I think you are confused. Orci and Kurtzman wrote the script and then approached Abrams to direct.

“…any fan of Star Trek will be disappointed in the lame rendering Abrams has concocted for his feature. He cannot make anything of substance. His series rely on well written scripts, good casting and deceptive marketing. The ride may be good, but in the end, he leaves you with nothing but disappointment.”

Please speak only for yourself. That is all you are qualified to do.

I am a lifelong Star Trek fan. TOS has been my favorite television series since I first fell in love with it in 1970′s syndication. I enjoy 5 of the 6 original films and even a little bit of the “spinoff” stuff.

My wife and I are also huge fans of Lost. The show has never left me with any disappointment, much less “nothing but…”. It is consistently entertaining to me, which is all that I require in a fictional series. Perhaps you require something else? If so, that’s fine. Keep searching for it…

32. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

Hurley throwing a “hot pocket” at Benjamin Linus alone was worth watching the premiere!

33. Charles H. Root, III) - January 22, 2009

Wow, I thought I was a pretty harsh critic of the JJ/Orci/Kurtzman team, but RD, you got the crown.

Yeah, Fringe is lame, Bad Robot is really the AWESOM-O 4000 spewing out weak story lines, these guys are over-rated, maybe they’ll turn Star Trek into “Transformers 90210 In Space” or worse, a St*r W*rs wannabe and I feel sicker than a Tribble gorged on poisoned Quadrotriticale whenever I hear JJ’s stoopid-ass Mystery Box story, but if you want to help your debate team then make sure you have your facts straight and don’t presume to speak for everyone.

Know this brother, you are not alone in your frustration. I’m sure you’ll appreciate this: http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/star_trek_twenty_minutes_of_scenes_screened_in_new_york/

34. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#33—-Interesting that you would post a link to that review.

The writer doesn’t think much of JJ Abrams going in, and still comes away excited about the film after seeing the brief bit (20 minutes worth) of footage.

By the way, someone needs to tell this guy that Uhura’s supposed first name, “Nyota”, has never been canon, nor is the notion that a young and drunk Jim Kirk (alternate timeline or not) would never hit on Uhura (who, at this point, he doesn’t even know). I think Mr. Hoffman has a “unique” view of what he considers to be “canon”.

The only seemingly contradictory tidbit he mentions is the meeting of Chris Pike and the young Jim Kirk being prior to “his promotion to fleet captain”, as suggested in the dialogue of “The Menagerie”.

Even forgetting that the timeline has been altered by this point in the story, it is interesting to not that there is certainly precedent for contradicting the dialogue in “The Menagerie”, which suggests that the Enterprise is (at a minimum) 13 years old by the time of the events depicted in that episode. Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy dispelled the suggestion of that dialogue 25 years ago, since its age was ‘retconned’ to be a mere 20 years, 15 years after the events depicted in another first season episode (“Space Seed”).

Hoffman’s view of Star Trek ‘canon’, and more importantly, what constitutes a ‘violation’ of said canon, has more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese…

Still, even a canonically-challenged pessimist like him—in the end—had to admit that this looks fantastic, and even admit that he would probably see it 4 times.

That says alot.

35. RD - January 22, 2009

#31. –
Ocri, Kurtman and Abrams have been working together since Alias. I doubt, Orci & Kurtman wrote the script in a vacuum and then just sprung it on Abrams. The point is they all sit around trying to justify their mis-guided ideas with theoretical physics represented as fact. My point was that their quantum mechanics time-travel theories have already been put to work on LOST and now they’ve taken this golly-gee-wiz neeto thing they’ve discovered and applied it to Star Trek, albeit a better application than LOST IMHO.

I will refrain from speaking for “ALL”, but rather my opinion is, especially from reading posts on this forum that TOS fans will not be happy with the free-handed changes made by Abrams and co. NOT that it will not be a fun movie. LOST is indeed fun to me and I will watch it to its conclusion, just as I did with Alias. BUT, I am prepared for disappointment. My point again, is not that someone who appreciates SciFi will turn away from LOST once the premise is revealed. Instead, time-travel is not everyone’s cup of tea. In the end, like ALIAS, LOST will be reduced to its core followers, most of whom are likely already scifi/fantasy fans of trek, star wars, etc. But neither series needed to be. Would LOST be any less interesting if it were grounded in KNOWN provable science? No, it’s the drama that counts. But, Damon Lindelof’s blatant bait-and-switch of the premise, sickens me in exactly the same way as Orci’s ridiculous double-speak justification that TREK movie is not a reboot, just takes place in a parallel universe, which he further tries to validate by saying the basis for his departure is concrete science. Like ALIAS (which turned out to be simply wild disappointing unoriginal fantasy), LOST is not grounded in any kind of “reality” that is provable and that will drive many away at some point, when they realize there is no point to the end of it – it could be anything. TREK doesn’t have to be grounded in any kind of scientific reality, but don’t tell me that because of current theoretical science, Kirk is the same but not the same. Whatever lame-o ending Bad Robot has planned for TREK, just be straight up and say, “we’ve re-booted Star Trek and tried to stay true to the spirit of TOS, but it’s going to be an incredibly fun movie you won’t want to miss”. But what else can we expect from a generation of writers and producers who grew up during the Nixon administration and earned their first professional credits under president Clinton who argued the definition of “is”. Lying is the way of life for an entire generation in such positions. You don’t have to look much further than the stock market to prove that it’s true.

36. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#35—”Ocri, Kurtman and Abrams have been working together since Alias. I doubt, Orci & Kurtman wrote the script in a vacuum and then just sprung it on Abrams.”

I can’t speak to that, anymore accurately than you can. But by all accounts, Abrams had no intention of directing STXI until after he read Orci/Kurtzman’s script. There is simply no evidence to the contrary, and merely producing a film (as they have done in the past) is quite different from taking enough interest in it to actually direct it.

“But, Damon Lindelof’s blatant bait-and-switch of the premise, sickens me in exactly the same way as Orci’s ridiculous double-speak justification that TREK movie is not a reboot, just takes place in a parallel universe, which he further tries to validate by saying the basis for his departure is concrete science.”

You seem to forget that we do not need Orci’s credence given to that particular theory of QM for any sort of validation. In fact, Orci even goes so far as to admit that the application of that theory isn’t necessarily part of the story at all.

The possibility and potential for an alternate timeline being created by interference with the past was part of Star Trek’s “canon” long before Roberto Orci was born. That premise has, in fact, been part of that very continuity since the very first season of TOS.

Orci’s behind-the-scenes thoughts on QM are irrelevant. The story’s apparent foray into time-travel/alternate timelines is already consistent with canon.

And the claim that this story is not a reboot is actually quite accurate. A rebbot requires that previous continuity is discarded.

Since every bit of Star Trek continuity, from ENT to Nemesis, makes up the very timeline in which the story begins, it not only doesn’t meet that criteria, but the story depends upon ‘all’ of the previously established continuity built over the last 4 decades.

It certainly isn’t discarded—on the contrary—it is absolutely essential for the story to ever progress to this point to begin with.

Since all 5 series and the 10 previous films must take place prior to the events depicted in this film ever occuring, the story is neither a prequel, nor is it a reboot. It is just an unconventional sequel.

37. Charles H. Root, III - January 22, 2009

@ 34. Closettrekker:

Jordan Hoffman’s grasp of canon may indeed be challenged. However, I don’t think he is a pessimist. The point I was trying to make by linking to his blog was to illustrate that no matter what he thinks of JJ/Orci/Kurtzman he is in fact excited about the new film.

I share that view. Perhaps I should have just come out and said it instead of providing a subtle, diplomatic nudge to Hoffman’s blog.

Like Wil Wheaton, I am “cautiously optimistic” about the project. But I am also mentally and emotionally preparing myself for a “a thorough and malicious ass-raping of my childhood” as Mr. Hoffman so graphically relates.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

And I agree that Uhuru’s first name has been a somewhat nebulous topic and not exactly canon. Do you think that Memory Alpha got it right at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Uhura ?

@ 35. RD:

There is no doubt that JJ/Orci/Kutzman and Lindelof are scientifically challenged and have not only violated their own canon on Lost, but their own word, like the “There isn’t any time travel” example you point out. And yeah, Fringe is crap and like I’ve said before it should be titled Junk… It’s junk science, not fringe science.

Unfortunately, these hucksters are in control of our beloved Trek and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.

But remember, Star Trek is not in our universe… It is an alternate universe. We had no Eugenics Wars in the 1990′s and Khan Singh did not take off in the SS Botany Bay in 1996.

This means that you can do your own fan made Trek in whatever universe you want.

It also means that JJ/Orci/Kurtzman can have events unfold in an alternate universe. Hopefully, they’ll have the decency not to violate canon.

I’m cool with that.

38. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#37—”I share that view. Perhaps I should have just come out and said it instead of providing a subtle, diplomatic nudge to Hoffman’s blog.”

No, it’s clear that I misread your intent. After reading your post again, it’s clear that you meant to assuage RD’s fears. My mistake…and my apologies.

I think that you and I basically took the same thing from that review.

” But I am also mentally and emotionally preparing myself for ‘a thorough and malicious ass-raping of my childhood’ as Mr. Hoffman so graphically relates.”

I find that to be an impossibility, as my dvd’s will not suddenly stop working when the original timeline becomes altered. Moreover, even if the movie is awful and violates established canon in almost every scene, it can have no diminishing effect upon the already significant impact that TOS had in my childhood.

And seeing a young James T. Kirk (altered or otherwise) acting like somewhat of a jerk in a bar will have far less negative impact upon my view of these characters than Shatner’s Kirk suddenly being depicted as a lover of horses and a skilled equestrian, or Spock suddenly having a crazy, bearded half-brother who is the product of Sarek coupling with a “Vulcan Princess” !

I think our collective childhoods are safe.

:)

39. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

One other note…

The idea that Lindelof lied about the element of time travel in Lost is based upon a single line in an interview which is completely taken out of context.

Here is the statement from Damon Lindelof:

“I don’t think we’ve shown anything on the show yet … that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within. We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and … things being in a place where they probably shouldn’t be. But nothing is flat-out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn’t any time travel.”

Note that this was after the first season finale. Also note the word, “yet”. If I am not mistaken, there was no hint of time travel at that point.

At no point does he ever claim that it would never be something explored on the show, only that it had not yet been at that point.

I guess I’m not seeing the problem with Lindelof’s comment.

I do, however, see a problem with misrepresenting someone else’s words and then using that to call him a liar.

If anything is dishonest—it’s that.

40. Charles H. Root, III - January 22, 2009

@ 38. Closettrekker:

Thanks you very much for that post.

People evolve. There were more than enough subtle hints regarding Kirk’s bad boy status in TOS and films. We know that he was no boyscout, cheated on tests and left a trail of former lovers wider than the Xindi’s trench of destruction.

But people evolve. We also know that Kirk likes antiques and older things representative of simpler times. It’s not much of a stretch to see him become an equestrian… Since he was in the Nexus, he had tons of time to get it right.

It will be interesting to see how they reverse engineer the Kirk character and devolve him into his younger self.

And yeah, the Sybok thing was pretty lame as was that whole film. Even the old guard got it wrong sometimes.

41. Closettrekker - January 22, 2009

#40—”It’s not much of a stretch to see him become an equestrian… Since he was in the Nexus, he had tons of time to get it right.”

I guess I find it a little more difficult to believe. It was actually STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89 that first portrayed him as having been so proficient and comfortable on a horse all along.

The whole “equestrian” angle of Jim Kirk was Shatner’s belated idea and rather thoughtless (IMO) input on the character…nothing more. And the guy in the Nexus, living out a fantasy of horse-riding and life in the great outdoors complete with a old dog (basically Shatner portraying himself), seemed to me more reminiscent of Christopher Pike than James Kirk.

It’s hard for me to see that as anything but missing the mark on the character. I suppose we could pretend that he somehow made time to develop an interest and become proficient at it, but I’d rather not. It just seemed rather silly to me and out of character.

“It will be interesting to see how they reverse engineer the Kirk character and devolve him into his younger self.”

Indeed it should be. And, unlike some, I actually look forward to the prospect of seeing his environment somewhat altered and how he still, despite those obstacles, becomes Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise.

It should be fun.

42. RD - January 22, 2009

39. How bout you offer the rest of that quote, which by the way I provided the link to so as to avoid the implication I was trying to hide something:

Lindelof said … As the show progresses, he added, it won’t venture too far into science fiction as its mysteries unfold. “We’re still trying to be … firmly ensconced in the world of science fact,” he said in an interview.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/handheld/30246.html

Hmmmm. Time Travel. That’s pretty far into science fiction. Only Orci and Abrams would take quantum theory and turn it into science fact. The point once again is that these guys tried to dispel the idea that this show was scifi, but rather serious drama grounded in reality. There were many other interviews when this show first came out and I recall seeing these guys on TV saying exactly what Lindelof says in that SciFi article. It is a smoking gun and indicative of the kinds of things Bad Robot engages in.

43. RD - January 22, 2009

#37: “But remember, Star Trek is not in our universe… It is an alternate universe. We had no Eugenics Wars in the 1990’s and Khan Singh did not take off in the SS Botany Bay in 1996.”

No argument there. The problem is, most fans would like to see TOS alternate universe depicted rather than some new alternate universe, which Abrams is NOT going to give us. Sadly they chose to deceive the fans rather than just admitting it.

I won’t argue what constitutes a reboot. Wikipedia defines it as “Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant, and the series starts over.” Using that definition, I would say, that TREK movie is exactly that. They are picking and choosing what if anything remains from TOS. For those who are married to canon, the idea of an alternate reality fits nicely within the established story parameters. But THAT is NOT the story being told or the franchise being offered. Once Nero goes back in time and the timeline changes and it becomes an alternate universe, canon is effectively discarded. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but aside from the central characters and technologies, nothing else is the same. The characters have different histories, different missions and different lives. Of course anything could happen, but once this story restarts TOS franchise, commercially speaking it would be a very bad idea to then take your newly introduced audience back to another universe. Effectively anything that happens going forward almost has to be in this alternate universe.

Calling it a reboot or an alternate universe is mere semantics. The new Battlestar Galactica could just as easily be taking place in an alternate universe, rather than a “reboot”. It is foolish to attempt to reconcile Orci’s statements with canon, when clearly cannon is thrown out the window in favor of its new matrix. Forget the Genisis device, I give you the Orci device.

44. RD - January 22, 2009

This article further explains the deception, where they admit the “con” they have perpetrated: http://lost-media.com/2008/11/16/losts-past-and-future/

“Lindelof said that when it came to slowly building into more science fiction, “Lost has really been about the long con””

It is NOT honest to perpetrate that kind of fraud for the sole purpose of preventing the audience from abandoning the show. As I said it is pure bait and switch. Moreover, it highlights the same sort of deceptive scheme being used in Trek movie. Slowly get the fans used to the idea of small changes, justify it in their geeky-technobable language, deny major changes and backpedal once it is apparent the film is not what they said it was going to be – by then the audience will love it and it won’t matter.

45. thorsten - January 23, 2009

Lost prepared its core audience for a couple of years now… there were hints all over the place. Desmond was officially declared Time Traveller last season in “The Constant”, but we saw him do it earlier already in “Flashes before your eyes”. Abrams and Lindelof cooked up the shows main plot over one weekend, all that happens now is just fleshing out the parts in between. Now that season 5 kicked off an amzing start we see that there was a master plan all along, and it is an exciting one.
With Lindelof being involved in Lost and Trek it will be funny to find out if Time Travel on the Island will be the same than in Star Trek.

Sawyer slapping Faraday for bringing up quantum mechanics was a nice reminiscence of the threads we had about the topic here.

‘Shut it, Ginger, or you’re getting one, too!’

46. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#42—”Lindelof said … As the show progresses, he added, it won’t venture too far into science fiction as its mysteries unfold. ,” he said in an interview.”

That would be fine, except that the phrase, “As the show progresses”, belongs to the author—-not Lindelof.

Lindelof’s words (quoted) are limited to ” We’re still trying to be … firmly ensconced in the world of science fact…”, which remains within the context of what is suggested by the term “yet”.

Simply put, this is the whole of what the author quotes Lindelof as saying:

“Every mystery that we present on the show? What is the monster? Where does Ethan come from? Why hasn’t Claire had her baby yet? All those are questions that we know the answers to, but how and when we present those answers is not written in stone. … Hopefully we … won’t betray the audience. … All I can say is, we’re trying, we’re doing our best, and we think the answers that we have are pretty cool.
We’re still trying to be … firmly ensconced in the world of science fact.I don’t think we’ve shown anything on the show yet … that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within. We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and … things being in a place where they probably shouldn’t be. But nothing is flat-out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn’t any time travel.”

That is everything which the author actually quotes Mr. Lindelof as saying. Damon can only be held accountable for his own actual words, not the author of the article’s own interpretation of them (such as his addition of the phrase, “As the show progresses”). Since this article is from 2005, and before the second season premiere, nothing that Lindelof actually says (or at least is “quoted” as saying) in this interview is untruthful. I’m not sure why that isn’t clear to you.

Calling him a liar and complaining that, since that time, the creators and current caretakers of the series have gone in another direction are two separate issues.

“Only Orci and Abrams would take quantum theory and turn it into science fact.”

Really? How about we do a little “time travel” of our own here?

Do you remember an episode of Star Trek called, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”? The entire premise of that story was based upon the unproven theory that extrasensory perception was a valid scientific phenomenon. Indeed, at the time (1964-65), there was substantial interest within the scientific community in testing that theory, the credibility of which has long since been debunked completely as any kind of responsible science.

Moreover, Orci has nothing to do with Lost, and Star Trek has been telling tales of time travel/alternate timelines for over 40 years.

47. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#43–”Using that definition, I would say, that TREK movie is exactly that. They are picking and choosing what if anything remains from TOS. For those who are married to canon, the idea of an alternate reality fits nicely within the established story parameters. But THAT is NOT the story being told or the franchise being offered. Once Nero goes back in time and the timeline changes and it becomes an alternate universe, canon is effectively discarded.”

Nope.

I’m not clear as to why this is confusing for you, but I’ll explain it again.

Think of Star Trek (everything we’ve seen thusfar) as one big and broad storyline.

The ‘canon’ you speak of is absolutely essential for the story at hand, therefore it cannot be “discarded”. That makes no sense. The story in STXI begins (by all accounts) within the very same timeline in which ENT/TOS/original films/TNG/TNG-era films/DS9/VOY occurs. The story acknowledges that “canon” the moment we see Spock in the post-Nemesis timeframe. Furthermore, both Nero and Spock are products of that timeline.

The decision to travel back in time and alter the past cannot be made at all without everything in all 5 series and 10 previous films being a part of the story—and coming first.

Everything we know as “canon” is just as relevant, to the overall broader story, after this film as it was before. It is impossible to argue that it isn’t, particularly when you cannot have the new without the old.

Nothing is discarded except the notion that Star Trek canon must be limited to the strict linear passage of time.

Everything remains intact in TOS. It had to happen that way. Otherwise, the story cannot take place.

48. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#43—”Calling it a reboot or an alternate universe is mere semantics.”

No it isn’t. It’s being accurate in what you are asserting to distinguish between the two.

“The new Battlestar Galactica could just as easily be taking place in an alternate universe, rather than a “reboot”. ”

And yet it doesn’t.

There is no acknowledgement of the continuity from the original BSG series. It is completely discarded, and that is the clear difference.

49. Closettrekker - January 23, 2009

#44—-While the article has Damon admitting that the non-traditional sci-fi audience was, in a sense, “buttered up” for the show taking a sci-fi turn, it also indicates that there were times when he didn’t even know where the show was going to go.

The bottom line is that none of his thoughts on the show in 2008 do anything to prove that his statements in 2005 were lies. When he refers to “the long con”, he is speaking retrospectively, knowing now where the mythology actually ended up.

In any case, and however they came to this point, it was successful. People like my sister, for example, who wouldn’t normally give any blatant sci-fi story 10 minutes of her time, can’t get enough of Lost. It worked…whatever it really was.

She certainly isn’t complaining that she feels “deceived”.

50. thorsten - January 23, 2009

@49…
well, regarding your sis, CT, it’s just the perfect mix.

Time Travel for the geeks, Sawyer without a shirt for the rest of us ;))

51. RD - January 25, 2009

Closettrekker … you consistently miss my point about canon and reboot (however you define it), so I am done discussing it with you (and only you it seems).

As for what Lost is, whenever someone uses the word “con” they are acknowledging deceit which is a polite word for lie. I could care less the order of when things were said except that they have acknowledged a conspiracy entered into by the network and creators to deceive the audience so as specifically NOT to introduce elements that were too scifi too soon which might potentially alienate a potential audience.

I am thrilled for your sister who enjoys the mystery and character elements of the story and does not feel any any of the deceit which is so blatantly obvious, unfortunately she is not the only viewer the show targets. Again I feel you miss the point, which is not whether your sister feels cheated but whether or not it happened. I feel like I am arguing with the Bush administration: But, Mr. Bush, you lied about WMDs in Iraq! Yes, but we liberated Iraq from a dictator. Non-sequitur. Ultimately LOST’s success will be tied to how well they played the con. As of the introduction of the time-travel fantasy aspects, Lost’s ratings began to plummet in season 4 and returned with the lowest ratings ever for its season premiere. Only time till tell if the ratings rebound and what specifically drove audiences away. However, it is following the same ratings arc that Alias did once they began focusing on the ridiculous Rimbaldi storyline which was ultimately the payoff for the series in the widely criticized “fountain-of-youth” conclusion.

Clearly Abrams loves the bait and switch formula since two of his most successful and simultaneously failed series have shown and Star Trek is turning out no differently. Witness audience reaction to the trailer: they didn’t even know it was Star Trek. Abrams says he wanted to ground the movie on Earth and something the audience can relate to (before he kicks in the scifi stuff). All of that is fine. Unfortunately he has to deliver on that premise, something the ratings unequivocally show he has not been able to do with either Alias or Lost. Hopefully he will have better success with Star Trek. However, in is boxoffice lust, if he simultaneously alienates the core fans with his pointless retooling (however you justify it via canon, which I refuse to discuss further with you) and fails to “ease” everyone else into Trek’s inherent SciFi milieu, then he will have another huge flop on his hands.

But none of that changes the obvious: His most successful projects are a study of bait-and-switch and so far it has proven a failed scheme for him on two occasions. But who knows perhaps the third times the charm. Lost is not over yet so anything could happen and since I enjoy the show, I will be right there failure or otherwise, the same for ST. It does not change how I feel about his tactics.

52. Closettrekker - January 27, 2009

#51—It seems that you define “reboot” in just the same manner as I do, since you cited the definition provided at Wikipedia, which requires that a fictional series disregard its previous continuity to qualify as such.

STXI does not. It is therefore not a ‘reboot’, according to the very definition of the word that you have suggested is acceptable.

“Lost’s ratings began to plummet in season 4 and returned with the lowest ratings ever for its season premiere…something the ratings unequivocally show he has not been able to do with either Alias or Lost. ”

Lol. I would remind you that this is all quite relative. The worst premiere ratings for Lost are the kind that just about any other program would kill for! Lost set a ratings standard in season one that it was never going to maintain for years to come, no matter what. To expect or anticipate that is absurd.

“…if he simultaneously alienates the core fans with his pointless retooling (however you justify it via canon, which I refuse to discuss further with you)…”

In the words of Spock—-”That is wise.” There is no canonical argument as of yet.

“…and fails to “ease” everyone else into Trek’s inherent SciFi milieu, then he will have another huge flop on his hands.”

I must have missed that “huge flop” to which you refer.

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