JJ Abrams Talks Trek Humor, Trek Purists and More January 29, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
In a new interview with the LA Times Heroes Complex Blog, Star Trek director JJ Abrams talks in detail about how he approached the movie, what he thinks about hardcore ‘purists,’ why humor is important in Star Trek and more. Excerpts below.
Excerpts from LA Times
Abrams on approach to Star Trek vs. BSG, Star Wars, Bond, etc.
LA Times: As franchises move into new eras it’s interesting to watch how they change — or don’t change. "Battlestar Galactica" could hardly be more different than it was in the 1970s while "Star Wars" is essentially the same. With "Star Trek" you seem to be pursuing a revival like we’ve seen with Batman and James Bond, which holds on to core mythology but recalibrates the tone.
JJ Abrams: I think I benefited because I came into this movie as someone who appreciated "Star Trek" but wasn’t an insane fanatic about it. The disadvantage is I didn’t know everything I needed to know immediately at the beginning and had to learn it. The advantage though is I could look at "Star Trek" as a whole a little bit more like a typical moviegoer would see it; it allowed me to seize the things that I felt were truly the most iconic and important aspects of the original series and yet not be serving the master and trying to be true to every arcane detail. It let me look at the things I knew were critical.
Abrams on hardcore fans
LA Times: You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.
JJ Abrams: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of "Star Trek" who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it’s deeply true to what’s come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it’s literally not what they’ve seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it’s going to blow people’s minds because its a completely different experience than what they expect.
Abrams on critiques of the footage shown in November
LA Times: In the footage you showed at the Paramount lot I was really struck by the comedic touches. There was a humor that felt natural and exuberant … there was also some vamping moments for your cast.
JJ Abrams: Yeah, among the kind of anecdotal critiques I read online some people said ‘Oh, look at this, they’re trying to sex it up,’ by having Kirk in bed with a girl or Uhura undressing, and they said, ‘Oh that’s not ‘Star Trek.’ Other people wrote, ‘Oh there’s comedy in it, that’s not ‘Star Trek’ I know.’ Look, if you actually watch the show, that show was always pushing buttons all the time and was considered very sexy for its time. It had the first interracial kiss on television and it was a show that was sexually adventurous. And it was very funny. One of my favorite things about "Star Trek" wasn’t just the overt banter but the humor in that show about the relationships between the main characters and their reactions to the situations they would face; there was a lot of comedy in that show without ever breaking its reality. That’s important to us.
Go to the LA Times to read much more from Abrams on the new Star Trek.
Loading ...
Comments»
Good stuff!
wow interesting
Smart, well-intentioned guy. Good choice for the captain’s chair.
I agree, it’s good to have the look from a non hard-core fan on Star Trek.
And… I don’t care what the engines will look like! :-)
If they kill Porthos, i’m going ape shit.
Hear hear!
My “Hear hear!” was directed toward JJ’s comments, not 5. Mazz Nx01 –
“If they kill Porthos, i’m going ape shit.”
Btw, it’s highly unlikely that Porthos was ‘Admiral Archer’s prize beagle’ mentioned since Porthos woulda been long dead due to natural causes many, many decades before the ‘incident’.
I have always felt ST had humor. I wonder who was saying it didn’t or shouldn’t?
McCoy for one is a hoot. Some of his facial expressions were quite humorous. I miss DeForest Kelley.
IMO, it wouldn’t be ST w/o the humor.
#7 – Dogs live longer in the future.
Honestly, it sounds like Abrams has a prettygood take on it, and I say that as someone who’s been a hardcore trek fan since the very first showing of the very first episode.
However good or bad the movie is, there is no doubting that these are talented and conscientious people involved,
Star Trek isn’t about the actors or the ship (they’re merely the vessel that has made Star Trek as popular as it is today), it’s about presenting a view of humanity that makes people really stop and look at themselves and the world around them. Star Trek reminds people of their weaknesses as human beings while at the same time always challenging men and women alike to make this world a better place.
I’m pretty sure JJ gets that. Let’s hope others allow themselves to see that optimistic future as well.
I don’t know what to think.
I am really looking forward to this movie. I have heard differing views about the alleged “alternate universe” plot and how everything will fit and make sense with “what has come before.” Am I a purist? I loved Battlestar Galactica as a kid. A lot. And I love the new BSG even more. So I don’t think of myself as being a “hardcore purist.”
I do want this new Trek film to be successful and for me to love it. But I fear so much that I’m going to be disappointed. I have looked forward to this movie and followed it here since it was first announced. I now feel that this was probably the wrong thing for me to do since now nothing could possibly live up to my expectations. Too much build up.
I wanted to see things closer to what they were in TOS, albeit with updated effects, higher detail in the sets, and basically an upgrade to the new times. On many counts I think we will get that. The E sort of looks like the one in TOS. Sort of. And the uniforms do too. Sort of. I just want to know that the AU plotline will make sense to my view of this universe since I was 5 years old.
He’s right. There IS a lot of humor in Trek. And Trek is also very sexy in places. Those Skant uniforms have a way of showing those legs ;-)
Green Orion slave girls? A girl in every port? That IS a BIG part of the Original Series.
The fallacy with what Abrams said is:
Just because there are fans that appreciate consistency, that doesn’t make them “insane fanatics”.
So now we are attacking those that disagree.
Wow, are you that insecure JJ?
He has good points- but the proof is in the pudding. I hope it works, I really really do.
Great article. I have alot of faith and hope invested in this new movie. I’m very much looking forward to new (old) trek! As long as JJ is true to his word about focus on the characters, and retaining the “tone” of Star Trek, I think we’re in for a real treat this May. Bring it on!
oh, and #7, #9…could be Archer just likes beagles. I myself prefer collies. When my collie passes on, I’ll probably get another. Grew up with one too. I doubt if Porthos made it that far only to be left in transport limbo. But this is Star Trek…ANYTHING is possible…
Spot on JJ.
TOS was never about jokes and punchlines. It was the characters sense of humor, the situation and the actor’s timing and reactions. Good job JJ!
I think he truly understands the real meaning of Star Trek, something that I have a huge problem getting through to my family and friends!
15 – No. He’s acknowledging that there are those that will cry foul over tiny details that really don’t mean a hill of beans to the overall picture.
There is a level of fandom that will dismiss this movie because it does not match what they expect, or ideally want.
I’ve seen that kind of fandom.
I think He has some great points. But If this Move fails then thats it for Trek as with all the Money they Spent and all the advertising and merchendising will all be for nothing.it looks as though the Movie will be great and I for one will be there opening Night and again the Next day at the Imax. J.J We all have faith that you made a Great Star Trek Movie.
I’m a huge supporter of this movie… but I have to admit some of the comedy and sight gags I’ve read about DO make me a little nervous.
There’s nothing wrong with sex or humor in Trek, as long as it doesn’t become juvenile (like the boob jokes in INS).
TOS had humor, but it wasn’t slapstick. Hopefully they won’t go overboard in the film.
Vic
No problem with comedy in Trek, but I am hoping they are not trying for Trek comedy. There are good examples of comedy in Trek which are entirely in accordance with the characters and universe (Trouble with Tribbles), then there’s bad examples at the EXPENSE of the characters like ST:V. Scotty knocking himself out was slapstick at his expense, not in accordance with the character. Scotty starting a fight over his ship but not his Captain- funny and completely in accordance with my favorite engineer.
23 – Trouble with Tribbles.
Let’s look at the big picture: There is an opportunity to bring in a whole new audience who’s never been exposed to ST, or never really gave it a second thought, as well as give the franchise at least another 20 years of potential life and do things that could not have been done given the SFX technology of the 1960’s. If I were king, would I forego that opportunity to placate the hardcore “I Grok Spock” crowd? Hell no!
I loved TOS, but you can chew on the original 78 episodes for only so long. . . .
Full speed ahead, warp-factor 10, J.J.!
You’re all right……..the movie will bomb big time w/ purist fans, so bipass the theatrical release completely and go direct to video! :)
And make sure it’s avail. only on vhs for under 14.95!
26 – I hear you.
#15:”So now we are attacking those that disagree.
Wow, are you that insecure JJ?”
He’s not attacking anyone. He’s making a fair observation.
He’s not the first close observer to make that kind of statement.
He’s probably not even the 15,000th to notice it.
Are you so insecure that seeing someone point out the obvious (again) feels like an “attack?”
porthos MUST have a cameo…i dont care how or why but PORTHOS MUST BE IN THIS!! looking at kirk or Bones with that ‘your stupid…Im not’ look he made his own
maybe porthos’ great grandson ‘Porthos the third’ would be bones pet or something…get the original dog from ENT too…let the reshoots begin (if porthos not already in it that is)
I didn’t get the impression that the TV show was as concerned with continuity except for an underlying humanistic optimism and familiar enough settings+devices that the audience could focus on the stories without distraction. The stories in Star Trek (TOS) were great. Who gives a rats ass about symmetric warp coils?
This is one of JJ’s least annoying interviews, IMO.
31: “I didn’t get the impression that the TV show was as concerned with continuity”
No big deal, since TOS created the legacy in the first place.
#31- could it be argued that a character’s backstory or at least behavior being consistent is the only continuity which matters? That was typically consistent throughout TOS even when things like UESPA and Starfleet weren’t. Or, is the story more important, so a character’s behavioral patterns can be sacrificed to make a good story? I don’t pose this in an adversarial fashion, I am honestly interested in viewers’ and fans’ opinions on what the acceptable level of change is for story… It’s not like it didn’t happen on pre-JJ Trek (how many personalities did Janeway exhibit to fit a particular story?).
So he has a built in excuse for chucking out 40 years of history and back story just so he can make his Trek version of Star Wars. THere are certain iconic images is SciFi, things like Robby the Robot or the Monolith or the TIE and X-Wing fighters that are synonymous with the mythology that they belong to. The Enterprise (NCC-1701) is one of those iconic forms and the radical redesign of not only it’s basic form (I’m referring to the bloody warp engines JJ) but to it’s very construction isn’t needed and slaps those of us who have stuck with this brand through odd and even movies and, God help us, Enterprise in the face.
i watched the ST2 bonus features and everything JJ says feels and sounds almost verbatum of harve bennett and Nick Meyers….they get it, werent crazy fans but understand how to make what we love about ST shine and continue.
And just think. All will be revealed in less than 100 days.
One thing I am looking forward to more than anything is being able to share my love of Star Trek with more people. This is a Trek that my wife says looks interesting to her and will want to go see with me. She WANTS to see this movie. However she doen’t usually stick around when I put on TOS. If the movie’s good, I may round up some family and friends who might not normally go to a Star Trek movie…and they might have a better chance of enjoying it than if I had tried to take them to a previous Trek. I went to Nemesis with someone who FELL ASLEEP halfway through! I’m excited about Star Trek, in all its 40+ years incarnations, and I want people to be able to share that, and enjoy it and maybe get something out of it they can’t get out of TOS for whatever generational or cosmetic reasons or what have you.
JJ said in the interview: “The reason that it works […] is that I and people who have seen it have walked away feeling that these are the characters. There’s a transition that happens.”
I agree. The essence of Star Trek is really in this movie, and you can feel the dedication of the team everywhere. The Pasers are not black or blue but shiny, the ships nacelles look strange, but this movie is pure Star Trek.
Abrams speaks a lot of sense here, it’s good to have someone like him at the helm – someone with the vision and the direction but also not a rabid fan of Star Trek which clouds so many fan’s heads at times.
I am going into this movie ,
not expecting to be dissapointed.
If I am dissapointed ,
I will deal with it then.
But I am not going to assume its a foregone conclusion that I will be dissapointed.
I am really looking forward to the film.
#15—”Just because there are fans that appreciate consistency, that doesn’t make them “insane fanatics”.
So now we are attacking those that disagree.
Wow, are you that insecure JJ?”
Wow, John. I don’t think that JJ is the “insecure” party in this equation.
And if anyone should be complaining about being attacked for having a different viewpoint, I think it’s Mr. Abrams. That’s been going on since day one. But he isn’t. He has accepted the inevitable—that not everyone is going to love everything about it.
Personally, I think you’re digging a little deep for something to hit him over the head with in this interview.
I hate to say it, but the average movie-goer will look at the Enterprise and see the Enterprise. It has the smae basic design and the different is on the details, which they won’t really care about. As long as it feels like real Trek, and the characters are right, that’s what counts in the long run. I’d rather have a smash hit like it is, than a slavishly-recreated and cramped TV show look on the big screen that only draws the die-hards.
#42—Forget the average moviegoer. I recognize it immediately. Sure, as a longtime fan, I see the changes. But there was never a chance that I was going to mistake it for another ship. I have no problem seeing this as the Enterprise that carried my favorite characters on their five year mission.
You’re absolutely right about what really counts.
Speaking of being nit-picky…
I’m guessing that “Maysell’s Monthly” was supposed to be “Nacelle’s Monthly”, given that the hypothetical nerd would have been upset about a change in the engine design?
;)
Huh, what? I was reading Maysell’s Monthly.
Hey — your nacelle caps are wrong, fella! Fix that before May 8th!
37 – your lucky they just fell asleep during nemesis…the ‘friend’ i persuaded to go along with me to Nemesis (i dont like going to the pictures alone) WALKED OUT halfway through..he said ‘thats it!’ during a talky bit with shinzon then stood up and took off (cinema was nearly empty) leaving me there…….alone :(
i had to talk him into it in the first place as he wasnt a trek fan at all and only agreed to go after i swore i knew for a fact it was a great film, the best one yet, had good reviews, had Patrick ‘X Men’ Stewart etc…looking back i was lucky – he could have quite rightly punched me in he face as hard as he could for having blatantly lied to him like that…leaving me unconscious for the remainder of the film….being left slumped there after the credits to be discovered by an usher muttering ‘not another one’ under his breath
Abrams: “They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do.”
Not true. I’m not going to hate your product if you do it right….and you aren’t even trying.
Who the heck said there isn’t humor in Star Trek. Even Sisko had a good laugh – “I’m not Picard!” after he knocks down Q.
This list is crawling with nattering naybobs of negativism towards the movie. Sometimes it really hard to take. I’m sue JJ is to the point (and has been for a long time) where he just shakes his head at some of the comments made here and on other fanboy sites.
Hell, I though underwriters were a humorless bunch…
I think Trek is much bigger than what Gene expected. The existing “whole” is much greater than the sum of it’s parts.
Saying that he made changes because he knows he cannot please all the purists is a cop-out. His use of the word “finatic” is far too broad and includes those of us who live normal lives but who also believe there was a better solution for the art direction.
Needing to change things to make the “average movie-goer” happier is also a myth. If the average, non-Trek, movie-goer doesn’t know Trek, they won’t know where the changes are…therefore they would not have known what stayed the same. The only group pissed off with changes is the group that made Trek fandom what it is today. If the story, acting and Uhura bras are making them happy…then leave the Enterprise, Bridge, Tricorder, Phaser and communicator alone.
Comparing Trek to BSG is totally unfair. I could not even begin to tell you what a BSG blaster looks like. The Trek gear (and the SHIP) IS just as important to the Trek experience and Kirk’s sexual escapades.
It’s about the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. That’s the core. Reverence is the key. More of needed they.
He sounds pretty well right on the money I have to say.
I like what JJ had to say. He, unlike some people here…we all know who they are, actually can approach this in an healthy and well adjusted way. He doesn’t act delusional about Star Trek like the supposed hardcore “fans.”
Hey JJ, how about a Stephen Colbert cameo in the film? He loves Trek and he’s funny. Oh, I guess some women think he’s sexy too.
13: Yes. Nervous but hoping, hoping, hoping…..
Saying the the “essence” of Trek is in this movie is the same as saying “this is less Trek than before”.
“We have stripped a bunch of things we didn’t like in order to bring you ONLY the core of what once was.
“Instead of delivering a Trek movie, we are delivery a movie that at some low level, feels like Trek.”
Hey, there’s another lowercase S sean! How will I protect my identity? ;)
JJ, once again, shows that he gets it, despite the madness that seems to ensue amongst fans every time he speaks. There are key elements to Trek that matter, and the nacelles aren’t aren’t one of them. If the characters feel right and the story is smart, funny and exciting, I really could care less what the props look like.
RE: #34 – GregW
Are you kidding? The new ship is very recognizable. I am an avid fan of 40+ years and I just can’t understand the inane nit-picking of some so-called “fans”. IT’S A MOVIE! Buy your ticket…buy your popcorn…sit down and enjoy it for what it is…an escape from everyday life where we get to see new life breathed into our beloved Trek universe. Just please don’t do it at the same theater as I. I’d like to enjoy the experience.
I would love it if just once, a movie maker did some press and was honest enough to say, “hey, i made this movie and it really really sucks. i didnt mean for it to suck. but parents of retarded children will tell you that they never intended to make a retarded baby. sometimes the odds work against you and you make a retarded baby. sometimes its just genetic and you do everything you can. sometimes the mother drinks too much when she’s pregnant or smokes and then you have a retarded baby through no fault of the father. in either case, i am not to blame. hey – i tried.but this thing sucks.”
i’m sure that star trek is going to be a non-retarded movie that doesnt suck though. i was just saying that you never hear a movie maker put down their own work. i think was the point i was making. i dont think the above scenario applies in this case.
i’d love to hear sir jjs take on regarding henry though. i liked it, but hated it at the same time. like, its ok on hbo when youre drunk at 3am. but if you had paid to go see it and taken the time then i think retarded baby.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
#46—Having seen it on television myself some years later—you may have been better off unconscious!
:)
#47—”Not true. I’m not going to hate your product if you do it right….and you aren’t even trying.”
There is a brand of new Trek for you. They call it “New Voyages” or “Phase II”.
Even Star Trek “fanatics”, such as those of us who view this site regularly, cannot agree upon what constitutes “doing it right”. To expect Abrams Trek to satisfy everyone’s individual desire is absurd.
If STXI had been “New Voyages” with a bigger budget, there would be an equal number of fans who complained that they should have “updated” the TOS look.
#54—Um…no.
Not even close.
@54…
Hey, McCoy, if you quote me, do it right.
That movie is pure Trek. Period.
Nacelles Monthly. That’s so funny. I love JJ’s sarcasm :-)
Seriously McCoy…if you dislike this movie so much and are so much against it. Why come here everyday? Do you just get off on downing everything?
RE: # 56 Ensign Ro
I wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was, say, the USS Constitution or any other ship and crew. I loved the follow on series and I had no problem with the Enterprise refit because they all stayed within the mythology created by Roddenberry and his writers. I look at what James Cawley and the folks over at Phase II have been able to do and I have to ask why does it need to be radically changed. Sure, clean it up and add some more details to make it look good on the screen, that’s fine but don’t chuck out the baby with the bath water.
But, as somebody pointed out above, we’ll all get to see if it works or not in 100 days. Until then, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
60 “That movie is pure Trek. Period.”
How can you say that without seeing the film?
If pure = 100%, your calculations are way off. I’m also giving them the fact that the story may be good, the actors are fine, the music may be fine and effects great…yet it’s still only adding up to 50% pure for me. Why? Because when you ask me what Trek is, I’m not only going to mention the great science fiction stories, character banter and chemistry, I’m also going to mention the original Enterprise, the bridge and the classic tricorder, communicator and phaser. If you take those things out, it is less than pure.
Now, I’m not talking about making sure the aft window has changed shapes and needs to be moved down a bit…I’m talking about paying greater reverence to where it all started. Trek deserved that more than any other franchise.
So when do we find out what the Superbowl commercial is all about???
JJ reminds me of Nicholas Meyer. Respected TREK, not a Trekker when he came onboard. STII remains one of the best films, and his followups in IV and VI are good as well.
As for humor, “Tribbles”, “I, Mudd” and “The Voyage Home” proved you could have large doses of humor and not disrespect the franchise.
Is it wrong for me to say what I did in post #13?
I have been and shall remain excited about this movie. But I am being totally honest when I say I have misgivings, and that I think they are a direct result of me following this movie so closely for how long? About 2 or 3 years now. I’ve lost my objectivity.
As much as I would hate to, maybe I need to stay away from here til the movie comes out.
@64…
First of all you misinterpreted the meaning of the word essence…
essence
noun
quintessence, soul, spirit, nature; core, heart, crux, nucleus, substance; principle, fundamental quality, sum and substance, warp and woof, reality, actuality; informal nitty-gritty.
I especially like the warp and woof here.
Second.
I am a Star Trek fan since 1970. I shot dark and blurry Polaroids from the TV screen as a kid to get the Phaser, Communicator and Tricorder right in my fathers workshop in the basement. I watched the 20 minutes JJ showed from the movie.
So for me I can say, this movie is done with a huge amount of love for details, faithful to the characters and their relationships.
For me, this is pure Trek.
#7 “Btw, it’s highly unlikely that Porthos was ‘Admiral Archer’s prize beagle’ mentioned since Porthos woulda been long dead due to natural causes many, many decades before the ‘incident’”
You don’t give Phlox nearly enough credit.
“Bring me the osmotic eels, please”
It sounds like JJ Abrams is doing a good job to be, I’ll just wait and see the movie. I’m looking forward to it.
Since Archer’s beagle was worked in as a plot device, it’d be kinda cool to see Scott Bakula pop up briefly to give Simon Pegg some hell at the end of the movie:
“You beamed my dog off to God-knows-where, then you turned around and used that thing on people?!?!?” LOL
@68
Pure…..
1. Separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter; free from mixture or combination; clean; mere; simple; unmixed; as, pure water; pure clay; pure air; pure compassion.
2. Free from moral defilement or quilt; hence, innocent; guileless; chaste; — applied to persons. “Keep thyself pure.” –1 Tim. v. 22.
3. Free from that which harms, vitiates, weakens, or pollutes; genuine; real; perfect; — applied to things and actions.
This movie is no where near “pure”.
In JJ I trust.
Well the comedy in original Trek flowed naturally from the situation and from how well each of the characters knew each other. With this movie, the scene (spoiler alert)) describing faux Kirk running around this new Enterprise with swollen hands and tongue and not being able to talk …… just seems ridiculous to me…and not funny. If that’s
the kind of humor they show, well I think they missed the point
#67–No, I don’t think so. I feel as you do and we are entitled to that.
As for JJ’s comments — Yes, Trek had humor but not slapstick humor. As for the sexed up remark, didn’t that come from Pine himself at first? ;) I wish they’d all just stop talking about it now to be honest. We’ll have the film soon enough.
Spock: I examined the problem from all angles, and it was plainly hopeless. Logic informed me that, under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation. Logical decision, logically arrived at.
Kirk: Ah, I see. You mean you reasoned that it was time for an emotional outburst.
Spock: Well, I wouldn’t put it in exactly those terms, Captain, but those are essentially the facts.
Kirk: [sighs] You aren’t going to admit that for the first time in your life, you committed a purely human, emotional act?
Spock: No, sir.
Kirk: [laughs] Mr. Spock, you are a stubborn man.
Spock: Yes, sir.
Captain Kirk and Spock, The Galileo Seven, Star Trek: The Original Series
#74 – Abrams mentioned in a previous interview that the “Swollen Hand” bit was about as extreme as it will get.
Abrams understands the nature of Star Trek fandom. How many of y’all were here when he came on to Trekmovie on the last day of filming?
He knows that the show carries with it a veritable army of loyal fans. Many of us want there to be a “No Smoking” sign in the transporter room. Many others here do not care.
But, like thorsten up above, I feel that he “gets” it.
First off, he is a geek. His “Infocom” T-shirt is proof. He knows how nitpicky and serious we are, and that we rightly consider Star Trek to be “ours.” I am sure that, once the film has run its course, Anthony will interview him (DVD Extras?) and he’ll cave on the real perspective toward fans.
Roberto Orci has been, and always shall be, a hint that these guys are close to the source material, and “get” it.
No sex in Trek? How many times did Kirk get laid. Hell even Spock got some every now and again.
@77…
The swollen hand is funny. Even funnyer is that Kirk can’t talk anymore when he tries to recrute Uhura for help with convincing Pike, and Bones trying to keep up with fighting that virus side effects one hypospray after the other.
It is funny in the way of “The Trouble With Tribbles”…
#75 – “As for JJ’s comments — Yes, Trek had humor but not slapstick humor.”
I would go as far to say that it had near slapstick humor on occasion. I don’t know about mickey mouse hands, but it wasn’t immune to wacky humor on occasion either.
Then of course I would find myself laughing during certain scenes that weren’t even meant to be funny! Not trying to be disrespectful, but I couldn’t help it.
For example, there is one episode, it’s been a while since I have seen it so I don’t recall which one, where the ship was getting rocked and they kept cutting to this hallway where 20 people were just getting thrown around back and forth. And they cut to them like 3 times and just how it and the actors came off was hilarious, especially the way they cut it into the scene repeatedly. To ME, that was unintentional slapstick, when they were undoubtedly trying to go for a truly dramatic scene!
Wait, Archer’s beagle? Admiral Archer? Sorry, but it can’t be Jonathan Archer people. Archer would be ancient, even more so than, for example, McCoy in “Encounter at Farpoint”. And only an Admiral? I expect it’s supposed to be Jon’s kid, not Jon himself. :P
As for the interview with JJ, he hasn’t said anything that I wouldn’t expect him to say. Good going Abrams, I’m still hopeful for this movie.
#80 – Come to think of it I think what made it funny was that as soon as they all regained their composure they were getting tossed right back and forth into the walls.
Who said there was no humour in Star Trek!?!?!? Star Trek is the funny shizzle! I mean all the original Star Trek films were LOADED with comedy and hilarious banter! Even in the latest films, which some people think were poor, still held up the original style of comedy!
I am glad its there, it belongs there, just as I am glad JJ is there because it seems like he is going to restore the Trek we all love, even if there are changes! Go for it JJ…bring on the next one too!
If the movie is nearly as good as the “talk” has been, I’ll be satisfied. Bob and JJ have impressed me with their sincerity and with their apparent dedication to getting the movie right. Less than 100 days left. It’s starting to feel real!
We know it’s funny but outsiders might not see it. Next Gen seemed pretty somber before I actually watched it and TOS I saw as a silly show from the sixties and expected to get more laughs from the props.
JJ is not the almighty
I am still unhappy with his changes but I am still looking forwardto seeing this movie
if he screws up then we have all our DVDs and original timeline
“The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of “Star Trek” who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Maysell’s Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do.”
See, now, to me that’s being gratuitously negative -right out of the gate – about people who are a potential $9.50 butt in the seat. Why not just focus on the things he thinks diehards WILL like instead of prematurely slagging them off? It’s just not gentlemanly.
# 82, remember, they’re self-admittedly playing ‘fast and loose’ with some timelines and continuity here, so don’t rule anything out. If you want to go strictly ‘by the book’, there wouldn’t be a canonical justification for Scotty mentioning Archer – or his dog – in the present tense to begin with. Color me wrong on May 8th, but we may get an Easter egg out of it.
Just sayin’.
“Maysell’s Monthly?”
Doesn’t he mean “Nacelles Monthly?”
This month: “Captain Pike likes Spikes!”
I skimmed the posts and reminded myself why I try to read them less.
Some of you just are itching for a fight.
#33: “could it be argued that a character’s backstory or at least behavior being consistent is the only continuity which matters?”
No offense being taken. It’s a good question.
I think some level of consistency in behaviour is important, but I don’t think that the characters in TOS were that consistent episode to episode, though obviously some do evolve in their thoughts and relationship and , if not because of the stories then because of the actors there will be some consistency.
But from a story standpoint, the prime directive goes from something to disregard in self defense, to something worth sacrificing the ship over, the characters themselves show exceptional emotional range, from their weak moments to their strengths. I suspect this is one of the things that I love about that show, and I think why it can swing from comedy to drama to “forbidden planet”-like from episode to episode and the audience doesn’t blink an eye.
Also, since they are essentially making a montage of events, I don’t think you can say that it is a balanced or complete perspective. I think if I took events out of my life out of context I could tell any number of stories about myself which would contradict each other.
If I find myself picking it to pieces in terms of continuity, I think it will be because the story or the dialogue isn’t good enough. I hope and hope that that will not be the case!!!
That said, I would say that the people who made Highlander II should have at least watched The Highlander….
we are not one
It’s posts like these that reaffirm my confidence in the new movie. Nicely done, JJ
#81– Yes, most certainly some scenes played badly but the important difference is that it was unintentional. They were at the mercy of 60s special effects and, then sometime, stuff just was written badly. That’s not the same thing as writing a “mickey mouse hands” scene. I’m hoping that’s the extent of it. I wanna love this film.
Ugh. Don’t you people watch ‘Lost’?! Am I the only Trek fan who has actually watched a show other that a Trek show?! Lost is one of the best TV shows on today — let alone the best sci-fi shows on today. JJ won me over with Lost — it never ever ceases to surprise me. Character-driven yet loaded with sci-fi mystery. If the new Trek comes even half-way near the level of excellence Lost achieves I’ll call it an unqualified success.
87. captain_neill –
“JJ is not the almighty…if he screws up then we have all our DVDs and original timeline”
That’s right, naysayers. I’ve been Trekking since 1976 and I am more than welcoming a challenging new approach to the franchise. And it’s not just that I’m happy new Trek is being produced (we’ve been getting new Trek for better or for worse from 1987-2003), I’m happy that a comfident and competent producer/director is at the helm. I trust JJ. Yes, sure, he’s not the greatest creator/director of all time (who is?! Roddenberry?? hardly) but I like the stuff he stands behind so I’m very, very optimistic about the new movie. Those folks who want to nitpick and ‘boycott’ (yeah, right) the movie to death need to stop and check themselves. Trek is COMING BACK. Isn’t that reason enough to celebrate?! I was not in any way pleased with how the Klingons were portrayed when TNG debuted but I shrugged it off and went with it. Why? Because I was getting new Trek and that was better than no Trek. And most of the time that wasn’t bad! Face it: New Trek on film will always be better than new Trek novels, new Trek comics, new Trek fan-produced stories. But better than that, we actually have a competent creative team at the helm this time! Chill the #%#@ out!!
As a “Trek Purist” let me say that I don’t “hate” anything I have seen so far…just things I’d have done differently. I’m giving this film an overall fair shake…
It’s becoming more and more obvious that JJ Abrams is making “A” Star Trek movie, not “YOUR” Star Trek movie, and there are simply going to be those that no matter what you do, how you film, whom you cast and what details you remember, are going to hate your movie. This happens with every film or show that has a following…Bond, Batman, BSG, Dr. Who…just off the top of my head. I’m giving the guy a fair shake and seeing the movie with no predetermined points of view. I’ll simply consider the picture a new interpretation of a classic franchise.
96: Right on!!!! If Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise didn’t kill off the Trek’s franchise (I’m in a fighting mood!!!) then what the hell can JJ possibly do to it beyond add his own thing… The only thing is the next guy probably won’t get the same budget so those of you bemoaning the cut to shaking people in hallways in TOS will need to get over it!!!
Hmm.
Isn’t it funny how they keep pointing out that Star Trek featured the first “interacial kiss”? No hoopla at all over the first “interspecies kiss”.
How often did that happen on the show? Anyone recall who the first alien Kirk kissed was?
#100: white people kissing white people no matter what they are acting to be is not significant, period!
My mother is a person of color (South-East Asian) and when she drove West on vacation, they started to see local news papers warning of a gypsy caravan travelling through. Took them a little while to realize that they were the gypsys everyone was talking about.
I’ve had people want to beat me up in the 80’s because of my skin color in my home town (in the North) and one of our neighbors used to call the police when I walked down our street (throughout my childhood) because I lived next to a golf course and we were the only off-white people there!!!
I’m glad you live in a world where an interracial kiss is such a non-issue that you would make such a statement!!!
#96 Yes, Trek is coming back, and it’s reason to celebrate. And I’d never boycott the movie. I want it to be a huge success. I’m not a purist, I just have my problems with the basic premise of that alternate timeline/universe. Maybe in the end it won’t really matter, so let’s wait and see. But yes, this film actually deserves the label “New Trek”.
Shatner & Nimoy are old school Jews, they KNOW from humor! Oy Gevalt. Just ask Mel Brooks, Reiner & son, Billy Crystal, Woody Allen, The Warner Bros., etc.! I actually watched the PBS show about Jews in Comedy.
Did any of you read “I AM SPOCK” Nimoy goes on for hours about wry Jewish humor throughout. McCoy is the “straight” man, the unwitting butt of Spock’s devilsh, impish, rascally jokes.
Sulu has a line in Voyager, “Don’t tell me Vulcans don’t have a sense of humor mister, I know better.” A lot of that came from Nimoy sticking to his guns about who he thought Spock was. And from Shatner being Shatner.
How many Jews are in Trek09? There better be at least 2 to make fun of us Goyim.
I’m out for pastrami and a matzo…
L’Chaim
No, no, no! there cannot be humor in star trek! As punishment I vote we stick jj’s head in a ricepicker.
Thorsen, that’s funny in the way of “Spock’s Brain” not “Trouble with Tribbles”
Ooooo SebiMeyer
I know you’re talking about Spock’s ears referring to “City on the Edge of Forever” but let’s not get the Asians riled up.
Can we please kill the meme of Trek having the first interracial kiss on TV? This is about as valid as saying the communicator was the inspiration for the cell phone.
Was it I Spy?
The “tone” of this movie will make or break it.
The props/details? Yeah, I bitch, but whether or not JJ really “gets it” remains to be seen.
And THAT’S what really counts.
Hey, if it sucks, I’ll always have my DS9 discs.
#79 – “How many times did Kirk get laid?”
Three times.
His wife Miramanee became pregnant in “The Paradise Syndrome.” It was implied that he had sex with Deela in TOS’s first and only “putting on boots” scene (a fairly common way to imply sex in 1960’s TV) in “Wink of an Eye.” It was also implied that he had sex with Drusilla in “Bread and Circuses.”
To this day, I have no idea where people got this insane, idiotic notion that Kirk is a ladies’ man. It’s just another stereotype about TOS that was made up and propagated by people who never actually WATCHED the show.
#110
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Come on, just because he only got it in 3 times doesn’t mean he wasn’t trying.
re: post 90, I read the article on the LA Times website, it was updated to correct for “Nacelles Monthly.”
#24 well said, that is exactly what I hope does not happen in the new movie, just to and attract kids and new viewers. Scotty hitting his head on the bulkhead was just plain stupid and the people that laughed at that are well let’s leave it at that.
I don’t think that kind of humor will appear in the new movie. JJ is not that kind of writer/director. At least from the shows I have seen of his.
This movie will be very good, but as said, you can’t please all the people all the time.
#110 The 1960’s was a very different time and place with different limits in broadcast media in terms of alot of things.
There’s a massive undertone of sexuality throughout the series with Kirk as a player.
“Are you like these engines,Kirk… throbbing.”
He took a wife on a planet when he lost his memory. Think they were coupling?
He leered at his female subordinates alot of the time and there’s more.
The thing is that show was pushing the limits every chance it got. Black men as security chiefs, the designers of supercomputers, and scientists (off the cuff I can’t recall if any captains but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t an admiral or captain in there) was in the background– it wasn’t the story but it was there to change people. He kisses Uhura– it was at that time not clear if TV allowed blacks and whites to kiss. Their out (I guess) if the sensors asked is that they were both being controlled I think. But other shows of the time (I Spy) were equally timid in terms of the interracial stuff.
This show was ground-breaking and I really am sad that people don’t realize it.
A guy painted half-black, half-white and another with the other guy the reverse opposite today would probably be a scene with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, but in the 1960’s their enmity was a powerful statement (and yes Dr Seuss was too).
On the one hand, I don’t think J.J. has much use for us. I’d feel unloved if it weren’t for the Orci love gettin’ spread ’round here like good jam.
On the other hand, I think he’s substantively right. So I approve the interview, even though it makes me cry a little bit inside.
With the exception of Shatner not being involved in this film, it sounds like they have done everything right.
I am not sure why this comes up every time…there seems to be this myth that just because JJ refuses to pander to Trek fans alone, he somehow does not like trek fans. Wowbagger is 100% wrong about JJ not having any use for Trek fans. If that were true would he have done the live chat here? would he be inviting Harry Knowles and other geekorazi to preview the movie. Every time I have talked to him he seemed very up on what fans are thinking and atuned to fan concerns. He just knows that the math doesnt work and the fans are not enough to make this film a success. Why does it have to be one or the other?
If you find yourself having a kneejerk reaction to the words “insane fanatic”, chances are you probably are one. Just sayin’…
I’m a pretty avid Trek fan. I was one for continuity and such. However, this redesing still bears a decent resemblance to the original. I’m going to enjoy this whether or not you guys think the movie is pure gold or just a steaming pile. For me, its all about the characters. As long as the story is decent and the characters are true to form and behavior, JJ can change the design aesthetic as much as he wants as long as it bears some resemblance to the original artistic interpretation of the era.
Wowbagger: JJ is a fanboy. He is not a Trekkie, but having been involved in genre TV, he knows what he is getting into.
When “Enterprise” went off the air, it was averaging under 4 million viewers per ep. Disastrous. “Nemesis” grossed in cinemas much less that it cost the studio to produce it. Who knows what Paramount’s net loss was?
We, the fans, are guaranteed to show up for multiple viewings, so we are not the core target of investment. We have a few bones thrown to us, but the core investment target is the ‘general movie-going public. Paramount is re-jigging its tentpole properties, and to guarantee a worldwide gross of $1 billion, it needs to focus on the real world.
#101
Please re-read my post. I did not state that an interracial kiss was a “non-issue”
Regards.
Go Abrams Go! Go Abrams Go!
117 AP “I am not sure why this comes up every time…there seems to be this myth that just because JJ refuses to pander to Trek fans alone, he somehow does not like trek fans. Wowbagger is 100% wrong about JJ not having any use for Trek fans. If that were true would he have done the live chat here? would he be inviting Harry Knowles and other geekorazi to preview the movie. Every time I have talked to him he seemed very up on what fans are thinking and atuned to fan concerns. He just knows that the math doesnt work and the fans are not enough to make this film a success. Why does it have to be one or the other?”
Anthony, it just doesn’t make sense. The designs could have been much closer to the originals, Just as the uniforms were grandfathered in, the other designs should have been as well. All the fans here who are open to the new look, would also have been fine with an look closer to true TOS. Anyone new to Trek, really doesn’t care about the designs anyway, right? I mean, that’s what everyone is saying. If it’s all about the characters and story, then why not have a look closer to the original? There is fundamentally nothing better or more futuristic than any of the designs. You can tell more money was spent on details and construction, but the initial changes themselves will not add to the bottom line.
120: “We, the fans, are guaranteed to show up for multiple viewings, so we are not the core target of investment. We have a few bones thrown to us, but the core investment target is the ‘general movie-going public. Paramount is re-jigging its tentpole properties, and to guarantee a worldwide gross of $1 billion, it needs to focus on the real world.”
So we agree that Paramount is doing this more for the money and not reverence to iconic science fiction.
#121. I read your post very carefully and I don’t think you understood my point I was commenting on how wonderful it is that the interracial kiss is something we take for granted today. I live in Norcal and (especially as I go into SF) I see mixed race couples all over the place. But we often forget when the quesiton of whether the races (black, white, Asian) should be allowed to inter-marry was once the thing people would debate when whites and blacks or whites and Asians kissed. Star Trek and shows like it moved that forward. My comment was quite genuine on how wonderful it is that that you can take that for granted. I think that societal change was something that Roddenberry was committed to in this series and I am very happy to see us move past race and ethnicity. But I think it is a major theme of Star Trek and should not be forgotten or overlooked: Whether man evovles/the dialogue of Q and Picard is for me one of the greatest and most interesting aspect of TNG (I’m a TOS fan…). The casting of Faran Tahir as Captain of the Kelvin honors this tradition, especially in an era where Muslim or Arab has become synonymous with Anti-American and Terrorist. When we debate continuity I would hope people bear this stuff in mind as much as they scrutinize where the phaser’s trigger is, or whether there is an Emergency bridge….
JJ said :
“But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do.”
Ain’t THAT the truth!
Makes me sure JJ has been reading the posts here!
;-)
124.
“So we agree that Paramount is doing this more for the money and not reverence to iconic science fiction.”
This is news? The bottom line is always money. The fact that Trek managed to sneak in some artistry and substance is a bonus.
It’s a little silly to be this righteous about a popular form of entertainment, isn’t it? After all, I’m sure this isn’t the first time a Trek episode or movie might not meet your expectations. It’s happened to me from time to time and I assure you it’s not that big a deal, my friend.
I”m hopeful that I will be very entertained in May. If it doesn’t happen? “As they say on Earth: C’est la vie!”
“So we agree that Paramount is doing this more for the money and not reverence to iconic science fiction.”
What do you think Gene was doing when he created the series. Dude, get a grip and stop sounding so sanctimonious.
a/ these days, movies are made to make money
b/ to make money from a movie you have to attract A LOT of people
c/ trek fans are not “A LOT of people”
d/ this movie cannot be targetted on trek fans, it has to primarily attract the average movie consumer.
expect “the goods win over the the bad guy”-style plot, babes, action, primitive jokes, Pixar-grade effects and Nimoy as a cherry on top… that’s the way it is, people. 21. century. Learn to live with it.
If this movie was just rebranded to something else, people were renamed and Nimoy was not in, nobody would even care about it as it would be just-another-space-action-blockbuster-crap…
#110
Exactly.
#111
We could have lots of fun discussing that – but that was not the question.
- But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. -
Yes yes, dear, we’ve already got it – not for readers of Nacelles Monthly, not for readers of The Customer Loyalty Magazine, not for readers of The Anti Cat and Mouse Campaign Member’s Journal, not for readers of The Retro Lovers Post. What a pity, I’ve subscribed to all of them, including The Insane Fanatic’s Guide on Films to Miss in 2009…;)
You know, I’ve recently been pulling Star Wars collectables out of the closet and placing them on ebay. With no regrets. I guess for me, the importance and fond memories of the Star Wars universe were severely impacted by the last three Lucas attempts.
I still find it strange that some people are open to letting someone basically come through the Star Trek door and make changes to TOS just for a romp in a theater. There are plenty of other movies capable of delivering action and new interpretations on space travel and phaser design—we didn’t need to attempt to re-brand Kirk’s era to this degree.
I assume it’s my weakness that I see what could have been. I see that young men have come in and changed things that didn’t need to be changed, while at the same time exclaiming that what they changed wasn’t important anyway.
Still, I carry some hope the timeline will be restored or time cops will remove all new technology. If I don’t hear that this has happened, I will be just fine staying and perhaps contemplate selling things from my Star Trek collection.
To me, seeing the Enterprise like this is like watching R2D2 suddenly use booster rockets to fly around—simply because it looks cool. Seeing Scotty get excited about Pike’s ship is like watching Jar Jar jump up and down waving his hands. Looking at the generic communicator and phaser wondering where the classic gear is, is like wondering why the Millennium Falcon is MIA for three prequels.
What am I worried about? That feeling.
131. McCoy – January 30, 2009
Nicely said….
McCoy, it is one thing to accept the fact that Paramount greelights a movie that costs 150 million Dollars and expects some return of investment at the box office, and another one to sell of you old Phasers because the one from the new, changed timeline look different, and pivot between stun and kill.
All your gear will keep its emotional value.
And the Millenium Falcon was in Episode III…
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/8/8f/Episode_3_Falcon.jpg
#131:
That about says it for me, too.
Thanks for your eloquence.
FFS purists get over yourselves. This film look a hell of a lot closer to the source material than Batman Begins, Casino Royale or the Star Wars prequels…and this for a franchise that has had two box office dissapointments in a row. The usual route would be for them to throw out everything and to cast some supermodel as Spock, make the whole thing dark any post-911, etc, etc. This is all pretty damn close
and stop with the ‘they are changing TOS’…TOS is not changing. I just checked and all my DVDs are still there. in fact Paramount is rereleasing it on blu-ray and giving you your precious non-remastered version in HD
again FFS stopy whining. three years ago this franchise looked headed for death and now it is back and huge and you are still f–ing arguing over the bridge railings…it is pathetic
This movie will probably be fun and make a lot of money and everything. I know that I’m excited about it. Maybe I’m just worried about something thats been so important to me since I was a kid, many moons ago, having it’s mythology changed too much. Kirk is the youngest captain ever because of what happened on the Farragut, and at the battle of Axanaar, and whatever. Spock didn’t see his parents after he left for starfleet until Babel. Superman is from Krypton, not Neon. Are these things really important? Maybe not. But the way the franchise has held the continuity together so well for 43 years has been kind of fun.
#123 – “If it’s all about the characters and story, then why not have a look closer to the original?”
If it is all about the characters and story, then why not have it look the way it does now? Shouldn’t make any difference, remember? ;)
#131 – “I still find it strange that some people are open to letting someone basically come through the Star Trek door and make changes to TOS just for a romp in a theater.”
Changes are being made to the original series? Funny, I was watching The Cage tonight and it looked exactly the same to me, as did “Trouble with Tribbles” the other day. Maybe those changes haven’t affected my DVDs yet? ;)
# 135: Thanks for saying it!
You’d think that JJ has been caught on camera sneaking into the homes of Trekkies at night and personally smothering their childhoods with a Trek pillow that is made of little Enterprise Delta insignias woven together.
Yeah, they could have made it with more detailed versions of 1960s sets, but they would have looked like more detailed versions of 1960s sets.
This is perhaps the only place online where all of the haters the types hate GUIs, because good ole’ WordPerfect 5.1 worked fine the way it was, versus 15 year adolescent punks.
oh yeah…@#34
“I’m referring to the bloody warp engines JJ”
You’re the “insane fan” he’s talking about!
If you say you know this movie stinks already without seeing it, or that you think it looks bad and feel that J.J. Abrams somehow ruined your childhood. And after all that complaining then you go and see it and say, “see…I hated this. I told you so. I hope the sequel will be better,” you might be an “insane fan.’
If you can say that this movie screwed up because there wasn’t a flake of blue paint on panel A 3 of the engine room and there clearly was one on the original show, you are an insane fan.
If you have a Star Trek costume and are older than…I don’t know 9– and wear it without being paid to, you might be an insane fan.
If you say that the makers, writers or actors, or the movie itself ruined your life, and you were not involved in anyway with the list of folks mentioned or the movie or making it, you’re an insane fan.
If you can speak Klingon by heart, you may be an insane fan.
if your wife left you because you changed the living room to look like the bridge of any ship, you’re an insane fan.
if you have a snot rag that you picked up on e-bay, or from an auction or off the street because someone in Star Trek blew his or her nose in it you’re an insane fan.
Some of that makes it sound like its gonna be a quality movie, which I think it will be, but I still have my doubts about weather its gonna be quality trek. The part about the nacelle monthly kinda made JJ sound like a douche towards us purists, and I could even look past them building a fugly ship (at least from the neck down) but when they go building it on earth and in iowa and throw the whole alternate timeline crap, that’s when I start to lose faith. My prediction, I think this movie will bring some new people to the franchise, but I think it could also drive away a good deal of people to.
And what’s wrong with Nacelles Monthly?
@141…
the 20 minutes I saw of that movie are fast paced, smart, funny and had great ILM effects… and a terrific cast. And while I build Phasers, Communicators and Tricorders from wood and scrap metal in the basement as a kid, I loved what I saw.
Its that easy.
“but when they go building it on earth and in iowa and throw the whole alternate timeline crap, that’s when I start to lose faith.”
Ironic as some of our best Trek was alternate universe/alternate timeline. And so what if it is built in Iowa? Earth isn’t a problem since there is nothing to refute the Enterprise being built on Earth. But what of it being built in Iowa? Really, what of it?
Thorsten — How are you? Like I have said before I know you some the 20 minutes and said good things about it. But the more I read, the more nervous I get. Having said that I get more and more eager by the day to see this movie! On May 9th I want to be “BLOWN AWAY” by this movie.
Have a GREAT WEEKEND!!!!
“If you find yourself having a kneejerk reaction to the words “insane fanatic”, chances are you probably are one. Just sayin’…”
Actually, no. I bristle when I hear those words uttered and I wouldn’t categorize myself as fanatical in the sense I think you mean. For example, I don’t really care how it looks — more $ and 40+ years later = a different look. But I CAN understand that it might upset others who are into the ships and props etc.
I simply dislike it when anyone feels the need to slap condescending labels on others, be it JJ or other posters. It just seems unnecessary. And if you’re posting on a Trek board, you’ve kinda gone beyond “average” yourself so it’s rather ironic to then be telling others they are too invested as some do here in this thread. ;) just saying…
Hi Sam!
Of course it is difficult to embrace this whole idea.
A new timeline. New Phasers. A new transporter effect… (but the old sound) The Communicators have the old chime as well.
There is this huge rift between the people who accept that changes were neccessary, and the other folks that point to “Phase II” and say it is possible to work with props that look like 1966. In the end all that counts will be if this movie tells a great story or not.
Star Trek is in very good hands these days. The people in front and behind the cameras are very dedicated and talented. ILM outdid itself on the effects. Paramount believed in it and risked a ton of money. A lot of love and energy went into this project, to make Star Trek a success in 2009.
We should respect that.
#146 – Word.
There’s a huge difference between “refusing to pander to Trek fans alone,” as Anthony suggests is the only thing about JJ’s attitude leaving a sour taste, and just plain being needlessly, pre-emptively antagonistic in interviews.
There’s no easier way to alienate people than by coming out of the gate saying, “You’re not going to like this, and I don’t care.” That’s like being cast as the bad guy before you’ve even had a chance to do anything wrong. How would you feel if your wife handed you a wrapped birthday gift with a card that said, “You’re probably going to complain about this because nothing’s ever good enough for you, you sorehead.”
It DOESN’T have to be one or the other. If he’s as good a filmmaker as everyone says, he’s capable of making a movie for fans and non-fans, And he should be able – and eager – to promote that film positively to both audiences.
If he doesn’t want the public to make judgments until they’ve seen it, I think he should show the same courtesy. You get out of people what you expect of them. If he keeps going on and on and on about how diehard fans are going to be upset, he’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
148:
T.U.M.
“If he keeps going on and on and on about how diehard fans are going to be upset, he’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
He has never said this. He is saying the opposite, that’s it’s true to the original spirit of the show.
Look, we’ve all been hoodwinked several times by the franchise in terms of continuity errors, and we’ve survived. We’ll survive his re-imagining of the early days as well. Maybe some of us will even prefer it.
FYI – In “In A Mirror, Darkly” the Startfleet bio for Captain Archer that the mirror universe Archer reads states that he lived long enough to see the Constitution-class Enterprise launched.
“If he keeps going on and on and on about how diehard fans are going to be upset, he’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
–Me
“He has never said this. He is saying the opposite, that’s it’s true to the original spirit of the show.”
–AJ
“They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. ”
–JJ
So, you’re saying he has never said the words that I’ve quoted from the article posted here? If it wasn’t him, then who’s been speaking for him in interviews?
144- OK- though a proclaimed Canonite, I think anyone who looks through my posts will see I have not bashed the new film. I have stated there are things I don’t like, I have said I wished it was done differently, but I admit I won’t know until May whether or not the whole thing works. However, let’s talk about Iowa.
The changes Nero makes to the timeline obviously change Kirk’s life, and affect the way Starfleet does things. Apparently the Enterprise is now being built in a place more “secrety” to be launched later and surprise this new Romulan threat. Perhaps. That could be a huge misinterpretation. What I don’t understand is why it JUST SO HAPPENS the Enterprise is being built mere miles from Altered Jimmy Kirk’s house. That’s my issue with Iowa- it seems awfully convenient that the catalyst which pulls Kirk out of his My-Dad-is-dead-and-my-step-dad-is-a-jerk funk happens to be the starship he was meant to command in the original timeline.
Maybe it makes sense- maybe we find out Riverside is a “Starfleet Town” full of pawn shops and strip clubs (if you grew up in an Army town, you know what I mean), and that’s why Kirk was born there in the first place- it’s where his Dad was stationed. After all, it looks like the construction site of the ship building facility is where little Jimmy delivers the Corvette. Right now though, besides being a change from what we thought we knew about original Trek, Iowa seems really convenient and a bit contrived as a location to build the Enterprise. That’s my problem with Iowa.
Not TREK but the first real interspecies kiss – in a film anyway – was between Taylor and Zira in PLANET OF THE APES. Or was it Eastwood and… ?
Liz#146- I reach, my sister. Though some of my friends would call me an ST fanatic (those who are not fans), I see myself only as someone who appreciates the intrinsic message the show carried during its initial run – hope and tolerence. It does not seem very tolerent for Abrams or anyone else to throw out disparaging labels during interviews.
Of course the DVDs of remastered Trek will be fine…thank goodness for the remastered versions. In fact my Star Wars DVDs survived too.
I’m not really sure what I lost after the Star Wars prequels. But it’s gone. Guess I’m not smart enough to give it a name. It’s the same thing I lost after the Lost in Space and Speed Racer Films.
Denise#154– I image to our non-fan friends, we ARE fanatical. (My collection alone tags me as such but I don’t care.) I understand that viewpoint coming from a non-fan. From fanboys & girls, though? — not so much.
And you’re so right. Trek’s message is something to appreciate. IDIC.
#88—”Why not just focus on the things he thinks diehards WILL like instead of prematurely slagging them off?”
It was a direct response to this:
LA Times: “You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.”
You’re removing the man’s comments from the proper context. It is not as if he made some random comment about things that some “purists” might not like.
#110—”I have no idea where people got this insane, idiotic notion that Kirk is a ladies’ man. It’s just another stereotype about TOS that was made up and propagated by people who never actually WATCHED the show.”
It’s hardly insane or idiotic. Nor is it a “stereotype”. It is a “reputation”.
That reputation is very much a part of his iconic status, regardless of how well deserved it actually is. And it also isn’t solely dependant upon how many times that ‘actual sex’ was implied. It was his ‘way’ with women—his charismatic impact upon the fairer sex which built that reputation more than anything else.
#123—”The designs could have been much closer to the originals…”
And they could have just as easily been a further departure.
If you want nostalgic new Trek—watch New Voyages/Phase II.
#131—”I still find it strange that some people are open to letting someone basically come through the Star Trek door and make changes to TOS just for a romp in a theater. ”
No one is making changes to TOS (except for the recent remastering efforts which have nothing to do with Abrams). TOS will always be there.
#157
“You’re removing the man’s comments from the proper context. It is not as if he made some random comment about things that some “purists” might not like.”
Just because the interviewer is looking for dirt, JJ doesn’t have to give it to him.
He could have answered something along the lines of, “I think there’s a lot in the movie for hardcore fans to like. I hope once they see it, they’ll overcome any reservations they might have had. It says a lot about Star Trek that people are even interested enough to care that much after all these years.” It takes no more effort to be courteous.
I left the context out because pretty much any question of that sort can be answered diplomatically. and I didn’t want anyone to have to read the whole article again. In this particular case, the context really doesn’t effect the way the remarks come off.
“You’re removing the man’s comments from the proper context. It is not as if he made some random comment about things that some “purists” might not like.”
Yes, the LA TIMES asked the question but does he have to take it a step further with “insane fanatic” and the mockingness of “Nacelles Monthly”? it’s just not helpful and is polarzing. I agree with T.U.M. above, you can promote this movie to both camps in a positive manner. (Other than the Shatner thingy, he was doing that just fine in my opinion up until recently.)
151/ T.U.M.
Making fans “upset” and giving them “something to hate” are two different things.
I hate the new Bridge, but I am not upset. It’s semantics, and we could debate them all day. I think he’s saying he cannot satisfy all the nitpickers’ dreams of a perfectly replicated TOS universe, but that old fans will find a lot to love in the film regardless. I, as a fan for 37 years, already see a lot.
#161—”He could have answered something along the lines of, “I think there’s a lot in the movie for hardcore fans to like. I hope once they see it, they’ll overcome any reservations they might have had. It says alot about Star Trek that people are even interested enough… ”
He has said as much in the past, particularly, right here on trekmovie.com (in the Q and A session), although not in those exact words.
He’s not speaking to “geeks” in this interview. He’s talking to the L.A. Times—quite the “mainstream” media outlet. And this is the same newspaper that really did insult Star Trek and its fans during an interview with Simon Pegg last year!
“Just because the interviewer is looking for dirt, JJ doesn’t have to give it to him”
Lol.
Do you really think this guy’s intention was to stir up a couple of Trekkies on a site like this? This newspaper thinks we are a joke. They made that quite clear a while back.
#164
“Do you really think this guy’s intention was to stir up a couple of Trekkies on a site like this?”
No, of course not. Would you mind explaining what could possibly have led you to think that’s what I thought?
159: “And they could have just as easily been a further departure.”
Nothing takes away from the fact that if you “visit Kirk’s era”, things should look a certain way and characters should have a certain history.
160: “No one is making changes to TOS (except for the recent remastering efforts which have nothing to do with Abrams). TOS will always be there.”
Come on, you know what I mean. Of course my old episodes are fine…when I say “changes to TOS” I mean changes to the TOS “universe”.
#165—-If I misinterpreted this: ““Just because the interviewer is looking for dirt, JJ doesn’t have to give it to him”, then I apologize, but why else would he be “looking for dirt” if not to stir up something between Abrams and Trek fans?
Who else would the “dirt” benefit?
Since you’re implying that meant something else—what was it?
#166—”Nothing takes away from the fact that if you “visit Kirk’s era”, things should look a certain way and characters should have a certain history. ”
As for “how things look”, that’s just window dressing—whether those differences are attributed to changes in the timeline or not. The word “should” is in itself subjective. That is hardly a “fact”.
And as for a “certain history”, that’s dependant upon nothing being done to alter the past.
“…when I say “changes to TOS” I mean changes to the TOS “universe”.
The “TOS universe” is left quite intact by this story. Things playing out precisely that way is something crucial to the story even progressing to this point. There are no “changes” to that universe, even if a brand new timeline is created (the potential for which has been a part of Treklore since the very first season of TOS).
Thorsten
I always skim through the comments until I see your name. Having remembered a while back that you were one of the lucky to watch the 20 minutes, I always look to you for addtional insights into what you saw, especially applying it to the current conversations between fans who have not seen it, but can only speculate.
After so many weeks have passed, and you have had time to let the footage sink in, I know you still have very postive things to say, but can you give us some more thoughts, any new details that struck you in the time since then? Now that you have had time to reflect
Favorite funny line:
MCOY: You! What planet is this?
Another funny line:
SPOCK: Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder.
SCOTTY: It’s for the pain.
SPOCK: But this is painless
SCOTTY: (downs shot of whiskey) You should’ve warned me sooner Mr. Spock.
Here’s some TOS humor that never hit me as hard as it did until I watched Balance of Terror (remastered – excellent!) last weekend:
Martine: “I’m going to marry you, mister, battle or phaser weapons notwithstanding.”
Tomlinson: “Well, meanwhile, temporarily at least, I am still your superior officer.”
Now that’s funny! Let’s hope K&O deliver a KO line like that….
#162—”…does he have to take it a step further with “insane fanatic” and the mockingness of “Nacelles Monthly”? it’s just not helpful and is polarzing. ”
Here’s the thing…I think we ARE insane fanatics! Not literally “insane”, of course, but we are fanatical enough to spend quite a bit of time nearly everyday talking about Star Trek.
And I thought “Nacelles Monthly” was quite clever and funny.
It’s only “polarizing” if we cannot laugh a bit at ourselves. I do it a little bit everyday. I need only glance over some of the things I spend a couple of paragraphs ranting about on a given day!
Abrams understands the fanboy culture. He’s not being belligerent (like the LA Times reporter who interviewed Pegg last year).
The real question is…how does one go about subscribing to this Nacelles Monthly? ;)
#159-Closettrekker
Exactly. Instead of the “glass half empty”…
I for one am actually relieved at how much was carried over. My biggest fear from the 1st anouncement of this movie is that it would be an all out reboot. I think one of the writers had confirmed this much. “its about Kirk and Spock on a ship called Enterprise” That terrified me. It could have looked like anything! It could have been dark, gritty, “Alien” or “BSG”…I feared our dear Enterprise would be a complete departure design wise (long, bulky…lots of towers and engines etc.). So seeing all the design elements that carried over is welcome to me. Things in this movie are different yes, but also vaguely familiar. I think it really will be Trek for a modern era. Nick Meyer said somewhere that he interpreted Trek like the Catholic Mass: “The music may change…but the words are always the same”. Every director/creative team has brought their own sensibilities to the Trek world, this is just another variation on the theme.
I think the glass is half full here…or better yet…it runneth over…
#175-
Indeed! I love me a nice pair of bussard collectors!
175:
I think “Nacelles Monthly” is a tip of the hat to “Juggs.”
How can I get a subscription to Nacelles Monthly?
176 – OT, but related to your post ;-)
- Optimist –> Glass is half full
- Pessimist –> Glass is half empty
- Engineer –> Glass is twice as big as it should be
Back to the regular scheduled posts …
176 – I also agree with the sentiment. Nicholas Meyer is absolutely right in his analogy.
I remember it from the Star Trek II Commentary.
I also see some similarities between him and JJ Abrams.
They are both “outsiders”, coming from a less familiar direction, and having to learn fast.
They are both bringing their own sensibilities and ideas to the franchise.
They both know what they want, and know how to get it.
They both have a great pick for the Composer spot (go Giacchino, do us proud).
The relevence of these similarities to the quality of the film will need to be assessed after a viewing of the movie, but I consider them a positive.
I’ve only skimmed through some of the comments above concerning pandering to the hard core fans and such.
It brings to mind what Gene Roddenberry was doing in 1964. He wasn’t trying to pander to anyone, just trying to make the best TV show he could using new ideas and concepts about humanity and an optimistic view of mankind in the future. It gave us a hopeful view of what man can be.
I think what I have read of JJ Abrams thoughts about his vision for the film, he’s focusing on those same points and elements of the core of Star Trek. Slavish reproduction of TOS down to the exact fabrics used for the costume is not relevant. All the characters need to be at the core, what they were about and add to that a good story, then hopefully a new audience will embrace what we have embraced and loved about Star Trek for 43 years. Sure it will be different, but we can co-exist.
147 – SPOILER !!!! We know the Transporters and Communicators make the Original SOUND !!!
Thanks :-)
#144. Devon said – “But what of it being built in Iowa? Really, what of it?”
Well, for me personally, it reeks of being pathetically contrived and hokey. Quite frankly it comes across as about as stupid a whipped up Hollywood plot coincidence as I’ve ever seen( and I’ve seen the SW prequels multiple times). And it also flies in the face of much that is established and commonly accepted (though not proven) about the building and commissioning of the Enterprise. It just seems stupid.
On a separate note, while the reference to Nacelles Monthly gave me a good chuckle I was simultaneously struck by how snide and condescending it seemed.
At the end of it all, the more I find out about the film the less confidence I have in it. While blind hatred of an unseen film is ridiculous, so is blind faith in the same product. The only thing we can judge this thing on so far is what we have seen and what we have found out, and so far those have done nothing but DAMPEN my enthusiasm to the point where I feel no need to spend $9.50 (or $15.00 if I want to go to the nice adult theatre with beer).
And the Enterprise is damn FUGLY.
“Here’s the thing…I think we ARE insane fanatics! Not literally “insane”, of course, but we are fanatical enough to spend quite a bit of time nearly everyday talking about Star Trek.”
Hah! I love that we are fanatics, I love that you and I can chat and debate and all every day. But I also see a big difference of how you and I are using it right now– with love and affection — rather than playing into the derision of a reporter. (Ah, the LA Times, my home paper…they do so love to stir the pot.)
“And I thought “Nacelles Monthly” was quite clever and funny.”
In a certain context I would agree. However, I saw it as JJ playing into that reporter’s mocking stance about crazy Trek fans. Why do that? It’s just not necessary to sell the movie. I much prefer how Patrick Stewart responds when stuff like this happens.
On a separate note, I have always loved the fact that “Nacelle Monthly” features not only the big, round nacelles like those on the Excelsior, but also smaller, more realistic ones like those on the Reliant. It’s nothing like the blatantly gratuitous schematic shots in “WarpCore” magazine.
186- Yeah, but WarpCore has broken a lot of societal boundaries with its direct challenge to the first amendment right to label pictures of open Dilithium chambers with their bulkheads askew as “technical journals.” Did you see that biopic Oliver Stone did, “The People Versus Rayna and Flint?”
#184—”Quite frankly it comes across as about as stupid a whipped up Hollywood plot coincidence as I’ve ever seen”
You mean like every time a problem can be easily solved with an already established piece of technology (like a transporter or tractor beam)—that device has been conveniently rendered inoperable for dramatic purposes?
If it makes a particular scene poignant or dramatic, then is it not justified? Much of the plot in Star Trek episodes and films has been equally “contrived and hokey”. So what? If it works…it works.
It is impossible to know whether it does or doesn’t without viewing it within the context of the whole film.
“While blind hatred of an unseen film is ridiculous, so is blind faith in the same product. ”
I have yet to see “blind faith”. If you mean “optimism”, well, that’s something else—and altogether harmless, in my not-so-humble opinion.
“…I feel no need to spend $9.50 (or $15.00 if I want to go to the nice adult theatre with beer).”
Then don’t. Perhaps I’ll have no trouble finding a good seat!
As for me, if the film isn’t any good—all that I have really lost is two hours of my time. It probably wouldn’t be any worse than paying to see STV, and I can hardly imagine it being THAT bad.
Either way, the anticipation of this movie has been a fun ride (and I expect it will continue to be so right up until May).
why don’t they just out and say that this is not a part of the trek timeline, but a remake. you can’t have it both ways.
187 -
Don’t get me wrong, I fully support a citizen’s ability to be able to purchase and view such materials as part of their inalienable rights under the Articles of Federation. It’s just that poorly shot film of pimply dilithium being “recrystallized” isn’t really my cup of tea…
#185—”I much prefer how Patrick Stewart responds when stuff like this happens”
And I prefer the way that Pegg responded to it, but I also realize that Abrams has a much different role to play. I have no doubt that Abrams is aware of how the LA Times has treated Star Trek in the past. The truth is, that paper has alot of readers, some of who probably share those preconceived notions about Star Trek that Abrams has tried so hard to disarm in selling this movie to more mainstream moviegoers. Some of that includes identifying himself to some degree as one of them, and not so much one of us, when he is speaking to that audience (and vice-versa). Is he speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Absolutely. But that’s marketing.
I’ve said this before, but when I buy magazine ad space, I don’t feature the same advertisement in a periodical that caters primarily to women as I do in one that targets men—even if it is the same product. This is basically the same thing. Abrams is recognizing that different people are looking for different things in his product.
188. Closettrekker – “I have yet to see “blind faith”. If you mean “optimism”, well, that’s something else—and altogether harmless, in my not-so-humble opinion.”
And I’m totally cool with optimism, but I have quite a bit of what I would label, in MY not-so-humble opinion, blind faith. I just get a little irritated when anyone who questions the direction the film seems to be headed in is labeled a whiner, fanatic or worse. Which is not to say that their aren’t nasty little trolls on the negative side either, I’m well aware of that.
As to my characterization of the “Built In Iowa” thing as hokey and contrived – well it’s strictly a matter of personal taste and the level to which an individual is willing to suspend disbelief. Personally, I tend to accept reversing the polarity of the neutron flow and venting plasma from the warp nacelles as an acceptable plot element in Star Trek, within reasonable bounds. The Iowa thing just makes me want to puke, but that’s just me (and at least several others, based on quite a few posts).
^ 192.
That was supposed to read “And I’m totally cool with optimism, but I have SEEN quite a bit of what I would label, in MY not-so-humble opinion, blind faith.”
Boy, that’s an embarassing typo. See, Closettrekker, you get me all riled up and I start leaving out important words… ;-)
#167 – Since the interview was for the L.A. Times, I’m assuming the intended audience for the comments was the readership of the L.A. Times.
#189—”why don’t they just out and say that this is not a part of the trek timeline, but a remake. you can’t have it both ways.”
Because you CAN have it both ways. Star Trek’s very own “canon” laid the groundwork for that in the very first season of TOS. That aspect of “canon” makes it possible that the timeline of which you speak becomes the part of the broader story that leads to this alternate timeline.
And it isn’t a “remake” by any stretch of the imagination. That implies that they are depicting something which was already shown.
Nor is it a “reboot”, since that requires that previously established continuity is discarded. Since this story’s progression depends upon the continuity of the 5 television series and 10 previous films, it can hardly be discarded.
It also isn’t a prequel, since everything from ENT-NEM must happen prior to this story taking place.
This is, simply put, and unconventional sequel. What wrong with that?
#194—Agreed. But I don’t see how that answers the question. If it wasn’t meant to stir those readers who are Star Trek fans (those who aren’t aware of what that paper thinks of them), then what’s the point of your suggestion that the interviewer is “looking for dirt”? Who else would even care?
187- I understand, it is after all every sentient being’s right to determine for themselves when a schematic goes beyond informative technical information to artistic interdimensional cascade display to downright warp plasma exploitation. There are times I really just want to see the smooth line of a nacelle or Bussard Collector’s erect pre-TOS point while leaving the warp time/space curve differential to the imagination. Every now and then though I feel the desire to peruse a good intermix ratio spread with the coils running hot. It depends on my mood.
Wow, between this and Hitch, I must really need a weekend with the wife while th ekids are gone. I now return to regular, not suggestive geek talk.
Hello again Thorsten!
And thanks so much for your quick reply. You are one of the FEW voices of reason in any thread!!!! I only wish I could have seen those 20 minutes also — because (at least for me) the trailer does not really provide with a clue to the potential of the movie. I think I speak for most (NOT all) old-schoolers, is that at least there appears to be “way too many changes for the SAKE of change”. I think most if not all believed that were getting a “true origin story:, which at the end of the day, we’re not. The fact that you are positive about this movie gives me only GREAT HOPE. I also hope that the movie will (pardon the pun) logically explain many of the contradictions from the original series (Chekov under Pike, No Sam Kirk, just to name a few). I just hope it won’t be easy “way out” — “Hey we’re in an altered time-line we can do/change ANYTHING WE WANT”.
Warmest Regards!SB
he talks a good game- now in a few months we will see if he can dance…
Editor, Nacelles Monthly.
197-
“Dear WarpCore Letters,
I never thought it would happen to me…
…but that’s a log entry for another time!
Rank
and
Ship Posting
Withheld”
#199—”“Dear WarpCore Letters,
I never thought it would happen to me…”
Lmao!
Closettrekker,
if there is one thing that I hope we can ALL agree on, it’s that however it was intended, JJ should get tons of credit for coming up with Warp Nacelles Monthly and making our Friday that much brighter… :-)
201-Closet
Come back to Chat, dear friend! We miss you.
#196 – What “point” is there ever to dishing dirt? Some people like to say it and write it, and others like to read it. It sells papers. It makes for easy sound bites (e.g. the Shater/Takei “feud”). There is no “point.” The reporter wants a saucy-sounding piece, and JJ either:
1. Really feels that way about Trekkies, or
2. Doesn’t know how to make a graceful answer
And in case you’re all wondering, I do read “Nacelles Monthly,” but I only read it for the pictures of naked men.
#204—I let my subscription lapse.
204- With left handed spanners?
#205–Now we know what to get Closet next Christmas! ;)
“This is basically the same thing. Abrams is recognizing that different people are looking for different things in his product.”
I may not be a business person but I DO get different approaches to different folks. All I’m saying is that he does not have to sink to their levels nor potentially alienate one group while appealing to another. As a genre fanboy type person he should be aware at how fans deconstruct every little comment and interview. Obviously he IS aware since he’s mentioning fan reactions in this and other interviews. He’s not a Harve Bennett (although he finally seemed to get the fans as time went on) who had no idea about the fan community.
He does not have to play into the Trek are fanatical nerds yada yada He could just say heh, I tried to be true to the original, we’ve done some new stuff to attract a new generation and I hope everyone likes it. He was doing that until just recently.
207- Well I suppose the argument would be this- the “average” viewer has no idea when Kirk joined the academy, or when or where the Enterprise was built, etc. So these things weren’t changed FOR the average viewer. They had to have been changed for the sake of the story. So then it comes down to whether or not the story is good enough to warrant the changes to hardcore fans. After I watch the film, will I be able to say the story would have been just as good (or better) without the changes? That’s the key. For me, the story will have to be pretty frelling good to rate changing Jim Kirk’s history. I hope it is, but I don’t plan to cut it slack, I plan to judge it fairly. I can’t judge it independent of TOS though- if you wanted to make a space opera I don’t compare to or regard along with TOS, don’t call it Star Trek.
#208—”For me, the story will have to be pretty frelling good to rate changing Jim Kirk’s history. ”
But the story doesn’t change Kirk’s backstory in the TOS timeline. The story may create a new one for an altered timeline, but that’s it.
“After I watch the film, will I be able to say the story would have been just as good (or better) without the changes?”
I have a feeling that the story cannot exist without what you refer to as “changes”. I think that is the story.
In any case, the timeline you and I know is part of a long series of events (ENT-NEM) that precedes this one.
#198
“I think most if not all believed that were getting a “true origin story:, which at the end of the day, we’re not.”
When the project was first announced there was alot of discussion in this site about what the story would even be and James Crawley’s comments made it clear that this was not your father’s Star Trek. I don’t think they’ve misled anyone…
“I also hope that the movie will (pardon the pun) logically explain many of the contradictions from the original series.”
If they spend alot of screen time trying to explain things, the story telling will get bogged down and the movie will fizzle out and die. Even with Star wars, I think bringing midichlorians in to explain the force makes it more like Dianetics, less like Joseph Campbell.
I wonder if they will even answer in the movie whether the film ends on the same timeline as we watched on TV or leave it an open question. I think it’s always good to leave some mystery in life.
#117 –
“Anthony, it just doesn’t make sense. The designs could have been much closer to the originals, Just as the uniforms were grandfathered in, the other designs should have been as well. All the fans here who are open to the new look, would also have been fine with an look closer to true TOS. Anyone new to Trek, really doesn’t care about the designs anyway, right? I mean, that’s what everyone is saying. If it’s all about the characters and story, then why not have a look closer to the original”
Anthony with all due to respect McCoy (#123), could not have stated it any clearer (as you well know I’m rooting for this movie to be the best ST movie ever!!!!!) But it does seem to me that there is one DRASTIC change too many — and that this “altered timeline” gave Abrams and crew the perfect opportunitiy to hit us with a bombardment of changes. Because at the end of the day we will not be seeing a true-origin story. As a 40+ year STOS fan that does concern me.
#210 — My gut tells me that the story and series will CONTINUE in the altered timeline, and not “magically” go back to the original timeline. I happen to 1000% respect James Cawley and I’m a huge fan of his. But if you go back to the “beginnings”, it was “obvious” — just look at the very first promotional poster — this was going to be a true origin story.
May 9th = “Judgement Day”
I don’t think that asthetic changes need to be explained. Star Trek was never about window dressing to me.
And the only people who require an explanation for seemingly contradictory material in the characters’ backstories are people like us who actually know what details of those backstories had been previously touched upon in episodes like “Obsession”, “The Conscience Of The King”, “Court-Martial”, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “Shore Leave”, “A Private Little War”, “Amok Time”, “Journey To Babel”, “The Man Trap”, and “The Menagerie”.
For those fans like us, the explanation is already there. We already know what it is.
What remains is the question of how much of that backstory is the same in both timelines.
So far, the only ones we know are definitely inconsistent between the two timelines are two details found in “The Menagerie” and “A Piece Of The Action”.
(Mild Spoilers)
–Kirk meets Pike prior to the latter’s promotion to Fleet Captain
–Kirk learns to operate an automobile with a manual transmission
The rest may or may not remain consistent, or may be left open to interpretation.
The important thing to me is, will the characters–going forward—behave as we know them?
“Nacelle Monthly”, good one JJ!
I guess that part of what bugs me about the choices that they have made is that it opens up a can of worms that will probably lead to some future custodian of Trek feeling that they need to cook up some sort of “Crisis on Infinite Treks” to pare everything back down to a reasonable amount of backstory to keep track of.
I mean, from here on forward every Tom, Dick and Braga that gets his mitts on the franchise will feel like he has license to come up with his own quantum version of Trek. I take that for granted in DC comic books, cuz that’s the way it’s pretty much always been. But Trek has always maintained a reasonably coherent backstory that has now been screwed with royally.
Before anyone points out any cutsey minor quibbles, please note that I said ‘reasonably’ coherent; nothing is ever perfect. Star Trek was a rarity in that regard. The broad strokes of the backstory have always been pretty consistent and they have now thrown the baby out with the bath water and for no good reason that I can tell.
Ironically, it’s going to make me less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt when (or, more importantly, if) I get around to seeing the movie. Obviously some things were going to change a bit, but these are some pretty drastic wholesale changes that I just can’t see myself buying into.
And the Enterprise is FUGLY.
@169… table10
I don’t know if you read my initial report from Cologne, its here…
http://tinyurl.com/c848co
JJ Abrams is a geek. Damon Lindelof created an amazing saga with Lost, and sold high quality primetime SciFi to a mainstream audience of comitted fans and ABC. Roberto Orci is so enthusiastic that he participates with us here on Anthonys site and talks about quantum-mechanical time travel. All these were good signs for me. But what really convinced me was how Mr. Pine turned into James T. Kirk in this 20 short minutes. Interacting with Leonard Nimoy was the James T. Kirk I knew for almost 40 years.
It was not Bill Shatner, but James Kirk.
#212—”My gut tells me that the story and series will CONTINUE in the altered timeline..”
I’m not of the opinion that this is a bad thing.
As much as I love the TOS-era timeline we know—I already know the ending to that story.
Spock becomes an ambassador like his father and gets snappy with Picard, Kirk falls off a bridge, and McCoy talks to Pinnochio aboard the Enterprise-D…Oh, and Scotty gets stuck in a transporter or something…
#215—”I mean, from here on forward every Tom, Dick and Braga that gets his mitts on the franchise will feel like he has license to come up with his own quantum version of Trek….Before anyone points out any cutsey minor quibbles, please note that I said ‘reasonably’ coherent.”
I suppose that the word “reasonably” is subjective.
I think that happened long ago.
It used to be that Romulans painted their ships like giant birds of prey “Balance Of Terror”). Now, that’s a Klingon thing, and they have apparently been doing so since at least the 2150’s (ENT).
At one point, the NCC-1701 was at least 13 years old at the time of Spock’s court-martial (”The Menagerie”). Now, it was only about 5 years old at that time (STIII: TSFS).
Klingons used to be slick and cunning (TOS). Now, they’re a bunch of cavemen (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT).
The TOS-era was, at one point, depicted as having been anywhere and everywhere between the 22nd and 28th Centuries (Season One, TOS). Now, the 5 year-mission ended in 2270 (VOY).
But heaven help us if JJ Abrams depicts the Enterprise being built at a construction facility in Iowa, or little Jimmy Kirk can use a clutch!
The biggest difference between this and every other continuity issue in the past seems to be that this creative team has actually altered things canonically, instead of arbitrarily. The possibility and potential for an alternate timeline has been a big part of Treklore since the very first season of TOS.
I wonder how Mr. Abrams got to be held to a different standard than any of his predecessors…
@198…
Hi Sam,
I am sure that Lindelof and Orci are fully aware of the contradictions they faced… Pavel Chekov may be on the bridge because this is an emergency mission to Vulcan. All we know is that the whole crew is brought in lots of shuttles up to the Enterprise in orbit. Pike has no problems replacing his communications officer with Uhura, because she is fluent in Romulan, for example. We really don’t know if Sam Kirk will visit Jim at the academy for a beer with Gary Mitchell, or if he is lost with the Kelvin. But this is an origins story, and these people are really our crew. This is our Star Trek.
Just with much better special effects.
217. Closettrekker -
“I suppose that the word “reasonably” is subjective.”
Absolutely; and the perception thereof is at the root of all of our gentlemanly disagreements… ;-)
“Spock becomes an ambassador like his father and gets snappy with Picard, Kirk falls off a bridge, and McCoy talks to Pinnochio aboard the Enterprise-D…Oh, and Scotty gets stuck in a transporter or something…”
Closettrekker, that’s just brilliant; on the smile you gave me with that one, I’m going grocery shopping. :-)
#212,217
I just see a far more poetic moment if at the end as old Spock leaves the young Kirk or Spock the young Kirk asks whether things will be the same and Spock says something philosophical that leaves it open. I think something more definitive wastes the opportunity.– It would be like the Directors Cut of Blade Runner– how much time do any of us have?
#218
I think you’re right on alot of this. You did mention the one thing that does bother me ALOT. There was no major info on the casting of Gary Mitchell. To not have a strong role for Gary Mitchell in the prequel work really doesn’t set up the second Pilot the way it should have. I think a tip of the hat like that would have been nice, not a cameo but a significant presence. Of course, since Kirk was his instructor I suppose they can always introduce Gary Mitchell and his relationship with Kirk in a second film.
209 and 217- you are absolutely correct, those inconsistencies were adopted into canon. Usually because the story warranted it, or each fan chose whether or not it was a change, or just an error. The idea of the Enterprise being 20 years old at the time of SFS is to me an error, on the part of the writer or the character. Heck, there’s a fair amount of Voyager and some snippets of ALL the shows which don’t fit in the barrel of Weerd1’s Trek Canon Cannon. I am willing to make sacrifices for good storytelling. Most of Voyager’s stories were not good enough in my opinion to warrant changes in continuity, and I subjectively reject them.
I also recognize that TOS Jim Kirk’s story has not changed, and this is a QM sequel etc. I get it, I do. The question is whether or not I am going to care about the new Jim Kirk. I might! I might think he’s the best thing since… well, old Jim Kirk. But it’s writing and story that will determine that for me, and not quantum mechanics.
Further, this may end up being a fantastic movie which I enjoy on all its own merits, but consider to be lousy Star Trek. Season 3 of Enterprise- great Sci Fi, but not necessarily good Trek. Ang Lee’s Hulk- fascinating story, but a horrible adaptation of the comic book character.
Thorsten tells us the characters are right- I hope so, I really do. Making it “alternate” is not an indicator of that however. I speak for no other fan but myself- story and characterization will make tor break this as Trek for me, not good uniforms or bad starships. I certainly found a place in my heart for the new Battlestar, and they (so far) haven’t tired to quantumly connect to the old (after all, this has all happened before…)
Ugh! Will everyone get over the “Where’s Gary Mitchell?!” nonsense! He’s not in the movie! In fact, this being an alternate timeline, he and Kirk may not have even ever met now!
Mitchell appeared in *one* episode and was never, ever referenced again in hundreds and hundreds of hours of Trek produced after the fact. This movie does not “set up” things for what we know as TOS episodic history. It’s a new timeline! “Why is Chekov there?!” New timeline! “Why does the bridge etc look different?” New timeline! “Why isn’t Enterprise being built in space?” New freaking timeline!
Getting so very tired of reading reactionary nonsense from people saying “This movie’s going to suck because Finnegan and Ben Finney aren’t in it! I’m going to boycott it! Not canon!” blah-blah-freakin-blah. It’s total BS because we all know you guys are going to be there opening day alongside the rest of us. Get some new material.
222- but I like Gary Mitchell. He… wait a minute! Ben Finney isn’t in it either!!?? That’s it! I’m out! Until they reshoot it with Finney I want no part of the alternate timeline!
thorsten
Had not read your report actually, will do so immediately. Thank you very much, and I will continue to look for your name whenever I breeze through the comments.
Once again Thorsten — your logic rules!
Please pardon if I have a few “verbal hiccups”
between now and May 9th. Have a GREAT WEEKEND!!!!
BEST REGARDS!
SB
222-
If you read ANY of my posts, I’m not in the “must respect cannon” camp, I’m in the “must have good story and that means that the writers have to have alot of leeway” camp and I understand the concept that this film doesn’t have to dove tail with the last films because it starts with the Romulans attacking so obviously things are changing.
However, I stand by what I say that my ONLY disappointment as an audience member is not to see Gary Mitchell in it. It’s the same as my disappointment that the Two Face story was so abrupt in Dark Knight– A missed opportunity for an interesting character. My read is that McCoy is serving as the close friend of Kirk in this remake so there really would be no role for Mitchell in this one, so I’m cool with him being excluded. I understand that, but I can still feel a twinge of sadness, can’t I? And like I said, they can always use Mitchell in a followup film where the plot wants a character to stand in for the audience, or where the story needs another major character beyond those we already know… So long as they don’t have useless, obvious lines like “You’re going to be the death of me.” I think it’s great to have a character who the literate audience knows will ultimately be killed by his friend. Adds another dimension.
Correction to my post: Almost killed by friend, killed by Hot Lips instead…
Gary Mitchell could turn up in a sequel.
You never know.
What if, just what if the “insane fanatics” are really not the haters, but are instead the true-blue believers in the awesome earthshaking greatness of a film they’ve never even seen?
The jury remains way, way out until May 8.
/devil’s advocate mode
(Not hatin’, just sayin’!) :)
Fascinating.,,,,
I do not know whether AP is still reading this thread, but, if so:
I really have no problem with not pandering to us. That’s actually a really good thing. The franchise won’t survive without expanding its base and doing all the things Mr. Abrams is talking about. And, despite what at least one poster did in response to your response to my comment, I’m not saying anything about any design decisions with the movie or anything like that.
All I mean is that, from the articles, I actually get the sense that JJ Abrams doesn’t especially *like* Star Trek fans, and when he *does* pander that that’s all it is–pandering. It’s how he is coming across to me.
I trust you as an excellent purveyor of news and a good judge of character, so I’ll take the word of you, as someone who knows him, above my perception filtered through newspapers any day of the week. You say JJ is attuned to what we’re thinking and likes us, I’m on board with that.
Either way, the original point I was making was only that, whatever he thinks of us, he’s still right, and he’s doing what the franchise needs.
It’s easy to make sure that — no matter what the outcome is – that JJ is not the one to blame. Because if the fans don’t like it “they are fanatics”, “purists”. Talk about taking responsibility for a franchise that has outlived several generations and inspired millions. Why not advertise it “New Star Trek – If you don’t like it – it’s your fault!” C’mon!
Some fans are nutters. just d#$^ – heads really but Abrams has the grace not to say it.
But we all know it.
#221—”The idea of the Enterprise being 20 years old at the time of SFS is to me an error, on the part of the writer or the character.”
It may be to you (and scores of other fans who choose to explain it away in that fashion), but not to the writer, producer, and director. Both Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy made clear that this was absolutely intentional on their part (although I personally found their reasoning ridiculous).
And here’s the problem with the notion that Admiral Morrow simply made a mistake.
This is a man who just participated in the decision to decommission the most storied vessel in Starfleet. It is inconceivable that he would not be aware of her age.
It’s really quite simple. Bennett and Nimoy chose to retcon the age of the Enterprise 25 years ago, rendering moot the suggestion made in “The Menagerie” (18 years before that) that it was much older.
I just find it funny that so many fans believe that the “Supreme Court” of STXI is near blasphemous for utilizing the quite ‘canon’ notion that interference with the past can result in the creation of an alternate timeline, while it’s perfectly okay for the caretakers of Trek in the mid-80’s (including our beloved Leonard Nimoy) to ignore the clear establishment of the minimum age of the Starship Enterprise in “The Menagerie” without any sound reasoning at all.
That makes no sense to me.
107. Chris Basken – January 29, 2009
Can we please kill the meme of Trek having the first interracial kiss on TV? This is about as valid as saying the communicator was the inspiration for the cell phone.
Motorola’s first compact flip cell phone was called the StarTac… it was as close as they could legally get to StarTrek without paying royalties. I sold many of them to Star Trek fans who understood they WERE based on the Star Trek communicator.
I support you JJ. Its time for a reinvention of the franchise. Enterprise sucked and so did Nemesis. The last 2 seasons of voyager sucked too. Its time for ewinvention.