Orci & Kurtzman: Star Trek Needed A Little Rock and Roll | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci & Kurtzman: Star Trek Needed A Little Rock and Roll February 18, 2009

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

TrekMovie just got its hands on a recent issue of the UK’s SciFiNow Magazine which has a feature story on the new Star Trek movie, complete with an interview with co-writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. The pair talk about Trek’s move to a summer movie, canon, Nimoy, and even weigh into the whole Star Trek v Star Wars thing. Excerpts below.

 

Orci & Kurtzman SciFiNow interview excerpts

on Trek as Summer movie, like another franchise
The interview starts off with the pair’s views on Paramount’s decision to move Star Trek from the Fall/Christmas season (where most Trek films have been released) to the bigger and more competitive Summer season of 2009, and this brought in the inevitable comparison to that other big franchise that has had some big summer movies…

Roberto Orci: Obviously we were comfortable for Christmas, because that was its niche. But we all feel it can sustain what it needs to sustain in the summer. One of the things we said early on is that Star Wars and Star Trek are always the ones being compared to each other by certain people. Why is Star Wars able to surpass all of that even though they’re all in space and some characters are similar? It just felt like Star Wars had a little more rock and roll than Star Trek had.

Alex Kurtzman: so we figured the missing ingredient for this one was it needed a little rock and roll. And if we succeeded in doing that, I think it will meet the summer expectations. Star Trek was essentially a submarine naval battle, except in space. Star Wars was flying down the trench of the Death Star at the speed of mach 70,000 to shoot a little bullet into a hold. The experience as a viewer you have is different: there’s a speed I think associated with that experience. To my mind, there was no reason they had to be mutually exclusive. Obviously you have to be very true to spirit of what Star Trek is and you cannot violate canon, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have some of that as well.


Orci and Kurtzman want to bring a little Rock and Roll to Trek

on the importance of being Nimoy
The interview also discussed Leonard Nimoy’s involvement and Orci again talked about how the script was written with him in mind, and doing much more than just a cameo flashback. Kurtzman elaborated…

Kurtzman: He is also there because he wants to be there, and that actually was the highest compliment for all of us and in many ways was our compass…Because he had said he absolutely would not do it again, and it’s not like he needed the money. If he’s going to do it, it’s because he genuinely believes in it and actually feels that it is going in the right direction. For us that was the barometer.


Nimoy signing on was their ‘barometer’

on not letting Trek fade away
The interview concluded with a discussion about how Trek has declined in ratings and ticket sales in recent years and how that was one of the reasons these two in-demand writers took up the task of rejuvenating Trek…

Kurtzman: That’s what motivated it for us. It would have broken our hearts if Star Trek just faded away.

Orci: It just meant too much to us in varying degrees and ways. Obviously the opportunity to inherit that mantle is so epic that you cannot go forward if you don’t believe in it with your soul. All of us call ourselves the supreme court of Star Trek, and this is our term right now.


With a script from Orci & Kurtzman, Star Trek rocks back May 2009

 

More from Orci and Kurtzman in the full interview and feature is in SciFiNow issue 22, which also includes a report from the UK press 20 minute preview Star Trek screening from last November. It is probably off newsstands, but is available as a backorder at Imagineshop.co.uk.

Comments

1. Jordan - February 18, 2009

These two scare me sometimes. Especially when I think of Transformers.

2. Sean - February 18, 2009

I’m glad they made a point of saying they didn’t want to see Trek fade away. Trek means a lot to me and it’s nice to see that it does to them, too.

3. Sonny B. - February 18, 2009

It will be interesting to see how the success of this movie influences new interest in a new TNG movie with the original characters. TNG’s potential has never really been pushed and what better way to test those waters than for J.J. Abrams and company to tell their version of the story.

Ciao Tutti!I

4. Nicholas - February 18, 2009

Give ‘em a chance

5. cpelc - February 18, 2009

#1 Haha

Well as long as the rock n roll is things like the skydiving sequence and not the enterprise doing barrell rolls I think it’ll be ok

6. Blowback - February 18, 2009

We can all use a little rock n roll in our lives… Trek included….

7. AC - February 18, 2009

I agree. Transformers was ok from a teenage boy fantasy boob-chick fast car-duuuuude standpoint, but it was so spoonfed. I like the cerebral aspect of Star Trek over Star Wars and really really really hope they GET that and dont go overboard on the Rock and Roll. Crossing my fingers this is NOT like Trasformers, at all

8. JimJ - February 18, 2009

Hmmm…my last name is Jordan…exactly why are you so scared, Jordan? Everything they said in the article sounded well thought through and on target. Refreshing after Rick “we are very pleased” Berman and Brannon “A Valentine to Star Trek fans” Braga. Sorry you didn’t like Transformers. Hard for me to comment on that since I’ve never liked Transformers at any time since they were first created, Frankly, I think they’ll do just fine and I think the “barometer” will be right on target!

9. Aaron R. - February 18, 2009

Interesting…

10. Ran - February 18, 2009

Star Trek does not need “a little rock and roll”. It needs a good, thoughts provoking script that emphasize the content rather than the visual effects.

11. Blowback - February 18, 2009

I would not get too worked up over the idea that their work on Transformers is a harbinger of what will see in Star Trek. After all the Transformers was a story shaped around a collection of toys so I can forgive it for going over the top at several points….

That said, I still expect their approach to Star Trek will have our hearts pounding a bit more than in the last few films. I consider it a good thing and long overdue…

12. Mot - February 18, 2009

#10 I partially agree with you. A good story is key. TOS had cheap special effects but the stories were what made the show as great as it is. A good comparison to this was the original Twilight Zone and Outer Limits television series. Cardboard sets, super cheezy special effects were the order of the day. But … the stories were nothing short of supurb, that why the shows are so well remembered. Today however, a lot of folks like explosions, super cool ships, mind boggling special effects or the movie is dubbed boring because of too much dialogue, and not enough action. I’m greedy, I want both, and I’m hoping that the new Star Trek movie will provide both ingredients.

13. BaronByng - February 18, 2009

I think people have to remember that Michael Bay directed Transformers, and JJ Abrams directed Star Trek ’09. Michael Bay is all about nonstop action and ridiculous explosions (as he even parodied himself in a recent TV commercial), and JJ Abrams, to the best of my knowledge, is not.

JJ Abrams is someone who loves cult fiction. If you’ve seen Alias or Lost then you know he loves deeply entangled plotlines and character development. He is a fan of movies in general — to me, as an ex-student of cinema, having someone make a Star Trek movie as a movie and not a warmed-over TV episode is extremely welcome.

The trailer emphasizes visual eye-candy to be sure, but those who have seen the preview footage say that all the character-building moments are there. I’m sure it’ll be different…but it’ll be good.

14. 750 Mang - February 18, 2009

The last watchable Star Wars movie was Return of the Jedi. Sad but true.

I’m glad AK picked a scene from A New Hope to define “Rock and Roll”.

RTF!

15. Montreal Paul - February 18, 2009

I have to disagree with some of you.. I for one hope this IS like Transformers.. it appealed to a wide market.. even a 40 year old like me. Don’t forget.. it was adapted from a child’s toy then into a cartoon and then into a live action movie… people tend to forget that. It was fun and it was exciting to watch. And it certainly did need some “rock and roll” in it to get it out of it’s duldrums. It can be both you know.. it can be actiony and exciting as well as being thought provoking.

I feel that the franchise is in great hands right now. And judging from the MAJORITY of fans.. it will do fantastic. It’s a few small and judgemental voices that make the most noise. I have no worries about this movie or the franchise.. and this is coming from a die hard TOS 40 year old fan.

The rest of you just have to embrace change and stop badmouthing a movie you haven’t even seen yet. If you go in with that attitude.. you aren’t even giving you a change to like it. Your mind is already made up and won’t ever change.

16. sean - February 18, 2009

There’s nothing wrong with ‘a little rock n’ roll’. Star Trek has *always* had a little rock n’ roll. ‘The Doomsday Machine’ had rock n’ roll. TWOK had rock n’ roll. TUC had rock n’ roll. Star Wars does not have a monopoly on rock n’ roll (as evidenced by the prequels). I have no problem with this movie having some of that. The key is to balance it out with the quiet, character moments. Yeah, yeah, thought-provoking, blah blah sci-fi. The fact remains that if no one can sympathize or empathize with the characters on screen, none of that will matter. That’s a big part of why – despite the whizz-bang-pow visuals – the prequel trilogy just didn’t resonate in the same way the original trilogy did. Who identifies with emotionless statues? They made Spock and Data look downright passionate.

Everything Orci, Abrams & Kurtzman have said so far feels right to me. You can clearly see that Bob & Alex really, *really* care about Star Trek. It means something to them. I hope that translates on screen (I have every confidence it will at this point).

17. bill hiro - February 18, 2009

“Obviously you have to be very true to spirit of what Star Trek is and you cannot violate canon …”

Oh, that is so hilarious.

By the end of the sumemr, “Star Trek” is going to be an afterthought. One good weekend, two at the most, and it gets eaten up by the big summer movies. It should have stayed a Christmas release.

18. ProperTrekkieUK - February 18, 2009

No I agree it did need a little rock and roll! It was beginning to stagnate on the story front and it needs to be rocked up about if it is to live in the 21st century…people just need to accept that!

Thats not to say too much, nor at the detrement of core Trek, but pepping it up a little to make it more successful really can’t hurt…can it?

19. DavidJ - February 18, 2009

I agree that Trek probably works best at a slower, more thought-provoking pace (and I for one love the submarine battles in space)…. but at the same time I’m also excited to see a radically new take and style after so many years of the same old thing.

The franchise had become so dull and lifeless, that it really NEEDED a huge energy boost like this.

Plus let’s not forget that TOS was always a lot more gung-ho and action-packed than the quieter and more subdued spinoffs anyway. All JJ is doing is bringing that style into the 21st century.

20. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - February 18, 2009

#1 – WTF? Did they jump out of your bedroom closet when you were a kid and scream “Boo?” Did they pose as IRS agents and do an audit of your taxes for the last ten years? Were they your dentists and told you that you needed three roots canals?

21. Decker's Stubble - February 18, 2009

Just as long as Trek doesn’t devolve into showing planets full of marketable carebears or pod races involving the entire cast of the Muppet Show, I think it’ll be ok. Star Wars derailed when Lucas started focusing solely on selling Star Wars instead of telling it.

22. OneBuckFilms - February 18, 2009

12 – It looks to me like it is likely to provide both.

One thing I think is misunderstood is when JJ or anyone else on the production begins to talk about putting more “Star Wars” into “Star Trek”.

I think they mean adding a faster pace, more dynamic visuals (lots of movement, lots going on, less stately, less “by the numbers”, skydiving sequence etc.)

Also, in the live material, more movement, more dynamic acting (the actors and cameras moving more, rather than saying their lines and more standing on the mark for instance).

An example:

In the trailer, we see a handheld camera moving in front of the helm console as Chekov delivers a line, and there’s a lot of movement in the background.

In the Original Series, or Star Trek in general, the shot might be a static one as he delivers his line, and he might not have the same intensity or sense of urgency.

Same scene, same line, but more exciting and dynamic.

Another example, a space shot:

Old school, you’d see a two-shot:

– The Kelvin moving close to the camera, looking up and left, with the camera level with the Kelvin, and phasers firing, and weapons going past her in the other direction.
– The next shot, showing the Kelvin moving towards the Narada, the same weapons going, with a couple of explosions.
– The star blazing in the background.

Essentially, two static shots.

New Movie style (from trailer):

– Kelvin at an angle, the camera and Kelving naturally, with a degree of rotation, more directly at the camera. Weapons are more than beam weapons, and those missile type weapons splitting out, spreading chaotic death on the Kelvin, the camera moving close as parts of the hull explode from the weapons, and the phaser turrets expand and fire.
– Second shot, the Kelvin’s engine passes close to the camera to reveal the large, imposing flared star, more of those weapons, the hull looking beaten down, but the camera moving almost as if it’s on a steadycam, and again, the weapons fire and those missiles bringing even more chaos to the shot.

From what I’ve seen, this is what this film should do, and perhaps what Star Trek should have attempted before visually.

This is not so much to do with the script, but more the style of the movie.

23. krikzil (aka Lixy) - February 18, 2009

I liked Transformers. It was what it was and entertained me for a couple of hours. I look forward to the sequel.

I do however wish people would stop with the Star Wars versus Star Trek. Two very different things and they aren’t meant to be the same. SW is bigger and on a broad canvas while Trek has been smaller and more about character and storyline, at least to me.

I just hope it doesn’t get lost with all the other big summer films. it’s so brutal. I can’t help but think it would have owned Christmas.

24. VOODOO - February 18, 2009

“Star Trek” needed to stop diluting itself with series and characters that nobody cared about. They needed their most popular characters to bring the franchise back from the abyss.

By the time the series got to it’s 5th spinoff the it was no longer vital and was simply a copy of a copy of a copy.

By returning to the series most popular and iconic characters, Star Trek has become an “event” again. Someone finally gave the huge fanbase what it wants to see.

Isn’t it funny that when you combine the iconic characters with new creative blood and a legitimate budget ,”Star Trek” suddenly matters again? It wasn’t rocket science to figure out why “Star Trek” was dying, nor was it rocket science to figure out how to restore it to it’s past glory.

Haven’t many of us been saying that Paramount should have used this formula years ago?

25. Paulaner - February 18, 2009

Orci and Kurtzman are totally right. And, by the way, I am a hard-core TOS fan. Saying that Star Wars and Star Trek are not mutually exclusive is pure wisdom, in my opinion.

26. Frederick - February 18, 2009

Turn down that blasted rock n’ roll, you whippersnappers!

And we like our Trek populated with old fogies like us, cruising around slowly and shooting one out occasionally!

27. Marvin the Martian - February 18, 2009

#14: Actually, i thought that Return of the Jedi should have been titled “The Muppets’ Galactic Adventure.” And it was obvious that Harrison Ford was sleepwalking through the movie just to pick up a paycheck. I’m fascinated to think what David Lynch would have done with the film, given that he was in the running to direct. But despite all that, I agree that I’d rather watch Jedi over any of the prequels.

And please, everyone… a new TNG theatrical film will never, ever happen. It’s either a high-quality animated series with the voices of the actors we know and love (with possibly a few exceptions like Patrick Stewart) or a TV reboot with new actors. But a theatrical film? No way. *Especially* if the new movie does well.

I don’t think a lot of Trek fans realize what a massive undertaking Trek ’09 is for Paramount, and what that means for the direction of the franchise. The slate has been wiped clean in many ways.

28. James - February 18, 2009

Hmm, have to say I agree with what has been said about ‘Transformers’ – I didn’t particularly rate the film.

However, I recently saw MI:III, and thought is was very cool, so who knows? Something about men, meat and poison, I think…

IMO, some Trek is better than no Trek. Unless it’s ST:V.

29. Mirror Jordan - February 18, 2009

I’m glad they believe in what they’re doing. I think Trek is in great hands. It needs to change a bit in order to be successful, so more power to ‘em!

30. weerd1 - February 18, 2009

Imagine a Titan series with Frakes but told 120 years after the new film… Hmmm.

DS9 broke a lot of the molds on what Trek space battles could be. They still had the Star Wars problem of spaceships swooping like airplanes. I hope the new movie follows a bit of Babylon 5/BSG type space battles… you know, physics?

31. florian - February 18, 2009

If I hear one more of those ghastly Star Trek/Star Wars comparisons… I will start to roll out the photon torpedoes!

32. Sonny B. - February 18, 2009

With the added “rock n roll” and obvious added flare geared toward todays t.v. and movie audiences makes for a Star Trek movie more in line with today’s viewer appeal.

#14. I respectfully disagree with ” a new TNG theatrical film will never, ever happen.” In Hollywood, money talks and is the driving force behind any theatrical decision making. Even with the new ST movie more than likely breaking some box office records, don’t be surprised if you see a resurgence of TNG movie franchise, especially with all the actors voicing their support.

As far as Star Trek the franchise goes, the new movie brings an “upside” to every aspect of what’s already been done so as Picard said at the end of “All Good Things,” “the skies the limit.”

JMO . . .

Ciao Tutti!!!

33. thorsten - February 18, 2009

@31…

I used to bull’s-eye womp rats with photon torpedos in my T-16 back home!

34. krikzil (aka Lixy) - February 18, 2009

#27– never say never when it comes to Trek. Trek’s been coming back from the dead since the 60s — TOS’s 3rd season; STTMP was a miracle and we got 6 more Classic films; then a new series, let alone so many spinoffs; and this movie coming so soon and being so huge after everyone thought Trek was really dead after Enterprise’s cancellation and the failure of the last TNG movie. One day it might swing back to TNG too. I’m not particularly a fan but there is still a fan base for it (just not on this site).

35. Green-Blooded-Bastard - February 18, 2009

Orci is exactly right, and i have stated in the past that watching a Star Trek space battle is like watching two submarines fight. Slow and lumbering in the weightlessness of space. I don’t need slow motion to imply size and mass, these are self-evident. There is no up or down in space and ships doing “barrel rolls” should be perfectly fine to reflect this. What I find ironic is during the final battle in TWOK, Spock points out that Kahn “thinks two-dimensionally” and they proceed to lower the Enterprise to pass under him. They forget, though, that space takes advantage of all three dimensions at once, there isn’t any “up”, and they remain UPRIGHT as they fight, and they continue to think almost as ignorantly as Kahn (well, the director does). And these are space travelers?

I hope JJ and crew take full advantage of the fact that Star Trek has long taken a back seat to what Star Wars did for space combat. It’s fast and exciting, and if you want to attract a lot of people to see it, that’s what you gotta do. If you want the same group of people that have been watching Star Trek over the years to come see it, them stick with the old formulas (which have been working real well, lemme tell ya) and you’ll make a couple of buck, please a small demographic of fans, and alienate the rest of the movie going populous.

If the opening car chase scene going over the cliff is any indicator as to the pace of the film, many of you are going to be disappointed. This is not the TV Trek many of you are superglued to.

36. Green-Blooded-Bastard - February 18, 2009

30. weerd1 “I hope the new movie follows a bit of Babylon 5/BSG type space battles… you know, physics?”

I don’t follow, could you please explain “space battle physics”?

37. thorsten - February 18, 2009

@36…

B5 Space battle? The White Stars and the Star Furys pretty much swooped about, if you ask me.

38. Mr Lirpa - February 18, 2009

#22 nicely observed!

Have to say I’m really looking forward to a new take on Trek. It’s been a long time coming and as others have already stated this was the only way to go. Pushing further in to the future with a new crew in the 25-6 pf 27th century is just gettting too far away from now and Star Trek was always really about “now”

39. weerd1 - February 18, 2009

36- All the X-wings fly like WWII airplanes as if there is friction and aerodynamics in space. Even in Trek, we see ships lose power and grind to a halt as if air friction will slow or stop them if the engines aren’t providing thrust. On both B5 and BSG the battles are shown to adhere to the actual physics one would find in a vacuum with no gravity acting on your ship. To me that’s one of the differences between Science Fiction and space fantasy. I undertand there needs to be some tweaking for the story’s sake (artificial gravity and inertial dampeners), but I think it would be a lot more interesting to see science drive the space manuevers.

40. OneBuckFilms - February 18, 2009

35 – This is a common conceit. In “All Good Things”, we saw the Enterprise come up from “below”, displaying a perchant for 3 dimentional thinking.

However, the shots should look good visually, and aid with the story.

Seeing over the shoulder of the Enterprise, roughly level with her hull, while the other ship is turning from a different plane to face her is a great way to do this.

The ships could face each other at different angles, for instance, and still have that head-t-ohead effect.

One should be careful though, since the wrong angles may incorrectly suggest visually that a ship may be damaged or in trouble, when really it is simply at a different orientation than another ship in the shot.

41. John from Cincinnati - February 18, 2009

The best Star Wars was the first one, Episode IV. It had a serious tone to the movie as did season one of Star Trek TOS. Even George Lucas got away from that seriousness with all his silly aliens he added in later movies to appease the bubblegum crowd.

I just hope this new movie has a serious tone with action/adventure and humor. As opposed to a light-hearted romp.

42. screaming satellite - February 18, 2009

#16 -dont forget First Contact ‘Lets Roack n Roll!’

#27 – Ford looked like he was counting the hours until he starting filming Temple of Doom…..i dont think any other actor of the modern era has had such a consecutive string of classic films as Ford from 1977- 1985 (SW, Apocalypse Now, Empire, Raiders, Blade Runner, Jedi, Doom, Witness)

43. 750 Mang - February 18, 2009

27. Marvin the Martian – February 18, 2009

” #14: Actually, i thought that Return of the Jedi should have been titled “The Muppets’ Galactic Adventure.” And it was obvious that Harrison Ford was sleepwalking through the movie just to pick up a paycheck.”

Marvin, you are absolutely right. I was trying to be kind. However, I will say that when compared to any of the prequel films, ROTJ is like TWOK.

I like acronyms.

RTF!

44. John from Cincinnati - February 18, 2009

IMO

Light-hearted + science fiction = campy

45. OneBuckFilms - February 18, 2009

41 – Episode IV was the classic, though it wasn’t all THAT serious in tone.

Episode V, The Empire Strikes Back, had a much darker, and more serious tone to it. Luke losing his hand, there were repercussions, and we went to a dark place with Luke.

Epssode VI, Return of the Jedi, had some serious, dark parts (Luke, Vader and the Emporor, Leia’s relationship to Luke etc.), plenty of space battle adventure (Death Star space battle was kick-ass), and then introduced the silly stuff, the Ewoks, and the strange creatures were expanded beyond the Cantina in Episode IV with Jabba’s Palace.

All 3 films had varying amounts of Adventure, Drama, Comedy and Strange Creatures. Jedi is actually a movie I enjoy a great deal, though the Ewoks were a little overdone.

I knew we were in trouble with the Prequels when Taxes and Trade entered into the opening scroll, and JarJar Binks showed up and annoyed everyone over the age of 8.

46. Chadwick - February 18, 2009

I love how passionate Orci and Kurtzman are about Star Trek, YOU may not like their style but I have faith in these guys because they have faith in Star Trek. I belive them to be genuine and I feel at its current state Star Trek is safe in their hands. I agree Canon to me is important but it was even more important to give Star Trek some action. For me it was not dry, but being honest Star Trek was boring for some people. Some of my friends did not like it until I explained the humanity, the morals of Star Trek, the fact it is based on our reality and not in a galaxy far far away. I told them Star Trek is basically the history of the future and eventually I turned many of my non loving Star Trek friends into Star Trek fans. But you cant do that with every person who does not like Star Trek. Some times you have a make a big action Star Trek movie to catch peoples attentions, and I do no object to that. I like how Kurtzman said you cannot violate canon but that does not mean you cant have rock and roll, agreed. At the end of Nemesis I said “how great would it be for Star Trek to do a big space action movie, with lots of weapons and space battles,” well….my with came true.

47. Trek Nerd Central - February 18, 2009

I liked Transformers, and I am hardly the target demographic. I also liked M:I:III.

Also: #24. Voodoo, I agree with you. Years before this movie was announced I felt strongly that the franchise needed to return to its core characters & iconic beginnings. It was absolutely the right way to go. If those characters are re-animated with fidelity and force, I’m all for it — even if the whole thing is sexed up with dogfights. Yeah, Star Trek often behaves like a submarine drama, but it’s the people in that submarine who hold the interest for me.

#25. Paulaner, I agree with you, too. I’m tired of the peevish responses every time someone mentions “Star Wars.” So long as Abrams & Orci & Kurtzman are taking their inspiration from Lucas’s better elements and ideas, and not his worst, then what’s the big deal? Unless Jar-Jar Banks is on the bridge, I frankly don’t care.

The strongpoints of “Star Wars” are the zoominess of its action and the breadth of its imagined universe. The weak points are its wooden dialogue, wooden acting, and overall propensity for goofiness. If the new “Star Trek” takes some of the zoominess & imagination and grafts them onto a smart script with those marvelous old characters, I’m all for it. And it might actually lure non-Trekkies box office, which, may I remind everyone, IS A GOOD THING. We need un-nerds to join our ranks, people!

48. Trek Nerd Central - February 18, 2009

#48. Binks. I meant Binks.

49. Jon - February 18, 2009

I don’t understand why people bash on Transformers. It was a massive blockbuster that raked in a tonne of cash, and the sequel looks amazing. If Star Trek is half as good as what these guys did with Transformers, we’re in for a treat and a reinvigorated franchise.

50. John from Cincinnati - February 18, 2009

Which makes my point:

Episode IV cantina had GREAT creatures, they all looked devilish or werewolf like, and they looked REAL. Even the Cantina band had a jazz-like sound.

Then came Sy Snoodles and her CGI lips, Blue elephant keyboard player, Ewoks, Gamorrean Guards that looked like part Muppets, Jar Jar Binks, a Separatist banker that looks straight out of a Disney movie, another one whose electronic voice module inexplicably malfunctions (was supposed to be funny but was really really dumb), an escapade of C-3PO through a battle droid factory straight out of Cartoon Network.

Even Star Trek TAS with all it’s silliness is light years better than the Clone Wars animated movie/series.

51. Doug L. - February 18, 2009

Having just read LeVar Burton’s interview, I’m left wondering if Mr Orci & Kurtzman have considered tackling TNG, or at least what they think about it.

I know they wouldn’t really tackle it unless studios were tackling it.

Doug L

52. Jorg Sacul - February 18, 2009

“Even Star Trek TAS with all it’s silliness is light years better than the Clone Wars animated movie/series.”

You’ve not watched the Clone Wars series, apparently.

53. Cobalt 1365 - February 18, 2009

you know Nimoy wouldn’t have signed on if it were just another Transformers-esque film, this is gonna be good….

54. Spockalicious - February 18, 2009

first!

55. Yammer - February 18, 2009

24: I agree that the copy of a copy of a copy thing was definitely choking the vitality out of the Trek concept. Doing this reboot (yeah, I know! parallel reality, whatever) is the only viable way of restoring the characters that were so compelling, although the new actors were sometimes diverting (e.g. Robert Beltran = interesting; Chakotay = dud). Roddenberry, unfortunately, screwed up his own concept by deciding to leapfrog the series 75 years for TNG. The true next generation could have happened in an organic way, via Xon, Saavik and David Marcus, but it didn’t work out; and maybe it is better to reboot than carry on as a soap.

51: The first Clone Wars series, Genndy Tartakovsky’s, is excellent. The new one…well, the movie was atrocious, and has actually made me not like Star Wars anymore, sad to say.

56. Captain Pike - February 18, 2009

A little Rock and Roll? Like the Dune Buggy in Nemesis?

This strategy of imitating previous successful movies rarely works. ST:TMP was trying to be 2001 – it failed. Nemesis was trying to be TWOK – it failed. George Lucas himself tried to make Phantom Menace the next New Hope – he failed.

Star Wars objectively is not that great. It’s fun and makes GL money but it’s never had the place in my heart that TOS has. Maybe aiming for Star Wars is not too high but to my mid it’s aiming at the wrong target.

57. Capt. of the USS Anduril - February 18, 2009

I have to wonder, why are people so against the Enterprise doing barrel rolls or other evasive maneuvers? It’s a SPACE-ship. Physics, friction, aerodynamics, none of it matter. *confused*

58. Jefferies Tuber - February 18, 2009

I agree with the R&R line. If anything, I’d question how R&R Star wars really is, given Lucas’ propensity for spewing $200M of CheezWhiz on a movie, pandering to kids, fondness for muppets and the way he gradually de-sexed the franchise.

The reverse is true, too. Star Wars and its prequel would have benefited from adherence to canon and relationships as the core of every story.. The Force coming from midi-chlorians was a cop-out of any spiritual overtones and utterly demystified the franchise.

i09 ran a Vonda McIntyre story yesterday with vintage 80s paperback cover that featured Sulu with long hair and Fu-Manchu facial hair. Awesome. And this article makes me think that Spock’s attempt at the Kohlinar in TMP was perhaps the single most Rock’n’Roll moment in all of Star Trek. Seriously, what’s more rock and roll than growing your hair long and attempting a spiritual rebirth amid flowing lava and acrid smoke? Straight out of a Led Zeppelin album cover if you ask me.

I don’t think R&R equates to Bay-style immaturity, boob jokes and bar fights. I think KO would probably agree, considering the “Woo-Hooooo!” skydiving Engineer Olsen’s fate. But R&R does have a lot to do with rebellion against ones parents, risk-taking and finding ones limits.

And sex. Roddenberry was in fact obsessed with sex, and it seemed like the producers who ran the Shoulder Pad Generation did everything in their power to eliminate it from the franchise.

59. Jefferies Tuber - February 18, 2009

BTW, this is an interesting contrast to ENTERPRISE–whose producer evidently felt that Star Trek needed a little more Country Music.

60. Trek Nerd Central - February 18, 2009

60. Oh, no, please tell me that isn’t a “Donny & Marie” reference.

61. Trek Nerd Central - February 18, 2009

Eek, I’d meant 59. I can’t seem to count today, sorry.

62. thorsten - February 18, 2009

@58, 59…

Yes, and Yes, Tuber!
Did you ever see the ads for ENT during summer 2001?
They featured a pretty good song…

http://tinyurl.com/ar9rr8

63. Jeyl - February 18, 2009

#52: “You’ve not watched the Clone Wars series, apparently.”

First Clone Wars series done by Genndy was quite excellent. It was more in tune with the concept of the old sci-fi serials that Lucas can’t shut up about in being the inspiration to his movies.

If you are referring to the new Clone Wars series that’s going on now, I strongly disagree. I’ve watched it and I couldn’t get the feeling that nothing ever happens in the series. It has more reset switches than Star Trek: Voyager. The only good thing to come out of this new series is that Anakin now looks as he is portrayed. Wooden.

64. Spock - February 18, 2009

Star Trek was never about space battles, is the other difference with Star Wars. As has been mentioned, the prequels had none of the mojo of the first trilogy. It was missing great characters.

I have no problem jazzing up the action level in Star Trek, look at Season 2 compared to season 1 of the series. They went with some really good action adventure episodes while keeping the thought provoking character aspects going as well. That is why a lot of people really like Doomsday Machine, and Ultimate Computer.

65. thorsten - February 18, 2009

@63…

Does Count Dooku in the Clone Wars figure out that he is just a puppet, that his fate is to lure Skywalker under the influence of Palpatine, and that the whole war and all that separatist stuff is just a vehicle to get rid of democracy and fool the jedi and the senate into oblivion?

66. Holger - February 18, 2009

Rock and Roll? What’s that supposed to be in this context??

67. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#17—-“Oh, that is so hilarious.”

I don’t see why.

“By the end of the (Summer), “Star Trek” is going to be an afterthought. One good weekend, two at the most, and it gets eaten up by the big summer movies.”

STXI will have been extremely successful if it top the box office for two weeks as a Summer release. In fact, if it is only #1 for one week and falls to #2 for its second week, it will still have done well. I suppose you were trying to paint that as a negative, but I’m not sure you understand how Summer movies work. That’s curious, especially since that very point has come up on this site on more than one occasion.

68. NCC-73515 - February 18, 2009

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/artic…17/story.jhtml
“In addition to new clips from “Star Trek,” “Land of the Lost,” and the “Transformers” sequels [...]“

69. NCC-73515 - February 18, 2009

that shoud have been
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1605247/20090217/story.jhtml

70. star trackie - February 18, 2009

TOS had plenty of high-adventure excitment…”rock and roll” in the new movie is not only welcome, but will feel right at home.

71. Unbel1ever - February 18, 2009

Hmm, Rock and Roll in Star Wars ? Looking at the intro scene from episode III (the large space battle above Coruscant) it certainly has got some kind of “Rock and Roll”. It’s large, flashy and fast-paced. But I really can’t enjoy it as much, as the “Death Star Canyon” from episode IV. Why ? Well, there’s so much going on, you get distracted and frustrated because despite the visual glory, you can absorb only a small portion of what is going on. Another prime example for that are the opinion minutes of Quantum of Solace. Complete waste of perfectly good stuntwork, since nobody can really enjoy it because of its jumpy cut. I also think that the submarine battle comparison really only applies to Balance of Terror/TWOK/TUC. In most of the other space battles, Star Trek is nothing like a submarine battle. I’d say it’s more like a boxing match. I tend to get attached to the ships, like the E (though probably not the new ugly one, hope they blow it to pieces and build a new one). They’re the main characters in a fight with every torpedo being a carefully placed blow. In Star Wars I’ve never been emotionally attached to any of the ships. Sure I like the falcon, but if it had gotten blown to hell, it would not have been anywhere near as dramatic as the death scene of the original E in ST III.

I really don’t think Rock and Roll is the answer.

72. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 18, 2009

I lovede the Interview. What stood out to me was that Mr Nimoy not only liked the script is that he wanted to be in the movie and that was there baromater. Trek does need a little Rock and roll and I for one am Glad. Trek has to apeal to a wider and more diverse Audience and yet keep with it’s core as well. I think these guys have there hands on the Pulse of Trek. I mean Bob comes on Trek movie all the time and chats with us hard core fans and that should say a lot in and of it’s self. They are true fans just like all of us here and I for one feel realy good about the new Movie.

73. boborci - February 18, 2009

71. Unbel1ever – February 18, 2009

“I really don’t think Rock and Roll is the answer.”

Jazz?

74. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#24—“Star Trek needed to stop diluting itself with series and characters that nobody cared about. They needed their most popular characters to bring the franchise back from the abyss.”

It might be a bit much to say that “nobody” cared about them, but I think you are essentially correct. There are no spinoff characters in Trek that would garner the interests of more mainstream audiences in the way that the more colorful and romantic characters of the original series can.

“Haven’t many of us been saying that Paramount should have used this formula years ago?”

Yes. Many of us have. I have been waiting for the iconic original characters to be recast since about 1989. When I saw STV, I felt that the original actors were too old to carry the mantle, and the new characters (in TNG) never appealed to me. Fortunately, TUC was a respectable comeback after the STV disaster. However, I have still been waiting for 20 years for more stories involving the younger versions of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

Now that it is finally happening, I am not about to spew the kind of venom I sometimes see around here everytime I hear of a creative decision that might raise an eyebrow. I feel good about affording them the courtesy of awaiting its release to the public before judging it.

Since I like much of Abrams’ work, it certainly isn’t a stretch for me to believe that I will enjoy this as well.

75. Jon S. - February 18, 2009

I can’t decide if Alex and Robert are brilliant or total hacks. The story in Transformers was absolutely atrocious, but the writing in Fringe is great. I guess Star Trek will be the litmus test…

76. Will_H - February 18, 2009

A little bit more action can be great, but if that’s what the movie’s based on, then at least as a Star Trek film it will most likely fail. And honestly i dont see it as being a naval battle in space, at least not since Wrath of Khan. Have those two ever seen the last episode of DS9 or how about Nemesis maybe? Nemesis may have been a lame movie, but its still my favorite ship battle sequence in Star Trek. To me there’s nothing boring about the Enterprise fighting a ship it cant see till it actually shoots it, and then when all other options are out crashing right into it.

And there they go again making that comparison to Star Wars, that worries me. Id have to say, at least for the recent films, the reason people see more of Star Wars is, in my opinion, A) its considered by the mainstream to be less nerdy, and B) it doesnt require people to think as much, and the majority of people want that in a movie these days, thus the reason so much crap is produced. But with a movie like Transformers, it wasnt so bad for it to be just one action scene after another, but if Star Trek goes that way…well there’s gonna be some people that are gonna need a good ol’ fashion Kirk ass kicking.

77. Unbel1ever - February 18, 2009

#71

Should read “opening minutes”. Got distracted again :)

#73

“Jazz?”

Hi Bob,
I’d say, that depends of what kind of jazz :)

78. NCC-73515 - February 18, 2009

Fitting that mtv will show us new r’n’r trek clips… if they really do.

79. Bob, The Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - February 18, 2009

73 – how about alt.country?

80. Unbel1ever - February 18, 2009

I got it !!!

Star Trek needs more IRON MAIDEN !!!!!

I can see Jannick Gers standing on the saucer looking after his guitar floating away, becaus he forgot that without gravity, throwing it above his head, might not be such a good idea.

81. JML9999 - February 18, 2009

is having a Little Rock and Roll like having some Elvis. The Late Molly Ivins said President Obama was the only one with a little Elvis in Him.

82. thorsten - February 18, 2009

Johann Strauss was perfect for 2001…
But what this movie needs is speed.
I can’t wait to hear Michael Giacchino came up with!

83. OneBuckFilms - February 18, 2009

73 – Maybe a little Samba. Avoid Disco though, too dated ;-)

Good interview though, Bob.

84. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#33—“I used to bull’s-eye womp rats with photon torpedos in my T-16 back home!”

And I wish Han Solo had—just once—employed the “Corbomite Manuever” when faced with overwhelming odds.

:)

85. Unbel1ever - February 18, 2009

#77

“depends on”…. wish there was an edit button :)

86. sean - February 18, 2009

#76

“Nemesis may have been a lame movie, but its still my favorite ship battle sequence in Star Trek. To me there’s nothing boring about the Enterprise fighting a ship it cant see till it actually shoots it…”

Except that had been done quite well in TUC (all except the ramming sequence, which I don’t think was done as well as you do). Yet another aspect of Nemesis recycled from a previous plotline. Putting that aside, the fighting was still very submarine-like, as most Trek battles have been in the past. DS9 had some great battle sequences, but it was still more or less 2-D fighting.

87. John from Cincinnati - February 18, 2009

For decades, fans haven’t seen the origin story of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and after this movie is released we still won’t.

It does after all, take place in an alternate universe version.

88. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#58—“i09 ran a Vonda McIntyre story yesterday with vintage 80s paperback cover that featured Sulu with long hair and Fu-Manchu facial hair.”

The Entropy Effect (1981)!

“Roddenberry was in fact obsessed with sex, and it seemed like the producers who ran the Shoulder Pad Generation did everything in their power to eliminate it from the franchise.”

Agreed. Even the very first pilot episode, “The Cage” had sex at its core. TOS was sexy.

And I would agree that TNG was about as sexy as a pair of old lady undergarments!

89. ML31 - February 18, 2009

1:

I try very hard not to think of Transformers when I hear from them. I need to pretend they were never associated with that crap. Or that it was only crap because Michael Bay put his midas touch on it.

90. OM - February 18, 2009

…As long as “rock and roll” is nowhere near defined as “Faith of the Heart”.

91. S. John Ross - February 18, 2009

“Star Trek was essentially a submarine naval battle, except in space.”

Star Trek space combat, sure. But Star Trek isn’t exactly a show _about_ space combat :/

It shows as much understanding as saying that Superman is “essentially” about the relationships that form between professional journalists, or that Blade Runner is “essentially” about origami and noodles.

And TOS was already _saturated_ with rock and roll. Don’t reinvent the wheel, guys, just try to be good enough to live up to it.

92. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 18, 2009

#73 Bob Orci. I know. How about Rap or Hip Hop. Yeah your right. Don’t think so. Hey the Best of the Tng movies First contact did use Roy Orbison. That did work. What do you think Bob.

93. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - February 18, 2009

17. bill hiro

Well as long as you stay positive.

94. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#91—“And TOS was already _saturated_ with rock and roll.”

I agree, but that was 40 years ago. My own opinion is that much of what came after wasn’t.

It’s funny to me that some fans (not all, of course) with criticism for what little they have been shown and told of consider this kind of thing to be something new or different.

TOS was always romantic, sexy, adventurous, and full of two-fisted action. That’s what many of us loved about the stories (not fo9rgetting its wonderful characters, of course). It was the spinoff series that failed to bring much of that to the table. It isn’t something totally new. It is, rather, an attempt to return to roots. But that’s just my opinion.

95. I'm Porthos's bitch - February 18, 2009

kinda off topic ..but as far as a next gen film… and papramount wanting to capitalize..when there was an outside hope for ENTERPRISE to be filmed in Canada weren’t the ENTERPRISE sets put in storage ?? Anyone know of thier current status??

96. Lore - February 18, 2009

#17 and your on this site because?????

97. Lore - February 18, 2009

#95 Jolene Blalock has them set up in her apartment. It really freaks guys out when she brings them home and puts on the ears.

98. Andy Patterson - February 18, 2009

Not sure I am comfortable with comparisons between the two. Never really have been. Don’t think that even needs to be brought up. Two seperate entities. And if there’s a problem with the film I’ll point to that thinking. Apples and oranges to me.

And If Star Wars is the “rock n roll” …if that’s the analogy we’re using, then I think of Star Trek as the classical. I can live with that.

99. Jamesb3 - February 18, 2009

Although I would love to see more TNG, if this movie is a success, it will only increase demand for a sequel to it, not a return to TNG.

But maybe they (the powers that be) might consider a new series or straight-to-dvd release. Still a long shot, but they might be willing to do something TNG-related on a smaller scale than a theatrical release.

100. me - February 18, 2009

Always these Star Wars comparisons. :(

Star Wats is a fairy tale made for children

Star Trek always was more serious and made for adults.

Don’t demode Star Trek to become Star Wars!

Star Trek had a lot of rock and roll. What became lost in Voyager, Enterprise or movies like Nemesis was NOT rock and roll, they had more than enough action. What was lost were INTELLIGENT stories!!!!!!!

101. JP Saylor - February 18, 2009

Yeah! Put the Beatles in Star Trek!!!!

EPIC!!!

Across The Universe!!

lol

102. G-Boss - February 18, 2009

As long as their idea of rock and roll is Metallica and not the Jonas Brothers, then I don’t have a problem with it.

103. Devon - February 18, 2009

#102 – That’s what Im talkin about! Bring on the rock!

104. TrekMadeMeWonder - February 18, 2009

Trek XI looks to me to need MORE TOS!
Fingers still crossed.

105. Peter N - February 18, 2009

#98

I’m thinking “Classical Meets The Classics” for this new Star Trek. The same vision and core philosophy of TOS with an added parcel of youthful energy to create a new flow to the storytelling. (The “non-canon” visuals may play a significant part in that equation.) I don’t know if one could use the term “youthful energy” to describe TOS – although Roddenberry experimented with the idea by putting a Monkee on the bridge. Youth has tended to be used as a character foible in Trek rather than a point of departure for the plot, and it will be interesting to see what energy and new facets a youthful cast can bring to the characters we know and love.

I also resist comparisons between Star Trek and Star Wars. There are many more differences in the core mythology and storytelling of the two franchises than the single similarity that both take place (mostly) in outer space. If you want to compare similar franchises, try Lowe’s vs. Home Depot. The Star Trek/Star Wars franchise comparison is more like Lowe’s/Best Buy. I like both stores; they are set up in a similar way (aisles of products and cash registers) but they essentially sell different things.

106. sean - February 18, 2009

#102

Hmm, how about The Who instead of Nickelback? I’m more comfortable with that ;)

107. Jefferies Tuber - February 18, 2009

Actually, what Star Trek needs is be a little more Ska!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MoNsx7bKkI&eurl=http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/how-to-skank-video-f.html&feature=player_embedded

108. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#104—“Trek XI looks to me to need MORE TOS!”

Action, adventure, romanticism, sexuality, humor…and an optimistic vision of a future in which Humanity does not destroy itself, but instead, unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the “final frontier”.

To me—that’s TOS.

As long as the film provides those elements, has great character moments, and adheres to that vision, then I will be one happy Trek fan.

But I’m not sure how anyone can judge whether it needs more or less of any of that without seeing more than a 2 minute trailer and a 30 second Super Bowl spot.

Aside from that, all I have seen are snapshots of props and window dressing, neither of which (to me) define TOS.

109. OneBuckFilms - February 18, 2009

105 – I don’t think the comparisson is between them in terms of details, but more in terms of how dynamic Star Wars is.

Star Trek has a more “stately” approach to things, partially a reflection of the more cerebral side of it’s nature, but also as a natural stylistic evolution.

The new movie, I believe, aims to add the energy and fast pace that the original Star Wars movie had.

110. tribble farmer - February 18, 2009

Must. Have. Magazine. Star Trek, Doctor Who, The Day The Earth Stood Still AND Dollhouse.

111. Paulaner - February 18, 2009

You know, every movie tried to have some cool combat sequence. The second half of Nemesis is a huge dogfight, and the highly acclaimed TWOK had that iconic battle. Don’t make me talk about First Contact and the lame fights in the Enterprise corridors between armed Starfleet officers and zombies. On the other side The Motion Picture is often criticized and mocked for being The Motionless Picture, isn’t it?

112. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

I think that, on the part of the STXI “Supreme Court”, the comparison is made in how visually appealing Star Wars was (at its best). The visual effects, for instance, were stunning (as this film promises). The high pace of the action was also appealing.

And high-paced adventure was indeed something that Star Trek has always (in Mr. Abrams’ words) “hinted at”, but never really delivered on the big screen. I for one find that to be true. Star Trek films have, since TMP, been hindered by mediocre budget constraints (and often by the age of the actors). It certainly won’t hurt Star Trek to add to its arsenal.

I find it curious that some tend to feel as though adding Star Wars-like pace and visual elements will somehow detract from Star Trek’s already established strengths—as if Trek has no room to grow or improve. The addition of those elements does not mean the subtraction of great character moments or higher-brow drama. It also doesn’t mean that gaining these elements must come by trade for wooden acting and juvenile dialogue.

113. Relentless - February 18, 2009

A “little rock n roll”? Hmm as they are “skydiving” to their mission, maybe a little “Magic Carpet Ride” by Steppenwolf?

After all in Star Trek First Contact, they did play Roy Orbinson and some other classic rock n roll.

114. weerd1 - February 18, 2009

-97 That would be truly delightful- but I’m a sicko…

115. Closettrekker - February 18, 2009

#111—“…The Motion Picture is often criticized and mocked for being The Motionless Picture, isn’t it?”

Not by me. It is actually my second favorite of the feature film series. But your point is well-taken. TMP was the absolute opposite of Star Wars, IMO, and yet many Trek fans don’t care for it and call it boring. It wasn’t until TWOK added some “flair” and action that those fans became happier with where the film series was going.

It is not as if TMP isn’t “Star Trek” enough, is it? IMO, it is the best “science fiction” film of all 10 previous films, and I think its place is often underrated among fans. The thing about Trek to me is that it can be good with almost no action— or with plenty of it.

I love “The City On The Edge Of Forever”, but I also love “Space Seed” and “Arena”. I love TMP, but it doesn’t stop me from loving TWOK as well.

116. thorsten - February 18, 2009

@115…

I always loved TMP, had the soundtrack in my Walkman all the time, and I was happy that Star Wars helped to get Trek back on track then… the only part I did not like about it was that it felt for me like a blown up version of “the changeling”…

117. Doug L. - February 18, 2009

the directors cut of tmp, puts TMP into a different category, it’s far superior, however, it could still use less wormhole and cloud sequence, and more character interaction.

The only movies i truly like now are tmp, 2, 3, 4 & First Contact. The rest are weak… even undiscovered falls flat for me.

I was hoping someone would ask Bob Orci how he might handle scripting a TNG movie if it was ever considered? How would they make TNG relevant again??

Doug L.

118. boborci - February 18, 2009

117.

Interesting question. I think, to make TNG relevant again, I would have the Enterprise face the Decepticons.

Joke.

119. thorsten - February 18, 2009

Edward James Olmos is available for a Picard reboot…

120. thorsten - February 18, 2009

@118…

imagine all the possible toys!

121. Paulaner - February 18, 2009

#117 “even undiscovered falls flat for me.”

The acting in that movie is wooden and static, the more I see it, the less I like it. Let’s face it: the TOS guys were too old.

122. The Governator - February 18, 2009

69.

You can bet I will be watching that on Saturday. Coooool stuff.

123. DJT - February 18, 2009

Just rented EAGLE EYE, which Bob and Alex had some hand in, and it was awesome. I noticed some nods to Trek like the emergency klaxons and Ariia’s resemblance to Balok’s ship in ‘Corbomite Maneuver’.

Bob, saw the trailer to TF2 the other day and thought that aircraft carrier scene was WICKED AWESOME. I cannot wait for either of these movies to come out.

124. Tony Bruno - February 18, 2009

“Mach 70,000″? “Rock and Roll”? Oh, and my personal favorite “..compared…by some people…”

Really?

Ugh.

#89: The problem is that they WERE associated with TRANSFORMERS. Proudly so.

Yeah. Just..Ugh.

125. Peter N - February 18, 2009

#109

I think it is possible to relate the different styles of energy and pacing in the two franchises to their core mythologies. From this point of view I would posit that the details do play a role in how the dynamism of the two series is perceived, and perceived differently. Star Trek, being more character driven, has been less about action scenes and stunning visual effects – although I would agree that the extended flybys etc. in TMP were a kind of response to Star Wars, but without the dynamic pace of the latter. Star Wars, having a singular arc that constantly thrusts the viewer forward in the story’s development, can thrive on a faster-paced style; I certainly am not intending to suggest that Star Wars does not also have character development, but in this franchise character development is at the service of the overall drama. It might be too easy to simply compare Star Trek’s stately pacing with Star Wars’ more energetic visual style due to the differing purposes that inhabit and inform each franchise. Not to say that Star Trek could not become (even) better for infusing a dash of a faster Star Wars-style pace, as long as Star Trek and its stories continue to serve the purpose which makes the franchise different from Star Wars.

126. Anthony Thompson - February 18, 2009

Bob, I very much liked what you and Kurtzman said about not wanting Trek to fade away (as it unquestionably was). You have said a lot of things here and elsewhere which made me feel very comfortable with you being the screenwriter, but that exchange between you and your partner really cemented that feeling for me.

127. Charles H. Root, III - February 18, 2009

If by rock and roll they mean inject some relevant action I’m cool with that. So long as it isn’t the shallow and vacant tween and early teen eye candy nonsense Transformers served up.

If you enjoyed Transformers I’m happy you got your moneys worth. I didn’t. I can only hope that past performance is not an indicator of future artistic outcome. The fact that it was a blockbuster and made a ton of money is irrelevant. McDonald’s sells more burgers than anyone in the world but it’s certainly not the best burger.

I did see some encouraging comments in the interview. However, even if JJ, Orci & Kurtzman’s hearts are in the right place I agree with those who are tired of hearing about Stars Wars or “i was never a fan” and all the other manipulative circling of the wagons nonsense. Tugging on people’s emotional heart strings by putting Randy Pausch and Nimoy in the movie may be great subliminal marketing, but it strikes me as embarrassingly self serving.

Kurtzman stating that Nimoy being in the film “because he wants to be there” rubs me as a subtle, backdoor attempt to inform us that if Leonard is in it, it must be good and we’re fools if we don’t go see it.

Mr. Nimoy’s presence is no barometer. At least half of the Star Trek motion pictures he was in previously kind of, well… sucked.

C’mon guys, you’re well paid showbiz writers, producers and directors. You don’t need to justify yourselves to us… You’ve got to worry about making your Q3 margins this year. We’re all suckers and will pay fifteen bucks to see your Star Trek film regardless if we loved or hated Forever Young, Transformers, MI:3 or (gulp) Fringe.

@ 15. Montreal Paul –

We haven’t jousted in a while so here goes…

You mentioned people “badmouthing a movie (they) haven’t even seen yet”. I read the fourteen posts before yours and I didn’t see who had the nerve to have an opinion that differed from yours. What did I miss?

Hugs & Kisses,

Cap’n Chuckie

128. paustin - February 18, 2009

Star Trek doesnt need to compete with Star Wars….these days Star Wars is more for teens. The obvious thing to mention is the clone wars cartoons which finally just comes out and admits what we’ve suspected for a while…that Star Wars is going for the kiddies and not trying to hit any high marks anymore.(omg Phantom Menace- Attack of the Clones anyone? Revenge of the Sith I enjoyed alot of so I wont attack it…but those first two movies were largely crap) Trek is fine where its at, if it can get a larger audience without sacrificing its integrity than of course im all for that.

129. Justin Olson - February 18, 2009

Bob Orci:

Let Alex Kurtzman know that:

1.) A Mach number is the speed of an object moving through air or fluid, not pure vacuum. But nevertheless:

2.) For comparison, the required speed for low Earth orbit is approximately 7.5 km/s or Mach 25 in air at high altitudes (100 – 1,240 miles).

3.) The first Death Star is said to have been approx. 160 kilometers in diameter. That makes the circumference 502 kilometers (312 miles).

4.) At 50 miles altitude, the speed of sound is about 600mph. The speed of sound in a pure vacuum is 0… but let’s ignore that for a moment since sound seems to travel in space in STAR WARS:

5.) Given that speed of sound, a Mach number of 70,000 would yield an object speed of 18,775,680 meters per second or 42 million miles per hour.

6.) That speed equals 11,666 miles per second. (Recall that the Death Star is 312 miles in circumference.)

7.) At that speed, the Death Star trench battle at the end of STAR WARS would last 1/37th of a second assuming the X-Wings went nearly all the way around the equator of the Death Star once, before blowing it up.

8.) That’s barely longer than the average shutter speed of one frame of 35mm film (1/48th of a second).

9.) In STAR WARS, both flights down the trench last approx. 3 minutes (Luke’s one is a little longer). If the trench is 502 km long, then Luke should be traveling at 2.8 km/s (6,263 mph) or Mach 10. So Alex is off by a factor of 7000.

10.) Yes, I am just kidding.

130. Charles H. Root, III - February 18, 2009

@ 129. Justin Olson –

Kidding or not, thanks for keeping it real and pointing out the difference between good, junk & Fringe science.

131. Marvin the Martian - February 18, 2009

I think some people may have misunderstood my statements about why I don’t see a TNG film anytime soon in the future.

Let me state for the record that I am a TNG fan, and even enjoyed the first season immensely. And I cried when Tasha Yar died. She was my favorite character up to that point, and I was so sad when Denise Crosby left the series. Sure, Sela was a nice touch, but it wasn’t Yar. There was so much development left for her character. But I digress.

This is why I don’t see a TNG film anytime soon… if ever:

1. The studio is focusing on TOS and only TOS right now. They’ve spent way too much money promoting this, and its eventual sequels. They are not going to dilute the franchise with anything else… and they shouldn’t.

2. The TNG actors are too old. Yes, I know, they’re nice people, but facts are facts. And by the time the second sequel of TOS 09 is in the can, the TNG actors will be even older. Sorry, their time is over.

3. The TNG movie series was by no means successful. Only TNG fans with blinders on claim that. Insurrection and Nemesis were both flops relative to their budget, the latter more spectacularly so. Generations was not a huge hit, and First Contact–the most successful of the four–couldn’t even crack $100 million in domestic box office. Face it, whatever your personal passion for TNG, it has not translated into a successful bottom line theatrically, and that will not change as we move further and further away from the time the series first ran… AND with the new presence of the TOS films, which will likely kick butt and take names at the box office.

4. If I hear one more time why a USS Titan series will be a hit, I think I’ll just scream. Please, for the love of God, stop. This series will not materialize. Yes, Jonathan Frakes is interested, and the idea makes us get all tingly inside, but if I were a network exec, I wouldn’t be foolish enough to greenlight it.

The ONLY future for TNG, in order of likelihood, is:

1. A high-quality animated series featuring the original cast. Aging is no longer an issue, and the format appeals to both adults and children. And it makes budget sense compared to live-action. It also ages better over time.

2. A rebooted TNG series with an entirely new cast of actors. It gives Paramount two distinct new franchises in two separate arenas, and the new actors and fresh take on the material makes more budgetary sense. (And this time, Tasha Yar stays part of the cast, I hope.) You can do stunt casting with the original TNG actors in guest roles during sweeps months.

3. A two-night mini-series with a relatively limited budget, featuring the original actors, with a heavy push toward DVD purchase of the “uncut” version. I think this is the least possible scenario, but it could happen. BSG has managed to pull this off relatively successfully.

Okay, have at it. :-)

132. McCoy - February 18, 2009

67 “STXI will have been extremely successful if it top the box office for two weeks as a Summer release. In fact, if it is only #1 for one week and falls to #2 for its second week, it will still have done well. I suppose you were trying to paint that as a negative, but I’m not sure you understand how Summer movies work. That’s curious, especially since that very point has come up on this site on more than one occasion.”

LOL, Closet. Wow, that’s really lowering expectations or changing the meaning of “extreme”. “Extremely” successful movies include: Titanic; Dark Knight; Iron Man..etc. If Star Trek only gets the first weekend, it failed to deliver. All the compromises made for younger audience will have been in vain. I’d be willing to bet a old school version with total classic gear and designs (no updates at all) could get at least one weekend with the young fresh audience. The cast should deliver that.

133. Montreal Paul - February 18, 2009

127. Charles H. Root, III

Hey Chuckie… When I mentioned people badmouthing a movie they hadn’t seen.. I was talking about in general on this site. I had just finished reading a few other articles on the site and this is a reoccuring theme. People seeing bits and pieces of things and without seeing the moviw.. must be crap.. my childhood was raped.. blah blah blah. I agree, everyone has their own opinion.. and IF after SEEING the movie, people don’t like it.. fine, so be it. But they have to at least wait and see it all before saying that the writing is bad or there is more effects of substance, etc. You know what I mean.

134. McCoy - February 18, 2009

Heck, the Uhura bra scene itself should deliver top billing for one weekend. Right? That’s why it’s there right?

I bet the top-gun “Take my Breath Away” moment with the Uglyprise in Iowa will also help that one weekend….

LOL!

135. RD - February 18, 2009

I believe Orci when he says “you have to be very true to spirit of what Star Trek is “, which I think the trailers have demonstrated. However, he is lying when he says “you cannot violate canon”, by excluding the rest of that phrase: “unless you tell the story of the same characters, but in an alternate universe that has been so altered that existing canon no longer applies”.

So, under all that “rock & roll” and the veneer of the re-boot, if you look really hard, you’ll see the spirit of Star Trek. And just like 1966, you won’t have any idea what will happen next, because none of it happened in this universe!

136. JB - February 18, 2009

14: No, it was TESB. Dante was right: All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.

137. New Horizon - February 18, 2009

Star Wars….blech. The only Star Wars movie that I felt was truly wonderful was Empire Strikes Back. Far more mature and balanced than the rest. I’m not even going to get into Episodes 1,2, or 3. lol

138. Chris M - February 18, 2009

I’ve never been one for the whole Star Trek v Star Wars debate! I happen to be more of a Star Trek fan than a Star Wars fan however when I was a kid I was probably more into Star Wars. Me and my brother had Light Sabres and all the rest of it and use to love having Light Sabre fights! Who didn’t, right? It wasn’t until my teenage years that I truly discovered the magic of Star Trek!

For those who are worried, well of course there is going to be more action in this Star Trek movie! Paramount aren’t forking out $150M for nothing! However I feel confident that the story will still be what will make the movie!

139. S. John Ross - February 18, 2009

#94 sez: “It isn’t something totally new. It is, rather, an attempt to return to roots.”

I think it would help if the writers realized that, though :(

140. Gary - February 18, 2009

This project is beginning to smell a little like Star Trek V to me.

141. Devon - February 18, 2009

#141 –

“This project is beginning to smell a little like Star Trek V to me.”

Not at all. That’s just your imagination. :)

142. Montreal Paul - February 18, 2009

#140 – Gary

“This project is beginning to smell a little like Star Trek V to me.”

Not even the slightest little bit buddy… I agree with Devon, it’s just your imagination.

143. Papa Jim - February 18, 2009

This movie is going to be great! And it is going to be great because…

Oh, Look! A bunny rabbit!

144. moauvian moaul - February 18, 2009

I wonder if the difference in opinion and expectations for this movie are divided between TNG and TOS fans.

145. McCoy - February 18, 2009

In regards to the Rock and Roll of Star Wars…Star Wars has always offered more POV shots to make you think you are along for the ride. The ships are smaller….more like rollercoasters.

146. VZX - February 18, 2009

Orci just killed it for me with that “rock n roll” statement. There is no way I am going to see this movie now.

147. Devon - February 18, 2009

#146 – HAHAHAHA.

148. McCoy - February 18, 2009

144.

It’s divided among people who think visually and people who do not. The non visual people think everything is fine as long as all the names are there. The visual people are confused because the only TOS we see is Nimoy and uniforms.

149. EFFeX - February 18, 2009

See, I am STILL extremely excited about this movie, but they really need to be careful with what they are saying. They make it sound like a “in space submarine battle” is boring. Well, to me that’s more realistic then some of the stuff we have seen in Star Wars, ESPECIALLY the newer ones.

To me, Star Trek is true Science Fiction, yeah, they go a lot over board sometimes, but it keeps it fun and exciting. Star Wars has always been purely fantasy for me. It’s unrealistic… Well, not to say Star Trek is completely realistic, but I’m sure you see what I’m getting at.

Yes, there are those that love both franchises, I’m one of those people. However, I don’t need a piece of Star Wars in my Trek. They are completely separate and need to be kept that way. I hope that all the “keeping it true” to the original talk wasn’t just that… TALK.

150. moauvian moaul - February 18, 2009

148. Okay, but doesn’t it seem the TNG fans are worried the movie is sexed up or may rely on bar fights, when that was more a part of TOS? Of course there is the concern for style or cannon, but the two shows in some ways were very different. After all NBC had input in the original series.

151. Slitheen - February 18, 2009

#1 – “These two scare me sometimes. Especially when I think of Transformers.”

…then why think of Transformers when you think of “these two”? Why not think of Lost – the most bold, original and sublime piece of television since Patrick McGoohan’s seminal 1960’s creative masterpiece, The Prisoner? Or at least since Lynch’s Twin Peaks.

Trek is in the best hands it could be in for this day and age. They have a reverence for it that is on a whole different level to what they had for Transformers. Which, by the way, did its job well enough (it’s an entertaining blockbuster reboot of a freaking cartoon…Trek is religion. The two have been approached very differently)

152. BK613 - February 18, 2009

148
Yep it’s kind of like how Kirk and Scotty both “love” the Enterprise but for different reasons…

153. Xai - February 18, 2009

148. McCoy – February 18, 2009

Funny, I don’t recall participating in your poll, or being asked if I am a “visual” person or not.

Yours is an opinion, not anything close to a fact.

154. McCoy - February 18, 2009

153. Xai.

No, I just checked. Your name is on the list as “non-visual person”.

Listen to me carefully Xai. Everything I tell you is a lie. Xai, I am lying.

I say I am lying, but if everything I say is a lie then I am telling the truth, but I cannot tell the truth because everything I say is a lie. I lie. I tell the truth. But I cannot for. Illogical! Illogical!

155. Ian B - February 18, 2009

I’m 43 and thoroughly enjoyed Transformers, especially the boob-chick.

I am not at all scared of a pacier Star Trek. Audiences have changed over the years, and so has the requirements of movies. With so many other competing entertainment forms, movies need to be big “events” to compete; they need to blow your socks off. It’s no longer the days when people went to the pictures every Friday night because there was nothing else to do except play with a hoop and stick. And even then, big movies went for spectacle- Egyptian armies drowning in the Red Sea spring to mind, or Liz Taylor and 10,000 extras.

It’s possible to have a good story and spectacle in the same package. I’ve always felt that Trek movies felt “small” (except TMP perhaps). The space battles have never quite been good enough. They never seemed to make much tactical sense either. There has always been this formula of “one photon torpedo, one phaser shot, shields at 60%” kind of thing that is lacking. I am glad they are (apparently) addressing that deficit this time around the block.

I want to see Trek on a bigger stage. I’m looking forward to this enormously.

156. AJ - February 18, 2009

While I love rock ‘n ‘roll, I hesitate to think that Star Wars is the best example. SW lost its mojo after ESB.

Also, many rightly criticize the opening battle scene over Coruscant in “Sith” as confusing and overblown. If he’s created an FX monster on that magnitude, rock and roll it is not. I hope the reference is not related to improved SFX, but, instead to simplicity of message, and balls-to-the-walls direction.

Rock ‘n’ Roll is all about about simplicity: Guitar, bass and drums, with the amps set to 11. And it’s supposed to be FUN.

If I had to choose a “rock and roll” SF film, I would choose “Aliens” over any of the SW films.

157. Robman0908 - February 18, 2009

Bob Orci

Many, many, many thanks for helping to bring back three of my childhood heroes (that being Kirk, Spock and McCoy), and for making Star Trek exciting again. It has been years since I have this level of anticipation for a Trek movie.

Thanks a million, and best of luck!!

158. Buzz Cagney - February 18, 2009

Trouble is when I read Orci and rock n roll in the same sentence my thinking is ‘dumbing down’. That may well be being unfair to Mr O. but it is nevertheless what springs to my mind.

159. Buzz Cagney - February 18, 2009

#131 good post. I entirely agree.

160. Xai - February 18, 2009

154. McCoy – February 18, 2009

No, you listen to me.
You can be civil. I didn’t insult you. I just told you that your opinion isn’t fact.

161. Canon Schmanon - February 18, 2009

I haven’t really liked anything Abrams has done, but for some reason, I have a good feeling about this film. I think maybe it’s time J.J. did something I liked.

162. Charles H. Root, III - February 18, 2009

@ 133. Montreal Paul –

Gotcha… Thanks for the clarification.

Y’know, I thought of you, my friends and relatives from .ca when I went through Tim Hortons drive-thru this morning and procured a large double double and some Butter Pecan TimTarts.

BTW, I’m a Habs fan and wear my 1950’s wool sweater with pride. Especially whenever I’m in Toronto or at a Sabres game here in Buffalo.

; )

163. roy - February 18, 2009

#32, I absolutely disagree with you about the possibility of a TNG movie becoming a reality. Afterall TNG cast have been crying for the last seven years that the next Star Trek film should have been made with them as opposed to anybody else. This is fair enough from their point of view. Look what happened, instead Paramount with JJ Abrams have gone in a different direction and quite rightly so. What ever happens, if the new Star Trek film becomes very successful and makes a hefty profit. Then it’s a no brainer that the Studio will carry on with this new film franchise. Then the idea of ever doing a TNG movie with Stewart and Frakes will really become an afterthought. Whether you like it or not, this is the reality of the situation.

164. McCoy - February 18, 2009

160 Xai

It was a modified quote from I, Mudd.

I hope everyone knows all of us are running on opinion here.

165. Iowagirl - February 18, 2009

TOS has always had Rock’n’Roll, and Woodstock, and the Beat Generation, and the Singers/Songwriters, and Glam Rock, and Bombast Rock, and Symphonic Rock.

You, Mr. Abrams, Mr. Orci, and Mr. Kurtzman, are *not* the creators.

166. Dan - February 19, 2009

Make another TNG movie, please Bob, please, the cast wants to, the fans want it made, update a few things and make it rock!!!

167. thorsten - February 19, 2009

@154…

Who are you?
The new Number Two.
Who is Number One?
You are Number Six.

168. colonyearth - February 19, 2009

blah blah blah blah…blah…blah blah blah…that’s really all i see in most of u guys’ words anymore. well that and bitch, bitch, bitch…geesh!

169. colonyearth - February 19, 2009

oh and if Trek dies, it won’t be Orci or Kurtzman or JJ’s fault…it will be the fans’ because like Kirk in STVI, they refuse to change. if Trek doesn’t grow it dies…end of story…end of universe. didn’t the Berminator teach u guys that?

170. Dom - February 19, 2009

Orci and Kurtzman are right. Trek has become the equivalent of a perennial batchelor school teacher who lives in tweed! Everything about it seems middle-aged, in part because the previous movies have starred actors who have already spent years on the TV show and grown beyond thier original concept.

The new film gives us the characters at exactly the right age (eg Kirk as the youngest captain in Star Fleet) from the outset so we get to see them in big adventures in their prime!

Also, they are making the tech in the film as advanced as possible, meaning TNG’s tech now looks quaint.

TOS was about the 1960s. TNG was about the 1980s. Neo-Trek has to be about today: it can’t be relegated to a historical period by TNG!

171. Spock - February 19, 2009

“Star Trek was essentially a submarine naval battle, except in space.”

Isn’t it funny how the best TOS film and some of the better episodes followed that formula though? I don’t see what point Kurtzman is trying to prove by saying this. A lot of the attempts to add rock and roll to Star Trek have been embarrassingly bad, to say the least. Picard driving a Halo warthog around some desert planet and totally pissing on the Prime Directive he used to cry about in every 2nd episode… Data’s pale imitations of Spock’s “Go to hell” line…

172. thorsten - February 19, 2009

That TNG was not able to embrace the concept is no proof that Abrams, Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman are not able to pull it off with The Original.

The difference in this case is that talented people that have proven themselves in areas not related to Trek, but capable of infusing a lot of their own enthusiasm into the project pared with a very high amount of dedication to the sacred canon, are doing it.

With a treatment like this, the TNG movies could have been good movies, too. Not just cashcows with a Trek logo slapped on top.

173. Dom - February 19, 2009

TNG was 100 per cent a TV show. It didn’t belong in the cinema. People need to stop thinking about the cinema being some sort of a ‘step up’ for a TV show! It’s a completely different medium!

With TOS, we had a lot of years between the TV show and the films. Kirk was radically redefined, no longer the ‘youngest captain in Starfleet’ he was an experienced, controversial veteran who only actually was seen as captain of the Enterprise in two films (he gets put the ship as an Admiral for the V’Ger mission, oversees the Khan incident as a visiting Admiral on a training mission gone wrong, is on leave when he scuttles the Enterprise, on the run when he saves the whales.) The TOS films are a different entity from their forebear, but had the advantage of being known for standalone tales and a ‘big three’ cast!

With TNG though, we are supposed to believe seasons 8, 9, 10 and so on are continuing in the background and the movies are events within those! But they never feel that way. Everything that made TNG popular: the ensemble cast, the gradual character development, the background politics, went out the window, meaning we got Picard/Data films with everyone else reduced to ciphers, or in the case of Insurrection, a TV movie!

TNG films looked uncinematic because TNG is uncinematic. It belonged on TV as a series and that series was wrapped up to most people’s satisfaction. The slow death of the Star Trek franchise began the day TNG switched to the big screen!

174. thorsten - February 19, 2009

And when TNG arrived on the big screen with Generations, they pulled off the two stunts impossible on a TV budget…

175. Dom - February 19, 2009

174. thorsten: ‘And when TNG arrived on the big screen with Generations, they pulled off the two stunts impossible on a TV budget…’

Yeah, but so what, if you’ve sucked the soul out of TNG in order to have a big explosion or pointlessly destroy the Enterprise? TNG did perfectly well without those stunts!

Anyway, seriously, after years of seeing Starfleet develop phased shielding and so on in battles against the Borg, you trash the Enterprise by hiding a camera in the VISOR of a crewman whose been tortured yet no one bothers to check him for drugs, implants and so on? In the TNG TV show no one was that dumb.

The whole Enterprise crash was plain . . . insulting to the intelligence!

176. Star Trackie - February 19, 2009

Rock and Roll in TOS was jump kicks, Doomsday Machines, ripped shirts, bad guys who get shot, glow and dissapear swinging lyrpas and boulder throwing Lizard men.

Rock and Roll in TNG, notably First Contact, was a brilliant Cochrane acting like a 70 year old roadie and Vulcans, upon first contact, dancing with Earthlings to the tune of Roy Orbison’s “Ooby Dooby”.

That’s why we’re back to TOS style rock and roll.

177. Paulaner - February 19, 2009

#175 “The whole Enterprise crash was plain . . . insulting to the intelligence!”

The whole Generations was plain . . . insulting to the intelligence!

178. Vito - February 19, 2009

Yeah, #10…keep with the cerebral stories and no “rock & roll” and you will not see Trek again in your lifetime. That is NOT what puts asses in seats in contemporary movie theaters. And that’s what will keep Trek alive, not a movie that will put people to sleep thinking too hard.

179. JT in TX - February 19, 2009

I just sat here reading 170+ comments and realized Shat was right all along.

We really do need to get a life. LOL

#173 – Very, very insightful. It makes perfect sense that a continuation of TNG exactly as it was might have been precisely the reason the movies failed. I personally would much rather have had 2 or 3 more seasons of TNG to watch than the four movies we did get. Many of the actors voiced similar concerns at that time. If I remember correctly, Frakes was very vocal about wondering why Paramount would “kill the cash cow” at the height of the show’s popularity.

As for the new movie, I think we’re all on basically the same page here – cautiously optimistic that THIS time, they’re gonna get it right.

2.5 months to go until we find out whether Trek lives or dies. Yikes!

180. RJ - February 19, 2009

I am really looking forward to this movie and have been a proponent for the direction Abram’s has been taking, but enough with the Star Wars comparisons already! Star Wars is brought up in practically every interview with Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams. Whether the question involves Star Wars or not!

If they keep going on and on about SW, then I’m going to wonder (actually just starting to wonder) if some of the critics have been right about their criticisms of Abrams and Co. Specifically about how Abrams is supposedly trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars. Which I’ve always dismissed as being silly. Is this movie about Star Trek or Star Wars? What are their (O/K/A) priorities here? Which franchise are they really trying to promote? If Star Trek is their priority, then drop the Star Wars shtick please. Otherwise, they may just start to alienate people like me who do support this movie. Future fans are great, but they need us (current fans) going to see this movie too.

Sorry, I’m just a little frustrated over seeing Star Wars being mentioned for the umpteenth time in an article associated with them and the upcoming movie. Not that I hate SW, but we are separate franchises. I’d like to keep it that way.

Regarding the Rock N’ Roll comment…. I like RnR, so if they want to add a little to Star Trek (whatever that may mean), then I’ll give it a chance.

181. Dom - February 19, 2009

Hi, JT in TX (179): ‘I personally would much rather have had 2 or 3 more seasons of TNG to watch than the four movies we did get. Many of the actors voiced similar concerns at that time. If I remember correctly, Frakes was very vocal about wondering why Paramount would “kill the cash cow” at the height of the show’s popularity.’

If David Gerrold’s original idea had held, TNG could have been much longer lived. There should have been a much more ‘mobile’ cast, like other ensemble shows. TNG could have lasted 14 years if more characters had moved on, died etc. The sets could have been overhauled a couple of times, maybe the Enterprise-E could have shown up after season seven.

Riker could have become Captain. The Dominion War could have happened, the Enterprise could have been stuck in the Delta Quadrant for two or three seasons . . .

End of the day, my big frustration was the creative cowardice of the showrunners and the obsession with sticking inside the Roddenberry Box. DS9 had to be created because the ‘main’ Trek shows wouldn’t dare tackle some subjects!

I look at Battlestar Galactica with its complex characterisations, societal structure and dramatic series-shaking storylines and think: ‘Ron Moore could have brought that level of quality to the Star Trek universe!’

Deeply frustrating!

182. Daoud - February 19, 2009

The heart of rock and roll is in Cleveland. What Star Trek needs is to appeal to people in Cleveland, specifically Parma. Then it will rock, yes.

But seriously… Star Trek was midwestern rural values of hard work combined with classic Lockian/Jeffersonian/libertarian ideals of equality and justice. As long as *that* formula is still present, and it seems to be in there scenes featuring Chris Pike, then the heart of this movie is also “in Cleveland”. How many more days do we have to wait?

That said, Star Trek Zero here has much in common with A New Hope, as we watch Luke Anakirk become James T. Kirk, Darth Spock see at last the value of his human parts, and Han McCoy’s abundant sarcasm begin to melt…

Or wrap it up in two words: “Buckle up!”

183. thorsten - February 19, 2009

Dom, I am absolutely with you here, and we did not even start talking about the other senseless destruction that movie pulled off…
For me the TNG movies lost any credibility from the very beginning by these stupid stunts, killing off Jim Kirk and destroying the D. I was not surprised when Star Trek ended in ruins with Nemesis and Enterprise. Trek was a boring repetitive wreck since the beginning of Voyager.

Ron Moore did the right thing by leaving and creating something totally amazing on his own.

184. Dom - February 19, 2009

183. thorsten

Tell me about it! TNG and TOS were very different shows and Roddenberry was right when he said they should never cross over. Jim Kirk simply does not belong in TNG and killing him off in a spin-off is the same as killing off Buffy in an episode of Angel or the Fonz in an episode of Mork and Mindy!

Generations had every opportunity to be a great film. They should have waited a year after TNG finished, then released the movie. Leonard Nimoy could have come on board as director and had input to the script and other Trek veterans could have helped segue TNG from a TV show into a movie series.

Instead, they went to court to ensure that Shatner, Nimoy and Nick Meyer could have nothing to do with any further films. All these guys had valuable experience with what worked and didn’t work in Trek movies and were shut out. No wonder TOS fans like me shook our heads and gave up on Trek!

185. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#121—“The acting in that movie is wooden and static, the more I see it, the less I like it. Let’s face it: the TOS guys were too old.”

Agreed. In retrospect, I would rather have seen the original movie series end with the shuttlepod approach to the Enterprise-A in TVH. We see the new ship, and that’s it. A perfect ending.

It wasn’t just that the actors were too old, but the characters no longer fit where they were being depicted. Two Captains (Kirk and Spock) and five Commanders (McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura) all serving aboard the same vessel? Talk about a gross misallocation of valuable Starfleet resources!!!

If anything, we could have seen a new bridge crew and some younger faces serving under Captain Kirk, with his “old friends” appearing from time to time in some capacity. Instead, we got “geriatric Trek” (STV and VI)— and later, a lackluster set of TNG movies (IMO).

186. Daoud - February 19, 2009

#184 Or the Fonz jumping over a lagoon containing a shark… ;)

187. Captain John C Baron - February 19, 2009

184th!

# 67 “STXI will have been extremely successful if it top the box office for two weeks as a Summer release. In fact, if it is only #1 for one week and falls to #2 for its second week, it will still have done well.”

Absolutely spot on! That’s how the majority of summer films work – large opening weekend, $70m+, followed by 50%-60% drop second weekend. The only exceptions to this are breakout movies like Dark Knight, which coem along once every blue moon and, ST’s not going to do that sort of business. $200m at the US box office will be an outstanding result for a franchise that’s never come anywhere near that sort of cash before.

As for rock n roll – ST has to move on if it’s going to be relevant to modern audiences. For long-term trekkkers this may jar a little, but give it a chance. There will be elements and knowing echoes of Trek classic in this film, but it’s Trek for a new generation (excuse the pun) so it’s bound to be different.

188. AJ - February 19, 2009

183:

I think the TNG team realized that the ENT-D was dead in the water as a concept. “Families in space” was shown to be a perilous thing in “Farpoint,” and would have resulted in saucer separation every second episode.

I disagree with you re: Ron Moore. I’ve read his comments, and they sound like whingeing to me. Manny Coto took those same elements that Moore considered impediments, and made some great TV at the end.

189. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#132—-I totally disagree.

No one really expects STXI to do as well as The Dark Knight. That is a “once in a generation” box office smash. The expectations are for it to be a “Summer blockbuster”. That’s all. If it rules the box office opening weekend, and then remains in the top 2 or 3 for a couple of weeks, then it has done that. It will have been a financial success. That isn’t “lowering standards” for extreme success. The word “extreme” isn’t quantifiable. It is completely relative. And relative to what past Star Trek films have done, a “Summer blockbuster” would certainly (IMO) qualify as “extreme success”.

Frankly, I don’t care for comparisons to TDK or Titanic. This is Star Trek, a franchise that we all know carries with it certain preconceived notions amongst the mainstream viewing audience. For STXI to be a “Summer blockbuster” would be a tremendous feat in itself.

190. thorsten - February 19, 2009

@188…

Yes, AJ… in the end.

I hope you will not be too surprised if, should the ratings tank around midseason, the Terrorists Jack Bauer faces in 24/7 turn out to be…
drumroll… THE BORG!

191. AJ - February 19, 2009

182:

The heart of rock and roll is also NYC. Ramones, Kiss, Blondie, Talking Heads, New York Dolls, etc. So, throw in some good old fashioned NY Jewish secularism to the mix, bordering on atheism, or at least agnosticism.

Also, Ohio has DEVO, but they are from Akron. I guess I’m dating myself here…

192. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#135—“…he is lying when he says “you cannot violate canon”, by excluding the rest of that phrase: “unless you tell the story of the same characters, but in an alternate universe that has been so altered that existing canon no longer applies”.

First of all, Alex said that, not Bob. If you’re going to falsely accuse someone of lying, at least get the name right.

Second, telling a story within a timeline created by interference with the past is canon. The potential for that has been a part of the Star Trek Universe since the very first season of The Original Series.

“The City On The Edge Of Forever” is no less canon than “Obsession” or “The Conscience Of The King”.

The only difference is that the timeline may not be restored to its original form in the end. But again, the potential for that has always been acknowledged in canon.

Boy, RD, you seem to call a man a “liar” at the drop of a hat. To quote Dr. McCoy, “What is it with you?”

193. Captain John C Baron - February 19, 2009

#189 You’re completely spot on.

I sometimes wonder what some fans think when it comes to box office success. I remember some fans on TrekNation boldly proclaiming that Nemesis was a cert for $100m+ at the US box office with a $60m opening weekend!

Like I said in post #187, $200m would be a fantastic success. One thing’s for sure, less than $150m is the US and we’d be struggling to get a sequel, given the film’s already high budget (and that’s not counting promotion and prints).

194. Dom - February 19, 2009

188. AJ: ‘I think the TNG team realized that the ENT-D was dead in the water as a concept. “Families in space” was shown to be a perilous thing in “Farpoint,” and would have resulted in saucer separation every second episode.’

So revamp the sets and exterior model to make the Enterprise a 100 percent crew-orientated ship!

I disagree with you re: Ron Moore. I’ve read his comments, and they sound like whingeing to me. Manny Coto took those same elements that Moore considered impediments, and made some great TV at the end.

Moore’s work on BSG makes Enterprise look at best old-fashioned and at worst a kid’s show. Coto was also given unprecedented freedom, because following the huge budget cut for Enterprise season four Berman could see the writing on the wall!

Far from whinging, Moore talks a lot of common sense. The more we hear from TNG veterans on both sides of the camera, the more clear it becomes that Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman were exceptionally overbearing control freaks!

195. AJ - February 19, 2009

190:

“Written by Manny Coto & Brannon Braga”

Maybe Jack Bauer, Chloe and the new FBI office actually create the Borg.

I watched the latest episode of “24” last night. We get 24 hours of a day. Questions:

When does Jack actually charge his cellphone?

Does he eat?

Does he use the loo?

“Pull over the g*ddamned car! Now! I need a taco!”

196. thorsten - February 19, 2009

@195…

I was so pissed off by the stupidity of season 6,
I have seen nothing yet…
what cell is he using this year? Still a clamshell?

;))

197. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#148—” The non visual people think everything is fine as long as all the names are there.”

Not at all. The characters, in the end, should be recognizable as well by their behavior.

Where the real disagreement seems to be, IMO, is what defines TOS.

Is TOS defined by set designs and props?

Not to me.

TOS is defined (to fans like me) by the wonderful characters and the optimistic vision at the heart of Star Trek—-a vision for a possible future for us in which Humanity does not (as was heavily feared at the height of the Cold War) destroy itself, but instead, unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today, and to explore the “final frontier”.

It is also defined to me by the elements of action, adventure, sexuality, humor, drama, and the occasional social commentary.

I don’t expect go-go boots, heavy eye shadow, electric wiring, record tapes, or buttons and switches. Nor do I expect color schemes inspired by what was then a new invention—color television!

I don’t need to see the 1960’s vision of what the future might “look” like. I’ve already seen that, and I can see it anytime I wish on dvd. What I do want to see is the spirit of what we would like it “to be” like. I want to see that vision in 2009.

198. thorsten - February 19, 2009

@185…

Two Captains and five Commanders, sharing one bridge,
hehe, excellent CT. Not like our dads Navy, I guess…

199. Planet Pandro - February 19, 2009

#197. Closettrekker

Well said, sir! I agree.

200. sean - February 19, 2009

You got Rock n’ Roll in my Star Trek!

You got Star Trek in my Rock n’ Roll!

201. Andy D - February 19, 2009

Honestly hated Transformers. Loved it growing up as a kid, hate the movie. It was very, very, very pop. Made for Joe Sixpack.

That being said, these guys know Trek, they love Trek, they READ Trek. Im optimistic this wont be Star Trek Pop.

202. AJ - February 19, 2009

I caught a bit of Transformers on HBO last night. The film’s got lots of heart.

I think our writer-friends know their audience.

Just, please don’t have the ship’s computer say “Sorry. My bad.”

203. Andy Patterson - February 19, 2009

200

Hey,…footnote me on that. I believe that’s my line from another thread.

204. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#201—I never played with the toy, and never saw more than a minute or two of the cartoon in the 80’s. But my kids wanted to see the movie, and I took them. I was mildly, but surprisingly, entertained. I’ll be happy to take them to see the sequel.

“… these guys know Trek, they love Trek, they READ Trek. Im optimistic this wont be Star Trek Pop.”

Agreed.

I think that “Transformers” was exactly what it was supposed to be. There is therefore no reason for me to believe that Star Trek will be anything but what it is supposed to be.

205. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#176—“Rock and Roll in TOS was jump kicks, Doomsday Machines, ripped shirts, bad guys who get shot, glow and dissapear swinging lyrpas and boulder throwing Lizard men.

Rock and Roll in TNG, notably First Contact, was a brilliant Cochrane acting like a 70 year old roadie and Vulcans, upon first contact, dancing with Earthlings to the tune of Roy Orbison’s “Ooby Dooby”.

That’s why we’re back to TOS style rock and roll.”

Lmao!

From my perspective, that is a very valid point. Making Star Trek sexy, adventurous, and unafraid of good old fashioned two-fisted action is not something new. It is a very old formula that worked really well toward making the characters of the original series the icons that they are.

So “buckle up” for some Kirk on girl action, Kirk vs. monster action, arm photon torpedoes, set phasers for stun, and we need warp speed in 3 minutes or we’re all dead!

I want shirt-ripping, neck-pinching, sword-fighting, and aliens who subscribe to the Alex Rodriguez school of body-sculpting.

As for the dull Trek of recent years past—-it’s dead, Jim.

206. Montreal Paul - February 19, 2009

162. Charles H. Root, III

Any Habs fan drinking a Timmy’s double double can’t be that bad ;)

207. AJ - February 19, 2009

205:

“I want shirt-ripping, neck-pinching, sword-fighting, and aliens who subscribe to the Alex Rodriguez school of body-sculpting.”

All that, and you love TMP? ;-)

“My oath of celibacy IS on record, Captain…”

208. Xai - February 19, 2009

164. McCoy – February 18, 2009

I over-reacted. My apologies.
Yes, I recognize the source and no, I don’t feel that everyone here understands that these are opinions.

209. Marian Ciobanu - February 19, 2009

- Even if i really apreciate the scientific facts.. just take a good look of the new STARFLEET ‘unrocking’ uniforms ..and BTW.. I’m watching for the first time in my life TOS and seems to be a good series.. but i still think TMP – TNG era was the greatest era for Star Trek..

210. Two Geeks and a Blog :: Movies Star Trek Star Wars :: Star Trek to be more like Star Wars? - February 19, 2009

[...] fervor.  In short, make Star Trek more like Star Wars.  Trekmovie.com is reporting on statements made by the writers during a recent [...]

211. Star Trackie - February 19, 2009

202 “So “buckle up” for some Kirk on girl action, Kirk vs. monster action, arm photon torpedoes, set phasers for stun, and we need warp speed in 3 minutes or we’re all dead!

I want shirt-ripping, neck-pinching, sword-fighting, and aliens who subscribe to the Alex Rodriguez school of body-sculpting.”

You sir, are of the body!
FINALLY…Star Trek is going to be fun again, and I can’t wait!

212. Closettrekker - February 19, 2009

#207—“All that, and you love TMP? ;-)”

Yep.

“My oath of celibacy IS on record, Captain…”

Ah…forbidden fruit.

213. BK613 - February 19, 2009

198
I don’t see them actually billeted to the ship except in TMP and V. In TMP that seemed okay and being able serving together in V could go along with the “- A” on the hull. In TWOK they are on inspection, TSFS and TVH they are renegades, and TUC they are on special assignment.

Regardless maybe SF doesn’t subscribe to the management fallacy of breaking up a winning team. :-)

214. McCoy - February 19, 2009

197.

I don’t think anyone is asking for the extremes of “go-go boots, heavy eye shadow, electric wiring, record tapes, or buttons and switches.”

All TV shows and movies are defined by the story, screenplay, directing, acting, the soundtrack, and the visuals (set design, wardrobe design, effects). All those elements ADD up to generate the “spirit”. Visuals are a big part of it and that’s why so much money is spent developing them. The spirit is the totality of all the parts. To “capture the spirit” of a past property simply means using enough of the original elements. Using less elements or replacing elements creates something else.

And Trek has multiple “spirits” at this point (at least TOS era, original cast film era and the TNG, era). But having a “Trek” spirit is different than having a “TOS” spirit. If you really want to see a 2009 version of what the future would look like…don’t do TOS. There are other options to explore a modern vision of the future including continuing the timeline forward from TNG. But as I have mentioned, even if you accept the idea that their changes for this film are an attempt to create a modern vision of the future, I think they have missed the mark.

You have to be bold with what came before. Create a high-budget movie celebrating Trek origins. Upgrade the rest of the objects to match what they did with the uniforms (the uniforms do look like upgraded TOS).

215. Andy Patterson - February 19, 2009

207,212

“My oath of celibacy IS on record, Captain…”

I still say….have always said, given that one statement, Star Trek phase II could have been a fantastic show if they’d have done that instead of the first movie. To quote the Klingon…what was his name…Kor…”It could have been glorious!”

216. krikzil (aka Lixy) - February 19, 2009

“I hope everyone knows all of us are running on opinion here.”

Yup, just opinions. And mileage WILL vary which seems to get lost in the fray.

“oh and if Trek dies, it won’t be Orci or Kurtzman or JJ’s fault…it will be the fans’ because like Kirk in STVI, they refuse to change. if Trek doesn’t grow it dies…end of story…”

That really smacks of a “stepford” fan mentality. It’s not a “refusal to change” , sometimes you just don’t like the direction a franchise takes. Just as with all the movies and tv spinoffs, some fans will like this new movie, some won’t.

217. CmdrR - February 19, 2009

I can’t wait til May 8th.

I’m still not sure what they mean by “Rock and Roll”… but, I hope it doesn’t reduce Trek to being an exact copy of some mindless Michael Bay acid trip nerve shattering cover the vapidity with cussin’ and violence never mind the editing movie.

218. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - February 19, 2009

>It will be interesting to see how the success of this movie influences
> new interest in a new TNG movie with the original characters. TNG’s >potential has never really been pushed and what better way to test those >waters than for J.J. Abrams and company to tell their version of the story.

>Ciao Tutti!I

Interest in a new TNG movie? About as likely as XM/Sirius ever turning a profit.

TNG is dead, guys; a nice memory, a memory of things that didnt always go the way we liked, but sometimes did, but its time to move on.

219. Dom - February 19, 2009

216. krikzil (aka Lixy): ‘That really smacks of a “stepford” fan mentality. It’s not a “refusal to change” , sometimes you just don’t like the direction a franchise takes. Just as with all the movies and tv spinoffs, some fans will like this new movie, some won’t.’

Agreed. I hate the modern Doctor Who series. I think Eccleston and Tennant are godawful Doctors and I think Russell T Davies is an overrated third-rate hack!

But, equally, many people adore it, think Tennant is the greatest Doctor ever and that Russell T Davies is a master storyteller!

Doctor Who went off in a different direction from the one I like. I said farewell and moved on to new things. That said, the revamped series starring Matt Smith and run by Stephen Moffatt might be good!

220. Craig - February 19, 2009

I know they think it’s funny to say stuff like that but they do make my blood boil when they say stuff like that, they need to have more respect for the fans. The sooner this movie bombs the better I for one will be helping by not going to see it and sugesting to my friends to go see Wolverine or wait for Terminator instead.

221. Xai - February 19, 2009

The characters drive this “ship” and will drive it (if portrayed correctly) regardless of what some think of the sets. She’s an Alt-universe Enterprise, but she’s still the same spirit.

222. Dale - February 19, 2009

You know, I have been reading these posts for months now and while some people get it, I believe just as many don’t. I am a 40ish, balding, over-weight, past his prime, proud Star Trek geek that has been watching the show since I’ve been 10-years old. I’m the aging professional that sits around in his shorts on Sundays, watching TOS and arguing on whether “The Managerie” is actually counted as one episode or two, because is came in two parts….or perhaps we should include “The Cage”…oops, I find myself wandering….

Anyway, what is more important to me (and should be for Trek fans everywhere), is that my 16-year old son sees this trailer and go’s “COOL, I gotta see that movie!” We (the aging 40ish Trekkers) are going to go and see this film no matter what! And believe me, it’s success is not going to hinge on us going to see it! If that was the case, Star Trek 11 would be something like TNG in “Nemesis 2″. It’s success is going to be the youth who are the fans of the future…you know…it’s that fickle, young Red Bull generation who is going to allow us old timers to watch great Trek into our 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.

So I say to some (but not all as some do get it), to lighten up, have some fun, enjoy the “Rock and Roll”, and thank Apollo (Cudos to “Who Mourns for Adonais”) for this extremely talented group of professionals who are going to bring to a new generation what we already know….Trek is Awesome!!! So endth the lesson!

223. Woulfe - February 19, 2009

Two Words…..

Classic Rock…..

– W –
* Nuff Said *

224. Xai - February 19, 2009

220. Craig – February 19, 2009
“I know they think it’s funny to say stuff like that but…”

Proof is in the pudding and not what they say or what you think they said. It’s another inane interview. Get over it and quit wearing your heart on your sleeve.

225. Cylon - February 19, 2009

10. Wow. What a bunch of eletist intellectual garbage. “a good thoughts provoking script that emphasize the content rather than the visual effects.” Ha! Do that and trek as a film or TV franchise is buried for for good. This movie needs to rake in some serious $ and bring in an expanded fan base before they even think about something as boring as NPR in a starship (excuse me, I ment a thoughts provoking script). Let them save Trek before they alienate a portion of their fan base first.

226. Christine - February 19, 2009

Okay, I HAVE to get this off my chest:

“..It just felt like Star Wars had a little more rock and roll than Star Trek had…”

All right, I’m absolutely tired of those two seemingly always saying how Star Wars always had more of this or more of that than Trek. It’s getting OLD. Seriously. It does not look good to the press with them constantly, CONSTANTLY comparing the two and does not make people more enthused about ST09!! I’m just saying, it seems like bad press. I’m sure they don’t mean to be talking down the franchise their new movie is gonna be in (that would be stupid, I mean come on) but it seems like it.

Whew. Okay.

—————————————

#45 : “…I knew we were in trouble with the Prequels when Taxes and Trade entered into the opening scroll, and JarJar Binks showed up and annoyed everyone over the age of 8. …”

Hahaha! I was about 8 when Episode 1 came out. I loved JarJar to death. It was practically an obsession. I think I actually had a Burger King cup or something with a JarJar head on it. xD Ah, good times…

227. Buzz Cagney - February 19, 2009

#222 but people have the very real concern that it will be something called Trek rather than Trek.
Despite many people having doubts about the quality and ability of the writers in particular, I think even Orci and chums recognise people have real concerns. It would be selling out Trek in the highest degree to just go chasing 16 year olds. Trek is and always has been a more worthy a commodity than it just being something to fill the gaps between buckets of popcorn. That is what SW is for- and respect to it for that. I’m not a Star Wars hater, but I always felt like the more rounded, complete human being because I preferred Trek. If thats being elitist then elitist be i!

228. The Jui$tain - February 19, 2009

If there’s one thing i’ve noticed from reading these posts on here, it’s that some people have already made it up in their minds that this movie is gonna suck. Maybe because Mr Orci and Mr Kurtzman said that Trek needed a little rock and roll, I don’t know.

One of the things that convinced me to see this movie is the one thing Mr Kurtzman said about Mr Nimoy:

” He is also there because he wants to be there, and that actually was the highest compliment for all of us and in many ways was our compass…Because he had said he absolutely would not do it again, and it’s not like he needed the money. If he’s going to do it, it’s because he genuinely believes in it and actually feels that it is going in the right direction. For us that was the barometer.”

If Mr Nimoy believes in this movie and feels it’s going in the right direction, then why on God’s green earth would any Trekkie not go see it??

The world may never know….

*J*

229. Databrain - February 20, 2009

151 said:

‘…then why think of Transformers when you think of “these two”? Why not think of Lost – the most bold, original and sublime piece of television since Patrick McGoohan’s seminal 1960’s creative masterpiece, The Prisoner? Or at least since Lynch’s Twin Peaks.’

I think the x-files is infinitely better than ‘lost’.

230. Cygnus-X1 - February 20, 2009

I don’t remember any rock ‘n’ roll music in Star Wars.

Did Orci & Kurtzman mean “faster action” when they said “rock ‘n’ roll?”

Since when are action scenes in a movie analoguous to rock ‘n’ roll?

Is there going to be rock music in the new Star Trek movie?

What is going on here??

231. thorsten - February 20, 2009

@229…

Slitheen is correct. LOST is the best since The Prisoner and Twin Peaks.
The X-Files were just a bad joke that should have ended after 5 seasons with a conclusion.

232. Spock - February 20, 2009

#197,

well I DO expect gogo boots. those were sexy

233. SirBroiler - February 20, 2009

First – I think you’ll all stop bashing Transformers once G.I. Joe hits the screen. That will show you how bad a movie can really be.

Second – Was it the writing of Transformers that was so bad, or the directing? Let’s give Bay his due credit – I don’t think O&K scripted out the action sequences.

Third – If you can’t let go of Star Trek’s past – then so be it. I’ll be at the theater, along with many, many others who aren’t afraid of a little change.

Can’t wait until May.

234. Odkin - February 20, 2009

Every time they speak, they ALMOST get it right.

Yes, there were “submarine battle” episode of Trek. But they weren’t completely shipbound.

The right Star Trek/Star Wars analogy would be that Star Wars is about a period of war, focusing on WW1 style aerial dogfights. It’s the kind of story that’s meant to end at some point when the war is won.

Trek is about not just the Navy, but the entire sea-faring tradition of Magellan and Columbus and Nelson and Hornblower. Sometimes there are sea battles, sometimes they set aground on the shore of an uncharted desert isle, sometimes the ship is sinking, sometimes tey are just driving around exploring, etc. Trek is a concept that’s meant to be sustainable, in the TV show tradition.

But trying to force a “Top Gun” vibe onto the “Bounty” is seriously misguided.

235. Closettrekker - February 20, 2009

#214—“All TV shows and movies are defined by the story, screenplay, directing, acting, the soundtrack, and the visuals (set design, wardrobe design, effects). All those elements ADD up to generate the “spirit”. ”

I can’t say I disagree with the general principle of that statement. Where you and I do seem to disagree is to what degree each of those elements counts toward adding up to that “spirit”.

I do think that “visuals” are indeed important—just not that adhering to the 1960’s take on what the 23rd Century might look like is the way to go—nor do I believe that “visuals” are anywhere near as important as story, acting, directing, and writing. I also believe that the creative team’s choice of Mr. Giacchino could not have been better, as he is an artist whose name and reputation are on the rise.

As you mentioned, the approach to the uniforms is quite the nostalgic nod. I also think that the phasers, tricorder, and communicator are true to the “spirit” of the original design.

236. Closettrekker - February 20, 2009

#229—“I think the x-files is infinitely better than ‘lost’.”

Even when The X-Flies was on top of its game (seasons 1-4, before totally drowning in its own mythology), I don’t think it ever approached the first season of Lost (in all fairness, I don’t think that Lost has since matched that standard either).

And I agree with Thorsten (even though I was apparently a bigger fan of the show than him). The X-Files should have wrapped things up around season 5.

237. Closettrekker - February 20, 2009

#213—“I don’t see them actually billeted to the ship except in TMP and V. ”

Nor do I. STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89 was the film to which I was specifically referring.

And according to Memory Alpha, TUC takes place 5 years after TFF. Are we then to assume that the Enterprise-A underwent another 5 year mission with so many high ranking officers misplaced aboard her?

Two Captains (assuming that Scotty’s “Captain of Engineering” title was never officially affirmed and probably strictly tied to service aboard USS Excelsior), and five Commanders…That’s beyond stretching the boundaries of believability to me.

At the very least—it depicts a gross misallocation of valuable personnel resources on the part of Starfleet Command. Whoever would approve such a thing was clearly doing a disservice to the rest of Starfleet, by not allowing the Captains of those ships to benefit from the service of those experienced officers. Then there is also the fact that these officers had all conspired together to totally usurp the authority of the Admiralty by stealing the Enterprise (despite the reason) and sabotaging the Excelsior. Despite their subsequent heroics, there is absolutely no way these officers could be allowed by ANY chain of command to remain together. At the very least, they should have been scattered throughout the fleet.

It would have made far more sense to me if Captain Kirk had, as promised, been given command of a starship and assigned new officers. I could see “Bones” (being a Chief Medical Officer) remaining aboard with Kirk, but there probably should have been a great many young faces assigned to the various departments of the Enterprise-A. That, in my opinion, would have been the only way to really justify continuing the feature film series with any degree of believability.

But that’s just my opinion.

238. The Jui$tain - February 21, 2009

@237

Well originally it wasn’t supposed to be that way.

“Original plans for the movie had Kirk married (possibly to Carol Marcus) and all members of the main cast scattered around to different jobs. Uhura was a radio show hostess, Scotty a teacher and Sulu a taxi driver on some backwater alien colony. Budget limitations forced to leave all this out from the movie, and the scene at Starfleet Command was used instead.”
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Undiscovered_Country

I guess that’s what happens when you don’t have a big budget……thank God paramount gave JJ a good size budget…..

*J

239. Closettrekker - February 21, 2009

#238—Yes, that was the plan for TUC. But by then, TFF had already went the route of having the same officers aboard the new Enterprise as had been serving aboard her predecessor more than 15 years before.

Captain Kirk
Captain Spock
Commander Scott
Commander McCoy, M.D.
Commander Sulu
Commander Chekov
Commander Uhura

This is by no means the worst element to STV, but this situation is, in itself, pretty strange.

240. Does Star Trek need more rock ‘n’ roll? The writers thought so | SpaceChannel.TV | Blog - February 25, 2009

[...] Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, co-writers of J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek reboot movie, told SciFiNow Magazine that they felt the need to inject a little “rock and roll” to energize the beloved franchise, according to a report on TrekMovie.com. [...]

241. Granville Scheulen - April 21, 2011

Fantastic site you have here but I was wanting to know if you knew of any forums that cover the same topics discussed here? I’d really love to be a part of community where I can get advice from other knowledgeable people that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Many thanks!

242. portable air conditioner reviews - April 21, 2011

Nicely performed mate. I agree most of what was written correct here. This would undoubtedly make myself wanna return to your blog! Bookmarked!

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