THR Profiles Trek’s Big Return w/ Trailer Details + Comments from Orci & Kurtzman |
jump to navigation

THR Profiles Trek’s Big Return w/ Trailer Details + Comments from Orci & Kurtzman February 20, 2009

by Staff , Filed under: Marketing/Promotion,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The Hollywood Reporter has an extensive feature cover story in Friday’s edition, all about Paramount bringing back the Trek franchise with the big budget Star Trek movie coming in May. THR has analysis of the franchise and the marketing campaign (including new information on upcoming trailers), plus quotes from scribes Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and others. Details and excerpts below.


THR goes ‘Inside the re-introduction of an iconic franchise’
This is one of those articles that is really worth reading in full, so go to the Hollywood Reporter site and read it. But here are a few highlights and quotes


Quotes from Orci and Kurtzman

Alex Kurtzman: Our intention was to make ‘Star Trek’ something that appeals to everyone who’s ever dismissed it in the past as being too sci-fi or too inaccessible.

Certainly the scope of this ‘Star Trek’ is unlike any that’s come before it. So if you want ‘Transformers’-scope action sequences in space? That’s what you will get when you see ‘Star Trek.’

Roberto Orci (on initially hesitating to take the job): That again goes back to the risk of it. Which is: If it didn’t work, it was going to be a very loud, visible failure.

More analysis of Trek’s return, including quotes from former Roddenberry assistant Richard Arnold and Trekkies director Roger Nygard, at THR.


1. thorsten - February 20, 2009

Don’t worry Bob.
It will work.

2. The Last Maquis - February 20, 2009

I don’t know. I think I’m Starting to like this this reboot Feel less and less.

3. Shane Zeranski - February 20, 2009

I’m quite excited.

4. naHQun - February 20, 2009

Very exciting. Japan? Wow. Glad to see the ne movie getting so much press.

5. the last real star trek fan - February 20, 2009

This movie will be loved by people who dont know what Trek is, and it will be hated by those who really understand what trek is about.

Its the difference of having a real diamond and a plastic imitation diamond.

6. Anthony Pascale - February 20, 2009

‘last fan’
change your handle, you do not have a monopoly on who is and is not a ‘real fan’

7. AJ - February 20, 2009


I am with thorsten. Faith in you guys.

8. crazydaystrom - February 20, 2009


And I, more and more.

9. Janeways Knickers - February 20, 2009

why is it that nearly every article on this site has a missing word, typo or spelling mistake?

10. Norbert - February 20, 2009

I hope this will somehow result into a new tv-series.

11. Captain John C Baron - February 20, 2009

#5 – I think that it’s clear that existing fans like me (35+ years) may have some adjusting to do with this new film. But it’s not a bad thing to innovate, it’s not nbecessarily a bad thing to tinker and make a creative decision to more relevant to today’s audiences. We’ve had 700+ episodes and 10 feature films – perhaps it’s time for a fresh approach? I love Trek in just about all of its forms, but I’d become a little jaded by the sheer volume (and sameness) in the end.
And what’s Star Trek about if it’s not about tolerance of other people’s views and ethos and their right to see things their way?
Personally, I like what Orci, JJ et al seem to be saying about the film so far.
Besides, I don’t know how you can make such sweeping generalisations with such conviction about a film you haven’t even seen. Give it a chance! IDIC!

12. King Of All Blacks - February 20, 2009

Im Excited!!!!

13. thebiggfrogg - February 20, 2009

Similar to Transformers? God forbid. Action, yes!* Big, dumb action flick, no!

*with traditional Trek philosophy and thoughtfulness in the mix.

14. James - February 20, 2009

Interesting article…

I keep hearing all this stuff about a marketing juggernaut, but over here in the UK, I have to confess that I’ve seen very little of it. I have personally generated a bit of interest with my family, who are actually quite keen to see the film – Chris Pine being the primary reason for my girl cousins.

I hope to see more of it in the coming months.

Roll on May!

15. Devon - February 20, 2009

#2 & #8 – That’s by your own accord, not because anyone or an article is convincing you to. Though feel free to share with us your other random thoughts and emotions. Is the neighbor’s dog bothering you? Cant wait.

#5 – The classic sign of desperation.

Very good article.

16. Paulaner - February 20, 2009

I started watching and liking Star Trek as a kid. I was not a mature man obsessed by visions, philosophy, blueprints of the future, Roddenberry’s thinking and so on. I was just a fascinated kid. And a fan was born. History can repeat itself, but older people have to accept some change.

17. JM Enterprise - February 20, 2009

#11 I’m with Captain John. I too am 35+ and love every carnation of Trek, but in recent years, I felt it lost it’s way into bland same old stories. Don’t get me wrong ENTERPRISE had some pearls, and I especially loved the season 3, year long story arc.
Also the movies never lived up to the series’s, GENERATIONS being one of the biggest disapointment for me because it followed on so soon from the superb finale, ALL GOOD THINGS, with a movie that felt like these characters didn’t know each other anymore, or even react the same.

Anyway, my point is that, I wanted to see a shake up of a franchise that I love with a renewed vigor, and thats what were gonna get. Not all will like it, but lets face it, the franchise was dead in the water without it. So lets give it a chance.

I for one can’t wait!

18. Valar1 - February 20, 2009

I’ve been a fan since 1974, longer than some, shorter than others, but I feel I have the ability to comment on this reboot feel.

What I want is someway for Trek to survive and thrive so that my kids and grandkids will find it in their time. The only way to accomplish that is to reinvigorate Trek for the next generation. They’ve already done that a few times these past decades with TNG and the rest, this is merely the next iteration of that philosophy.

This new millenium needs a Trek to give kids a vision of a future based on logic, science, and humanity. A future not ruled by fear or iequity, but one of hope and justice. The future needs a strong vibrant and relevant Trek and I hope this new movie gives it to them.

19. SciFiMetalGirl - February 20, 2009

After watching my beloved Star Trek (in all of it’s various incarnations) come grinding to a halt, and facing virtual extinction, I simply couldn’t be more pleased or happy to be able to sit here and watch Star Trek be re-invigorated right before our very eyes, and to have a ringside seat, as well!

Paramount and tptb seem to be throwing a LOT into this production this time around, and I, for one, am ready to have a huge party and celebrate!

20. Quarksbartender - February 20, 2009

Anything that brings new fans into the fold is good. I remember as a young child I didn’t like the original series until I saw the new redesigned Enterprise from the motion picture and from that day on I was hooked, so much I actually ended up working at the Experience for almost 9 years.

21. JM Enterprise - February 20, 2009

#19 and so we should cellebrate, because lets face it, Paramount has short changed Star Trek, for many decades.
It’s funny how only when it’s gone do they realise it’s real worth. Star Trek to Paramount is what Marvel is to 20th Century Fox and Sony, it’s what DC is to Warner Brothers, it’s rich culture with Sci-fi elegance and a fan base that matches no other!

22. raffie - February 20, 2009

Transformers was a mind-numbing film. They are gonna use THAT as a reference?

23. Commander K - February 20, 2009

#14 I agree. Not much promo goin on in the UK. I know if I go see Watchmen, I doubt i’ll see the trek trailer with it.
It’s frustrating, but there is a good buzz about it in the general public nevertheless!

24. TrekDude - February 20, 2009


What’s really too bad is that in these interviews the Star Trek franchise gets always treated like a black sheep… something that wasn’t cool, that people couldn’t get into or whatever… but I guess that’s what you have to go through in order to sell this movie to a broader audience today.

You need to awake people’s interest for it somehow and that’s the way how you do it. You say it’s something that has never been there before in this way and it’ll blow your mind or you compare it to an already big time seller like Transformers. ;-)

I agree with you that Star Trek shouldn’t become an action flick, but I also doubt very much that it will be ‘just’ that. It’s just the story that’s being told right now to make the movie appealing to everyone and every taste that people have.

In the end it’s still up to you though if you want to go see the movie or not, nobody can control that. And should you decide this movie is not for you, because there’s too much action in it then so be it. I can certainly understand that, because I’ve my own doubts about it… but I’ve decided I’ll go watch it anyway and judge it afterwards. Right now I want to remain hopeful that I’ll find a nice little Trek story in it and I’m looking forward to see it.

Peace. :-)

25. Check the Circuit - February 20, 2009

OK Gang…

Say what you will about Transformers…but it made $319mm in domestic box office and a total of $708mm worldwide. And that’s before TV rights and DVD sales. The new Star Trek should be so lucky! Face it…if it isn’t, Star Trek is done. Paramount is rolling the dice on this one with a $150mm budget. If it flops…b’bye. At best, we’ll get the occasional movie that’s really a bloated TV episode done on a shoestring budget.

They’re smart people. This is a calculated gamble. They picked a great creative team that have earned their stripes. Using Tranformers as an example again…they sure seem to know how to make wildly popular event movies. (And it was based on a bunch of toys/cartoons!) Imagine what they can do with a property that has the pedigree of Star Trek. They’re fans! They know Trek isn’t just big battle sequences. They know there’s a soul to it and thought provoking ideas. But they also know how to get the masses into the theaters. Let’s give it chance.

If this works…and Star Trek brings in Tranformer-like box office…the future of our beloved franchise/characters is assured.

26. The Wherehouse R.I.P - February 20, 2009

Star Trek – EPISODE XI: The Phantom Menace !!!

27. screaming satellite - February 20, 2009

Heres my Box office estimates for 2009 (opening weekend, Domestic, worldwide)…enjoy:

Watchmen – $70M opening (overall US = $250m….$400m worldwide)
(might be even bigger due to it being the 1st post Dark Knight superhero movie and a lot of comic fans are going to see it come what may…plus Heroes on tv may bring along less familiar movie goers..)

Wolverine – $70M ($250m…$450m ww)
(1st big summer movie so should open pretty big – but with the other big May films coming the following weekends will probably drop off to prevent really big overall BO…previous series best = X3 with $460m ww…should avoid any big slump caused by disappointment in that film due to it being a fresh start and its again its post DK and gritty/ has name recognition and might be great)

Star Trek – $60M ($200m…$350 ww)
(Think it will be big but not HUGE…$350m is around what the biggest of the previous Treks did when adjusted – The Motion Picture – but that was just after Star Wars, had the original actors and had 10 years of anticipation….with this its only a few years since trek flopped on the big screen and was cancelled on tv…plus this might have trouble in non US territories as Trek films have never done much there…then again there hasnt been a big space movie since Revenge of the Sith, everyone seems to be loving the trailers, its original trek done big with a few names…also could be really brilliant and maybe moviegoers will be looking for an Obama inspired change from morbid superheroes battling terrorists and be seduced by Treks optimistic outlook especially in this dark recession time and it’ll tap into the zeitgeist and do $600m ww)

Angels&Demons – $50M ($150m…$350 ww)
(wont be anywhere near as big as Da Vinci Codes $750m…the world went crazy for that book …this book didn’t have that appeal…plus just about everyone was disappointed by the bland movie which did a huge $540m overseas – so I think A&D will have the Prince Caspian effect)

T4 – $80M ($300m….$600m ww)
(yeah gonna take a punt on this being big – much bigger than T3s $430m ww…again like Wolverine should avoid any slump caused by T3 due to it being the future war at last and its got angry Batman in it …plus the trailers were decent and it might actually be pretty good and do a lot of repeat business)

Transformers 2 – $100M ($400m….$800m ww)
(no brainer – this will be huge…TF 1 did $700m ww)

Potter – $100m ($350m….$900-$1b ww)
(Biggest hit of the year – Potter always does around $800-$900m but this one might do the upper end of $900 as its coming close to the end now, the last one did nearly $1b and it seems to have been a longer gap than usual since the last one – due to it being put back)

GI JOE – $20M ($60m…$120m ww)
(the flop of the year? Probably being overly harsh with those figures, perhaps could double them, but consider – no real big names…Stephen Sommers…no one really knows GI Joe outside the US -yeah I know its Action Man here in UK but no one really knows or cares that the US version is GI people are getting mightily miffed with soldiers dying in the middle east so maybe that could backfire against a film glorifying war action..and dont forget audiences will have already had 2 helpings of soldiers and war action with T4 and TF 2…with the added bonus of being known SF with giant robots…so this might seem lame in comparrison )

2012 – $60m ($150m.…$450m ww)
(this is basically Day After Tomorrow 2 so there could be an element of seen it all before ….but then theres always a morbid fascination with end of the world scenarios – plus its one of the biggies for Nov – so id imagine something abit less than DAT $550m take.)

Avatar – $60 ($200….$450m ww)
(The return of the king…this is the toughest one to estimate…its Cameron…its Sci Fi…its the big one for Dec…but it could be more Abyss than T2 and he has been gone 12 years…then again it could be the new star wars)

28. Christian S. - February 20, 2009

@The Wherehouse R.I.P

The Premature Cry-Baby Club – Episode 10023 !!!

29. Bruce_Wayne - February 20, 2009

Great news!!! Thanks!

EAT IT RICK BERMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

30. Unbel1ever - February 20, 2009

“So if you want ‘Transformers’-scope action sequences in space? That’s what you will get when you see ‘Star Trek.’ ”

As in: “That’s all you get, when you see Star Trek” ?

31. Selor - February 20, 2009

I am really excited about it… yes Star Trek needs a fresh push and after all those trailers I’ve met about two dozen people that are going to see this movie despite they never knew anything about Star Trek and that is a good sign… for myself, I will see to attend the Premiere Party here in Germany if it is not to far away… or having my own Premiere Party gathering everyone I know to participate (in Uniform of Course ;) ) and I believe this could be a loud Mark to renew the interest in Star Trek at all and help to hold the Vision of this Future in our Lives and Hearts, combined with some state of the Art Action Scenes ;)

32. Selor - February 20, 2009

@30 No, more like “The Action scenes in this Star Trek Movie are as hot as in Transformes”

33. Star Trackie - February 20, 2009

A new fresh exciting StarTrek is definitely on the horizon…the momentum builds.

34. Liz - February 20, 2009

Another Kirk-centric trailer. I thought Nimoy said the movie had a lot of Spock’s story in it? Haven’t seen hardly any so far – not in the trailer or in the 20 minutes leaked a while back. What’s going on?

35. Montreal Paul - February 20, 2009

5. the last real star trek fan

So you are telling me that if i like this movie, that i am not a real Trek fan?!?!?! WTF?

You DON’T speak for me. You are you to say who is and who isn’t a fan? I am 42 and have been watching Trek as long as i can remember. I am a fan of ALL the series and movies.. I like what I see so far from this one.

Keep your opinions YOUR opinions and don’t put them on anyone else. A huge MAJORITY of people on this site LIKE what they see are are looling forward to this movie. A small minority like you hate it and will always hate it.

Closed minded people like you give us fans a bad name. Maybe you should change your ID name.

36. frederick - February 20, 2009

The same kind of hating is going on aming the hardcore Watchmen fans now… “if you like the movie you’re not a real fan” and the like.

To these people I say, retreat back to your basements and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy it all.

37. Duncan MacLeod - February 20, 2009

34. Liz – Nothing is going on, we have only seen 5 minutes total of footage from a 2 hour movie, the press only has seen 20 minutes. Kirk has always been the “mainstream” appeal (although Nimoy had a rabid following). They want to see the exciting footage, not the cerebral spock stuff that is in there, but not really necessarily “trailer” footage.

38. thorsten - February 20, 2009


frederick, your scrapbook never stops to amaze me!
I had all the Gong issues related to the poster featured in the

39. Chris Doohan - February 20, 2009

I have all the faith in the world that this will be HUGE!!!

40. thorsten - February 20, 2009


Liz, Spocks backstory will explained like Jims.
He grows up on Vulcan, but will have a lot of trouble adjusting.
And he will get in hot water for his decision to join Starfleet.
But that is not trailer material…

41. thorsten - February 20, 2009


Chris, you are up early!

42. Adam Cohen - February 20, 2009

As long as The Enterprise’s computer doesn’t say “my bad” I think this movie will be just fine. Sure, some of us would have liked a more “Trekky” Trek, but that will happen when Trek returns to its true roots- television. The new movie is the “Super Bowl” of Trek- which isn’t a bad thing, but don’t go into it expecting “City on the Edge.”

43. That One Guy - February 20, 2009

My guess is that when JJ picked this up, someone must’ve said “Star Tre? Why in God’s name would anyone want that bucket o’ bolts?!”

Here’s the reason:

It’s a fine ship, with a great history. And it’s one of the most advanced ships in the fleet, once you get into the heart of it.

Let’s see what’s out there…

44. Chris Doohan - February 20, 2009


I’m already on my 5th cup of coffee. :)

45. thorsten - February 20, 2009


me too, but it’s 3 PM already ;))

46. beerwriter - February 20, 2009

Considering the lengthy discussion (going back to the early days of this site), I thought I’d add another excerpt from this “Hollywood Reporter” article. It’s the last paragraph of the piece and it’s quoting Richard Arnold, a former assistant to Gene Roddenberry.


“Here’s what Gene said in an interview just before he died in August 1991,” he says. “Somebody had asked him, ‘What’s going to become of ‘Star Trek’ in the future?’ And he said that he hoped that some day some bright young thing would come along and do it again, bigger and better than he had ever done it. And he wished them well.”

47. Jeyl - February 20, 2009

“will reach out to families who saw and liked such similar PG-13 fantasias as “Indiana Jones” and “Transformers.””

……I hate the PG-13 rating. Doesn’t reaching out to families sort of contradict that rating in which parents are supposed to be strongly cautioned in letting their kids see the movie?

48. frederick - February 20, 2009

#38, thorston,

Thanks for visiting! You lucked out on the Gong magazine, I always wanted to see it based on that one image. Glad you are enjoyed the “phaser blasts from the past” that I try to make it!


49. the buzz - February 20, 2009

hi from argentina…

cinemas are already showing terminator trailers… star trek? zero!… when are they going to start?

50. 16309A - February 20, 2009

#5 So you have seen the movie already and know this is how it will be? Hmmmm….

51. freezejeans - February 20, 2009

I was in line for TMP in 1979 and will be for this one as well…a bit surreal to be seeing a “new” version again all these years later, but it’s gonna rock!

52. thorsten - February 20, 2009


Hi Fred,
Gong was a weekly TV magazine that published full TOS episodes that had not been aired in germany as 24-part photostories.
I collected them all ;))

53. Weerd1 - February 20, 2009

It will be huge- but will it be Trek? I suppose that’s a subjective opinion. There’s plenty which came out of series I generally liked that wasn’t “Trek” to me. There’s stuff which came out of series I generally didn’t like which was Trek to me. I hope they split the difference. Among the admittedly skimpy bit of info I have, there’s been stuff to like, and stuff I found pretty discouraging. Only May will prove the pudding either way- as it is most of these press junkets are designed to emphasize the aspect of the movie the current audience (in this case readers of the Hollywood Reporter) would most appreciate. Hollywood doesn’t know subtlety- the article WOULD emphasize the BANG POW of the film. I am intrigued with the pre-Watchmen trailer.

Even then, I will still be at Trek on opening day. Then I think I will have the right to glow or complain! :)

54. Captain Balki - February 20, 2009

25..If Star Trek flops, It will probably direct to dvd forever. Doubt any new movie will ever come to theatres. I still say this will of course get number one the first week with maybe 60-70 million, but I think the drop off is going to be terrible. With it lucky to make 20 the next, I believe we will see Superman Returns like numbers…For example look at Friday the 13th remake, was an okay movie and the “fans” pushed this movie to the top, but the fans this week will probably not go see it for a second week so naturally the film will drop off to 15 million or less more than likely, and with the summer being so “big time” I just dont see this movie having the staying power. I understand the new “young” cast, its an effort to attract the females of the world to star trek, but lets face it, it is called “star trek” I doubt the females will be pushed to this movie in droves. This is a guy flick/Trek fan flick mostly. Total box office will probably be 130-150 range.

55. the OTHER last real fan - February 20, 2009

#5 – don’t change your name.
# 6 – Anthony, do you really have nothing better to do than whine at people who have -slightly- provocative names? Don’t you think you’re going a bit mad with these sad little power trips? Come on, sir. Every time I come to this site, you’re bossing people around. You talk about people not respecting others and their opinions, but you pick on the people who aren’t singing the praises of this new movie! No one is even remotely unclear about your position on this new flick. We get it. You like it. Why don’t you people at Trekmovie just take down the comment section ALTOGETHER since no one is allowed to speak their mind or have an opinion aside from, “This is great! Thanks, Anthony!”?
Am I being ungrateful? Of course not. I enjoy the articles as much as anyone here. I’m not against the new movie, I’m looking forward to it. And I do thank you for those things, Anthony. But dude. Take a chill pill.

56. Cylon - February 20, 2009

35. you are dead on. 5. You are sad, sad little man and you have my pity. Why should Star Trek be stagnant and unoriginal? Ever heard of something called IDIC? THAT is what Trek is at its core. Infinite diversity infinite combinations. Let the new film tell the story in a new way because ulimately the point is that the story is being told and is reaching out to new people, a new generation and hopefully new fans.

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

Y’all realize that ST:TMP and STII were both reboots, our beloved Big E was blown to bits in STIII, and ”canon” has never been followed in ANY of the various versions of Star Trek.

Some of the folks on this list are about as warm and open-minded as a room full of hungover underwriters.

58. spearchucker jones - February 20, 2009

hey 55 right on! 56 says number 5 is a sad little man? we name callin now? is that how adults handle their business? why cant someone have an opinion without bein bashed and called shit? what a sad world. i hope star trek fails and there isn’t anything left for you so called fans to fight about. i’m a fan myself, but i would rather see no trek then all this hatred. peace out.

59. - February 20, 2009

Morning, folks! To celebrate the new movie, I’ve started doing some Star Trek-related sketches, and would love your opinions on them! Here are the first two I’ve done:

Also, if you follow the link provided in my name, you can see my latest video, The New Roommate where I play a deranged guy who talks to a cut-out of Dr. McCoy!


60. Jim - February 20, 2009

I guess I must have read a different article. The following comments lead me to believe that Paramount really could care less about the fans that have supported ST over the years and made the studio tons of money.

“The strategy is not without risks. In going as broad as possible with the story line and marketing, Paramount has all but courted a backlash from the most hard-core fans.”

“”Paramount keeps saying the fans are going to come and see it anyway,” Arnold says. “And I keep saying, ‘Yes, but you do want the choir to sing your praises, and if they’re not singing your praises, there’s not going to be word-of-mouth, and you’re not going to have that additional audience come to see it.’ ”

Risk is what capitalism is all about – Paramount is taking a calculated risk that they may trade some or all of the existing fan base for a mass audience. Fine by me.

But what continues to nag at me as a long-time fan is the ongoing tones of “trust me” from the studio and creative staff, the assurances that there will be “plenty of action”, that ST needed “a little rock and roll”, and that this “ain’t your daddy’s ST” combined with the message that we need to give the movie a chance. What I’m NOT hearing is anything that demonstrates that there’s some substance upon which to hang the action.

The best ST was never about action for action’s sake. Action always advanced the plot or revealed something about the characters. “Arena”, for example, could on one level be considered nothing but a human/alien slugfest – but it is so much more than that when you consider the framework upon which it is hung. Can Kirk figure out the puzzle to create a weapon to defeat the Gorn? What does his approach to the struggle tell the viewer about his character? And Kirk’s final insight even teaches his captors something.

But where in all this frenzied rapid cut short attention span theatre trailerfest that we’ve seen so far is there ANYTHING that says “Hey – we’re also making a movie that includes the thoughtful stuff that so many of you fell in love with!”

Sure, we get neo-Pike challenging neo-Kirk to “be all he can be”. That’s three nano seconds out of what the general public has been allowed to see – the tiniest fraction of what has been revealed. And neo-Sarek (presumably) telling neo-Spock that he will always be an outsider. Ho-hum – nothing new here. So where’s the beef?

I for one would feel more comfortable with the new film, the creative team, and Paramount in general if I’d SEEN something of substance and not just eye candy up to this point. But up till now, all the general public has HEARD is reassurances from creative, cast, et al. The “trust us” approach. Not having actually SEEN anything, my deep seated suspicion is that if they haven’t SHOWN me something like that by now, as near to release as the film is, then maybe it ain’t there at all.

And if that’s the case, then it’s just “Dudes in Space” and “Star Trek 90210″. Why not just rename the characters and call it something else and let ST rest in peace?

61. DaveM - February 20, 2009

#55 – Anthony doesn’t get only praise. I’m still pretty angry that there was no sci-fi Saturday article last week. I just don’t know if I can continue to go on since I feel personally slighted by this serious oversight!

I run my own website and if something is not appearing or will be appearing late I at least post an annoucement saying that something is delayed or not appearing that week.

62. Daoud - February 20, 2009

#55, #61 There’s always

Let’s not turn Anthony’s site into it when it already exists.

Back to the show…
Interesting comments from Orci and Kurtzman, but at this point, perhaps we could drop all the lines into a computer program and have a text generator create…
Robobob and Robo-kurtzman!

How many more days?

63. Montreal Paul - February 20, 2009

55. the OTHER last real fan

Just as I said to #5 … who the hell do you think you are to speak for ALL Trek fans? YOU don’t speak for me.. YOU don’t speak for a majority of fans.. YOU speak for YOURSELF as the other doofus does. Who are you to say that I am not a real trek fan because I want to see this movie? Who are you to say that because I might like this movie that I am not a fan. Get off your high horse and open your eyes to the real world. This is not 1960’s TV anymore. If you are that deadset against this movie.. go watch your VHS tapes on TV in your Mommy’s basement and by all means, DON’T go see this movie.. and then stop gripping about it.

Like I say to people that don’t vote and then complain about the government. If you don’t vote, you have NO right to complain. Same goes here. If you don’t see the movie.. shut up, you have no right to complain. Once you DO see the movie.. complain away if you don’t like it.

Bunch of whiney little babies…

64. Seany-Wan - February 20, 2009

Here’s a game! What if they were rebooting The Next Generation? Who would you like to see fill in the shoes of the original 7? Bear in mind, this is just a “wish” list. Here are my suggestions:

Picard – Tom Hardy (no brainer, right?)
Riker – James Franco
Data – Doug Jones / Topher Grace
Geordi – Sean Patrick Thomas
Worf – Michael Clark Duncan (if he were younger)
Troi – Megan Fox (I know a stretch)
Crusher – Bryce Dallas Howard

65. cpelc - February 20, 2009

64 – you really couldn’t do data. because he is suppossed to be the same age forever. so in that sense he should look “exactly” as brent spiner did in encounter at farpoint.

66. zirclet - February 20, 2009

I too am feeling more and more like we’re in for a rapid, vapid disappointment. Lest we forget this is the Hollywood Machine we’re dealing with here, which has more than once used high-minded language to sell brain-dead product. Already I’m getting that sinking Lucas feeling, the one that comes from a ‘franchise’ based on themes of compassion and lack of greed, yet in actuality is fueled by the exact opposite.

But- whatever works, right?

And as to HOW it’s going to work- I think it’s an empty conversation, this “will it be Trek” business. The people who will decide the impact of this film aren’t the ones who are debating the Rarified Roddenberryian Rationale on boards like this. They’ll be the little girl who says “I like Captain Janeway”, and doesn’t know Captain Picard. The teenage boy who thinks DS9 “kicks ass and takes no prisoners”. The college prof who laughs off the framed picture of Captain Kirk on his office wall. I’ve met all of these people, and they’ll walk in and out of this film like any other; like people did when Trek films were common pop entertainment as they were in the 80’s.

67. the OTHER last real fan - February 20, 2009

63-Did you even read my post? I said I was looking forward to the movie, you illiterate! Now see, there I’ve gone and made you look foolish! If only you could read. It’s too bad Spock was too busy doing his intense calculations to go over the alphabet with you… Word of advice: Read what someone actually wrote before you attack them. That’s the problem with commentators today. All anger, no intellect.

68. bill murray - February 20, 2009


i like janeway and think DS9 kicks ass but i don’t see your point.

69. richpit - February 20, 2009

I hope this doesn’t offend anyone (it will), but if this is what most “fans” of Star Trek are like, then I say “good riddance” and bring on the new set of fans !!

Man, the negativity and crap talking here knows no bounds. If y’all hate the idea of the new movie / reboot, they why do you come here daily to read the news?? Seriously. Just stay away and you won’t have to be bothered with any of it.

70. bill hiro - February 20, 2009

“THR estimates budget at ‘at least $150 million (and tens of millions more in planned marketing)’ ”

The studio is never going to make all that money back. Even assuming the studio gets 50 cents of every dollar taken at the boc office, the movie would have to make at least $300 million to break even, which doesn’t include marketing costs, and no Star Trek movie has ever come close to that ballpark. If they’d made it for less money, it might have had a chance, but with the budget they had, it just isn’t going to happen. It may not be a “Speed Racer” sized flop, but there’s no way this movie doesn’t end up being seen as a “Superman Returns” style “disappoinement”.

71. Blake Powers - February 20, 2009

said in an interview just before he died in August 1991,” he says. “Somebody had asked him, ‘What’s going to become of ‘Star Trek’ in the future?’ And he said that he hoped that some day some bright young thing would come along and do it again, bigger and better than he had ever done it. And he wished them well.”


72. bill murray - February 20, 2009

it’s strange to me that the vision of a universe as tolerant and diverse as the one roddenberry envisioned has managed to spawn a group of “trek fundamentalists”.

73. Anthony Thompson - February 20, 2009

screaming satellite:

What exactly are your credentials? And, if you don’t happen to have any, why exactly should we care what your box office prognostications are?

74. ARGTREK - February 20, 2009

49# you’re so right. they’re showing stuff like angels and demons and i have not seen even a trek poster . Argentina never was a sci fi market but we should be seeing something by now.

75. johnny - February 20, 2009

well i thing that there is a metaphor that works here, you can’t get an old dog to like new things.

lets face it would you rather have a new Nemesis, or Final Frontier
these guy are at least trying to get is all started again
just give the movie an honest chance

76. Anthony Thompson - February 20, 2009

Bob “hesitated” to write ST???

His stock just went down (along with the rest of the market). harhar.

77. Devon - February 20, 2009

#55 – You seem to have slanted what Anthony’s was saying or are purposely acting like #5’s comment was “innocent.” The name, along with the comment, suggested that they were speaking for the entire fanbase and they were the end all be all just to fit their own view. Basically saying that if you like this movie, you are not a Trek fan, which is completely uncalled for and absurd, not to mention and unnecessary insult to most of the fanbase or most of the people who post here.

But I’m sure you have more orders you’d like to toss around to the site owner or the other members?

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

70 – How the heck are you able to make a statement like that?

79. Rico - February 20, 2009

I still firmly believe this movie will still be worthy to be called “Star Trek.” Certainly some changes and adjustments have been made, but if the spirit is there, the hope for the future and bond between the characters then I am fine with a slightly newer, updated version of Trek. It’s time.

80. thorsten - February 20, 2009


what better way to show his respect?

81. Captain Balki - February 20, 2009

Actually I would like to see something like Star Trek involving say a brand new crew and the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-0

You know like years and years and YEARS in the future.

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

71 – Well, Roddenberry didn’t know what he was talking about! There’s only one Star Trek!

Look, even the God Thing that created this universe that we love so much recognized the need to reboot, redo, recreate, reimagine Star Trek. And, there are plenty of examples in the 1970’s of Roddenberry saying as much.

I understand some trepidation at the though that something that we grew up with is facing the prospect of becoming “The Next Big Thing”, but what I cannot understand are the really negative and downright mean comments that have been flung at the film without seeing it, and those who have willingly walked into the valley of the beast and have spent two years writing and creating it.

All the box office predictions of doom ‘n gloom, all the threats about how much “real Trekkies” will hate the movie, and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds. And that’s it.

83. Anthony Pascale - February 20, 2009

55/other fan
Let me make this perfectly clear again. As the comments above show, I don’t care what your opinion is…there are plenty of opinions on this site across the spectrum of every issue. All moderating is done based on people being courteous and respectful to other posters. Everyone who visits this site is a ‘real trek fan’. No one has the right to come here and say that all opinions but their own are invalid, that is as insulting as any flame (as noted by Montreal Paul / comment 35). We have always warned people who post comments to that effect, and giving so yourself that name does the same.

Say whatever you want, but don’t insult others by flaming or telling them they aren’t fans

any comments on policies should go to

84. Jackson Roykirk - February 20, 2009

This soundbite worries me a bit:

****There will an additional ’spot’ (trailer or possibly commercial campaign), which “will reach out to families who saw and liked such similar PG-13 fantasias as “Indiana Jones” and “Transformers.” *****

I think it may be possible that this film is trying to be “all things to all people”. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, so it’s not really wise to even try.

85. Trek Nerd Central - February 20, 2009

I read that whole article, and I read the thread afterward, and I’ve come away with 4 strong feelings.

1. Of course Paramount’s right. So is Arnold. The hardcores WILL go see the movie no matter what. That’s a given. The question is, will we all go see a second and third and fourth time? Will we love it? Will we use it to build further on Trek mythology and spread the word, and in so doing help create a new fan base?

Those questions won’t be answered until we all trundle off to see the movie opening day. Whether we see it the first time is a no-brainer. Whether we see it again depends on the quality of the movie.

2. There is absolutely no point in moaning about Paramount’s marketing approach, anyway. This is a big-budget movie (which is a GOOD THING), and the studio will hawk it however they can using whatever methods they can devise. If they had decided to play patty-cake with only the nerds like us, where would they be?

3. Which reminds me: Has it occurred to anyone that a certain element of nerd-dom, represented on this very site, would whinge & moan about this movie EVEN IF IT SUCKED UP TO THE FANS ALONE? I mean, come ON. There is some major pathological whininess going on here. I’m not naming names (I don’t like uncivil name-calling), but you know who you are. And you would still be complaining about this movie even if it were being marketed as a cardboard-for-cardboard, styrofoam-for-styrofoam, salt-shaker-for-salt-shaker, toupee-for-toupee reenactment of the original series.

4. I still haven’t seen it, I still don’t know whether it’s any good, but I STILL CAN’T WAIT to see this thing for myself. The neediest, nerdiest part of me is quietly going ape***t in anticipation.

86. New Horizon - February 20, 2009

I don’t think the name ‘the last real star trek fan’ is a name to be feared or changed. Are we not all comfortable in our Trek Fandom? Well, if so, let that person feel like they’re the last real Trek Fan…just because they feel that way doesn’t make it true. A name doesn’t invalidate how much of a fan you, I, or anyone else is.

The name is only hurtful so long as we approach it as a bunch of pre-schoolers. I’m assuming we’re adults here. Move on.

87. Jefferies Tuber - February 20, 2009

WWKD? In the spirit of James T. Kirk, I think we should admire and commend ambition, creativity and daring among the filmmakers.

Paramount under Dolger & Lansing took an accountant’s approach to the Star Trek franchise, investing less money for safer returns with an increasingly specialized product.

I think the Supreme Court and the Paramount executives are doing what Kirk would do, they’re breaking rules, showing some fear, betting it all, appealing to women and children, while turning death into a fighting chance to live.

Cinema is an art and so JJ & KO and the actors are recognized as artists, but Star Trek is a corporate product and that product has been at its peak when there were great executives in charge:

Lucile Ball/Desilu – TOS
Diller-Eisner-Katzenberg/Paramount – TWOK
Grey & Lesher/Paramount – Today

88. Jefferies Tuber - February 20, 2009

s/b Grey & Weston/Paramount – Today

89. ac - February 20, 2009

this movie reminds of the video game system, Wii. The Wii is catering to new audiences and the old audience, but somehow there are a small group of self proclaimed hardcores that dislike it no matter what. very similar indeed. you know what. huge success means more trek in the future. thats what is important. i’m sure the movie will be good, but only if you go in with an open mind.

90. Seven Of Nine's Panties - February 20, 2009

I so want this thing to work, if for no other reason than it will hopefully make todays kid’s more aware of Star Trek and ‘bring them in to the fold'; unfortunately, I feel it will be such a huge deviation from what Trek really is, I have my doubts. However, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and won’t cast judgement until I’ve seen the movie.

91. sean - February 20, 2009


Disagree with you on Angels & Demons. It was a far better book than DaVinci and should make for a far better movie.

92. sean - February 20, 2009


PG-13 is only meaningful in terms of marketing. As a rating, it means next-to-nothing nowadays. That last Indy was PG-13 for who knows what reason (It should have been ‘Intelligent People Strongly Cautioned’) yet I’ve seen other PG-13s that clearly should have been R. It makes me pine for the days before it was introduced and things were a bit more clear cut. Remember Gremlins & Goonies? They’d probably be rated PG-13 now.

93. JL - February 20, 2009


Re: the power trip

Someone had to say it.

I’ve seen it happen with Anthony several times. The last time I saw it I decided to stop coming to the site to post every day. I haven’t posted since late last year.

94. thorsten - February 20, 2009


Indy IV PG13 was because of the fridge scene, sean ;))

95. rangerone314 - February 20, 2009

The reason so many people are off about the new movie is that they are comfortable with the way Trek WAS.

That is problem with Trek… over 700 episodes & Star Trek became a tad pidgeon-holed an tunnel-visioned.

Need I say “stale”?

After 700 episodes Star Trek fans have certain expectations of what they will get; things that bore most other people.

Let Orci take Star Trek outside our comfort zone.

96. JL - February 20, 2009

#83 (Anthony)

The problem is, I think most adults can withstand opinions which they do not agree with, or “handles” which do not reflect their mindset.

So what if someone calls themself “Last True Fan,” or “I’m A Fan of Trek And You’re Not,” etc etc – BOO HOO HOO! WHO CARES?!! People need to grow up!!!

And then you have a site owner/administrator who comes off as kind of a jerk. This is great, right here:
“As the comments above show, I don’t care what your opinion is…there are plenty of opinions on this site across the spectrum of every issue.”
– Anthony

THAT’S the way to make friends. I rest my case.

97. Holger - February 20, 2009

Alex Kurtzman’s comments are exactly the kind of stuff that has been putting me off this movie since the first interviews came out. I’m not a mainstream-movie fan.

98. thorsten - February 20, 2009


Holger, would you rather have some cool arthouse cinema adaption,
in the style of Arbre, le maire et la médiathèque, L’, directed by Eric Romer?

99. boborci - February 20, 2009

97. Holger – February 20, 2009
“Alex Kurtzman’s comments are exactly the kind of stuff that has been putting me off this movie since the first interviews came out. I’m not a mainstream-movie fan.”

Me, too. Tired of that guy, Been staring at his mug for 18 years now.

100. NaradaAlpha - February 20, 2009

#5–I happen to know what Star Trek is all about and in truth I’m also part of the MTV crowd and trust me; this is what Star Trek needs…plus how can you hate on a film you havent seen yet? to all the canon-nazis out there STOP..THIS IS NOT CORRUPTING WHAT ALREADY CAME! IT TAKES PLACE IN A FREAKIN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE! plus in todays economy we got bigger problems than trek canon…like how to make OUR WORLD more treklike…this film will likely inspire the public to do so…

101. thorsten - February 20, 2009


you guys still talk?

102. Tanner Waterbury (HUGE PINK FLOYD FAN) - February 20, 2009

People people, please, stop the hateful bickering going on here. Jeez, this is why I left the boards, because of all the dadgum fighting going on. I do NOT want it to spill over in here people. This was a nice site for commenting to begin with, but after hearing about the first rumors, everyone became vicious towards each other, and frankly im getting tired of it. What everyone needs to do is relax. Yes, this Trek may be a different one than were used to, maybe the older generation is gonna have a hard tim accepting the fact that tits not the same bridge or ship or even niverse, but realize this: Trek is BACK people, maybe for the good, maybe for the bad, but its back and seems to be bigger than ever. Shouldnt we all be celebrating instead of fighting? Hell,,. I remember a time where fans of TNG and TOS alike got along perfectly because they were both one thing: STAR TREK. I want to see that comradership once again as fans of all series and movies come together and embrace this new child of Trek into our lives. as TGBITG says Live Long, Love Long. Remember this and remember what the fandom was about…. Hope.

103. boborci - February 20, 2009

101. thorsten – February 20, 2009

Mostly through texting these days:)

104. thorsten - February 20, 2009

LOL ;)

105. Tanner Waterbury (HUGE PINK FLOYD FAN) - February 20, 2009

@ 102,

Meant to say Hope for the future.

106. thorsten - February 20, 2009


We’re human beings
with the blood of a million savage years on our hands,
but we can stop it.
We can admit that we’re killers,
but we won’t kill today.
That’s all it takes–
knowing that we won’t kill today.

— Jim Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon

107. Sam Belil - February 20, 2009

Hello Thorsten!!!! How Are You??? It’s been a while — work has been very busy, plus a lot of business travel.

I just read the Hollywood Reporter article — and to be quite frank this one line from that article has me “quaking in my boots” …
“A bump in the film’s release date from Christmas Day 2008 to May allowed the studio to take footage of the completed film on the road, hoping to show tastemakers that this isn’t your nerdy uncle’s Star Trek”

Just what is it that we are supposed to be taking from that absolutely ridiculous line!!! Are Abrams and company inferring that TOS was “Nerdy”. If so, then I have no trust in them!!!! As I have stated many times before and I believe most of you would agree, that TOS in purest form was HUMAN DRAMA at its BEST!!!! I’m sorry but I’m just getting warmed up — “Nerdy Uncles Star Trek”; to me that infers they have aboslutely NO FEEL for the ST franchise as we know it!!! And with all due to respect to Leonard Nimoy (who I totally LOVE) who has been giving this movie plenty of “props”, well for all the dead presidents that he is being paid for this movie — just what are we supposed to expect him to say, perhaps “This movie will be a notch above Howard the Duck”, no way — that’s not going to happen!

Star Trek in all of its incarnations was NEVER about being HIP & COOL!!! If Abrams and company’s goal is to give us a “Hip and Cool” Star Trek — then I’m not buying into it (of course I will still see the movie). I can guarantee one thing, if they make drastic changes to this franchise — it will be finished!!!!!

108. Holger - February 20, 2009

98 thorsten: I believe there are some other possibilities, between total mainstream and arthouse.
99 boborci: LOL

109. Jordan - February 20, 2009

Wow, thank you Anthony for addressing the “last true fan” so effectively. I love how someone appoints themself as that. Respect for others’ opinions on this site is so critically important. That’s why I stopped posting comments on here for so long because I no longer felt comfortable with it.
Regarding the movie, I am like Wil Wheaton: “cautiously optimistic.” It’s critical in order to save Star Trek as a viable franchise to market it to a wide cross-section of movie-goers. If that marketing plan pays off then us fans will get treated to another, and another, and possibly another Trek film. The franchise will be re-born and we can count on new Trek films every 2 years. I can’t imagine that being a bad thing. As for the new movie “remaking” Trek, maybe that’s what Trek needs. I have, like so many of you, grown up on Star Trek. I’ve watched it for 20 of my 27 years and it continues to be a part of my DAILY life. It’s the most important thing to me. But with the failure of “Enterprise” and the failure of “Nemesis,” it was obvious even to us Trekkies that the franchise was oversaturated, it needed to disappear for a while, and needed to come back as something fresh and different. I’m nervous about the new film because I want the love of my life (Star Trek) to be respected. But I can tell you I’m a hell of a lot more excited than anything else!

110. Captain Balki - February 20, 2009

Bob Orci, nothing to do with Star Trek..But just curious…How would you revamp the Superman movies??? Also… How do you feel about Tom Welling?

111. frederick - February 20, 2009

I’m getting more and more sure that the world has not been improved by the invention of the comments section and talkback. It’s just better off with posted articles to read and let the fans have to actually interact with each other to talk about their obsession, like the fan club meetings used to do. The face to face interaction kept the whining and name-calling to a minimum.

Without impersonal talkbacks the casual visitors would not come away from the site with the idea that we fans are all pathalogical hypocrites determined to kill that which we love and each other.

112. Will Decker - February 20, 2009

99 Hey Bob. I am looking forward to seeing what you have come up with for Star Trek. :)

113. frederick - February 20, 2009

And oh, yeah, a little more like it’s going here and we’ll catch up to AICN and their basement dwelling haters.

114. boborci - February 20, 2009

110. Captain Balki – February 20, 2009
Bob Orci, nothing to do with Star Trek..But just curious…How would you revamp the Superman movies??? Also… How do you feel about Tom Welling?

Superman vs Decepticons! (that’s my solution to everything — more giant robot).

Have never watched Smallville.

115. Lil' black dog - February 20, 2009

# 85 Trek Nerd Central

Took the words right out of my mouth – esp. feeling # 4 LOL!! ;-)

116. Devon - February 20, 2009

107 – “Just what is it that we are supposed to be taking from that absolutely ridiculous line!!!”

That the Hollywood Reporter is saying that this isn’t the same as your Nerdy Uncle’s trek.

“Are Abrams and company inferring that TOS was “Nerdy”.”

No, the Hollywood Reporter is inferring that you had a nerdy uncle.

““Nerdy Uncles Star Trek”; to me that infers they have aboslutely NO FEEL for the ST franchise as we know it!!! ”

I’m sure many in the fan base felt that some of us had Nerdy Uncles, the Hollywood Reporter wouldn’t disagree.

The moral of the story, read the article a little more carefully before putting words into people’s mouths ;)

“I can guarantee one thing, if they make drastic changes to this franchise — it will be finished!!!!!”

Mmmm, nope!

117. Devon - February 20, 2009

#85 – Perfecto.

118. Montreal Paul - February 20, 2009

67. the OTHER last real fan

I did read your post. I was responding to what you said about #5. And you don’t have to be childish and react the way you do by calling names. That just makes you ignorant. And I think Anthony summed it up perfectly. YOU have NO right to tell me what MY opinion is.. YOU have NO right to tell me or anyone else that they are REAL fans. Read my post again.. maybe a second read and you will get the gist of it. YOUR opinion is your own… Mine is mine. I just prefer to reserve judgement until AFTER I have seen the movie. Do you understand now or would you like it spelled out to you by someone else?

119. Captain Balki - February 20, 2009


Do you like Superman, I am just curious as to what kind of story you guys would do? Back to the beginning? Continue from Superman Returns? Have you guys ever thought about that?

120. thorsten - February 20, 2009


Hi Sam!
that sttement was the enterpretation of Jay A. Fernandez, who wrote the article. JJ and no one else would use words like that. Jay tried to give his text a cool spin, that’s all. JJ is really embracing TOS, he said so in an interview with a german magazine. You can find my story about that here…

@108… Holger, you know that I was joking, right?

121. boborci - February 20, 2009

119. Captain Balki – February 20, 2009

We have thought about it a bit. Not sure what we would do. We were actually huge fans of JJ’s first draft, but not sure you could do that one now. Tough puzzle.

122. thorsten - February 20, 2009

Bob, should you run into Damon, tell him best season yet!


123. Sam Belil - February 20, 2009

#116 — Just answer one question for me —
How would you define “Nerdy Uncle’s Star Trek”, please be specific.
I read the article carefully I’m not putting any words into people’s mouths.
Change for the sake of change very rarely works — I’m the media research business for 25 years. I have seen and been involved in more than enough focus groups to make that statement. You can throw James Bond and Dark Knight at me all that you want (I LOVE Daniel Craig’s interpretation — because he plays the Bond as featured in Flemings novels). ST’s characters are arguably different and more iconic.
I have stated many times before I’m a huge STOS fan, been so since 1967. I am ROOTING for this movie to be wildly successful, from what i have seen and heard so far, I’m being realistic and have my doubts.

124. Anthony Pascale - February 20, 2009

Hi bob, nice of you to drop by. I imagine RE; Welling that you may be biased towards your brother in law

Thorsten, re: Damon and LOST best season
I am going to have to disagree with you on that one, the best season of LOST still is the first season, but this one is possibly second best. The first season also happens to be the one that JJ worked on the most before he went off to do MI3. And no offense to Bob and Alex, but I would also argue that the best Seasons of ALIAS were early ones, before Abrams went off to do LOST.

125. BK613 - February 20, 2009

But life was a lot easier back in the days of kill files and plonking. ;-)

126. Devon - February 20, 2009

#123 – “Just answer one question for me –
How would you define “Nerdy Uncle’s Star Trek”, please be specific.”

How would I know? I am not the one who said it, the Hollywood Reporter did.

“I read the article carefully I’m not putting any words into people’s mouths.”

You took something that Hollywood Reporter stated on its own and turned it around on J.J. and the production staff. I’m say I may have said the said thing along the way too, does this mean that I have no feel for Star Trek? No.

“ST’s characters are arguably different and more iconic.”

Probably just to the Sci-Fi/Trek crowd.

“from what i have seen and heard so far, I’m being realistic and have my doubts.”

Keeping the franchise the same was arguably what would have held back potentially huge success. There is $150 Million + Tens of millions more on the line. Do you think they will have a snowball’s chance in hell getting this by constantly sucking up to the Star Trek crowd and saying things like “We didn’t want this movie to be cool, enjoyable, or anything that non-Trekkies could watch?” I don’t think so. What they are saying is fine.

127. Devon - February 20, 2009

“What they are saying is fine.”

They being “The Hollywood Reporter” in this case. Not Abrams & Co.

128. Captain Balki - February 20, 2009


One last question..Thanks for answering the others…What do you think of Levar Burton and his feelings about “more trek for TNG” if this new movie does well?

Do you think its possible for Paramount to want to jump around and make TNG movies, more sequels to “star trek”, and maybe even a totally new movie? Do you think its possible to make multiple trek movies? and not just involving the new crew?

129. thorsten - February 20, 2009

Okay, Anthony… we’ll see.
But right now after 316 I can only wonder what will come next ;))

130. Sam Belil - February 20, 2009

Thorsten — GREAT job as usual!
Keep up the great work!
Have a great weekend!
Best Regards!

131. thorsten - February 20, 2009


my pleasure Sam, take care!

132. AJ - February 20, 2009

I think STAR TREK appeals to a much broader “base” than that referenced in the THR article. Star Trek fans are being intentionally marginalized as geeks and older naive folks simply to emphasize the new film’s point of difference from previous incarnations.

Most of those with whom I have enjoyed “Trek” are not fans at all, but casual watchers who enjoy regular doses of the product. They are not “geeks” or “nerds,” and I am not, either, though I am a huge fan.

The negative effect of all this “marketing” is that fans who are made to feel they are “geeks” by the campaign are also getting the message that the film is “not for them.”

How can we have an “iconic franchise” which only appeals to geeks and nerdy “uncles?” It’s one or the other.

133. - February 20, 2009

#124 – And I’m afraid I will have to respectfully disagree with you, Anthony! I found the first season to be terrific, but a little too slow-paced. I feel that every season of LOST has been better than the one that preceded it!

The REAL question is:

“Who the hell is Nikki?”

134. S. John Ross - February 20, 2009

#10: Amen to that. If it doesn’t, then, really, it’s just one more piece of tie-in merchandise (a high profile and hopefully kickass piece of tie-in merchandise that adds directly to the canon, but still).

135. frederick - February 20, 2009

It has to be faced: most of the non-fan crowd DO see fans, and Trek itself, as geeky. That perception must be overcome or they won’t go see the movie. They wouldn’t want to be sitting in a crowd of uniform-wearing, pointed-ear donning, geeky Trekkies. They must feel that this is a movie that will appeal to a much broader base just to get them in the theater beyond the first weekend when all the trekkies go.

136. Rick James - February 20, 2009

At this point there is nothing more to discuss until the movie premieres. I can get over the look of the show being different. I can get over different actors are playing the central characters. None of this will matter if the story doesn’t work. Star Trek has been unique amongst sci-fi for its portrayal of a better tomorrow.

137. Adam Cohen - February 20, 2009

What happened to the comments?

138. Adam Cohen - February 20, 2009


I loaded the article just before and all of the comments were missing. Once I posted #137, they reappeared. Sorry to take up your comments space, I just wanted to tell you what I was seeing.


139. Admiral_BlackCat - February 20, 2009

I am looking foward to “‘Transformers’-scope action sequences in space” as long as they are not Michael Bay style action sequences. Some scenes were hard to keep track of all the action and even which autobot was fighting which decepticon.

140. Trek Nerd Central - February 20, 2009

55, 93

Guys, lay off Anthony. He runs a great site. I’d rather he run it with a firmer hand, promoting a respectful atsmophere, than a looser one, promoting nastiness and spitballs.

141. Admiral_BlackCat - February 20, 2009

Bob, if you could somehow work the Thundercats and Mumm-ra into it that would kick @ss!! :P

RE Smallville didn’t watch at first, but my wife did and eventually I started watching too. It’s fun how they play with various characters from the Superman-universe.

142. Trek Nerd Central - February 20, 2009

115, 117. Thanky!

143. Spockanella - February 20, 2009

99: Too funny!

144. ETMoody3 - February 20, 2009

On Transformers:

I liked the writing.

I did not care for the directing or editing nor the CGI treatment of the titular characters.

I’m prepared for a high level of ‘eyeball flutter’ on the new Trek, simply because the youth audience has come to expect it ( and, duh, there’s been more than a clue to the application of said style in the trailers)

Thankfully, the ship isn’t a transformer… that we know of!

145. Jamie - February 20, 2009

I hated Transformers and the thought of this film having anything to do with it scares me.

My biggest problem with Transformers was the score — it didn’t match the type of movie it was. The score was that of an incredibly serious epic action drama (like, say, Terminator). But the film was actually quite light-hearted sci-fi film with a lot of comedy (like, say, Ghostbusters), which was not reflected by the score.

All they needed to do was have some uptempo guitar music for parts of the film that were more light hearted. Then it would have worked.

146. McCoy - February 20, 2009

There are a bunch of high-quality movies, each year, which are set in specific genres. It’s false and misleading to think that in order to be successful, you have to break free of them. They do their thing and everyone is happy.

It would have been better to go forward with the idea that the existing Trek fans are the audience and set the budget accordingly. Like Iron Man, if you build it, they will come. Bringing in a larger audience is about story and quality. It’s OK to stay true to the source.

Star Trek already had the high-budget construction values and a younger cast. If the story is tight and acting on par, it will meet the requirements needed for a successful run. But IMO, it won’t be any more successful with altered designs then it would have been with designs closer and more respectful of the TV series. By giving the film the name “Star Trek”, you are already eliminating people who dislike Trek.

The talk before, during and after production should have been about staying true to the source rather than what they had to do change it, because, my goodness, we can’t do Trek like it used to be.

Love Fest Disclaimer: everything I say is purely my opinion. When I say things should have better matched TOS, I am not referring to cardboard or go-go boots.

147. WhiteRook - February 20, 2009

The hardest part for me as a Trek Fan was watching the TOS gang get older than me and start dying off!

But I am thrilled to see another version of ST come alive, I will watch it with an open mind and ( a 12 year olds sense of wonder) enjoy it as I seem to do with just about any new Trek vision.

Oh and as to the fact that advertising and such is not aimed at my age group any more – gessh – get over it, took me all of about ten seconds….

148. screaming satellite - February 20, 2009

73. Anthony Thompson

does one have to have credentials in order to speculate Anthony Thompson?

I dont know Anthony Thompson………you dont Anthony Thompson

149. boborci - February 20, 2009

124. Anthony Pascale – February 20, 2009
Hi bob, nice of you to drop by. I imagine RE; Welling that you may be biased towards your brother in law

“And no offense to Bob and Alex, but I would also argue that the best Seasons of ALIAS were early ones, before Abrams went off to do LOST.”

No offense taken. We actually left after season two, long before JJ.

150. boborci - February 20, 2009

128. Captain Balki – February 20, 2009

“One last question..Thanks for answering the others…What do you think of Levar Burton and his feelings about “more trek for TNG” if this new movie does well?

Do you think its possible for Paramount to want to jump around and make TNG movies, more sequels to “star trek”, and maybe even a totally new movie? Do you think its possible to make multiple trek movies? and not just involving the new crew?”

Love Levar Burton and share his desire for more TNG since that is still my favorite series of all time.

I have no idea what Paramount thinks… but it seems like if the apetite for Trek is inspired again, perhaps TNG could have another movie. I would love to see one.

151. Negotiator - February 20, 2009

“Alex Kurtzman: Our intention was to make ‘Star Trek’ something that appeals to everyone who’s ever dismissed it in the past as being too sci-fi or too inaccessible.”

This translates as less Beatles and Led Zeppelin and more Britney Spears and Jonas Brothers, so enjoy kids!

Dumbing down Star Trek for the masses is a good thing.

Pass the Kool-Aid and dink it already.

152. Boborci - February 20, 2009


I think it tranlates as MORE BEATLES. In fact, we took inspiration for the Kirk/Spock relationship from Lennon/McCartney.

153. Boborci - February 20, 2009

correctio: TRANSLATES

154. SHCone - February 20, 2009


Anthony IS being objective in asking that person to change their handle. It’s not just provocative, its downright inflammatory to make a claim like that. And, I daresay, it has nothing at all to do with the real spirit of Trek.

155. Argus - February 20, 2009

If Trans… Michael Bay’s la, la, la, blow sh-t up “transformers” made it, you know this movie will do good. I am very committed to both Trek and Transformers but please people, the facts are Bay’s TF got a sequel, which proves that you’ll buy any movie with explosions and ray guns in it. Remember Orci and Dorky wrote this one too, hopefully they didn’t smoke that same pipe they did while rewriting TF. Now let’s pray.

156. section9 - February 20, 2009

152: Bob:

One of the things you appear to have decided to have done is to have ramped up the significance of Uhura as a female lead character. In Star Trek Canon, we have the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trinity. Uhura appears to have been moved up from a supporting character to a lead character.

Is this bollocks, or am I right here?

157. DaveM - February 20, 2009

#62 – II’m not turning Anthony’s site into anything. It’s been a feature that has run here pretty regularily. Its disappointing when a once a week, regular feature doesn’t appear.

Anthony made the decision to put it here. I didn’t have anything to do with it. But if it misses a week, I’m gonna mention it.

158. Boborci - February 20, 2009

156. section9 – February 20, 2009
152: Bob:

One of the things you appear to have decided to have done is to have ramped up the significance of Uhura as a female lead character. In Star Trek Canon, we have the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trinity. Uhura appears to have been moved up from a supporting character to a lead character.

Is this bollocks, or am I right here?

In a sense, perhaps. One of our goals with this movie was to make sure that all of our beloved characters really had significant parts to play, which can be difficult when you have many characters.

159. Boborci - February 20, 2009

155. Argus – February 20, 2009

Smoked and entirely different pipe.

160. thorsten - February 21, 2009

I just watched the transformers trailer, looks amazing.
Well, I looked to check the structure in the 3D type ;)
But I regognized one thing very similiar to the Trek trailers…
these horizontal blue lens flares are all over the place.

Looks like I need that filter!

161. thorsten - February 21, 2009


did you and Alex come up with the Stardates, or did somebody else provide them? And are the TOS style or TNG?

162. Kirk's Toupée - February 21, 2009

I think one thing’s for certain about this new movie, it’s not going to be “too cerebral”………………….

163. Closettrekker - February 21, 2009

#146—-“It would have been better to go forward with the idea that the existing Trek fans are the audience and set the budget accordingly. ”

That remains to be seen.

164. Jamie - February 21, 2009

Since Bob is around here and reading these comments, I would like to clarify something I wrote yesterday.

I said I hated Transformers and.was scared at the thought of Star Trek having anything to do with it. Since I have a lot of respect for Bob and Alex, I should clarify that my problem was not really with the script (there was a lot about the script I really liked). My problem it was mostly Steve Jablonsky’s score. All scores set the emotional tone of a film, and this one presented the film as extremely serious, which inevitably made any comedy moments seem highly inappropriate. You can’t have jokes set to serious music and expect people to laugh. If Transformers had had a lighter soundtrack, with some pop music in the mix, it would have been much better in my opinion.

The other major thing I hated about Transformers (from a fan point of view) was the design of the robots. There is something very satisfying about seeing vehicles breaking apart and rearranging to form a robot in a few basic pieces/moves. But when the vehicle breaks into so many tiny pieces and complicated moves, it is not satisfying. It’s more like morphing than transforming. I want to see big metal parts rearranging, not molecular particles rearranging.

The only real problem I had with the story was that it went too far in putting the Transformers into a human context. Telling the story from the point of view of the humans was a good idea to add more drama and make a highly sci-fi franchise more accessible to a wider audience. However, I think this was taken too far and the film ended up betraying the original franchise in that the Autobots were not the protagonists: they were the mysterious aliens, as seen through the eyes of the human protagonists.

So how can the Autobots be seen as both protagonists AND mysterious aliens (for dramatic effect)? How to show the same thing from two opposite perspectives at onces? My remedy would’ve been to have done something very similar to Superman: The Movie. Start off in outer space with hard sci fi, to clearly establish that this is a film about aliens. Then bring Optimus to earth early in the film, establishing him as the hero, but also giving a lot of humanity to the film. His transforming capabilities could be kept hidden from the camera for a while, to give it more impact when we finally see it. Or perhaps Optimus has crash landed and forgotten his ability to transform and we discover his abilities as he does? These are the sort of lines I would have gone down. You could still play up the “wow, these are scary mysterious aliens” drama every time a human character encountered a Transformer, by showing it from the human perspective.

Anyway, I suppose this retrospective rambling is all irrelevant as we now have two Transformers films in the can! Although I hope somebody out there takes these comments on board for future films :)

Transformers was certainly not a bad film, just severely disappointing (for me personally) in 2 or 3 key respects. I am looking forward to seeing the sequel of course. As you may have guessed, I am big on music. I relaly hope Steve Jablonsky has got the music right for the Transformers sequel. And I have very high hopes for the Star Trek score! (Fingers crossed.)

165. Closettrekker - February 21, 2009

#107—–That was not a statement from the creative team. That is a speculative observation on the part of the article’s author. That is nothing more than a personal interpretation of the motive behind the 20 minute preview and the decision to push back the release date.

It is wrong to hold Abrams, Lindelof, Burk, Orci, and Kurtzman accountable for the words of a writer who works for The Hollywood Reporter.

166. boborci - February 21, 2009

161. thorsten – February 21, 2009

“did you and Alex come up with the Stardates, or did somebody else provide them? And are the TOS style or TNG?”

We did come up with the Stardates. We used the system where, for example, 2233.45 or whatever means 23rd century, 33rd year of that century, and the .45 indicates the day of the year out of 365 days.

167. Christine - February 21, 2009

#5 – Now, now, I don’t think that’s true. I’m an enormous Trekkie and I’m completely psyched about the movie. Of course, that means having to deal with my parents cracking “that’s illogical” jokes while we watch “Heroes” every Monday (while Quinto’s on, obviously) but it’s all good. It will be different, but I’m pretty sure even the most loyal fans won’t be disappointed. Think of Enterprise… Okay, some thought it was crap because it was different, but I thought it was top-notch (season 4, anyways). People just need to keep an open mind.

I must admit one thing, though… The “Transformers” bit caught me off-guard. What? Transformers? Whereintheheck did THAT come from? I saw Transformers and it was…. okay. Tolerable, at best. As long as they stay true to the heart of Star Trek, and make it an /intelligent/ action film, go ahead and put as many action sequences as you like.

168. Closettrekker - February 21, 2009

#60—“The best ST was never about action for action’s sake. Action always advanced the plot or revealed something about the characters.”

Agreed. Why assume that this is somehow different, especially when the creative team has said all along that the story is focused on the characters?

“I for one would feel more comfortable with the new film, the creative team, and Paramount in general if I’d SEEN something of substance and not just eye candy up to this point.”

Do you mean like what will reportedly (see above article) be more featured in the trailer attached to Watchmen (two weeks from now)?

169. Jim - February 21, 2009

Yes. I saw that report this morning. Wil Wheaton spoke directly to my concerns as well in his MTV posting as well. I have no doubt this movie will be huge – my concern has always been that of direction. After all, “Phantom Menace” et al were huge too. Unfortunately, in addition to being huge at the box office, they were huge pieces of drek as well.

I’ll take Mr. W at his word – sounds as though he’s seen more than he’s letting on – and remain cautiously optimistic.

170. Xai - February 21, 2009

Once again, someone connected with the movie is interviewed and a few fans freak, forgetting any information that has come before and pronouncing the movie a horrible, twisted mass of dumbed-down goo.

So many people seem to have “seen” this movie already. Why wasn’t I invited?

171. McCoy - February 21, 2009

And also once again, someone connected to the movie was interviewed and a few fans get massive goose-bumps with giddy-freak pronouncing the film total action awesomeness with JJ frosting.

172. mateo - February 21, 2009

Why does it feel as though the air has just been let out of my excitement??? :(

173. Xai, tired of the Eeyores of Trek - February 21, 2009

171. McCoy – February 21, 2009
“And also once again, someone connected to the movie was interviewed and a few fans get massive goose-bumps with giddy-freak pronouncing the film total action awesomeness with JJ frosting.”

I am neither, but I’ll take “frosting” over gloom and doom any day. Why should pessimism reign?

Is there a point, other than if it don’t fit your world-view, it can’t be good? Those that have seen the 20 minutes of film seem to like it, and yet if JJ or Orci even burps wrong it’s a “doomed” movie and Trek is dead.

As for Transformers.. yes, it was an action fluff summer movie… so? It was NOT intended to be Hamlet. The writers knew the subject. They know and respect THIS subject. They LIKE Trek.. I wouldn’t want to be the writer that forever screwed up Star Trek and I know they don’t want to be that person either.

Maybe it’s time for the “wait and see” attitude instead of the Eeyore attitude.

174. thorsten - February 22, 2009


Thank you for that cool bit of info, Bob!

175. Admiral_BlackCat - February 25, 2009

166. boborci

“We did come up with the Stardates. We used the system where, for example, 2233.45 or whatever means 23rd century, 33rd year of that century, and the .45 indicates the day of the year out of 365 days.”

That’s the year Kirk was born!! :-o

176. colin - April 2, 2009

I’m not at all surprised at any expressed reluctance on the part of the writers and the director to take on this project. Any story is ultimately a set of choices (sometimes deliberate, sometimes intuitive) on the part of the creators. And given what I’ve been reading it seems as though every single choice in this particular story would have been criticized to death by “fans” — without even knowing how all those choices fit together.

It’s not possible to tell a story everyone will love. That’s true with a new movie. It’s even more true (if that’s a valid emphasis) with a movie that sits on top of forty years of tradition and has a hardcore fan base.

But consider how limited the choices of the writers would have been had they attempted to stay true to every dot and comma of the tradition Somewhat revealing is the use of the word “canon” to describe the tradition. It is ultimately a religious concept. Hell, it’s already self-contradictory.

Insisting that the writers *stick* to this received dogma is equivalent to asking them to deliver a new Book of the Bible AND satisfy every possible interpretation of the existing books. Well, that can’t be done. Or rather – it can be done, but you’re not going to end up with a movie that makes back it’s $135m budget (and needs to recoup probably $350 box office to do that).

How can I tell? I’ve read the many, many posts that attempt to provide a plot, or a mechanism by which the all-holy canon may be satisfied — and all of them made me cringe when I thought of those posts being turned into movies and trying to convince someone who wasn’t already a fan to watch them. Just my opinion. I’m sure a lot of those stories may have made good TV episodes, or fanfic. But none of them deliver an epic movie. Hey, I’m a fan. But *I* wouldn’t have wanted to watch any of those on the big screen.

An example : the refrain “Where’s Shatner?”…almost every attempt to provide a storyline that involved Spock and Kirk — and here I don’t care whether or not these storylines violated canon (how I hate that phrase) — left out one enormous question. One that would have cost the film it’s willing suspension of disbelief for the majority of the audience, for the negligible profit of satisfying the religious who wanted to see Jesus one more time. That question is : “WHY?”

To have one existing TOS character return, to provide a canonical link with the past, is acceptable – just. Because even though his character is (apparently) crucial, you’re still running the risk of the audience thinking “Oh, yeah, there’s Leonard Nimoy…”. Never mind the comparisons they’ll be making between Zach and Leonard. These are all thing you actually DO NOT want your audience doing! You want them involved in the story, accepting the characters for who they are portrayed as being in THIS story, and not wandering on that mental line that, like a Necker cube, causes their perception to flip between “actor” vs “character”. And “set” vs “environment”. And “effect” vs “photon torpedo”.

That’s the potential cost with a single returning character. If that character is central to the story, the audience will settle down and accept it.

To bring back TWO “names”, for the sake of having them there, doubles that risk. The audience goes “wow, cool, there’s Nimoy, oh, and there’s Shatner…glad to see them back”. BANG! You’ve just lost suspension-of-disbelief.

I suspect that’s what the writers meant by “shoehorned”. And so, IMO, a small cameo role (as in flashback) would have simply served to derail the entire delicate fabric of fantasy that had been constructed in the viewer’s mind.

It’s not just Not Worth It, it’s potentially Very Expensive, in terms of viewer engagement.

Never mind the gyrations necessary to obey the all-mighty canon AS WELL – all of which would add not a SINGLE thing to the story except unnecessary complication at the front…precisely where you don’t want it.

So I think *any* attempt in that direction, any attempt to strive for *some* consistency – as it appears the “Supreme Court” have done – is to be applauded.

Oh, and yeah, as SF, Transformers is not the best movie – certainly any part of the script dealing with computers is completely unrealistic – but it’s a perfectly enjoyable movie (and it appears a large part of the planet agree with me, and the writers, and with Bay). I liked the humour, I loved the big action pieces, and, unlike others, I really enjoyed the music. In fact, I bought the DVD just so I could listen to the music again – and watch Shia deliver the immortal line (“my car turned out to be an alien robot. Who knew?”). And of course that’s just my own taste.

I really enjoy ST as well. But I feel that (at least from TNG onwards) it was way too PC. And most of it consisted of people sitting around a conference table talking. Good TV, perhaps, but not a good big-budget movie. As far as the movies went, TUC was probably my favourite. Precisely because it went to the effort to show the parts that (presumably because of budget) the TV series had left out. The SCALE of the ships. The blood drops floating in zero-g.

If we get something even half as clever, and twice as exciting, as TUC from JJ and Bob and Alex, but designed for a larger audience, then ST certainly does stand some chance of revival.

And does anyone think there is a chance that those who created Alias (which was a strong character drama with great action and lots of humour) could possibly deliver a movie MORE clever than TUC? I suspect they could. I really do. IF THEY ARE GIVEN THE CHANCE.

And three years from now, any departures from canon will be nitpicked (as those errata are nitpicked now between the various series and films) but by then, willingly, or kicking and screaming, this movie WILL be part of the STverse, for better or for worse.

So why not sit back and give the damn thing a chance?

177. colin - April 2, 2009

176 : ^^^ Wow – that was long. Sorry, it was my first post after several weeks of just reading…guess I was responding to a lot. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.