Abrams, Quinto and Pegg Talk Trek’s Heart, Star Wars, Technobabble, TMP, and more March 7, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
As reported before, the April issue of UK’s at Total Film Magazine went on sale this week, with four collectible Star Trek covers. In addition to the exclusive images (see previous article), Total Film also has interview comments from director JJ Abrams and some of the film stars. See below for some of the more interesting excerpts.
Abrams: Keep Roddenberry spirit – but in HD
As he has said before, Abrams tells Total Film that he felt that "Kirk and Spock" were the characters he cared most about and that he wanted to tell their story and didn’t want to do a "completely separate space adventure that had the Star Trek name on it." And when it came time to make the film he wanted to keep he spirit while redesigning the future, saying:
The whole approach was, commit to the spirit of what Roddenberry was doing but don’t commit to the literal aesthetic of it. Like the uniforms… There were a handful of things I felt we had to retain so that when people glance at it they’ll go, ‘Yep, that’s Star Trek’. But if you look carefully at the uniforms, you’ll see there are a lot of differences that make them more ‘real’. We tried to make what worked 43 years ago work at a higher resolution.
Abrams & Pegg on Wars and Trek
As a Star Wars fanboy, the subject of that adventure in a galaxy far far away seems to always come up, and it did with Total Film. Abrams noted what he particularly saw in Star Wars that it appears we will also see in Trek:
One of my favorite things about those kinds of movies is that you see someone beginning as you or me — a farmboy in Star Wars, for example — and by the end of the film you see them defeat the evil that seemed so much larger than them. There’s a really empowering aspect to that.
Well known geek and Star Wars fan Simon Pegg (the new Scotty) was at the same interview session and he took a different point of view, noting:
Lots of stories deal with journeys like that. Star Wars itself wasn’t really that original — it owed a lot to what had gone before. But this film is like Episode IV in that you’ve got a cast of largely unknowns, backed up by a few veterans [Nimoy, Bana, Winona Ryder as Spock's ma] to provide some gravitas.
Abrams wanted to take Kirk on an epic journey
Abrams and Quinto on technobabble and the heart of Trek
When it comes to Trek’s technobabble and what lies at core of this film, there was more agreement. Zachary Quinto tells TotalFilm that even with Trek’s penchant for tech talk, it isn’t the focus, going on to say:
Ever since Gene Roddenberry conceived it, the underlying theme of Star Trek has always been optimism, and I think that carries through this movie as well. There are glimpses into other emotional states, but I think a faith in our humanity is at the core of it.
Abrams agrees, noting:
I feel the best thing about the movie are the people, which was the goal going in. Yes, there are phasers and tricorders and all that stuff, but it’s not a gadget-centric film… It’s a human slash Vulcan-centric film with technology in the fine print.
Abrams on TMP and scale of the USS Enterprise
One last bit from Abrams in Total Film. JJ Abrams has previously talked about seeing Star Trek The Motion Picture on the Paramount lot as a youngster in 1979, but he tells Total Film what he was particularly impressed with:
I remember being blown away by the scale of the ship. In the sequence, where Kirk takes the shuttle over to the Enterprise… it was the first time I could see the front lights, the first time I could scrutinize the panels: it was the first time I believed it was real. The ship was shown in a way that felt legitimate; it was no longer a TV show. I so loved that aspect of the film and it was something I tried to emulate on this one.
Abrams impressed with scale of the USS Enterprise in TMP
More images, information and comments from Abrams and his cast are in the April Star Trek issue of Total Film, which has four collectible covers. More info at TotalFilm.com.
Total Film goes Total Trek for their April Issue
Thanks to Neil for the UK excerpts
Loading ...
Comments»
Can’t Wait!
Looking forward to this great film!
TMP Enterprise is still the best.
Maybe JJ will bring it back, as is, when he makes Star Trek XXI
I am so excited. Having panic and anxiety attacks.
it’s very interesting to see the quotes about JJ’s feelings about the TMP Enterprise. It’s good to know that even though he loves his Star Wars he has had a profound emotional Star Trek experience when he was young.
I also vivdly remember that reveal in TMP, still gives me goose bumps today!
I hope there’s a TMP like moment in it.
Awesome! One note: Expect a lot of hard-core fans to come plummeting in here saying “WHAT? We DON’T WANT STAR WARS!”, and being absolutely ridiculous.
Right Boys and Girls, the objective now is to watch every episode of the Original Series again before May 8th.
Personally my money is on this movie to be a classier Spocks Brain.
I think we can all agree that’s what we want to see.
What, no tetryon particle buffers to invert the quantum matrix?
THANK YOU1
Damn… I can’t wait any longer… my head is on the edge of exploding!
I agree with Abrams on the TMP space dock scene. It is the only really good scene in the entire movie.
While I love the TMP Enterprise, it is my second favorite after the original. When every other filmed sci fi show was doing flying saucers and rocket ships, this was truly inspired. I feel fixed about the revamped ST IX Enterprise, which often looks like a toothpaste tube that was squeezed too much. I find myself really hating the Tantine IV-esque Enterprise interiors, which giving my aforementioned metaphor could be the interior of a tube of toothpaste given its white glistiness.
As a fan since childhood in the ’70s I approach this film with a lot of reservations. The plot seems hackneyed, however I can live with a stale villain-on-a-rampage-who-must-be-stopped formula if it provides a couple good coming of ages stories for Kirk and Spock (and offers some great zingers from my favorite character, Leonard H. “Bones” McCoy).
Hopefully this is not a “Phantom Menace” scale disappointment.
The technobabble aspect of Star Trek was mroe of a TNG (and VOY) thing anyway. Previous Trek films never focused on it much, and I don’t think people will miss it much here. The focus should be on the message of our shared humanity and I’m glad that seems to be the case.
I have to get that magazine! I agree with #10… my head is getting ready to explode! I want to see this movie!!
I don’t want vulcan to be destroyed. It just seems wrong. I hope it wasnt it! Also it would be cool if they made the comic books a bigger deal so people can have more of a back story. @ #3. star trek XXI? I like technobable, but meh, I like storys better.
15. Reread the dust jacket that was previewed a few days ago from the book film adaptation and you can find out what planet was being destroyed.
I was as emotional as Kirk was at seeing the ship in TMP. I could sit through that scene many times, and indeed have. Good to know he liked it also.
#16
The one in the trailer is destroyed inside out by a black hole, not by a nova shockwave. So I think, it’s not the same one.
PLEASE CAN WE STOP THE STAR WARS COMPARISONS.
When I want Star Wars, I’ll watch Star Wars… *sigh*
BTW… I feel like I’m alone in this, but I love the technobabble, LOL!
I am also a HUGE fan of the spacedock scene in TMP. I surely hope there’s something paying homage to that in this new film. Tobias’ renderings of the new Enterprise actually capture some of that very well…especially in the 2 angles that are shot from below the ship. One shows the structural “firmness” of the secondary hull and the other captures some wonderful detail in the nacelles. His work is truly top-notch and the images are my desktop wallpapers on a rotating basis. I thank him fervently for posting them on this wonderful site.
And I wholeheartedly agree with the “exploding head” analogy…I am more anxious to see this movie than I think I was for TMP. And I’m 46 now…you do the math.
Glad to hear them speak about the message of optimism…I just think these guys really do “get it!”
My faith in this film keeps getting reinforced. God-willing, this bodes well for the film!
God bless!
#11 That’s not quite what JJ said… and come on, you can’t tell me the Klingon Battle at the begining of the film wasn’t HUGE for it’s time, or the V’ger cloud sequence/V’ger Flyover sequence, or the rather breath taking, and errie “Spock Walk.” Granted the movie lacked in story, I never watched it for the narrative as much as I watched it to enjoy the beautiful visuals and fantastic score by Jerry Goldsmith. (When I need inspiration as a writer the TMP soundtrack is right up there with the classical stuff).
#23
My second sentence was solely my opinion.
“Zachary Quinto tells TotalFilm that even with Trek’s penchange for tech talk, it isn’t the focus”
BEST NEWS I’VE HEARD IN 20 YEARS!!!!!! That’s what killed the TV franchise AND the movies dead (if I had to name a single thing).
Please people READ what is said in it’s entirity-not just what catches your eye. Star Wars is Star Wars-Star Trek is Star Trek-you CAN enjoy both. And to detractors-sarcasm will not show how smart you are rather how limited you are.
I look forward to this film-and nothing was not a 600 million dollar disappointment to which as today I still cannot understand what people were expecting. As in everything there is a generational gap and what you enjoyed as a child of the 70’s cannot be repeated for a child of the 21st century and that being the target audience has to be expected and also some expect WAY too much!
I grew up with the TOS and I saw SW on the big screen in 77 aas well as STTMP and I too loved the opening sequence of the Enterprise. You have to look at the whole history of what happen while filming the movie. You see a truer version of what they wanted to do in the directors edition of TMP. If you have not watched that you have missed a brilliant work by WISE.
I love the fact that technobabble is being curtailed as it was a fancy way to get out of a problem.
Looking forward to revamps that work:
Am I the only one who thinks that the new effects shots in TMP were not only not needed, but not very good. Most of the original shots were BETTER than the new ones.
The insertion of the warp nascelles from the view in the observation lounge always makes me pull a funny face.
Or should i just boil my head?
#3
I agree with you 100%! The TMP Enterprise will always be my favorite. I do like the new Enterprise, but I think it could have been better.
What kind of world was Gene Roddenberry trying to create? Like most great movies they relate back to a portion of the Bible. The struggle of good and evil. One, the good, trying to sustain the golden rule. As in Luke 10:25-28 “25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26″What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
While the other, evil, could be an alien who just does not understand the the meaning of treating your fellow being as an equal. Usually this would consist an alien of another world imposing on others out of ignorance of others feelings. Once the alien learned of the wisdom of the great James T. Kirk, they would reconcile and set aside their differences
The other evil would be a human, who was either tempted by power or greed who can not be reasoned with. Who rejects the Golden Rule so as to gain all for themselves. It would seem the greatest evil comes from within. While the good of mankind spreads the Golden Rule, looking at his back for the rogue fellow human.
The utopia could be like the hackers of the iPhone. They first hacked into the operating system and exploited it a way that benefited all. Apple grasped their exploit and the hackers respected Apple. Or the Unix and Linux world where a great many individuals contribute in creating a better OS. All in their spare time and for no money. Just recognition. And many other great advances by individuals who do it for the better of all.
That is Star Trek’s utopia. Starfleet is the Israelites spreading the Good News!.
Classic Trek was never overloaded with techno babble. It was everything that came after that loaded the scripts with tongue twisters of a technical nature. There was very little techobabble in TOS.
#29-Pardon me for saying this……but “WHAT?”
Just saying.
What. No real techobabble. But Capt she canna do it. The Converter assembly of the Warp core injectors are fused. Oh ok. Probly did not make any sense. But hey. At least have a little technobabble. Scotty did it a few times in the Tos Series. My Barrens. My poor Barrens!
I like the fact that J.J loved the Big E in Tmp. he had a Great Trek Moment on that as did we all who seen it at the theater. I am so stoked on the new Movie. I know ill be there for the Midnight showing and as far as Im concerned. Friday May the 8th is a Holliday!!. Im takeing off that day. ill see the Movie and report back here to Trek Movie!!
15 –
“I don’t want vulcan to be destroyed. It just seems wrong.”
Do we really know it does? As far as I know, the only evidence of it is in the latest trailer.
However, I have various theories about that shot, from it being a different planet, to it being one of those “this is what we’re trying to stop” scenes (you know those scenes…the scenes where the director gets to blow Earth up without really blowing it up), to, well, Vulcan blowing up lol.
Unless someone has heard more about it than what we see in the trailer (beyond pure speculation), then I’m not sure we can conclude anything. It’s in the trailer cause it’s a cool looking shot, but given some of the counter-evidence, I still have great doubts about that event taking place. (Spock being on Vulcan, Kirk and Sulu being on the platform – Obviously Spock wouldn’t survive if he were on Vulcan, and Vulcan blowing up would seemingly mean that Sulu and Kirk failed…and I doubt they would survive either being on the platform)
Anthony, Orcster
Speaking of scale one thing that’s bugging the poop out of me is the I can’t figure out how big the new E is. In the original teaser it’s size apeared much much larger than the Original-TMP E. Judging by the size of the workers against the hull and the presumably much more spacious outer saucer rim (In the TMP cutaway there was just enough room for two decks in the outer saucer rim, in the teaser there appears to be about four decks or two much taller decks or two decks and additional room for additional structure ect) But with the additional pics and trailers we have seen the outer rim has two rows of windows similar in size and scale to the TMP E. And if it is roughly the same size as the original-TMP E where the hell is the lower shuttle storage and container storage as the secondary hull is much thinner looking missing those sections which stored the shuttles and cargo on the Original and TMP, (Phfeeeew!!!!)
So I don’t think it would really be any kind of spoiler to give an indication of the new size for the E. Is it roughly 1000 Ft-ish (300 meter-ish) OR is it a 1000-meterish as mentioned in some of the sites
HELP !!!!!
These quotations from Abrams, etc. always seem like the biggest bunch of bull crap.
Ship model pictures:
http://www.quantummechanix.com/Star_Trek_Gallery.html
#37-”seem like” means that is definitely your opinion, Stanky, but not necessarily the truth!
38 – sweet website. Also, I think it answers 36’s question about where the shuttlebay is…
Then quit reading them Stanky. Seriously.
#38.
Thanks for the link to the ship model. That was very enlightening and cool!
Thanks and very cool but still with the new design for the secondary hull the whole section where shuttle storage and cargo would go is gone. Which leads me to believe the scale of the ship is much larger than the original I NEED DEFINATIVE ANSWERS!!!!!!!
Can’t wait to see cutaway deckplans
The last time I was this excited about a movie was the summer of 1977 when Star Wars first came out. This is going to be a very entertaining move and wonderful escape. I can’t wait to take my boys to see it.
#38 -
Wow, GREAT site, and it furthers my opinion that Paramount chose the absolute WORST shot and angle to premiere the look of the “new” Enterprise.
“It’s a human slash Vulcan-centric film”
Not gonna lie; that got a giggle out of me.
re: 41. Capt. of the USS Anduril – March 7, 2009
” Then quit reading them Stanky. Seriously. ”
Only if YOU stop reading mine. Seriously.
33:
Capt. Mike:
“Bairns” is a Scottish way to refer to children. The engines are Scotty’s kids.
#48. Point taken. I hope that we see that in the new Movie. Scotty takeing over Engeneering and makeing it his new Home.
@8: “…A classier Spock’s Brain”
?!?
I tried to visualize that, and my mind’s eye caught fire.
43 – I’m still not so sure. If the edge of the saucer has traditionally been 2 decks high, then the shuttlebay must have been about 3 decks tall, at least based on external appearance on the old ship. Now it looks like it might be more like 2 decks tall, which is kind of a “big deal” issue, at least to me. Not to mention the fact that the shuttles look, well, “shorter” I guess than in TOS.
The main thing I noticed was that the nacells seemed to be much closer together on this Enterprise than the old one, but maybe that’s just an optical illusion.
can’t wait for total film magazine to come to bookstore(s). i love the cover(s).
no matter who i get on who’s on the cover i would love 2 get it, but i would love 2 have kirk. o.k. i’m not a homosexaui o.k.? i like women.
I have to admit, that my own die-hard mentality is beginning to give away after seeing the latest trailer and in reading Abrams thoughts on the ship and his and Quinto’s vision of the positivity aspect of it as Gene Roddenberry always thought of it, I’m willing to finally believe that this might just work out.
I’ll be open minded about it.
I really want someone to explain the logic of the pylons connecting to that hull…
Guys, the TOS design put the pylons in a particular spot – they go into engineering. Now look at where they are. All the conduits that run up into the nacelles have to come down somewhere damn close to the shuttle bay. How does that work?
That’s my only real peeve with the design up to now. Someone wasn’t thinking practicality when they built that section of the ship. Not to mention cutting away the back side of the stardrive, removing most of the cargo space the ship had. Eh.
@54
All ST starships aren’t practical or built for efficiency. It just so happens that TOS design had pylons that went into engineering…because the designers placed engineering there when they were done with the outside shape. They worked from outside in, a big no no in real life design.
Realize that what you may perceive as “function” or “efficient” wasn’t done so purposely, but was given a purpose after 40 yrs of slaving to canon.
The above design is perfectly fine in the framework of this movie.
@54: Perhaps that is true of the original Enterprise, but not all ship designs. And there is nothing that says they have to be at that location, or that it is more practical. Look at many other Starfleet ships. The nacelles are often placed very diffently and don’t all contact directly to the manin engineering room.
Woops. tauntme replied quicker. :]
#55 #56
I’m not just singling out this ship either. I criticised the design of the Reliant for it’s stupidly designed torpedo rack. (That you can’t get up to without magic super powers I might add.)
This is something that also bugged me to a lesser extend with 1701-E. They just connect too close to the shuttle bay and make it hard to imagine the internal layout making any sense without a whole helluva lot of routing of the pipes and wiring to get it back to Engineering.
@58
Right. A pretty ship brings in more viewers than a functional and efficient ship.
#59
So more functional designs like the original E (Built by Matt Jeffries, a man who studied Naval and Aerospace I might add) or TMP E aren’t “Pretty”?
Hell, Serenity was a successful film and the Firefly class isn’t exactly a “pretty” ship, but it’s definately practically designed internally and externally.
It’s not that big a deal to me, i’m just saying it is a pet peeve with ships. Makes it feel like no real thought went into it beyond “ooh pretty.”
@60
That’s a difficult question. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I myself find 1701-E better looking than its previous incarnations, just like I find STXI’s Enterprise prettier than TOS Enterprise.
The destroyed planet in the trailer is…………Romulus!!!!!!
Nice to hear somebody saying something positive about TMP for a change, and from JJ no less! I’ve always loved that movie, especially its gorgeous FX and shots of the Enterprise.
62 – a couple problems with that thought.
1) It doesn’t look like Romulus per Star Trek: Nemesis. Romulus looks more green, not brown.
2) Romulus is apparently destroyed in the prequel comics (unless that wasn’t really Romulus being destroyed at the end of ST: Countdown #2)….unless for some reason they decide to destroy it in the TOS erea. And if so, by whom and why?
64-You maybe right Josh…man,i hope it’s not Vulcan.
65 – well, I have a feeling it’s not Vulcan, at least not “for real”
My reasons are because
1) For there to be a major space battle over the planet, there is absolutely no wreckage or battles going on in the shot.
2) What happens to Kirk and Sulu on the platform? Surely they don’t survive if Vulcan imploded like that. And if they got off, how exactly? There is a scene of them tumbling off? Perhaps them bailing after setting charges on it to blow it up maybe? If that’s the case, obviously Vulcan survives. Presumably transporters wouldn’t work or else they wouldn’t have needed to free fall to it as well.
3) Spock was on the planet too. I suppose he could have gotten off in time, but still…
4) Losing Vulcan would not seem to be an exactly, how shall we put it, glorious way for Kirk to start his career.
It could be another planet (perhaps Romulus if, say, they decided to implode it to create a black hole to stop the events in the comics, in which case, we’ll probably know very early on in the movie if that’s the case).
It could be a “this is what we’re trying to prevent” scene, where we’re shown the destruction of Vulcan just to show us what’s at stake.
I think worst cases for me are that they actually blow up Vulcan, and either that’s it or they come how “undo” it at the end.
54: “Guys, the TOS design put the pylons in a particular spot – they go into engineering. Now look at where they are. All the conduits that run up into the nacelles have to come down somewhere damn close to the shuttle bay. How does that work?”
Actually, during TOS they never really considered engineering to be down there. There’s a lot of evidence Scotty’s “engineering deck” was really up in the saucer near the impulse engines.
We assume engineering in TOS was somewhere around the base of the neck in the secondary hull because it was explicitly shown to be there in TMP. But the ship went through a serious redesign between TOS and TMP.
#67 Ah ah ah! Remember when Kirk splits in two? Spock asks him “Where would you go to evade a search?” He ponders it for a moment and finally answers with “The lower levels, the engineering deck.”
Wow, I consider myself a Trekkie but YOU guys…all this discussion about where engineering is and so forth, and the answer is…on stage (insert proper number here) at the Paramount lot in Hollywood, CA! I win!
The new trailer has given me renewed hope that this might be a good time at the movies, but this post reminds me of a couple of my lingering concerns:
(1) For me, one of the crucial differences between Star Wars and Star Trek is that Star Trek is about people taking heroic action by making good choices in the face of danger … while Star Wars is about fated/born mythic hero types invested with inherent superiority living out their destiny. I think that’s an important difference, worth maintaining. Star Trek characters can speak romantically of destiny (or there can be a Deep Space Nine episode about it), but when the chips are down, these are people, not Campbellian puppets (on the other side of the coin, Han Solo can dismiss the notion that he’s living in a magical world driven by a mystic Force, but when the chips are down, his friend luke is a Campbellian puppet, not a farm boy).
(2) Leonard McCoy is a full third of the trinity. As he’s also my personal fave of the three, I hope he is in no way marginalized by a focus on his friend Spock and their jock sidekick, Jim wossname.
But anyway, stickin’ with hopes for now.
#27
{Am I the only one who thinks that the new effects shots in TMP were not only not needed, but not very good. Most of the original shots were BETTER than the new ones.
The insertion of the warp nascelles from the view in the observation lounge always makes me pull a funny face.
Or should i just boil my head?}
THE MOTION PICTURE was released in an unfinished state. No finished sound mix, some effects shots incomplete (Vulcan being a big one). If Robert Wise was going to do a director’s cut of the film, fixing some of the old mistakes was inevitable. You may think Wise should have left well enough alone, but it was his movie, and if he felt it wasn’t up to scratch and needed revisions, then his was the final say. Especially since everything they did for the director’s edition was stuff they had originally planned but weren’t able to finish in time for the release.
I loved the TMP Enterprise, my fav for sure, and Im glad to see a lot of aspects of it in the new E. I also have loved shots that give you a good feeling of how big a ship really is. They seemed to do it a lot with the original movies, Voyager, Enterprise, and First Contact, but in others not so much, so Im glad to see JJ appreciates that.
#36– i think i have an explanation for the enlarged saucer area… and the tiny drive section… the drive section on the new E , judging by its size relative to the rest of the ship, is simply that…a drive section…no crew quarters…just engineering, the warp reactor, the deflector systems, support systems for the warp struts, the tractor beam emitters, and the shuttlebay… and miscellaneous cargobays, docking ports, etc… and the crew quarters etc… that were in the previous timelines E are on the extra decks on the saucer…
Yes, I also have to say, that the TMP Enterprise a beautiful ship. I like the Klingon battle and spacedock scene in TMP.
70-
You’re right about the Star Wars universe’s comfort with the notion that some are “born to rule” and others are not. However, that implicit elitism also produces an interesting discourse on politics (especially in the expanded universe) lacking in Star Trek. Where does a government derive its legitimacy from? Is democracy always good? Are authoritarian rulers inherently evil? By the time we get to the New Jedi Order, these questions have become so central to the story that fans cannot really avoid “taking sides” philosophically.
Star Trek, on the other hand, has always been unabashedly one-sided on this issue. The Federation is depicted as the only galactic power that is democratic and values civil liberties. The people have freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, and what not. Everyone else pretty much has a dictatorship, oligarchy, or theocracy. And this is rarely commented upon at all. We’re just suppose to assume that “utopian” Federation democracy is wonderful and everyone else is wrong.
I’m partial to Star Trek personally. I like the positive message. I like the optimism. But I don’t think we should fall into the familiar trap of claiming Star Wars is simple-minded and Star Trek is for deep thinkers. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
From every shot I’ve seen of the ship, it still looks very much like it’s roughly comparable in size to the TOS and TMP ship, even if the proportions are adjusted a little bit.
- I remember being blown away by the scale of the ship. In the sequence, where Kirk takes the shuttle over to the Enterprise… it was the first time I could see the front lights, the first time I could scrutinize the panels: it was the first time I believed it was real. –
Yes, yes, Mr. Abrams, but did you also feel the emotion of that scene?
I have the cut-away poster of the original Enterprise hanging over my workstation, and everytime I get hung up about balancing form and function, I look at that graceful, balanced design by Matt Jeffries and kind of have a zen moment.
The New ship is ugly and unbalanced. It’s engines look like hair dryers, they attach at the “wrong” place, the deflector dish sticks out like a hernia and throws off the forward thrust of the design. Everything is pushed together and throws off the balance of the original design.
One of the reasons that Jeffries had the exterior simple was that he thought that working in Space would be very hazardous, so he kept the exterior very simple and had all the essential equipement accessable from the inside. And the different sections of the ship, from the bridge, the saucer section, the secondary hull, the engine pylons and the engine nacelles were all meant to be modular and replaceable in case of damage or upgrade.
The flowing, curvy, design that Abrams and Ryan Church have unleased may look “nice” and “Design-y” in a Lost in Space 1998 kind of way, but it isn’t as practical or as functional as the original ship. Even the TMP Enterprise Refit kept those elements to the design of the craft–and those elements were carried on with the other Starfleet ships that we saw from the 23rd through the 24th centuries.
Look, you can call us nerds all you want. You can say that the hardcore fans have been holding back Star Trek from mainstream acceptance (which is really rediculous–the opinion Paramount and the new producers have for the fans that have kept Star Trek alive for 43 yeras is staggeringly low–and unheard of in other franchises), but a classic remains a classic for a reason–usually because it was good to begin with.
And the classic Enterprise is a beauty.
#60 – “Hell, Serenity was a successful film ”
By whose or what standards was it “successful?”
77 – “Yes, yes, Mr. Abrams, but did you also feel the emotion of that scene?”
Can’t speak for him, but the emotion I got from that scene was “Come on, get on with it already!”
And yes, I know I am going to get flamed for my opinions–but I am not alone in this–and the opposing viewpoint should be heard as well as the constant positivism about the new film.
The truth is this: Not everyone will be served by this film–in it’s intent, in it’s execution and in it’s effect on the Star Trek universe as it exists. And, by starting in the previous Star Trek universe and passing the torch to the New Star Trek, the producers hope to bring the old fans along for the ride–and not everyone is going to go on that journey.
I personally know many fans who wished that this film had no time travel and was simply a new universe, with no connection to the old–not only to leave the old intact and alone, but so we could just see this film as it’s own entity and of it’s own merrit.
All of my problems with this production stem from re-writing “history” rather than them just doing their own thing. The whole “tangent universe” argument is a whitewash trying to temper angry fans–that is not how time travel worked in Star Trek previously, otherwise why show any changes at all? Why change anything if your universe continues on as it is?
Why change Star Trek rather than make something new?
Oh wait, trying something new is a risk. And it is better to mine an old idea with a known name than come up with something new.
The next few months will be very interesting–to see if the expense of the film balances out with it’s earnings, if it cracks new markets, if it does repeat business after it’s initial opening weekend and if it connects with new fans and old. Oh, and if it has a good story to tell of course.
Mustn’t forget that.
#75: “But I don’t think we should fall into the familiar trap of claiming Star Wars is simple-minded and Star Trek is for deep thinkers. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.”
I agree. However, in the post you are responding to (post #70) I never suggested any such thing, wasn’t talking about politics, rulers, or society at all, and I enjoy Star Wars and Star Trek pretty much equally (and I’ve worked on tie-ins for both franchises with equal care, professionalism and affection) … so I’m not sure what your response has to do with my concerns about the new film … My concern (1) was about meaningful human choice at the character level, vs Abrams repeated comments that could be read to suggest that he sees Star Trek (or at least, Kirk and Spock) in more mythic terms than I’m partial to. I certainly don’t consider Star Wars “simple-minded,” just more overtly mythic and symbolic.
Anything else you saw, well … it’s like that cave on Dagobah. Nothing else there except what you bring in with you ;)
#77 For me it was almost 20 years of not seeing the Enterprise from the initial run in the 60’s, and finally seeing it on the big screen in all her live action glory. I was feeling what Kirk was feeling being reunited with the old girl after all those years. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in the theater feeling that way. I still get choked up!
I love Star Trek AND I love Star Wars. Some Wars feeling in Trek? Yes, thank you.
Btw, these guys know what Trek is and what they are doing. The franchise is in good hands.
#78
- And the classic Enterprise is a beauty. -
Oh yes, she is!
#80
I’m confident there won‘t be a single scene in XI lasting and lingering long enough to grant you the time of feeling anything. :D
#83
Glad, I’m not the only hopeless, sobbing, emotional freak here…;-)
#79 I think he means successful in terms of fan acceptance and the functional quality of the design.
#9
I, for one, won’t even consider attending this film unless a spatial rupture creating severe nucleonic interference results from spatially-inverted tetryon particles emanating from a tertiary subspace manifold. I just hope they don’t fall back on that old canard of closing the rupture by neutralizing the tetryon emissions with a coherent graviton pulse.
I mean, come on! What do they take us for?
True to the vision of Roddenberry? Haha, I always like this crap talk from Abrams and crew. Doing a comic book action movie instead of the sci-fi drama Roddenberry gave us, that’s not what I call his original vision. Total Film? That’s some sort of Hollywood poster magazine? I’ve bet Film Culture and Journal of Film Theoretics don’t waste it’s time for popcorn movies like this one.
JJ: “The whole approach was, commit to the spirit of what Roddenberry was doing but don’t commit to the literal aesthetic of it.”
The ‘literal aesthetic’ of Trek happens to be among my favorite things about Star Trek.
“Like the uniforms… There were a handful of things I felt we had to retain so that when people glance at it they’ll go, ‘Yep, that’s Star Trek’. But if you look carefully at the uniforms, you’ll see there are a lot of differences that make them more ‘real’.”
I think one of the greatest advantages of the classic uniforms is exactly that they don’t look real, but otherworldly.
“We tried to make what worked 43 years ago work at a higher resolution.”
So JJ Abrams thinks that all the stuff he did not integrate into his own vision of Trek did not work, did I get that correctly?
Finally there’s some perspective on Trek I share with JJ: his excitement over the TMP Enterprise.
But then he goes on:
“The ship was shown in a way that felt legitimate; it was no longer a TV show.”
Again this talk about ‘legitimacy’ that JJ revels in so often. I find this word really annoying. What does he mean with it? That TOS was NOT legitimate? That TV shows are not legitimate? (That would be a strange thing to say for the producer of Lost and Fringe, that can’t be meant, although it seems to be expressed by the statement.) Doesn’t he acknowledge the fact that TOS was made in the 60s with a small budget? And what is ‘legitimacy’ supposed to mean anyway when we talk about producing art?
This new trailer, which I really enjoyed, finally made me think ‘Oh my, maybe this movie actually will be a good one’. But whenever I read JJ’s statements I am lead to think ‘This is the wrong man for Star Trek!’
Another thing I get increasingly annoyed about are those continued remarks about Star Wars. Hello, everyone! This is Trek, Star Wars is another franchise!
If JJ’s interviews were the only information I had about the movie I wouldn’t even bother to watch it.
88:
Some of the best TOS could be classified as “comic book action.” Roddenberry himself said it was necessary to couch his messages into a weekly adventure format for the show to get greenlit (”Wagon Train to the Stars),
89:
Holger: JJ is just saying that the Big E finally had scale and grandeur, and looked real. Star Wars looked “rea” to us kidsl at the time, and made televised Trek look low-budget and tacky by comparison. TMP changed that.
83- You are not alone in your reaction to the first view of Enterprise in TMP. Kirk’s external tour remains one of my favorite movie moments ever. Thirty years later, it still gets me every time
77. Iowagirl – March 8, 2009
- I remember being blown away by the scale of the ship. In the sequence, where Kirk takes the shuttle over to the Enterprise… it was the first time I could see the front lights, the first time I could scrutinize the panels: it was the first time I believed it was real. -
“Yes, yes, Mr. Abrams, but did you also feel the emotion of that scene?”
I’d say he did, otherwise it wouldn’t have come up.
If JJ even breathes wrong some of you want his head on a platter. Interpreting each word, examining what he didn’t say, looking for a nuance of a scrap of a thought that shows the world he hates Trek or something else absurd.
Will it be exactly the Trek you or I want? Maybe not…but I still look forward to seeing what a different view may bring. If his words or work offend you…please don’t go.
As something of an expert on “technobabble,” I believe most people are fine with the great Trek terminology, like “phaser,” or “transporter,” or “tricorder,” etc. What people despise, I believe, is when various terminology is “invented” in order to solve a plot point. How many times did we see the Enterprise in some apparently Trek-ending dilemma, only to be saved when someone suddenly comes up with the idea of using a gravi-quantum-phase-inducer to generate a high-band-tachyon-pulsating-field-emission, and VIOLA!, the day is saved! How convenient!
This is just lazy writing, and, of all places, there should be no room for it in Star Trek.
Otherwise, I wear my moniker proudly…
#93
I hear ya – but I was referring to the emotion that lies beneath the “scale” of the ship; ya know – human emotion…;). I was hinting at Kirk’s emotion, and Scotty’s; Scotty’s wonderful gesture to take Kirk on that long journey so that he could not only see her, but familiarize himself with the amazing thought that he himself was about to be the Captain of this Grand Old Lady, “his” ship, once again. Showing him each inch of her and granting him the time to admire her beauty to the full. This is not only about scale, front lights, and panels; this is about friendship, a joint history, character development, beauty, and love. At least, that’s how I feel about it.
#36- I honestly don’t think they have even considered how to make sense of the internal configuration of this Enterprise.
They probably didn’t even consider it important in any way.
A huge mistake IMO, because how exactly is that making it more “real?”
#13:
Perhaps, but I’ve seen cops on COPS use “technobabble”. When a lone officer is on scene trying to restrain a perp and is worried about the intentions of a second perp, he warns the second man that he will use a TASER on him, if necessary. You know, T-A-S-E-R, an abbreviation like E-P-S conduit? I consider that analogous to TREK’s “technobabble”, and without TREK’s “technobabble” – its reference to its technological reality – we do not have TREK’s version of science-fiction.
I suppose this means that orders and technobabble used around the bridge of an aircraft carrier – or anywhere that such is necessary – is silly or something. Yet, it’s still a human story, those men and women doing their jobs in the service of our (or whomever’s) country, aided by the technology their fellow humans have created for them. Try going to the auto parts store to get parts for your car and not mention one single term referencing a car part and see how quickly you get service. I’ll take TREK’s “technobabble” anytime.
Let me also mention that the STAR WARS universe does an even BETTER job of practically ignoring the technology it uses every day (though I’d say that this probably has a lot to do with the bit of SW history I read recently that states hyperdrive usage for 25,000 years… ).
#96:
I find it hard to believe that Admiral Kirk had not gotten around to getting a look the refit at his old ship before that point in the story. It’s like getting a house built and NEVER going out there to look around until it is completely finished.
Don’t get me wrong, I too enjoyed the tour of the Enterprise, but in reality I think Kirk would have been out there to have a look around more than once.
94. Xai–you are right. Absolutely. Eveyone who has any kind of fear, quibble, doubt, question, thought, disagreement, concern, judgement, opinion , loyalty to Star Trek’s past or (in my opinion about the set and concept design) good taste should just skip the movie. Wait for second-run theaters, DVD or Cable.
Boy that would be good for the box office, wouldn’t it?
I think many fans’ concern is that Abrams might not be “the right kind” of Star Trek fan.
That is in quotes for a reason, since there are all kinds of Star Trek fans–and all are both right and wrong and entitled to their opinions. That a lot of people liked Star Trek having it’s own vibe and liked it being different from Star Wars and Galactica and Serenity. Mr. Abrams took on an impossible task with this film–he will NOT be able to please everyone.
If he is able to create a big hit of a film that crosses over and is accepted by the general audience as well as many Star Trek fans, than he will have in many people’s opinion succeeded. But if he does this at the expense of what so many people enjoy about Star Trek, which for many includes the design aesthetic, the fake tech about how the ships work and the fake science as well, the intelligence of the best stories, and hey let’s face it the Actors who play the parts–then is it really even a Star Trek movie? Or does it just have the name?
Does it even matter?
If this film is a hit, then it makes the old guard look like they are holding on too tight (but not neccisarily foolish). If it is only a medium hit, then it proves that Star Trek cannot break out of it’s comfortable bubble and that any future Treks should be once again focused on the core audience (although maybe the focus will be on telling good stories on a large canvas, unlike Insurrection and Nemesis).
And if it totally bombs–and by that I mean it just barely makes it’s money back and maybe the marketing budget–then the ride is over for a few more years and we get some books, games and comics (as well as all of what came before) to tide us over for a decade or so until they decide the next way to try to “Resuscitate The Franchise”. Maybe go forward again, rather than go backwards.
Any and all negativity (small as it is, after the genral consensus that the new Preview is exciting and makes people interested in the film) is actually healthy and shows how much the fans are concerned. I say, let everyone voice their opinion–let’s see just what everyone feels. Then Paramount, JJ Abrams, the makers of this website and every other fan can get a true picture of what the reaction is.
And then, we can get into heated and enlightening debate (most of which I am sure will degenerate quickly into name-calling, swearing and fingerpointing) and celebrate all sides to this equation called Star Trek Fandom.
Imagine this is the film that proves to all novices, non believers, “I don’t care” people, and even the haters that Star Trek is awesome, good, is human, is about all that is good, and most importantly is about US…humans here on Earth and not a galaxy far far away. Star Trek gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling in my chest because its optimism is unmeasurable when compared to any other sci-fi or sci-fantasy.
There is a reason Star Trek (NOT Star Wars) is called the history of the future.
96–Let’s also not forget that it acted as a beautiful Music Video for Jerry Goldsmith’s amazing music. That factor alone when I was seven, along with the absolute beauty of the ship made me fall in love with Star Trek with TMP.
98, 99, 100. – Brian, you are right about overuse of technobabble–but using some of it also helps to ground the story in it’s futuristic setting, establish that these ships are crewed by both scientists and “military” figures (who all need to know these concepts, everyone needs to know how to help fix the ship, work the controls and interpret what they see out there) and also express scientific ideas, which is half of what Star Trek has always been about. About embracing Science and real Science Fiction, not just Heroic Fantasy dressed up like Science Fiction.
Look, I love Star Wars. I do–It helps pay my bills, and it takes me back to my childhood love when I work on Star Wars projects.
But it is NOT nor EVER will be SCIENCE FICTION. It is FANTASY.
The fact that so many people THINK it is science fiction, has lead to the decline of high quality REAL science fiction movies, books and television over the years. Science Fiction movies have to have that visceral fantasy element, from BAD PHYSICS and STOCK, Campbellian HEROES or VILLIANS and illogical monsters to connect with modern audiences.
And Star Trek started falling into that trap a while ago, at least in the films–but even then, they tried to have some IDEA to present, even in Insurrection and Nemesis. The ideas of the recent shows and films weren’t in themselves bad, but I think they kind of ran out of steam after one group of people made so much for so long.
Great Star Trek balances Science, Adventure, Characters, Social Commentary, a (mostly) consistant Universe and Effects into an exciting whole…when any of those is missing it feels off. If they can do that with this new film, my hat goes off to them–if they “dumb it down” to make it accessable, I have a problem with it.
-82
I guess I just don’t see the problem with Abrams making the Kirk story into a myth.
Star Trek has gone into mythology before (DS9). It was strongly implied throughout the series that Sisko’s connection to Bajor and arrival on the station was “predestined.” Then we find out in the last season that he was conceived by Sarah-Prophet in order to defeat the Pah-Wraiths. I’d say that’s pretty mythic.
I didn’t see the Sisko plotline as a problem. Although we had a good idea of what the endgame looked like, the particular manner in which Sisko fulfilled his destiny – the choices he make – has consequences. In the case of Kirk, the audience has an even clearer sense of what the “future” holds for this character because we’ve seen one possible version of it already.
So, I think the mythic angle in this movie will be interesting because of that pre-knowledge. Familiar and different (at the same time).
101. Jeff C – March 8, 2009
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I’ll be concise.
My opinion is that some fans do not look at whole pieces of information by choice or error when forming an opinion. These interviews for example or the style of the trailers.
Assumption: The trailers show fast paced action and little if any character moments. That means JJ got it all wrong and doesn’t understand Trek and they are going to “dumb it down”, and after all he’s not a Trek fan, he likes Star Wars… etc. etc.
While that IS possible, the public hasn’t seen the movie to make that leap. Evidence so far, seems to indicate a good film. Trailers tend to show action to get people’s attention.
I wanted to make a point to those that are jumping to conclusions when I said, “don’t go”. Apparently I didn’t make myself plain.
And I apologize for the shifting tenses beforehand. Timeless trans-dimensional aliens and alternative universes often throw me off.
I’ve been following the conversation here for months, but this is my first post. Maybe I’ve just been trying to figure out how to say this.
Anyway.
The fury of the hardcore types astonishes me. “Don’t mess with our Trek,” they say. “Respect the classic designs! Respect the classic uniforms! Respect canon!” And they say it over and over, on this board and countless others, and they never seem to notice that Star Trek itself has never done any of those things.
In the beginning there was a TV show, with uniforms in bright primary colours and a smooth-skinned ship with no windows. Klingons were olive-skinned dudes with moustaches.
Then there was TMP, and suddenly the ship was covered with tiles and the uniforms were all in drab pastels and had little booties attached to the pants. Why the change in uniforms? Because Robert Wise thought the primary colours of the originals would draw attention away from the actors’ faces. Also, the Klingons suddenly had spiny ridges all over their heads.
Then there TWOK, and the bootie pants and the pastels were suddenly gone, replaced by maroon jackets that looked like parade wear for soldiers. Why? Because Harve Bennet hired a better costume designer than Gene Roddenberry did.
Years later, there was TNG, which featured at least two uniform designs over seven years. When that show was spun off into DS9, we got yet another uniform design. And when the TNG crew did got its second movie, still another uniform design came along.
All the hardcore types have had a great time documenting all the uniform changes, trying as hard as they can to build them into a self-consistent “canon.” And it’s not wasted effort: Memory Alpha really is a fun way to spend an afternoon.
But come ON. Every time there is a new Trek show or movie, it is a little reboot all its own. Costumes get redesigned. Ships do too. People’s motivations get re-written. Roles get recast. Entire races of aliens get invented. The Enterprise mission patch mysteriously becomes the crest for all of Starfleet.
And THAT’S JUST FINE. Why? Because Trek is not a real history of things that really happened. It’s some movies and some TV shows, written and designed and cast and performed by many people over many years. A lot of those shows and movies have been good; some have been crap.
All this is a long way of saying it’s crazy to judge this new movie by how crisply it fits into some imagined history. It won’t fit crisply at all. How about instead we judge it by how much fun it is to watch? By how much it makes us want to watch it over again?
I’m withholding judgment at this point, but I’m also optimistic too. JJ Abrams has made a lot of good TV in his time, and he’s been pretty good at movies too. This thing we’re all looking forward to? It’s a MOVIE.
“…I feel the best thing about the movie are the people, which was the goal going in. Yes, there are phasers and tricorders and all that stuff, but it’s not a gadget-centric film… It’s a human slash Vulcan-centric film with technology in the fine print. …”
Oh, that makes me want to see this movie THAT MUCH MORE BADLY. Seriously. Because, you know, while Star Trek wouldn’t be Star Trek without all the ships and phasers and photon torpedoes and stuff, the same goes if it didn’t retain that EMOTIONAL aspect.
…I think I’ll go watch that trailer one more time….
Oh, and… #107 ::
All I can say is:
WELL SAID! You deserve a medal. ;3
91 AJ: OK, I agree, maybe JJ just wanted to express what you posted. Then he is expressing his stuff in an awkward (IMO) way.
#8, no one agrees with you. Don’t lump people’s opinions to your own.
I’m probably going to catch some flak for this, but I honestly don’t have a problem if the planet imploding in the trailer is Vulcan. In fact, I’d almost prefer it, especially if it doesn’t get brought back. Think about it, this is essentially a reboot. But barring catastropic changes, we could see the “new” crew going the same route as the old. We would know that Kirk has to live until he gets killed on Veridian III. We would know that Spock, McCoy, and Scotty have to live til the 24th Century. BUT! If Vulcan is destroyed, the gloves come off. The crew could be killed at any time. It would bring a sense of suspense to this new crew. That would make me very happy.
For the love of Christ this always happens!!! I ask a simple, well educated, thought provoking question (way too early on in a thread). It gets answered by someone who obviously did not read nor understand the question and then degenerates into a pissing match between button pushers sychophants, self appointed TrekMovie hallway monitors, alot of good bros caught in the middle and a few morons.
So to get everything back on track:
And if Anthony, Orcster, Dirty Daren, Sternbachamania, are around please please chime in:
Speaking of scale one thing that’s bugging the poop out of me is the I can’t figure out how big the new E is. In the original teaser it’s size apeared much much larger than the Original-TMP E. Judging by the size of the workers against the hull and the presumably much more spacious outer saucer rim (In the TMP cutaway there was just enough room for two decks in the outer saucer rim, in the teaser there appears to be about four decks or two much taller decks or two decks and additional room for additional structure ect) But with the additional pics and trailers we have seen the outer rim has two rows of windows similar in size and scale to the TMP E. And if it is roughly the same size as the original-TMP E where the hell is the lower shuttle storage and container storage as the secondary hull is much thinner looking missing those sections which stored the shuttles and cargo on the Original and TMP, (Phfeeeew!!!!)
So I don’t think it would really be any kind of spoiler to give an indication of the new size for the E. Is it roughly 1000 Ft-ish (300 meter-ish) OR is it a 1000-meterish as mentioned in some of the sites
HELP !!!!!
And yes the new engines do look like hair dryers
107 bret: What makes all the difference, I guess, is the fact that TMP, TWOK, TNG etc. happened after TOS in the fictional timeline, so these were changes which did not nullify the past.
#113 :: Um, well, I don’t think you should be too worried about the size of the ship. It looks just about the same size as the TMP Enterprise… Except a little more aesthetically pleasing (DON’T SHOOT ME, I just happen to appreciate good graphic design ^__^; ) and really, really epic.
#112 :: I think I’d use up an entire box of Kleenex if Vulcan blew up and didn’t come back. But, you know, it would REALLY shock everyone who’s known and loved that lovely little planet…
“The shot (er, explosion) that rang across the universe!”
Im hoping EMPIRE magazine does another ST issue…the December cover issue was good but it wasn’t a big enough article!!
You should see their current big Terminator 4 issue…its left no stone uncovered…heres hoping they do the same for Trek
94 Xai: “If JJ even breathes wrong some of you want his head on a platter. Interpreting each word, examining what he didn’t say, looking for a nuance of a scrap of a thought that shows the world he hates Trek or something else absurd.”
I, for my part, do not want JJ’s “head on a platter” and even IF it turns out he’s not the right man to do Trek (note the hypothetical ‘if’) then that’s a criticism of his work as a director and producer, no more, no less.
And I don’t think you have to interpret and examine subtle nuances in JJ’s statements before you get the distinct impression he’s not a Trek fan, but a huge Star Wars fan who wants to assimilate Trek to Star Wars as much as possible. The two quite elusive features that Kirk and Spock are popular and powerful characters and that Roddenberry had an optimistic vision of the future seem to be as much as he likes about TOS.
#55: “All ST starships aren’t practical or built for efficiency. It just so happens that TOS design had pylons that went into engineering…because the designers placed engineering there when they were done with the outside shape. They worked from outside in, a big no no in real life design.
Realize that what you may perceive as “function” or “efficient” wasn’t done so purposely, but was given a purpose after 40 yrs of slaving to canon.
The above design is perfectly fine in the framework of this movie.”
Perfectly said. This is why I have no problem with them throwing any and all “techno-canon” out the window. Too much of it makes no sense (I’m looking at you, warp-core!), and most of it was a plot-device ad hoc afterthought anyway. There’s no reason whatsoever to carry ANY of the techno-babble, or treknological explanations for how or why starships are put together, from the previous series’.
The irony is that, in an attempt to make Trek seem more realistic, the writers/producers/directors felt the need to try to explain how the ship worked, and why it was put together, but since they did such a HORRIBLE job over the years, the end result is that my suspension-of-disbelief would be shattered less often if they had gone the route of Star Wars (”The hyperdrive is broken”. “Go FIX it!”) and explained the technical stuff as vaguely as possible.
#19
“PLEASE CAN WE STOP THE STAR WARS COMPARISONS.
When I want Star Wars, I’ll watch Star Wars… *sigh*
BTW… I feel like I’m alone in this, but I love the technobabble, LOL!
”
Roddenberry’s contribution to philosophy and social issues was to use future technology to remove the practical obstacles to our present struggles so the viewer could focus on the heart of the matter. He knew he would inspire people to actually achieve those things, and he insisted on having a real scientist propose physically-possible technologies. In so doing, he inspired a generation of intelligent folks to actually achieve those technologies. I do research at a university where folks are constantly talking about how their inventions are “like that thing from star trek.” Real technobabble is what inspired these guys to produce the solutions they have. The crap technobabble from later series like Voyager & Enterprise just takes those dreams and shatters them as “oh, these are mindless entertainment, they have nothing to do with reality.” When the truth is, if we aren’t going to seek to make our reality more like Roddenberry’s vision, then what is the point of Star Trek, if not just entertainment?
Roddenberry’s other main contribution was to use the Spock/McCoy/Kirk triad to talk about the choices we face with logic & emotion, showing how logic works great in some circumstances & emotion in others.
Lucas’s achievement was to use Leia’s slave outfit to lure folks and keep them coming back for three more movies. Nothing but pure entertainment.
In the end, as Roddenberry sought to use Star trek as a vehicle to tell us about ourselves & inspire us to do better, accurate technobabble is what kept the attention of the folks who would actually accomplish his dream & convince them they could do it.
119: “Lucas’s achievement was to use Leia’s slave outfit to lure folks and keep them coming back for three more movies.”
Leia’s slave outfit was shown in the third movie (Return of the Jedi, Episode VI). You really think Lucas used it to lure people into the prequel trilogy two decades later? Or did I miss some joke or irony here?
# 103: I agree that Star Wars isn’t science fiction, but space-flavored fantasy. Star Trek is, too. Star Trek is no more grounded in science or technology than Star Wars, and they are both on the same level in terms of well-thought out future projections of science and technology.
#120
I had spent a lot of time formulating my comments on Roddenberry; the Lucas argument is weak at best, but face it, episodes 1, 2, 3, didn’t have much to lure folks in other than the legacy of episodes 4, 5, 6, (other than bad jokes, “metachloridians” or whatever, and a totally fake-feeling pod race). Honestly, Lucas did touch on an adventure, but I believe he focussed too much on emotions & feeling which can often lead you astray. Roddenberry’s much more balanced emotion & logic is a better template for an advanced society.
But, thanks for being very polite & getting all the facts instead of not jumping on me like some folks tend to do here…
119:
“Lucas’s achievement was to use Leia’s slave outfit to lure folks and keep them coming back for three more movies. Nothing but pure entertainment.”
Is that really the ultimate secret to Lucas’s’ success with Star Wars? It has fans from 6 to 60, I am not sure the appearance of Carrie Fisher in slave attire is the main draw.
121: No. Just take TNG: The Measure of a Man as example. Scientific extrapolation is present in the android theme, just compare latest Japanese research in robotics. Philosophical reflection is present in the theme ‘what’s the difference between a human being and a complex machine?’ Typical Science Fiction element in the episode: explore how humans react to/deal with an advanced technology (in this case androids).
And this TNG episode is only one typical example among many in Star Trek.
And Star Wars? Scientific extrapolation: no, Science Fiction plot elements: nope, philosophical reflection: maybe a little bit, of the Taoist variety, is present in the Jedi belief system.
122 Ben IV: You’re welcome. I didn’t want to object to your entire argument, anyway, I just wanted to object to the detail about the slave costume, that’s all.
#55
“All ST starships aren’t practical or built for efficiency. It just so happens that TOS design had pylons that went into engineering…because the designers placed engineering there when they were done with the outside shape. They worked from outside in, a big no no in real life design.”
ok, air foil design? always done from outside in…
boat hulls… also outside in…
small satellites? outside in…
Granted: the Enterprise does not have its impulse engine located along it’s center of mass line, and the intent is to inspire, not replicate existing technology. … but the point is to say “technology has advanced to the point that our space ship design is not constrained by conventional liquid combustion or atmospheric ascent” Once you establish that, you’ve taken what is essentially an unworkable odd-shaped design and turned it into a source of inspiration.
I guess my overall argument is this:
Don’t fight a war in which either logic (strict adherence to the small detail and only currently known technology) or emotion (complete neglect of the basis & introduction of fake technobabble) is the sole winner. Take Roddenberry’s suggestion that the combination of Spock’s logic & McCoy’s emotion are unified in Kirk’s decisions. Whether or not we’ll like the exact results, it sounds like JJ at least gets that main thesis.
btw. Trailer 3 looks absolutely awesome!!! Why is Spock’s time ship crashing into the giant Nero time-ship thingy? Please don’t tell me I have to watch Spock die again!
OT but I came across this pic – I thought id seen just about every Trek pix but never this one
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_03/shatnereatingMOS_468×379.jpg
#104: sez “I guess I just don’t see the problem with Abrams making the Kirk story into a myth.”
My apologies; I didn’t mean to imply that you would.
Lol… looks like Shat doesn’t like the food ^^
#128- Wow. Thought I’d seen everything too!
Needs a caption- BADLY!
#128
new lolceleb in 3, 2, 1…
The only innovation in the fantasy film STAR WARS is the look of the ‘dirty future,’ which was later perfected in the science fiction film BLADE RUNNER.
Strangely, Hollywood has never given utopia a big budget treatment. Assuming they’ve preserved this part of Gene Roddenberry’s vision, that may be the major visual effects innovation of this new STAR TREK.
I’m really curious to see what Vulcan and Earth look like.
maybe its from his book? ‘up till now’…thats what the big article was about:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-565380/In-bed-Captain-Kirk–William-Shatner-tells-40-year-Star-Trek.html
(got to get that book one day…sounds a good read from that)
Beans and whiskey. An explosive combination.
133.
The 1974 absurdist sci-fi film “Dark Star,” predates “Star Wars’” “used future” look by at least 3 years, not to mention the equally “lived-in” look of the 1972 Russian verision of “Solaris.”
I have a theory. Nero came back in time. He destroys Vulcan. And he tries, unsuccessfully, to destroy the Earth. With Vulcan destroyed, Spock is really trying to contain his emotions. Think about it, why would Spock be so unstable? He will not go through ponnfarr during the movie. And why is Uhura hugging Spock? They are not in a relationship. And how does the Supreme Court try to reconcile the destruction of Vulcan with canon? Quantum Mechanics!!!!
137. ROFL. So, is the Supreme Court the high tribunal of Trek Geeks from all over the world? Are Stephen Hawking, Al Gore and Barack Obama among them? Can I ask a few questions and get obviously machine printed autographs from The Supreme Court?
Because I am down with that.
138. The Supreme Court are JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, and Jeffery Chernov. Pretty much the director, writers, and the producers of this movie. Appointed by Paramount, they are known as the “keepers of the franchise” until Star Trek becomes unprofitable, and then the studio replaces them all. lol.
This is really a great quote and fantastic perspective from JJ:
“I remember being blown away by the scale of the ship. In the sequence, where Kirk takes the shuttle over to the Enterprise… it was the first time I could see the front lights, the first time I could scrutinize the panels: it was the first time I believed it was real. The ship was shown in a way that felt legitimate; it was no longer a TV show. I so loved that aspect of the film and it was something I tried to emulate on this one.”
The new trailer has two fantastic angles of the Enterprise, from behind and below as it manages to get througha debris field. the Enterprise is not only a majestic vessel; she’s as major a character in Trek as Kirk, Spock, Picard.
Hmm. Some folks are referring to Star Trek’s Federation as utopian. From where I sit, that’s strictly a TNG-onwards revision of the setting (or, depending on how you choose to interpret it, the Federation somehow managed to become utopian in the century after Star Trek is set). In original Star Trek, the Federation (and Starfleet doubly so) are frequently implied to be something very flawed, still dealing with bureaucratic tangles, crime, social injustice and so on. The optomism comes from the Federation having achieved great strides over 1960s Earth … but still having a long, long way to go. IMO, anyway.
#135 – Its “Bourbon and Beans and explosive combination” lol.
Had to unleash my inner geek there, but good comment!. :-)
You can see the TMP influence all over sets and in the design of the new Enterprise. What to do we abbreviate this one as, R-ENT (for reboot Enterprise)? This whole movie is a tribute to TOS, but before I read this article, I DID noticed how real everything felt. I think thats why they chose to build the Enterprise on earth, to retain that reality connection of “this thing was built, right here in our own back yard.” Building it out in space would have severed that.
I was on the fence about this movie after trailer 2, but now I’m convinced.
Love absolutely everything, Pine rocks, and my childhood hero lives again!
Nice to hear the TMP reference. I certainly hold up the Scotty and Kirk trip to the new Enterprise as one of my favourite moments in the film.
The unfortunate thing is that the new ship is not even real. Hopefully you get what I mean, the TMP Enterprise was physically built and painted by many talented people. The way the hull looked so detailed at minute distances was just breathtaking, and lent a lot toward why the ship felt so real to me. While I am sure a lot of work went into the JJ Enterprise, it will never seem real to me as the TMP Enterprise did. Simply due to it being a CG only model.
On a different but related issue, I do hope that at some point soon, an official external and deck by deck blueprint set becomes available for the JJ Enterprise, then we can all say “So that’s where it goes!”
Please God, no spelling mistakes this time…makes me look like a damn fool.
:-)
I’m glad to see these shout-outs to the spacedock scene in TMP, which was (and continues to be) roundly derided for being too reverent and too damned slow. But I always loved it. Why shouldn’t the lovely Enterprise get her close-up? She’s the starring lady.
Well, can we at least deride the V’Ger flyover, then?
Jerry Goldsmith must have loved it, though. He got to write entire suites and have them appear in the film uncut.
By all means, you can deride the V-Ger flyover. You can also deride that Ilia-and-Decker-in-a-blender climax, complete with those boinging-spring sound effects.
I am fond of that movie. But it has its laughable moments.
I like the BOIIIIINGGGGG!!!
Abrams claims to have the spirit of Roddenberry’s work, but so far all it shows is a decided disregard of continuity and has dumbed it down to a mere flick with action, action, action and NONE of the heart and soul seems to come through. The previews show nothing but explosions.
The arrow pattern on the shirts is stupid.
Explosions were never what Roddenberry envisioned for Star Trek. His noble dream is being flushed down the toilet for the sake of the lowest common denominator sheeple known as the moviegoing public. The same public that gave Baywatch tweleve seasons.
Abrams doesnt give a shit about the integrity of a noble 40 year sci-fi legacy. Its just another paycheck to him. Anyone who TRULY respects Gene’s work wouldnt work so hard to contradict it.
#148.
Let us ignore the troll.
#148
I’m unsure how you have gleaned this all from just a few minutes of trailers and a handful of interviews.
Trailers are almost always, whizz bang affairs, to grab the viewer by the short hairs and make them want to see the movie in question. So no surprise with the content then.
Look up the previous ST film trailers on YouTube or something and come back later.
I have my concerns, but let’s give these people a chance by actually viewing what they have made before tearing them apart.
Whaddya say?
If ST 2009 is crap, I will be first in line to shout it out from the rooftops. Same as I did with Superman Returns (a very big disappointment for me)
If ST 2009 is great, I’ll do the same amount of shouting.
I think that is a reasonable course of action for any Star Trek fan to take, or in fact any movie goer in general.
Of course if you are just a troll, feel free to ignore everything I have taken the time and effort to type (and spell check!)
ML out!
#11—”I agree with Abrams on the TMP space dock scene. It is the only really good scene in the entire movie.”
I couldn’t disagree with that more. I think TMP is a wonderful film, and disticntly more “Star Trek” than any of its successors.
#148—”Abrams claims to have the spirit of Roddenberry’s work, but so far all it shows is a decided disregard of continuity….”
How can continuity be disregarded if all previous continuity is what advances the story to this point in the first place?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
148. Dak – March 10, 2009
“Abrams claims to have the spirit of Roddenberry’s work, but so far all it shows is a decided disregard of continuity and has dumbed it down to a mere flick with action, action, action and NONE of the heart and soul seems to come through. The previews show nothing but explosions.”
Then you haven’t seen all the trailers and frankly maybe you need to judge a whole product instead of a 2 minute trailer before you just make assumptions.
Just a thought. Maybe Spock came back from the future to stop Nero but finds out Nero goes back even farther. He gives the grew the formula for time warp from The Naked Time episode of TOS. Kirk comes out of the time warp just after the destruction of the USS Kelvin. And saves man kind again. But the crew of the Enterprise may begin in this altered universe of space time.
Ah, the TMP Enterprise. She’ll always be my favorite. People have already expressed what I would’ve said about the reveal, the music, the moment. No matter what the mood, I end up grinning ear to ear when I watch that scene or listen to that theme.. *sigh* :-)
[...] with an understanding of the concepts and themes that had made Trek a success all along, and in numerous interviews the filmmakers assured us they were doing exactly that. So I was hoping for a [...]
[...] I don’t remember much about the movie the first time (I have seen it since, so the nuances lost on a six year old, I now get), all I remember was that it was big. And, as bad as the reviews may have been, seeing Kirk and Scotty take that flyby of the Enterprise- well, that was worth it. Felt like it lasted longer than it did. Apparently, that same scene made an impact on Director J.J. Abrams too: [...]