ST09 Tidbits (T-35 days): Bob & Alex On Fans & Books + Quinto Talks Sequels + New Images + more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

ST09 Tidbits (T-35 days): Bob & Alex On Fans & Books + Quinto Talks Sequels + New Images + more April 2, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Great Links,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The Tidbits are now a daily feature at TrekMovie (assuming we can find enough stuff to talk about). Today we have a video interview with the writers, another interview with Quinto, a couple new movie images, Star Trek celebrity casting news and more. Also there is a new Star Trek commercial, but we don’t have video yet.

 

 

Orci & Kurtzman
In a new video at THR, Bob and Alex talk about the origins of Trek, pleasing fans, and more. Subjects discussed by Bob seem to come from some of his interactions with fans here at TrekMovie.com.

The writing pair also talked to the LA Times about some of their favorite Star Trek novels.

Quinto on Sequels and Sylar v Spock
The Canadian Magazine Tribute has an interview with the new Spock, Zachary Quinto, talking about Star Trek and Heroes. In the interview Zach contrasted his two most famous roles and also confirmed that he is contracted for the sequel:

Tribute: While playing Spock did you ever any similarities between him and Sylar?
Quinto: I think the only similarity that can really be drawn is the fact that both of these characters are really dealing with and working with deep-rooted internal conflicts and dualities within themselves but they come from very different points of view and they process those dualities very differently, so I think the similarities sort of ends there, but for different reasons they’re both working to keep control over aspects of themselves and sort of understand the power of the different energies within them. But you know, when I was doing the movie I feel like the embodiment of Sylar in that character was very far away from me.

Tribute: Will we get to see more of you as Spock in other Star Trek films? Are you signed to sequels if this one takes off?
Quinto:
Yeah, I’m contracted for more.
Tribute:
So you won’t mind putting those infamous ears back on?
Quinto: ( laughs) No, the ears are cool; shaving the eyebrows is another story, ha ha. Yeah, right now for me the experience is all about this first movie and going through the process of promoting it all over the world, sharing it with people and seeing what else is generated from this experience. Other movies will come into place when they’re meant to, when they’re able to. If that happens I’ll be excited about that as well.

More at Tribute.ca.

Two new images
MSN has put up a Star Trek gallery on their Parallel Universe site, including some exclusive new photos. The two below, plus a close-up from a previously seen scene of Kirk on Delta Vega.


Kirk and Spock share a moment


Nero looks concerned

Zoe is a Loser
The new Uhura, Zoe Saldana, is in talks to join the cast of "The Losers" a new action film adaptation of the comic about a Special Forces team betrayed by its handler and left for dead. The "losers" regroup in the interest of revenge, the opportunity to remove their names from a secret CIA death list and to conduct covert operations against the CIA and its interests. Saldana will play Aisha, a cold-blooded loose cannon. More info at THR.


Zoe at NY Metropolitan Opera House 12th Anniversary on March 125th
– doesn’t look like a loser to me

Pine HAD Green Lantern meeting – NOT offered role or read script
Remember a couple of weeks ago there were competing reports on if or if not Chris Pine had been offered the title role in the upcoming Green Lantern movie? Well it turns out there is a little smoke to this rumor fire. Today Pine told MTV that he had a meeting, but that was it, noting "I have been offered squat. I do not have the part and haven’t read a script." Pine didn’t eliminate the possibility of being offered a role in the future, but noted that he isn’t a fan of comic books.


Green Kirk? (Tom Holtkamp)

New commercial airing – we aint got it yet
Lastly, there is a new 30 second Star Trek commercial which started airing on cable last night (confirmed spotting on MTV and Spike so far). It includes a few new shots, but no huge reveals (more iowa bar fight, sulus sword, a couple other things). Look for an update and analysis soon.

ST09 Bullets

Comments

1. Quarksbartender - April 2, 2009

Cool video, looks like Nero in the background of that picture maybe there doing something akin to TWOK.

2. SirMartman - April 2, 2009

I waited all this time for ST :TFB only to find its going to start all over again for ST : ???

ha ha,, all I can say is,, “Sweeeet”

I wonder if Mr Shatner might be in the next trek,, ST : ???

*smiles*

3. BK613 - April 2, 2009

“No one has gotten it exactly right”
Yay!

4. Rastaman - April 2, 2009

I’m glad Quinto sees little parallel between Sylar and Spock. If he did, then I would be very worried. Also, that shot of Kirk and Spock is very cool! I like the blue and the red.

5. SaphronGirl - April 2, 2009

http://i43.tinypic.com/nq4pps.jpg

MEOW.

6. The Last Maquis - April 2, 2009

Zoe YAY!!

7. Can't Wait for May 8th 2009 - April 2, 2009

I much rather see Chris Pine has another comic book character then Green Lantern. I would love to see Chris Pine be Steve Rogers aka Captain America.

8. jas_montreal - April 2, 2009

I WISH I HAD A IPOD TOUCH/IPHONE !!!!!!!!!

9. ThePhaige - April 2, 2009

Haha good clip, I would so love to be Bob Orci reading all that rabid speculation, that has got to be not only daunting but damn fun…

The pot shots must be tough to read but there is also a heck of a lot of general excitement to go around. It seems to have gotten much more positive as more of the film has been seen.

10. fred - April 2, 2009

I hope with all the angst and anger between K and S that we see them begin to click and the friendship actually take root, rather than a completely adversarial relationship that we have seen so far. I want to see them respect each other by the end.

11. The Governator - April 2, 2009

Very good interview.

12. Captain Charbles - April 2, 2009

Found the new trek tv spot. It’s in horrible quality, but it’s something…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riyEZ5saNpc

13. Sloan47 - April 2, 2009

I’ve noticed a theme of sorts. Bob says they needed to find a way to have the older Spock interact with their younger selves and in the preview Nero says, “James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life”. I’m very interested to see how this all plays out on May 8th! (I’m attempting to keep my speculation to a minimum. I want to be surprised. )

14. LegalizeRomulanAle - April 2, 2009

The new film is not called ST:TFB. Just ST.

15. The Governator - April 2, 2009

12. Captaint Charbles

That’s already been found in another thread. It was posted by SChaos1701, a fellow trekmovie commenter.

16. Jason - April 2, 2009

Nice to hear more from Bob and Alex, they seem to be the right writers for the right project at the right time. But nice to know that a lot of the puzzle pieces we’re trying to figure out haven’t been solved. Can’t wait for May 8!

17. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 2, 2009

It was ST-TMP’s poster in which McCoy was omitted that really bothered me.

18. BK613 - April 2, 2009

14
Just a way to differentiate it from other offerings; fandom did the same thing to ST:TOS, which of course was just called Star Trek.

19. 750 Mang - April 2, 2009

I was hoping they would say Bizarro Trek. Maybe next time.

I read Countdown #4 today. Pretty cool.

RTF!

20. KMKProd - April 2, 2009

It is interesting to note how Nero’s ears are intact in the footage where he is interacting with Kirk, et al, and yet in a prison shot (Rura Penthe’ ?) his ears look to have been mutilated or something? Maybe there is a lot of time shifting and things are really awry in this more than we have been led to know so far.

21. SirMartman - April 2, 2009

Re #14

guess you havent seen the posters,or traliers yet for ST : TFB

http://trekmovie.com/images/st09/st09_theaterdisplay.jpg

22. The Governator - April 2, 2009

21. SirMartman

Its a tagline, not a subtitle.

23. rm10019 - April 2, 2009

22 – He’s a troll, not a real poster

24. darrksan - April 2, 2009

sorry if some may not like it, but this film just is looking more and more horrible. I am still waiting to see something to make want to see this film. There are all types of trailers and spots for Non-trek fans, but how about a Star Trek Trailer which feels like Star Trek for trek fans.
Shown the same dumb looking scenes over and over is just not selling this film for me.
It is time to stop showing the dumb action of the movie and start to show the film’s intelligence because right now, it is looking like the film has none.

25. Chadwick - April 2, 2009

Good little video, always like to hear the writers, producers, directors talk about their work and inspiration. I have faith and confidence in what Alex and Bob have written. I can see early on fans complaining, but I don’t hear many fans complaining now.

26. The Governator - April 2, 2009

24. darrksan

Have we been looking at the same footage?

And what? Trailer three didn’t show you enough intelligence? You are a perplexing individual. Have I seen you here before?

27. Jai1138 - April 2, 2009

I’ve got nothing but respect for Kurtzman and Orci taking up the challenge of writing TREK knowing the kind of fan response (much of it idiotic) that they’d have to deal with.

That said, I question this notion of there being a Top Ten list of story points or images and ideas that fans universally want to see in the movie (personally, I think tribbles are great and that episode and the DS9 sequel are among my favorites but it’s not something that’s make or break for me in terms of the movie) — as suggested by comments on this site, fans are more interested in seeing the likes of pre-established characters from the leads’ past — Mitchell, Finnegan, Carol Marcus, etc.

I’m more interested in the notion of why they needed to make it a story set in an “alternate” reality — whether this choice was as much driven by narrative, character and thematic concerns as much as by the studio’s desire to reinvent a good thing. This isn’t a criticism, exactly (though I think a strict “canon” — a term I despise for its dogmatic implications — prequel about the early years of Kirk and Spock would have been equally great).

I write this looking forward to the movie almost as much or than any other movie in recent memory except, maybe, Revenge of the Sith and, as an Anderson fan, There Will Be Blood. I figure the writers will get around to addressing these particular over arching decisions directly once the film comes out.

28. Shunnabunich - April 2, 2009

In the Kirk/Spock picture, I think Quinto looks more Nimoy-ish than usual. Very nice.

29. Devon - April 2, 2009

“sorry if some may not like it, but this film just is looking more and more horrible.”

Actually it is looking just fine ;) There is nothing that makes it look “horrible.”

“There are all types of trailers and spots for Non-trek fans, but how about a Star Trek Trailer which feels like Star Trek for trek fans.”

Considering the fact that most Trek fans loved the recent trailer, we already got it :)

“Shown the same dumb looking scenes over and over is just not selling this film for me.”

Which they aren’t.

“It is time to stop showing the dumb action of the movie and start to show the film’s intelligence because right now, it is looking like the film has none.”

That’s just something you came up with.

30. darrksan - April 2, 2009

26. The Governator – April 2, 2009
Have we been looking at the same footage?
And what? Trailer three didn’t show you enough intelligence? You are a perplexing individual. Have I seen you here before?
————
All I have seen from the three Trailers is action scenes, kirk and spock’s birth, running around, one liners and so on….
Where is the intelligence in the three past trailers?

This new film is a Star Trek film… this is not, so where is the Trailer showing some intelligence .

P.S-
Yes, you have seen me here before…. it was last week and the week before that. I started writing on here about a month or so ago.

31. darrksan - April 2, 2009

Devon and The Governator
Come on you two and tell me what was intelligence in the Trailers or clips.

32. Captain Charbles - April 2, 2009

Watching that interview gives me even more faith in this film. Honestly, I truly believe that Star Trek is going to blow people away. Oh man I’m so pumped!! haha

33. The Governator - April 2, 2009

30. darrksan

Well, trailers serve a certain purpose. If they haven’t satisfied you, them I hope the film will, if you choose to go see it. For me, the more emotion, story, and “intelligence” they save for the film, the better effect the film will have on me. You must realize that this is a big summer tentpole film. With any film of that kind, the marketing emphasis is usually the visual effects and scale, otherwise known as the “coolness” factor, something many fans don’t understand or don’t want to.

34. AJ - April 2, 2009

Did anyone catch “24” on Monday when the President and her daughter discuss replacements for her Chief of Staff? The President prefers “Bob Justman,” but her daughter wants to suggest “Rick Berman.”

Thanks, Manny and Brannon!

35. SaphronGirl - April 2, 2009

Evidence that a film can be edited to look like ANYTHING in a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCuPmcNRUko

36. Devon - April 2, 2009

#31 – Tell me what intelligence was in any Trek trailers? Hardly was any. Might be worth if you look back at those and try to evaluate you those on the same standards you have made up for the new movie.

37. Slade Brunner - April 2, 2009

35. SaphronGirl

that was awesome!

have you seen this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gJapxbfEiE&feature=related

38. S. John Ross - April 2, 2009

I think this [in the video clip] is the first time that they’ve mentioned that they consulted with _both_ Shatner and Nimoy _before_ beginning the project, and they they moved forward because they had the “blessing” of both actors???

That’s an odd bit of news relative to other things we’ve heard. Not sure what to make of it.

39. cagmar - April 2, 2009

Hey, #24, 31 -Darrksan

You’re right!

There has not been a glimmer of intellect in any of the trailers at all. I’m talking about a complete lack of philosophy, intrigue, wisdom, curiosity — “your daddy was captain of a starship for 12 minutes. Do better” just pales, absolutely dies in comparison to: “Enterprise travels to the outer limits of space to challenge a vast, living machine ” or “beyond the darkness, beyond the human evolution is Khan… banished to a distant planet… left for dead, he has survived” (along with the barrage of literary quotes) or “All that they’ve loved, all that they fought for, all that they stood for will now be put to the test” or “on a desolate planet a renegade Vulcan seeks ultimate knowledge… on the planet.. Eden.. at the center of the galaxy” or “they’re animals! … Jim, they’re dying”

My God! The list goes on. The discussions that can be had from these little snippets of trailers just clobber any sense of intellect the new ST thinks it has. Star Trek was about taking an idea and exploring it. This one seems to be a completely different animal altogether. Sorry. Darrksan is right.

40. S. John Ross - April 2, 2009

One thing that these Orci/Kurtzman interview DEFINITELY convince me of (and I know that’s part of the point, and I’m grateful for it) is that while I may or may not like what they write (jury’s still out!), I can rest assured that everything they’re doing is a creative choice, a real decision on their part, done with sincere attention to Trek lore and a desire (and, here’s hoping, the skill) to live up to it.

If they effed it up, they effed it up meaning well, and without sidestepping the many questions involved. If, by chance, I don’t like the movie (and I’m holding out hopes that I’ll truly love it), I will do my best, in turn, to rip it a new one with consideration and kindness, in acknowledgement of their sincere efforts. That or I’ll just lay it all on the director and leave them blameless. That’s certainly my approach with The Island, MI3, and Transformers :)

My little secret hope is that Kirk and crew don’t defeat the cheesy Romulan villain dude, but rather end up working alongside him somehow, to avert disaster and get everyone home safe (or at least, everyone that lives) … AFAIC, one of the core axioms of Star Trek is that the “villain” is always more than a mere “bad guy”* … and that much of the time, the trick to winning the day is understanding and communicating with, rather than “beating,” the opposition.

I think one of the terrible legacies of Wrath of Khan (a movie I love dearly … lots of great movies are responsible, through no fault of their own, for bad imitative trends) is that it really introduced the idea of a “big villain” being the centerpiece of a Trek film. I think that’s bad juju, and I’d love to see this film undermine that and bring us back to a more central ideal.

=====
* Armus doesn’t count. I hope. Becuase … yeesh.

41. VOODOO - April 2, 2009

#38 S. John Ross

That meeting was widely reported at the time. If I remember Shatner went on “The Tonight Show” and spoke openly about it.

42. S. John Ross - April 2, 2009

#41: Oh, okay; fair enough. I must be tangling it up with other, later things (Shatner at one point saying on the radio that Leonard was in the movie but that he knew “nothing about it,” which seems at odds with the assertion in this video that the writers described what they intended and sought a blessing) … but I’m also remembering things in the order that I encountered them, which may have little to do with the order they actually happened in.

43. Catie - April 2, 2009

Great interview. I can’t wait to see the explanation for the time travel.
:-)

44. Enc - April 2, 2009

in the early days of this film and the days b4 we fans wondered what kind of film it should be iue how would we do it. what do we want. and learning this may be what they did. but during those fan talks what came up was what the majority thinks ver the minority. hoping that some dumb idea thought by the minority dosent make it into the film cause some writer (or whoever) thought that is what fans want. seperating those two is the trick.
Now they say they listened (and im glad they did) but did they deal with this issue.
now i dont know who these guys are or where they come from and right now i dont care. But god it must be fun to be in their position right now. to listen to the fan speculation and be the only ones who know the truth.

45. The Governator - April 2, 2009

I’m getting the sense that some people are attacking this movie out of some form of bias.

darrksan / cagmar + others:

Anyone who says this lacks intellect and intrigue and philosophy and all such and such haven’t seen the film to go by. I’m not saying it will have these elements, but you can’t rule it out already. And have any of you naysayers ever seen a Star Trek movie? The only one that truly fits your desired description was the Motion Picture, which ended up failing in many, many ways. It wasn’t a bad film, per say, but the studio realized that the formula they had used in the original series did not work in movie format. So began Star Trek films of film-like proportion, beginning with The Wrath of Kahn, which as I recall, is still considered the best of them all. This one is no different, and I would argue, more so within the spirit of the original than any other incarnation has proven to be. As I said, I don’t know for sure, but this is what I’ve gotten from what I have heard and seen.

46. mr. mugato - April 2, 2009

I never realized these guys really cared about the things people post. I feel like a heel.

Guys, best of luck. I hope it’s a huge success.

47. Harry Ballz - April 2, 2009

“Soon all will be revealed…….”

(ooh, I should do voice-overs for movie trailers!)

“Two men go back in time…..only one prevails”

48. VOODOO - April 2, 2009

#45 The Governator

I think that by and Large most people have been very positive… How can anyone judge a film on the couple of minutes we have seen thus far?

Just imagine what the reaction is going to be like the day the film hits.

49. The Governator - April 2, 2009

48. VOODOO

Oh, I agree. I was referring only to the naysayers. And yes, this site is going to be flooded on opening day with people debating this, that, and the other thing. I can’t wait. :)

50. Buzz Cagney - April 2, 2009

Nice to see the human faces behind the quotes and occassional posts. It wasn’t easy for me to watch because I’ve been less than generous about them on here at times. Guys, I will be seeing your movie and you can be sure that if you haven’t monumentaly screwed with these characters I will happily come on here and admit I was wrong to ever doubt you.
I have the humble pie in the fridge ready!!

51. Rastaman - April 2, 2009

#40
My little secret hope is that Kirk and crew don’t defeat the cheesy Romulan villain dude, but rather end up working alongside him somehow … one of the core axioms of Star Trek is that the “villain” is always more than a mere “bad guy”*”

I totally agree with what you’re saying! I too would love to see the movie move in this direction. Having read Countdown …

[SPOILERS]

The fact that Nero travels to the past immediately raises the question of why he is still so intent on destroying Earth and Vulcan if he could alternatively work with Spock to contain the star in the past to save the future of Romulus. I’m excited to see how this all plays out.

52. DJT - April 3, 2009

Bob and Alex. Thank you gentlemen for sharing. You guys are *awesome*.

53. captain_neill - April 3, 2009

the new images look awesome

I have admit Quinto does look the part

54. Mr Phil - April 3, 2009

Bob, Alex, et al.
It seems easy for anyone to criticise something that people are passionate about.
Simply put, Trek was as good as dead, after a long run and having somewhat lost its direction. There was no real way forward which captured the things that everyone loved about it. Or at least, until this movie.
From everything I have seen, you have taken the best possible route to return Trek to the mainstream and have brought life from lifelessness.
For me, this is the best thing to have happened to Trek since ST6, and I congratulate the team based on what has been presented to date.
Looking forward to next month…
PS, don’t like the nacelles. ;-)

55. cagmar - April 3, 2009

#45, woah, calm down, man. You’re saying the only ST movie with intellect, philosophy, curiosity and intrigue was The Motion Picture? Is not the whole point of TWOK the connections to Moby Dick, a literary masterpiece? Is not the secondary point, the theme of Genesis, of creation, of judgment, of environmental challenges that need solutions? Is not the point of, say, TFF to find God? my goodness, you’re missing my point and you may not have gotten a lot of the joy that you could have from some of these movies. Go back, my friend, watch them again.

When there’s philosophy in a movie and intellectual complexity, you can watch it forever.

I’m not saying this one won’t have it. I think darrksan and I are just commenting on the dull trailers. Even a hint of intellect might help. I think people are confusing good music for intellect right now… sigh..

56. Geoffers - April 3, 2009

24.. If the film looks so horrible, stop comming here to check up on it!

57. Rod of Rassilon - April 3, 2009

“Zoe at NY Metropolitan Opera House 12th Anniversary on March 125th”

MAAAN that was a long month.

or is that some kind of April the .25th joke? :D :D

58. Quarksbartender - April 3, 2009

I wish I had Spocks Jellyfish starship so I could go back in time and read between the lines of all the debate going on after the movie comes out. then maybe I like Spock would save the galaxy.

59. NexaleX - April 3, 2009

darrksan & cagmar : totally agree about the trailers, they just seem to be showing off all action and an “epic” music score.

60. NexaleX - April 3, 2009

The only intellect we see (so far) in the trailers is Kirk and Spock questioning their fate/futures but we already know the answer to those questions… unless Orci and Kurtzman have a new outcome for our original favorite ST characters.

I personally hope that by the end of this movie I will be questioning something important or philosophical.

T -35 days!

61. darrksan - April 3, 2009

33. The Governator – April 2, 2009
Well, trailers serve a certain purpose. If they haven’t satisfied you, them I hope the film will, if you choose to go see it. For me, the more emotion, story, and “intelligence” they save for the film, the better effect the film will have on me. You must realize that this is a big summer tentpole film. With any film of that kind, the marketing emphasis is usually the visual effects and scale, otherwise known as the “coolness” factor, something many fans don’t understand or don’t want to.
——–

I understand the marketing, but it does not mean all the marketing has to be like it has been. This movie already has allot of “coolness/action factor” ads out, but not one with the “intelligence factor”. It is the intellect of Star Trek which is a big draw for allot of Trek-fans and also people who like Star Trek but are not into it as big as the fans.

62. Jonathan Macpherson - April 3, 2009

paramount marketing knows that every trek fan in the world is going to watch this film.

what they also know is that unless they make a really concerted effort that hardly anybody but trek fans will watch this film. that doesn’t make for big box office returns

as a trek film it by default has intelligence but that doesn’t usually sell well over trailers. trailers should be about action, excitement, humour etc.
this is what will get many millions of non-trek folk to watch the film and see its intelligence. look at the trek trailers of the past and how much they are concerned with action i.e. fist contact, nemesis, twok

i would concede that it would be nice if they did a trailer about the so called “intelligence” (i.e. hopefully clever story) in the film but that would be revealing too much.

just because they haven’t done doesn’t mean that there isn’t

jj abrams is a very clever guy and the movie has prob 2 of the geekiest and cleveriest writers in hollywood working on it – its a given that there will be a good plot behind the film

everyone who has been apart of this film and has seen it already has given it nothing but thumbs up (trek and non-trekkers alike)

don’t worry – May 8th will be a GOOD day of reckoning!

63. captain_neill - April 3, 2009

I believe that in the end I will really enjoy this film.

I know I have sounded like a hater but the truth of the matter is that I want to love this film and believe it will surprise me. Previoulsly I felt most of JJ Abrams stuff is Meh! but if he understands Star Trek I can respect him despite not being a fan of his shows.

The hardest thing thing I have get use to are the changes in set designs and ship desgns but if the movie works and respects what Roddenberry did with Trek then I will be happy and will get past these changes. Despite not being happy with the changes I will not let it ruin the film for me. It seems that Trek is finally getting back in the limelight and that makes me happy.

I hope that the newbies will go back and watch the Treks we grew up with and see how large a universe it really is.

Now the way I can treat this is what they have done with Terminator, the TV series Sarah Connor Chronicles has a different timeline to the post T2 movies but each still exist as their own separate canons. I am treating Star Trek XI as its own separate canon from the rest of Trek, its the only way you can get around the changes and I think the Terminator analogy works in this instence to make it plausible. I certainly don’t want to think of the last 40 years as void. But I can be happy if each exist in their own separate universes in a way.

Thinking this way I think I am getting more fired up about the movie. but the original series will always have a special place in my heart along with the spin offs. TNG became a great show in its own right.

But it will be hard to beat the movies TWOK, FC and TUC but I know this will be better than Nemesis.

64. darrksan - April 3, 2009

The Governator – April 2, 2009

I’m getting the sense that some people are attacking this movie out of some form of bias.

darrksan / cagmar + others:

Anyone who says this lacks intellect and intrigue and philosophy and all such and such haven’t seen the film to go by. I’m not saying it will have these elements, but you can’t rule it out already. And have any of you naysayers ever seen a Star Trek movie?
——————————————————–

I have seen and own all of Star Trek movies (on VHS and DVD), TV shows (on VHS and DVD) and some Trek-special. so, yes this naysayer has seen a Star Trek movie (and more). It is clear by what cagmar has wrote that cagmar has seen a Star Trek movie (and more) Too.

I am open to the movie, but I’m not going to go blindly to see a film just because it has “Star Trek” in the title.

Dear The Governator, others who are jumping off the wall for this new film and are attacking people who may not like things about it,

“After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”
From Spock

65. Jote - April 3, 2009

#21: Guess you don’t understand the difference between “movie title” and “movie tagline”

zing

66. captain_neill - April 3, 2009

I am a huge Trek fan. I want to see the film and do believe I will enjoy it when it hits. I do have my concerns about set design and the look of the Enterprise. Because I am not fond of the new look Enterprise and the white sterile look to the bridge does not make a hater, I still hope to like the movie, i was just annoyed that the look is not as warm looking as TOS or TNG.

I am sure many have their concerns about the changes but are still looking forward to seeing the film.

If it respects what we love about Trek then happy days. If JJ Abrams doesn’t deliver at least we have all the episodes and previous 10 movies to re live. I will never stop loving Star Trek. I will love it until the end.

67. AJ - April 3, 2009

55: cagmar:

“#45, woah, calm down, man. You’re saying the only ST movie with intellect, philosophy, curiosity and intrigue was The Motion Picture? Is not the whole point of TWOK the connections to Moby Dick, a literary masterpiece? Is not the secondary point, the theme of Genesis, of creation, of judgment, of environmental challenges that need solutions? Is not the point of, say, TFF to find God?”

My opinion:

TWOK is not “intellectual” because someone thought that “Moby Dick” was quotable, and it was not the point of the film. To Khan, Genesis was an H-bomb. He did not care about the details. Spock says “it would destroy…life, in favor of its new matrix.” Period.

TWOK is a study on aging, and how we must not regret our pasts as we move forward in life. We lose our youth, and maybe our friends, but we gain wisdom and insight through living: “The Best of times..the worst of times” is the more apt quotable for the film’s theme. It is not “intellectual,” as it explores common life experiences that we all face. It attempts nothing more than to show us how Kirk and Spock (and Khan) deal with it.

STV reflects a time when television evangelists were all over the US airwaves, and is a bad attempt to make it into a Star Trek film. “Finding God” brings us back to TMP for a much better take on it. Or is it?

It seems STXI will explore similarly human themes: Growing up, choosing one’s path in life, etc. The Human Adventure is what it’s all about.

68. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - April 3, 2009

67-

Well said. The Human Adventure is what defines the best of trek, and is absent in the worst of trek.

69. Geoffers - April 3, 2009

I really give up on this board… why oh why do the folks who hate everything new about Trek (the film, the games etc).. keep coming back to check up on it all? Is it to serve some kind of self satisfaction that they are right? “oooh I knew it was sh*t, aren’t I clever.. all these cretins who think it will be good”… It is sooooo tiring now.. and I bet it will only get louder after the film is out… This film will never win in the eyes of folks who have already decided it sucks.. why keep raming it down the throats of the rest of us.. I want enjoy this… and I will allow myself to, TRY and do the same (now there is a novel idea!).

70. Geoffers - April 3, 2009

Jeeeeez… and suddenly Trek films are a “study of…..” what ever happened to enjoying a good yarn!

71. captain_neill - April 3, 2009

I am also wondering if its a little jarring making the bridge pristine like usual yet making sickbay more modern and engineering more industrial, although interesting to make it different I feel that this is not very consistent.

As I saif if it is a great movie, which I hope it will, I can live with the new set design. I wont come to like it in the way I love all the other sets in the shows but can learn to accept it if he gets Trek right.

72. Paulaner - April 3, 2009

#67 “STV reflects a time when television evangelists were all over the US airwaves, and is a bad attempt to make it into a Star Trek film. “Finding God” brings us back to TMP for a much better take on it. Or is it?”

You know, in my opinion STV was very, very Trek down in its soul. It suffered from bad directing, bad writing and low budget, but the core is warm. It could have been great.

73. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - April 3, 2009

72.

You know, I’ve felt that way for a long time. I don’t know how much of it you could keep, but I think that the film’s central thrust (the search for a central meaning through a God/gods/journey) is an important one. The premise has potential. Unfortunately, it’s a difficult subject to treat in a 500-page manifesto, let alone a 100-minute film with a slashed budget.

74. NexaleX - April 3, 2009

69 – If there were no critics in the world i doubt there would many good things either. We may be criticizing but that doesn’t mean we already hate it.

75. fizzben - April 3, 2009

# 69 No matter what you say they’ll keep coming back. Those folks have an enormous ego. They are right without any doubt and the rest of the world is wrong. I have no idea what kind of joy they get out of it but obviously they do. I’ve been excited about this movie since they announced it 3 years ago but just as soon as they did, here come the whiners and they make some kind of sport out of it, if they can make someone that’s looking forward to the movie angry then they’ve accomplished their goal and that IS they’re only goal. I don’t bother going to boards of movies or tv shows I dislike or ones I think will be dissapointing because I know I won’t be able to say anything constructive about it. I can critique previous Star Trek movies or shows sometimes because I’ve seen them in their entirety and can make a complete assessment. These guys take a clip or some tidbit of storyline and condemn it, I guess because they don’t have any control over it and it kills them. Best thing to do is don’t let it bother you. I just read their posts and laugh and they are free to laugh at mine. Opening weekend and total ticket sales will prove someone right or wrong. Either way I’m going to be in a movie theater with a box of popcorn and I’m going have a good time.

76. Jim Smith - April 3, 2009

55 –

The point of TWOK is the friendship between Kirk and Spock as exemplified by the two quotes from ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ used to bookend the film. That Kirk does not understand why Spock has given him this book, he believes that it is in some sense about *them*, until after Spock is dead. Hence the whole KIRK ”’It was the best of times it was the worst of times?” Message, Spock?”. SPOCK ”None that I am aware of” and the later exchange with Bones and Carol KIRK ”It is a far, far better thing I do now than I have ever done, it is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known..” CAROL ‘Is that a poem?’ KIRK ”It’s the message Spock was trying to give me. On my birthday.”

Of course this is juxtaposed with the ‘Moby Dick’ stuff. Kirk’s two main relationships in the movie are defined in relation to existing texts. It’s a way of giving something weight that it might not otherwise have. But that’s thematic meat, rather than ‘intelligence’ as it is more usually defined.

Meyer, being clever, flips it over when writing TVH, by having Kirk literally save the whales, demonstrating the fundamental difference between his generosity of spirit and Khan’s self-righteous mania. Khan defines Kirk as the whale and thus a monster and tries to kill him, quoting from Melville. Kirk quotes D H Lawrence’s ‘Whales Weep None’ and redefines the whales themselves not as monsters but as something ennobling, to be protected and cherished.

77. SirBroiler - April 3, 2009

Just received my copy of the graphic novel for Star Trek: Countdown. Great story that sets up the events of the movie – and the artwork is amazing.

If you don’t have it – get it. I think it will answer a lot of these questions folks have about the story.

Can’t wait until May!!!

78. spockatatic - April 3, 2009

76. Hey, that’s a cool parallel. I’ve never thought of it in quite that way.
TWOK has always been one of my favourites, due to the friendship between the two and the way Spock is portrayed, having truely found not what he is, but he, himself. There are some moral parts in the movie, and definetly some moments, but it is, in essence, Star Trek-style Moby Dyck. Fist Contact has the same sort of theme.

79. Locke for President - April 3, 2009

Hey Mr. Orci, I know you’re reading this; I’ve got another question for you (thanks for responding back before):

If the new movie does very well, how are you going to keep yourself from getting a really big head and becoming Star Trek Writer Diva?

Likewise, if the movie does poorly, are you going to ask Damon Lindelof the location of The Island — to escape the rabid fans who will hunt you down and try to make your life miserable for the rest of your life?

In other words, how much of your personal identity is invested in how well this movie does?

80. 1701 over Gotham City - April 3, 2009

My greatest reservations/fear in this film is still Pine… various comments, such as looking more to Harrison Ford than Shatner for inspiration, making the role a loose cannon…

and now he doesn’t like comic books! My respect just dropped!

I’d love to see The Losers stick closer to it’s roots of a WWII operative team.

81. sean - April 3, 2009

#27

“That said, I question this notion of there being a Top Ten list of story points or images and ideas that fans universally want to see in the movie (personally, I think tribbles are great and that episode and the DS9 sequel are among my favorites but it’s not something that’s make or break for me in terms of the movie) — as suggested by comments on this site, fans are more interested in seeing the likes of pre-established characters from the leads’ past — Mitchell, Finnegan, Carol Marcus, etc.”

If you surveyed casual fans I can give you an almost 99% guarantee that Finnegan, of all people, would never come up in conversation. It continues to amaze me that an Irish caricature from a less-than-stellar Season 1 episode could make it to someone’s dream list. I say this as a fan from childhood who has entire episodes and lines of dialog memorized. “Oh, but if I die tomorrow my only regret is I didn’t see Finnegan on the big screen!”. A small but vocal minority of Trek fans have cried foul over Finnegan or Gary, but if you really look through the comments on this site, you’ll find most fans are not concerned with their omission. Keep in mind, WNMHGB is probably my favorite episode of TOS, ever.

On the other hand, even the most casual fan tends to know what a Tribble is or that Kirk cheated. I think Orci’s pretty spot on when he says there’s a consensus on certain ‘I Wish’ moments.

82. Adam Shepherdson - April 3, 2009

Everyone who dosn’t like the trailers.. leave the forum and stop posting. You Arent’t fans. When Mccoy says “We have no captain and no first officer to replace them”, and Kirk says “Yea we do” then takes the chair… I got shivers.. it was great.
and again.. lets face it.. Trek NEEDS MONEY to survive. Can you handle some preview trailers to get the masses to the movie so that we get another 2 or 3? serious F U C K you, anybody who badmouths this move.. just leave.. you high and mighty my S H I T dosn’t stink, can’t find the silver lining, reason trek has a bad rep, losers.

Peace out.

83. sean - April 3, 2009

#80

So if you found out William Shatner didn’t like comic books, it would ruin Star Trek for you? I doubt most of the actors on TOS gave a toss about comic books. Nick Meyer was not a Star Trek fan, yet offered up what’s still considered to be the best Star Trek movie. These are not details we should get hung up on.

84. Daoud - April 3, 2009

Bob and Alex: Thank you, again!

Agreed with others about the trailers, they’re made to draw in non-Trekkers. (Did Bob really say Trekker not Trekkie? Significant!) And they’re working. I teach college students who actually have been heard to be talking about the movie… my 18 year old daughters want to see it because they like both Chris Pine, and Zach Quinto. And they think Pegg and Cho are awesome…. and they grew up on Lord of the Rings, and they know exactly who Urban is.

They always laughed at me for liking Trek, and here they are, non-Trekkers, and 18 year old girls… wanting to see it the night it comes out.

This movie is going to be huge.

As to the people who show up here all GINO-like (notice they can’t get organized even an iota as good, because I’ve seen STINO used maybe twice now) and trollish… really aren’t getting any traction.

If we were getting The Phantom Menace, the only people interested in the movie would be Trekkers. That ain’t the case.

Moral: buy your tickets in advance, because after Wolverine bombs, theaters are going to be selling out on Star Trek.

I’ll be crazy and predict the tremendous success of it will be enough to almost seem to pull the US out of the depressiony feelings associated with recession… Just like the Summer of Star Wars did.

As to the “Top Ten” lists Bob mentions… I think they know that once they’ve set this up with Star Trek Zero, and laid the groundwork, that in the two sequels they’ll now be making… they can work in much backstory and find smart ways to bring in Carol Marcus, Mitchell, and the whole kitchen sink…

85. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#80—“and now he doesn’t like comic books! My respect just dropped!”

I’m not a comic book guy either. The first one I ever bought was “Countdown”, and only because it was a tie-in to the movie.

I find it curious that your level of ‘respect’ for someone would depend upon their fondness for comics.

And I would bet a month’s salary that Shatner isn’t a comic book fan either.

86. Dom - April 3, 2009

73. WhatInBlueBlazes?! ‘You know, I’ve felt that way for a long time. I don’t know how much of it you could keep, but I think that the film’s central thrust (the search for a central meaning through a God/gods/journey) is an important one. The premise has potential. Unfortunately, it’s a difficult subject to treat in a 500-page manifesto, let alone a 100-minute film with a slashed budget.’

Actually, given the mess of compromises that brought down the film, I think Shatner’s direction was often very good. The trouble is, he’d planned on an epic film and carried on shooting it that way, even thought he no longer had a budget to live up to his ambitions. That actually made it look cheaper still! I’d love it if he got the chance to present a tidied up version with better FX.

87. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#86—I don’t think the fact that “The Great Trek Turd Of ’89” looked cheap was anywhere near the worst part of that film.

I thought that everything about it was terrible. I can’t think of anything at all that was good about it.

88. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

If it were given a big budget, it just would have been a more expensive turd.

If I were Trek Pope for a day, the first thing I would do is excommunicate the whole thing from canon.

Sybok, the Uhura fan dance, the navigator and helmsman lost in the woods, the rocket boots, Kirk riding in on a horse, Klingons who bow their heads and apologize, Scotty and Uhura flirting, the Romulan ambassador (and horrible acting on her part), the concept of a past union between Sarek and a “Vulcan Princess”, Kirk dodging a photon torpedo, fart jokes, the Enterprise being hijacked by Sybok and his band of merry men (and the fact that Kirk and co. never wrestle her back under control), and worst of all—the “Big Three” singing “Row Your Boat”. But I could go on and on…

Horrible. Just horrible.

STV is the lone pimple on the butt of an otherwise very decent film series (the originals).

Take my pain. I don’t want it anymore.

89. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 3, 2009

#86 … “I’d love it if he got the chance to present a tidied up version with better FX.”

Me too. Bill was a few years too early for the CGI revolution, otherwise those “rock men” he planned for would’ve been easy to produce! He actually did ask Paramount for $ to make the upgrades a few years back.

I felt bad for Shat when I read the Star Trek V section of his autobiography. He says a producer (likely Harve Bennett) berated and embarrassed him in front of the whole crew.

90. SaphronGirl - April 3, 2009

87.

// I thought that everything about it was terrible. I can’t think of anything at all that was good about it. //

“Captain please, not in front of the Klingons.”

… and that’s all I could come up with.

91. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#89—“He says a producer (likely Harve Bennett) berated and embarrassed him in front of the whole crew.”

Over what? Did he say?

92. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#90—“… and that’s all I could come up with.”

Ok. That line was funny. I’ll admit that, but by that point in the movie, I don’t think anything could have put a smile on my face. I just wanted the whole thing to be over.

I was embarassed for all of them.

93. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 3, 2009

#91 … It was after they’d already realized the budget had been slashed and were trying to “fix” the ending. At one point Shat suggested that “God” might appear in the form of a giant vortex. The producer in question sarcastically stated that it was great that Bill had seen The Wizard of Oz!

I love Bennett’s contributions to the franchise, in particular I think he was a master at linking the film series to TOS, but he must’ve been hard to work with. Walter Koenig has realyed a story several times of how Bennett threatened to write him out of the series, even going so far as to insult his acting skills and imply that he wouldn’t be able to find work again. Takei reportedly received a similar threat.

94. Tiberius - April 3, 2009

Pine’s sideburns mmm… interesting.

95. SaphronGirl - April 3, 2009

92. I hear you. What I found funny about that line was the implication that Spock was embarrased Kiingons (one of the most physically demonstrative species in ST) might see TWO MEN HUGGING. It wasn’t his Vulcan sense of propriety so much as the thought that the Klingons might get the wrong idea.

96. sean - April 3, 2009

#93

Bennett always struck me as kind of gruff. I hate TFF with a passion and think most of the mistakes lie solely on the shoulders of its director and his doomed-from-the-start storyline, but publicly humiliating the director in front of the cast & crew is pretty damned low. Definitely uncalled for.

97. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#93—Interesting. I have never heard that said about him.

But he probably wasn’t that far off with regard to the “acting chops” of Koenig and Takei, or their characters’ significance.

I’ve often thought that the movie series might have been better off without having to suggest that these characters (Sulu, Chekov, Uhura) are somehow still serving with Kirk after all this time.

I wish that more effort would have been made to surround the “big three” with new and younger faces. I think it could have made the voyages of the Enterprise-A a viable set of films in itself (at least a trilogy).

98. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#95—Yeah, Spock (being half-human, of course) was always occasionally able to deliver a good joke (usually an insult toward McCoy). Part of his character’s charm was always that, despite his efforts to maintain the facade of Vulcan stoicism, he was quite capable of human behavior at times.

I’ve always seen the “V’Ger incident” as the catalyst in his ultimate acceptance of who he really was and where he truly belonged. It is clear to me that, after that experience, he was quite a bit more comfortable in his own skin.

99. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#96—“I hate TFF with a passion and think most of the mistakes lie solely on the shoulders of its director and his doomed-from-the-start storyline, but publicly humiliating the director in front of the cast & crew is pretty damned low. Definitely uncalled for.”

Agreed on all counts. Shatner certainly isn’t Martin Scorcese or Francis Coppola, but a producer cutting the proverbial balls off of his director is a leadership “no-no”.

100. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 3, 2009

#93 … Shat describes it as one of those moments where you wish you’d spoken up for yourself, but instead remain quiet and allow someone to embarrass you. It obviously bothered him if he still remembers it to this day.

Some things I liked about Star Trek V:

-The gorgeous cinematography at Yosemite. I enjoyed the whole mountain climbing scene. The falling stunt even looked believable until they moved to close up.

-The campfire conversation: “I’ve always known, I’ll die alone.” “It’s a mystery to me what draws us together. All that time in space and we’re getting on each other’s nerves, and what do we do when shore leave comes along? We spend it together. Other people have families.” Some GREAT dialogue there.

-The beautiful observation deck with the 19th century naval wheel, inscribed: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before.

-Perhaps my favorite Jerry Goldsmith score!

-The fight scenes. Kirk still kicked ass.

-The landing party outfits. Very cool.

-The Galileo II and the Copernicus! I loved the updated look of the shuttles, such a nice nod to TOS.

-Scotty’s jailbreak.

-The look of the bridge.

-This is the closest the film series got to exploring a brave new world. The music, the day suddenly changing to night, and the rock spires that erupted from the ground right before the “God” encounter really built up a sense of awe and dramatic tension.

-Sybock realizing his error and sacrificing himself for the others, and the Klingons helping Kirk. A more positive, Roddenberryesque ending than the usual ‘let’s blow up the bad guy.’

-De Kelley’s acting and the young Sarek lookalike in the flashback scenes. By the way, when I saw it in ’89, the audience applauded during McCoy’s refusal to Sybock: “I guess you better count me out, too.”

Yup, there was definitely some stuff to like here…

101. fizzben - April 3, 2009

#88 lol, I agree with everything you said. STV is the only Star Trek DVD I don’t own, I’d really rather pretend it never existed. I guess we were lucky Paramount didn’t shut down the franchise right there and then but I guess the success of the previous 3 movies provided enough confidense to go ahead with VI which I thought was a good movie although I felt the Klingons were a little too tame. But the battle at the end was just awesome. And I still say the studio really missed the boat when they didn’t do a crossover movie with all tos characters when instead we got the lackluster Generations. I just hope the new movie doesn’t have forced humor like Nemesis or Final Frontier, hopefully since it’s not being made specificly for trek fans there might be some decent humor that everyone will get and if its successful the writers and producers won’t get cocky like the last bunch did and just do whatever and stamp star trek on it.

102. WhatInBlueBlazes?! - April 3, 2009

100.

You know, I think I might just have to watch it again. It’s so easy to watch STV for its faults, rather than for its strengths.

103. Quatlo - April 3, 2009

Quinto looks a bit like Lee Harvey Oswald in that new (left side profile) photo.

104. sean - April 3, 2009

#100

-De Kelley’s acting and the young Sarek lookalike in the flashback scenes. By the way, when I saw it in ‘89, the audience applauded during McCoy’s refusal to Sybock: “I guess you better count me out, too”

I’m still not impressed with a lot of the aspects you’ve pointed out, but it seems an absolute fact that Dee Kelley could make even the worst dialog or plotline tolerable with his irresistible charm. In fact, the scene where he flashes back on his father’s death is probably the only scene in TFF that I think fondly of to this day.

105. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#100—“Shat describes it as one of those moments where you wish you’d spoken up for yourself, but instead remain quiet and allow someone to embarrass you. It obviously bothered him if he still remembers it to this day.”

What strikes me is that this is not a conversation that should have taken place in front of anyone expected to accept Bill’s direction. There is no question that it was poor form on the part of Harve Bennett (or whoever the producer in question was).

“I enjoyed the whole mountain climbing scene. The falling stunt even looked believable until they moved to close up.”

See—I thought the whole thing was silly. I guess I thought that Bill looked rather undignified during the whole rock-climbing scene.

“The campfire conversation:…”

If they hadn’t broke out in song, perhaps the dialogue would be a bit more memorable for me.

“The fight scenes. Kirk still kicked ass.”

And I thought that Shatner “kicking ass” was even a bit of a stretch in TSFS—5 years earlier (in real time). By the time of TGTTO89, it just looked silly.

“Scotty’s jailbreak.”

Perhaps if there were a more convincing reason for them to be in the brig in the first place. It still bugs the sh$t out of me that Spock refused to fire his phaser at Sybok (even if only on ‘stun’).

“This is the closest the film series got to exploring a brave new world. ”

And I think that TMP is better in that regard.

“Sybock realizing his error and sacrificing himself for the others…”

About an hour and a half too late! :)

Seriously, it’s difficult for me to get beyond the notion that the story lost something with Kirk and co. being unable to exert any control over their own fates. Sybok captures them and the Enterprise, and only relinquishes control over to Kirk at his mercy and leisure. WTF?

“…when I saw it in ‘89, the audience applauded during McCoy’s refusal to Sybock”

Sadly, there was dead silence in the theater I was in throughout the film. In the end, the audience quietly shuffled out. Certainly, I would have been even more disappointed if McCoy had *not* refused to go along with Sybok, but it definitely doesn’t redeem the film in any way for me.

From the very beginning —with the notion that this “planet of intergalactic peace” was neglected to the point of utter deprivation by an otherwise benevolent UFP—to the end in which Spock, Bones, and Kirk break out in song, I’d rather be watching paint dry.

106. Ryan - April 3, 2009

new stuff on the movie site!

107. Shane - April 3, 2009

I agree with Shatner_Fan_Prime about STV. I really thought it was a decent film, and I enjoyed it quite a bit, not only for the reasons given in #100, but for the general “atmosphere” of the film. “Atmosphere” – hat’s a hard thing to try to describe. I suppose the best way to put it is that it’s a different “type” of film than TWOK, or TUC. Obviously, TVH is also different from these two. Don’t get me wrong, I loved TWOK and TUC – more than I like TFF. The point I think I’m trying to make is that I think often times, films in a series (and similarly, episodes) are different “types” or atmospheres” from one another, and this is one of the reasons some people like them, while others don’t.

For example, I really enjoyed The Phantom Menace, quite a bit, actually. Many did not. I think that one of the reasons for this is that TPM is a different type of movie from Episode IV, V, VI, as well as II and III. In Star Wars, Episodes 1-6 are really one big story, and TPM is the beginning. Much like the fact that the first 15 minutes of a movie, before things have gotten going, are often very different from the last 1-2 hours, TPM was different from the other films.

In any case, the point is there was just something different about STV, quite apart from the specifics of it, and I think this is why some folks don’t like it. They like the “type” of movie that TWOK is, but not the type STV is. Of course, this is a theory for “some people,” not all. I am sure that some, like ClosetTrekker, had various problems with it.

His criticisms of the film is something I want to bring up… not to attack him personally, but because his problems with the movie are an example of a more general point I want to mention. That is, I find that often when people don’t like one of the films, their reasons end up containing specific lines, events, or points, rather than themes or the film as a whole. For example, ClosetTrekker listed as reasons he didn’t like Trek V: “Sybok, the Uhura fan dance, the navigator and helmsman lost in the woods, the rocket boots, Kirk riding in on a horse…” Notice how they’re all somewhat… well.. minor?

Let me be clear here. Things like this can, if there are enough of them, add up and add up to the point where the film is awful. No argument there. Perhaps ClosetTrekker (and others) consider this to be the case. On the other hand, I think that it’s more than possible to take ANY of the films and come up with lines, scenes, or events that are out of place, stupid, out of character, or so on. In other words, when you are paying that much attention to little things, almost any film can be rejected or criticized.

However, as I said, these things can add up. So perhaps the measure lies in whether or not a person just watching the film can’t *help* but notice them, as they naturally come to the forefront. The problem is simply in how to tell when this is the case and when a person, for whatever reason, approaches a film with too much nitpickiness.

Take the upcoming film. Is there any question that with all of the skepticism that many have, they will go to the film *looking* for reasons to dislike it, or things that are wrong? May 9th, there will be plenty of people who will be making lists about this new film just like CloestTrekker’s about STV. The reason I mention this is just to help illustrate the point that it’s very hard to approach something with a completely blank slate. Perhaps one person, watching STV for the first time, may have heard it is bad, and so viewed it with a more critical eye, and another may not have and enjoyed it.

It’s really impossible to tell I suppose. In any case, I liked STV, and I think on the whole it was a good Star Trek film. I could find things I thought were bad, like Uhura’s dance. At the same time, I feel like I could do the same for any film. For example, Spock’s telepathic rape of Valeris. Honestly one of the most disturbing scenes I’ve ever seen in *any* film about *anything*. To me, something like this is a far, far bigger deal than the sum total of Kirk riding on a horse, Scotty flirting with Uhura, etc., because it does something to Spock’s character which is arguably not only out of character, but very demonizing. It puts him on par with Shinzon in some ways (even though the circumstances and purpose were, obviously, different). Yet I liked Star Trek VI – a lot. It may be my favorite of all 10 of the films. So if I can look over that, certainly some of the things from Trek V don’t bother me.

108. RenderedToast - April 3, 2009

Where’s a high quality version of the UFC TV spot then?

109. Shane - April 3, 2009

#105 – “From the very beginning —with the notion that this “planet of intergalactic peace” was neglected to the point of utter deprivation by an otherwise benevolent UFP—to the end in which Spock, Bones, and Kirk break out in song, I’d rather be watching paint dry.”

I can see this. At the same time, I can also see what some others have pointed out a couple of times now in regards to different issues, that the Federation very often showed itself to be far less benevolent or altruistic than it’s talk would indicate. Certainly it was never the Klingon Empire or the Romulan Star Empire, but from time to time it would get it’s hands dirty. A great example someone offered was the forced evacuation of the “Indian People” from Cardassian space in the season 7 episode of TNG where Wesley goes off with the Traveler.

Of course, many of these examples are in later renditions of Trek, which is ironic (if you recall my previous post to you about Ron Moore and Klingons) in that it’s due to Ron Moore’s influence that this has been the case, and yet you seem to be indicating here you are more a fan of the TOS Roddenberry image of the Federation as benevolent and past man’s 20th century problems?

In any case, I can see what you mean. One would think THE PLANET OF INTERGALATIC PEACE would be taken care of, even if only as a PR stunt (assuming the POIP was a Federation endeavor?) One of my biggest problems with Insurrection is actually along similar lines. I can never watch the film without really finding it objectionable and unbelievable that the Admiral would compromise THAT much with the Son’a.

110. Ryan - April 3, 2009

#108 – No luck, just new panoramas of the bridge, which are very awesome, and new dossiers.

111. A. .S.F.33 - April 3, 2009

“97. Closettrekker – April 3,
But he probably wasn’t that far off with regard to the “acting chops” of Koenig and Takei, or their characters’ significance I’ve often thought that the movie series might have been better off without having to suggest that these characters (Sulu, Chekov, Uhura) are somehow still serving with Kirk after all this time.”

Oh my Gosh…. stop the presses…I agree with Closettrekker :). I never really cared that much about Chekov Sulu or Uhura. To me they were always just support characters and that’s the reason I’m not too happy about what appears to be a more prominent role for Uhura in this film, but who knows what’s really going on. I have always liked the focus on Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and to me Scotty is an easier fit with the big three.

“I wish that more effort would have been made to surround the “big three” with new and younger faces. I think it could have made the voyages of the Enterprise-A a viable set of films in itself (at least a trilogy).”

And again I agree! (can i stand the strain? :) ) It would have been interesting to see the big three bring along a new set of junior officers in the same positions as Chekov, Sulu and Uhura,

112. Star Trackie - April 3, 2009

I still hold Trek 5 as my fav. Of all the movies is rings truest to the TV series, and really that’s the best I could ask for.

I love Shatner’s direction. His sense of frame composition, his camera movement, his camera POV..nothing there says “bad director”. I love the story because there is no real mean nasty villain. Luckinbill was great. The return of Jerry Goldsmith produced a beautful score for the film. Deforest Kelly’s scene with his father is some of the finest acting of ANY Star Trek…period. The dialog was usually right on target for the characters. The campfire scene summed up perfectly WHY we love these characters and WHY it IS the characters that make Star Trek great, not the FX. Andno, the story wasn’t about the crew searching for God, it was about the crew and the ship being hijacked by a crazy Vulcan, who was searching for God. Not unlike the MANY times the ship was hijacked on the TV series.

And as far as aestetics go, we were introduced to the best TOS-like bridge since TOS, kick-ass phasers, communicator’s with nifty little lights in them, the galileo shuttle, cool landing party uniforms etc.

I have to agree with #100- there was a LOT to like in this movie. It was closest in tone and spirit to the TV series, you can’t ask for much more than that.

113. sean - April 3, 2009

#107

I have a completely different perspective on the scene in TUC with Spock and Valeris. At this point, Spock is more in touch/at peace with this human half. He sees Valeris as his successor, his protege. She not only betrays him and his trust in her, he nearly kills his 2 best friends and plunges the Federation and Klingon Empires into all out war. And the trust he’s put in her gave her the opening and the opportunity to carry out many of her misdeeds. He’s angry because she’s used ‘logic’ as an excuse for possible genocide and the death of billions. He’s also angry with himself, because at that age you assume you’ve seen it all and can spot unreliable people. In some ways, it’s more difficult to deal with a betrayal later in life than it is earlier in life.

That entire scene is about Spock completely losing control. And given the constant references to the intensity of Vulcan emotions in contrast with Human ones, it’s about him directing all of that fury at Valeris. So is it disturbing? Yes, it’s appalling. It’s terrifying. It’s painful to watch it. But the minute it’s over, Spock regrets it. You see it in his face, you hear it in his voice. He was so furious he was willing to do anything, and when he actually acts on that, he’s shamed by it.

114. sean - April 3, 2009

#112

“It was closest in tone and spirit to the TV series, you can’t ask for much more than that.”

I can only agree with that insofar as it seemed like a total parody of TOS, and thus would inevitably recreate some of the elements. But for me, TFF is as far from Star Trek as you can get.

115. Star Trackie - April 3, 2009

#114 “But for me, TFF is as far from Star Trek as you can get.”

Interesting. I would have to ask why?

What exactly is it, in Trek 5, that you find so far removed from TOS?

116. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 3, 2009

#114 & 115… I remember seeing Shat interviewed (on Nickelodeon!) when STV was released, and he said that to him, it was the film that felt most like an episode of the tv series. I totally agree. I’ve always felt that, while V fares poorly against better movies like IV and especially II…if one were to view it as just the 80th episode of TOS, it works rather well.

117. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#107—“Things like this can, if there are enough of them, add up and add up to the point where the film is awful. No argument there. Perhaps ClosetTrekker (and others) consider this to be the case. ”

A fair assessment.

” I think that it’s more than possible to take ANY of the films and come up with lines, scenes, or events that are out of place, stupid, out of character, or so on.”

No doubt there. The problem for me only becomes significant when it overwhelms the film—which it does (IMO) in the case of STV.

I too can find individual things in most of the Star Trek films that do not necessarily add up–even in TWOK. The difference is that it took repeat viewings for me to even notice it or think about it. I found the story so entertaining that it was well beyond my thoughts in the theater.

“To me, something like this is a far, far bigger deal than the sum total of Kirk riding on a horse, Scotty flirting with Uhura, etc., because it does something to Spock’s character which is arguably not only out of character, but very demonizing. ”

Oh—I agree that it is definitely out of character for Spock, and that *is* a big deal. And there is no question that on a “one for one” basis, that gaffe is probably much worse than any individual gripe I have over STV (with the possible exception of the horrid concept that Sarek somehow had a past union with some “Vulcan Princess”, of which Sybok was the fruit). I think that with STV, it is more the sum of all the issues I have with it—-from the Enterprise-A being a lemon down to “Row Your Boat” and McCoy’s fart joke.

Unlike alot of fans, however, I don’t place TUC on all that high of a pedestal. I think that it is substantially better than TFF, but that (IMO)in itself doesn’t say all that much. At least it was an entertaining story. I think that Spock’s decision to allow Sybok to take over the Enterprise rather than stun him is equally out of character though—long lost brother or not.

But you’ll get no argument from me that there could have been a better solution to the problem of finding the conspirators than Spock being comfortable with the ‘psionic rape’ of Valeris. I was frankly surprised that Nimoy was comfortable with that at all.

Truth be told, neither one of them is a film I watch repeatedly. If I get in the mood for a Star Trek movie marathon, it usually starts with either TMP or TWOK—and ends with TVH. However, if TUC were on—I might stop channel surfing and watch it. I could not say the same for STV (I own the special edition dvd collection, but I’m not sure the wrapping is even off the STV disk).

118. Shatner_Fan_Prime - April 3, 2009

#117 … “I think that Spock’s decision to allow Sybok to take over the Enterprise rather than stun him is equally out of character though—long lost brother or not.”

Just to nitpick you a bit, Closet, the weapon Spock was holding was not a phaser, but a more primitive rifle from one of Sybok’s men that likely didn’t have a stun setting. It looked totally homemade! Still, I see your point. Spock could’ve shot him in the leg, or used it as a club against him.

“but I’m not sure the wrapping is even off the STV disk.”

So you’re telling us that wrascal is still wrapped?

;-)

119. SaphronGirl - April 3, 2009

113. Very interesting take on that scene. I’ve always felt pity for both Spock and Valeris.

120. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#111—“…stop the presses…I agree with Closettrekker ”

I think that one of the worst things about the story in The Great Trek Turd Of ’89 (aka STV) is that Starfleet has seemingly assigned 2 Captains and 5 Commanders to serve aboard a single starship. That, to me, is a gross misallocation of personnel resources—and entirely unfathomable. And for what?

“And again I agree!… It would have been interesting to see the big three bring along a new set of junior officers in the same positions as Chekov, Sulu and Uhura”

Absolutely. The appearances of Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov in the films probably should have been cameos, not unlike the appearances of Rand (TMP and TSFS), Kyle (TWOK), and Chapel (TMP and TVH).

Why not depict a younger set of junior officers at the positions of navigator, helmsman, and communications officer—new actors, new faces, new relationships, etc.? Another 5 year mission!

IMO, that was a missed opportunity.

121. krikzil (aka Lixy) - April 3, 2009

#113–that’s how I saw that scene with Valeries as well.

122. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#121—And I think that Sean makes a valid argument about it. I don’t think it ruins the film in any case, but I must admit feeling that it was a bit out of character.

123. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#118—“Just to nitpick you a bit, Closet, the weapon Spock was holding was not a phaser, but a more primitive rifle from one of Sybok’s men that likely didn’t have a stun setting. It looked totally homemade! Still, I see your point. Spock could’ve shot him in the leg, or used it as a club against him.”

As much as I nitpick STV, I could probably use a good nitpicking myself once in awhile!

But yes—the broader point is that Spock ultimately makes no effort to prevent Sybok from hijacking the Enterprise. Even a *failed* attempt at something would have been better than that.

“So you’re telling us that wrascal is still wrapped?”

I think so….maybe not. I may have watched the special features on it at some point.

124. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

I started thinking about that scene with Valeris and the unwelcome mind-meld…For some reason, I seem to recall Kirk sort of looking at Spock as if waiting for him to do just *that*. Perhaps that is why I didn’t come away with the same perspective on it as Sean and Liz.

But I do think there is a definite look of anger on Spock’s face as he forces his mind to hers. And it’s an interesting take. Maybe I’ll watch it again and see if that works for me.

125. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - April 3, 2009

Why does everyone keep saying that Zoe Saldana is attractive? Look at that woman – I don’t think she’s consumed any type of food matter in months. Is she annorexic or something? Although I guess she has a built-in cloaking device – turn her sideways and she disappears!

The original Uhura was always a bit on the “thick” side, so I really don’t think that Zoe was qualified to play her (at least physically speaking).

126. krikzil (aka Lixy) - April 3, 2009

“but I must admit feeling that it was a bit out of character.”

I think that was the point. Spock was so angry at the betrayal. So blindsided by it that he lost it. And talk about a great example of Vulcan emotion and how dangerous and powerful it can be — whew! And of course, Spock’s affection for kirk and McCoy played into his anger. (And any expression/acknowlegement of that is always welcome for me. You know I’m the relationship junkie. lol)

“I seem to recall Kirk sort of looking at Spock as if waiting for him to do just *that*. ”

Oh, I did too. That is an interesting aspect of their relationship IMO. Kirk often seemed to expect Spock to do things for him that were going to be uncomfortable for Spock. LIke kill his brother in STV. I think because Kirk was pretty much willing to do “whatever” he needed to — no matter the pain or cost to himself — he expected the same of Spock too.

127. Shane - April 3, 2009

#117 –

See, to me the incident in TUC is far, far worse than the sum total of any number of things from STV could ever be, because, to put it in terms of scholastic philosophy, it’s a different species.

I’m trying to think of an example that doesn’t involve Catholic theology, a field in which I can think of a perfect comparison but which would very probably not be understood by the vast majority of readers. I suppose the best I can do, and it’s not perfect, is to consider the difference between slapping someone in the face and stabbing them in the heart. A single slap is unwelcome, and if one were to slap a man many times, it would be worse and would cause a great deal of pain. Stabbing him, on the other hand, would be an entirely different species of offense. It’s not the same *type of thing* as a slap. It would be not just worse than any single slap, but far worse than any number of slaps put together. No matter how many times you slap a man (assuming we’re talking about normal slaps, as opposed to extremely violent ones), you will not kill him as you will by stabbing him in the heart.

You can add up every flaw of Star Trek V, and their sum total is still not as bad as the scene with Spock and Valeris because they’re different kinds of things. Sarek was involved with a “Vulcan princess.” Uhura does a fan dance to lure some soldiers. Spock lets the ship be taken over instead of shooting somebody. All, depending on your point of view, negatives. They range from making the story corny to making it less believable to causing the characters to act out of character to adding unusual or unfortunate things to their back stories. That’s all unfortunate for a film and for a franchise.

The scene with Spock, on the other hand, makes him commit a form of what is very arguably the most heinous, abhorrent, and abominable of any. It takes one of the characters and makes him beyond wretched. No number of corniness, unbelievability, out of character behavior, or goofy back stories can possibly amount to that. It’s just a completely different type of offense than any of those.

128. Shane - April 3, 2009

Note about My previous post (#127)

By “different type of offense” in the last line, I meant primarily an offense on the part of the movie and the filmmakers against Star Trek and the character of Spock, although I also mean an offense on Spock’s part in the sense of a crime or a moral “sin.”

129. sean - April 3, 2009

#124, 126

I always took that as Kirk having discussed a mind-meld with Valeris with Spock, but if you notice as that scene gets more and more intense, even Kirk flinches as if he didn’t expect Spock to take it that far. You even see it with Valeris, as her demeanor shifts from smug to shocked.

130. cagmar - April 3, 2009

#67– But just as I said with Moby Dick, “Best of times, worst of times” which you point out is no different. That line’s from the other great literary masterpiece by Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities. And the statements before the man dies at the end of A Tale of Two Cities, in sacrifice, end up being the same words that come from Kirk’s mouth as he watches the Genesis planet out the window… “it is a far greater thing I do than I have ever done….” There is intellect in this, real wisdom.

And as far as STV… you are one mistaken individual. Nobody was ever saying we should believe in God or that this would be god. But the search for God has been part of humanity since the Neanderthals. Give me a break, TV evangelists. My goodness, open your eyes. Think, man!

Do you even know what the human adventure is? Its about the curiosity in us, the flaws, the philosophy, the ideology… the human adventure does not mean a big explosion with action around it. It means us, going out and exploring and finding answers to our questions.

This movie has offered fans of Star Trek’s intellect (which, I admit was sorely lacking in Star Wars) nothing. Not one freaking bone.

131. cagmar - April 3, 2009

Oh, and meanwhile #67, as an appendix here, I absolutely applaud and enjoy your different perspectives on Genesis and Khan. That is what discussion is, and I love it. We already have something exciting and thoughtful to talk about…

132. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#127 and #128—I think that’s a valid viewpoint on what is “offensive” in a moral way, but the value of a film is about quality, IMO, not morality.

And I just cannot get on board with your “multiple slappings vs. one stabbing” analogy. A bad film is just a bad film. I don’t think I want to pay money to be slapped a couple of dozen times (STV) *or* stabbed once (your apparent assessment of Spock’s actions in TUC).

Moreover, didn’t you say that you like it better than STV?

(“Don’t get me wrong, I loved TWOK and TUC – more than I like TFF.”—post #107)

I guess that, with that statement in mind, it’s difficult to follow what exactly your reasoning is as to why one should feel worse about the problem in TUC than the multitude of issues with STV. It doesn’t even seem to mesh with your own assessment and comparison of the two.

I agree that Spock’s act is in many ways reprehensible—and that’s not something we are accustomed to seeing from that character. But my assessment is that STVI is “okay”, despite the fact that Spock may fall a bit off of his pedestal. I do not hold it in as high esteem as the first 4 movies, but I would much rather watch TUC than its immediate predecessor—in which I find so many faults that it is not even watchable to me.

133. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#129—“I always took that as Kirk having discussed a mind-meld with Valeris with Spock, but if you notice as that scene gets more and more intense, even Kirk flinches as if he didn’t expect Spock to take it that far.”

It is certainly ‘possible’ that they discussed it earlier, but I took Kirk’s flinching as a response to the gravity of the information Spock was extracting from Valeris, his shock being a result of discovering how far-reaching the conspiracy was, and not so much shock at how far Spock was willing to take it.

134. Closettrekker - April 3, 2009

#130—“This movie has offered fans of Star Trek’s intellect…. nothing. Not one freaking bone.”

I take it you mean the trailers, rather than the movie. We have yet to see what the film itself has to offer, and know virtually nothing about its potential themes.

In fact, I have come to expect quite the interesting look into “nature vs. nurture” in ST09, if nothing else.

135. cagmar - April 3, 2009

Yes, #134, I meant the tailers. Pardon me. I cleared that up several postings ago. I put a specific posting to point that out. I am aware I have not seen the movie. :) But thanks.

136. Shane - April 3, 2009

#132 –

I don’t entirely agree that the value of a film is in quality as opposed to morality, but I do insofar as it relates to this discussion. Certainly, an immoral action by a character does not take away from a film’s value or quality.

However, in Trek (at least up until May 8th, depending upon how the film turns out to go) we’ve been dealing with a large catalog of known quantities, and one of those quantities which is most important to preserve is the characters’ identities. The offensiveness that I am concerned with in the scene with Spock and Valeris is the violence that it does to the identity of the Spock character, and transitively to Star Trek itself as a whole.

In other words, all of the problems you listed from Star Trek V may violate known character traits, make the film goofy, or do some other sort of thing which, when taken as a whole, can take away from the film’s quality. The single problem of Spock at the end of TUC, rather than making for a bad story or a goofy film, does violence to the character of Spock and the “spirit,” as it were, of Star Trek. It changes Spock in a very, very big way, and for the worse.

Now while you may not like to get slapped 50 times, you would certainly say that it would be a far better fate than to be stabbed in the heart. Following the analogy over to the films, the point is this: isn’t it better to have a bad plot, a few out of character moments, and some corny scenes, than to have a film which fundamentally and irreversibly changes one of the core characters? In other words, you pop in Star Trek V and it’s lame and corny and all that, but in the end, Trek is still Trek, Spock is still Spock, etc. When Star Trek VI is all said and done, Spock is forever a rapist. It can’t be taken back. Isn’t the former far, far better than the latter?

“I guess that, with that statement in mind, it’s difficult to follow what exactly your reasoning is as to why one should feel worse about the problem in TUC than the multitude of issues with STV. It doesn’t even seem to mesh with your own assessment and comparison of the two.”

I do like TUC better than TFF – it’s possibly my favorite of the original 6, and if not so then it is second to TWOK. It may be my favorite of all 10, with First Contact being the only one of the final 4 that really enters into the question. My original point was that individual items don’t make or break a film for me. There is something in TUC that is far worse than the sum total of anything bad from TFF, and yet I still like TUC. If I still like TUC with what happens in it, then all of the stuff that may bug me about TFF is relatively insignificant. If I can stomach the mind-rape and still LOVE the film, then I can sure as heck put up with a Planet of Peace that looks like Somalia, Spock refusing to shoot his brother, Sybok, and anything else that TFF threw at me.

137. Christine - April 3, 2009

NEEEEERO. So, so awesome.

#136 :: Hm, I personally think you’re being a little hard on the writers, scripters, etc… of TUC. Personally, I saw it that Spock was doing what he felt was necessary to save lives and such… “The needs of the many,” you know. So maybe the mind-meld scene was a bit overdone (the last few seconds make me cringe) but I don’t feel it was incredibly out-of-character.

138. Crusade2267 - April 3, 2009

I just finished reading Countdown TPB, and I’m feeling much better about all this. I was pretty happy before, but any doubts just beamed up. The franchise seems in good hands!

139. Lennier - April 3, 2009

Tribbles!

140. pinky - April 3, 2009

Top 10 Things I want to see in ST (off the top of my head, with no forethought):

10. anti-matter teleportation
09. saucer section and necells on ships
08. bright lighting
07. sweeping classical music
06. Shakespeare, literary allusions
05. philosophy
04. fascinating science
03. true, complex heroism from heroes
02. moral dilemmas
01. aliens with motivations that are NOT just “evil nature, hate, break, destroy”

Who writes “tribbles”? Honestly…

141. Keep the Faith - April 3, 2009

The more I hear from the Supreme Court,
… the more faith I have in them

A very large “thank you” should especially go out to Bob Orci.

He has consistently shown incredible respect and sensitivity to the fans of Star Trek.

Bob, I hope you see this message of thanks.

The movie is going to ROCK !

142. Kempec - April 3, 2009

#21
That’s the “Tagline” for the movie….not the title…

143. Jim Smith - April 5, 2009

136 – I find your point interesting, especially the point about being slapped and being stabbed as you’re essentially saying there’s an ontological issue here. I also appreciate what you’re saying in terms of being analogical to theology.

However, from my point if view I have to say that I think the ‘error’ being made here is to too closely equate the mindmeld with sex. A mindmeld is something that only exists within fiction. It is, by its very nature, symbolic not literal. And signs and symbols shift. That’s how semiotics works. There may well be episodes of ‘Star Trek’ where the mind meld is explicitly held to represent something sexual but there are equally occasions (including elsewhere in the work of Nicholas Meyer) where it clearly has no sexual connotations at all. (For example Spock using it on the unconscious McCoy in TWOK or on an uncomprehending whale in TVH).

What I’m saying is that, as far as I’m concerned, that scene does not make Spock any kind of rapist (or mind rapist or violator or whatever) because within that sequence, that film, the mind meld’s function is not as some kind of avatar of human sexual expression. It may be elsewhere in ‘Star Trek’ but not here. Just as magic in ‘Buffy’ is sometimes sex and sometimes drugs or [insert any other example from long running fiction here, basically] that’s not what it means here. I honestly don’t think that anyone but a long term fan (and not all of those, I didn’t for example) would see that scene and assume it’s in some way sexual. That reading requires something you bring to the scene with you from elsewhere in ‘Star Trek’, it’s not something that the scene brings itself.

144. Poizen_Prince - April 5, 2009

Ah, yes…

We can see in the image subtitled “Kirk and Spock share a moment” that Nero is displaying the French tricolore on the viewscreen, the universal symbol for surrender…

145. Jim Smith - April 5, 2009

144 – America would never have won its revolution without French military and financial aid.

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