Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman Talk Plot In Star Trek Issue Of Geek Magazine April 19, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Another magazine devoting its May cover to the new Star Trek is Geek Monthly. The issue contains a number of in-depth interviews and special features all about Star Trek — past, present, and future. Our friends at Geek have provided us with exclusive excerpts from the interviews with Star Trek director JJ Abrams and with writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman. Check them out below (with SPOILERS).
JJ Talks to Geek
Geek editor-in-chief Jeff Bond has an in-depth interview, with Star Trek director JJ Abrams, where he asks him the tough questions about his take on Trek. Here are just a couple of excerpts
Geek: You seemed to have a deliberate strategy in talking about this project to audiences early on, which was to underscore the fact that you were not a huge fan of the original Star Trek. Why did you feel you needed to get that out there?
Abrams: It’s a fair question. I guess in any public speaking engagement there’s always a strategy, and the strategy for any of these presentations was really to make sure people knew that this movie was not like the Star Trek of the last 43 years, and is not made just for that group. At a certain point it seems like the Star Trek films and series knew and embraced the fact that they were never going to get beyond that core audience of fans. Yes, there were times when the audience would peak a little bit or come back down, but it wasn’t like the movies were being made for movie fans or fans of sci fi and fantasy, they were being made for Star Trek fans. So the best way to discuss this is by telling the truth—by pointing out that I started out this process by being one of those people that did not really know Star Trek. What I’d seen did not really grab me, and though I had a certain appreciation for Star Trek in my own way, I was not a Trekkie. Through this experience working on the movie and getting to know the characters and getting to know the world, I’ve become a Trekkie. Ultimately I think it’s important for these audiences, especially audiences overseas that don’t embrace Trek at all, that they understand that I was on their side when I began this process and hopefully when they see the movie they’ll be where I am now.
Geek: The plot of this movie really spins off the idea of Kirk having a different background than what we know from the series, something that changes his character, and Chris Pine plays him quite differently than Shatner did. But at the same time you have Karl Urban seeming to get very close to what DeForest Kelley did in the original show. So was there something about Kirk that you felt needed to be changed for him to appeal to a contemporary audience?
Abrams: It’s a critical part of the story, but I guess from the outside looking in what you’ll see is a character that I think is a much more relatable character in the beginning, someone with a more obvious piece missing—he’s aimless, he’s a punk and he starts fights and picks up girls in bars and he’s got nothing to lose. He has potential but without the direction and sense of purpose, and the interesting thing to me is to use the common knowledge that everyone has and that even non-fans know—‘oh yeah, Kirk, Captain Kirk!’ Well when you meet him he’s hardly a captain so we’re playing on the baggage that we inherit which is how does this guy go from here to there? It gives you an in that I never felt I had with the original series which was a way to go ‘Oooh, I’m him! I know what it’s like to be that guy.’ I was never as cocky or action-oriented as that side of Kirk, and I was never as philosophical as the other side of him, so I always felt like he was interesting to watch
but it was hard to relate to him because he was never me. I think the Kirk that we meet is unformed, and the Kirk that we meet becomes the Kirk that we all know. But by the time that happens a massive adventure has transpired and many familiar characters are met and relationships are formed. The Kirk adjustment was made not to say that he doesn’t become that character but to say how he becomes that character.
Orci and Kurtzman Geek out
Star Trek scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci are also interviewed in the May Geek (by TrekMovie’s Anthony Pascale). The interview goes into a lot of SPOILERY detail on how exactly the plot of this new movie works, here are just a couple of excerpts.
Geek: The fact that you are using an altered timeline has some fans wondering if this is still our crew, or is this some alternative crew?
Alex Kurtzman: The characters have not changed as characters. They still have all the personality traits that we know of the original bridge crew. I think the gravest mistake would have been to try and reinvent the characters. That would have made everybody, including ourselves, very unhappy. It would have felt like violating sacred ground. This was a way to stay true to canon, and to take the stories in a new direction
Roberto Orci: Their souls are intact. And we would argue that we would have settled on some of the same character introductions, with or without the incursion from the future. In our minds some of the events overlap completely in both timelines.
Geek: Even though things are different in this timeline, like Kirk coming aboard the Enterprise first as a cadet, by the end of the movie every one of the original bridge crew end up where they are supposed to be. Is there some kind of notion that it is their destiny to be on that bridge, regardless of what timeline you are on?
Kurtzman: Yes. In fact there was one version of the script where Kirk points out that it is incredibly odd that they all sort of turned as they would have. Nimoy Spock tells Kirk ‘I knew this character as this person and that character as that person’ and Kirk says ‘wow, those characters are exactly the same ones that I know’ and Spock says something like ‘Fascinating, that must be the timestream’s way of trying to mend itself.’
Orci: It is a nod to destiny. And there is still something like that in the film.
Much More Star Trek in Geek
There is much more in the interviews with Abrams and Orci & Kurtzman in the May issue of Geek. In addition there are other Trek goodies in the issue, including:
-
movie cast/crew roundup (w/ interviews) of: Leonard Nimoy, Daniel Mindel (DP), Michael Giacchino & Zachary Quinto
-
Mirror Universe Vacation guide
-
Star Trek Cosplay [featuring the 'Chonastock' girls profiled at TrekMovie last year]
-
Star Trek bands
-
Transporter Tech: If we could build transporters would we really want to?
-
Day in the life of an Enterprise crewman
-
Real Life Redshirts
-
Star Trek in Japan
The May issue of Geek is on newsstands now. More on the Star Trek issue at geekmonthly.com.
Cover of May Geek Magazine
Sample pages of Geek article on Star Trek Cosplay
Loading ...
Comments»
A nod indeed.
Nice cover, lol.
So nice to be made cool… again.
I like the cover image.
I picked this up the other day. The article about Japan blew me away. I thought they had always been all over Trek…not so. Also, a great job by our host asking some great questions with thoughtful answers by all involved. Well done.
And Jeff Bond, I know you drift this way once and again. If you see this, please know that your quote to the Star Wars fans in your editorial, concerning when they were babies and were doing…well, what babies do…made my day. Well done across the board gentlemen. Great issue.
I realize that some people aren’t happy with the alternative realty aspect to this movie. But I’m OK with it.
We’ve had a lot of different Batmans. Each brought the mythology of the main premise up to date for that time period. When you ask someone which Joker did they like better, does anybody even remember Cesar Romero?
If you don’t like the new version of Star Trek, then you have a lot of old movies and TV episodes to watch.
Let this new version of Star Trek stand on its own merits, good or bad.
This issue was a great read. First mag I have piked up in a while. Nice article Anthony!
“TRANSPORTERS: DO WE REALLY WANT THEM?”
LOL
#6 “When you ask someone which Joker did they like better, does anybody even remember Cesar Romero?”
Absolutely I remember him. His Joker was “deeelicious” fun indeed!!
Is this going to be available over the pond in the UK??
As a person who enjoys reading fanfiction, I have always loved Alternate Universe fics, and I think that if I view the new movie that way, it’s seriously going to kick ass.
I have to say it. I’m getting tired of JJ Abrams’ toward Star Trek. He says: “I’m not a huge Star Trek fan.” Then what on Earth are you making a Star Trek movie for? He says: “It’s not for Star Trek fans.” Then why even make it Star Trek? It’s like the fans are wrong about what they want, like, and dislike.
Orci and Kurtzman, on the other hand, are doing a great job. So I’m gonna see this movie for their writing, not for JJ’s directing. Hope it doesn’t suck.
-RedShark
#6: “When you ask someone which Joker did they like better, does anybody even remember Cesar Romero?”
LOL – only in my nightmares.
And you have my vote. Linus for Secretary of State.
re: 12 RedShark
“Then what on Earth are you making a Star Trek movie for?”
MONEY
#14
“Then what on Earth are you making a Star Trek movie for?”
“MONEY”
Just like any other professional director/writer on planet Earth :)
#12: JJ Abrams is right on when he says:
“At a certain point it seems like the Star Trek films and series knew and embraced the fact that they were never going to get beyond that core audience of fans. ”
The post-DS9 shows embraced that, too. Star Trek never made any effort to convert the casual fan. You need to get new blood into the fan base, or your loved franchise dies.
I love Star Trek II. But there are people, non-Star Trek fans, to whom I show it, who fall asleep during it. Why? You have to know and care about the characters pretty well already when it starts really to “get it.” And Star Treks II and Vi have the most cross-over appeal of any of the films up to this point, period.
But I think that it’s important for everyone to realize at this point, there is no way to convert the die-hards’ way of thinking. Even though they have witnessed and accepted thousands of alternate universe explanations and bogus physics to explain other things, this is just going too far for them…the ship looks different.
Blech.
P.S. Chekhov wasn’t on the show during Space Seed, yet you accept bogus explanations as to why Khan “remembers” him for Star Trek II.
But changing where the ship was built is just going too far.
@11
I read fan fiction, too. And I have a lot of TNG adoring cuzins who will love this film as i complain about alternate reality’s.
I’m on a VOY marathon so that I am completely ready to accept new trek, and after I watch it, like 20 times, I’m going to watch every TOS epi and the movies until I buy it…
PS: Am I the only one who LOVED transformers???
Here’s some 1960’s Joker clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjiIHfKwi0Q
What is interesting is that the set design and music are a lot like Classic Trek. Definitely two shows that are a sign of their times.
18 “PS: Am I the only one who LOVED transformers???”
I didn’t like it, but it was a movie made for kids, based on toys, so I think it was well done for that target.
all these comments and no one mentioned how cute the andorian girl looks … tsk tsk
-Nick Meyer was not a Star Trek fan, and then he made Wrath of Khan.
Harlan Ellison has talked so much trash on the old show, yet he wrote the most appreciated, episode of the series.
Just because you’re not a fan, doesn’t mean you can’t still be interested in the concept, and capable of creating quality Star Trek.
Apparently, from what Anthony Pascal says (the guy who runs this site), this JJ guy knows how to put together a good Star Trek movie.
I will find out for sure in three days, wish me luck.
#17—”But changing where the ship was built is just going too far.”
Yeah. Lol.
I have a question for anyone who truly believes that….
Why?
How old was Star Trek when you first learned (canonically) that it was built in any particular place? Oh wait… :)
And if you accept the fact that there is a plaque aboard the Enterprise which says “San Francisco Shipyards” as evidence that it was actually built there—-what exactly did that add to Trek…really?
And assuming it did *not* add anything of note—-what exactly do you fear has been taken away?
Just a question for anyone…
21–
Agreed, but I’m a sucker for Andorians anyway.
#17 “Chekhov wasn’t on the show during Space Seed, yet you accept bogus explanations as to why Khan “remembers” him for Star Trek II.”
Because the actor wasn’t on the show yet doesn’t mean the fictional character wasn’t on the ship. Since Khan remembered him, he obviously was there somewhere. In this fictional world, all that is required is Khan’s memory to make it so.
12 and 14 – don’t or cant you both read?
Abrams is a geek, who in their right mind would pass up the chance of re-inventing Star Trek in thine image? Trekkie or not, if your a geek in the business of filmmaking, your not going to pass up a chance to have Paramount give you a clean slate to re-invent one of the most iconic cultural phenomenon’s the world has ever seen are you.
This movie could turn JJ Abrams from an up and coming Director/Producer into the next Steven Speilberg, the opportunities within Star Trek and other projects if this movie is successful are enormous.
Money is what makes the world go round but Abrams obviously wanted to be in the industry from a young age, he has a passion and a vision that many creatives lack, Berman, although guiding the franchise through its most successful years, never really had his own vision. As far as Abrams love of Star Trek is concerned, well it’s really neither here nor there, he’s a talented guy and i have faith he’s made a great film, a GREAT FILM. not a film for just the fans, not a film for just the pop corn guzzling kids, it’s for people who love a GREAT FILM with a GREAT story and GREAT visuals that just keep you hooked. However much i love most aspects of the franchise, i don’t blame him for not really liking it – it’s become over its 43 year history, a convoluted mess and thank god that now someone like JJ Abrams has come along and is sorting through it and respecting what has been done before, respecting the message of optimism but making it so much cooler in terms of size and scope, giving Trek a visceral experience it has never seen before and just opening up this rather claustrophobic universe and giving it an whole new dimension.
No disrespect AT ALL James Cawley, but if he had been given a billion-dollar budget to make the movie we all want to see as fans, there would never be another one. This one has to reach more than just us hardcores.
There are countless properties JJ could have made money on. At this point in his career he’s making a lot of money regardless.
It’s just an easy, reactionary argument: He’s doing it for the money.
To begin with, you have to speculate, big time. Unless you can get into his head, there’s no way of knowing if money was his primary motivation.
Then, it’s an easy road of complaint to take since the guys job is making movies so yea, you win. Quite literally he made this movie, and then he recieved money for making it.
But saying it was his prime motive for making the film, if this was the case you’d think he’d just pocket most of the budget and use cheap effects and rush through production, both of which we know he didn’t do (ILM cost a lot).
Honestly, when i think Star Trek and “for the money” I think of Star Trek 5. Now that’s a case where it really seemed like the creative folks in charge just pocketed the budget and cut corners.
The only cutting of corners you could say applies to this film is where cannon is concerned and that’s argumentative to the extreme (as seen on this very site)
Is it just me or is that Andorian girl in the TOS uniform about the hottest thing the internet has ever allowed anyone to download? I don’t usually like coming off sounding all “guy” but she’s wonderful.
^Agreed! I like that LANDING PARTY spread!
-cs™
great interview, mr. bond.
j.j. defines both the cultural need for this film and his honest confusion over how trek became a lame parody of itself, requiring a good bout of storytelling to validate it’s descent. in a post-galaxy-quest era, the film is quite noble, i think, even in concept.
stanky, your comment, “money”, offends me. you’re grasping for straws now. everyone ever involved in trek had financial aspirations. please find a position that isn’t reactionary and desperate, old friend. i know you can do better.
I’ve resolved the ‘where the Enterprise was built’ alleged canon conflict!
It was built at the San Francisco Shipyards, Riverside, Iowa. :-)
(Hey, the plaque never said it was San Francisco, California. And if there can be a Tokyo Spa in my Michigan hometown, I guess there can be a company with the name San Francisco in Iowa….)
#22: “Harlan Ellison has talked so much trash on the old show, yet he wrote the most appreciated, episode of the series.”
Harlan didn’t trash TREK until after he was re-written. In fact, early on Mr. Ellison was a big fan of what TREK could be. I seem to remember reading somewhere he had a hand in the letter-writing campaign to NBC to save the show…. and if he weren’t somewhat fond of the show, why was he approached by Paramount in the 1970s to write a script treatise for a projected film… I love Mr. Ellison, but sometimes I think his comments are meant to incite a reaction… which is a good thing, in my opinion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the early interviews/articles about JJ quote him as saying he was a fan of the TOS series (but more of a Star Wars fan)?
still, my point is:To create good trek, it’s arbitrary whether or not you are a fan before you begin to work.
And being a fan of potential, as apposed to the actual product (which is what i’m talking bout here) is a bit different. I nan see Harlan giving props to Trek for trying. And being aware of Ellison in general, the idea that he trashed the show simply because they re-wrote him wouldn’t surprise me.
But have you ever seen that Trek retrospective from the late 70’s with Chekov and Scotty and, I think, McCoy, where Ellison insists that Star Trek was sub par and silly science fiction?
He actually makes excellent points. I would argue that “silly”, and pulp elements doesn’t cancel out the cerebral elements. But Ellison is a thoughtful man on top of being self obsessed so I wonder.
Again, to re-iterate my basic point: Fan does not =quality trek (and vice verse) It’s the amount of craftsmanship, passion for the project AT HAND, and resources.
I just hope that the changed timeline does not simply eliminate the adventures of the original series. If they are nodding to destiny and we can believe that what follows is something close to the original episodes, then I’m okay with it. But if there is an obvious and drastic change that results in no Edith Keeler or Khan, then I will be very depressed.
I am a fan of Fringe and JJ and his gang. But More so of Roddenberry, Coon and their gang. Take those original adventures away and it is no longer Star Trek at all.
Someone please talk me down. Thanks.
#12 & 14 – The Trek fanbase is very limited and how else do they keep the franchise going but by making it cooler and contemporary for todays younger audience? The people who watched and loved TOS when it was on the air and not yet in reruns are certainly not getting any younger…
…p.s. While the actors didn’t change, there was a big reinvention of sets and designs between TOS and TMP1 and then again in TMP2 and fans were fine with that…then came along TNG and that was the most successful Trek show…and then DS9…needless to say, core fans have accepted drastic change in the past and have enjoyed it when it is done well and I think it will happen again, except this time, they are gaining new audience members so that the vision of Trek continues to boldy go into the future.
Funny that those who know of IDIC don’t actually believe in it…how illogical!
#6: “We’ve had a lot of different Batmans. Each brought the mythology of the main premise up to date for that time period. When you ask someone which Joker did they like better, does anybody even remember Cesar Romero?”
Cesar Romero’s Joker is remembered quite fondly by many people, actually. Myself included.
I agree to let the movie stand on its own merits. But Star Trek is different than Batman in a very fundamental way: except for the Batman Beyond cartoon he can’t exist beyond about a 30 year period as he would be too old – so he gets reinvented for a new time every so often to keep the stories from being purely historical. Trek is more flexible than that, and has four decades of (basically) internally consistent stories that all take place in the same timeline.
This will be the first Trek that takes place in an alternate timeline that we will – it seems – use as the exclusive basis for future stories. It’s as though we suddently followed the stories of the ISS Enterprise after “Mirror, Mirror” and never returned to the USS version.
I am excited by the prospects of new stories that reflect the sense of adventure, respect for science, and belief in a worthwhile future for humankind found in Trek. But I don’t for a moment think that these characters or the universe they live in are the “same” as in TOS. That’s okay, though, if handled right. And given the sensitivity to these things shown through the interviews, there’s a better than even chance it has been handled right! We’ll see . . . .
Wanna see more of those babes? And other cool Trek graphics.
http://www.deviantart.com/#order=9&q=star+trek
The Aussie gals’ LOTR and Trek shoots are here: http://chonastock.deviantart.com/gallery/#Star-Trek-Series-1
38, 39, Bless you. May the Great Bird of the Galaxy smile upon your planet. I thought T’Pol in Classic uniform was the greatest Trek image ever… I may have been terribly wrong.
This was an eductional interview. They didn’t go to “JJ” and say “hey, it’s been a while since we made a Star Trek movie.” What they said was, “hey, a bunch of people connected to venture capital and studio backing and complex legal agreements are getting tired of watching Paramount’s films bomb every time they throw $150,000,000 at something. Hey, JJ. Go make a movie with great branding, and make it for people in Japan or China or Indonesia or India or United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia or Mexico who find the old Star Trek as ridiculous as you do.”
When Abrams says “Through this experience working on the movie and getting to know the characters and getting to know the world, I’ve become a Trekkie …”
I do wonder if that means he’s gained a real affection for Star Trek as a whole, for original Star Trek, or only for his version? :)
what kind of shirt is JJ wearing?
I picked up a copy of Geek this weekend in Sacramento — cool to see a photo of Anthony on the contributors page! I haven’t read everything yet, but it’s an awesome issue already. Love the JJ interview, the Japan story, Mark Altman’s column, and the fun cover photo of JJ. The opening editorial is required reading for old school Trek fans who resist change.
Next to read is the Orci & Kurtzman interview, so I’m skipping the excerpt above to stay unspoiled. :-)
PS – Yeah, those landing party babes are worth the cover price alone!
32. RTC – April 19, 2009
I’ve resolved the ‘where the Enterprise was built’ alleged canon conflict!
It was built at the San Francisco Shipyards, Riverside, Iowa. :-)
——————————————————————————–
How do we know that the i-prise is built in Riverside, Iowa in ST09.
Kirk was born in 2233.
The Enterprise was launched in 2245. It was started to be plan and built before 2245.
Robert April was like the father of the Enterprise and I don’t think April is going to die on the USS Kelvin with george kirk in 2233. So I think even that the attack of USS Kelvin changed some things, The i-prise would still be launched in 2245, the same as and like the old Enterprise.
Kirk would be 12 in 2245 and the Kirk in this new movie looking at the i-prise in Riverside, Iowa was must older than 12.
Also the clip of the i-prise being worked on is just that, “i-prise being worked on”.
We do not know if it is being built or not.
I think and hope it is just a retrofit in Riverside, Iowa in 2258.
35 The movie is going to answer your questions and it will be fine with the answers, honestly. I speak with my fanboy hat on.
@35…
ajd, I don’t know if you new to this site, but our fellow Closettrekker has explained again and again that evrything that was filmed canon in the Prime universe stands unchanged and comes BEFORE this movie.
Spock Prime travelling back from the 24th century makes sure of that.
As for the movie, it answers all questions, and offer logical explanations.
It is a new universe, and a new ship. But it is still our crew.
That is what counts.
Is anyone else concerned about the lack of international advertising?
doesn’t JJ not sound a bit arrogant by becoming a trekkie after completing a film that he directed?
- The Kirk adjustment was made not to say that he doesn’t become that character but to say how he becomes that character. -
We already know how Kirk becomes *that* character. There are indeed few, but subtle hints at his developing into the Captain we see in TOS – namely Tarsus IV, and the incidents on The Farragut. If you decide to ignore *that* history and make up your own, you don’t ‘adjust’ a character, you alter it. No need for euphemisms. :)
# 47
“But it is still our crew.
That is what counts”
No, it’s not. Kirk is hardly the same person, because all his experiences from the prime universe don’t count in the Nero-universe. How could he be the same person, the same character? He never have seen the massacre on Taurus IV, he never have seen a starship crew dieing (the Farraguts). The Prime-Kirk was a serious man with deep concerns for his crew and fighting allways with his fears. The new Kirk, as far as shown, is just a young punk, easy and allways good for a joke or a fight. Only his DNA is the same.
For the other crewmembers (even Spock) we don’t no anything from their backgrounds. They could be still the same persons (as Urban’s McCoy proof).
I am looking forward to the film even more now. the new trailer was excellent.
But with the altered timeline I have come to view these characters as alternative versions of the ones we know and love. sorry to disagree with you Bob
I agree with iowagirl the incidents on Tarsus IV and his tour of duty on the Farragut helped shape him as the man he became.
I think its a little contrived that he gets out of academy and is so good he becomes captain in a week.
What I like about character development in the shows is that these characters had a career good service records and a careers building up before they were assigned to the Enterprise. And it added to them and made them feel they worked hard to get their commissions and made starfleet feel more legit.
A lot of talking about Tarsus IV and how the new Kirk is different from the old one. In my opinion this matter is abstract and irrelevant if you consider what writers have in mind: rebooting the series, reintroducing the characters and having to accelerate things, to avoid needing three movies to fully start. Fully understandable. So, yes, imo the new crew will still be our beloved crew.
This movie is made by Paramount, writers and directors, and it doesn’t have to necessarily follow sociology or behavioral rules.
“Then what on Earth are you making a Star Trek movie for?”
Because heaven forbid we ever, ever get anyone new into something. :\ Seriously, I don’t see why you’d need to be a Trekkie to direct this. So long as you learned about the source material well enough and then respected it- as he said he did- you would be able to create something great.
Star Trek presents an interesting challenge to any filmmaker. Even a non-Trekkie. It’s got so many things that HAVE to be there in many’s minds that you need to really work around things and be creative.
Thing is, the balance has always been- the makers paint the broad strokes, the fans fill in little tiny details. If you get fans or whatever in as writers, looong term fans like us…… well, then you sometimes run the risk of having two parties devoted to details, and noone looking after the ‘core’. Not always, of course, but someone who isn’t a fan keeps ppl in perspective.
#54 Di
Totally agreed. In my opinion, good ideas and stories exist as absolute entities. You can write a sci-fi story in a generic way and adapt it to Trek, or BSG, or Firefly, and so on.
We don’t need Trekkie writers. We need *good* writers :)
Re: 50
I have to side with Iowagirl’s overall sentiments.
There was a LOT of potentially useful, pre-established back story that (apparently) has been squandered in this screenplay. If JJ *had* been a “Trekkie,” from the start, perhaps we’d have at least some of Tarsus IV, and/or Farragut elements in this reboot. He could have still had his way. and made an EPIC. Young Kirk could still be a misguided “punk” (grimace) to appeal to the younger crowds; the Enterprise could still be re-vamped, etc…
I plan on enjoying this flick either way, but if I walk out of the theater on opening night, feeling as if I just viewed a Star Trek movie, remains to be seen…
And the movie is actually really good!!!!! Saw it last week here in Norway.
# 54
I agree. It’s a stuipid argument that only a Trekkie could direct a Trekmovie. Robert Wise was not, nor was Nick Meyer and I’m not sure if you could count Leonard Nimoy as a Trekkie.
# 55
Even if I don’t agree with the most of your opinions, this time you’re right.
# 56
You speak out of my heart, Crewman.
Conclusion: Why not combine next time all three things in one movie? Hire a good director (JJ might be the One, but I first have to see the new movie), hire good writers (Bob and Alex might be the right guys, but I first have to check out the new movie) and use established background wisley and in few doses to make as old-sytle fans happy (that could be not so hard as some people guessing).
AND I can’t WAIT to see it again in New York in May! On a proper BIG screen and better sound! And roll on Transformers 2,lol! Have FUN y’all!
Have I read it right?
JJ was becoming a fan because of the movie he made?
Had he really said that?
Perhaps every non-Trekkie out there should direct his own Star Trek movie ;)
60
I felt this statement was arrogant.
42
prob only his version
It is like me saying I directed and episode of The OC, and by understanding the characters I state that I have become a fan.
I understand he is trying to convert no Trek fans to Star Trek but he does not realise how arrogant this sounds to people.
As the film approaches I am getting really excited.
By the way I felt Star Trek movcies were made for sci fi fans as Star Trek is a show that appeals to sci fi fans.
Great that JJ is getting the mainstream interested but please don’t lose the hard core fans at the same time.
12. Redshark wrote:
“It’s like the fans are wrong about what they want, like, and dislike.”
I’m perfectly aware of the fact that we are talking hollywood mainstream but your statement reminds me of the mid 19th century refusing of Impressionism by the protectionists of classic academic arts.
star trek was always cool
Always, JJ Abrams has just made the mainstream audience realise how cool it was. He did not make it cool, he just made people realise how cool it was already.
Abrams: ” [...] and the strategy for any of these presentations was really to make sure people knew that this movie was not like the Star Trek of the last 43 years, and is not made just for that group. At a certain point it seems like the Star Trek films and series knew and embraced the fact that they were never going to get beyond that core audience of fans. ”
And that is not really true.
Let’s throw FIRST CONTACT into that as the example: released in 1996, a big budget science fiction action movie that got a lot of interest outside the Trek fanbase. The characters were introduced quickly, it was fast paced, you didn’t need any prior knowledge of the series to understand the movie, and it had a lot of excellent eye candy done by the magicians at ILM.
Sure it wasn’t able to hold a visual candle against Independence Day or 5th Element and other big science fiction and eye candy movies of the early 90s. But did it stand its ground.
The same goes for THIS new Trek movie, it is not different. This will be just as successful as First Contact, RELATIVE to the other big budget eye candy movies like the Star Wars prequels, Transformers, Lord of the Rings or Spiderman.
The reason why Trek almost died is that Paramount made a big mistake in keeping it small and tiny and low budget, while there were so many big budget movies out there as competition.
Paramount repeated its stupid mistake of The Final Frontier, when it let that low budget hell compete against Ghostbusters II, Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Nemesis does fit Abrams description, though. That was a fanwank fest, and worse, it was a bad movie in general.
But I do get the impression that Paramount knew the script and the chosen director sucked, yet it said “yeah, go ahead” just to finally be able to get rid of Berman and reboot.
First Contact is still the best movie, as far I am aware, it is the highest grossing film, well I believe it is The Voyage Home at least.
Could be wrong but i remember reading First Contact became the highest grossing Trek film. This and The Voyage Home had more mainstream interest.
I disagree with Abrams as the films were made for sci fi fans as Trek fans are sci fi fans.
First Contact, Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are the best 3 Trek movies
31
If it offends you, so be it.
I interviewed the ladies in the redshirt costumes last May on my podcast. Couple of nice girls from Australia. They do some great costume and photo shoot work.
# 61
If he ment it so, it was indeed very arrogant.
I don’t know JJ, but I think he has to left his fingerprints on everything he gets in his hands. I heard that he planned once a Superman-movie and want to redoo the suit and make it all black (!). If that is true, no one should wonder why Star Trek don’t look like Star Trek anymore.
71
This is an alternative Star Trek to me, I am going to love it but it will not be the best Trek movie to me. i see this as a film which hopefully will honour the characters and if it gets that right and as long as the film captures the essence of Roddenberry’s ideals then I should love this film.
But to me it will not be part of the rest of Star Trek to me. I don’t like the changes but as it is an alternative then I can accept them because no matter what I will still have the Star Trek I grew up with and I willnever stop loving it.
JJ is not the best thing ever, no one is a god.
@51…
Okay. let me specify this.
I am a Trekkie since 1970.
Fo me started Trek with a book when I was 5.
Two years later I discovered that Trek is a TV series.
I saw the movie, and I will speak just for myself now.
This is my crew.
#71 “I don’t know JJ, but I think he has to left his fingerprints on everything he gets in his hands.”
I think that every director/writer is entitled to leave his trademark. Berman reshaped Trek in a drastic way, giving us something totally different from TOS. From Abrams/Orci I am expecting the same.
II feel they will capture the essence of the original crew but to me they will be different.
Prime Kirk had a long career in starfleet serving on the potempkin and the farragut before getting command of the Enterprise. Bizarro Kirk arrives on the Enterprise as a cadet and apparently will become Captain within a week.
Same character but different circumstances, yet those circumstances shape how the charcter grows. These quick promotions are too contrived to me.
To me they are alternatives of the same character. They will be the same but different.
I am looking forward to this . I think it is still cool to love this as Star Trek but treat it as separate.
@67 – ST VI is the highest grossing Trek movie, with nearly $110 million (according to Box Office Mojo).
As to the comments about “JJ is arrogant,” and “Kirk is not the same character,” and “The Enterprise was not built in Iowa,” let’s take a step back. Science-fiction requires the willing suspension of disbelief in order to create a plausible backdrop for the main story. And some of Robert Heinlein’s early stories didn’t even require that much of a suspension of disbelief, because the story was always about people.
Those who say the new Star Trek is not believable or plausible because many of the smaller points of canon were changed are arguing from an incredibly ironic point of view. You have to suspend disbelief to believe transporters and warp drive are real, yet you can’t accept the fact that the Enterprise might be built in a different place than the original series may have intimated (but never truly described)? A psychologist would have a field day with that.
As to “JJ is arrogant,” you don’t recognize the difference between “arrogance” and “confidence.” How many of you could go to a movie set, stand there with not only eight or ten high-paid cast members but several dozen unionized cameramen, electricians, makeup artists, set builders, etc., and tell them what to do and when to do it? To be a director requires that you be in command at all times. That requires not only strength, but confidence – and many see that confidence as arrogance. Bluntly put, if you can’t do it yourself, don’t talk about it. (And while I may not be a “movie” director, I’ve directed videos with large budgets before, so I know of which I speak.)
And to those who profess to know Kirk so well – hey, introduce me to him! He must be real, right? No? He’s not? So why get all hot and bothered about the way his origin story is portrayed? So they don’t mention Tarsus IV and Kodos the Executioner. So what? It took them ten or so episodes of TOS to mention it in 1966. The thing is, Kirk is not the same Kirk from any of the movies, or even from the TV series. If you subscribe to any of the theories about time (especially Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Schroedinger’s Cat), any event that happens has the potential to change the future – which has not happened yet. If the past is a tree trunk, the future is all the branches that spring from that trunk. One might be able to point to a pivotal event in their past that changed who they are today, much like one could point to the death of George Kirk as the pivotal point in James Kirk’s life. Who’s to say that, if Kirk had survived the attack on the Kelvin, he wouldn’t have hightailed it back to Riverside with his wife, who would have given birth there instead of aboard a shuttle escaping from the attack? Or, as Kirk himself stated in “Best Destiny” while discussing the difference between pre-destiny and destiny (and I paraphrase here), does a ball of hot air in the sky determine someone’s fate, or a date on the calendar, or whether his mother tripped over a pig and bore a child a month early? If Kirk’s destiny had been pre-shaped by the events aboard the Kelvin, he probably should have stayed in Riverside. But pre-destiny and destiny are two different things. How so? As Kirk said in that book, “Destiny is the one I’m in charge of.” And that’s where we go from bar fight to Pike’s dare to the Academy to the center seat. Regardless of his circumstances, Kirk (and the other characters) have always been in charge of their own destiny, although Abrams would point out that it’s that destiny that landed them where they are in the first place – on the bridge of the Enterprise. Argue that it’s really pre-destiny, but the whole story is about how they got from there to here, and created the characters we’re familiar with now. Ignore the glitz and the new sets and the fancy SFX – it’s still about the people, and always has been.
Yes I remember Kirk also being on a ship called Ptempkin, I know Riker also served on a ship called Potempkin as well
#77 “Yes I remember Kirk also being on a ship called Ptempkin, I know Riker also served on a ship called Potempkin as well”
Hey guys, I’m serious: how do you know all these things about Kirk, his background and his personality? I remember only a few casual references in some episodes. I consider myself a hard-core Trekker but you are talking about some kind of obscure knowledge ;)
falcon.
On TV backstory is developed over the course of the shows. These episodes added to the character just as the movies continued adding layers to the character.
They were important parts in Kirk’s life.
Does anyone else not think its a little contrived going from cadet to captain unless the circumstances were great this just would not happen
@71 – As to JJ’s plans for “Superman,” if you’ll recall in “The Death/Return of Superman” storyline, the real Supes (not one of the four pretenders) wore a black costume with a silver “S” shield. In “Lois and Clark,” in the final season Clark wore a black costume for a couple of episodes. So there is some precedent to JJ’s comments. Don’t be so quick to judge until you know the facts.
And what director wouldn’t like to leave his sticky fingerprints all over a multi-billion dollar franchise like Star Trek or Superman? When anybody talks about Superman, the only director they mention is Richard Donner. The only Supermen they mention are George Reeves and Christopher Reeve. Does anybody mention Kate Bosworth’s take on Lois Lane? No. It’s Margot Kidder, or Noel Neill.
Same with Trek. As far as movie directors, we know there was Robert Wise, Nick Meyer (twice – II and VI), Leonard Nimoy (twice – III and IV), William Shatner, David Carson, Jonathan Frakes, and Stuart Baird. But the only ones ever mentioned in connection with Trek are Meyer and Nimoy…at least as far as the good films are concerned. So you’ve got fingerprints. Why shouldn’t JJ want to be in that company, especially after Paramount came to him and asked him to produce the next movie?
#79 “Does anyone else not think its a little contrived going from cadet to captain unless the circumstances were great this just would not happen”
This is an artistic license, since Paramount cannot think of rebooting a franchise in a long time span. Suspension of disbelief.
@77 – Okay, here’s where the geek in me comes out. In the series, Kirk was mentioned as having served aboard both the Republic (”Court Martial”) and the Farragut (”Obsession”). He was never mentioned as having served aboard the Potemkin, at least not as far as the original series was concerned. And since this is an alternate history, a lot of that backstory either never happened or hasn’t happened yet (who’s to say Kirk wouldn’t go back to the Academy after the movie and do his stints aboard the Republic and Farragut after the events of the movie?). As I said before, willing suspension of disbelief is required for this movie (or any sci-fi movie) to work.
@78 – As far as most of Kirk’s backstory is concerned, there was a lot of non-canon information in the novels, especially “Best Destiny” and “Enterprise – The First Adventure”. Kirk’s mention that he’s from Iowa came up in ST IV, so that’s canon – but his hometown of Riverside was pure conjecture until it was brought up in “Final Frontier”. How can you be a hard-core Trekker and not know this stuff? :-) j/k
81
I know where you are coming from but it still seems contrived. They had careers in Starfleet, they did not all go to the Enterprise straight after the Academy.
as the film approaches I am getting more excited.
I really want to love this film.
82
Your right it was the Republic
Yeah… I have to agree Abrams is very mistaken about Star Trek fans. They ARE most definitely SciFi fans. But may or may not be Fantasy fans depending on the individual.
That said. JJ is doing absolutely the right thing in making the slight changes to the back story. Sorry, but those changes aren’t all that big a deal. The show/previous movies established Kirk grows up in Iowa AND was on Tarsus IV. If JJ now sticks with just growing up in Iowa and blatantly says Tarsus IV is out… so what? If he never mentions Tarsus IV at all, well its pretty much just like every other reference to Kirk’s history in the show/Movies except for “The Conscience of the King”. Same thing for the Farragut. Those things were just one shot plot devises that really don’t mean a darn thing to the overall premise of the character or the movie. Frankly Kirk’s back story was NEVER truly written is stone. Just in some novels. None of the producers (including Roddenberry himself) ever allowed themselves to locked in by any of the novels. Neither should JJ.
I amazes me people are getting themselves all worked up over the little meaningless nitpick things that have been changed by JJ & team, but seem totally silent about the one major MEGA “800 lb Gorilla in the room” type change to the 23rd Centry mythos that’s suppose to be happening in the film. I can hardly believe that change.
I always say the quality of the story is the only justification for any changes put in place. I have no doubt it will be easy for them to justify the little nitpick changes with their story. For the one MEGA change…they better have written the “Gone with the Wind” of all Star Trek films to justify it as something not gratuitous.
That MEGA change is completely justified because of that alternate universe stuff.
I think all this Tarsus 4 and Farragut talk is because some think that it didn’t need a reboot to do this movie. Tarsus 4 and the events on the Farragut would have been a great story for this movie, and it would have been canon.
I read a lot of Trek novels but have not read them all, Best Destiny is not one I have read, I have always wanted to read this one.
if it was mentioned in the shows or movies then it was canon but never was in novels. I treated the novels I read as canon until the shows and movies contradicted it.
I know these events were only menetioned once but it was the development of Kirk’s history.
I have no problem it being overlooked as this film is an alternative and not the original universe but I was just saying it helped to add development on Kirk’s career path in Starfleet.
I am looking forward to this movie, I am getting excited.
I just felt there were interesting parts of Kirk’s past they could have added into the film, rather than rushing his promotions to get them to the Enterprise for the second half.
For a sec there I thought everyone here hated the new movie, then I noticed its the same five guys incessantly posting one after the other, lol.
I dont hate the movie
I am really looking forward to the movie.
I thought the new trailer was excellent.
Every film I have concerns about I usually end up loving.
I was only pointing out parts of kirk’s past would make an interesting story for the film, thats all.
Just sayin’… the famous bridge plaque only said “San Francisco, Calif.” as if that were where the “license plate” was stamped.
Since Starfleet’s based there, it makes sense. There’s not a single filmed reference that states Enterprise was built anywhere specific.
In any event, the “prime” canon is still there… just realize that with George Kirk dead, Robert T. April would be captain of the USS Constitution NCC 1700, his ship launched in 2245.
All this talk about directors – I’d still like to see a director’s cut of V. There are bits and pieces of that movie that are as precious as anything ever contrived in this make-believe universe we all hold dear, yet it’s so incomplete.
93
I would love to see a Director’s Cut of V. I believe it would have been better if Shatner had got the fil m done the way he wanted it rather than compromise.
Although my least fav movie, I loved the campfire scenes and the scene where Sybok has McCoy and Spock confront their fears.
This film is going to be great.
Kirk’s rise to the Captaincy was more believable in TOS than in ST09. Period.
Just because the Farragut and Tarsus 4 are not in the new movie does not mean that those events did not happen.
Just because we do not see Gary Mitchel or Carol Marcus in the movie does not mean that they do not exist.
The Enterprise could still be based and launched from San Fransisico Fleet Yards and still have been built else where.
With a little imagination it can all fit!
The “alternate universe” thing is exactly like the Farragut/Tarsus IV. Its just a plot device for this movie. Only the strength of the story can make that mega change worth while. IMO if the story is strong and the change integral to it (meaning the story can’t be strong without said change) then it will be an awe inspiring moment and very worth while… even if it had been in the prime universe. If the story is not strong or the change is not absolutely necessary to further the story in an integral and meaningful way, then it will be a very gratuitous act and a wasted moment….even if its an alternate universe since that will be the only universe we’ll be seeing in the movies or TV from now on. I’m really hoping the strength of the story will support the change. We just have to see.
#97 … “Just because the Farragut and Tarsus 4 are not in the new movie does not mean that those events did not happen.”
Tarsus IV, perhaps. But the Farragut, no. The movie makes it abundantly clear Kirk only serves aboard one ship, one he almost immediately becomes Captain of.
96-
how far fetched is the rise in the new movie?
is this new time line Kirk must join Starfleet later.
Shatner_fan_prime is it true that the rank promotions make you need to have a suspension of disbelief or do they fit in with the story?
Re: Kirk’s rapid promotion. In WW2, rapid field promotions were common due to a high mortality rate. In ST09, we know that Kirk’s warning to Pike to raise the shields saves the Enterprise, which comes out of warp into a massive Wolf 359 looking debris field. Simply put, Nero may have wiped out a lot of promising Captain material – who knows, even captains Bob Leslie, Ron Tracy, and Matt Decker could all have been killed there. We still don’t know how Pike is going to make out in this universe, but if destiny does try to correct itsdelf, he’s screwed.
Also if you want canon…
In Star Trek III The Search for Spock: Admiral Morrow states that the Enterprise is 20 years old as of 2285 which would put the launch of the Enterprise at the beginning of Kirk’s 5 year mission.
Now this obviously does not leave room for Captain Pike. One could go ahead and stick another 5 year mission right before Kirk’s making the age of the ship 25 years. 5 years I think is enough time for Kirk go through the academy and gain field promotions along the way.
As far as Captain April. I never saw him in live action. Perhaps he was the one charged with the construction of the Enterprise?
#100 … As Closettrekker often says, there isn’t any precedent for it in the modern day military. The whole thing struck me as very much the type of plot device you’d see in some mythical fantasy movie. You know, ‘Slay the dragon and you will become our King’ type of thing. And it could have been done properly, with just a few additional lines of dialogue explaining that years had passed since the academy, and Kirk had been earning his stripes.
I’m thinking at some point, in the background maybe, drunk uncle Frank will see a news report on Tarsus IV and say, “You think it sucks here? Be glad you’re not living on that rock!” (paraphrased for humor, of course).
Re: 103. Except that the Talos IV mission is desbribed at being what, 11 years before the events in The Menagerie?
#99
He could’nt have served on the Farragut for just a year with a field promotion?
104-
Yea it seems contrived but I will not let it ruin my enjoyment of the film.
I have accepted this as an alternative to the ‘Prime’ Universe.
Just the cadet to Captain within a week is just a lazy way to get Kirk to where we first saw him. I agree you could have jumped a few years in between so his rise through through Starfleeet included a long promising career.
@105…
good, creative thinking, KG!
#106.
That is true too. I think when it comes to the Trek timeline it is open to everyones imagination. Some people are event people and some are date people.
Hmmm, Thorsten, you’ve seen the film. Did I get it right? Orci gave me that smiley face when I guessed why the Big E was built in Riverside.
Re:110. Well, clearly, this is not THE Enterprise. Due to Nero’s time incursion the technology is more advanced, the location of the build is different, so it stands to reason that it spent more time on the drawing board before being built. This of course, results in some major changes to Pike’s career. What was he doing prior to the start of this movie?
While I continue to stray off topic, I’ve taken up my father-in-law’s routine, in my old age, of not functioning without my daily dose of “Gunsmoke” and “Bonanza” on TV Land. I consider myself to be a Trekkie, but I am not hardcore – I’ve only read one ST novel (Enterprise) and I do not enjoy the internet continuations of the OS, even though the gadgetry is fun to look at. Personally, I don’t see Star Trek as science fiction – it is a Western shot in space. The bridge crew has more in common with Matt Dillon and Festus and Doc, than, say, the Atreides and the Harkonnens.
And while we’re quick to sanctify the timeline and the nuances of the Original Series, let’s not forget the late-second season cleaning out of the Paramount costume closet, giving us Planet of the Nazis, Planet of the Romans, Planet of the Gangsters, etc. In other words, it ain’t all worth canonizing (forgive me for blaspheming – I really do love “A Piece of the Action;” it’s unfortunate it ran so close to several stinkers). Ironically, the best sci-fi of them all is the season three opener, Planet of the Cowboys “Spectre of the Gun.” Oh, well, I’ve made a complete circle, so I’ll quit while I’m ahead.
I will not spoil you, KG.
In 17 days you will know the truth.
But I totally like your idea ;))
Spectre of the Gun was cool for its surreal, nightmarish use of the western backdrop – halves of storefronts, a clock suspended in midair, etc. Of course, the sahdows of the trees on the cyclorama sky during the lightning flashes was somewhat unforgiveable. It also had a good original score, and who can forget scotty Bogarting the gas cannister?
.
# 103
How says Admiral Morrow is right? As far as I understand, Morrow says “20 years” and meaning the ship is old, but actually he don’t know how old it really is. I guess he had to ask his flagg-lieutenant, but he or she was not present or doesn’t have this informations at hand.
# 107
No, he couldn’t. He was a Lieutenant at the Farragut and he is still a Cadet in the new movie. But that Farragut-theme doesn’t matter in the new movie, because it taking place in an alternate universe. So, everything could be different from the moment on, when the Kelvin is destroyed. The only past the Prime-universe and the Nero-universe have in common is Enterprise Season 1 to 4.
In my eyes, that’s irony: TOS doesn’t count any longer, TNG could maybe happen even in this universe, but ENT – the least favorable shows of all – IS canon even in the Nero-universe!
We know from the events of THE WRATH OF KHAN that officer cadets serve on ships before leaving the Academy itself, i.e. while cadets. That explicitly happens onscreen in the movie. So, why can’t Kirk have spent some time on the Republic and/or the Farragut in that sort of manner?
Serious question. Not a rhetorical one. Is there any ‘canon’ reason why not?
117 Saavik is both a Lieutenant and a Cadet at the same time in KHAN. That’s canon. Surely? Equally, Harry Morrow’s onscreen comment has to carry more weight than something that isn’t. Surely? If we’re playing games with canon we need to have a level playing field.
I think the new movie, while bringing in a lot of new fans, will create a divide between “old” and “new” fans, with some of the new ones scoffing at the old show and it’s fans, and the old fans looking down on the new movie and it’s fans.
Others, like possibly myself, will be in the middle and span both sides, but there will be a divide for sure.
Despite Kirk’s delay of possibly up to ten years before entering the Academy in this timeline, we do get the sense that he is excelling in his studies, he’s teaching combat, is Treasurer of the xenoliguistics organization (to be close to Uhura?), and has advanced to the point of taking the Kobiashi Maru simulation – where he still cheats. So, clearly Kirk has meeting the academic requirements for Captaincy in this timeline although his actual level of service seems to be greatly reduced (even if his Academy training includes some service hours onboard starships)
I just would like to think that even though this is suppose to be an “alternate universe” that it could all still fit somehow. Also I know that there are a lot of “throw away” lines used throughout the franchise: “20 years for this and 11 years for that”. They the writers I don’t think did’nt plan to have such a strict timeline. As long as the events are in a order I don’t think the actual date is all that important.
I’ve read so much nit-picking about JJ not being a Trek fan, and the Enterprise not being built in space, and Kirk going from cadet to captain, etc… my head is about to explode. I guess some people are incapable of taking a deep breath.
Perhaps one day we will get a “making of” book, or something similar, which will get into the details of how JJ Abrams landed the Trek movie, why he wanted it, and how (I’m pretty certain) the people he surrounds himself with were part of that decision. I’m just speculating, but imagine JJ calling Bob Orci one evening saying, “Bob, I’m about to sign a deal with Paramount, and they want to know what I think about Star Trek.” I’ll bet Mr. Orci would have been jumping up and down, which would have piqued the interest of the not-so-Trekkian Abrams. (Bob, if you’re floating around, how ’bout it? Can you tell us how you first found out about doing Star Trek and your reaction?)
I’m not holding anything against Mr. Abrams, not one bit. If you have a business that is failing, you bring in a consultant who has AN OBJECTIVE EYE, and is able to see the problem more clearly, NOT someone who would do everything the same old way. I think JJ is right on when he says that Trek was simply being made for Trekkies, and that was the equivalent of failure. The TNG films and latter Trek series were much too “insider,” and an average film-goer, or tv-watcher, would not want to watch these and feel like they weren’t getting it. That is NOT a pleasant experience. If I made a movie, I’d want people leaving the theater FEELING something, rather than scratching their heads wondering what it was all about. And if you, the Trekkie, feel as though any average movie-goer SHOULD be able to watch it and get it, maybe you are the one who’s being arrogant. I’ve known plenty of people who did not get into Star Trek, thought TNG and latter series were boring, and a couple of friends walked out of INS. Should I have told them how stupid they were for not getting into it? This is, essentially, the attitude some “fanboys” are giving JJ Abrams, in different words.
The movie has already been getting rave reviews from those viewers more fortunate than the rest of us. In any case, the release date is almost upon us. I will be there on opening day for the earliest showing. If it weren’t for the fact I have to work that evening, I’d stay for every showing, just to watch the crowds. I’m sure this film could monetarily blow every other Trek movie out of the water and there will STILL be some people pissing and moaning. Ah well…
Now, let’s talk sequel……………..
Here’s a handy little timeline. I’m not sure I agree with all the dates, which become tricky during the motion picture years, but it’s pretty close.
2222 Montgomery Scott is born in Scotland.[29]
2227 Leonard McCoy is born in Georgia on Earth.
2230 Spock is born on Vulcan.
2236 James T. Kirk is born in Riverside, Iowa, on Earth.
2237 Hikaru Sulu is born in San Francisco.
2239 Uhura is born in the United States of Africa.
2245-2250 The USS Enterprise, a Constitution class vessel is launched under the command of Robert April, on a five-year mission of exploration.
2245 Pavel Chekov is born to Ukrainian parents.
2251-2256 After a refit, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) is launched on a second five-year mission under Captain Christopher Pike.
2254 The events of “The Cage”.
2261-2264 The USS Enterprise undergoes a major refit, increasing its crew complement from 200 to 400.
2264-2269 James T. Kirk is captain of the starship Enterprise on a historic five-year mission.
2265 The events of “Where No Man Has Gone Before”.
2267-2269 The events of Star Trek: The Original Series take place.
2269 Captain James T. Kirk is promoted to Admiral at Starfleet Command.
2271 The events of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
2271-2276 The upgraded USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) embarks on a five-year mission under the command of Admiral James T. Kirk.[1]
2277 Around this time the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) is retired from active duty and assigned as a training vessel in orbit of Earth.[1]
2285 The events of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
The events of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) is destroyed to prevent it from falling into Klingon hands.
2286 The events of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) is launched.
2287 The events of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
2291 The events of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The Enterprise-A is slated to be decommissioned shortly afterwards.
2294 The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) is launched. James Kirk is presumed killed.
“First Contact is still the best movie, as far I am aware, it is the highest grossing film, well I believe it is The Voyage Home at least.”
Actually, “Star Trek – The Motion Picture” remains the box office champ of all the films.
According to IMBd, it grossed 139,000,000 although I have always read it was as much as 192,000,000. Some would say that it was one of the most expensive of the TREKs, but since Paramount buried the costs of the aborted “Star Trek Phase II” TV series (and other aborted movie projects) within its costs, it is also probably the most profitable of all the movies in the series.
As to JJ being arrogant, yeeesh, folks take your chill pills already! It seems to me a lot of folks are looking for reason to take offense where none is needed.
Some in this thread feel the new blood being introduced to the production is an unwanted intrusion, to this I have to say I think it is necessary.
Whether we want to admit it or not, prior to this film TREK was on life support. From all accounts (and film reviews by those who have seen it) I have read so far, Abrams and his production have reinvigorated the franchise for another day.
As I’ve said previously, I canNOT wait!!!
PEOPLE SERIOUSLY NEED TO STOP HAMMERING ON ABOUT CANON!
THIS IS A REBOOT!!! GET OVER IT!!! WE’RE CREATING BRAND NEW CANON!!!
The Character of KIRK was created by the producer then developed by the writer’s and actor portraying them. Keep in mind Pike WAS Kirk played by a different actor, they just happened not to be able to get back. Otherwise, we’d be talking about a whole different character that may have well developed totally differently, including this MUCH debated backstory we hold reverently as canon.
However, the character of Kirk we KNOW, is the guy Shatner and the writers created from the backstory that was created just for him. Shatner is no more that character than the character is Shatner, so anybody can play it. However, everything that character did was influenced by what the writers wrote for him and how Shatner interpreted it into his own performance.
AND THAT is what Abrams is messing with. Once you throw out the things that made Kirk the character we know, means that Pine has to come from an entirely different place. From what I have read about this alternative past, there is nothing that provides the depth of emotion or strength of character that “Prime” Kirk experienced. Pine’s Kirk is the stuff of SUPERHEROS, while Shatner’s Kirk was based on real experiences. What Abrams is doing is the exact opposite of his intentions. He is actually making Kirk less real and less relatable. Except for George Bush, how many punks grow up to become some of the most powerful, respected people in the world? What he is doing is tantamount to the disastrous and comical SUPERMAN II where Superman becomes a common guy like the rest of us and finally we can all understand the motivations behind the superhero. That movie almost single-handedly destroyed the franchise.
No matter what twist you apply to Orci/Kurtman’s application of Quantum mechanics, this Kirk CANNOT be the same character we know from TOS, chiefly because everything that helped craft that character over 3 seasons has been erased. Pine has nothing like the same backstory on which to base a complex 3-dimensional character. Instead of a Kirk that inspires us to be better than we are, Abrams has created a Kirk who never had to worry about growing up or taking responsibility and was then suddenly given command of the Enterprise with little or no paying-of-dues. He’s become the American Idol winner of Star Trek, a captain you’d like to have beer with, rather than one you’d like to save your ass.
Lastly, just who’s life will Kirk’s backstory appeal to now vs. original Kirk? Just what percentage of the film’s audience will identify with a hard-drinking, womanizing, irresponsible, pretty-boy? I don’t know about you, but that describes at most 10% of the people I went to high school with. Is that the new audience for Trek – the disenfranchised, but popular bad-boy? I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the audience will see this new Kirk and exclaim: “Wow! He’s just like me … I could be Captain Kirk too! If I had only known this is what Star Trek was all about I would have watched it a long time ago. I’m gonna go out an buy a phaser replica now!”
Seriously?
124 There’s an episode of Voyager where they say the five year mission under Kirk ended in 2270. It’s part of someone’s history class, so surely that’s both canon and has to be assumed to be accurate?
#76, Thanks for the mind numbing analysis of Quantum Mechanics as it applies to the Trek Re-Boot. However, Orci and Kurtzman keep changing the rules. I’d love to see them come back onto this site and explain their new pre-destination theory as it applies to their intractable Quantum theory as posited on this site several months ago. Based in science my ass, this is as bad as LOST. And if all of these people were destined to be together no matter what, then where the hell is Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Rand?
If JJ Abrams was trying to say that he is making a different Star Trek movie then that’s all he needs to say. No need to throw Trekkers under the bus, “It’s not your Father’s Star Trek”. At every opportunity, he goes out of his way to say this is not a movie for Star Trek fans, as though that’s a bad thing. If JJ were really smart he would say something like “My predecessors had a different creative vision than myself, I wanted to do this movie my way”. But noooooo, he makes it sound like it’s the fans fault, the shows and movies were done a certain way. If JJ had a problem with those then blame Staurt Baird, Michael Piller, Harve Bennett, Nick Myers, Gene Roddenberry, et al.
Oh I forgot, conceited Hollywood would never blame their fellow artists under the bus. It’s easier to blame the fans.
Based in science, lol. I have asked Bob Orci what the hell was up with that supernova threatening the entire universe bullshit in the Countdown Comics, and he gave me three links to some articles about a Gamma Ray Burst created by a supernova. That is a) not what happens in the comics and b) a gamma ray burst is almost like a focused beam that threatens only objects that cross its path, and it loses its energy with greater distance. And the fun thing is that all this was explained in those three articles.
I mean, if he had just said “that’s just artistic license” it would have been a fine answer. But instead he again tried that “based on science” shit that in the end makes him look like someone who doesn’t understand a word of what the articles were about.
And that Trekmovie interview in which he talks out of his ass is fantastic, too. Quantum mechanics, the greatest, most current, most extraordinary, most wonderful, most scientific theory ever, and that makes it possible that your bookshelves full of old Trek books will not disappear after the new movie is released.
Everyone is acting like Abrams hasn’t given Trek any respect and that’s just not the case. He has credited TOS for what it was good at; rousing advanture, strong characters, allegorical and philosophical content, and an optimistic portrayal of the future. Some of these aspects were lost over the decades – most notably the rousing adventure part. He has also expressed what many of us Trekkies had thought ever since 1977, if only Trek movies looked as good as Star Wars movies….
Abrams needs to make people take a second look at Star Trek, and convince them that this is a different animal. No doubt some aspects of Trek will be lost. Does this thing look how I wanted it to look? Not really. Do I think it looks cool? Yes. Do I hope I enjoy the story as much as the eye candy? Definitely. If Abrams has struck the right balance, and I hope he has, I will be satisfied.
131 and 132. ger
Wow, you’re an a-hole. I respect your freedom to express your opinion, but wow. Bob has been unbelievably available and open to the fans on this forum. Maybe you don’t agree with him, but don’t f-ing mock him.
“and the interesting thing to me is to use the common knowledge that everyone has and that even non-fans know—‘oh yeah, Kirk, Captain Kirk!’
…” I was never as cocky or action-oriented as that side of Kirk, and I was never as philosophical as the other side of him, so I always felt like he was interesting to watch
but it was hard to relate to him because he was never me.”
I knew who he was.
This one thing may be my biggest problem with the new movie. Not the size of the nacelles
I think what Abrams is saying is that Kirk appears fully formed in TOS, nearly infallable and perfect in every way. That’s hard for a short Jewish kid in glasses to relate to. There’s nothing in TOS that indicates Kirk as having been anything other than above average his entire life. JJ prefers to wring drama out of a flawed being who has to overcome obstacles to achieve greatness – fairly simple, if predictable.
Kirk was never me, but I sure wished I could be like him. Kirk was the best that humanity had to offer and represented the best of humanity to the alien species he encountered.
Exactly, frederick. Of course, TOS was in a generation that rewarded hard work, not whining and finger pointing.
You people crack me up with your arrogance. Orci has been incredibly gracious and, frankly, if you’re going to cling to cannon you can’t NOT accept the new movie and its basis in String Theory, alternate timelines and alternate universes. Trek itself has NO CONSISTENCY on this. You’re just jumping through hoops to hold on to your pre-conceived bullshit.
Whad’ya mean, “you people?” >B-O
# 119
Jim, you forget that Spock served under Pike for 13 years, the events of The Cage taking place 11 years before The Menagerie. TWOK taking place 15 years after Kirk’s first encounter with Khan. Let’s say, that Captain April’s 5 year mission is not canon and that the Enterprise is on her maiden voyage in The Cage, she is at least 11 years old in TOS. I do the maths for you:
11
+ 15
= 26
The Enterprise NCC-1701 must be at last 26 years old by the date of TSFS. So or so, the good old Morrow is not right. The evidence (based on dates given by Spock, the most accurate source) is against him.
Saavik was a lieutenant doing the Kobayashi Maru test, but she was never mentioned as a cadet (as far as I remember, she was allways called “lieutenant” in TWOK).
Here’s how I see it.
Narada = Tarsus IV + Vampire cloud.
Isn’t the Kirk who takes on a massive Romulan vessel from the future and gets promoted from cadet to captain saving the Federation from it despite 1) the fact whole Federation and Klingon fleets couldn’t stop it and 2) this Kirk began his training much later than Prime Kirk more than slightly more impressive than the original? ;) :D
Isn’t it great the film is raising debates over destiny, fatalism, identity and so on?
I really don’t care about Orci and Kurtzman’s “canon adjustments.” As someone who’s into fanfic, that doesn’t matter to me.
And before, I didn’t mean that one has to be an insane, die-hard, convention-attending, uniform-wearing, Klingon-speaking, through and through Trekkie to make a Trek movie. It just seems to me that Abrams is too worried about being typecast as “the guy who made Star Trek” (and yeah, I AM aware of the fact that he has done more) that he’s being adamant about how little he likes Star Trek in the first place. And OF COURSE he’s doing it for money, that’s immaterial. Star Trek has always made money.
People either LOVE Trek, HATE it, or don’t mind it. But you don’t make a movie about something if you’re not at least slightly interested in it.
But maybe JJ just doesn’t want people to think he’s an insane, die-hard, convention-attending, uniform-wearing, Klingon-speaking, through and through Trekkie. In which case, that’s totally fine. That, I understand. It just seems to be a conflict of interest to go on about not liking what you’re making a movie about.
And personally, I think the Andorian looks like a Barbie. :)
-RedShark
137
I’m with you.
And to quote the intern kid from “My Favorite Year” when he’s talking to Peter O’Toole’s character in the balcony….”It was real to me!”
Yes, the Andorian chick is awesome….and exactly the kind of coolness and bold TOS continuity that brings in old fans and new fans. Makes TOS cool instead of converting TOS to alternate 2008 Trek.
I think that to look at the original series and the events that transpired as a closed ‘body of work’ is the proper way to come at this project. As is said, the characters take a different path to where we know them, but end up being the group we have loved.
I really like that approach as it addresses why this movie isn’t falling into line exactly with established backstory from the series.
That surely can enable these characters to enter into the 5-year-mission with the freedom to establish their own continuinity.
Leonard Nimoy once said that he was proud of the original Star Trek as a “body of work”. And the beauty of this movie seems to be that it does continue that effort, but with a new twist which explains the changes in a sci-fi manner.
I don’t care all that much for the other Star Trek spin-offs, so I consider the 60’s series the standard and something not to be ‘ruined’ with some kind of Alice in Wonderland reboot.
But I’m very heartened by what I’ve read about this movie and the people involved. I’m looking forward to actually going to a Star Trek movie for the first time since “The Undiscovered Country”.
I think this movie is going to be big.
Can everybody just calm down and enjoy more pictures of the landing party?
http://chonastock.deviantart.com/gallery/#Star-Trek-Series-1
http://chonastock.deviantart.com/gallery/#Star-Trek-Series-2
As a physicist, I’m fine with Bob Orci’s interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and relativity. I don’t expect to get to write the sequel, just as much as I don’t expect him to write out the hydrogen wave functions any time soon. It’s all reasonable.
To the person who insists that a superdeedupernova can’t work that way in our universe… I point out this is a fictional universe where warp drives and transporters work. It isn’t exactly our universe. If you like, I can tell you that in the real world, we have no proof or disproof of tachyonic matter. There’s no reason something can’t exist that moves faster than the speed of light, matter just can’t be accelerated from below or above the speed of light to a point where it can move AT the speed of light (infinite energy needed). Bob is perfectly okay to hypothesize that a supernova with some exotic form of matter (dilithium and decalithium) could create ricocheting or jumping wormholes that would radiate outward from Hobus at much more than the speed of light, and destroy neighboring stars much faster than light. It’s completely acceptable when you’ve already granted some form of exotic matter (dilithium, decalithium, red matter, etc.) and tachyonic travel.
If you accepted Generations and the Nexxxxxus, which I’m sure canonites must; then at least this go-round you’re accepting something that fits previous Trek.
After all, in the original, “Tomorrow is Yesterday”, what through the Enterprise back to Captain Christopher’s time? A black star, right? So Orci and Kurtzmann are consistent with the original.
And the Mirror universe certainly exists in Trek fiction. And so perhaps does the slashy Killing Time universe of the Pocket novels. And so perhaps does any number of alternate universes, such as the one where McCoy saves Edith Keeler. And a universe where Picard is forgotten science lieutenant, and another where Worf is married to Troi. These are all canon. Having another now with Nero is well-based in canon.
So overall, #127, yours and other’s arguments against Orci smack me of Ron Moore yelling “You Suck!” at the Astro Quest Redux…
#49 (captain_neill) “doesn’t JJ not sound a bit arrogant by becoming a trekkie after completing a film that he directed?”
Assuming the double negative in your sentence is a mistake then the answer is simply : No.
Hey, Anthony Pascale!
I read your article in Geek Magazine. It was really good! :3
I hope you get to write for either them or the Star Trek magazine or something. Heck, you should start publishing your own magazine. I’d subscribe, and I’m sure a heck of a lot of others world, too.
Off subject I know but did I just hear on the radio that it’s Takei’s birthday?
141
All good except your values are reversed. Spock served “11 years 4 months 5 days” with Pike and the visit to Talos is 13 years prior to Menagerie 1 and 2 (that 13 year value is given 3 times, twice in dialog by Spock and once in Kirk’s personal log.)
So, according to TOS and TWOK anyway, the Enterprise is at least 28 years old by the time of that movie.
And if Vina crashed 18 years before the Talos visit, then the Enterprise can at most be about 46 years old at the time of TWOK, since Jose Tyler seemed to think that the survivors would be impressed by the new ship.
Which is probably a part of the reasoning that went into the Okudas choosing a 2245 launch date for the Enterprise: it fit everything we knew except for that one odd comment by Morrow in ST3. And allowed for the existence of April.
I thinks fans old and new can agree on at least one point…Edith Keeler must die!
#153: Not anymore. All killing her will do is transport you to an alternate (but very tested and successful) reality.
How about this take? The crew was always able to fix the time transgression before. This time they fail and we’re stuck with the consequences?
S JOHN ROSS. Do you mean alternate to the new ST09 reality?
thorsten,
thank you…I am talked down. can’t wait!
@158…
your’e welcome, ajd.
Enjoy the ride!
#153—”… it fit everything we knew except for that one odd comment by Morrow in ST3. And allowed for the existence of April.”
Morrow’s dialogue is no “oddity”. It was quite the intentional retcon on the part of Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett (by their own repeated admisssion throughout the 1980’s). Morrow’s “20 years old” line in TSFS is canon, despite contradicting the dialogue in “The Menagerie”.
With regard to timelines, “retconning” is nothing new to Star Trek—-and really went on throughout the 1980’s (contradicting TOS dialogue) with the film series. This one is no different from TVH’s assertion that the movie-era takes place in the “late 23rd Century”, which was a much firmer retconning than TWOK’s “In the 23rd Century…”.
As for April, Paramount’s release of TAS on dvd seems to have given life to the case for its canonization, but to me—-only “Yesteryear” is deserving of that status (since it is repeatedly referenced in live action Trek). “The Counter-Clock Incident” (nor the rest of TAS) has never been canon to me. Although it came close to being afforded some legitimacy with a nod in ENT—-it never actually happened. April’s existence/non-existence in the original timeline doesn’t really matter though, since no one is telling canonical stories in that period anyway.
I’m very much looking forward to this movie. I like the “alternate time line” nature of this film, even though it seems that the timeline we’ve all been following for years and years has turned out to be, it seems, doomed. Kind of a dark ending to the other Trek timeline.
Does anyone know where I could dig up a leak of the script? I know that it’s leaked, and I like to read screenplays of films before I see them in theatres (as a screenwriter, I don’t really care much about spoilers).
I don’t know that the script is leaked? No one has done an online script review, they’ve all reviewed the actual film from advance screenings.
As far as the original timeline, it’s not doomed, in fact, things are probably going much better for the Federation in that timeline without that pesky Romulan Star Empire causing trouble… that is, if they stopped that universe destroying Hobus star effect.
Saying the 23rd century vs the late 23rd century is not retconning, it’s just being a little more specific.
#163—No it isn’t (if you remove it from context, anyway), but saying “23rd Century” in the first place *was* (as it is quite contradictory to TOS dialogue), and TVH’s “late 23rd Century” really blew Khan’s dialogue in both “Space Seed” and TWOK right out of the water.
1996+ 200 years=2196. “23rd century” isn’t much of a stretch if Khan is estimating—but *late* 23rd Century certainly is…and that is what I meant.
That, my friend, is a retcon. If TWOK/TSFS/TVH takes place in the “late 23rd Century”, then it cannot really be a mere 200 years since 1996.
And placing the events of the original movie era at *any* point within the 23rd Century was a retcon too, since it contradicts at least a half dozen TOS episodes (although, granted, the TOS timeline was all over the place and incoherent to begin with).
The point was that the 1980’s films did plenty of retconning of the timeline in the Star Trek Universe, well beyond Morrow’s dialogue in TSFS.
The only difference is that the “late 23rd Century” retcon is universally accepted by not only fans but producers of subsequent Trek, while some fans still debate the “20 years old” retcon 25 years later—despite it being quite intentional on the part of the filmmakers.
Khan was off by 100 years and in The Squire of Gothos, they told Trelaine he was witnessing events, what, 900 years in the past? Way off on that one.
I don’t know when or where I got it, but I always had the impression that Star Trek was 300 years in the future, which has only been reinforced in the past few decades.
I see my mistake. I was aware of Khan’s “200 years ago” quote from the movie, but I had forgotten Kirk explicitly telling Khan “two centuries” in Space Seed. As it stands, the Wrath of Khan’s math doesn’t even hold up within the confines of the script.
165
iirc
WNMHGB has the Valiant at the edge of the galaxy 200 years before that episode.
Squire of Gothos says 900 years although Trelane is dressed 17th/18th century but “goosesteps” for Jaeger as though he were familiar with WW2 mannerisms.
After that it settled down to 200 years (Space Seed and Tomorrow is Yesterday.)
Most fan fiction I remember reading in the early 1970s used this 200 year value. I think Blish and Foster did as well, but I could be wrong on this; it’s been many years since I’ve read either.
Then GR decided to change it to 300 years for TMP with Voyager 6 launched “more than 300 years ago.”
TWOK then implied that 200 years was closer to the mark, with Khan’s comments and Chekov’s “late-20th century genetic engineering.”
The came the TVH comment by Kirk, which everyone seemed to take verbatim (which I always thought was odd, given that Kirk is obviously being “deliberately vague” about why he needs the whales. Actually, he lies.)
So there was some real need, going forward on TNG to settle this when TOS actually happened question. To alleviate the confusion.
The age of the Enterprise never suffered from that sort of confusion until TSFS and I don’t think one is really a good example of why the other was changed.
Closettrekker – We disagree on much, but you are wise. Your enthusiasm for, and knowledge of, STAR TREK is a real and palpable thing. I hope you enjoy the new movie. I did.
#167—” As it stands, the Wrath of Khan’s math doesn’t even hold up within the confines of the script.”
Actually, it works fine within the film. It’s only after TVH that it no longer works.
2196 is only 4 years away from the 23rd Century. Khan could simply be rounding off.
The “late 23rd Century” is what doesn’t work with it. Khan’s dialogue was workable in 1982, but after 1986, it wasn’t.
#169—Thanks Jim. And I hope so too.
#168—I don’t think it is an example of why the other was changed either.
But I do think it is a precedent.
#168—”Most fan fiction I remember reading in the early 1970s used this 200 year value. I think Blish and Foster did as well, but I could be wrong on this; it’s been many years since I’ve read either.”
No, that’s right. It seems that there was alot of the “200 year” interpretation in the 70’s.
“TWOK then implied that 200 years was closer to the mark, with Khan’s comments and Chekov’s “late-20th century genetic engineering.”
Actually, Khan’s dialogue with both Chekov and Terrell gets more specific than that. He actually pins the launch date of the SS Botany Bay down to the year 1996 (whereas “Space Seed” had already suggested that it was sometime during the 1990’s).
The suggestion that 1996 was 200 years before the events depicted in TWOk would not be a stretch at all, IMO, were it not for the “late 23rd Century” dialogue in TVH.
TWOK opens with the simple “In The 23rd Century…” line following the opening credits. 2196 is pretty close to being in the 23rd Century, so Khan could simply be rounding off when he says “200 years”.
There was really no good reason or point to contradicting that dialogue in TVH (it was just fine), just as there was no good reason to retcon the age of the Enterprise in TSFS (it was also just fine).
The producers of TNG and beyond afforded favor to the later entry (as the canonical end of the 5 year mission is now the year 2271), despite its contradiction of TWOK’s dialogue on the matter .
With regard to the age of the Enterprise, TSFS is also the “later entry”. I don’t see why one or two lines of dialogue in “The Menagerie” are somehow more valuable than one or two lines of dialogue in TWOK/”Space Seed”.
Both retcons were quite intentional on the part of those who were the (then) current caretakers of Trek.
I’m a fan of the Wrath of Kahn. I’m a fan of retcons too. I think a retcon is something of a challenge for a writer. Sometimes it’s a weak retcon, other times they work for me and I think….”that was clever.”
But what bugs me is that Kahn was sent off into deep space in what…..1996 or something like that. Sure that was writen in the 1980s, but from a 2009 perspective, that bugs me. I wish that there was a ways that the movie folks—without remaking the movie–would just digitally fix the dialogue in Space Seed and Wrath of Kahn.
It’s like Escape from New York. I don’t think that it should be remade with a new cast. I think they should just digitally change the year that’s mentioned it takes placein (it’s set in 1997)….whether that means changing someones voice and lip movement with CGI or by changing text shown on the screen. Then they can do the same with Escape from L.A. Then they can make another movie—Escape from Philidephia which could be a prequel to the film.
That’s what I told a freind of mine while watching Mad Max. I said, whenever I watch it, I view it as being a few years from whenever I’m wathcing the movie. Not a few years from 1979 or whenever it was made. I realize that that is not the intention of the writer….but that’s how I like to interpret it. Because I want a fourth movie not a remake of the three films that are already almost perfect, to me. And I would even mind if Max was recast because they feel Mel Gibson is too old for another movie. Have the fourth one take place between the Roadwarrior and Beyond Thunderdome. Cast Collin Ferral as Max. It would work. Same character, same world, different actor because of the age thing. Then they can make the final Max story with Max as an older man and put Gibson back in. That’s two movies there.
I’m just ranting….sorry.
JJ, i would be lying if i said that ur an inspiration. if anything, ur anything but!
u have totally screwed up star trek for star trek fans everywhere. i hope your movie burns in hell!
RE: Falcon’s comments:
“@71 – As to JJ’s plans for “Superman,” if you’ll recall in “The Death/Return of Superman” storyline, the real Supes (not one of the four pretenders) wore a black costume with a silver “S” shield. In “Lois and Clark,” in the final season Clark wore a black costume for a couple of episodes. So there is some precedent to JJ’s comments. Don’t be so quick to judge until you know the facts.”
Sorry, but you’re mistaken. Abrams’ SUPERMAN RETURNS was nothing like that at all. His script had a Krypton that never exploded, a Kryptonian Lex Luthor, Superman as a Neo-wannabe destined to liberate Krypton from his evil uncle and cousin, super kung-fu, a Neo-like fakeout death scene, and a living Superman costume in a can. The script is up at Superman Homepage if you don’t believe me, and there’s no black costume in it. That notion was in other, much earlier failed scrips for SUPERMAN RETURNS from the mid-’90s.
As it pertains to STAR TREK…if the movie works at all, it will be due to everything BUT Abrams. It’ll be the writers and actors who make this thing work. Abrams himself I have no faith in.
I may like this Trek movie, but wth each additional word or action out of J.J. Abrams makes me loath and despise the man more & more. How everyone he works w/ says “He’s just GREAT” of him almost sounds as if those giving the “praise” do so in fear; like they’re scared to trump the Golden Boy J.J. Bandwagonning.
Hasn’t ANYONE told him it’s: Trekker, not trekkie? Hell, I’m not even close to a die hard fan, but I’m well aware of it!
Abrams fostered my disdain for him w/ his fleecing of “Lost”. He belittles and demeans his fan-base for that show with each episode. Mid 2nd season afterward has been garbage. MI:3 = garbage. Cloverfield? Well, garbage would be too clean a word. And now Star Trek? Hopefully too great of a franchise for Abrams to foul w/ his brand of film-feces.
The next wise step the ST franchise should take would be if someone would lock phasers upon and let loose a volley of photon torpedoes on J.J the Clown, and erase his time-line.
#175—”u have totally screwed up star trek for star trek fans everywhere.”
Have you seen it? If you have, then you’d be the first to say such a thing. I have yet to see any review that isn’t decidedly favorable.
#177—-”Abrams fostered my disdain for him w/ his fleecing of “Lost”. He belittles and demeans his fan-base for that show with each episode. Mid 2nd season afterward has been garbage.”
Abrams hasn’t had much to do with the creative direction of the show since the 1st season, actually.
“Hasn’t ANYONE told him it’s: Trekker, not trekkie?”
Individual fans prefer one or the other, or in some cases, neither. Either term gets the point across.
173
As I said, one brought order where there was chaos. Personally, I would have preferred the early 23rd century.
The other introduces a mess — if you like the Trek universe to make sense internally — where there was none, and if what you say is true, then for reasons external to the needs of the story.
So, for me anyway, a twenty year old starship compresses too many things (ship changes, uniform changes etc.) for easy internal explanation and the reason given for her retirement (she’s old) is incredulous given that a decade before she was “an almost totally new Enterprise.”
Now, since the Prime Universe is now closed for the foreseeable future, and since no Prime Universe canon story depends on that figure, my inclination is to include as much of that universe unchanged as possible.
So I choose to put Morrow on the list of bureaucratic functionaries, and kick his comment to the curb as an error, and thereby preserve, at least to me, the more orderly progression from Cage to WNMHGB to the series as it was portrayed on TOS.
174
I really dislike reconns.
^^
Retcons I mean
It would appear ST 09 is what I thought it had to be all along:
A reboot using an alternate timeline as springboard.
Alternate timeline- that’s original.
I hope the movie can stand on its own merits.
[...] on earth does Abrams think having Kirk behave like an impulsive, self-important fratboy is somehow “much more relatable” for [...]
The biggest plot hole:
why would the romulans have to wait to drill a hole first, in order to drop the red matter?? Wouldn’t the black hole have destroyed Vulcan and Earth without drilling a hole into the center of the earth??? (YES). In which case, wouldn’t both Vulcan and Earth both been easily destroyed by the Romulans? The main ultra-weapon employed in the entire movie is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. I don’t see why they didn’t figure that out before they put the movie out.