TOS Producer Herb Solow Reviews New Star Trek Movie June 2, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film), TOS , trackback
Herb Solow is one of the founding fathers of Star Trek, who was there at the beginning with Gene Roddenberry. And today he has reviewed the new Star Trek movie where he focuses on how the characters were handled in the new film. Plus Doug Drexler remembers another one Trek’s founding fathers, Robert Justman.
Solow on Star Trek
Herb Solow was an executive at Desilu in the 60s and worked very closely with Gene Roddebenberry creating, selling and producing the original Star Trek. He had a hand in many aspects of Star Trek that have lasted decades. In a new review for the BBC, Solow takes a look at what JJ Abrams and his team have done with the franchise he helped launch:
The production looked flawless. The photography, graphics and sound effects were brilliant. But, was it our Star Trek? I had some reservations.
The assembling of the new team was interesting and, for the most part set a genuine tone for the characters. Most of the characters rang true.
Solow goes on to say he liked how Kirk, McCoy, Scotty and Uhura were handled, but he felt that Chekov was too "hyper" and he wasn’t impressed with John Cho’s performance as Sulu. However, Solow was impressed with how the new Star Trek film honored the original series, including the little touches. Solow concluded with some mixed feelings for the new Mr. Spock (a character he says was created by himself, Roddenberry and Nimoy). Of the new Spock, Solow notes:
The young Mr Spock was certainly commendable. But I missed the depth of Leonard’s Spock, and the centuries of knowledge that always lurked in his eyes.
But in the end Solow hopes the new Star Trek will ‘live long and prosper.’ Read Solow’s full review at bbc.co.uk
Solow with Nimoy at party
(image TrekCore)
Drexler Remembers Justman
Speaking of the old guard, we just passed the one year anniversary of the passing of another one of Star Trek’s founding fathers, Robert Justman who was a producer on both TOS and TNG. Veteran Star Trek designer Doug Drexler has a new moving and interesting post on his excellent blog remembering Mr. Justman, including many behind the scenes photos.
Mr. Justman had spoken very enthusiastically about the new JJ Abrams team while the film was in production, and it quite sad that he passed away before he was able to see the final film.
Justman & Solow’s Book
By the way, if you have not read it, "Inside Star Trek: The Real Story
More on Solow and Justman at Memory Alpha.
Loading ...
Comments»
Oh, thank god. Someone who was involved with the original Star Trek who has reservations about this new movie.
Spell his name right please.
And Solow’s book with Bob Justman is indeed excellent.
Honored sir, Honored.
Not a bad review from someone who was on the original “Supreme Court”
I was fascinated in how both Gene Roddenberry and Herb Solow were involved in creating Star Trek. Credit should be given to Solow as well. Both Leonard Nimoy and Herb Solow are the only ones left from Star Trek’s beginning.
A good, clean, honest review. Nice to see something that didn’t simply bash the movie left and right. I can understand that he’d have reservations, but the review was more-or-less positive. Also kind of him to wish Star Trek well in the future. ^__^
Damn…it’s SOLOW!!!
You even posted a jpeg of a book cover that spells his name correctly!
JEEZ LOUISE!!!!
IMHO, his review is spot-on. I’m a die-hard Trek fan; have been for decades. Really enjoyed the movie…and was sad about it at the same time. It had exciting effects, a fast pace, an interesting backstory…and a formulaic (sp?) approach that lacked the depth that I’ve loved so much about Star Trek over the years. I know that was what was necessary to bring Trek to the masses and keep the franchise alive, and as I’ve posted many times here, some Trek is **way** better than no Trek at all. But torch has passed.
It was very nice to read Mr. Salow’s views–a nice bridge between the original and the new.
all of the people who majorly complained about the spelling error have imbalanced lives.
people, there i no reason to get worked up over a spelling oversite.
–on to Solow’s review.. i like that, and he hit Nimoy’s Spock dot on! with the, “tthe centuries of knowledge that always lurked in his eyes.” comment.
perfect.
i think Quinto will put that into Spock as the movies progress.. ;)
ICANT WAIT!
-im going to watch this movie again this weekend :)
Herb Solow is very often overlooked. I respect his views on this.
Greg UK
@8
Simmer down there fella. It’s a website, not the New York Times. You try managing something with this much content then think about complaining.
Sorry TrekMovie team. Love your site and visit everyday because it’s so full of rich material. The occasional typo or mistake? It doesn’t bother most of us.
I think of it like this, The true fans of Star Trek who don’t support this film whereas the ones who do are the Pah Wraiths.
The Pah Wraiths being the same as the prophets yet still wrong.
@13………….WTF?
Herbert certainly knows his Trek and his Spock! Good review!!
#13
Oh God….Still with this stuff? I look at it like this:
You either like the movie or you don’t. You are not a bad fan in either case. Or a good fan in either case.
I agree with Solow’s “review”. But I guess I really enjoyed the movie because it was fun and ALL of my kids had an ABSOLUTE BLAST at a Star Trek movie with me. That’s really all I required of it.
No one should be able to call themselves a Star Trek fan without having read Justman & Solow’s excellent book. It is an amazing work of documentation and a fascinatingly entertaining read. All due respect to Mr. Solow. I also am saddened that we cannot read Mr. Justman’s review of the new Star Trek film as well. I found Herb’s comments to be dead on and hope he’s around to review the next Star Trek movie!
“The young Mr Spock was certainly commendable. But I missed the depth of Leonard’s Spock, and the centuries of knowledge that always lurked in his eyes.”
Absolutely, 100% agree. Quinto’s Spock was good, but there seemed to be something…missing there. But, then again, Spock didn’t really have time in this movie to be the silent, calm, and collected Nimoy Spock–for most of the movie, he’s going through one emotional shock after another. Hopefully, the sequel will improve upon this.
This movie is SO MUCH FUN I think it will have many people going back to see it several more times over it’s Summer run…..how many current films can lay claim to that level of interest?
This should bode well for it’s final box office tallies!
He offers a valuable perspective. Like his points although the character of Kirk seemed very off to me ( he seemed a young version of Trek II Kirk– lots of bluster), but it is what it is. It seemed very much the college version of Trek with characters who are still learning. But quite a few people enjoyed the film, so in that respect it succeeded.
Nice review.
I agree with his Spock comment. When I stare into the new Spock’s eyes, i see Sylar.
That moment in the High Council when young Spock says “Live Long and Prosper” he looks like Sylar about to go on a killing spree.
Quinto was cast well tho. I’m sure he’ll develop more into the roll and make Spock less sinister.
Chekov did feel like an awful spoof caricature. I didn’t like the actor or the accent. Killing Chevov would therefore be the best move in the next feature.
Scotty didn’t ring true for me. The performance was brilliant, actor brilliant. But Scotty wasn’t a wise-cracking comedian. Let’s see more of the characters skills and genius and less one-liners. Whenever he was put in command in TOS he was formidable and had quite frightening opinions “The best diplomatic I know is a fully loaded phaser bank!”
Sulu I thought he was unfair about. John Cho was fine!
Pine and Urban were brilliant. And I’m not sure I have an unbiased view on Uhura other than she was hot, but I hated the Spock romance.
The book “Inside Star Trek” by Solow and Justman is indeed a must read for Trek fans. I just listened to the audio version last week during my commutes to and from work, and I learned a lot of cool stuff about the beginnings of TOS.
Simply cut Chekov’s hair and give him some lessons in correct pronunciation – or give him a red shirt and kill him.
Everyone needs to get a grip. This is the best Trek movie we’ve seen in like… forever. Yet we still find ways and reasons to complain. Would you rather have seen another “Nemesis???” It’s amazing to me that the studio, writers, directors, etc., can release a movie from a franchise that was going nowhere – and bring it back to life – and yet still hear complaints from the fans that should be grateful. It’s ridiculous. I for one can’t wait until the next picture. All of you that hate it so much should stay home next time.
John.
Oh, by the way, Mr. Solow, I loved your book. This is about the fans that just can’t seem to be happy. No matter what.
John.
I enjoyed Yelchin’s Chekov quite a bit. Pegg as Scotty too. They were entertaining variations on beloved characters. We’ve only seen a couple of facets to them. Give them more screen time and I’m confident they’ll develop nicely.
Great interview! Now how about some reactions from other TOS alumni. What about George, Walter and Nichelle? Has anyone heard their thoughts on the film? Or David Gerrold or DC Fontana? I mean they blew up Vulcan, I’m sure she has some thoughts on that! I also have to wonder about the reaction of Bjo Trimble. Lots of potential there for future articles Trekmovie!
I’m with 26 — Give the ’secondary’ characters more to do, and we’ll see the same intelligence, craftiness and teamwork, that we saw from the ‘original’ crew.
I keep thinking about one moment in STIII –
Kirk: “Dr. McCoy and I have to do this, the rest of you do not…”
Chekov: “We’re losing precious time Admiral…”
Sulu: “What course, please, Admiral?”
Kirk: “Scotty?”
Scott: “I’d be grateful, Admiral, if ye give the word.”
Plus, Uhura’s comment a moment before:
“All my hopes…”
A Great reading of that line from Nichols, and a sweet moment. In both cases, small moments, I spose, but for me (at least), moments that demonstrated the tight-knit relationships that _made_ Trek.
So long as JJ, et al, can get that sense, that bonding, can create those situations where those characters develop, grow and BOND, then everything will be as good, or better than ever.
IMHO, of course.
#21
“Chekov did feel like an awful spoof caricature. I didn’t like the actor or the accent. Killing Chevov would therefore be the best move in the next feature.”
But the original Chekov was a caricature of Davy Jones to begin with! I thought Yelchin actually added some smarts to Chekov. It’s not like he had much to do in TOS in the first place, other than to make the token cracks about everything originating in Russia.
#29 Ah. So true!
Mr. Solow,
Everyone with any interest in Trek needs to read your book. It is truly the last word.
The good thing is, the movie is making a ton of money, and Trek lives on!
That’s an interesting point he made about Quinto’s Spock compared to Nimoy’s Spock. To be fair, he’s comparing Spock at the start of his life’s journey to the same character closer to the end.
The “centuries of knowledege” are yet to come.
Wonderful interview.
How does “Inside Star Trek” compare with Stephen E Whitfield’s “The Making of Star Trek”, by the way?
Spock comment was spot on and I hope quinto is considering these comments. Something missing in this spock and this is the first time somebody really nailed it and pointed it out.
Also agree about the new Chekov and Sulu. Chekov’s accent was a bit over the top and sulu was dull.
Great review and accurate.
I’ve always greatly appreciated the contributions made by HS. But when he says:
“The Mr Spock character was 20% created by Gene Roddenberry, 20% created by me and 60% created by Leonard Nimoy”
he is ignoring the fact that Leonard Nimoy himself gives significant credit to one of the early directors for helping him “find” the Spock character. In the interview I read, he did not mention a name and did not seem to remember the name, from from various comments he made it was most likely Joseph Sargant, and it occured while filming “The Corbomite Manuever.”
Of course, HS was a busy man in those days and he may be unaware of Leonard’s feelings on the subject.
I loved getting HS’s views on the movie and I hope we hear from many, many others who were involved with TOS.
I feel it is hard to gauge Quinto’s performance as Spock with Nimoy also making an appearance as Spock. You are just starting to appreciate his performance when Nimoy appears. 78 years old or not, Nimoy was flawless! His presence even when he is not on screen is dominating.
That is one of my favorite Trek books. Gives good insight into the series.
Solow and Justman’s book is highly recommended reading. Great to see his take on the new film (and yes, wish we could hear Justman’s).
I don’t agree about Sulu – I thought John Cho was fantastic.
And agree with previous posters here that Quinto, given a chance, will grow into the Spock we know and love. I also thought the changes to Chekov were interesting.
A true honor, sir! (The book IS a must-read, BTW). So glad he shared his thoughts! Has Bob Justman commented on the film? Ron Moore? Rod Roddenberry?
I agree with everyone on Solow & Justman’s book.
I agree with everyone on Solow & Justman’s book.
Always interesting to hear from Solow. Gracious as always, and, in this instance, far too kind. :-)
May he continue to live long and prosper.
37. Uh, he’s dead, Jim.
From the article above: “Mr. Justman had spoken very enthusiastically about the new JJ Abrams team while the film was in production, and it quite sad that he passed away before he was able to see the final film. ”
I believe Rod had his say at the Catalina viewing (attended by Nichelle Nichols and George Takei) that was reported earlier.
#24
Those of us who have been with ST since day one hardly need a lecture from you.
I can appreciate the movie as a highly entertaining movie, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree that it is “the best Star Trek ever”. As a Star Trek story it has many flaws (in my opinion).
Please stop bashing anyone who disagrees with your opinion that the movie is perfect.
In other words (or yours), get a grip.
Regards.
I respect Mr. Solow a lot. I really appreciate his thoughts and involvement with TOS. I have his book that’s mentioned and it’s great.
I disagree with him on Chekov’s character in the new film however. I actually felt it rang the most true, yet independent -making it his own- of the whole new cast. Keonig, I still think was way underrated from the original show. However, as the time went on he seemed to be known for letting out a good yell or scream. I remember being aware, and pleased that that characteristic made it into the first movie. Evidently others liked it too because it made it’s way into the second movie. (I wonder if it ever crossed his mind “wow,..how did this become my lot in life?”)
And I agree with a few others that this is not the greatest Trek movie ever made. I still have issues with the movie and Abrams sensibilities. He seems to know the mechanics of movie making but exhibits a level of unsophistication about some things that smacks me wrong. My opinion, (and this is the least of my complaints ) but if you place a Beastie Boys song in the movie because you “dig it” then there’s part of your problem. Plenty of better choices to convey an emotion through song.
Good review- though most of my remaining reservations are pointed at Scotty. This film is not the deepest version of Star Trek…. but it’s no Spock’s Brain either. I still found it remarkably entertaining, and with plenty of room to grow.
I have so much respect for Solow, not least for his humility over the years as nearly all of the credit has gone to Roddenberry. I think his review is quite gracious and maybe a bit timid.
The criticism of Sulu, Chekov and Spock is all true, really, but maybe a bit misplaced. After all, these are much younger men than the ’settled in’ crew we came to know.
Chekov never really struck me as being anything like Solow intended. And the idea that his/Koenig’s Chekov was anything but a parody is kind of funny, especially since Yelchin is… Russian. Koenig’s Chekov always struck me as young, nervous and easily provoked into to Russian bravado. The addition of Chekov as ‘boy genius’ was totally cool. I kind of loved it when he said, “I can do that” over and over. It was sweet and authentic and very much the act of a hero in the works.
Sulu’s dignity and Spock’s gravitas are both very insightful observations. But it’s called character DEVELOPMENT, as in develop and grow–the things that living things do. These men arrived at stoic dignity and mystical wisdom through experience, not just genetics.
If anything, Solow’s genteel criticisms only highlight the depth of what the filmmakers have done with this prequel. This movie had the courage to show the characters before they became the people we know. In TOS, Kirk could fix his gaze on screen and rely on Spock and Sulu to perform without so much as a sidelong glance. That’s confidence borne of experience. I look forward to seeing these characters ARRIVE at the TOS characterizations.
But he’s spot-on about the Alexander Courage music. The same analysis above applies, in that this movie is about delivering us to the point where the Courage music kicks in. But in all honesty, I didn’t like the art direction of the closing credits. And the fact that Giacchino only wove the Courage music in to his own theme strikes me as arrogant. You can whistle the first few notes of the Courage music anywhere in the world and someone around you will smile and nod. The Courage music is as sacrosanct as pointed ears and the ‘three tubes and a disk’ shape of the Enterprise.
Great article. It’s cool seeing something that truly relates how the appeal and sucess of TOS was the result of a production team consisting of Solow, Justman, Fontana, Coon and countless others including the acting team as well… the same can be said for every version of TREK made since 1964… that being it was a team effort.
I don’t entirely agree with Mr. Solow’s remarks, however, his comments are based on the viewing of a one-time event. Each of the characters we have come to know and love are based on the the growth from episode 1 to 79 (or 100 if you count TAS– and I do).
Give the new crew a chance and I am sure their performances will gel with each forthcoming film.
This is, of course, the biggest disadvantage of TREK being a film franchise, that being that we have to wait for two to three years between productions instead of the weekly exposure we get on television. This is the trade-off we have to accept… or not.
And yeah, I’d love to know what DC Fontana and David Gerrold think (David’s web-site is down under construction)… and a few others as well.
Of course Zach’s Spock doesn’t have the same depth of Leonard’s Spock…this is pre-TOS Star Trek…Spock is younger and inexperienced so it is illogical to expect Zach’s Spock to have the same depth.
That is like saying that I was the same man when I was 27 that I was when I was 17 and that I’ll be the same man 10 years or 20 years from now.
You cannot compare Spock of one age to that of another. This is a young Spock, and he seemed young. I liked that…I want to see him grow over the years into what Leonard’s Spock was.
Using a citation of Doug Drexler’s beautiful tribute to Bob Justman as an opportunity to again push the movie is really tacky.
The biggest thing I missed about the new Spock was the way the old Spock always showed a hint of emotion around the eyes- the rest of the face was stone cold dead but you could always sense a deeper feeling in the eyes. The only time I saw that was when new Spock returns to the bridge and offers to go to the Narada and steal back the black hole device- there he nailed it, in that one scene.
I think he’s being hard on Cho there- the poor guy wasn’t given all that much to do, was he. And as for Chekov- remember, he is younger than we have seen him before- he’s got time to calm down! I liked him anyway!
Very interesting review by Solow, I appreciate the fact that he appreciated the movie even though it wasn’t quite HIS Star Trek. I was a little surprised that he didn’t mention Captain Kirk other than in passing.
I have to disagree with his assessment of Checkov. In the movies, Koenig’s Checkov was okay but in TOS it was just plain annoying. Yelchin’s being 17 and a genius was an awesome addition to the character and didn’t make him come off as a Russian Davy Jones.
Vulcan or not, if you’re planet gets destroyed after the woman who gives birth to you dies who he loved very much. (As was seen throughout the movie), you would be emotionally compromised. Even T’Pol cried on more than one occasion and she’s a full blooded Vulcan.
I’m so sorry — I honestly didn’t realize Bob Justman had passed away and somehow missed that above. RIP Mr. Justman!
#28
Agree wholeheartedly with you! Always loved that moment from STIII. That idea that these guys would do ANYTHING for each other.
That was missing from this movie, but then, it is an origins story, and that comradarie is yet to be developed, whereas our beloved characters of old developed that after decades of working together.
You know, one thing I’ve always wondered about, and maybe Chris Doohan is lurking around and can answer this. The animosity between Bill Shatner and James Doohan was well documented. But that line in STIII gave you that notion, as I mention above, that there wasn’t anything Montgomery Scott wouldn’t do for James Kirk.
Always wondered if the character of Scott ever felt the same way that the actor did with regards to Kirk/Shatner.
A very intelligent and (above all) gently diplomatic review. Nothing there I disagree with.
Good to hear from one of the creators.
Wonderful to hear from Mr. Solow. As one of the architects of Star Trek his opinion is one that certainly was very important to hear from.
31. CarlG
It is a great companion piece to The Making of Star Trek, as it fills in the blanks and sets the record straight on the stuff Gene had put out in that book and over the years in other ways. Must read, honestly.
I appreciate Mr.Solow’s comments about the new movie. I think his assessment of the new Spock is accurate. I don’t think Quinto’s Spock has the same sense of emotional coolness that Nimoy’s had, but that may be as much the fault of the writers as Quinto’s fault, if not more so. He had to follow what they wrote, and in my opinion, was severely limited because of it. (BTW, I always thought Christian Bale was a much closer fit to Nimoy’s Spock, but he is already in a couple of other franchises at the moment.)
Cho was given little, but did well with it, in my opinion.
I know some were annoyed by Chekov, but I thought the struggling announcement was funny. Chekov as a boy genius made sense to me and was good variation of Roddenberry’s Wesley Crusher.
I thought Uhura was presented much much better that in TOS.
I would like to see Simon Pegg get a chance to be a little more dramatic as Scotty.
I have to agree with earlier comments about the score: I was very disappointed. I just watched Speed Racer again: Michael Giacchino did an amazing job with the music. He took the original theme and took it to new heights. I imagine what he could have done with Star Trek…but simply didn’t. Very disappointing.
And, If you haven’t read the book “Inside Star Trek”, go get it (library will do) and read it. And listen to the audiobook of it as well. It is THE story of how Star Trek came into being. (Solow’s story about what Lucy thought Star Trek was about is a hoot!)
Sulu was dull?
That seems to be the TOS Sulu to a “T”.
Sorry Mr. Takei but of all the characters from TOS to get a command…
Respecting Mr. Solow’s reservations about Spock, he has to understand that the character has taken on a significance far beyond his original collaborative creation with GR.
After 1967, Spock was very much DC Fontana’s. She created his wonderful backstory, and much of the interpretations of his life, family, and planet, which have led to the written fiction,and much of the ‘canonical’ background as revisited constantly in the films and plots in TOS-based novels.
ZQ has very much shown his deference to Nimoy as the absolute reference point for Spock. His performance shows it in spades, and his face-to-face with Nimoy,combined with our memories of the early ‘emoto-Spock’ episodes, is just about perfect in my opinion.
Always great to hear from a “daddy”. :)
I thought
Spock very good,
Kirk very good,
Bones very good
Uhura very good,
Pike very good
Sulu good
Scotty please tone down the humour a bit otherwise good
Checkov calm down a bit, and don’t be so heavy with the accent.
Scotty and Checkov are my main worries, if Simon Pegg can tone down the humour a bit I think he’s there, I felt at times we drifted in to another Simon Pegg comedy which should not be the case with Scotty.
Checkov, ease off on the accent a bit, my least favourite of the new cast.
Get rid of the stupid alien pet for Scotty, this is Star Trek not Star Wars that annoyed me.
Other than that I am cool with everybody else.
Please alter the Engineering so its not so dull looking and a bit more futuristic.
Lens flares…****.*****..****.****.***..*****.****.****.**
Zoom out a bit so I can see the Enterprise better.
Oh dear.. another day, same shite.. people listing what is wrong with the new film.. god it’s boring now.. the film is out, released, has been well recieved…. and is a great bit of Trek…
When is someone gonna realise that the emperor isnt wearing any clothes? yes the films a lot of fun but the plot holes are just too much for me to get past. i mean what happened to earths defenses? how come earth didnt get sucked into the black hole opened up right next to it? why didnt nero go straight to his home world when he arrived in the past to warn them of future events? how is it that kirk manages to end up in the one cave on the whole planet after being chased in random directions by a monster that spock is in? how can a supernova threaten the whole galaxy? yes the special effects were great and star trek finally looked as fabulous as it always should have but compared to the previous treks its not so brilliant…the music was abysmal, where was the theme? no loving shots of the enterprise, no real understanding of how to make the movie look epic like the motion picture which really made trek look epic in the truest sense of the word…..ive watched the movie three times and have listened and read reviews singing the movies praises but its really not that good, to be honest its not even as good as the motion picture which im really sick of hearing people put down all the time, yes it had its failings but man it looked great, the enterprise looked fantastic with great camera angles and the music was superb and to be honest the story line was true trek….i wish people would just stop trashing it…..anyway enuff said, had to finally get it of my chest, yes if youre the type that likes fast camera angles and quick edits and action and explosions then this is the movie for you, a brainless pop corn flick which seems to have brainwashed just about everyone on the planet…at its best its as good as the trouble with the tribbles, it just cant get close to the city on the edge of forever, at its worst its science is even worse than the dreaded spocks brain! heres hoping the next one is a bit darker and more intelligent.
63…Erm… Spock went to warp and Nero followed.. so the black hole didn’t open up just next to earth…
Mate, if you are going ot pick holes.. make sure you actualy understood the film. DOH
63 – My oh my.. mate you need sectioning.. you hated the film that much, yet you went to watch it 3 times, just to make sure you hated it?. and you still managed to not get what happened at the end.. My friend you speak of brain washing… I guess you haven’t been affected by said “brain washing”.. ah but then again, that would require you to have a brain to have washed!
It’s a small world, I live near Lampeter and went to Uni there. Never knew we had a link to Star Trek.
Interesting review. Disagree about Yelchin and Cho. The original Chekov character was a stereotype; the new one brought something (skills, energy and intelligence) to the table. Cho’s performance was understated, but credible. The only new characterization I didn’t buy was that of Pegg as Scotty (and his strange sidekick).
I’ve been wondering what the TOS actors other than Nimoy thought of the movie. Excluding Shatner, of course, who hasn’t bothered to see it and whose eventual review is certain to be self-serving.
Wow imagine having a lecturer at your university who used to shoot the breeze with Roddenberry, shatner, nimoy, hell the entire TOS cast and crew and Elvis…
bet he has a few stories to tell
I loved the photo of a young smiling Nimoy: captures that “certain something” he had back then that we see in Quinto today. I think the fact that movie left Spock’s character a bit ‘unfinished’ was intentional to give us the opportunity to see his character development in future sequels-I look forward to it.
As for the criticism of Sulu and Chekhov, I’m not really worried: in keeping with the whole ‘reboot’ concept, these are somewhat undeveloped characters now just as they were in the first couple of seasons of TOS. As for a hyperactive Chekhov, let’s keep in mind that in this universe he’s only 17 years old (right around the same age as Wesley Crusher’s character in TNG) and teens, particularly precocious child prodigies, can be a bit annoying.
I hope that JJ and company will do the sequels, and am confident that they will handle the issues mentioned above with the same artistry and forethought that made this movie great.
-69… Hooorah! someone who “get’s it” and speaking sense.. the whole point is this film is a start.. and of course the characters are not fully developed… well said sir..
‘I was impressed and taken with the obvious concern to honour our original series. ‘
Says it all really Herb.
Has D.C. Fontana done a review yet? I’d like to see reviews from former directors. And of course we need a shot by shot review from Doc telling us how he would have done it better lol.
#63 “heres hoping the next one is a bit darker and more intelligent.”
This movie is on track to gross over 250 million domestically. Don’t count on them changing the formula.
#63 Here’s hoping your next post is “more intelligent”… ahem.
Re: 53 “Always wondered if the character of Scott ever felt the same way that the actor did with regards to Kirk/Shatner.”
“One of them called you a tin-plated overbearing dictator with delusions of godhood. And then he even compared you to a Denebian Slime Devil.”
“And after they said all this, (insults to Kirk) that’s when you hit the Klingons.”
“No, sir.”
“No?”
“No… I dinn’t. You told us to avoid trouble…”
“Oh yes…”
“And I dinnae see that it was worth fighting about. After all, we’re big enough to take a few insults – aren’t we?”
“What was it they said that started the fight?”
“They called the Enterprise a garbage scow – sir!”
“I see. And…that’s when you hit the Klingon.”
(proudly) “Yes, sir!”
“You hit the Klingons because they insulted the Enterprise, not because they…”
“Well, sir – this was a matter of pride!”
“The young Mr Spock was certainly commendable. But I missed the depth of Leonard’s Spock, and the centuries of knowledge that always lurked in his eyes.”
Um, according to canon, Spock was born only three years before Kirk. Centuries??
He was being metaphorical.
Nimoy brings such a great perspective into that role, and he made the character so great. Quinto is a very good actor, but he’s no Nimoy. Same with Pine and Shatner.
I’m surprised he didn’t dislike the Scotty portrayal, since I felt Scotty was one of the poorer written characters. He should be more than comic relief.
I hope Abrams takes the constructive criticism and works with it. They did a decent job, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.
HERBERT! HERBERT! HERBERT!
(except for Nimoy, after all he did say: “I am not Herbert.”
“He’s not Herbert; we reach!”)
Wow… a few Chekov haters here, I see. Look, the kid had a small part and made what he had fun. My kids love him (”I can do this!”).
Nice to see that Solow has a great deal of class. He could have done what so many others have done and based the movie to the ends of the earth. Instead, he noted there were somethings that didn’t work as well as others, but overall it is a great start. I think most fans would agree with that.
Finally, regarding the depth of knowledge behind Spock’s eyes, or the comments of others that the story didn’t have the depth of TOS: Com’n, you can’t compare two hours of story telling with 79 hours over the course of 3 years. Quinto’s Spock is coming from a vastly different place than the one we watched on TOS. I’d argue that the Spock in The Cage was vastly different from the one we watched as the series unfolded. Let’s give these guys time and enjoy this new run.
Pine nailed Kirk. He had the Shatnerisms and Kirkisms down pat. I’m surprised that these haven’t been outlined in an article. They happened all throughout the film, especially at the end with him entering the bridge and sitting down in the Chair, crossing his legs and all. Brilliant.
// Quinto’s Spock is coming from a vastly different place than the one we watched on TOS. I’d argue that the Spock in The Cage was vastly different from the one we watched as the series unfolded. //
Testify!!
I agree with previous posters that ZQ’s Spock is in a different place than Nimoy’s Spock was when we met him. But if you watch carefully (and you’ll probably need to wait for the DVD to really catch them), Quinto seems to have assimilated a lot of Nimoy’s sub-conscious actions with Spock. The “Spock Gulp” is one of them- Spock always swallowed hard when something hit him hard- he still had that po-faced expression, but you could see his eyes and throat move a bit. Quinto does this too- you’ll see it right after Sarek’s revalation to him in the transporter room.
I am looking forward to seeing more movies with this cast. And I am very happy that it is doing so well.
#18—“The young Mr Spock was certainly commendable. But I missed the depth of Leonard’s Spock, and the centuries of knowledge that always lurked in his eyes.”
I don’t think that Nimoy’s Spock in “The Cage” had any more depth to him than Quinto’s—-and quite frankly, Quinto’s Spock should be closer to that right now than the one we saw later on.
“… (a character he says was created by himself, Roddenberry and Nimoy).”
But was only really fleshed out by a fantastic writer named Dorothy Fontana!!!
#59—”After 1967, Spock was very much DC Fontana’s. She created his wonderful backstory, and much of the interpretations of his life, family, and planet, which have led to the written fiction,and much of the ‘canonical’ background as revisited constantly in the films and plots in TOS-based novels.
ZQ has very much shown his deference to Nimoy as the absolute reference point for Spock. His performance shows it in spades, and his face-to-face with Nimoy,combined with our memories of the early ‘emoto-Spock’ episodes, is just about perfect in my opinion.”
I’d say that about sums it up.
John Cho did not play Sulu. He played John Cho. Next time they need to force this guy to at least act like Sulu a little.
Think for a moment what a wet-behind-the-ears 17 year old would be like, as navigator of the Federation’s flagship, on his FIRST DAY.
He was all giddy until he lost Spock’s mom in transport. That gave him a cold hard dose of reality that while a genius, he wasn’t superman. You’ll notice his character chilled out a bit after that scene.
Mr. Solow can have his opinions, and I agree with them partly. I have my own as well.
However, all the haters on this board need to get a life.
Constructive criticism is one thing, strong opinions are wonderful as they reflect the brilliant love the fans have, but this day in and day out “New Movie Sucks!” stuff has run it’s course. Go bitch on some other forum. Those of us who actually appreciate Trek as a living and evolving story would appreciate your absence.
I enjoyed Chekov in this film. I have no problem with that interpretation.
Interesting that he likes Kirk’s handling. I wonder what he thought of Pine’s performance. My brother described as “generic,” and I pretty much agree.
Perhaps he will fit more into the role in the next film, but we did not think that he had a modicum of Shatner’s performance and screen presence.
I saw the film with my best friend and we are both die-hard fans of the original series from its NBC network run. We both felt the film earned about a C+. It was a pretty good film in places, but by no means a great one.
I meant Shatner’s “charisma” not “performance.”
1. Herb Solow did not produce Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, John Meredyth Lucas, and Fred Freiberger did. Please correct the headline.
2. Herb and Bob’s book came out after Gene Roddenberry died and could no longer refute it, Therefore every word in it referring to Roddenberry which is not supported by a memo is at best, suspect, and at worst, lies.
3. Let’s not forget Herb’s faulty memory (or is it eyesight?). I refer you to the TMP Enterprise drawing (clearly labeled as such) which he included in his subsequent TOS art book.
31. Easy. “TMOST” was written with Roddenberry’s approval, and therefore it does not spend 25% of its time stabbing his corpse in the back.
#89, #90—-Wow. Interesting.
If there is one thing I could say that Pine’s Kirk was missing or lacking in his performance, it certainly wouldn’t be charisma!
” It was a pretty good film in places, but by no means a great one.”
Well it wasn’t ‘The Godfather Part II’, but no Star Trek film was ever going to be. I think it is as good as any Star Trek feature film has ever been.
There are 4 Star Trek films I love—-TMP, TWOK, TVH, and ST09—-all very different types of films, but each fantastic in its own way (and each equally problematic in its own way).
I cannot think of a Star Trek movie I would say is “better” than ST09 at this point. I thought the cast was brilliant, and the story problems are no more significant than those in the other three films I mentioned.
Its about time Solow started getting some recognition. He was as much an influence on Trek’s birth as Justman and yes, even Roddenberry. These three weren’t the Supreme Court of TOS, they were THE GODHEAD.
#91—”Herb Solow did not produce Star Trek.”
Herb was Executive Producer for 54 episodes of TOS.
“Herb and Bob’s book came out after Gene Roddenberry died and could no longer refute it, Therefore every word in it referring to Roddenberry which is not supported by a memo is at best, suspect, and at worst, lies.”
Why? That makes no sense.
“Let’s not forget Herb’s faulty memory (or is it eyesight?). I refer you to the TMP Enterprise drawing (clearly labeled as such) which he included in his subsequent TOS art book.”
That sounds like an editor’s mistake, and not one by a co-author.
I agree on how the new Chekov is presented. I left the theater thinking that he was the new “Wesley Crusher” of the franchise.
Where’s the Traveler when you need him?
I finally got to see the film and I am with Solow: reservations.
First the reservations.
Some of the writing was just sloppy–pretty much everything about Delta Vega. How many coincidences can you stack in a scene? That whole passage should have been rewritten for blackhole-sized plotholes.
I’m not sure if I buy the Spock-Uhura development.
The whole Kobayashi Maru was a bit over the top. Played way too much for comedy (on the other hand–no pun intended–the balloon hands wasn’t as much of a Jar Jar Binks comic mishap as I feared).
Have to agree Chekov was not so great. A weak character to begin with, but the whole “boy genius” thing in scifi never works (Wesley Crusher, anyone?)
Sulu was sort of meh, except for his cool action scene on the drill platform.
Hate product placement in my 23rd century with a passion.
Hope Uhura doesn’t turn into a 23rd century boy toy. Is this progress? Despite the nods to her “xenolinguistics” the original Uhura seems more a step forward for her time than this version. It seems like they were “protesting too much” with their attempts to emphasize her competency. Hey guys, I’m not just a sex object in a mini-skirt, I know a gazillion alien languages too.
I don’t understand how Nero, some lowly miner, was traveling around in such a badass ship when Romulus went kablooey (is this something the comic prequel can clear up?) I thought this was something he acquired after the destruction of Romulus supplemented with Borg tech, unless I missed something.
Kirk’s rise was way too fast. I wish they would have done a flash forward to bring him to the captain’s chair, instead of bringing him from Starfleet cadet to the captaincy in 48 hours (or so it seemed).
Nero was no Khan.
The characters were generally well done. McCoy was nailed by Urban (which is great since he is my favorite). Pine did a good job as Kirk. Pegg was a decent Scotty and his comic asides were okay, though I hope he doesn’t become perpetual comic relief in the sequels.
I agree that Solow’s criticism of Spock is a bit displaced as this is the “early Spock” so I can forgive the differences. Hell, even in “The Cage” Spock broke into a smile and lost his cool.
Most of the set design (other than the lousy engineering factory redresses) was okay. Though as a purist I guess I wish they had toned down the Apple Store look a bit (this from a Mac fan, by the way).
I liked the nods to the original Trek series and movies sprinkled throughout the movie.
I think the big problem is that Trek and new adventures would work best as a TV series where you can vary the stories and especially do justice to the “strange new worlds and seeking new life form” aspects of Trek. I worry that film Trek will just be a bunch of mindless action-adventure stories. This movie worked, because it had the origin story going for it, without it the plot would be formulaic drek (Transformers in Space?).
So a decent effort, but I was by no means as bedazzled as the rest of the movie-going world seems to be. It may have revived Trek and put it on the map for non-Trekkies, but as an old school Trekkie I still prefer Wrath of Khan. Still, there is potential. I guess the sequel will tell.
Oh and what was with all the running? I wouldn’t want to be on any starship where they can’t even get the intercom system to work properly.
-98 F*** Me! isn’t it realistic to RUN when there is an emergency! Oh come on now.. So…. the running gave no sense of emergency, of panic.. oh and they never run in any other part of the franchise.. why not become a fan of something else, if that’s all you add as way of being contructive.. fool.
98. True, however, we have intercoms today, and some things are best delivered face-to-face (sometimes a little drama works in real life too) especially when you consider that at the time of Kirk’s discovery, he was pretty much persona-non-grata….
#99—-Fool?
Please don’t do that.
There is a higher standard of discussion and debate to maintain around here (if you don’t like that, then head over to AICN), and we shouldn’t have to wait for one of the moderators to remind us to be civil.
I actually agree with you on the running, but it is a shame you had to throw that in there.
98:
I was surprised that Chekhov couldn’t pull up the transporter on his Bridge console.
And the running was probably there to add some tension, and show a bit more “ship.” Trekkers are used to “Turbolift Time.” JJ gave us ‘running’ instead.
101.. My appoligies.. I’m affraid I just get frustraited with the “oh so foolish” constant barage of inane reasons people find to dislike this movie.. it is actualy spoiling the site.. maybe the self moderation should stretch to sensible critique also.. but point taken, and remark withdrawn…
Not liking a thing is fine,but the constant and inane reasons are nothing short of laughable now.. “foolish” should have been said..
It’s interesting in how Solow can criticize the movie but anyone else and they’re labeled “canonistas’ and ‘haters’.
#104—There are always going to be those who are not tolerant of criticism, but I think you’re exaggerating how prevalent that actually is.
I actually love the movie, but even so, there are some things I didn’t like about it and/or feel could have been better. That doesn’t make me a ‘hater’ (whatever that means), although I am a proud canonista (I don’t find that term at all insulting).
In fact, I have yet to hear or read from anyone who felt the film was perfect.
But if you allow a few posters to be representative of the whole—then shame on you. The overwhelming majority are not only tolerant of criticism, but have expressed some degree of it themsleves at some point.
Chekov may be the only character I enjoyed more in his new incarnation. Walter Koenig was always TOS’s least interesting actor, IMO. But in general, I thought all of the new cast were superbly chosen and did fine jobs.
Yeah,…I agree it’s not productive to start out every session with a gripe session, or continually be negative, but I don’t want to be relegated to the ‘Star Trek original series ghettos’, just because I haven’t fallen in line with the tomatometer reviews. I don’t intend to go there just because I have issues I still want to discuss- – -ocassionally. I am essential too.
105.
I have always been open-minded to this movie. Not everything about it I agree with either, however, my experience on this site, by those that run it and the majority of those who post on here, slam on those with even the slightest criticisms. I love to hear all opinions, Infinite diversity in infinate combinations. Diverse views should be welcomed.
#107—”… I don’t want to be relegated to the ‘Star Trek original series ghettos’…”
Are you kidding? I’d plan my next vacation there!
:)
Ok… to #97
Some of the writing was just sloppy–pretty much everything about Delta Vega. How many coincidences can you stack in a scene? That whole passage should have been rewritten for blackhole-sized plotholes.
Did you miss prime Spock’s amazement? And later lines that the timeline was trying to fix itself? The “destiny” theme that went throughout the movie? Also, how many coincidences were there in The Wrath Of Khan? Kirk’s almost wife, unknown son, Enterprise with cadets only ship in the quadrant, only ship near Regula 1, Regula 1 near Ceti Alpha, etc. Geesh. Every movie is a coincidence….
I’m not sure if I buy the Spock-Uhura development.
Why? Shades of it were always in TOS. When Nomad attacks Uhura, for example. And, their development is tremendously affected by the destruction of Vulcan.
The whole Kobayashi Maru was a bit over the top. Played way too much for comedy
Comedy? Where? It’s exactly the sequence described in The Wrath of Khan, right down to the apple. Plus, it informs TWOK in a beautiful way. The whole later relationship between Kirk and Spock during that sequence in TWOK is made marvelous because of the “changing the programming” comments… that it was Spock’s programming that Kirk modified… ties in even to Where No Man Has Gone Before when Kirk checkmates Spock unexpectedly.
(on the other hand–no pun intended–the balloon hands wasn’t as much of a Jar Jar Binks comic mishap as I feared).
You feared?
Have to agree Chekov was not so great. A weak character to begin with, but the whole “boy genius” thing in scifi never works (Wesley Crusher, anyone?)
Not so great, why? Weak, how? What never works about “boy genius”? Ever see some classic Twilight Zone episodes? Listen to Mozart much? (That insipid Jimmy Neutron show even.) Boy genius works when the scripts are well-written, and boy genius is only part of the solution, not the total solution. I would put Chekov in the wunderkind category… he’s clearly a mathematics/physics genius, which is why he is where he is. Unlike Wesley Crusher, who was just the doctor’s son who we were led almost to believe he was John Luke Pickard’s illegitimate son. Wesley had no particular education and academy training. Chekov does. This being a T-10 version of TOS, we expect him to be an excitable 17 year old, whose Russian accent (plus the v/w variation) is much thicker. I’m sure it can be backed down in future movies…. as that would make sense as he’s immersed in an English environment.
Sulu was sort of meh, except for his cool action scene on the drill platform.
They must have cut out the “parking brake” scene with Pike, the conference room-type discussion on the bridge scene that Cho voiced almost just like Sulu in Where No Man…, the scene with the careful piloting around the wreckage scene which evoked Day of the Dove…, the “I’ve had combat training” eagerness part, the eyebrows as Pike, Spock, Kirk and Sulu went to the hangar bay. Gosh, too bad you saw a butchered and abbreviated version of the film!
Hate product placement in my 23rd century with a passion.
Specifically? The Nokia thing was an in-joke, you realize. Grunberg “phoned it in”? And why wouldn’t they drink Budweiser in the 23rd century, when it’s been drunk in the 21st, 20th, 19th…. Slusho doesn’t count.
Hope Uhura doesn’t turn into a 23rd century boy toy. Is this progress?
WTF? A slightly drunk Kirk found her fascinating 13 years before TOS, and began a quest to learn her first name. She’s had a long-building friendship with Spock that goes to a kiss after his home, his mother are destroyed. How does that make her a boytoy, please?
Despite the nods to her “xenolinguistics” the original Uhura seems more a step forward for her time than this version.
Nods? You mean the whole reason that Pike bought Kirk’s theory? Yeah, right.
It seems like they were “protesting too much” with their attempts to emphasize her competency. Hey guys, I’m not just a sex object in a mini-skirt, I know a gazillion alien languages too.
Did you notice in TOS that you could see Uhura’s, erm, “camel toe” for lack of a better term? And all of her legs? Front and back? That Nichelle wore much less in both Changeling and in Tholian Web? Or, gulp, in STV when she wore nothing but fans?
I don’t understand how Nero, some lowly miner, was traveling around in such a badass ship when Romulus went kablooey (is this something the comic prequel can clear up?)
The answer to your question is yes. It’s been available for two months now.
I thought this was something he acquired after the destruction of Romulus supplemented with Borg tech, unless I missed something.
The suggestion is that the Borg tech repaired the ship’s damage by the Kelvin during the 25 years he was stuck in Rura Penthe.
Kirk’s rise was way too fast. I wish they would have done a flash forward to bring him to the captain’s chair, instead of bringing him from Starfleet cadet to the captaincy in 48 hours (or so it seemed).
Bob Orci’s suggested we have no clue what Kirk did from age 17 to age 23 when he goes in the Academy at Pike’s challenge. Perhaps at 17 he was a stack of books wunderkind too. Perhaps he flunked out of the Academy because in this universe he’s more aimless. Perhaps he was in a ground military service… or worked on freighters. Maybe he has a lot of experience. Also, it was pointed out there might be some length of time between the Narada destruction and the ceremony for Kirk. Maybe even a year? He just saved Earth and the Federation from destruction. It’s that “destiny” them again. The theme of the movie, which you might have missed.
Nero was no Khan.
No, that’s the sequel.
Hell, even in “The Cage” Spock broke into a smile and lost his cool.
And he smiled in Where No Man, and…
I loved the new Chekov and Scotty. That said, yes I would like some non comic moments with Scotty in the next film.
98. thebiggfrogg: Only TNG crew members don’t run.
91. MC1701B : Yeah, Roddenberry spread a lot of bunk on his own for years and Solow and Justman respectfully set the record straight and THEY are the bad guys. Riiight. And what the heck did you think Solow was if not a producer? His name was at the end of most of the TOS episodes.
104. John from Cincinnati: Because Mr. Solow delivered his criticisms in an intelligent and classy way. And the folks who have done that such as Anthony and many others have. It’s the ones who gnash their teeth and wail about the doom of Trek that get the business. And they deserve it.
#108—”… my experience on this site, by those that run it and the majority of those who post on here, slam on those with even the slightest criticisms.”
Well, you’ve had a completely different experience on this site than I have. I have never once seen any of the operators of this site “slam” anyone who criticized the film…and I am on this site 5 days a week.
Of course there will be some readers/posters who do so, but it is most often “challenging” of criticisms, which isn’t the same thing as “slamming” another poster. In my mind, anyone who doesn’t wish his/her opinion to be challenged—probably shouldn’t post it publicly.
#106
I totally agree. I don’t think it was Koenig’s fault, he simply didn’t have much to work with. I think the new production team deliberately gave this Chekov more to do here.
#29 sean, I don’t disagree about chekov in TOS. I found him to be unecessary in the movie as a character. As someone else pointed out his major contribution (the transporter trick) was something more akin to Scotty’s genius. Made no sense that Chekov could do something with the transporter no other person on board could. That’s a skill reserved for Scotty.
Would have been best to put the engineer on the ship doing miracle work with the transporter, rather than use him for comedy later in the movie.
Scotty didn’t really need to be on Delta Vega. Old Spock had the formula.
But I did find Chekov’s accent very irritating. Scotty’s accent was fine.
112.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen it here with my own two eyes and have experienced it myself.
I meant to add, the scene where I did find Quinto most convincing as Spock was the debate with McCoy about the “Kentucky Derby”. The way he responded to McCoy was classic Nimoy Spock-like.
#115 There are perceivably Vulcan like nit-pickers, who will come at everyone on their very precision of the english language.
However, I don’t think the people who run the site have an agenda, in fact it’s pretty clear unless people are breaking rules, they are allowed to express what they want, no matter how incongruent with decency.
But yes I’ve noticed various people posting that will dissect everything said; not out of a love of Star Trek, but to simply enjoy the feeling that they are correct and the other person is not lol
If they keep coming back at you, stand your ground and keep coming back at them, as long as its civil.
111.
and those who gnash their teeth about how great everything is are any better? Fortunately, you are not the judge, jury and executioner on who “deserves” it. I don’t think anyone should post on here who they think “deserves” it. The Nazis had their views on who “deserved” it but I wouldn’t want to be associated with them.
For those that run this site, I’ll have to say Anthony Pascale is pretty fair. He went after me for no reason a while back which surprised me but I have forgiven him for that. Guess he just had me in his crosshairs that day. The worst, the absolute worst here by far and there is no competition is Dennis Bailey.
P.S. – I thought ‘Tin Man’ was the most boring ST episode of all-time.
#104 “It’s interesting in how Solow can criticize the movie but anyone else and they’re labeled “canonistas’ and ‘haters’.”
Mr. Solow helped create and guide the original series. He has earned the right. Armchair quarterback fanboys….well..they can certainly have their opinions, but they hardly carry as much credence.
#118—”The worst, the absolute worst here by far and there is no competition is Dennis Bailey.”
Dennis Bailey doesn’t run this site. He’s just a regular reader/poster, just like you and I are.
And Dennis is quite critical of the film himself.
#18. I definitely agree with “But, then again, Spock didn’t really have time in this movie to be the silent, calm, and collected Nimoy Spock–for most of the movie, he’s going through one emotional shock after another. Hopefully, the sequel will improve upon this.”
Spock’s portrayal in early TOS wasn’t the same Spock we all loved later on as the series progressed.
I am interested to hear th’ venerable Mr. Solow elaborate further on what specifically he didn’t like about John Cho’s performance as Sulu; and/or if the problem also stems with how the character may’ve been written also and not isolated to the actor’s performance (I thought he was fine for what he had to do; plus, if you compared this to just ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ alone…).
#114 – Maybe they’ll have him posit more of his boy-genius theories and have him held in check by Spock or Scotty in Trek XII ala the Vulcan Ensign in the TNG episode ‘Lower Decks’ [Geordi tut tutting @ this oddly overly eager Vulcan Jr. officer in the ep.]. This way he’d still be useful w/o becoming some sort of young macguffin.
I’m just glad that Chekov was useful in the film, and didn’t kill certain scenes [IMO]. In the hands of a lesser director or writing team, he could’ve been written so that he behaved pompously or arrogantly either in regards to his knowledge/skills and/or country of origin.
In regards to Playmates’ Toys’ ‘Cadet Chekov’ action figure tho’…. I was under the impression that Chekov and Sulu had already graduated prior to Kirk, Uhura and McCoy…
#110….????? What are you talking about?????
#97…..We must be clones. Nicely stated, all of it.
#114—”I found him to be unecessary in the movie as a character. ”
Well, I think he was always unnecessary as a character.
Hardcore fans of Star Trek will find his presence in the film questionable, but I can completely understand why he is there. Most moviegoers are not hardcore fans—but either very casual fans or just fans of movies in general. More casual fans are accustomed to Chekov being there. If he was not—the obvious question would probably be “Where is the Russian guy?”
Although he was never much more than comic relief and injury fodder in the series (and more or less a barstool in all but one of the films)—-casual fans would simply expect him to be there.
It doesn’t bother me nearly as much as I thought it would that Chekov is suggested to be 17 years old in 2258 (when “The Apple” indicates that he would only be 13 at that time). But that is really the only complaint I have about Chekov in the film (and it is really more of a question as to why all this takes place in 2258 to begin with).
“Made no sense that Chekov could do something with the transporter no other person on board could. That’s a skill reserved for Scotty.”
Except that Scotty wasn’t aboard yet. The writers have added something to the character—-that he is actually quite the prodigy, instead of just thinking of himself as such.
And I see nothing wrong with giving each of these characters a particular moment in the film to shine. And despite what some purist fans might think—Chekov’s scenes seem to have played out well with audiences in general. My pre-teen sons and nephew all run around quoting lines from ST09, and Chekov’s scenes appear to be quite memorable to them. I think that ST09 has actually done what the second season of TOS set out to do with the character—-which is to give young people someone with which to identify.
I agree with Shatner_Fan_Prime. I actually like this Chekov better than the original.
“Scotty didn’t really need to be on Delta Vega. ”
I suppose the station could have been automated as it was in WNMHGB, but I have to admit finding the circumstances surrounding Scotty on DV quite amusing. Not everything has to be necessary. I rather enjoyed Scotty’s introduction, and enjoyed his scene on the bridge even more!
120.
My ire with Dennis is not about his views or opinions of the movie but how he talks to and treats people on here. Anyone else and they would’ve gotten banned for some of the inflaming remarks he has said.
#125—-I’ve seen some of his posts that read rather condescendingly, but I guess I don’t see them as particularly inflammatory.
If I had to name “the worst”—-
Darkksan
Red Shirt Monkey
Databrain
There have been others, but I try not to take much note of them.
Just today, I saw “MC1701B” call another poster an ‘idiot’ for no reason at all. IMO, all of them are far worse…
If he is in Lampeter, he is 40 miles away. Getting into the car now
119.
How do you know what a person does for a living just by looking at their tag line? I left my crystal ball at home so I don’t make assumptions. Based upon the times I have been on here I noticed a lot of industry people post on here, set designers, production designers, producers, writers, actors and more. Do you assume every negative remark about the movie to automatically be from an “armchair fanboy” as you have decsribed them? I am grateful for Solow’s remarks, he lends credence to the fact this was not a perfect movie. Those of us who have been fair in our appraisal of the film have been vindicated. There are many people out there that don’t like Kirk’s backstory re-written, or the new bridge, or the new engineering or any other “nitpick” they might have about it. They aren’t nitpicks in my opinion. Every criticism of the movie is legitimate and if the writers and producers are serious about making a better sequel, they will listen to the people. Just because we have are critical about a franchise we love doesn’t mean we “should stay home and be angry”. BTW, I thought it was a fun, exciting movie. It’s not my Star Trek. I will probably buy the Blu Ray version and keep it in a separate section away from the rest of my Star Trek collection, an enigma.
#128 “I will probably buy the Blu Ray version and keep it in a separate section away from the rest of my Star Trek collection”
LOL! Please take a pic of that and flick it!
That is to say, “flickr” it!
#124 Closettrekker
Yes Chekov’s age does stretch believability. I like what someone said in a previous thread, that the new timeline caused him to be born a few years earlier. If his parents were always going to call their first child Pavel and he has the same genes, then it will explain his slightly different looks lol
However I did laugh at McCoy’s “Oh he’s 17″ line!
My point on Delta Vega was that Scotty would have been on the ship much sooner and rescued Kirk and Sulu using the transporter as Chekov did. And as nothing Scotty did on Delta Vega was pivotal to the plot, his absence wouldn’t have affected the plot advancement.
The towel scene on the bridge was good I’ll give you that. But as long as Scotty’s main purpose is wise cracking humour, I don’t feel they’re doing the character we knew justice. I’d like to see the more formidable side to Scotty, like we saw in such episodes as “A Taste of Armageddon”, and more of his natural genius. But not an absence of humour completely.
McCoy on the other hand was the perfect balance of humour and irrascibility (if thats a word).
Mr. Solow’s review had real class. I’m glad he liked the film, all in all. The Solow/Justman book is really requested reading for everyone interested in Trek history.
However, I respectfully disagree with him concerning Zach Quinto’s Spock (he is certainly entitled to his opinion, being one of Spock Prime’s “fathers”). I think, if Leonard Nimoy liked Zach’s performance, that’s good enough for me. And I’m interested in a Spock that is a bit different:
He’s nearly as much of a rebel as young Kirk, in a very subdued, Vulcan way. Kirk doesn’t know what to do with his life – Spock is unsure which world to choose (he tells his mother that he even thought about entering Kolinahr training). Pike says that Kirk passed the Academy entrance exams, but didn’t enlist afterwards – Spock gives a whole new meaning to the term “Vulcan salute”, when he turns down admission to the Vulcan Academy. And than there’s the running gag that Kirk can’t even get the first name of the girl he’s after for most of the movie, but Spock …
John Cho, btw, wasn’t bad, but to me he was the least impressive of all the actors. In all fairness, he had a good fight scene, but his part lacked the emotional character moments the other characters had. So I’m waiting for the next movie …
I liked Anton Yelchin’s Chekov – he was “boy genius” done right. As for his strange accent, he told “Star Trek Magazine” that he decided not to do an authentic Russian accent (he thought this boring), but to consciously use Walter Koenig’s. Whether this was the right decision is up to debate.
Simon Pegg was, to me, only one step away from playing “Simon Pegg, funnyman” instead of playing Scotty. But one of things directors are for, is to make sure that this doesn’t happen …
128:
John:
You have to realize that Mr. Solow co-created Spock and Star Trek 43 years ago, and it’s difficult to see a brand you created handled by new people over and over through the years. There is a sense of loss of control and resentment, especially when the actors who embodied your creations for so long are replaced.
I think O&K took these characters into loving arms, and that the actors who inhabited them did the same, with the right to make them their own. Karl Urban was the only Trekker in the bunch, so he had to emulate DeForest Kelley. ZQ took his Spock right from Nimoy. Pine took his Kirk from left field, and it worked.
#131—”And as nothing Scotty did on Delta Vega was pivotal to the plot, his absence wouldn’t have affected the plot advancement.”
Oh I agree, but I just think that what the scene did there was much what the entire film did throughout—maintain a steady balance of humor amidst the drama and fanboy easter-egg hunting. I just afford the humor in Scotty’s situation more value I guess.
“But as long as Scotty’s main purpose is wise cracking humour, I don’t feel they’re doing the character we knew justice. I’d like to see the more formidable side to Scotty, like we saw in such episodes as “A Taste of Armageddon”, and more of his natural genius. But not an absence of humour completely.”
I think there is plenty of room for him to develop. There is only so much which can be done in a two hour introduction. This outing was clearly Kirk/Spock focused. And I anxious to see more of McCoy in the next one more than I am anxious to see more depth to Scotty.
118. John from Cincinnati
A little better yes. Why? Because it’s more positive. I’m a positive person. I believe negativity breeds negativity. It’s one thing to talk about criticisms in an intelligent or classy way like Mr. Solow did (Who DID like the movie) and yet another to “knock” it. I find the strum und drang of the hyper critical ‘this is the worst thing that has ever happened to Star Trek oh woe is the world’ thing very tiresome frankly. Even if it were remotely true, in the end, it’s just a movie.
And yes it is nitpicking. Hell there has been a series of books about nitpicking. It’s one of Star Trek fans fave sports. Heck I can and have nitpicked every single Star Trek movie and can and will nitpick this one. But in the end I know they are nitpicks.
And if there is ONE thing I have taken from Bob Orci’s participation and openness on this site, it’s that he DOES listen to us, and some of the criticisms my well be dealt with. If they feel they are valid and or they fit in with what they need and want to do with the next movie.
Star Trek Lives.
Wow, such vitriol. Interesting that my positive comments were unsullied, but my criticisms were rather defensively pilloried. I am not going to waste my time to do a point by point rebuttal, except to say everyone should have a right to their opinions on a comments section and the personal attacks are rather juvenile. I never said I hated the movie. I said I had reservations and listed them. I will say that I thought the whole ‘destiny’ thread was cover for weak writing and leave it at that.
Hopefully Trek, new or old, doesn’t devolve into “Trek, love it or leave it.” Or as Scotty advised Chekov, “Drink your drink. Take it easy lad, everybody’s entitled to an opinion.” (Of course we all know what happened after that!)
#136: “I never said I hated the movie. I said I had reservations and listed them.”
On this site, the two are frequently (though not universally) equated. If you’re not here to kneel and slobber at the film’s feet, declare every vain and arbitrary change “necessary,” declare every characterization perfect, declare every aspect of the plot reasonable and comprehensible, then some folks on the site will brand you a “hater” (a mythical creature they’ve invented to scare each other into eating their vegetables and cleaning their rooms, as near as I can tell).
Merely _liking_ this film (or even _loving_ it in a casual, non-religious way) is, apparenty, an insult (either to it, or the filmmakers, or the fans, or the fans to be, or possibly to all life on Earth), and proof that you’re either living in someone’s basement or praying for the franchise to fail, etc.
Fortunately, this isn’t true of _everyone_ here (as always online, a vocal minority stains the impression) and most importantly it doesn’t seem to be true of Anthony, who runs the thing (things aren’t always dealt with with 100% fairness, but it’s very clear that he does his level best to try – as much as anyone could do and a lot more than most of us could manage without running into the hills screaming).
“Hopefully Trek, new or old, doesn’t devolve into “Trek, love it or leave it.””
Yeah. Just … yeah. Here’s hoping.
93 – I disagree. I would say that TWOK is a great film, or at least the closest of the Trek films. It remains the best has held up for over a quarter of a century.
Apart from all the eye-candy special effects, this film did not have much in it at all that hasn’t been in Trek before in some variation or other.
Three weeks after seeing it, I can’t say that there were any standout scenes that stay in the memory. Lots of action. Frenetic pacing. Next to nothing in terms of any real character development.
And nothing will convince me that Pine brought much charisma to the performance. He certainly can’t hold a candle to Shatner’s protrayal. Only Urban’s and Greenwood’s performances had much real texture to them. Sadly, even Nimoy seemed a little wooden in his role compared to his earlier performances as Spock. And don’t get me wrong; I love the guy and I love Trek.
It would be hard for any film to live up to all the hype and the long wait that accompanied this one. Unfortunately, the film was not nearly as good as I hoped it would be or wanted it to be.
Finally some one from the biz with a realistic review of the movie. I’m not a hater by any means at all… I liked the movie okay but am confounded by the unanimous and unswerving love fest that’s been heaped on the new Trek. It’s just not thaaaat good.
The critics got terminator salvation right. It’s awful
The critics got UP right, it’s really fun and touching
The critics wanted everyone to love Trek, just like they wanted everyone to love Dark Knight. Neither movie deserves the props it’s getting.
JJ Abrams deserves credit for reinventing Trek and assembling what I think is a very good cast, but the movie is average at best.
Doug L.
-139.. IYO… and that’s the point.. everyone has one..
#139: “The critics wanted everyone to love Trek [...]”
That’s not really true, though. The characterization of the critics here at this site would have us believe that the film is acclaimed to the limits, but if you actually read the bulk of the good reviews, most of them (A) liked the film just fine but (B) have and express all KINDS of (frequently repeated) reservations about it.
For example, let’s wander over to Rotten Tomatoes where the film earns a 95% Fresh rating. What that means is that 95% of the critics gave it a non-negative review – not necessarily a glowing one! Some examples plucked from clicking on a few high-profile ones:
* Film Threat gives it a “Fresh” review but also calls it “campy” and “convoluted” and suggests that JJ Abrams “hates the idea of nuance.” The review is positive, but with qualifiers.
* The New York Times gives it a fresh review but also notes it’s a film of “muscled boys who can act and leggy girls who aren’t required to” (ouch), and says the cast in general “fumble” with their roles … but with good results. The review is (very) positive, but with qualifiers.
* NPR gives it a fresh review but is pretty harsh on Nero, saying “the writers haven’t done Eric Bana’s snarling Romulan any favors. His nefariousness is so beside the point that the film takes a timeout to let Leonard Nimoy offer a benediction to the new cast.” It’s a positive review, with qualifiers.
* The Los Angeles Times gives it a fresh review but (like many other critics) damns it a few times with faint praise calling it “not perfect [... but ...] successful enough” and citing its “over-caffeinated aspects” and “missteps” to determine that it “in general” has succeeded in its gap-bridging goals. Positive, but with qualifiers.
… and so on throughout the large majority of “fresh” reviews, many of which note wonky plotting and odd-to-justify character behavior and more. The Critics, if it’s even fair to suggest that there’s ever a real “consensus” among them, don’t really “want us to love” Star Trek … they just want to tell us that if we go see it, we’ll probably have a good time, of some kind or another.
It’s always worth remembering that all you need to get 100% at Rotten Tomatoes is for every critic counted there to agree that your film is … okay :) For anything more than that, it’s all in the details …
@141. S. John Ross:
Thank you.
#142:
Sure thing!
Yeah, lots of films get rave reviews with no qualifiers. Happens all the time. Yep.
I have to wonder why it bugs the crap out of some people that folks love this film. It doesn’t mean you have to. Hell, I am fine with anyone who hates the movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I may disagree and may debate with someone about about the merits of the film. But going on about the doom of Star Trek is a bit much. And attempts to prove to people who love it that the film isn’t perfect seems like a silly waste of time.
#144: “Yeah, lots of films get rave reviews with no qualifiers. Happens all the time. Yep.”
In which post did someone suggest that this is the case?
“I have to wonder why it bugs the crap out of some people that folks love this film.”
In which post did someone suggest that this is the case?
“Hell, I am fine with anyone who hates the movie. ”
Um, okay? If anyone who hates the movie drops by, you can hug them for us.
“But going on about the doom of Star Trek is a bit much.”
In which post did someone do this?
“And attempts to prove to people who love it that the film isn’t perfect seems like a silly waste of time.”
In which post did someone attempt to do so?
Once you’re finished arguing with the invisible, mythical “haters” that live in your head, maybe join us here in the forum. It’s nice.
Kudos to S. John Ross and the pleas for sanity.
I am not a doomsayer, but I have said many times if the choice is horrible Trek and no Trek my preference is that Trek ought to die (let the flaming begin). That said, THIS FILM IS NOT horrible Trek (due largely to the character vignettes and the origin threads). There is potential here that will either be realized or fumbled in the follow up film that is now inevitable. I hope Trek gets back to its scifi roots, but I also realize this might be a high bar for a profitable film franchise to surmount. Personally, I don’t want to see Trek devolve into mindless adventure (Die Hard in Space, or something) with old formulas trotted out over and over again. If it lives on in that kind of incarnation I guess I will get off the Trek bandwagon myself, but I’m not going to waste my life trying to get everyone to do the same as I do. Simply, I just won’t watch and will leave new Trek to those who love it. In my opinion the new film is mediocre to good, but I haven’t given up on Trek yet.
Nice try. There have been some who have done all those things, and in general are the ones who get the most guff. But mostly the poor besotted folks who get so picked on here for not loving the film are just being disagreed with. Heavens that’s just terrible!
#146: “I hope Trek gets back to its scifi roots, but I also realize this might be a high bar for a profitable film franchise to surmount.”
It’s also important to keep in mind that whatever the current crew do with Star Trek films, love it or like it or “meh” on it or whatever … it will change again when things get handed off. JJ Abrams isn’t looking to become a lifelong director of Star Trek movies (I’d be surprised if he even sticks around as Director for the full trilogy that the current contracts are likely to produce) … and these actors aren’t (most likely) angling to be playing the same characters for decades like the originals did; they have other fish to fry. And we now have clear and profitable precedent for a new team making their mark by making whatever changes they feel is necessary, so even this new timeline could last only three movies before it’s replaced by a third one (we just won’t know ’til it’s time to know).
I’m holding out hopes for the next trilogy being Pixar ;) (or, you know, the trilogy after that … just put ‘em somewhere in line … anyone know if there are any good ties between Disney and Paramount? Does Brad Bird like Star Trek? How about Andrew Stanton?) :)
For me this film was successful in relaunching the franchise – the writers had a lot to juggle; reintroducing or introducing the Trek universe to moviegoers, establishing a large array of regular characters and giving them all a moment in the spotlight, giving Kirk and Spock incredible character arcs spanning decades of their lives etc etc
It’s no surprise that some story elements were neglected as there’s only so much you can get into two hours!
For the record, I loved this film – the underlyiong ethos of friendship and fate captured the spirit of Roddenberry’s original.
Key for me will be the sequel – can they come up with something as exciting, with the same amount of characterisation but perhaps with a more intelligent story and more than a nod to Trek’s underlying ethos – that of exploration of space, morality and the human adventure.
Over to you JJ, Bob Orci etc
#148. I am certain you are right. Trek has become just another franchise like Bond, Batman, or whatever with just another group of actors. We will be lucky to get three movies out of these guys before they move on (Pine already has tabloids trailing him and Pine, Quinto, Saldana, et. al. will be hot young properties that will either ask for too much money at some point or will lose interest in staying with Trek). Once everyone moves on we will have the re-re-boot most likely (personally I’d rather see new characters introduced in the new timeline, but I doubt that will happen too).
I liked that Trek had a history as convoluted as it became and I liked that I didn’t have to readjust myself to a new Kirk and a new Spock every 5 to 10 years (perversely as a fan we benefitted by the fact that the original cast had far fewer options so they always came back). Those days probably are past. Another reason I think Trek works best on TV is because you’ve got continuity and longevity and less pressure to appeal to the lowest common denominator week in and week out pursuing the blammo box office buck. I think some of the best scifi is done on TV, whether space opera or more intelligent fare (the new BSG or Babylon 5). Character arcs and storylines can develop over time with a depth that is not as easily done in a film franchise and, if the creators have good sense, the series can come to closure and a logical end (which is what I love about the aforementioned examples). I wish Trek could go that route again, but I think that boat has sailed.
149. “Key for me will be the sequel – can they come up with something as exciting, with the same amount of characterisation but perhaps with a more intelligent story and more than a nod to Trek’s underlying ethos – that of exploration of space, morality and the human adventure.”
I agree wholeheartedly. It is all about the sequel now. Whether this works or falls flat for me as a Trekkie comes down to what is next. There is some potential there, now what? (And here is hoping that someone has the good sense to redesign the godawful steampunk engineering section).
re 140 Geoffers…
Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously everyone has a subjective opinion. While I love Trek in it’s myriad forms and have no reservations about parting with Old Trek to embrace new Trek… I attempted in numerous review and comment sections to outline why I think this movie is mediocre at best. Didn’t want to rehash it here, was just surprised to finally read a non fan reveiw that seemed to nail my sentiments.
re 141 S John Ross…
Maybe your right, perhaps I didn’t dig as deep as you did. Most reviews I read though were glowingly positive and seemed to gloss over what I would consider major problems with any movie, Trek or otherwise.
Doug L.
149
I do agree with you, Captain.
Was ST 2009 a great MOVIE? Good, yes (cast, performances, production values etc.), but not great. I’d give it a solid “B”. This is my opinion as a moviegoer in general.
But this wasn’t just any movie, it was “Star Trek”, and I’m a Star Trek fan. So, I loved it! Because it’s a fresh start (… and the other good points #149 made).
148
“These actors aren’t angling to be playing the same characters for decades”
Why shouldn’t they? Is a different enviroment now, compared to the times of TOS. Hugh Jackman played Wolverine four times, and will probably go on to play him, if there’s another X-men themed movie, but in between he did “Australia”.
The actors had careers before that will not be harmed by doing Star Trek.
And what if they don’t to want to repeat their roles?
I liked the cast and hope to see all of them in the sequels, but, IMO, Pine and Quinto are only ones that absolutely HAVE to return. As a Trekker, I loved Karl Urban – his McCoy was spot-on, but the role wasn’t that big that recasting it with another quality actor would ruin a future movie (I really hope it doesn’t happen). Same with Uhura: there could (but shouldn’t) be another gifted black actress playing the role, if the chemistry with the two male leads was there.
Still, I hope to see all of them again (maybe even in a new TV show after some years, because that is where Star Trek, with its ensemble cast, works best).
I still think Yelchin brought a unique spin on Chekov.
RIP David Carradine. Met him once on the street in the French Riviera.
126. Please quote the post from yesterday where I used the word “idiot.”
Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because I didn’t.
Apology now, please.
111. Thinking isn’t involved. Read the credits, or even Solow’s own article. He was not a producer, he was a studio executive. What you and Closettrekker are suggesting is equivalent to saying that Alan Ladd created “Star Wars.”
And if Herb Solow was such a creative genius, please name all the other SF series he “co-created” which went on to engender 4 sequel series and 11 feature films? Can you even name the rest of his series credits without the use of iMDB? ‘Cause I can.
I had no problem with the Chekov character in the film, though before I saw it I kept wondering why we needed him. Still DON’T need him, but Yelchin did a good job.
As for the actors sticking with the franchise—that is not at all as unlikely as some of you apparently are thinking. It isn’t the old days anymore when television work was viewed as second or third class and film work was tops. There has been so much intertwining of franchises, careers, and creative personalities within the industries that they are now almost interchangeable, and it’s no longer a “stigma” to do TV for a film actor, as it was only just a couple decades ago.
Acting is a job like any other—though of course it has its own wholly weird milieu. Sure, for an actor to land a film deal where he/she makes gazillions DOES make them top of the heap, because they can continue to command big respect and money—and/or they can salt the takings away for their old age. But at the lower tier, the idea is simply to keep up steady employment. This is as tough for film actors at the mid-or lower level as it is for TV actors. You want to work, so you bring home a paycheck, and so that you and your family don’t starve. In that respect it’s just like working in a factory or at Walmart, except that you’re making a bit more money and having (probably) a lot more fun—and everyone around you is beautiful.
The prestige and rewards of being a big TV star are recognized now for being just as valid and vital as those for being a film star. And there are people like Shatner and Nimoy, and Alan Alda, etc. etc. who did some films, sure, but are mostly known for their TV work—and who later went on to do other things as well, and are now “elder statesmen” in the business. This is a new thing, since while TV is now over 60 years old, it’s only the generation of TV actors from the late 60s, 70s and 80s who have finally reached an old age where they are respected and remembered strictly or mostly FOR what they did in TV.
All this weighs on the crop of actors today. Sure, they’d love to become the next mega-star who commands gigantic multi-million dollar salaries per film–but it’s well known that that only happens to a small percentage of men and women. What you aspire to is one thing—but having a steady job with increasing prestige for the good work you do, and being remembered by posterity—is another. This is something else that’s new, that’s only been with us since roughly the 80s/90s–our marked obsession with pop-culture nostalgia has created for us the pop-culture icon—people like Shatner and Adam West, who are seen as near-mythic figures both silly and worthy of mockery and at the same time mightily respected, adored, and admired. A very strange set of affairs, but that’s the nature of our love for the characters and figures from our childhoods—we can’t let them go, and they know it—and being human beings, they trade off of that.
And being able to attain that is something that youthful actors find alluring, in a way—to become that kind of a figure, the elder statesman, the long-working face that’s always on the public mind. An icon.
Star Trek is a natural stepping stone to that kind of icon-hood. There is nothing more iconic than playing THE most iconic characters from the most iconic TV franchise in history. Don’t kid yourselves that Quinto, Pine, Urban and all the others don’t know it. And there’s the promise of steady work too. Sure, Pine might be everybody’s pretty boy now… but pretty boys (and girls) are a dime a dozen in Hollywood. His star, without Star Trek, could fade tomorrow, and probably knows that. Sure, it takes huge egos to do what these guys do—so sometimes that clouds their vision—-but they have the mistakes made by people in the past to build on, and they seem to understand it.
Becoming loved as the “new Kirk” or the “new Spock” is an accomplishment HIGH on these guys’ lists, trust me. Not just for ego, but for their sense of professional accomplishment and satisfaction.
The only “danger” is that one or some of them might get the “artistic” bug, thinking that actors are “artists” and need to do more “important” or “relevant” work—or that they need “variety” to keep them “vital” and artistically “valid.” That’s when actors go nutty. When they forgot it’s just a job, a skill, a craft… and that just being able to do it, and do it well, and have the love of the public, is all that matters in the long run. There were dozens of people in Hollywood who were better actors than Charlton Heston, but we remember him and love him because he just kept working and doing the kinds of roles he was good at, and never got above himself thinking he was an “artist” who shouldn’t play heroes and biblical figures anymore. He just went to work, did his stuff like a professional, and that was that.
I suspect these guys from the new Star Trek know this, and I suspect they’ll be proud and happy to stick with it for as long as they can.
MC1701B:
“Read the credits, or even Solow’s own article. He was not a producer, he was a studio executive.”
He was, in fact, an executive at Desilu, but also an “Executive Producer.” That is a typically ill-defined title in Hollywood (particularly back in that day) which varied from individual to individual. All the evidence is that Solow played a fairly important role in the development of the series, and was not simply some “hands off” exec who was just a title.
You clearly have some animosity for the man, apparently based on the book he co-authored with Robert Justman. And apparently because you are a Roddenberry touter. Well, if this is the case, I’d suggest you dig your head out of the sand. Roddenberry’s reputation wasn’t suddenly besmirched by Justman and Solow; in fact it was well known in circles for quite some time that Roddenberry was at times manipulative and prone to taking credit for the work of others. He was also a bright guy who could also be decent and a warm human being. He was also a hack writer who had great rewrite skills but was nowhere near as good at writing creatively on his own. Justman and Solow acknowledged all of this—the good and the bad, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Roddenberry loved to mythologize himself and his creation—but the evidence is clear and has been clear for quite some time that he, Roddenberry, was 10% genius, 40% hard work, 20% tenacity, and 30% bullshit and manipulation. I don’t know why anyone would find this so surprising, given what we know about him.
“What you and Closettrekker are suggesting is equivalent to saying that Alan Ladd created “Star Wars.””
Hardly. Alan Ladd was HEAD of a gigantic studio, 20th Century Fox. He was, in that sense, very distant from a creation like Star Wars. Solow was an EXECUTIVE at a very small, limited studio, Desilu, which was headed up by Lucille Ball. It’s primary purpose was to produce her show, and it’s only when Solow came on as a CREATIVE exec, that he began broadening the work of the studio to make a more viable business—and proof that he accomplished this is the nice sum Lucille got for the studio when she sold it to Paramount. Solow was not just some figurehead, he was a creative guy with brains and talent who rebuilt that studio for her. And he was directly responsible, as a vital member of a TEAM, for the successful creation and sale of Star Trek AND Mission Impossible. (and later Mannix). And that team was composed of Solow, Justman, Roddenberry, and the producer of MI.
“And if Herb Solow was such a creative genius, please name all the other SF series he “co-created””
Why does it need to only be SF series? Solow was an all-around businessman and talent, not just limited to SF.
He was partly responsible for as many series, if not more, than any average exec producer at his level.
“which went on to engender 4 sequel series and 11 feature films?”
Are you suggesting that Roddenberry was solely responsible for this, or even mostly? You live in a dreamland then.
Roddenberry’s ONLY successful product EVER was Star Trek. And it wasn’t only his. He made repeated attempts before and after ST and failed each time. Star Trek was a great product, and he deserved kudos for the idea and all he did for it—but to try to hand it ALL to him is just nonsense. If that’s what you meant, then you’ve argued yourself right out of that one.
I agree with him on Spock… the only emotional depths seem to be anger/irritation and they’re pretty much there on Quinto’s surface.
There are no mysteries there — that, ‘what could he be thinking/feeling?’ that Nimoy had, especially in TOS. Very few have played a Vulcan well. And, personally, I think the romance with Uhura kind of dispelled the mystery… that whole closed off/ suppressed/ unavailable thing which I adopted and has been disastrous to all my relationships… wait, I think I’m just jealous that they’re happy, fictionally.
#154—”Please quote the post from yesterday where I used the word “idiot.”
Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because I didn’t.
Apology now, please.”
” MC1701B – June 3, 2009
69. So what you’re saying is, there are no political or military conflicts in the world right now upon which the writers could have commented.
Or is it than SF can no longer be allegorical because it’s no longer the ’60’s?
Either way, you’re an idiot.”
You were saying?
#155—”Read the credits, or even Solow’s own article. He was not a producer, he was a studio executive. ”
He is listed as “executive in charge of production” (executive producer) for 54 episodes of TOS. It’s right there at IMDB.
“What you and Closettrekker are suggesting is equivalent to saying that Alan Ladd created ‘Star Wars.’ ”
No it isn’t.
He (Solow) was one of the show’s producers. You said he wasn’t (#91–”Herb Solow did not produce Star Trek.”)
My response was not a “suggestion” at all. It is a statement of fact that he is listed as “executive in charge of production”—-more commonly known now as “executive producer”. I’m sorry, but that makes him a TOS Producer—-just as JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Bob Orci, and Alex Kurtzman are all “producers” of ST09.
MC1701B, you owe Closettrekker an apology.
LOL!
#161—Yeah…I’m sitting here at my desk with a tear in my eye waiting for that one….
tick-tock…tick-tock…
I heard he’s sending you a Hallmark card instead. “Sorry” can often be the hardest word to say…
#164—Especially with a foot in his mouth!
I don’t envy anybody to have to step in and fill the shoes of such an iconic character as Spock. I salute Quinto for trying and being such a good sport with all of us fanatics.
The truth be told, Solow was right. Nimoy’s Spock has so much more of a gravitas to him, even in the earlier episodes. It may be Nimoy’s deep voice, or eyes or plain, good old-fashioned acting. Quinto, through no fault of his own, is the victim of most young actors in Hollywood these days, they all have high-pitched squeeky voices. It’s like listening to teenagers or men with hormone imbalances. Zac Efron, Ben Aflleck, Matt Damon, Josh Harnett, and many many others all sound like girls. Don’t take my word for it, in an interview with McG, director of Terminator: Salvation, he described the difficulty in casting the role of John Conner because of all the “high-pitched wafes” in Hollywood these days.
#166 sayeth wisely “Quinto, through no fault of his own, is the victim of most young actors in Hollywood these days, they all have high-pitched squeeky voices. It’s like listening to teenagers or men with hormone imbalances.”
Yeah. While I was never a Voyager fan (as I’ve said here before, I’ve literally only sat through episodes when I was being paid to) the one thing that always made me smile was Tuvok’s voice, since they really seemed to _get_ that to have any hope of stepping past Leonard Nimoy’s shadow, a new Vulcan dude would have to be able to go toe-to-toe with that vocal gravity (and similarly with the performance of Mark Lenard as Sarek) or forever be a lightweight wannabe.
That said, I think Quinto did excellent work within his own limits and (more importantly) within the much stricter limits set by the material he was given. Just imagine some of Quinto’s lines on paper, try to keep yourself from giggling, and ask yourself how many actors could pull off a delivery that works at all. So, I’m grateful for Quinto’s skills and obvious dedication to the role (and I’m eager to see him do more with it), even if I mourn his mickey-mouse vocal chords and yupster vibe.
166 and 167:
I suspect the reason for poor voice quality in today’s Hollywood is partly because these actors are no longer trained in voicework the way actors from the old Hollywood were—and a large part of that was because radio work was still an important field for acting back in the 40s and 50s, right up until about 1962. Training in a “radio voice” was then something that most actors received, or at least picked up on, in the course of their careers, along with voice training for the stage… though that is actually different.
I’d say that the death of a radio drama is a big part of the reason why actors whose careers began AFTER the 1960s became increasingly less and less “voice centered.” To the point where today’s actors aren’t even versed in it. Because it’s possible to lower the timbre of own’s voice to a certain extent if one’s trained to USE their voice that way—but the only people getting so trained these days are radio news announcers, and even they seem to have moved away from it, sadly.
168
Also the era of even having a great voice in radio is over. There were people who worked on, and were known for their voices. There seems to be a trend of casting the ‘non voice’ these days in radio to simulate the every man or what I think of as the dumbed down, no talent approach.
169 Andy:
I totally agree. It’s sad. The trouble is that a great voice not only commands respect, it’s also just pleasant to listen to and makes you hungry for more. I mean, let’s face it—part of the reason a guy like Shatner is iconic and has been for years is, yes, that delivery he had, the Shatner pause and all that… but would it really have been THAT memorable in a lesser voice? I think it wouldn’t. Shatner and Nimoy have both been known for voice over work since ST, and it’s because they both possess very pleasant sounding voices that engender respect or at least enjoyment on certain levels.
I suppose radio has also become very marginalized over the years with all the competition from the internet. But I still love it, the radio… there’s still nothing as vital and “on the spot” about it… it’s too bad that it too has suffered the over-dumbed-down trend in our culture.
Yeah,…I miss Nimoy’s voice work in the 70’s doing the authoritative thing on “in search of the bigfoot” and those kinds of things.
I’ve always been a fan of Shatner’s delivery too. He used to words as weapons. Knew the method. Different training. Different times. Ah the days.
159. And if I check every thread on this site, I’ll bet I find a post where you used the word, too.
But not on this one.
QED.
157. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.
160. The two terms are not synonymous or equivalent. This is nowhere more obviously proven than the credits of TOS themselves, where Roddenberry from Coon’s first episode on is credited as “Executive Producer,” and Solow as “Executive in Charge of Production.”
Reading doesn’t seem to be an issue for you, so why deny the evidence of your eyes?
157. If what you say is true, why didn’t Herb publish his book before October 1991?
I would really love to see your answer, if you have one.
Is there any truth to the rumor that the charactor of Han Solo was actually a take on Herb’s name?
re 63 Aijaz and Geoffers,
Geoffers, 3 posts refering back to # 63 with nothing constructive to say at all. Sorry man but not cool.
I agree completely with Aijaz. Not because I can’t embrace new Trek vs old, not because it’s not exactly the same as TOS, but for exactly the reasons he states fairly clearly.
re 70… Geoffers the characters are barely developed is more to the point.
re 74… Geoffers – Here’s hoping your next post is (ahem) intelligent.
I’m glad this movie is doing well and as I’ve stated repeatedly, actually love most of JJ Abrams work. Just feel as a movie (despite a successful relaunch) that as Aijaz stated… it’s really full-on popcorn. The dogs in “UP” are better developed than the cast in Trek.
Doug L.
re 107 Andy Patterson,
I disagree with you though on this. I think CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms are much more entertaining than the random “wow i saw it three times now, and it is the best movie ever” comments which i feel represent 75% of the posts in general.
I really love a good critique and try to find them. I don’t particularly care if someone loved or hated the movie, it’s all subjective. I like to read interesting tidbits about why they liked or disliked something. :D
I was really happy with Mr. Solow’s criticism because it seems to be the first time someone associated with Trek (that I’ve seen at least) had something critical to say… and I agree with him.
Doug L.
MC170B:
Are you a child or just “childish” by nature?
Your little question is pointless. Solow was just as much a “TV generalist” as Roddenberry, Justman, or any of them were. So what’s your point? Solow wasn’t responsible for any other sci-fi TV shows… and…. so what? What, pray tell, does that prove in your eyes? Roddenberry wasn’t either. He in fact failed with every subsequent venture AFTER Star Trek.
As to “the terms not being synonymous or equivalent,” you’re quite simply wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I answered this in my lengthy reply to you earlier, and you conveniently skipped that and failed to address it.
As for why Solow didn’t “publish his book” before Oct. 1991, why don’t you contact him and ask him yourself? But let’s be clear on this–it was NOT solely HIS book. It was co-written with Robert Justman. BOTH men were close to Roddenberry. YOU feel it was a “stab in the back” (what is it with you and Roddenberry anyway? Are you one of these ridiculous Trekkies who honestly feels Roddenberry was some kind of unimpeachable godlike figure? He was, in fact, a very failable human being with good and bad sides, like any of us, and some of his bad traits affected professional demeanor) ….well I didn’t get that sense from reading the book. Rather, I got the sense that here were two men who were close to Roddenberry, but felt it was time to tell the whole story. YOU are clearly implying that they waited until after he was dead so he couldn’t respond to their statements—but of course the alternative answer is that they waited until after his death, perhaps, because they didn’t wish to hurt their friend’s feelings.
I have gotten the sense of Roddenberry over the years—not just from this book—that he was one of these odd, dualistic guys—outwardly confident and unflappable, but inwardly insecure. That comes out more and more over the years, and clearly one of his strategies, as a personality, for coping, was to build up his own image, occasionally at the expense of others.
I found the Solow/Justman book to be a fairly gentle straightening of the facts from two men who were extremely professional and had WIDELY varying, successful careers in the industry. Their opinions and stories have been echoed and in some cases even verified by many other sources.
Roddenberry, by comparison, was ONE man whose career was built on ONE success—Star Trek. After that he had managed nothing successful in Hollywood despite repeated attempts.
You WANT to find sinister motives in Solow’s and Justman’s book—and that only shows how deep your bias FOR Roddenberry runs. Well, good for you, stick with that if that’s how you like it.
But enough with trying to tear down Solow’s relationship to the show. You forget that he wrote this book WITH Justman, who approved it and clearly agreed with everything Solow said. Justman we KNOW had VERY clear and deep roots with the show and certainly DID play a serious part in its development. And if Solow had exaggerated or lied about HIS role in the show’s creation, Justman wouldn’t have written the book with him. He would have wrote his own.
re 97 BiggFrogg,
Agree with you almost completely in your assessment. With my comments about criticisms, I like to read these because I’m curious how all the people who heap boundless praise feel about these moments. They obviously feel these things all work fine.
I had the chance to ask Bob Orci about this a little bit, and his answer was “obviously I disagree”. I was hoping for a little more, because I respect what he’s accomplished.
My only disagreement is I think the movie format CAN work fine, though I would also like to see Trek developed akin to “Lost” with long arcs and character development. Hopefully it won’t devolve into explosions, sexual innuendo, quick cuts, and lens flares.
Doug L.
#171 Andy:
“Yeah,…I miss Nimoy’s voice work in the 70’s doing the authoritative thing on “in search of the bigfoot” and those kinds of things.”
I loved “In Search Of” in its original run, when I was a kid. And one of my fondest memories is of meeting Nimoy round about 1976 when he was doing the show. It was, of course, at times just fluff—but just by his voice and presence, he lent it gravitas… just as Rod Serling had contributed something unique to “The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau” series, in the early 70s, with HIS narrations.
Someone really MUST get “In Search Of” released on DVD. I can’t understand why the Landesburg people don’t do this (unless they no longer own it.. but then who does?) We know damn well the thing would sell. I can’t understand what’s held this up. It’s a true shame.
“I’ve always been a fan of Shatner’s delivery too. He used to words as weapons. Knew the method. Different training. Different times. Ah the days.”
Sadly, that generation is dying out—the generation that knew the old Hollywood, or at least caught the tail end of it.
#172—-”And if I check every thread on this site, I’ll bet I find a post where you used the word, too.
But not on this one.”
Not that I was really expecting you to demonstrate any real character, but I find it curious that, given your own demand for an apology under false pretenses, you didn’t offer one to me…lol.
In over two years of reading and posting on this site, I may have indeed “used the word”—-but I’m quite sure I haven’t directly applied it to a fellow TM poster during what is supposed to be a civil discussion.
#174—”The two terms are not synonymous or equivalent.”
Nor do they have to be. I am not suggesting that all producers have the same responsibility. Both titles (”executive producer” and “executive in charge of production”) fall under the category of “producer”—as do the terms “supervising producer”, “co-producer”, etc.There are many different kinds of “producers”, but they are all “producers” nonetheless.
All of this was simply in response to your assertion that it was incorrect to describe Mr. Solow as a TOS producer.
Even at Memory Alpha, Solow is described (correctly) as a producer on Star Trek.
Why this is important to you—I have no idea—but your argument is weak and without support in any case.
#174—Here is an excerpt from the imdb glossary of terms:
Executive Producer
AKA: Executive in Charge of Production
A producer who is not involved in any technical aspects of the filmmaking process, but who is still responsible for the overall production. Typically an executive producer handles business and legal issues. See also associate producer, co-producer, line producer.
Here is another from wikipedia:
The title of executive producer (EP), or executive in charge of production, typically describes a film producer, television producer, radio producer, record producer, or similar stakeholder who doesn’t participate in the technical operations of the production process, but who is still responsible for the success of a project.
Both articles actually indicate that the terms ‘executive producer’ and ‘executive in charge of production’ are indeed synonymous after all.
181
Cool for you, – getting to meet him. I remember very well Serling doing those also. It did lend a presence and weight to nothing, never get to the root of it, subjects. Nimoy was at his height of delivery then…before new teeth.
You’re right,…they should put those out…but then we’re still waiting on “Batman” and “It Takes a Thief” too.
178
As for offering constructive criticism I’ve learned no one really wants to hear that.
First of all, let me apologize for comming so far down the stack that no one will ever read this. I have enjoyed over the years emailing Doug “Drex” Drexler and Mike Okuda, and I have even written both into characters into one of the stories which founded the inspiration for this film … and they both know it. For Drexler, the character was Commodore Relxerd, and for Okuda, the inspiration was Admiral Aduko. Obviously these names come from the real inspiration, named backwards.
I want to tell you how much class both of these people have, and how much I appreciate Solow’s “getting it,” as I have, after many reservations about the Enterprise and the re-make of Star Trek.
In short, nothing was “overturned” in the “Classic TOS” we all know and love. The interview from Trek Movie I think we’re all waiting on is the one from D.C. Fonatana, who was indeed channeled FAR MORE than my ideas were, as she is perhaps just as responsible for Star Trek’s look in this movie as anyone who got credit for writing it. If you haven’t picked up “Vulcan’s Glory” written by Fontana yet, then find it on Amazon if you can. This is the same Spock we see as the “young Spock” in this film. More so, at WalMart I finally bought the DVD set “TAS” on clearance for $14.00 and of course the first thing I went to was “Yesteryear,” which has not only one inspirations in this film, but two. First is the young Spock picked on by other Vulcans, and second is the older Spock meeting the younger Spock.
Where the hell is Science Friday? I wanted to tell people about my close-up view next week of Endeavor’s launch into space!
I am indeed back and have come to say that i have and always will be the biggest trek fan ever known. I have actually seen the movie three times now and i think ill be going back for fourths! I really did enjoy the movie and i am collecting the star trek cups right now from burger king. Unfortunatly i have only the spock cup, but if i dont get the others then thats ok because i have the best cup! Anyway, before my emotions get to far out of hand, i would like to rate the star trek movie infinity stars for it wonderfull people. btw has anybody seen the the old star trek movie number five? I swear that spocks brother is very ugly and disgusting. I named his nutter since that could be the only proper name for him. I believe that i must go now as i must see what Kirk wants me to help him with now. Live long and prosper. ps, if you were wondering, i am vulcan