JJ Abrams Talks Star Trek Sequel, Shatner, Nimoy, Nick Meyer & more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams Talks Star Trek Sequel, Shatner, Nimoy, Nick Meyer & more October 8, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Nimoy,Shatner,Star Trek (2009 film),Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Today Paramount held a press event in LA for their fall home video releases, including Star Trek. One of the Q&A sessions was with Star Trek director JJ Abrams who, in addition to questions about DVD and Blu-ray sets, ended up talking about the Star Trek sequel, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Nick Meyer, and more. Get all the details below.


 

Q&A with JJ Abrams

JJ Abrams talks Star Trek sequel

Question: With the prequel, you have a chance to wipe the slate clean with maybe Romulans and Klingons. [In the next film] Do you have any intention of using the pre-existing monsters or characters, or bringing in a whole new mythology?

JJ Abrams: In going forward, the fun of this movie series is that we will have the opportunity, given its alternate timeline, to cross paths with any of the experiences, places, characters that existed in The Original Series. . We have to be really careful, doing that. I don’t want to do something that is so inside that, once again, only die-hard fans will appreciate. But I guarantee you , and we are just now  working on the script and just now beginning the process of story breaking, whatever the story is and whatever the final movie ends up being, I know it will be something that the intent is that it will work on its own terms and be something that you don’t need to know and study Star Trek to get, but if you are a fan, there will be, hopefully, gift after gift of connections, references and characters that you, as a fan, hold near and dear.

Question: How far ahead do you envision your involvement with the franchise? Is it a movie-by-movie basis? Or do you see yourself kind of shepherding it for the foreseeable future?

JJ Abrams: That’s a wonderfully optimistic question and I appreciate that. The answer is, obviously, movie-to-movie. The fact that we are now actively discussing the second film is surreal and very nice, and I’m thrilled and I hope that that results in something worthy of your time. But, it’s one of those things that you just don’t know and so I cannot presume it’s going to  be a series that goes beyond those. Do we have ideas for a few movies? Have we discussed? Of course. You can’t help but go “Oh, it would be really cool, if we could do this, or if we set that up there?” You throw those things around, but  we can’t presume it’s going to be anything more than now another film that we’re lucky enough to do.

Question: Any chance of you shooting the next Star Trek film in 3-D?

JJ Abrams: It is funny. Paramount talked to me about doing the first one in 3-D and, having it only be my second film, I was petrified just at the addition–I thought it would be another dimension of pain-in-the-ass. I thought I would be like, "oh my god, I just want to make a decent 2-D movie.” I was so worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D one. So I’m open to looking at it because now I feel a little bit more comfortable and, if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun, so I’m open to it. What I’ve seen of Avatar makes me want to do it, because it’s so crazy-cool looking.

Question: You managed to contemporize what was an aging franchise, with your work on Star Trek, and you have talked about including more current events or contemporary themes in the sequel. Do you think that Star Trek is something that is sort of evergreen or that needs to be continuously updated for each generation?

JJ Abrams: It’s hard to give a blanket answer to that question. I do think that, whether it’s Star Trek or anything, whatever is being investigated or created or produced now, in movies or TV, needs to consider the context in which it is being distributed. It’s not a vacuum. There are certain universal themes of love or conflict or loyalty or family. There are certain things that are everlasting that need to be presented in a way that makes it feel relevant. Even if it’s a period piece, you need to consider what context that film, that story and those characters are being seen in. But, having said that, with Star Trek, it’s not like we’re looking to make the second movie some kind of heavy political allegory. I think that it’s important that there is metaphor to what we know and that there is relevance, and I think allegory is the thing that made shows like The Twilight Zone and Star Trek resonate and still vital today. But, because the first movie was so much about introducing these people, and it was very much a premise movie very much about how you bring these people together, it made it difficult to also have the film go as deep as it could, about certain conflict, about certain relationships and the heart of who some of these characters are. I think it was successful in what it needed to do to introduce these people, but I feel now that we’ve done that. And yes they are still going to be getting to know each other to some degree, but I think it is the job of the next film to go a little bit deeper–not to be any less fun and take itself too seriously–but to consider now, who these people are now and to grow with them, and examine them a little more closer, now that we’ve gotten through the sort of pleasantries and introductions.

Question: For the next couple of months of the foreseeable future, what do you see focusing on?

JJ Abrams: Jeff Pinkner and Joel Wyman are running Fringe very well and we’re still very involved, but they’re running that. We have a new series that we just sold to NBC that we’re producing–it’s a pilot. There’s a movie that I’m writing that I would love to direct  early next year, so we’ll see if that comes to fruition. There’s a movie called Morning Glory that is coming out next year, with Harrison Ford, Rachel McAdams and Diane Keaton, that’s being edited now. Roger Michell directed that. And obviously we’re hard at work on the Trek and Mission: Impossible, there is a lot.

 

JJ on Shatner and Nimoy in Star Trek, Fringe and MI4

Question:  You have said the hardest decision for you with Star Trek was not including William Shatner in the movie, can you talk about the possibility of him being in the next one? 

JJ Abrams: I am open to anything. I would love to figure out something. Given the challenge of introducing these new characters, given the burden of cast these new people, I feel like the first did some of the heavy lifting that needed to be done in order to free us going forward, maybe there is less of a burden and more of an opportunity to work with him again. We speak, we actually have a lunch date planned. I am fan, I am a friend of his, or he is at least a friend of mine–he may say otherwise on his blog today, I have no idea. I really couldn’t like him more and would love to work with him.

Question: [Leonard Nimoy] has said that he thought a Star Trek sequel maybe didn’t need him anymore. What is your reaction to that? Is he just being modest?

JJ Abrams: I can say that I can’t imagine a Star Trek movie not needing him. I’m sure what he’s saying is a combination of modesty and honesty. He may actually feel that way. But, the truth is, we could never have made this movie without him, and working with him again would be a joy. It is clearly too early, given that we are just now talking story, to conclude whether or not Spock Prime is in the film or not, but do I want to work with him again? Of course, 100%. I’d love to.

Question: What are your plans for [Leonard Nimoy] on Fringe, beyond this week’s episode?

JJ Abrams: In terms of his role as William Bell, none of us could believe our luck that we convinced him to say yes to bee in the show. He is wonderful in the show. And, I will say that this is not the last you will see of his character.

Question: Can you rule out Leonard Nimoy reprising the role of Paris in Mission: Impossible: IV?

JJ Abrams: How cool would that be? It is funny, I just got a call that Peter Graves is in great shape. There was that time when he did Airplane!, but I almost feel like you could make him serious-ize again and bringing him back. Whether it’s Nimoy, who., of course, I have an incredible affinity for, or Graves, or anyone, we’ll see. I actually tried to get Martin Landau in Mission III, in a very small little moment just for fun, and was told that he had no interest in doing it. But then, when I met him, after the movie came out, it was the greatest thing. We were at this restaurant in New York, for one of the TV upfront parties, and someone introduced me to Landau. They took me over and Martin Landau came over to me, extended his hand, and [pretended to removes his face mask]. That was the greatest thing I’d ever seen.

 

JJ Abrams on Nick Meyer

Question:  Nicholas Meyer watched all the 79 original episodes before he directed The Wrath of Khan. How many of the original episodes had you seen before directing the film?

JJ Abrams: I saw most of the original episodes. I watched a lot of them with my kids and they loved it so much more than I every thought they would and were scared to death! It was so cool to see these episodes through the eyes of a seven or eight year old.

But I want to speak for a moment about Nicholas Meyer, who was an amazing director and writer, and was friends with my parents when I was a kid. When I was a kid, among the other embarrassing things I would do, and there is a list of stupid things, I would make these dumb comedy tapes. I would often make prank phone calls and would do it with friends and Greg Grunberg and I would make countless moronic comedy tapes. I vividly remember one night though when Nicholas Meyer was over for dinner. He came into my room, and I was maybe nine or ten, and he and I made a tape together, and it was some stupid interview tape, where he and I were playing characters interviewing each other. He was just this guy who was willing to be silly and goofy and I knew he was a writer, but I didn’t know much about him. And the idea that he would later go on to direct a Star Trek movie and that even later I would is so weird to me. Years later he came to my bar mitzvah and he gave me the unabridged annotated Sherlock Holmes, which I still have. It is just bizarre to me, because I was such a fan of the films he did, and really that was the height of my Star Trek fandom. I saw the first film, but when his films came out I just loved him. I always felt a kinship because I knew that guy and it was just sort of surreal to be in those shoes and getting to say action.

COMING UP NEXT: Bob and Alex + first impressions
Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were also at the event, look for a report on their Q&A shortly. Later we will have some first impressions from the demo of the Star Trek Blu-ray.
 

Look for more coverage on the Star Trek home video releases coming November 17th. You can pre-order your copy or copies below.

Title Blu-ray DVD
Star Trek 2009 3-disk set

3-disk set w/ replica

3-disk set w/ badges

2-disk

1-disk

 

 

Comments

1. Joseph Coatar - October 8, 2009

trek 12 would be great in 3d!

2. Spocko - October 8, 2009

Wow, I would love to see Peter Graves and Leonard Nimoy in a new M:I movie. That would be really cool.

3. Harry Ballz - October 8, 2009

It’s cool that Abrams may have Nimoy in the next film. I still don’t see a viable way to squeeze Shatner into it!

4. John Kirk - October 8, 2009

Awesome stuff….

5. Jay - October 8, 2009

Wow! The Nick Meyer JJ Abrams connection is awesome!
I had never heard JJ talk about Meyer before…

6. CarlG - October 8, 2009

Best. Bar Mitzvah. Ever. :D

On the downside, though, Nimoy in MI4 would mean he’d be sharing the screen with Tom Cruise. *shudder*

7. SciFiMetalGirl - October 8, 2009

Sounds like JJ is a bigger Star Trek fan than he first let on!

8. Julie - October 8, 2009

Anyone who is really familiar with Star Trek can find many possible ways to bring Kirk Prime back. I bet professional writers could come up with something that would blow us away.

9. Cheve - October 8, 2009

Yes, it is very easy for a Star Trek expert to find hundreds of ways to bring Shatner back, but it would have to be done in a way relevant to the plot, and it has to be a plot relevant for itself.

This is not a TV series where we’ll have 24 episodes each year and can afford giving one of them to a plot based in justifying the com back of a loved actor. It is a movie, and it has to be good by itself.

The objetive in the mind of the writers has to be making the best story posible and if it involves an old Kirk, great, but I don’t see how bringing someone else from the prime universe in the second movie won’t mess the perception of the movie whatever its plot is.

The new crew has been stablished and it needed a movie without time for strong Scifi allegory or a pure Star Trek mission of exploring and “cowboy diplomacy”. The mission for Bob and Alex right now is to show us the new incarnation of the crew having their real first Star Trek mission together, which they haven’t had yet (Nor in the first movie, nor in the series). Shatner should only be there if the story requires him; not as an obligation. Let him read the audio book of the novelization, but do not force him into the plot.

10. capnjake - October 8, 2009

Harry ballz one easy way of getting an older kirk could be a new interpritation of the classic tos episode “The Deadly Years”

11. Cobalt 1365 - October 8, 2009

Wow, one of the most interesting interviews I’ve read, and it sounds like JJ is opening up just a little more about Trek 12.
JJ and Nick Meyer, cool!

12. Harry Ballz - October 9, 2009

#10

Yeah, I’ve heard that mentioned before, but I think seeing Pine turn into Shatner then back to Pine would lose any audience member with half a brain!

13. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 9, 2009

For Star Trek 11, I was pretty vehemently against bringing back Shatner. For Star Trek 12, I could imagine a way that wouldn’t be so intrusive (basically, going off the fact that in the JJ-verse, the whole Nexus story doesn’t need to happen), BUT then we’d be looking at another time travel story (it’s about time Star Trek gives that a rest for a good long while), AND it would still be the case that the story would need to mandate the inclusion — no gimmicks for nostalgia’s sake, please.

One notion that intrigues me, since Abrams brings up the tie-ins to TOS, is whether Star Trek 12 could fool around with the Mirror universe. Maybe it would be too soon, and it would be better to tie the movie into another OS story like the Corbomite Maneuver or the Doomsday Machine (personal favorites), but the notion of multiple parallel universes interacting with each other is intriguing to me (OS universe – JJ Universe – Mirror Universe, in a kind of triangle of interaction).

14. Spockish - October 9, 2009

3D would be great for others, but for me it would not. I just went to the Eye Doctor today, and got a look at what damage had happened to my left eye some 20 years ago by the DUI driver that nearly killed me. Much of the Retna cells have been pressed to death, they are shocked that the eyeball did not shatter. The only way I’m going to see 3D again is with a Bionic Eye. They have beginner models now 1Kx1K in 16 shades of gray, and they will let you find doorways and walls but things like movies is like colored blocks of solid colored 8×11 sheets of paper pasted on the wall 5 feet from you.

I’d want one as good as a Jewelers Lupe to examine fine diamonds. But that good is some time in the 22nd century. May be around the time Capt. Archer’s dad opened the Warp 5 Center that’s referenced in Broken Bow when Enterprise started.

I just DLed a ISO copy of Pualey79′s Trials and Tribbulations. with 11 minutes of extra content added to the DSN episode. I would have added about 5 more minutes of the TOS episode The Trouble with Tribbles. There is also a 5 minute tribute to the starships named Enterprise. Wonder if they’ll let it get posted here. But that will take time, The Enterprise 720p episodes I’m getting from HDNet are eating up hard disk space right now. The Pauley79 DVD was one of the trade items wanted for the Enterprise videos along with many of the FanFilms I’ve collected.

To bad I’ll never get to post them because the detail quality is beautiful on these episodes, and only on a 22″ screen can’t wait for a 72″ screen.

15. Nomad - October 9, 2009

Couldn’t Shatner do a cameo as KIrk’s grandfather, Tiberius? Maybe he could be one of those troublesome TOS ambassador types who keeps pestering KIrk to dosomething obviously unwise. “Grandpa, I’m not beaming you down to their council chamber until I find out what happened to our security team, and why the LIzard People keep asking for barbecue sauce. Now sit down and take your medication!”

16. David B - October 9, 2009

Having Shatner in Star Trek 12 is easy.

Their only hope to save multiple universes…..and restore freedom..oops wrong franchise.

Seriously, if there is one man who can save all universes and restore continuity of Star Trek back to its correct future its him.

17. Andy Patterson - October 9, 2009

16

There you go Dave….with you on that. Shatner’s the man to me still.

18. RK - October 9, 2009

Man i am gettin tired of that Shatner stuff.
Who cares about him anyway? I don´t and i would hate so him rushed into the story just to satisfy a bunch of had been who can´t accept that a) Shatner is now fat and old and b) Kirk is dead!
The idea they had for the first movie with Spock Prime presenting a holomessage to Spock from Kirk would been the best way to satisfy everybody. But now its time to move on.
apart from that there a lot of TNG, DS9 fans how about some references to this guys??? The Shatner thing bores me extremly and people bringing it up should leave it

19. screaming satellite - October 9, 2009

dont suppose they could just film what they were gonna film for Trek XI and have Shatner in a cameo as a holoKirk Prime wishing Spock Happy Birthday?

maybe just to Spock Prime on Vulcan 2 instead of Spock 2.0

Failing that maybe have Shatner appear via retro footage? – i thought that might be the way to get him in Trek XI…..having Nero or Spock viewing footage of Kirk Prime (taken from a little seen episode of Columbo or TJ Hooker etc – CGed so hes in the Wrath of Khan era uniform – or even an outtake from one of the ST films so fans would be like ‘whoa never seen that before…’)

Nero checked out Kirk Prime in the CD comics doing just that,(and in the movie – ‘i know your face…from earths history’)

20. cugel the clever - October 9, 2009

It’s obvious that JJ has a tremendous respect for Star Trek and the fans. The franchise couldn’t possibly be in better hands.

Given that Nick Meyer wrote the three best of the original series films (#2 #4 #6), I wonder whether JJ has considered inviting Meyer to join the writing/brainstorming team? Even if only in an advising/reviewing capacity? His track record for writing fan-pleasing and quality ST is unmatched.

21. Captain - October 9, 2009

I think Nomad has an idea that can be built upon, not exactly his grandfather, but maybe another relative high up in Starfleet command. The possibilities are endless and it doesn’t have to get in the way of the story or effect it in any way, simple a walk through of some sort, where he says one of his legendary catch phrases and that’s it… doesn’t have to be so complicating, I mean having him “appear” at all even for a moment would be honoring him as he deserves… Just have him walk through on an inspection stating… [showing the Vulcan salute] How many fingers do I have up?

RK – if you don’t like shatner then your not a star trek fan and need to post elsewhere… he made Kirk, he made star trek… without shatner and nimoy it never would have gotten off the ground…

22. Dom - October 9, 2009

Please bring back Peter Graves for Mission: Impossible 4 as Jim Phelps, even if it’s just for a cameo! Come up with some reason for Jon Voight’s character not to have been the real Jim Phelps.

Just as Generations’ idiotic killing of Kirk screwed up Trek for years, the M:I series ‘criminalising’ and killing Phelps started that series off on a seriously wrong footing.

Funny isn’t it: the mid-1990s was obviously an era that had no respect or understanding for long-standing properties, hence Generations, the first M:I, Batman & Robin and so on!

23. Mitch - October 9, 2009

There’s a big difference between what MI did to Phelps and what Trek did to Kirk. MI–not one canon, not the same actor, completely different.

My problem is that after ST11, I can’t believe Abrams when he talks about wanting Shatner in the movie. Been there, done that. I would LOVE to see it.

The idea of Shatner and Nimoy having significant roles in the movie would be awesome–especially if Shatner is Kirk Prime.

We all know that Abrams and his writing team can deal with Generations if they truly want to do so. There are writers with less talent than they have that can come up with an acceptable way of making that happen.

There are those that feel that Countdown should be treated like canon. They brought Data back in that comic. True, I didn’t read it so I don’t know if they explained it, but even if they didn’t, he was there.

They had no problem doing it. And while a Kirk Prime return would need some sort of explanation, I have no doubt they can make one.

It’s a choice.

Trek movies don’t NEED villains. They just need something for the main characters to do.

Canon is what appears on screen. That’s a fact. Because of that, and because of what they depicted in ST11, there is no conclusion but to presume that the prime universe was destroyed–despite comments by Orci and Abrams to the contrary.

That’s what the movie showed. BUT–that’s only a presumption. Abrams can make a hell of a movie that deals with this presumption.

Imagine one of these potential ideas:

1. Spock Prime gets his head out of his butt and realizes that fixing the prime universe is actually important. Billions died that did not die before. The loss of Vulcan would prevent some major good things from happening, maybe even tying into the Probe destroying Earth since there is no Mount Selaya to revive Spock, etc. Kirk and crew, being the awesome people they are, helps him. We see a movie that saves the day, and as a nice benefit, Kirk Prime is saved as well, we see him at the end, Spock Prime and Kirk Prime high five and go back to their own time, and we still have our heroic younger crew moving on.

2. The prime universe is shown to still exist, but somehow something bad is affecting both universes, and Spock Prime and the Enterprise hold the key to saving the day. Kirk Prime, who is somehow shown alive by whatever brilliant reason the writers come up with, is our hero/messenger from the prime universe, and reunites with Spock Prime. After they high five, they work with their other universe counterparts and save the day. Miller time at the end, Spock Prime and Kirk Prime go home, and we still have our heroic crew moving on.

Abrams can kill every bird with one stone.

But I doubt any of that will happen.

24. Brett Campbell - October 9, 2009

18 – “Man i am gettin tired of that Shatner stuff. Who cares about him anyway? ”

Uh… apparently quite a number of Star Trek fans and other posters, if you bother to read their posts.

25. John - October 9, 2009

No 3D please. Too gimmicky.

26. Dom - October 9, 2009

23. Mitch

Everything you suggest would drive audiences away. All that crap about fixing timelines is gone now, thank God! It sucked throughout the Berman era and is well rid of. I’d like to see Shatner back, but the only realistic opportunity would have been in ST09.

Time for everyone to move on.

Personally, I’d have had Shatner’s Kirk alive in ST09, accompanying Spock, and ignored Generations. Who cares about continuity where Kirk’s concerned, years after a rubbish film even its cast hated and its writer has apologised for?

I don’t and the majority of the audience wouldn’t have. Only a few diehards would have complained and the mainstream media would have just laughed at them!

27. Anton Karidian - October 9, 2009

Well,, technically, James T. Kirk still exists in the Nexus energy ribbon.

28. Mitch - October 9, 2009

26–that’s not the ONLY way to get Shatner in the movie. Hell, they could even establish that at some point, Kirk was revived and ended up somehow in the past at a point before Spock Prime arrived. They high five, and have an adventure.

The point is that where there’s a will, there’s a way.

That said, nothing I said would drive audiences away. The Berman era sucked because the writers were terrible. Abrams doesn’t have that problem. But one problem he does have is that despite any off camera comments to the contrary, on screen, he did destroy the prime universe. ST12 can clear that up and make canon what he apparently is claiming he wants.

Despite what many Hollywood execs think, audiences are intelligent. I hate when I hear comments about confusing the audience. People aren’t dumb. People did not magically forget that Shatner was the first Kirk. People are capable of understanding a plot involving more than one universe.

Stories about the consequences of time travel and changing history have provided some of the best science fiction of all time. Just because Rick Berman was an incompetent doesn’t change that.

Yes, ST11 (ST09 was Insurrection) was a realistic chance to get Shatner back. Abrams blew that chance. But if he wants Shatner in the next movie sincerely, it can and will happen. That’s a big if. Nothing in Abrams’ past gives me any confidence he is sincere on the Shatner issue, much as I would love to see that.

ST11 was a good movie. Not great, but good.

Abrams built up credibility on pretty much anything Trek related except the use of William Shatner in ST12. I simply don’t buy it.

29. ensign joe - October 9, 2009

just enough to appease the fans.. not enough to deter the common moviegoer = throwaway episode / cash grab

you
know
it
to
be
true

30. Closettrekker - October 9, 2009

I had no idea of the personal connection between Abrams and Meyer.

That *is* surreal!

I don’t put much stock in the notion of Shatner in the sequel, and quite frankly, I don’t really want to see it happen. It is difficult for me to imagine that being anything but silly.

As for Nimoy, while I loved his role in ST09, I really think that including him in the next one is rather pointless, and could only serve to hold the franchise back when it should be moving forward. Unless the story somehow centers around the relocation of the displaced Vulcan survivors, I’m not sure why he would be necessary to the story. At the end of ST09, I really felt as if the character had found a purpose in this timeline, and would live out the remainder of his days among his father’s people….riding off into the sunset, so to speak.

I don’t feel as if there are any loose ends to tie up with Spock Prime.

31. VOODOO - October 9, 2009

Sounds like J.J. just might find a way to get Nimoy and the Shat on screen one more time.

I would name my first child after him if he could find a way to give Kirk prime a better ending… Only kidding. I’m not that much of a geek :)

Prediction: Both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner will pop up in Star Trek 12.

P.S. It’ great that the series is in the hands of people who like and respect it, unlike the Beman/Bragga era.

32. JimJ - October 9, 2009

Ok, here goes…Picard prime knows about the Nexus. He hears of Spock prime’s disappearance after the destruction of Romulus. War is also looming with the Romulans. After some quick investigating, Picard discovers that Spock prime’s ship went back into the past. After carefully researching what happened in the Nexus and discussing with Guinan the possibilities of Kirk’s “echo” still being alive in the Nexus, he finds the Nexus again and asks Kirk’s help finding Spock prime in the past (since he’s an expert of the time period). THE ADVENTURE CONTINUES……..

Maybe you could put a threat there to Spock prime and the new Vulcan 2.0 (which oddly looks like the Vulcan we all remember from the prime universe-red sky, etc.). Maybe the doomsday machine or some other wink to the original series is Spock prime and the new Vulcan homeworld. Picard and Kirk prime along with our heroes from the new timeline all have to work together to save the day. With this idea, you make a lot of people happy. KIrk is still alive, in a way. Shatner is in the movie. For TNG fans, Picard makes an appearance. For prime universe fans, Picard, Kirk and Spock prime could all return to their universe at the end of the movie while the new universe continues to exist. You get a lot of great and relevant appearances and all is right with both universes again, to an extent. Maybe it sets up a new TNG movie (big screen or TV) about fixing things with the Romulans.

On the downside, it may be way too complicated for non Star Trek fans who liked this last movie and attended it one or more times. It would be very bad to alienate them once again. On the other hand, if they cared at all about that last movie, you’d think they’d want to dive into Trek a bit more and would be able to get all of this figured out. Who knows!!!!! My two cents……..

33. JimJ - October 9, 2009

Though ant to mention that I feel this new crew/set of actors are READY to go it alone, without any help from the original cast.

34. jonboc - October 9, 2009

RK- You, and all of the other Shat-Bashers don’t have to like Shatner, the only thing that matters is that JJ does.

Trek is finaly in good hands.

35. DavidJ - October 9, 2009

I think the questioner was mistaken. Harve Bennett was the one who watched all 79 eps. I believe Meyer says (in his new book) that he only watched a few select ones.

36. BOOZBA - October 9, 2009

Nimoy’s cameo in trek 09 was perfect,but now it’s time to move on!
No more Nimoy,no more Shatner and no more Khaaaaannn!!!
It’s been done,let’s go for a good original story.

37. Shatner Lives - October 9, 2009

oh oh, Space Seed-WoK here we come!

38. Shatner_Fan_Prime - October 9, 2009

Give me Shat & Nimoy and I could die happy. But to quote George Costanza, “God would never let me be that happy; he’d kill me first.”

39. MrPhil - October 9, 2009

3D means shooting digital, which kinda sucks. Stick to film acquisition, shoot it scope, and once again it’ll look great. Trek doesn’t need 3D to draw the crowds.

40. falcon - October 9, 2009

Huh. Peter Graves and Leonard Nimoy in MI:IV.

“Paris, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?”

41. Trek Nerd Central - October 9, 2009

I just want to say that I’m *so, so* glad we can all start arguing about Shatner again.

42. Spockish - October 9, 2009

As for 3D in ways it kind of can engulf you into the experience of the movie. And it is a new toy to play with, and you hope that you’ll become the founding framing person of this new medium. But unless your perfect at doing 3D your going to make many little flubs that will chop legs out from under your story faster than a bad script writer.

If used the producer needs to never do things just to prove the power of this new medium. 3D needs to be thought of as the wallpaper of the movie not the main star.

Like the opening scene of A New Hope, Star Wars created a scene that does not need 3D to blow you away with astonishment. Now if JJ can do something with that much power that can blow away both kid and adult then go for it, otherwise why get yourself dirty. 2D still does a great job.

43. OneBuckFilms - October 9, 2009

Personally, I think the next movie should be about the new cast on their own terms.

Leonard Nimoy in the role of Spock Prime might make sense if the story involves the new Vulcan colony.

For instance, what would happen if the new colony was unknowingly being buint in the territory of a previously unknown alien culture?

What if there was something important about that planet to said aliens, and they started attacking the Vulcans?

Just an idea … :)

44. Dom - October 9, 2009

They should make a straight-to-Blu-ray/DVD film about Spock Prime and Kirk-Prime that could accompany the release of the next movie.

Kirk could step out of the Nexus on the Vulcan colony. It would be fun!

45. Mitch - October 9, 2009

The nexus may not have been the greatest idea in the world, but it truly is the plot device to make anything happen with Kirk Prime. Not much is known about it except that it transcends time and space. Despite all claims to the contrary, without a question, Kirk Prime is in the nexus. Not an echo–the real deal–as real as the Kirk that fought with Picard.

And since we know time has no meaning in the nexus, that means anyone in there, is in there in the future, the present AND yes, the past.

I’ll even add that the only reason Kirk left the nexus was because Picard needed him to fight his battle, and when Kirk did Picard’s job for him, Picard never entered the nexus to begin with, which means that Kirk was never needed to LEAVE.

If JJ wants to prove that the prime universe exists, he could argue that the nexus not only exists in all times, it exists in all universes as well. And therefore, Kirk Prime CAN indeed be reunited with his pal Spock Prime, and they can high five. And yes, the same plot device can be used to bring in Picard Prime (with memories up to the destruction of the E-D). In a way, it would be similar to the transporter accident that created Tom Riker.

Again, that’s just one idea to illustrate that Generations is NOT an obstacle to the return of Kirk Prime.

I hate when people say Spock Prime is not necessary. Not too many characters ARE necessary. Spock Prime is now a supporting character. If they want to use him, they can.

One of the core ingredients of Star Trek is the Kirk/Spock friendship. Shatner and Nimoy–the chemistry they have together on screen combined with the 40 year friendship off screen, would be SUCH a great addition to any Star Trek movie. Death didn’t stop it once. It didn’t stop it in the novels either (which sadly are not canon). The idea that a madman jumping universes and changing everything can’t stop it–well that is awesome. Plus Pine/Quinto can give us the same friendship at an earlier stage. Two ends of the same spectrum.

THAT is Star Trek.

46. SpocksinnerConflict - October 9, 2009

So, what i got from this article is:

Everyone who is successful in Hollywood today had parents who had dinner parties with insider Hollywood people.

Great, the new aristocracy.

Doesn’t make their work is bad…but, it creeps me the F@#k out!

47. captain_neill - October 9, 2009

given some un kind comments about Shatner I am amazed we have Star Trek fans

The popularity of Kirk over the years was due to the brilliant performance of William Shatner. We love the original actors because they made the roles.

Sometimes I read the comments here and think Trek fans just watch the shows to bitch about it all.

48. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - October 9, 2009

I WANT MEYER IN THE DIRECTORS CHAIR FOR II (If JJ passes)

I OWN THE SAME UNABRIGED HOLMES OMNIBUS THAT MEYER GAVE TO JJ DO I GET A LOLIPOP?? ALSO BASED ON MEYER”S RECOMMENDATION I BOUGHT THE BARRING GOULD HOLMES PEDIA!!

MEYER
MEYER
MEYER

49. SpocksinnerConflict - October 9, 2009

Garth,

Is the Gould Holmes pedia worth it?

50. Dom - October 9, 2009

45. captain_neill: ‘Sometimes I read the comments here and think Trek fans just watch the shows to bitch about it all.’

While I’m far from an blind worshipper of all Trek, sadly I have to agree with you, Neill.

51. SpocksinnerConflict - October 9, 2009

Taste of Armaggedon.

We’re getting closer and closer to fighting our wars from a more comfortable distance.

does starfleet use drones to bomb people?

52. Closettrekker - October 9, 2009

#46—-I don’t think you have to like everything and everyone associated with Star Trek over the last 35 years to be a fan.

I happen to like most of what William Shatner did in the role of JTK, but not all of it.

TOS-TVH=William Shatner as James T. Kirk=great

TFF-GEN=James T. Kirk as William Shatner=not so great

That’s alot more “great” than “not so great”, but that doesn’t mean I want to see more of him in that role now. He played the role for 30 years (which is a very long time), and I just don’t think he has anything left to offer me (as an audience member and fan of the character) in that role.

Personally, I really don’t think there is anything wrong with feeling that way, nor do I feel it makes me any less of a fan.

53. Eli - October 9, 2009

Guys, do you honestly believe that in a universe where the dominant political power’s golden rule is non-interference that they would try to fix a timeline that from their perspective they cannot confirm nor deny to be fixed or broken?

No way in hell!

Leave the time travelling, time-line fixing stuff alone. Not gonna happen and would only complicate and hurt the next Trek film with a general audience.

Now, there are plenty of ways to get Shat in there as a Cameo as a character OTHER than Kirk if you really really really want him in there. But you shouldn’t put the fate of an otherwise potentially successful sequel film on whether or not you can stick other original TOS actors in there. That’s just silly.

That being said…

How bout a film version of “Courtmartial” where Captain Kirk (Pine) is represented by Denny Crane…

Huh? :-)

54. RD - October 9, 2009

#53 Eli wrote: “How bout a film version of “Courtmartial” where Captain Kirk (Pine) is represented by Denny Crane…”

LOL

Best idea I have ever seen posted to Trekmovie

55. JimJ - October 9, 2009

#53-I love it!!! It’s science fiction, after all. I think it would be hilariously fun.

56. JimJ - October 9, 2009

#45-Didn’t mean to offend with the word “echo”, just wasn’t sure how to decribe the Kirk that was still in there so it made sense to people. I do agree that they are NOT echo’s. Either way, I was just trying to have a little fun. But, I like the Denny Crane thing a lot. Heck, you could have Pike be in the Commodore Stone spot….as the head of the inquiry. There are all kinds of possibilities. The whole movie couldn’t be about that (not enough action), but you could make it a part of the movie at the beginning or end. Just random thought, once again.

57. Corinthian7 - October 9, 2009

@ Spockish

You have my sympathy dude. Although my brothers eye condition sounds no where near as severe as your own he to cannot see movies in 3-d either. I’m pretty sure that 3-D will be just a fad again but hopefully a stepping stone to actual holographic screens.

58. Scott - October 9, 2009

No Shatner, please. He will always be the real, true Kirk in my opinion, but HIS TIME HAS PASSED. Let’s honor his role as Kirk, not devalue it by rolling him out for some contrived cameo.

59. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - October 9, 2009

#49

Yes it is. Especially if you’re a Sherlockian!!!
Meyer uses it as a cannon bible for his Holmes adventures

60. Dan - October 9, 2009

Exactly 46. :(

61. tman - October 9, 2009

22- MI1 was a hoot. I think it’s as good as Abrams’s MI3 as a movie (although MI3 really has the feel of a team or ensemble) and was definately better than John Woo’s rock-video style tribute to Tom Cruise. The fact that it was Jim Phelps in MI1 helped with the surprise the 1st time you see that film.

It’d certainly be interesting to see a guy claiming to be the real Jim Phelps show up in a story.

62. VOODOO - October 9, 2009

#45

I agee. Give us Shatner and Nimoy one more time.

63. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 9, 2009

53 Eli – “Guys, do you honestly believe that in a universe where the dominant political power’s golden rule is non-interference that they would try to fix a timeline that from their perspective they cannot confirm nor deny to be fixed or broken? No way in hell!”

Excellent point. From the point of view of the JJ-verse, the JJ-verse is prime!

And, by the way, folks, at the risk of repeating myself (since I see some posts about how to bring back Kirk from the Nexus), ST12 doesn’t have to mess around with the Nexus to bring back Shatner, because in the JJ-verse, none of the events of Generations need hold true. If you want to bring back Shatner, all you have to do is jump to the future of the JJ-verse, where older Kirk is presumably alive and kicking, without ever having been ripped from the Enterprise-B.

(Mind you, I’m not advocating a cheap reprise of Shatner as Kirk. I agree the time travel is spent for now, so how about a cinematic flash forward?)

64. Balok - October 9, 2009

Hmmm… seems like Prime spock will be in the next movie, looks like he will use his time travel knowledge to fix the time-line. Good marketing ploy to sell more toys with the original E back in play…

65. Balok - October 9, 2009

As for Shat, JJ will have him direct the next Trek movie….

66. dmduncan - October 9, 2009

This new timeline/universe is the new Star Trek folks. Restoring things would be a pfandering return to canon and a gonad imploding retreat from the principle that led them to alter the timeline in the first place. So get used to it.

However, extrapolating from current trends of rebooting old ideas and franchises, we can project that the time between rebootings will so compress that we will eventually reach a time in the future where Star Trek is completely rebooted several times a year, so every Star Trek fan may eventually get at least ONE movie exactly the way he or she wants it.

67. dmduncan - October 9, 2009

Re Shatner’s appearance—A parting gift from Spock Prime to Kirk Pine: A holographic interactive personality record of Kirk Prime that Kirk Pine can consult, play chess with, discover Uhura’s first name from, etc.

68. Robert - October 9, 2009

HOW ABOUT CREATING ANOTHER ALTERNATE REALITY TIMELINE FROM THIS NEW ALTERNATE REALITY TIMELINE, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, CONTINUE THAT FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS!!! THE FRANCHISE WILL NEVER GET STALE! (cough) BS (cough) EXCUSE ME!!

69. Harry Ballz - October 9, 2009

#65

Dear God, NO!

70. Green-Blooded-Bastard - October 10, 2009

I had mixed feelings on Shatner in the new Trek, but for 12 I would have no issues. In fact, I can see it better. I’m sure they could make it plausible somehow.

71. Iowagirl - October 10, 2009

Seems we have one of those Shatner-in-the-movie-discussions for a change. Thank you so much JJ – I was really starting to miss that..:)

72. NTH - October 10, 2009

It was a pity that the holographic scene involving Shatner as Kirk was not filmed for the last movie.It would have been a nice tip of the hat to continuity in this newly concieved timeline……in other words Shatner is still Kirk in this timeline……in effect Quinto becomes Nimoy and Pine becomes Shatner in their respective on screen characters.A flash forward (in time) scene in the context of this newly established timeline showing Shatner as he is now would make it clear that he didn’t die in that regretable way in Generations.Clearly there any amount of storylines that can be generated from this potential scenario involving Shatner …. including a “Generation” era Kirk who survived his encounter with Soran and returns to bring Spock Prime back to generation time period.Its only a thought, perhaps a forlorn dream on my behalf that this might ever happen. I have no doubt though that as the franchise has been re-invigorated with an amazing cast ,a highly profitable movie and a team of very talented writers that if there is a will then a way will be found for one last appearance by Shatner in a manner that is organic to the storyline.Hopefully J J Abrams lunchdate will Bill Shatner will lead to something substantial happening.

73. Dom - October 10, 2009

46. SpocksinnerConflict: ‘So, what i got from this article is:
Everyone who is successful in Hollywood today had parents who had dinner parties with insider Hollywood people.
Great, the new aristocracy.
Doesn’t make their work is bad…but, it creeps me the F@#k out!’

Dude! Hollywood’s been like that since Day One, whether it’s the two Douglas Fairbanks, the two Lon Chaneys, Lupita Tovar’s dynasty – she lived with the Cansino family (the young Cansino daughter becoming famous as Rita Hayworth years later) when she was shooting Universal’s Spanish version of Dracula, married the film’s producer Paul Kohner, gave birth to the Oscar winning actress Susan Kohner who went on to give birth to Paul and Chris Weitz who wrote American Pie – the two Stacy Keaches, the Sheen/Estevez clan, Donald and Keifer Sutherland . . .

While fresh blood turns up in Hollywood some of the time, the film and TV industry is actually surprisingly small and incestuous.

Hell, I’m nothing at all major in the UK television business – just a freelance editor, albeit the third generation of my family to be in the print or audiovisual media – but a friend of a friend was driving Megan Fox around Hollywood a few weeks back, which made me realise that, with so many UK and US TV colleagues on my Facebook, I have to be careful what I say.

In the media, globally, we’re all indirectly linked one way or another and thus occasionally brush with ‘famous’ people, finding ourselves randomly eating at the same dinner table as them or drinking in the same crowd at a bar.

Abrams’s experiences aren’t that unusual in the scheme of things!

74. dmduncan - October 10, 2009

@73: You are right, but I do wonder sometimes if the reason so much crap is produced is this very “inside” dynamic where rather than getting behind new talent and ideas, like Neil Blomkamp, the people who fund the projects too frequently go to their circle of familiars, which makes for a pretty damned small field from which to pull your corn.

75. SpocksinnerConflict - October 10, 2009

73-

Yea, i didn’t say it was a new trend.

in fact, it’s the holding onto bullshit traditions i have a problem with.

76. Closettrekker - October 10, 2009

#73—-Even Chris Pine is the product of two television actors. It’s no different with the talent offscreen. As you say, Abrams is but one example of that.

In fact, I’m not sure that the percentage of Hollywood nepotism and “family business” dynamics at play today would be any more significant than in other areas within society.

For example, my paternal grandfather was a pilot—-and two of his three sons (as well as several of my cousins) followed that path (whether recreationally or professionally), as did the man his only daughter chose to marry.

I don’t know why anyone would expect there to be a difference when it comes to Hollywood.

77. RetroWarbird - October 10, 2009

J.J., call in Nic Meyer as a writing consultant! Do it!

78. Dom - October 10, 2009

75. SpocksinnerConflict

Inevitably, though, people often go into similar professions to their parents. I’m slightly unusual in my family, being a bit more into the technical/engineering side of TV, while most of my family were journalists.

Then again, my paternal grandfather worked in the city dockyard building submarines from the 1930s to the 1960s, another family member was a top-notch electrician, another a monumental mason, so all these things come into play.

While new blood is important in any business, as Closettrekker points out, we often as not end up becoming our parents sooner or later! ;)

79. Demode - October 10, 2009

Peter Graves – How to bring him back….

1. Bring Peter Graves back as the REAL Phelps, by saying that the name “JIM PHELPS” was really a code name they assign the person who becomes the leader of the MI group. That does let them bring back Graves easily.

2. As cliched as it may sound… what if Jim Phelps from the first MI movie was actually the SON of Jim Phelps form the TV series. That would explain the same name, and could create some come good tension between Tom Cruise and Peter Grave’s characters. In real life, Graves is only 13 years older than Jon Voight, but it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that Voight was 18 to 20 years younger.

80. dmduncan - October 10, 2009

76: “I don’t know why anyone would expect there to be a difference when it comes to Hollywood.”

Well it is different if that is part of the reason why we see so much stuff being remade, if there’s a lack of creativity from such a small go-to talent pool that the studios feel comfortable supporting.

Example: I can’t imagine why Michael Bay is remaking Nightmare on Elm Street.

I just got back from viewing Zombieland (it’s very good) where I saw the trailer for Nightmare.

I mean the original Nightmare was fine. I can’t see an artistic reason to remake it, because it was done fine the first time.

The only explanation seems to be this pervasive bankruptcy of imagination regarding what to do next. The only answer that Hollywood seems able to come up with is to look at exactly what was done before and do exactly the same thing. I exempt Star Trek because it has plenty of unrealized potential, and realizing that potential is a good reason to keep doing it. But there are plenty of examples like Nightmare which are perplexing.

And I think that’s what happens when you have a small group of people deciding who gets in to the club and who does not.

District 9 was an excellent example of what’s possible that the major studios are missing and can’t even imagine.

They really ought to go outside their comfort zone and be risky. So they lose some money if they make a mistake. Really, it’s only money.

81. Closettrekker - October 10, 2009

#80—-Of course the reason is money. As in any business, studios are only likely to greenlight projects which they feel will turn a buck. Many times, Hollywood industry artists have to earn their stripes doing such “paycheck work” before ever being given the latitude to explore passion projects or more financially risky artistic undertakings….and even then, they are willing to support those projects only because they know that with a big name artist attached to it, it is almost guaranteed an acceptable degree of success.

But I think people sometimes mistakenly believe that the industry lacks creativity and talent, when really it is the businessmen/women in office suites who are often reluctant to let that talent loose.

There are plenty of talented artists, but this isn’t the 1970′s, when just about any filmschool graduate could get studio money to make a film and just see what happens. But there is a reason for that. For every Martin Scorsese that came out of that era, there were 100 other filmmakers who lost money for the studios.

It’s easy to take the business angle out of the equation and say, “wouldn’t it be nice if….?”—– but it isn’t very realistic. That’s just the way it is….

82. RD - October 10, 2009

#81. – of that we are in total agreement. Hollywood is a business no different from any “widget” maker with a Wall Street ticker symbol. It is naive to think otherwise. The lack of creative minds is detrimental to any business, not just Hollywood. And businesses are full of their own “remakes” resulting from suppressing the creativity of their own employees.

One of my favorite examples is the 1970′s Xerox board of directors rejecting their PARC research facility’s recommendations for new products, stating dismissively: “You want Xerox to sell something called a ‘mouse’?” Had they not played it so safe and continued to produce the same old products, Xerox would have been the company to revolutionize the computer business instead of being a bit player.

83. dmduncan - October 10, 2009

@81: Who’s taking the business angle out of the equation? District 9 wouldn’t have got made by the major studios yet it was a huge success. Nor is remaking anything old a guarantee of success or a reduction of the odds of failure. Just because you have a recognizable name brand attached to a product doesn’t mean it will be a hit, or that if it has no name it won’t be a hit—or that the name brand will out perform the non name brand BECAUSE it has a name brand.

And the issue isn’t how much talent is out there but the bottleneck of executives between the talent and the money who are afraid of taking the sorts of chances that QED International took when they backed District 9.

And what ARE the chances really? Was District 9 REALLY more of a chance to take than Charlie’s Angels? Says what equation? The kind of thinking behind what to fund and not to fund reminds me of some of the absurd logic behind formulating credit scores. It isn’t logic. It’s voodoo.

And how did District 9 do? It made more money in its opening weekend that it cost to produce. $114 MILLION worldwide from a $30 MILLION budget according to Box Office Mojo.

84. Harry Ballz - October 10, 2009

In the old days Hollywood was described as the place where Commerce meets Art.

Too bad Art left town 20 years ago.

85. Spockish - October 10, 2009

#51) SpocksinnerConflict, I recall something about drones being used in a DSN episode, with Klingons, Cardacians, and the Federation on planets around the Bryer Patch. Do not recall details or what episode. I also remember TNG and VOY episodes with drones but those drone were left by extinct lifeforms. Even The Doomsday Machine in TOS can be called a war drone but it aimed at planets not people, even though people live on planets.

The closest of Federation drones I’d say is from DSN when they created a self replenishing mine field to protect DSN the space station. Off hand I do not recall any drones like a Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

But there is the odds of such being used in the Star Trek Universe, and most likely not by the Federation. That’s because the Federation wants to be viewed as a Manly Force. And you are not a Manly Viking/Roman/Greek/Russian soldier if your not pictured as giving your own life for the honor of taking them with you as you exit the world. Terrorist do not count, because they use their own body to deliver destruction. Just because they do not have the brains to make tools to deliver their bombs smartly.

Palastine people that do not take 3 or more when they blow themselves up may be called heros but only by their relatives, some even view it as a waste of tools.

86. dmduncan - October 10, 2009

Hollywood wouldn’t have made District 9, but they will damn sure REmake it in 10 years time.

87. Captain Kathryn - October 10, 2009

Oh my! Shatner in or Shatner out. It doesn’t really matter as long as there is another Star Trek movie in the works. I’d be happy either way. Although I do hope JJ gets rid of the glares. That was annoying!

88. Brian Kirsch - October 10, 2009

Some quotes from Abrams that made me smile:

“But, because the first movie was so much about introducing these people, and it was very much a premise movie very much about how you bring these people together, it made it difficult to also have the film go as deep as it could, about certain conflict, about certain relationships and the heart of who some of these characters are. I think it was successful in what it needed to do to introduce these people, but I feel now that we’ve done that. And yes they are still going to be getting to know each other to some degree, but I think it is the job of the next film to go a little bit deeper–not to be any less fun and take itself too seriously–but to consider now, who these people are now and to grow with them, and examine them a little more closer, now that we’ve gotten through the sort of pleasantries and introductions.”

On Shatner: ” I am open to anything. I would love to figure out something. Given the challenge of introducing these new characters, given the burden of cast these new people, I feel like the first did some of the heavy lifting that needed to be done in order to free us going forward, maybe there is less of a burden and more of an opportunity to work with him again. We speak, we actually have a lunch date planned. I am fan, I am a friend of his, or he is at least a friend of mine–he may say otherwise on his blog today, I have no idea. I really couldn’t like him more and would love to work with him. ”

On Nimoy: ” I can say that I can’t imagine a Star Trek movie not needing him. I’m sure what he’s saying is a combination of modesty and honesty. He may actually feel that way. But, the truth is, we could never have made this movie without him, and working with him again would be a joy. It is clearly too early, given that we are just now talking story, to conclude whether or not Spock Prime is in the film or not, but do I want to work with him again? Of course, 100%. I’d love to.”

We’re in good hands folks! I have absolute faith in Abrams and the writers.

89. Tj Trek - October 11, 2009

I am glad that JJ is being so cool about the Shatner bit. Whether or not Shanter is being an Ass, or just playing it “straight funny”. However, I think Shanter is being a bit annoying about the whole thing. Did he get told, did he not get told. Who cares, just quit being so like it really mmtter.

90. Enc - October 11, 2009

53

The BIG problem with this movie was that Spock Prime should have seen the differances and changed it back to the prime timeline.

It has nothing to do with what THIS timelines people would have thought.

Capt Christopher HAD to be returned (Spock prime knew this).
Edith Keeler HAD to die (Spock prime knew this).

Nero attacks the Kelvin and Spock prime does what?

‘fixing’ things in the next movie WONT complicate things. we already have timelines and alternate universe plots in tv and film in popularity.

66

what principles? they wanted a new larger audiances and thought a TOS look wouldnt do it. and found a canon way to make it look differant thats all.

the writters said they didnt reset it so the next production team could make their own choice as to reset or continue. but i dont think the ending said that strongly enoug (or at all). Maybe Spock prime should have set out to correct the issue but not show its results to the audiance. just have Spock prime leave with a line about not beeing sure that if he succeeds that this time line will continue as an alt universe or not and wish the alt timeline crew good luck.

But look at the very top of the article. In a back handed unintentional unofficial comment JJ says THIS time line will continue.

91. Hermioni - October 11, 2009

@44. Dom

What i find most intriguing about the Abrams-team approach to their version of STAR TREK, is how strongly and on how many different levels they rely on the various concepts of Transmedia Storytelling Theory.
I feel tempted to read the whole endeavor as a textbook example of those principles and as a field study on their validity and viability.

For example, one of the most basic formulas of Transmedia Storytelling revolves around a narrational strategy that transports substantial, often closely related, but not directly inter-dependent portions of one story over a variety of different media formats.

Therefore, the approach to create a separate, but closely linked, narrative space of existence for the Prime versions of the TOS characters, for example in the form of a “companion” movie co-released on DVD/Blu-ray or over some “HULU”-like Internet-delivery platform, does seem feasible, at least theoretically.

Such a project would certainly represent an interesting continuation of what is currently being done for the new film, in the form of the various comic books (Countdown, Nero, Spock), that carry supplemental story-lines for the movie´s main narrative.

Of course, the realization of this idea would require the allocation of a substantial amount of manpower and financial resources and might therefore not be considered viable. But on a purely narrational level, i do see some very interesting possibilities.

One intriguing aspect of storytelling in such a space could be the chance to preserve a crucial element of character building that sets apart STAR TREK from many other US TV- and movie narratives.
Due probably more to circumstance, rather than to deliberate planning, the TOS characters, over time, have been allowed not only to grow and mature, but to truly age as well.

Placing these long established, old(er) protagonists continuously at the center of the narrative, rather than reducing them to supporting mentor figures, or replacing them altogether by other, younger characters, has introduced a rather unique temporal dimension into the fictional world of STAR TREK.

This story trait represents a distinct feature of the TOS-portion of the franchise and remains missing from most of the other prominent American pop-cultural narratives, whose hero characters often do exist, and quite deliberately so, in an almost perpetual state of a nondescript here and now.

The narrational space created by an adjunct movie could also be used by this new team of writers, to explore how their personal version of a more traditional form of STAR TREK story-telling might look like, i.ex. with regard to a slower paced narrative, a less streamlined plot, or the usage of metaphorical story motives and trademark Tropes, such as the non-villainous adversary.

Of course, I cannot simply infer any interest on the part of the writers, to truly revisit those elements of the Prime-verse, but if I interpret Orci´s and Kurtzman´s audio commentary analysis of the STAR TREK IV narrative correctly, they are indeed completely aware of the inner workings of the previously practiced methods of STAR TREK storytelling, and they also seem to show a certain amount of appreciation for them.

92. dmduncan - October 11, 2009

90: “what principles? they wanted a new larger audiances and thought a TOS look wouldnt do it. and found a canon way to make it look differant thats all.”

No, they explained it already. They wanted to open up the future for these characters, not to have it so that you know exactly where they are going what they will be doing or how they will be dying, AND to give themselves some storytelling freedom without being SO constrained in imagination by canon.

Notice the word “so.” They obviously respect canon a lot or they wouldn’t have meticulously crafted a many worlds theory plot to give themselves the latitude they needed to rejuvenate the franchise while respecting what came before.

93. Enc - October 12, 2009

92
its a copout. its lazy writing cause they arnt that good to figure a way of making a TOS. so they used alt time l;ine changes to jusify r=their work. less the fans tell ‘em off or the new audiance thinks less of trek for falling to the reboot like so many others. then try to snake oil sell it to ya. and too many people fell for it.

I went to the theatre to see it. I was entertainted. but this AINT Star Trek.
Its got a lot of trek like nouns and thats it.

94. Jack - October 12, 2009

92. Man, sometimes here I feel like either of the two old hecklers in the balcony of the muppet show – “why do we always come here — I guess we’ll never know — because it seems like I keep wanting to give responses to the same complaints about the movie, (it wasn’t star trek, the writers are hacks, they should have included shatner, it shouldn’t have been done in the first place) no matter what the topic I find it frustrating. Can’t we find ways to critique things and give opinions while advancing the discussion, rather than “it was stupid and they’re idiots”

95. Jack - October 12, 2009

Sorry, I meant 93.

And 66 – amen.

96. RD - October 13, 2009

#94. – Jack, there are two distinct camps on this site: 1) this movie sucks and they’re idiots and anybody who likes it is a “fanboy”, and 2) this movie is perfect and if you don’t like anything about it you’re “an idiot”.

Between these groups there is no room for rational discussion from the rest of us. Those who critique any aspect of the film are immediately seized upon by group 2 as a “hater”. They are likewise denounced by group 1 for pointing out anything positive about the film.

Such extreme views do not justify a response. It seems to me most who possess them are actually looking for a fight, or a public soapbox from which to spout their ideas. The best thing to do is ignore them, lest you encourage them. Note if you will some of the most prolific extremists here rarely receive direct responses, yet they continue to write post after post, seemingly for their own enjoyment.

My advice … ignore them. Post your own ideas about the film and just assume that those of us with rational perspectives on this film will see the extreme posts exactly the way you do, and those that don’t probably deserve to be influenced by them. Since there is no moderator in the truest sense on this site, those presenting extremest views are not being called to task, therefore, such unsupervised discussions are impossible to debate reasonably and only serve to inflame others. True it is a pain to wade through them to get to something useful or worthwhile, but then so is anything in life.

But I love the Muppet Show analogy. It’s quite apt. Like the old curmudgeons, It strikes me that the most extreme voices on this site have little better to do as evidenced by many such posts appearing on Friday and Saturday nights – so they go online and praise or condemn their favorite past-time, looking for fights. Well, better here than on the streets!

97. Anisimov Vitaliy- real russian STARTREK fan!!! - November 5, 2009

YEAH!!!!!!!!! STAR TREK WILL BACK and rock us all AGAIN !!!!

98. frank - February 4, 2011

How about bringing the Borg back or Cardassians both would be interesting in the next star trek. like jj said anything is possible now that they changed the whole reality of star trek. now is the time to start bringing in more powerful enemies and this time.

99. Terina Connley - April 21, 2011

Does your blog have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to send you an e-mail. I’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it improve over time.

100. Danny Daniels - June 21, 2011

JJ I want to be casted as ANYTHING in this movie I been a Trekkie for years! I’m 28 male African American and I want to be casted any role even an EXTRA !!!!
Please email me Dbk7118@aol.com

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