Exclusive Interview: JJ Abrams Talks Allegories, Design, and Release Date For Star Trek Sequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive Interview: JJ Abrams Talks Allegories, Design, and Release Date For Star Trek Sequel November 16, 2009

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

Yesterday TrekMovie put up the first part of our exclusive interview with JJ Abrams, talking about his Star Trek movie and the home video release. Today we finish off the the interview, talking to Abrams about the sequel, including his thoughts on “going deeper”, the engineering sets and his best guess at a release date.

 

Trek Interview: JJ Abrams on Star Trek coming home

TrekMovie: You [and the writers] Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] have talked about how you would want to go deeper in the Star Trek sequel, telling an allegorical story like old-school Star Trek. Are you envisioning the next film to have a message, like Star Trek IV had with ‘save the whales?’

J.J. Abrams: It is too early to talk about what the next movie will be or what we are imagining, since we are just getting started. But, I would say that because the first film was about these characters coming together and meeting, there is an inherently more immediate and, in a way, naive quality to that kind of an origin story. I think the key to Star Trek moving forward is that it retain the sense of adventure and fun and excitement, and at the same time, go a little bit deeper. Now that these people know each other, just like any friendships you have, the first month of knowing that person is not going to be the same thing as the first year, or the fifth year or tenth year. No one wants a movie that is a ‘preachy’ film. No one wants a movie that feels like it is moralizing and some manifesto, but I feel like it has to go a little deeper. I don’t think that is something you can really argue. It is not this disparate people meeting for the first time. It is people that have
been together for–whether it is day, weeks or months–this is a group that is no longer just getting to meet each other. It feels like, by default, the movie needs to go deeper. The idea of it being some kind of allegory is not to say that we were looking to make the movie into some kind of message film, but it would be nice if after you leave the theater after seeing the second film, you feel like you have been through something meaningful. We are just trying to offer the story that is as rich as possible and fun as possible, but we are not looking to get on the soap box.


JJ Abrams with his new crew: First film about getting them together, sequel will go ‘deeper’

TrekMovie: One of the–possibly inside Trekkie–controversies has been about some aspects of the look of the Enterprise. You talk about this on the DVD, where you saved money and used the Budweiser plant for the guts of the ship. Do you consider that and other aspects for the look of the ship as locked for the future movies?

J.J. Abrams: So if your question is, would I change the engine room for future films? No, I don’t have any plans. But, I don’t have any plans to keep it the same either, we are not there yet. The Budweiser plant and the power stations served us really well.


JJ Abrams with Simon Pegg on location at Budweiser plant

TrekMovie: Originally Variety reported the plan for the sequel to be a 2011 movie, now Bob and Alex have talked about it maybe being a 2012 movie. You have a million projects going on right now, what is your best guess as to when you think the Star Trek sequel will be released?

 J.J. Abrams: I believe the next Star Trek film will be in 2012.

TrekMovie: Do you, or the studio, have a preference for Summer or Winter?

J.J. Abrams: I don’t. My instinct is that the studio wanted to take Star Trek, which was a winter film and move it to the summer. That is what they wanted to do already, so I would guess they would would thinking that this time too, but no date has been set.


Abrams with Zachary Quinto and Ben Cross on transporter set: JJ thinks next Star Trek movie will beam up in 2012

 

 

Star Trek is coming home
Star Trek hits home video on November 17th, You can pre-order your copy now.

Blu-ray DVD
3-disk set

2-disk

1-disk

 

Comments

1. somethoughts - November 16, 2009

JJ rocks

2. LodownX - November 16, 2009

The sooner the better. … and no Khan.

3. somethoughts - November 16, 2009

I can see them talk about the morality and ethics behind cloning and genetic engineering. Khan backstory would be cool; who created him, why and the effects it has on humanity and the galaxy. The first 10mins can show who created Khan, where, when and how he and his crew got into space.

That portion of the story could either be plot A or plot B before they intersect each other in the middle or near the end and setup for part 3.

4. DJT - November 16, 2009

Good stuff.

5. Lore - November 16, 2009

Summer movies always do better. If they release in the winter they will be disappointed. I distinctly remember TSFS being a summer movie.

6. Scott Xavier - November 16, 2009

NO KHAN! Isnt there a history of one good trek one bad trek movie?

7. mateo - November 16, 2009

so basically JJ is saying that it’s going to be another popcorn, summer blockbuster film. ssssiiiiggggghhhhh

8. steveo - November 16, 2009

JJ is great but get me my Trek!!! And with all due respect, I agree with the others, don’t bring back Khan. This is something new, not a remake.

9. ety3 - November 16, 2009

#5 – I would take issue with your entire statement. “Titanic” was released in Winter, if you’re speaking generically. If you’re speaking to “Trek” only, remember that STV was released in the Summer.

There are many factors that can lead to box office. Time of the release is just one.

10. P Technobabble - November 16, 2009

I believe the most significant thing they must do in the sequel is to have the story revolve around Kirk/Spock/McCoy. This character triad is, IMO, absolutely necessary for a successful follow-up.

11. ety3 - November 16, 2009

#7 – “so basically JJ is saying that it’s going to be another popcorn, summer blockbuster film.”

Did you actually read the article?

Other than saying “go deeper” half-a-dozen times, he also said, “it would be nice if after you leave the theater after seeing the second film, you feel like you have been through something meaningful.”

Again, did you read the article?

12. Claystation - November 16, 2009

I hope they change the Engine Room. At the very least make it look a little more futuristic.

And I hope he chills out on the lens flairs. A few here and there is great… but in just about every scene? That was overkill, IMHO.

13. THX-1138 - November 16, 2009

Admit the Budweiser plant was a mistake and just make an engineering section that looks better. You don’t have to have the TOS engineering section or the refit engineering room necessarily. You could combine the two. But the Budgineering plant did not work. Don’t let ego and pride hold you to a failed concept.

And Star Trek worked GREAT as a summer film. I would stay the course there.

14. Claystation - November 16, 2009

I’m totally there with him about the development of the relationships. We’ve got to get to the point where Kirk, Spock and McCoy are best buds.

15. Jon - November 16, 2009

I love the plant look of the Engineering section. The thinking behind it is right, the engineering section of a ship is the utilitarian section. It had such a realistic feel to it, and all non-trekkies I’ve talked to have said that it was one of the reasons the ship felt so real.

16. RK - November 16, 2009

They gotta get rid of the Budgeneering for heavens sake. The rest is okay/good/great

17. Dalek - November 16, 2009

I had no idea that was a real budwieser factory and why would I if I dint work there?

Calling for them to spend a few million on a set when they can reuse the location is asking them to relocate the budget from elsewhere.

So yeah great we got a new engineering set but at the cost of 50 special effect shots.

Nobody comes our the cinema saying hey that was a great movie because they built that great big set on the ship.

Just give us a great script.

18. jim - November 16, 2009

Brilliant film and i cant wait for the sequel
Two things though: please please please bring back the original ‘red alert’ klaxon sound from the all the series’ and movies and for the love of god create a proper engine room – parts of it work yes such as the water processing section but there needs to be a focal point like there was in all other versions of the engineering section of the Enterprise ie a core surely the two concepts can be fused together

19. ety3 - November 16, 2009

Honestly, the only time I felt the Bud factory “set” didn’t work was when Kirk and McCoy went to get Uhura from her sensor/communications station. The giant tanks were kind of anamolous.

Otherwise, I didn’t mind.

20. screaming satellite - November 16, 2009

Summer 2012 is gonna be great:

Star Trek 2 (bag the June 4th – the 30th Anniversary of Trek II)

The Dark Knight Returns (gotta be out for then)

Indy 5 (yeah that too – otherwise when they gonna do it? when Fords 80?)

Battlestar Galactica (sounds like thats when they aiming for)

Wolverine 2? (unless its due 2011, but 2012 is 3 years after the last one – which is in keeping with all of them)

The Avengers (i believe this is the only big summer film that definately confirmed for summer 2012)

Ghostbusters 3? (gotta be out then – otherwise when 2013??)

Superman Rebooted? (might not be 2012 as Warner probably wouldnt want to release a superman the same year as a Batman)

so anyway 2012 looks like it could be one of those great movie summers where there multiple must sees like 1989, 2005 and 2008 (and 2009 thanks to ST & T4)….

theres nothing much im looking foward to in 2010 or 2011….

21. long time fan - November 16, 2009

Love JJ and love Star Trek. I like the go deeper idea very much but I also think the adventure needs to remain. I’m not crazy about repeating Khan although I loved the original version. I think part of the reason the originalt version worked so well was due to Ricardo Montalban, the actor, being terrific. I understand and agree with JJ about more emphasis on the plot but I will be honest and say my main focus will be on the actors. I have never seen a better job of casting ever. To that I have to add that I have noticed that the DVD ads focus on solely on Kirk to my great dismay. Quite honestly, I think Zachary Quinto was the essential reason JJ Star Trek was so successful. I think JJ knew that too. Beyond that, it was a great ensemble. I love Chris Pine but don’t make me choose between him and Zach. It would ruin their camaraderie and ruin the movie for me. It does not have to be either/or. Fans love them both – together.

22. G - November 16, 2009

I don’t think that anyone had a problem with the pipes in Engineering, per se. I liked the idea overall. But, I think that most (many) of us felt it was just too overwhelming, and that they’d like to see the pipes toned back a notch. You couldn’t really make heads of tails of anything in there. You had no sense of where you were, no frame of reference. Just need to pull back on all the pipes just a tad, and mix in some recognizable and familiar Engineering consoles/stations in there. Engineering was always something fans looked forward to ‘visiting’ every week. But, with so many pipes, it didn’t feel like a familiar “place” that you’d like to come back to. It needs to feel like a place. not a pipe chase, or a janitor’s utility closet.

23. SnakeDoc - November 16, 2009

First?

Kidding. Not even close.

Any idea where there’s a larger copy of the picture used in the icon for this story?

24. RobertBurnsPaper - November 16, 2009

I am fine with the pipe chase engineering. As long as I think of it as the below decks engineering. With our beloved engineering maybe a deck up or as an anteroom to pipe chase portion.

25. John from Cincinnati - November 16, 2009

I think if the story revolves around Kirk, Spock and McCoy boldy going where no one has gone before then it should be entertaining.

26. CmdrR - November 16, 2009

Go for the great story, great character moments, and then hang the sfx — or Budgineering on that.

2012 is a long time to wait, but I guess we’ll just have to.

27. Jason - November 16, 2009

The only big things that are officially ‘on deck’ for summer 2012 that I can think of are Star Trek and Ghostbusters. Others that could make their way on the list would be Batman (although I last heard fall 2011 was more possible), Bond (with the whole situation going on at MGM, plus that year’s a big milestone for that series), two Pixar live action film- John Carter of Mars and Brad Bird’s 1906. As someone else mentioned there might be a rebooted Superman, but I doubt it.

Now I can’t wait for the Blu-ray tomorrow, gonna be first in line at my local HMV to get the one with the pins.

28. Brian Kirsch - November 16, 2009

Again, you “Bud set” guys are serious?? Really?? That killed the movie for you??

I’d guess that 95% of the movie-going public didn’t even notice. I’d also guess that 75% of the Trek fans didn’t care. As a 40 year trek fan I found it refreshing to show the actual guts of a starship, unglamorized.

Though i’m a sci-fi fan, I try to live in reality. Study up on matter/anti-matter, or the power necessary to produce Warp Drive. Then tell me it can be produced in a room the size of a great-room, with only a big, glowing, mysterious flourescent tube and some panels with flashy buttons. Even in 300 years…..

29. mike the mook - November 16, 2009

I can’t wait to see it, but I agree with abrams/orci/kurtzman and think it should go deeper but not try to force a message down people’s throats.

Some trek fans that call this a ‘dumbed down version’ and claim it should deal with bigger issues and morality tales also forget that the quality of a movie is not equal to the message it attempts to tackle i.e. Star Trek V. They were dealing with a huge concept as they were trying to find what they believed could be God… but was just a malevolent force trying to imitate a god. Very grand concept, but the movie was notably bad (and that’s putting it rather nicely). ‘The Motionless Picture’ also falls under this category.

I want the next film to be smarter too, but you can’t expect them to sacrifice a good story (and overall good movie) for trying to be preachy and tackle an overly ambitious message. I would rather see an exciting fast paced yet contemplative journey with our favorite characters on a very grand scale. Give me a reason that this is a cinematic presentation and not on my tv at home. The problem with a morality tale star trek film is it can easily become an extended episode type movie… which TNG crew showed us blows monkey chunks.

As a writer I started thinking how I would handle a sequel to ST09 if it were in my hands. And ideally, I realized that I would like to see another exciting mystery like Star Trek VI. There was nothing like the ‘wtf’ moment when the enterprise started firing on the klingon bird of prey and the entire crew couldn’t figure out what the hell was happening. The rest of the movie had me hooked from that inciting incident that came out of nowhere. That was the last GREAT trek film (first contact was alright, just cause it was exciting and used the borg to make a ‘space zombie’ movie).

– mike

30. Bob - November 16, 2009

hope they release it before December 12th 2012… lol.

31. Dom - November 16, 2009

Realistically, the ship’s got to have water pipes somewhere, so water can get to taps, toilets and so on. Having to use power to run replicators is a waste of resources and, if there’s a power outage, you can’t have everyone die of thirst.

For me, the engineering section looked like a proper engine room. It doesn’t matter if we’re in the year 1950 or 2250: somehow you’re going to have to pipe gas, water or whatever from one place to the next. Pipes are pipes and they’ll never change! And, actually, watching the Blu-ray today it doesn’t seem so different from the engineering decks we saw in TMP through to TUC.

The Engineering section felt honest. It nicely offset the gleaming futuristic feel of the upper decks. This is a new Star Trek, freed of the original show’s limitations and set apart from the history of the spin-off shows, so why shouldn’t it take a different approach?

As for allegories, that’s fine, as long as they aren’t heavy-handed. The TNG-ENT spin-off shows were way too preachy and self-righteous: a Trek movie needs to avoid that. to me, adventure is the main point of Star Trek, with a healthy dose of sex, violence and philosophy thrown in.

More than anything, if it’s going to be three years until the next Trek film, let’s have the next film set three years after the most recent one with the whole crew now experienced and working together as the team we loved in the 1960s version.

32. Brian Kirsch - November 16, 2009

#22 – I think we’re on the same page here. The movie showed the guts, the underbelly of the ship. I don’t think it ever pretended, or implied, that it was Main Engineering. There would be a seperate Main Engineering Station, but without the glowing flourescent Warp Core. It would be illogical to place it there. That’s a result of the abomination of TNG.

33. Gyo Obata - November 16, 2009

Engineering was gorgeous. Keep it, for verisimilitude’s sake, do not downscale as some here ardently implore. Maintaining the scope is essential to continue exploring the unprecedented realism of this new series. STAY ORIGINAL, guys. Print this out and staple it over the lintel of your production offices:

YOU CAN’T DO WHAT THE AUDIENCE WANTS. THAT WAY LIES PROSTITUTION.

–Gene Roddenberry

34. Rusty0918 - November 16, 2009

OK. For those who thought the Budweiser plant engineering was realistic on the Enterprise:

NO IT WAS NOT!! In fact, I have a friend who has been on naval vessels and he himself cannot stand those sets. I’m not saying there should not be pipes, though I do think a better job could be done. Go to Sci-Fi meshes and look up that USS Akula or whatever it is on the 3D WIPs on how pipes SHOULD BE done. The choice was laughably bad.

I do agree that the next movie shouldn’t shove a message down people’s thorats. But I also don’t want it to be as dumbed down. I mean, the plot from the previous movie didn’t make much sense. I mean, when Kirk takes the chair after he “relieves” Spock, I bet there would be many bridge crew wondering “who does this person think he is?” I mean, there was a lot of weak in the story, and in some cases like that one it fails.

As with adding another female crewmember: I said this one and I will SAY IT AGAIN: She shouldn’t be Rand or Chapel, but someone new. Have her be someone of command grade (lieutenant commander or commander), and put her in charge of something like security. Also put her in long sleeves and trousers (no miniskirt for her), so that the audience won’t look upon her as a sex object, and won’t throw herself at any male crewmembers. (Let’s just say if Kirk groped her or advanced upon her, she’d make sure Kirk was bloodied up big time). I was thinking of someone with the attitude of Number One aka Tessa Halloran from “Babylon 5,” a recurring Mars resistance leader (no relation to the Trek Number One). Perhaps have Ali Larter portray her? Or maybe have Jennifer Morrisson do it (if she wants another Trek role).

I don’t really care about the lens flares, one way or the other.

35. Dom - November 16, 2009

32. Brian Kirsch

Agreed. There’s probably an Engineering master control centre somewhere, but we simply didn’t see it in this film! I liked being among the pipes and steam and dirt in this film.

Certainly it was illogical in TNG that the senior engineering staff would casually be working right next to what is essentially a big-f***-off nuclear reactor!!

36. AnotherQ - November 16, 2009

Multiply the number of lens flares by ten!
“Star Trek: Return of the Lens Flares”

Yeah, that’ll work.

37. The Angry Klingon (without a trenchcoat) - November 16, 2009

32. No, that was the result of all the movies from TMP forward.

38. Trekluver - November 16, 2009

5 words JJ: Khan! Khan! Khan! Khan! Khaaaaannnnn! Put Khan in ST2 and I’ll be happy! I just want a movie that I can compare to a past film and see the good and bad qualaties!

39. Dom - November 16, 2009

37. The Angry Klingon (without a trenchcoat)

We never really saw an Engineering master control centre in the TOS films, as Scotty was always among the ‘pipes’ in those. In TOS, the thing they called Engineering was essentially a nuclear reactor control centre. The TNG designers merged the pipes and the control centre in that show, which I suspect was budget-friendly, but doesn’t make a lot of sense. Certainly, given the pastel shades, glossy lighting and beige carpets, you wouldn’t know the characters were sat right next to a potential space Chernobyl!!

40. screaming satellite - November 16, 2009

27 – if Bond is out 2012 too then all theyd need is another Back to the Future film and itd be 1989 all over again (2008 came close to that too but they moved Trek)

just kidding – the BTTF remake will no doubt be out in 2015

41. screaming satellite - November 16, 2009

that pic at the top with Pine, Abrams, Nimoy etc looks like an out take still from one of the Pilots…think its the way Pines shirt is riding up his collar makes him look like ‘WNMHGB’ Shatner

42. VZX - November 16, 2009

Maybe there will be some compromising on the engineering sets for the next one: they’ll still film it at the Bud plant but incorporate more Trek tech, like maybe the warp core, etc.

I do hope that JJ keeps the spirit of fun that the first one had in the sequal. I do NOT want a dark second chapter, but a still fun, heart-lifting, adventurous story. There is too much dark in the real world already.

43. C.S. Lewis - November 16, 2009

Abrams certainly speaks the right concept. Given the helter-skelter, hyper paced montage that was his first Trek movie, it is not at all clear he could deliver such a film.

What did Abrams’ Trek say? What did it mean? It’s hard to know as it had no focus and too many ideas to develop any one of them. It was truly the jack of all trades, master of none. Yet let it be said, it dazzled, whatever that is worth.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

44. T'Pirk - November 16, 2009

There are a lot of things I’d like for the new movie, but it should definitely have the same tone as XI did. Also, they need to get rid of the Spock/Uhura romance, it doesn’t work at all. And they need to add more to Uhura’s character, because I felt that in XI she was nothing more than a sex object, and that’s a step back from TOS.

45. lostrod - November 16, 2009

The Budweiser Engineering area made no sense to me – a brand new ship, but the engineering section looked decades older. There seems to be no way to justify it.

For the sequel, I respectfully request that they create an engineering section that fits the rest of the ship.

Regards.

46. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

34, I couldn’t agree more with your analysis. I think one thing you said should be repeated a million times for those who love the Budweiser plant engineering:

“…I have a friend who has been on naval vessels and he himself cannot stand those sets.”

Indeed, the engineering on this Enterprise looked like it came from the Titanic, a ship that sailed 100 years ago!! Engineering sections of ships of today are much more modern. Remember folks, starships are not run on oil, grease or any other messy slimy things, and engineering should not look like a complete mess. I agree that pipes of some sort can have its place but not a Budweiser plant. Remember this is the future, not the past. Just look at how things look today compared to even a decade ago. The more advanced a culture, the more slim lined, sleek, and aerodynamic things look, not less. Star Trek set in the original, unaltered, proper universe had the right idea and can be summed up in two words: “Starfleet clean!” The bridge of this new, alternate universe reboot ship Enterprise had the “Starfleet clean” look, the shuttlebay/engineering did not. Also remember, starships are not aircraft carriers, their shuttles are not fighter craft and they don’t need hundreds of them. Starships should have shuttle compliments similar to aircraft compliments on naval destroyers/cruisers; a handful, no more.

So, my two cents on the next film: fix engineering/shuttlebay, do not have Khan, tell a good story with an important message, no more destruction of important planets (i.e. don’t have Qo’noS blow up or something stupid like that, enough damage has been done along those lines – this suggestion is probably my most important one), introduce a security chief (this can be either Lt. Cdr. Anton Giotto or an original character, perhaps a female security chief as suggested in post 34), keep the uniforms and actors from the previous film, fix the viewscreen so when it is activated there is no longer a distortion (it can stay a window when it’s not activated but the distortion when it’s active needs to be fixed), and last but perhaps my second most important suggestion: kill the lens flares (they are distracting, they look like bad photography, are a complete and total waste of time and a very, very bad idea.)

My list of ST movies from favorite to least favorite with ratings:
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County (10/10)
Star Trek: First Contact (9.5/10)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (9.5/10)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (9/10)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (8.5/10)
Star Trek: Insurrection (8/10)
Star Trek: Nemesis (7.5/10)
Star Trek: Generations (7/10)
Star Trek (2009) (5/10)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (5/10)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (2/10)

Had my suggestions above been followed in the 2009 film, it might score better. For those who remember my review of the film, it got a higher rating but that was an initial impression. As you can see, my opinion of the film as soured quite a bit, especially as I go back and watch the other Star Trek films in the original, unaltered universe. Star Trek may have been made popular again in 2009, but it is significantly different from the Star Trek I grew up on and love and therefore is nowhere near the best Trek film ever. Despite that it is still better than the boring TMP and the dumb plot of Star Trek V (although not much when it comes to STV). I miss the Standard Universe Star Trek.

47. Stinger - November 16, 2009

Are you joking? The Spock/Uhura romance was one of the great parts of the film! Why should it be taken out? It was just one of many differences that this new Trek timeline has produced…this isn’t the original show, why hold the writers to anything that’s gone before? As for Khan, no. This isn’t a “let’s remake everything with new people” game here, folks. I for one don’t want to see ANY of the TOS/movie adversaries in the sequel. Why look back when the whole point is to make a NEW Trek?

48. MC1 Doug - November 16, 2009

#5: “Summer movies always do better.”

Both ‘Star Trek The Motion Picture’ and ‘Star Trek The Voyage Home’ would contradict your statement.

Both did VERY well and were late fall releases (December and November respectively).

49. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

With all that said in post 46, I did find several things I did like:

I was deeply concerned that with the attempt to make Star Trek popular the new film wouldn’t be even recognizable as Star Trek, fortunately my concerns along those lines were unfounded; it was definitely Star Trek, just not the Star Trek I’m used to and love. Further the 2009 film wasn’t all bad; the actors had their characters spot on, there were many good Star Trek moments and nods (Admiral Archer, for one), and while the ship was significantly redesigned it was still a beautiful Star Trek ship, not some ugly sci-fi ship from Star Wars or the Earth Alliance ships from B5. As the result this film is a mixed bag, hence the 5/10 rating. They hit the mark about half the time and missed it the other half. Now the question becomes if the glass is half empty of half full, and I’ll say the glass if half full because it did make Trek popular again (which will hopefully transcend to the standard universe Treks and STO, proudly set in the Standard, unaltered timeline where no reboot is required!), and because I hope the next film will be better. The reboot is already done so there will be no need to further “shake up” the Star Trek universe.

Now here’s an interesting analysis on the new film that I’d like to get people’s opinion on. A friend of mine introduced a theory to me that I, as a fan of the Romulans (I like them about as much as I like the Klingons, but not as much as I like the Federation of course) really like. He proposed that the entire film, including the 2387 Spock came from, was all an alternate universe from the rest of Star Trek. He cited the difference in stardates and the enlarged, industrial USS Kelvin (which were supposed to be unaltered from the standard universe because it was before Nero’s time travel antics took place) as proof. The stardates and the Kelvin (with a crew of 800 and an industrial hanger bay) are very different from the rest of Star Trek and yet were supposed to be before the AltUni was created. However, they’re already different which would be impossible, further Star Trek has always relied on the theory that if you change the past you would then change the future. This theory is still valid in Quantum Mechanics, therefore, in order for the new film to be in an Alternate Universe, everything, including the destruction of Romulus in 2387 and the USS Kelvin would have to be in the alternate universe also and thus the entire film would take place in an alternate universe. Now he knows, and I know, that that was not the writers original concept but I like the idea as I hated the idea of Romulus, and most likely the Romulan Star Empire, being destroyed and the fact that a supernova from sectors away would never behave like the one in the movie as it is a violation of the laws of physics as we know them for the shockwave to travel all those lightyears to a whole different solar system. So, that is how I’m going to think of this new film, from beginning to end, an alternate universe.

Now, that the theory is out there (and knowing that I know that’s not what the writers had in mind) I was curious what you guys think of the idea? Let the civil debate begin!

50. Allen Williams - November 16, 2009

Get rid of the lens flares. This is more important than anything else.

Get rid of the budwiser plant. I’m sorry but industrial piping doesn’t say faster than light.

no old villians, no star trek prime actors. Be original.

Do all of that and it will be the best star trek movie ever even better than khan and first contact.

51. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

50, good suggestions although I doubt anything can be better than TWOK or FC.

52. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

(continued from post 51) other than TUC of course.

53. MC1 Doug - November 16, 2009

#22: “I don’t think that anyone had a problem with the pipes in Engineering, per se. I liked the idea overall.”

Speak for yourself (smile), I detested the Engineering “set” as portrayed in the film. If STTMP and the TNG Enterprises can have a real engineering deck set, so can this version.

The current “set” looked exactly like what it was and not befitting of 23rd century engineering deck that would house machinery powerful enough to power a starship, its weaponry, impulse drive and the warp engines.

Please JJ, do us a favor and spend some money on a “real” engineering deck.

54. MC1 Doug - November 16, 2009

#46: “Had my suggestions above been followed in the 2009 film, it might score better. For those who remember my review of the film, it got a higher rating but that was an initial impression.”

Really? That’s a pretty big ego you got sitting on your shoulders.

I completely disagree with your ratings of the films, but then that’s the great thing about our opinions… we’re all entitled to them… and that they’re worth about as much as the electrons that are used to send these messages through the ethernet.

AND.. back to the engineering deck issue… they REALLY must update that set… I mean with all those light flares, the power drain must be incredible… (grin)

55. Rusty0918 - November 16, 2009

LoyalStarTrekFan, you nailed it right on. I agree with your quantum mechanics assessment. I know of one other on a Trek forum who said that he studied real quantum mechanics in a real university, and it does not support with Orci and Kurtzman said.

As with the female chief of security, I think it’s extremely fitting. It will alleviate the sexist issues from the previous movie. Like I say, she should wear trousers. Uhura can still wear her miniskirted uniform, as some of the background women. It’s a fair compromise.

As with Khan, it all depends on how he’s used. I don’t think it’s a good idea, but who knows?

Oh and let’s have the bridge less tacky for the next movie. It can still look Apple-y, but it could lose the barcode readers and such.

56. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

54, you are correct when you say we are all entitled to our own opinions and I did not intend to indicate otherwise. I was speaking for myself when I made that statement, you can feel free to disagree.

57. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

55, I am convinced that the “alternate reality” idea was a last minute thing thrown in to placate Trekkies. This new film is nothing more than a complete reboot. That is why it deserves a 5/10. The reasons it doesn’t deserve a 0/10 is because of reasons I stated in post 49. In my opinion, of course.

58. Gyo Obata - November 16, 2009

34. Nobody wants Engineering to resemble a present-day navy ship’s engine room. Are we so imagination-poor as to think “Engineering” on a starship must be a single space no bigger than a garage — or, at most, a slightly fancy autobody shop? Come, now. Think bigger thoughts than that. Use what evolution gave you.

46. Make a smash scifi movie — then clauses like, “had my suggestions been followed,” will stand water.

59. Andy Patterson - November 16, 2009

6

Scott Xavier
“NO KHAN! Isnt there a history of one good trek one bad trek movie?”

Oh then which one will this be?

60. Rusty0918 - November 16, 2009

58. I never said it should be a single space no bigger than a garage. I mean, it could have multiple compartments for crying out loud, not just one. Ship interiors are compatmentalized.

LoyalStarTrekFan has made a correct comment that modern navy ships look more advanced on the inside than that Budweiser plant. I’m not saying it has to resemble such, but you get the idea.

Thinking big is good. Thinking stupid (like the Bud-engineering) is not.

61. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

58, I was speaking for myself and my tastes. As someone who paid to see the film, and as an American citizen with liberties and freedoms not found anywhere else, I have the absolute right to say and think what I want and I will not shy away from my constitutional freedoms because I’m not an over payed director or in some other way special enough for you. You can feel free to disagree with my opinion as we are all entitled to our own opinions but I do not have to defend myself or apologize to you or anyone else for expressing my opinion.

“‘With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.’ Those words were spoken by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedoms are trodden upon we are all damaged.”
-Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (“The Drumhead”)

62. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

60, well said.

63. blah - November 16, 2009

55.
————————————————–
As with the female chief of security, I think it’s extremely fitting. It will alleviate the sexist issues from the previous movie. Like I say, she should wear trousers. Uhura can still wear her miniskirted uniform, as some of the background women. It’s a fair compromise.
————————————————
Aren’t you nit picking a tab bit? Seriously, I don’t see what the big issue is with the uniform.( FYI I’m a girl )

64. Charla- - November 16, 2009

Throws self on bed, buries head into pillow and cries- 2012!!!???!!!
:P

65. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

58, Star Trek II was a smash hit as well, and didn’t rely on a reboot to do so. The new film could have been done without a reboot, imo. My suggestions were ways to make the next film better, now that the reboot’s been done, again imo.

Now, another quote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-The First Amendment, the Constitution of the United States of America

66. MC1 Doug - November 16, 2009

Loyal, I apologize… my snippy comment seems to have taken on a life of its own.

67. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 16, 2009

66, don’t worry about it. I was not clear enough it seems that I was speaking for myself and expressing an opinion rather than a perceived fact. Your comment did not offend me and you have nothing to apologize for and I thank you for your comments. My comments about constitutional rights are not directed toward you. Gyo Obata’s comments did offend me and my comments about the freedom of speech are directed towards him.

68. Cygnus-X1 - November 16, 2009

Does anyone know what ever became of Diora Baird’s appearance in the film?

Did Rachel Nichols get her job? Or were there originally two Orion girls planned to be in the film?

I have a hard time believing that no one here knows anything about it.

It’s like some cover-up or something….

No one knows nothin’,

69. ximpa - November 16, 2009

He could, for example, have a screenplay that actual makes sense instead of the gibberish of this one, trying really bold things (he, Orci and Kurztman played incredibly safe – I’m not really for bold things but they hyped the heck of “new vision” just to end up in the same stereotypes, save a couple choices like Spock and Uhura that don’t make any sense) and stop overhyping his work. For me, more than bad Star Trek, it was a bad movie, nonsensical and with a terrible plot. I doubt that will be fixed.

70. Gyo Obata - November 16, 2009

Say what you like, Loyal, loudly and proudly. That you’ve said it doesn’t grant it merit or validity. Your absence of demonstrated movie-making talent makes impotent your cries of, “If they’d only listened to me!” This phenomenon is well-known, and has a name — “sour grapes”. (It always infests boards and comment-streams in the wake of creative endeavors). Or, as you seem keen on quotations, here’s how the genius Benjamin Disraeli framed it:

“You know who the critics are? — The men who have failed in literature and the arts.”

My point entire.

Secondarily, I’d argue Star Trek II was a reboot — viz. Space Seed? A very successful one, in the opinions of most.

71. Chasco - November 17, 2009

“The Budweiser plant and the power stations served us really well. ”

No they didn’t, pet. They made a starship of the future look like a cross between a brewery and the Titanic.
If you need to shoot at a location rather than building a set to save a few cents, then I suggest you go film in the engineering room of one of the new superliners.
Or, if you want to build a set and save money on effects shots, then (1) cut the lens flares and (2) KILL THAT STUPID SIDEKICK you provided to make Scotty into the comic relief.

Whichever way you do it, CHANGE ENGINEERING!! PLEEEEEEEEEASE!

72. Star Trek is science fiction, and science fiction is allegory - November 17, 2009

There’s an interesting and sometimes contradictory message coming out about the next movie. Orci and Kurztman say “allegory” but JJ doesn’t like to say anything but “deeper”. Personally I hope they do add allegory and that JJ doesn’t let his dislike for past treks get in the way of telling a good science fiction story. Look, they nailed the characters and made Star Trek look new again, but a Star Trek narrative is about allegory, as all good science fiction is. Wrath of Khan was a great character story first, but even it had a B storyline about the Genesis device that added another layer to it. More importantly, the character story was so deep with themes of death, old age, and youth. Star Trek has always taught us about ourselves, what it means to be human–that was the effect of every good Star Trek story. Wrath of Khan, The City on the Edge of Forever, Tapestry (TNG), First Contact (Data learned it wasn’t flesh, Picard showed the vengeful side of humanity, yet that it can be overcome, sometimes through the help of a friend), and my personal favorite “In the Pale Moonlight” (DS9). Even Star Trek IV, which had an obvious message, remained the most accessible Trek film that everyone had seen. I think that’s the underlying reason for why Star Trek has been around for so long–it tells relatable stories about the human condition in a removed setting.

Star Trek doesn’t have to be “dumbed down” for large audiences to enjoy it. I think ST09 was a great pilot that answered the question of “will this work?”…Now tell an amazing, meaningful story with it and surpass the “popcorn flick” label. Please?

73. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

70, you do have a way with arrogance. I have found some people to be extremely arrogant with an overinflated opinion of themselves and believe everyone else to be inferior. We have a term for that: elitist. Further, my quotations are about freedom and liberty, not artists and elitists. Freedom is on the march around the globe and is the only way the optimistic future of Star Trek is possible.

Everyone on this board has posted their opinions, some positive, some negative, are they also inferior in your mind because their not some Hollywood insider? I would hope not. You are not superior to anyone and the sooner you learn that the better off you’ll be.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
-The Deceleration of Independence

The above is more than just words. They are a way of life and the foundation of the United States of America, the greatest nation on Earth. Nobody is superior to anyone else and therefore there are no elite people and,as such, elitist attitudes are not only destructive but can be dangerous. I suggest you change your ways sir, or continue to find yourself isolated from everyone else.

Now, if you want to have a civil debate instead of being condescending, rude and elitist, then I’m more than willing. However, if you can’t be anything but elitist then I have nothing further to say to you and will no longer waste my time on you.

74. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

71, I completely agree.

75. R. F. Crowson - November 17, 2009

I’ve never commented on here, but I’ve been following this site since It’s beginnings. I think Gene Roddenberry would be so proud of the Trek community and of this Movie. — That’s all I gotta say. AND that I can’t wait to pick this movie up today! Live long Star Trek!

76. =A= - November 17, 2009

i grab it already big smile…

77. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

75 R.F. Crowson, welcome. I’m sure that your comments will always be welcome.

I agree, may Trek live long and prosper.

78. EFFeX - November 17, 2009

Come on JJ, admit it, the engine room was not well received. If he could incorporate some of the past, a more familiar look with what he already had, that would be great.

He doesn’t have to necessarily change what he’s already shown us, just show us MORE. Can we get a glimpse at all those cores that they dump at the end of the film please.

79. Lauren - November 17, 2009

Look Trek suits everyone don’t be harsh on JJ Abrams I know some people aren’t happy with the way he did things in the movie but who cares

80. ilkers - November 17, 2009

I will see the new film as long as there is no Khan or Shatner in it.

I want to see new creativity, ST is a vessel for creativity. If they need to opt to old stuff as a solution in the second movie, the franchise is in the wrong hands.

The lens flares could be better in half the number of what we have been exposed to.

81. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

My final word on this matter:

My quote from an earlier post:

“Had my suggestions above been followed in the 2009 film, it might score better.”

This comment has nothing to do with the success of the film or an indication that I know how to make a film better than J.J. Abrams but is a comment of personal opinion about how I rated the film. To put another way, had the suggestions that I proposed in my previous post been used in the film, I would have enjoyed it more and would have given it a better rating. It is a personal opinion about how the film would have been more enjoyable to me. Other people’s opinions may vary. I don’t know how to be any more clear on this matter. I hope this will put this matter to rest.

For the TrekMovie staff, I responded so forcefully to Mr. Obata’s statements because his comments offended me as they were insulting and smacked of elitism, the idea that one is superior to others and knows more than other people. I find that attitude outrageous and felt that Mr. Obata was insulting by indicating that I, and my opinions, do not matter. As a result, I reminded him about the principles for which Star Trek, and most importantly, this nation stands for. Equality and mutual respect. I did not mean to offend anyone by any of my comments but I will always vigorously defend my rights. Thank you.

82. Sam Adams - November 17, 2009

Was the portrayal of Uhura sexist? As far as I’m concerned Uhuru was a hip, classy chik who knows how to handle herself. She demonstrated ambition (when asserting her position to be placed on the Enterprise), capable (when dealing with the advances of a drunk Kirk, and denying the help of her fellow star cadets) and intelligent (demonstrating and i quote ‘an unparalleled ability to identify sonic anomalies in subspace transmission tests’). Zoe Salanda herself seems to be drawn to strong female characters, and I have a hunch she didn’t find the portrayal of Uhura sexist, even with the addition of an ever so luscious underwear scene and her regulation miniskirt. I think her obvious sex appeal really made the play between Kirk and Uhuru a lot of fun. I mean, wasn’t it entertaining to see the great James T Kirk, future captatin of the Enterprise knocked back time and time again by the ever so lovely Uhura?

83. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - November 17, 2009

Bout time they get started with the second movie!

84. Pipes CAN be cool - November 17, 2009

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/large-hadron-collider.jpg

Pipes, scaffolding and hazard tape – and it STILL doesn’t look like a f**king brewery!

85. Alec - November 17, 2009

3. somethoughts – November 16, 2009:

‘I can see them talk about the morality and ethics behind cloning and genetic engineering. Khan backstory would be cool; who created him, why and the effects it has on humanity and the galaxy.’

Indeed (and this is is somewhat topical, with the talk of ‘designer’ babies; and, to a lesser extent, designer body-parts today. In short, notions of human enhancement and perfection and what is morally acceptable and what is not is the allegorical reference-point.) I can see Bones and Spock having that very – and heated – debate. Obviously, there’s also the angle about the morality of war and conquest, which, if done subtlety, could be good. But we must keep some of the optimism and humour that was a great part of Trek 11.

If JJ wants to make a deeper film, he needs to explore the characters more. We need some threat of some sort, whether a traditional or untraditional villain, to become the object of Kirk’s attention. We need to explore his character through the two halves of his being: Spock, the logical half, and McCoy, the emotional half. And this relationship should be made known to the audience. In short, we need to see what makes the characters tick. I’ve thought that giving Kirk a proper love interest (perhaps Carol Marcus) would be something novel for the films, it would explore Kirk’s character more, and it might add for a dramatic plot element (perhaps she’s killed or abducted). Khan would be a good threat; but he almost seems too big for just one film. A plus, though, for using Khan is that we should be able to get a big Hollywood star to bring in the much needed international audience. I want Star Trek to be as big as Star Wars. And this is no longer a pipe-dream.

As for the ‘engineering’ set, it looks awful; it takes the audience out of the film every time the monstrosity appears on screen. Give us a truly futuristic, multileveled, huge engineering set filled with a humming warp-core and masses of computers and technicians. That’s where Scotty would work, not adjusting the pressure on a beer barrel. With the sets and costumes etc from Trek 11 reusable, they have the money this time around to do it properly.

Abraaaaaams!

86. Chris Pike - November 17, 2009

85. Alec – November 17, 2009

“As for the ‘engineering’ set, it looks awful; it takes the audience out of the film every time the monstrosity appears on screen. Give us a truly futuristic, multileveled, huge engineering set filled with a humming warp-core and masses of computers and technicians. That’s where Scotty would work, not adjusting the pressure on a beer barrel. With the sets and costumes etc from Trek 11 reusable, they have the money this time around to do it properly”

Exactly my thoughts, second that!!

87. james rye - November 17, 2009

engineering looked okay, dont know what you’re all getting yer knickers in a twist over.

http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/attachments/technical-discussion/20617-ship-engine-room-main-engine-1-.jpg

ships often have large industrial looking engineering decks. Look at the small yaucht engineering above.

GET OVER IT :)

88. Dom - November 17, 2009

People who moan about the engineering set and lens flares have no imagination!

The general public who made up the majority of the audience lapped it up! Only the hard core fanatics (the ones who keep on going on about continuity from Berman Trek, generally) are upset that Engineering looked different from TNG.

Who cares if it doesn’t look like a 21st century seafaring vessel? It isn’t supposed to be one. And how do we know that there isn’t oil and grease in a 23rd century engine room? It’s fiction and if this film says a 23rd century engine room looks like that, so be it!

Also, re: the plot. It’s a quick ‘get everyone together’ story, essentially rearranging the furniture, which is the norm for an ‘in-continuity reboot’. It’s no different structurally from, say, Bryan Singer’s first X-Men film.

It’s unfortunate that it’s now become the norm for franchise films to use an entire movie as essentially a TV pilot episode. Personally, I’d have liked to have gone straight in with the crew of the Enterprise already on the five year mission, but I understand why they wanted to have an adventure to bring the crew together, even though the original TOS version was likely more mundane (y’know go to college, pass your exams, work your way up the command chain until you become the Captain of a ship and the same goes for all the other officers on the ship).

Like it or not, the TOS films somewhat vulgarised all the characters from TOS. Its unlikely, based on TOS, that the Jim Kirk we knew there would have behaved the way he did in some of the movies, although it fitted with William Shatner’s larger-than-life public persona by the time they were made. In the context of the TOS movies, the new film sits perfectly!

I’m looking forward to the next one but I’m not going to wish time away until it gets here, as I’ll be 38 by then. It’s a shame they haven’t made a cartoon series to tie us over in the meantime!

89. Chris Pike - November 17, 2009

87. james rye – November 17, 2009

Don’t think of the E as a yacht myself strange as it may seem….

90. Chris Fawkes - November 17, 2009

So the enterprise runs on cheap beer. Wonder how far she’ll go on a keg.

91. Paul Fitz - November 17, 2009

# 81
In reading this thread, did anyone question your right to express an opinion? I believe it was your connotation which was questionable, I had a few issues with the film, (Lens flares, Scotty’s friend and engineering in particular, it irked me), but I still rate it in my top 3 Trek films. For all that was wrong in the film, there was so much more that was right (in my opinion).

Post 46 – “Star Trek may have been made popular again in 2009, but it is significantly different from the Star Trek I grew up on and love and therefore is nowhere near the best Trek film ever”

This and other comments from you are laced with condescension, and I take offence to them., that is why I feel compelled to write this. Attitudes like yours, that you are the epitome of a “true fan”, and that everyone else is a heretic offends me. Star Trek has been with me in one form or another since early childhood, but I prefer ST09 to most of the other Trek films, so I guess in your eyes I am not a ‘LoyalStarTrekFan’.

Mr Abrams, thanks for making such an enjoyable film – From an appreciative fan.

Wow, I am living in Ireland without the “first amendment” to hide behind, yet I was able to express my opinion also. . .

92. Thierry - November 17, 2009

No Khan … bring back Kirk .. or T’Pol

The engineering section was OK.

However there was one scene where you could see a wall of .. concrete. Get rid of that kinda mistakes.

Also get Spock to say ‘fascinating’ more than once … and don’t make McCoy and overacted caracter.

93. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - November 17, 2009

If Paramount is happy pushing Trek back to 2012, there’s no way they can also say its a core part of their “franchises.” That’s too bad.

If I had a Christmas wish list for the next film? Fix engineering. Just ‘cuz. I realize its not important, but at the same time, it kinda is. It just looked really, well, awful.

If Trek is truly pushed back to 2012, I’ll be pushed into the skeptics camp that wonders if we’ll see one at all.

Don’t mean to be a Debbie Downer, but that’s just my opinion.

94. Marcus Watts - November 17, 2009

@49

Not an attack on you but that was a load off silly geek talk.

95. Marcus Watts - November 17, 2009

I’ve always been a fan of trek but lets face it, it had largely survived on concept for most of it’s life so we put up with the cheap sets and under developed characters for the idea. You know what i mean by under developed characters, like a klingon who’s only word for honor is honor.

This film took the concept and then brought the character development, effects and story line to a professional level. Something trek has never ever had before.

At long last Trek has been allowed to grow up for a mature discerning audience.

96. Horatio - November 17, 2009

Anything that jars you out of the movie is bad. The Budweiser plant did that for me. It was a near instantaneous whiplash of being totally involved in the film to a WTF moment. I mean, come on, beer vats that have computer terminals set up in front of them and i’m suppose to buy this?

You could also see the cinder block walls in what I assume was the power plant location. Cinder block? On a starship?

I’m not trying to say that the new Enterprise engineering needs to look slick or even that futuristic – just do a better job of dressing an obvious location – like a brewery – so that it doesn’t look like a brewery. K?

Still, I loved the movie.

97. Alec - November 17, 2009

17. Dalek – November 16, 2009:

‘Calling for them to spend a few million on a set when they can reuse the location is asking them to relocate the budget from elsewhere. So yeah great we got a new engineering set but at the cost of 50 special effect shots.’

No! The props and sets from Trek 11 are reusable for Trek 12. If the budget for Trek 12 is tantamount to the budget for Trek 11 (a reasonable assumption) then the team has the total cost of ALL the sets that they will reuse (a huge figure when you think of the bridge and corridor sets etc) to spend on, say, a new engineering set AND still have the same money for special effects as they had for Trek 11. So there should be no problem.

‘Nobody comes our the cinema saying hey that was a great movie because they built that great big set on the ship’.

Really? People still marvel at the sets from Ben Hur today. Regarding Trek 11, I heard and read a lot of people marveling at how truly alien were the sets for Nero’s ship. They got a lot of critical acclaim. This is hardly surprising. It shouldn’t need to be said that sets are a huge part of a film. Given this, they should be done well. I.e., look at the Budgeneering sets as a via negativa.

‘Just give us a great script.’

Yes. The script has always been of *paramount* importance to me, as well. The script is the story; the story is the characters. But for the story and the characters to be believable, the sets upon which the actors are plying their trade must also be believable. For example, in some scenes, I find it difficult to suspend my disbelief when watching even the great Lord Laurence Olivier in Henry V, when many of the backdrops are unconvincing painted canvases. Things like this, which are most common and obvious in old films, just remind you, painfully, that you’re watching a film, an illusion; and that takes you out of the experience.

To recapitulate and to make one thing clear: I did like Trek 11; but it was far from perfect. Budgineering is one thing that could be improved, at a very affordable price, given the reuse of sets and props. I hope they see sense. Nick Meyer gave us a better film with a better engineering set (and pretty good other sets) by being frugal and reusing stuff; and all for a measly $11m! Amazing. JJ, please take note. If only you had no ego to bruise.

98. Bill Peters - November 17, 2009

#93- IT not up to us when the next movie gets Relised…2012 is a as good a date as any…they have to give time for a Script and time to shoot, 2011 is cutting it a bit close if they only finish the Script in early 2010. There will be another film….waiting isn’t so bad…would have loved to see it in 2011 but we don’t decide the Studio does. Star Trek ’09 made enough money for a Squeal it just takes time to get there. I am behind JJ and Crew 100%

I’d like to see Klingon’s for one and maybe some new Species and Villains!

99. Alec - November 17, 2009

Regarding the release of the next film, they need to strike whilst the iron is hot. There’s a lot of buzz about Star Trek now, after the success of the reboot, if they wait too long, the interest will wane.

Also, A NOTE FOR ALL UK-BASED TREKKIES: ‘CBS Action’ (Sky channel 148; Freesat, 137) is showing Star Trek re-mastered! I believe that this is the first time it’s aired on UK television. I believe that the same episode is shown three times a day: at 12:00, at 6:00, and at 9:00. Today’s episode was The Man Trap. Check it out.

100. Dom - November 17, 2009

96. Horatio: ‘Anything that jars you out of the movie is bad. The Budweiser plant did that for me. It was a near instantaneous whiplash of being totally involved in the film to a WTF moment. ‘

Yeah, but you see only hard core Trekkies tend to have an issue with the Engineering set: indeed, it’s a complaint that was spread to the ‘mass-consciousness’ of the fanboys long before they ever saw the film and most of them went in there wanting to complain about it.

Way to many people on these fora use words like ‘must’, ‘can’t’, ‘wrong’ and so on. 99.9 per cent of people here are not involved in making Star Trek. They really know nothing about filmmaking and are way to busy attacking things they know nothing about.

If these producers and writers, all of whom have a good track record (and before anyone shouts ‘Transformers 2′, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman will have written that film according to the multiple requirements of the director, producers, Hasbro and the studio) want to make Engineering a big, pipe-filled powerplant, more power to them.

Too many people are basing their expectations on what’s been shown before rather than cutting loose and seeing this revamped series as something completely new!

101. Dom - November 17, 2009

‘Way too many . . .’ even! ;)

102. SerenityActual - November 17, 2009

I don’t mind a three year wait for the next movie. Take the time, come up with a good script and don’t flinch on the visuals.

And for the love of God, please change engineering.

103. VOODOO - November 17, 2009

If it comes out in the summer of 2012 when would they shoot it?

104. Trekenstein - November 17, 2009

#100 – Dom, you are really being a bit overreaching in your statements. I saw Star Trek with a friend who had NEVER seen Star Trek before (he was from Africa). He absolutely loved the film and will likely see the next ST film. However, the minute we walked out of the theatre he asked me two questions – what was Nero doing for 25 years, and why did the engineering section of the ship look like an oil refinery?

He’s not the only non-trekkie I have heard comment about it. Frankly it is a legitimate complaint. Earlier you mentioned that it stems from TNG fanboys who expected it to look like it has for the last 22 years. But the reality is, that look started 30 years ago with TMP. Moreover, a similar concept was originated 44 years ago in TOS. I mean what was that grill covered forced-perspective hole-in-the-wall which glowed red-hot when the ship was struggling for power? It sure looked like something immensely powerful and dangerous equal to the anti-matter “pipe” which ran down through the middle of engineering. But more to the point, Abrams broke significantly with tradition as depicted for the last 44 years, while maintaining the connection on almost every other major aspect of the show.

Personally, I thought I was not going to like it going in, but found it didn’t bother me that much and I actually only really noticed it once. Going forward, I would opt to change it, however. But my opinion has nothing to do with being a trained Hollywood art director or other professional. That does not make it any less valid, however. Clearly you loved the changes in Engineering. There is nothing wrong with change. I thought some of the changes were refreshing. But sometimes, it doesn’t always work out as expected. Both from a traditional pont-of-view and a film making one. How would you feel if the Enterprise had been redesigned to look more like Voyager, with the nacelles sticking out to the sides? Perhaps you would have liked it, but for me the ENterprise is just as much a character as Mr. Spock. What if Abrams decided Vulcans shouldn’t have pointed ears?

That’s all I am saying. Fans have a right to question significant changes to a character and engineering has always been as much a character as Scotty for me and many fans. But the real test is if a non-fan questions the art direction – and in my experience some have, then you know it is a valid concern.

Do I condone some of these rants about how it ruined the movie? No. That’s just silly. It was a small part of a movie that had a lot good things in it. But do I think the vast majority of those who were disappointed in it and otherwise enjoyed the film should have the legitimate right to question it … you betcha.

105. Rusty0918 - November 17, 2009

63: To me, minidresses are highly inappropriate for use as uniforms for a quasi-military service. I can understand Uhura’s character can come off as professional, but the miniskirted uniform dress undermines her character.

You think Patton would allow such attire? I think of a scene in the 1970 movie where Patton is in a barracks where he comes across a poster of a pinup girl on the wall. He looks at it briefly and admires it, and then whacks the thing down with his swagger stick, making the comment “this is a barracks, not a bordello!”

My compromise is put in another female crewmember (command grade, probably security chief) who doesn’t wear one of them. Watch the movie and you’ll see quite a few women on the Enterprise in trousers. Uhura can still have her miniskirted dress (so all the male fans who love ‘em can still drool over them) and her romance with Spock, while some of the more sensitive women can look up to this character.

Some women do have a problem with sexism in Trek:
http://www.trekunited.com/community/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=65&showentry=585

106. Buzz Cagney - November 17, 2009

Slightly off thread but just wanted to say how much I enjoyed JJ and lads commentary on the DVD. Really funny and informative. Thanks- great stuff.

107. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 17, 2009

If he’s worried about preachiness in his Trek, what does he do about the Vulcans? It seems as if every other word out of a Vulcan character’s mouth is an admonishment about something.

108. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 17, 2009

98. Bill Peters – “IT not up to us when the next movie gets Relised…”

Actually, if you take Paramount’s ad campaign for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY at face value, it IS up to us.

109. Star Trek XII: Fakten, Gerchte, Infos - Seite 3 - SciFi-Forum - November 17, 2009

[...] soll 2012 rauskommen und irgendwie irgendwo "deeper meaning or something" haben. Quelle: Exclusive Interview: JJ Abrams Talks Allegories, Design, and Release Date For Star Trek Sequel | Tre… __________________ Niveau sieht nur von unten aus wie Arroganz~ :D My Anime [...]

110. Admiral Shatner - November 17, 2009

“Going Deeper” does this mean a plot? That, and similarity with Star Trek (outside of Quinto, Urban, Nimoy, And Greenwood.) were the major thing Star Trek 11 lacked.

111. Captain Hackett - November 17, 2009

Great interview, Anthony! :)

112. Eli - November 17, 2009

Must build real engineering set.

That’s my only significant complaint with the film.

Oh, and no Khan. Keep things original!

113. Trevor John - November 17, 2009

Trek needs to go back to television–bottom line.

114. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 17, 2009

Curious, this 11-2-2009 interview,

http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/fashion-and-entertainment/hollywood-exclusive/bruce-greenwood-talks-about-the-next-star-trek-cougar-town-a-fun-fit-for-christa-miller.html

with Bruce Greenwood again mentions shooting starting Summer 2010 and his being available at that time.

115. I, Mugsy - November 17, 2009

The problem the sequal faces is that Star Trek fever will have waned by 2012, except for the hard core. The cast will also be 3 years older, and ditto for each sequal made after that. This 5 year mission will be over rather quickly unless they turn this into a TV series, or extend the 5 year mission?

How many films did we get with (all) the original cast? 6. How many sequals can we expect with this cast? Think about it – 6 episodes into a TV series the characters are only just finding their feet and still developing. The original cast films didn’t have a problem as such as they’d had 79 episodes to already flesh themselves out, and some animated episodes before they started the feature films. This new crew will never get the chance to really explore their characters because making a film takes too damned long, and Trek really is foremost about the characters. Something as rich as this needs a TV series, or a series of high quality TV movies. Or else what is the point in going back to these characters for a brief looksy at were they are every 2-3 years?

Hope some of the above ramblings make sense. This cast with the sort of CGI that is possible (even for a TV series/budget) today could really work out well, especially with stories that bush the boundaries and – perhaps – go back to some serious sci-fi as opposed to popcorn sci-fi action/comedy. It still amazes me that will all of today’s technology and amazing computer effects sci-fi just seems to be about space ships/fights/combat all the damn time. It’s gotten so boring and stale in general. How’s about making some of those truly alien vistas one used to see on the covers of many 60s/70s sci-fi novels come to life and do something truly epic which will really raise the bar? Would be cool is it was Star Trek that was responsible for this.

Hailing frequencies closed.

;D

116. Son of a Maui Portagee - November 17, 2009

#113.,

I’m with you. It’s nonsense that somehow Trek being on TV will over saturate the market especially given the possible film delays.

I fail to see how numerous books, comic books and magazines don’t do it and yet the existence of a TV series will cause the whole thing to implode.

117. Nelson - November 17, 2009

re #115-

I agree, I never thought it was a good idea for Star Trek, in any incarnation, to be a film series. You lose so much momentum between films.

As you said TOS had the advantage of having 79 hours to set-up characters and history. This new crew will just have 3 or 4 adventures together before it’s over.

For allegorical stories, it worked so much better as one hour plays.

118. I, Mugsy - November 17, 2009

Lets hope someone ‘on the inside’ reads some of these comments and – perhaps, just perhaps – these ideas will be related to those that make the decisions.

Trek on the big screen is undoubtedly attractive as far as effects go and all that, but it really does belong on the small screen (not that home TVs have to be that small these days!).

It would be great to see this cast have a chance of some weekly adventures rather than having to wait 2-3 years between films to get back into character, before the characters have really been established! How many chances will there be to kick start the adventures of Kirk and co. on the small screen?… Exactly! This is the only chance now they are riding the waves of success with this film.

Fingers crossed…

119. I, Mugsy - November 17, 2009

p.s. one has to ask why was Star Trek created in the first place?

Answer: to tell exciting tales, but also to comment (subtly or no) on our society and the human condition. Also to inspire optimism that we WILL make it as a species, and learn to put aside our differences and work together to explore the galaxy.

The new film exists purely to get these characters back, but – more pointedly – to reinstate the FRANCHISE back into popular culture. To make MONEY.

Big difference in ideology/raison d’être there…!

The characters ARE no back, now lets go back to the original ideas that inspired Mr Roddenberry in those days during the late 60s, and try and tell some tales that are just as entertaining, and relevant to our present age and its problems. hopes etc.

120. Horatio - November 17, 2009

#100 Dom “If these producers and writers, all of whom have a good track record (and before anyone shouts ‘Transformers 2′, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman will have written that film according to the multiple requirements of the director, producers, Hasbro and the studio) want to make Engineering a big, pipe-filled powerplant, more power to them.”

Well, you see, in an alternate timeline I AM one of the producers/writers on this project with a good track record and I DIDN’T want engineering to be a big pipe-filled powerplant. So its my cognition of one of my parallel lives that is causing me so much grief over Bud-engineering. Don’t blame me – blame Orci and Kurtzman!

;)

121. Ralph F - November 17, 2009

“The Budweiser plant and the power stations served us really well.”

No, JJ. No, they didn’t.

122. SciFiFan - November 17, 2009

I agree with 121. For one thing that Budweiser plant seemed way to scream “cheap” to me . Concrete on starships?!

123. Bill Peters - November 17, 2009

IT is also the fact if JJ can’t direct tell late ’10 or ’11 we will have to wait, Point in case we waited 6 years in between Nemesis and this movie! the Iron will still be hot two years from now….why does it seem to me there are some out there who want Trek to fail right out of the gate in Fandom? 2012 is not a long wait for a movie, we have had to wait longer for some big sequels in other Franchises we can wait for this one.

If they start shooting late 2010 it is too late to get it out before winter of 2011 and Paramount probably wants this to be a summer film again….So we will have to wait.

Books and also little leaks will have us hanging on tell then. I know a lot of Non Trek fans who want to see a squeal, The story has too be good too but for it too sell it must have JJ and Orci and Kurtzman attached I know many non fans who will go see it Only if the team from this movie in some part or in hole is attached to the picture , It think in this case Lighting for the New Trek Franchise can strike more then Twice and I think we will get what we paid for and what we need in Trek from these guys!

Blow us away guys in the next film and maybe a 3rd if Lighting Strikes more then twice!

124. Captain Rickover - November 17, 2009

In other words: Everything is good, nothing’s wrong. We’ll go on with that. Even with the Budweiser plant.

125. Rusty0918 - November 17, 2009

Yeah I saw some concerte in the Kelvin interiors? Was there any on the Enterprise interiors?

That was a big epic fail.

126. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

91, you missed the point of the argument entirely. I was expressing my personal opinion and no way intended to be insulting to anyone who disagreed with me as I pointed out on two separate occasions. However, despite this fact, Mr. Obata continued to say, in effect, “your opinion doesn’t matter,” and that is what I was responding to. I even said, “feel free to disagree” and I never called anyone a “heretic.” Perhaps, if you read the comments in context, you would know that. I also never said that I was not appreciative of JJ Abrams making Trek popular again, and even indicated what I liked about the film in one of my previous posts, but I was pointing out that I personally did not enjoy it as well as I did other Trek films. That is my personal opinion and my right. Again, read ALL the posts before you attack people. My screenname “LoyalStarTrekFan” came from the days of Enterprise when that show was being attacked unfairly. My point is that while the show did have it’s faults, I loved it and all incarnations of Star Trek. Indeed, TMP (rated at 2/10 on my personal Trek movie list) would still rate far above most movies. The list of movies that I posted and my personal ratings of them were in comparison of each other in my opinion, not to movies in general. If that were the case, no Star Trek movie would rate lower than an 8/10, imo. You can feel free to express your opinion, and to disagree, but don’t attack my right to do the same. Further, if I hated this new film, why would I have preordered it and expecting it in the next couple of days? I wouldn’t. I admit that I did come off as having a very negative opinion of the film in my initial post and I could have chosen my words more carefully, but either way, it’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it. Why should my opinion regarding a film, a work of fiction, offend anyone except maybe those who made it? It shouldn’t. You are entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine. It is that simple.

I’m happy that in Ireland you’re allowed to express your opinion. It wasn’t always that way, but it has always been that way in America and appreciated American values and freedoms is not “hiding.” It’s simply being proud of one’s nation. I will not apologize for my patriotism.

127. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

Now, I feel this issue has been beaten to death. I feel we should put it behind us. Therefore, I reach out my hand of friendship to both Mr. Obata and Paul Fitz. We can simply agree to disagree on this matter. The next move is yours gentlemen.

128. LoyalStarTrekFan - November 17, 2009

My final opinion on the film:
What worked imo (since I seem to need to point out that it’s my opinion):
The ships exterior, the clean corridor and bridge, the actors and characters, the special effects, and the music.
What didn’t work imo:
the lens flares, the Budweiser engineering, Scotty’s Star Wars-like friend, and, what won’t matter in the next film is the reboot/alt reality concept. Since that’s already been done there’s no point in belaboring the point.

So I think (IMO) that the next film should have a completely original plot with a redesigned engine room and no lens flares. Again, IMO!!!

129. Trekboi - November 17, 2009

The bugenering set could have worked with some digital matt paintings that put it clearly in the structure of the ship.
they really need to give engenering a central warp core, that suggests there is an amazing technology at work- there is no heart of the enterprise.
except the scene where kirk is caught by security the locations worked but in those shots it is clearly a brewry & it pulls you out of the movie & the future technology.

130. Mr. Delicious - November 17, 2009

The retro 60s engineering set would be preferable to the Budweiser set.

131. Mr. Delicious - November 18, 2009

And how about giving Scotty a role that’s above comic relief?

132. MJPENG - November 18, 2009

Mr Abrams you could have redeemed yourself if you had admitted that engineering should have been done better.

I have just watched the movie again on Bluray and the more you watch it the worse it looks.

I design Oil and Gas Installations for a living and a brewery isn’t cutting edge for today never mind 250 years in the future. The whole thing just looks sloppy.

For me good Sci-Fi is in the detail, don’t get me wrong, ignoring the shaky cam / lens flares, you did a very good job with most of the film. But I would rather you didn’t bother with the sequel unless your attention to detail improves and leave it to a Director that cares.

133. Lenny De Tomaso - November 18, 2009

The best Star Trek episodes always dealt with something new, the unknown. I hope that the next movie don’t deal with any bad guys from the original series. Exploring and dicovering new worlds, new life forms is the mission. Lets to that!

134. Dom - November 18, 2009

105. Rusty0918: ‘Some women do have a problem with sexism in Trek’

Well screw them! Miserable old sods! :p

There’s nothing wrong with the minidresses. Maybe women wouldn’t wear them in battle planetside, but on a heated, luxurious space ship or at the academy, I can’t see the problem!

104. Trekenstein: ‘But the reality is, that look started 30 years ago with TMP.’

The Engineering set in TMP isn’t so far off the Budweiser look as you may think. Given it’s a much larger Enterprise in the new film, it’s not incompatible at all. It is incompatible with the TNG look, but TNG (as was) no longer exists in the new version of events!

‘Moreover, a similar concept was originated 44 years ago in TOS. I mean what was that grill covered forced-perspective hole-in-the-wall which glowed red-hot when the ship was struggling for power?’

I never considered that as the same area as the areas shown in TMP. Then again, don’t you love discussing all this stuff in the context of the Trek universe(s)?

Rather than saying ‘How dare the producers do this!’ I prefer to say ‘OK, Engineering now looks like this: why does it in this version?’ then make up what the reason is. Then someone can have a different idea. The that leads to new ideas.

There was a time where people discussing this stuff was fun: sadly, in this era of guide books and ‘official websites,’ everyone seems to need things spelt out for them. It all gets a bit ‘post-Septuagint.’ And perhaps sometimes you just have to say ‘There’s a different team at the helm, so things will be different. Oh, and maybe they needed to concrete (plascrete?) some areas of engineering! ;)

120. Horatio: ‘Well, you see, in an alternate timeline I AM one of the producers/writers on this project with a good track record and I DIDN’T want engineering to be a big pipe-filled powerplant.’

Yeah and in another universe I was Napoleon Bonaparte and bonking Lady Emma Hamilton on the quiet! ;)

115. I, Mugsy said: ”The problem the sequal faces is that Star Trek fever will have waned by 2012, except for the hard core. The cast will also be 3 years older, and ditto for each sequal made after that. This 5 year mission will be over rather quickly unless they turn this into a TV series, or extend the 5 year mission?’

If they publicise the sequel as well as they did the first ‘new’ film, there’s nothing to worry about! In three years’ time the actors will be about the right age for the beginning of TOS!

‘How many films did we get with (all) the original cast? 6. How many sequals can we expect with this cast? Think about it – 6 episodes into a TV series the characters are only just finding their feet and still developing.’

Movies (well made) are different. If an actor can’t get a handle on his role by the sixth film in a franchise, he’s not an actor at all! People gave the modern Trek shows way too much leeway: without the Trek name there’s no way some of those shows would have been allowed three seasons (78 commercial hours) to get things right. Actually it’s downright amateurish. For all its pilot-ish rough edges, TOS is up and running from the start of Where No Man Has Gone Before!

Right that’s me done after a long day. Early start tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who replied to me. Sorry if I didn’t respond to everyone. I’m not on a job where web access is easy this week. Cheers, folks! :)

135. dmduncan - November 18, 2009

“As with the female chief of security, I think it’s extremely fitting. It will alleviate the sexist issues from the previous movie. Like I say, she should wear trousers. Uhura can still wear her miniskirted uniform, as some of the background women. It’s a fair compromise.”

Trousers? I’m hoping they exchange the mini skirts for red short shorts and delta shield pasties.

136. Brian Kirsch - November 18, 2009

WOW. Ok, I guess a lot of you focus on minutea, rather than the movie you’re watching, or why you’re watching it. When I saw/see the movie multiple times, I see a service/maintenance/auxilliary plant, not Main Engineering. Was it ever identified as such? For some strange reason, I focus on the actors and dialogue, and don’t even notice some concrete blocks in the far distance. I know why I’m watching a Trek film. Do you?

137. sean - November 18, 2009

I didn’t mind the Budweiser engineering, and in fact would never have known that was the location if everyone hadn’t made such an issue about it.

However, TNG did not begin the tradition of the warp core. Unless you guys missed TMP, which had Scotty working next to a warp core (horizontal and vertical).

138. sean - November 18, 2009

#134

“People gave the modern Trek shows way too much leeway: without the Trek name there’s no way some of those shows would have been allowed three seasons (78 commercial hours) to get things right. Actually it’s downright amateurish. For all its pilot-ish rough edges, TOS is up and running from the start of Where No Man Has Gone Before!”

In all fairness, TOS actually went in reverse – started off great, then took a massive nosedive in the end. So I think they end up even. Additionally, the new shows had to establish new characters in the shadow of the original while using the same basic framing concept, which is not an easy task. Whether a person likes TNG or DS9, you have to admit that both shows forged their own unique identities.

139. dmduncan - November 19, 2009

Re engineering: the concept art for the engineering they had in mind illustrated a mind blowingly large engine room. While I understand there’s no way they could’ve built that thing, was it still too expensive to do a combination foreground set and CGI background? The illustration for that thing is amazing.

Now that we see some of the ideas they had in mind, the choices they made will stand out in contrast.

140. Dom - November 19, 2009

138. sean said: ‘In all fairness, TOS actually went in reverse – started off great, then took a massive nosedive in the end. So I think they end up even.’

While season three had some stinkers, it’s badly underrated. ‘Official Fan Perception’ has a lot to do with season three’s perception as a flop. Its hit:miss ratio is still way above that of any other post-TOS season IMHO! It’s just that the stinkers stink so memorably (eg The Way to Eden), whereas the likes of The Last Outpost and Genesis are wastes of life we’d all prefer to forget losing!

141. dmduncan - November 19, 2009

@140: Agreed. Wink of an Eye, The Cloud Minders, and That Which Survives are some of my favorite episodes.

Whatever happened to Charlene Polite, from The Cloud Minders? She was beautiful.

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