Karl Urban Ready For Star Trek “Einsteins” To Take It “Further” In Sequel July 24, 2010
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: ST09 Cast, Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
Of all the new Star Trek crew members, Karl Urban is probably the biggest Trekkie and at brief Comic Con interview he says that he doesn’t know what is next for his Dr. McCoy in the sequel set to shoot a year from now, but he has faith in the geniuses behind the movie to take it further. See the brief video interview below.
Urban has faith in the Star Trek ‘Einsteins’
On Wednesday Karl Urban was promoting his upcoming movie RED at Comic Con and he talked a bit about the Star Trek sequel (see previous article). On Friday Urban was still in San Diego, this time promoting the 2011 vampire movie Priest. After the panel IGN talked to Urban about the Star Trek sequel, where he again said the latest he has heard is that production will start in the "middle of next year". He also noted:
I am really looking forward getting back together with everybody and taking it all further
As for what is next for Dr. McCoy, Urban is talking just like Pine and Quinto in that he puts his full faith in the team:
Here is the thing you have got to realize. You have got JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci [and] Alex Kurtzman. That’s like three Einsteins getting together and cooking up something. I just know it is gonna be sick – phenomenal.
Hey Karl, you forgot Damon Lindelof (and Bryan Burk), are they chopped liver?
Here is the video
And here is Karl with his fellow Priest panelists
Comic Con 2010 "Priest" panelists:
Actor Cam Gigandet, director Scott Charles Stewart, actors Maggie Q, Paul Bettany, and Karl Urban
Loading ...
Comments»
Hmmm
Quite…
Perhaps if they were really Einsteins. They could manage to get the science a little better in Star Trek. A supernova sweeping through the galaxy? heh. They could have made it a wandering super massive black hole, or even a gamma ray burst. The science behind those would have been better. As for the solution to the problem with the use of Red Matter, that belongs to the realm of science fiction and therefore perfectly acceptable. I also know they look at this site from time to time so I hope they read this and take note.
Yeah Aaron. I mean, there didn’t even reverse the polarity of anything or use any tachyon beams. Hell, they didn’t even time travel right. Everyone knows you can move back and forth in the timeline by slingshotting around the sun.
If only JJ got his science right the way Gene always did.
You guys know it’s fiction right?
#4 I hope that’s sarcasm.
3 – Supermassive novas (novae?) are real enough. They’d take out any star system within 5 light years, maybe more. Probably wouldn’t look like a wave hitting a mudball, but still…
As for red matter, my only thought there is that if you need a turkey baster-full to impode an active nova into a black hole… then why does Spock prime head out with enough to fill a stall shower? What’s he planning to do with the rest??
Another problematic point is Scotty’s super-duper transporter. If you can beam (at warp or otherwise) to things that are light-years away, why even have starships? This is almost as irritating as the use of sensors in Nemesis, which suddenly can find extra Datas lightyears away and plot out instantly all of Starfleet. Wow!
While we’re at it, it apparently only takes about 3 minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan and starships don’t have inertia (you need a pilot/sacrificial lamb).
ANYHOO…
@ 4 Oh Captain my Captain…Calm down. All I’m saying is you can always do some research do further perfect your product, especially when it’s about stuff that’s shown on the Discovery Channel regularly.
Lord yes it was sarcasm. But the fact that you had to ask says something about a certain portion of Trekdom, doesn’t it?
I agree that (with no small help from Star Trek) people are learning more about real science…which SHOULD make science fiction all the more fun!
@ 6 I can go with that since we could place Romulus anywhere.
I have to agree about the supernova destroying the galaxy. Lack of science.to it. But they never explain how or why. Perhaps this star has unique volitol properties,other stars don’t have. Or a gamma burst potential like someone suggested. It would have been science if a well placed explanation could have fixed this flaw. Perhaps another. Time appropriate situation. In a future trek movie. Science returns!
Hey Aaron.. the did have a science & space consultant for the movie. I don’t remember her exact totle but she was a scientist. I believe there was something here on Trek Movie about it.
Personally, I’ll wait until it’s confirmed that this sequel’s storyline DOESN’T concentrate on ‘Khan’, ‘Klingons’, or ‘Borg’, before I can start to get excited…
come on guys, its a movie with a plot. Its gonna be written to try and work with the scene.. not be scientifically accurate all the time. I don’t know about you but I do not want to see a movie based on my 9th grade science class. I do want it to make sense, but i don’t want to have a need to have a bachelors degree in astrophysics to enjoy it.
I enjoy trek as much as the next but remember its a movie not a real life documentary..
Well said Cody but some people just don’t get the movie that’s what annoys me I think they did well in my opinion.
The science of the last movie was pretty much in line with the hit-and-miss science of TOS. I don’t know how many times distances switched back and forth between kilometers and miles between episodes. A giant space amoeba–haven’t seen one of those at the planetarium. And a race of androids that can be destroyed by a simple paradox–I enjoy the irony, but I’m pretty sure future cyberneticists would sort out such an obvious design flaw.
I just try to overlook the bad science in Trek, particularly with the last film, and enjoy it for its entertainment value. Now, if you want to talk about plot holes, coincidences, and the miraculous promotions of a certain group of cadets, that’s a whole different debate.
Yeah, that science in Trek 09 was so great that people were confused how they closed up the black hole.
#14: “come on guys, its a movie with a plot. ”
We don’t know that yet.
I haven’t been sick since I watched that Ronald Reagan film. (And that may very well have been food-poisoning).
(Airplane- such a great film! lol)
19
“We have to get these people to a hospital!”
“A hospital! What is it?”
“It’s a large building with patients in it, but that’s not important right now…”
CLASSIC!!!!!
Whats not to like! :-D
Buzz, Harry, do you like movies about gladiators?
“Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.”
I like when Elaine goes down on the inflatable automatic pilot!
#22
You mean like “Gladiator”? I hear it has gladiators in it!
Harry, how many bottles have you drunk so far tonight?
Well said, Cody!
I don’t want to sit in a physics graduate class- it only needs to be plausible in a largely imaginative way to allow myself to become totally immersed in the story.
When I want reality, I will sign up to take nuclear physics or the like at my local university.
25
Just finished my second bottle of red wine. Toasted.
I’m loving these Airplane lines!
#23 thats a beaut! :-)))))
#22 Vultan sure do!
But in case you are wondering I’ve never seen a grown man naked!
#29
Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
No but I sure do like my massage that way. :-)
“How soon can you land this plane?
“I can’t tell!”
“You can tell me I’m a Doctor!”
“No I mean I don’t know.”
So many classic lines from Airplane. It’s also a fav of mine.
While “Einsteins” might be a bit of an overstatement in regards to the writers from Urban I do feel confident that they will deliver the goods on the next film.
Airplane II – almost as funny as the original – and it’s got Shatner!
Prosecutor: “Doctor, can you give the Court your impression of Mr. Striker?”
Dr. Stone: “I’m sorry. I don’t do impressions. My training is in psychiatry.”
And of course the all time favourite….
Surely you can’t be serious….. yes I am, and [altogether now] DON’T CALL ME SHIRLEY! :-D
And i’m still wondering what Karl, and indeed Paul Bettany, are doing in a vampire flick. There must be something original about because the I thought the life must have been, er, excuse the bad pun, sucked out of this tyoe of movie by now.
Allow me to tidy that up……There must be something original about IT because I thought the life must have been, er, excuse the bad pun, sucked out of this tyPe of movie by now.
#33 lol I’m loving it.
I wondered when somebody was going to bring Airplane2 and Shatner up.
I reckon that was when New, Zany, Comic, Shat was born. Can anybody come up with something earlier?
36
The Trouble With Tribbles is a good example of Shtner being good at doing comedy as well. He is a good serious man to the antics of the Tribbles.
A great episode.
Can’t probably get more “sick phenomenal” than giving genocide a superficial action treatment in the last one…
Urban rocks.
Looking forward to some more McCoy.
As far as the science of Nu Trek goes, I understand that it’s science fiction so immediately my suspension of disbelief is on maximum.
My only problem however is that as far as I know, Black Holes don’t exactly go away. So if you put one where Romulus was (even though Romulus was already destroyed making the point rather moot) or one at Vulcan, wouldn’t there still be 2 large and scary Black Holes left there sucking in everything in sight? (LOL)
Regardless of all of this I still loved the movie anyway.
The excitement and epic scale of it was exactly what TOS looked like to me, as a little kid.
:)
no, no……..
they were created by technology, not by the universe, therfore, they vanished………
@37: He was also really good at being goofy/funny in I, Mudd, and A Piece of the Action. :)
I can’t wait to see more McCoy. Karl Urban is awesome.
And if they keep giving him wonderful lines like the “space is disease and danger” rant, then yes, they are Enistens for sure.
Urban had some fantastic moments — loved the retcon of the Bones nickname, not to mention the green-blooded hobgoblin line — but I felt he was grossly under-utilized as McCoy.
STAR TREK is about these three men — Kirk, Spock, and McCoy — as different elements of the human condition — action, logic, and emotion — and their friendship. It was a re-telling of the camaraderie of the people who served together in the mid-century wars and the spirit of adventure and discovery that was deep in the heart of post-war America (before you scoff, look at when Roddenberry wrote this).
As much as the spotlight shone on Kirk and Spock, it was the eps where McCoy was truly part of the main story where the series shined most.
(And, suddenly, I’m remembering a few great outtakes with Shatner and Kelley —
“I’m okay Bones…”
“Are you all right?”
(uncontrollable laughter ensues, and further takes prove useless.)
Maggie Q., Maggie Q., Maggie Q. !!!
39. Amen. They got it pretty right.
Which is nice to hear on here — the “Star Trek was about social issues and speeches and therefore Abrams screwed it up” posters make me feel all alone.
Certainly Trek’s dance with science-fiction has been furtive and as uncertain as most of the duos on DANCING WITH THE STARS. But from the start, it never hesitated to pursue it.
Those claiming that science-fiction requires a maximum suspension of disbelief are demonstrating a total lack of understanding as to what “science-fiction” means and the aspirations of those that attempt to construct narratives that can be so classified.
Here’s one opportunity to alleviate such misconceptions:
http://newsroom.ucr.edu/news_item.html?action=page&id=2393
with a free symposium that will practically literally be a hop, skip, and jump away from the local museum’s STAR TREK exhibit and its “the science in science-fiction” theme.
I would love them to focus more on McCoy
#3
I’m going to have to ask….have you actually ever been with a woman? :-P
I have to admit that the idea of a single supernova destroying the Milky Way Galaxy did pull me out of the movie for a few moments, so I’m in favor of stronger science in future Star Trek movies.
I also hope they find a way to keep Spock’s phaser from flapping all over the place when he runs (see the scene on Vulcan when he is running to warn his parents of the planets demise.)
It is always a pleasure to listen to karl urban. and i also think, they are einsteins – so to say. they have also done mistakes, but intelligent mistakes. in generations for instance there are stupid mistakes!
matthias w.
“Einsteins” is just a tad over selling them.
I think Ron Moore and Brannon Braga, Michael Pillar, and Nick Meyer are all better writers but never called them ‘Einsteins’
I wonder how many among these threads got to read “The Making of Star Trek,” that classic book that is, sadly, no longer in print. I think the main point of the book showed that everything that was invented for the show was done so primarily so that the show could actually be made. The notion of a starship traveling faster than the speed of light is not a scientifically accurate piece of fiction, for example. It was done specifically to move the characters around through uncharted areas of space week after week. The notion of the transporter is not a scientifically accurate piece of fiction — it was done because the budget wouldn’t allow showing a starship land on a planet week after week. The notion of visiting planet after planet inhabited by English-speaking, humanoid aliens is not scientifically accurate — it was done to get the characters into a story, and because the budget didn’t allow for creating far-out aliens. The list goes on…
The point is that scientific accuracy is not at the top of Star Trek’s list of things to do. It never has been. People who keep harping on the recent film’s portrayal of science are barking up the wrong tree. The plot devices are there to serve the story, not scientific accuracy. If you want absolute scientific accuracy, you’ll have to watch documentaries, not science fiction.
As for Karl Urban referring to the Supreme Court as “Einsteins,” it is obvious that he is referring to their creative abilities, their imaginations, not comparing them with Einstein as physics majors. I have no desire to go to a movie and have to carry a copy of “Quantum Mechanics for Dummies” in order to follow the story. I’m totally content with a fun, exciting adventure that gets me away from the general daily mediocrity for a couple of hours…
#50: ““Einsteins” is just a tad over selling them.”
It’s just workaday showbiz chatter …. in pretty much every corner of the entertainment industry, on every scale, coworkers refer to each other as geniuses. It’s basically a form of punctuation in their language, and doesn’t mean the same thing it does in English.
I don’t know….I just hope those “Einsteins realize for the next story that the trinity is important. Kirk, Spock and Bones must be at center stage.
As the real Einstein once pointed out, “imagination is more important than knowledge”.
Albert was really smart he had a lot of gems he passed on to us folks….
There are two things that are Infinite, The Universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the Universe – Albert Einstein
So far he seems to be right about Human Stupidity, which is why I watch so little TV, as it just gets dumber every year w/ “Reality” TV shows.
Yet the drooling masses keep watching that stuff like it was high art.
#51.
I happen to have that tome (6th printing) right here, and I suggest that, even though the cover clearly proclaims that its orientation is organized around the more general concept of being THE BOOK ON HOW TO WRITE FOR TV!, if that’s all you got from reading it that you need to read it again.
Specifically starting with page 323:
“At the bottom of page 13, we establish the fact that Sulu shoots a police revolver 6 times. Later on in the script you will discover that Kirk, using the same pistol, fires at a mounted knight in armor 5 times. This would make the revolver an 11-shooter…
Please have this discrepancy mended.” – Excerpt from script comment.
“A former producer from STAR TREK often used to say that in order to write for this series you have take a post-graduate course in the techniques of operating a starship.” – Stephen E. Whitfield, THE MAKING OF STAR TREK
In science-fiction writing when you mention some preexisting concept such as a revolver, you don’t have to take it apart and explain the mechanism but if you claim that a police revolver is an immediate threat to the entire galaxy then you better damn well credibly mend the discrepancy.
Just make the movie, my god, this is th great reamake of all time. I trust them. Look waht they made. Brilliant!!
#57.
At this point, I doubt I will ever see a response that opens my eyes and makes me understand this stance. I admit the 2009 effort was darn entertaining as a mere movie can be and Bob Orci is such a personable and good barker for his own product that he may get me to check out his next effort. But against the vast sea of STAR TREK stories ever told in any media since its inception in the 1960s, “brilliant”?
I mean even as early as 2006 Dauman declared the goal was:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/12/11/fool-on-the-street-viacom-plants-the-flag.aspx
“Dauman was speaking about the company’s overseas strategy — where he sees margin expansion in the range of 10 to 15 percentage points over the next few years — but it was interesting all the same for him to bring up an image of the company’s past in taking his own company to task. Simply landing on the moon isn’t enough for Dauman. Apparently, he wants to colonize” – Rick Aristotle Munarriz, THE MOTLEY FOOL, December 11, 2006
And most reasonable people admit that the 2009 effort contributed little to this strategy of exceeding merely an impressive moon landing by significantly improving the overseas take.