Damon Lindelof On Star Trek Sequel: It’s Not About The Villain | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Damon Lindelof On Star Trek Sequel: It’s Not About The Villain October 16, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

khanThe 2010 Spike Scream Awards were taped tonight in Los Angeles. Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof was there because Lost was getting a special farewell tribute, and while there talked (and wore) some Star Trek on the red carpet. More details below.

 

Damon Lindelof on Star Trek sequel: It Is not about the villain

In a red carpet interview at the Scream Awards with Lost executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, Damon said that right now he is focused on only two projects: the sequel to Star Trek and the Alien prequel, noting he is "taking a break from TV."

Regarding the status of the Star Trek sequel script, Damon said:

It is going, it is progressing. We are putting a lot of pressure on ourselves for it to be awesome.

Of course much of the talk online for the next Star Trek movie has been about the villain. Lindelof was asked how much the team are listening to this discussion:

You have got to write the movie for yourself and we are obviously aware of what people are saying on the web and we are interested in it, but at the same time Trek is not about villains, it is about the crew and their relationship with each other – that family. If the villain helps sort of flesh that out and bring that to life, then we have hit a home run. It really doesn’t matter who it is, it is not like the Batman movies where you are like "OK they have done the Joker, how do you one-up the Joker?"

For more from Lindelof and Cuse, watch the video interview at Collider.com.

Lindelof wears Star Trek to Scream Awards

Lindelof and Cuse, along with members of the Lost cast, were at the 2010 Scream Awards for a special Lost Farewell Tribute. Here are some pics from the event (note Lindelof’s Star Trek/Star Wars t-shirt mashup):


Red carpet at Scream 2010 with Jorge Garcia, executive producers Damon Lindelof, Carlton Cuse, actors Francois Chau and Harold Perrineau onstage during Spike TV’s “Scream 2010″ at The Greek Theatre on October 16, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (WireImage)


Lindelof, Cuse and Lost stars enter stage at Scream Awards. (WireImage)

The 2010 Spike Scream Awards airs Tuesday October 19th at 9PM. More info at Spike.com.

 

Poll: What do you most care about?

It is true that much of the talk about the Star Trek sequel has been about the villain (is it Khan, Klingons, etc). But, in the end what are you most interested in about. Pick your top issue in the latest poll below.

[poll=622]

 

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - October 17, 2010

No villain?

Perfect!

Have it be about a situation or circumstance, not an adversary.

2. Wallace - October 17, 2010

With only one option to choose, the poll is quite distortive.
I believe a good mixture of all those ingredients will make a perfect movie, but not a single one!

3. Zebonka - October 17, 2010

Most intelligent thing I’ve heard about the sequel so far! Not having a direct threat was what made IV so much fun.

4. El Chup - October 17, 2010

I would like to see a thoughtful staory in the classic tradition of Star Trek. We meed a moral dilemma.

5. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 17, 2010

That Star Wars / Star Trek Mashup is going to raise some unhappy eyebrows here, I can feel it. Me, I think it’s cute & funny….

Like Harry Ballz, a villainless plot is exactly what I’ve been hoping for — better to return to the plots that revolve around mind-bending, thought-provoking turn of events.

6. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - October 17, 2010

Of course, “it’s not about the villain” doesn’t necessarily commit him to writing no villain in… but my remarks are more about what I prefer to see anyway.

7. La Reyne D'Epee - October 17, 2010

Yeah, enough of trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars. That’s the last thing anyone needs.

8. David B - October 17, 2010

Think of Star Trek and Star Wars as Apple Pie and Chocolate Sundae. You keep them separate so you can enjoy one on one particular day and the other on a different day.

You try and mix the two and you have a mess, you compromise both and neither works, keep Star Trek as Star Trek and Star Wars as Star Wars, having the variety between the two has kept them both going so long.

9. Nachum - October 17, 2010

I’d like character development, but I realize that the general audience may not. Ah well. Maybe they’ll make a TV series with this cast.

10. chrisfawkes.com - October 17, 2010

Even TWOK was not about the villain.

I would like to see Kirk escaping from the shadow of his father while paying due respect. That would be a good demon to kill.

11. JoeR - October 17, 2010

Dude, star trek 4 had a villain… You had the probe that was effecting human life on earth. It had the right blance because the “villain” was not human.

To defend him…a movie can work with the villain being a small part of the movie.

Now! That t-shirt..,maybe now…people where fans of the last movie can now be cool to us who think that the last movie was just a ripp off of star wars. I have been fair and gave credit when it was right. This trek production crew just took star wars elements and called it trek. So please don’t hate us when we point that out.

12. Holger - October 17, 2010

Other (in the poll): For me that would be boldly going, exploration of space, new civilizations, new possibilities etc.

But there’s no hope the guys who are doing rebooted “Trek” these days will ever understand, let alone appreciate, these aspects of Trek. The choice of the explicit options in the poll is very telling. These categories are applicable to just about any action/adventure movie, whatever the genre.

13. Denny - October 17, 2010

i really dont think they will use Khan (beyond a fun Botany Bay cameo or some throwaway line) as Nero sort of served the Khan purpose as being that style of antagonist for the crew to bond over (superstrong madman out for revenge – which is what Khan is best known for)

its possible Khan may be the main villain for a future movie (Trek 3, Trek 4) but not so soon after Nero…

14. thebiggfrogg - October 17, 2010

11. Except in 4 the villain was not a “villain” in classic Trek tradition. Like the Horta in “The Devil the Dark” or the Gorn in “Arena” or V’Ger in “ST: TMP” there was a misunderstanding and the possibility our heroes might be on the wrong side of it. No moustache twirling bad guys.

That said, Lindelhoff doesn’t seem to be seeing “no villain” but the villain does not need or should not be the centerpiece. Sadly, he has not committed to “no villain” in the story (my preference). Trek movies have been lousy with villains lately, most of the villains lousy, third raters and with a few excellent (Khan).

Here’s hoping that there are no villains for awhile. Time for a rest.

15. thebiggfrogg - October 17, 2010

Hmm, I tried to choose “character development” and I got a message saying “please choose a valid poll answer”. Bad omen?

16. P Technobabble - October 17, 2010

We don’t really have any indication of what the Supreme Court has up their sleeves. When Lindelof says, “It’s not about the villain,” all he’s saying is that the villain is not the point of the movie. Star Trek is about the characters — which is why the above poll currently indicates “character development” is the most important thing to the fans. Well, the Court are also fans, so they understand this. I don’t think anyone should underestimate where Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof are coming from. They came into the first film with a love and understanding of Star Trek, and, no doubt, they’ve learned a lot from making that film, and from hearing the fans comments. I’m sure they’d love to please every member of the fan-base, but that is simply impossible. You can’t have Khan, or Klingons, or Kirk Prime, etc. in a movie and not in it at the same time — which would be the only way to please everyone. (On the other hand, if anyone could pull that off I’m sure it would be these guys).
I believe, now that there’s a whole “new” universe to play in, we are going to see a lot of “new.” I don’t think we’re going to see any re-hashing, or re-making of what we’ve seen in the past. I could be wrong, of course, but I’m betting the Court is as eager to go where none have gone before as the crew of the Enterprise.

17. NCC-73515 - October 17, 2010

The one important element missing in the poll is: The Message!
Comment on current issues!

18. BillyLone - October 17, 2010

That’s a tough one.

Star Trek: TMP had no villain and it was so boring.

While ST IV had the whale story going on and no villain, and that was a hit.

ST:Nemesis had a villain Shizon and the movie flopped.

Wrath of Khan was a hit with Montalban as the villain.

19. Paul - October 17, 2010

We don’t really need a villain. There’s a metric crapton of excellent movies without a villain out there. Consider 2001: A Space Odyssey. Consider Ikarie XB-1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122111/). Even the first Star Wars movie didn’t technically have a villain, more of a “looming threat”…

20. Dom - October 17, 2010

I actually voted for action. I vastly prefer action-driven storytelling (which is what TOS was all about) which should comfortably be able to incorporate humour, sex, character development and so on if it’s well enough written!

21. AJ - October 17, 2010

STAR TREK excels at having villains in stories where “it’s not about the villain.”

Look at “Errand of Mercy” and “A Taste of Armageddon” as stories with fleshed out villains, but which are about a much greater thing (war’s violence and futility).

How about the evolution of ‘Q’ in TNG, whose challenges to Picard always resulted in poignant realizations about humanity’s place in the cosmos.

I hope this is what Lindelof is getting at. Only problem is: I can’t see Chris Pine delivering a good Kirk-speech like Shatner did in the day.

22. Eric - October 17, 2010

Here is what i want to see in the opening of the next film.

The films opens to the Enterprise clashing with some Klingon ship. Kirk is on the bridge, the Kirk we all know, cocky, egocentric, and conniving as all get out. The Klingons are attacking some defenseless alien ship that Kirk decides to protect.

Back at Star Fleet ops, a group of Admirals, most notably Admiral Pike and some wussy Federation foreign minister are watching the clash. The minister is freaking out over Kirk’s actions and demands that Pike order Kirk to withdraw less the Enterprise creates a diplomatic incident. One non-federation alien ship is not worth a Klingon war. Pike laments and orders the Enterprise back.

Kirk, who is not about to cede the day to the Klingons, asks Star Fleet Command to resend the message while he takes the extra time to save the small alien ship.

Federation minister screams with indignation.

Finally Kirk out maneuvers the Klingon ship and the small alien craft escapes destruction. The young Kirk is all too pleased with himself.

The Federation foreign minister is outraged and demands Kirk be brought up on charges. Pike assures him that the incident will be looked at. But when Pike and the admirals leave the ops center out of hearing distance of the enraged foreign minister, they break out into laughter, may be even high five each other. They are totally impressed with Kirk. They want more Kirks. This shows us the beginning of how Kirk always managed to get away with his cowboy diplomacy.

23. Eric - October 17, 2010

I am sure this is as far as my idea will go. For the first film, i thought Nero should have first encountered Captain April and the Enterprise NX-1701, just out of its construction dock. Kirk’s father should have taken the helm when they were under attack to let little baby Kirk escape. That would have explained Kirk’s infatuation with the Enterprise–it was his father’s ship.

But what do i know.

24. Steve - October 17, 2010

I, too, wouldn’t be opposed to the film’s villian being a situation or circumstance as compared to an actual person. I think that would be a really bold choice.

25. Weerd1 - October 17, 2010

Every great story is about the characters. This is a good sign.

26. Kirk, James T. - October 17, 2010

Star Trek has always been at it’s best when it has an awesome villain that somehow mirrors an important issue in the real world. A realistic threat that our heroes have to defeat one way or another and a villain that not only pulls at the emotional heart strings of our heroes but also of the audience too. Star Wars would be nothing without The Empire, Star Trek would be nothing without Khan or the Borg, lord of the Rings would be nothing without Mordor and The Dark Knight would have been nothing without the Joker. Star Trek has also been at it’s best when there’s more action in it rather than long talky scenes.

I cite the TNG episode Best of Both Worlds as a stand out episode involving a bad-ass villain and a huge amount of character development with a rich plot – everyone seemed to grow up and take charge in this episode, the story had many levels to it and everyone had a part to play and you could feel the emotion and the tension coming through from each of the characters, even the emotionless Data really resonated with me. Although it was set in the 24th century, because you cared about these characters and especially Picard, you felt engaged with the story because it was playing with real emotions of fear and the loss of someone close to the characters as well as an audience, it was like OH MY GOD! HOW ARE THEY GOING TO SOLVE THIS IMPOSSIBLE ISSUE!

Again another example is the 2009 movie; Star Trek. People engaged with it because it felt real because of the emotions coming across from the characters especially in the opening when George Kirk sacrifices himself to save his crew, I mean it had everything I’d want to see in a 2 hour sequel, it felt real regardless of them being in space. It takes a huge villain, someone or something that can really push our heroes emotions thus getting the audience on the edge of their seats praying that our heroes escape and eventually prevail over this immense enemy. The key I think to the sequel is to just really delve deep into the emotions good and bad and really really make a movie that just makes the audience experience ever kind of emotion.

I kind of see where Lindelof is going but I hope that they all realise that without a villain being an essential part of the story and being as good as The Dark Knight’s Joker or Star Trek First Contact’s Borg or Star Wars’ Empire/Darth Vader – then the movie will fall very flat indeed. The first movie could get away with a slightly weak villain because what the audience wanted to see was the formation of the Enterprise crew and the beginnings of that famous friendship between Kirk and Spock – Nero was just a means to an end. What the second movie has to prove is that these characters are still relevant and worth caring about. For that to happen they have to be thrown into a story that has these characters face up against a huge and deadly adversary. An adversary that gets the emotions going, really tug on those heart strings, that really does draw this crew closer so that you totally feel that all of them completely deserve their place on that ship. This movie really does have to be The Dark Knight of Star Trek on so many levels so I hope that whilst character development is a huge must have, the gang also realise that character development is nothing without something immense (bigger than Nero destroying Vulcan) happening around them to make these characters develop, mature and maintain their relevancy in today’s 21st century world…

Apart from that the second movie needs to be bigger, bolder, cooler and hugely entertaining for ANYONE to enjoy and also have A-listers joining the cast, a bigger, GLOBAL advertising campaign and merchandise from companies such as Hasbro, LEGO, Adidas and many more .

27. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

My idea, about Kirk having to go after a renegade Pike, and getting himself involved in galactic contests of Brobdingnagian proportions, seems appropriate to cite here. I first suggested this publicly sometime in the earlier part of this year.

The sequel should flow naturally from the first movie. Pike’s statement (at the bar) that Starfleet needed men like Kirk could be seen as a broader philosophical statement. Pike’s attempt to save Starfleet by engaging in Kirk-esque, damn-the-torpedoes tactics would give his character the prominent role that many fans favor and obviate the need for a villain.

The villain would not be a person, but circumstances involving galactic interests, perhaps including the Romulans (who might desire to avenge themselves against the Federation, believing the Vulcan homeworld to have been destroyed by a 9/11-style conspiracy or an as-yet known race).

The idea of incorporating a 9/11-style conspiracy has not been stated by me prior to this message, but I think that it would be quite au courant given the times in which we live.

Trek has always been about the present as much as the future. There is what political scientists have called a “paranoid fringe” in politics that might be echoed in the world of Trek.

The plot, as revised, would go like this:

Pike leads a secret mission to protect Federation interests in the now-vacant Vulcan quadrant. His fleet mysteriously vanishes just beyond Vulcan space just after he returns to send Kirk off to Kirk’s five-year mission. Rumors abound that his fleet had found evidence of Federation complicity in the destruction of Vulcan for the purpose of militarizing the Federation as a whole. Despite his philosophical beliefs, Pike commandeers a small but fast Starfleet vessel in search of his missing fleet, against Starfleet orders.

Kirk is sent after him aboard the Enterprise.

28. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

By the way, just to clarify, my personal opinion — and it’s just an opinion — is that anyone who believes that the U.S. government conspired to destroy the WTC has been watching too many Hollywood films.

29. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Typo: “The villain would not be a person, but circumstances involving galactic interests, perhaps including the Romulans (who might desire to avenge themselves against the Federation, believing the Vulcan homeworld to have been destroyed by a 9/11-style conspiracy) or an as-yet known race.

30. Jonboc - October 17, 2010

The characters have already been developed over the course of the past 44 years. What they need to do is drop those already developed characters into a damn good plot…which may or may not involve a villain. We know the characters are awesome, but good characters do not a good movie make. Give them an interesting, exciting, fun and imaginative plot and we’re in business!

31. Dee - October 17, 2010

Of course it will have a villain…. as they can’t please everyone …they will take the focus off that!!!!
I want to see character development, action and humor!!!

32. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Perhaps what they meant is that it’s not about the villain in the same way that Star Trek II was about Khan’s need for revenge.

A 9/11-type story in the manner proposed could still have a villain in the same way that Star Trek VI had one in the Klingon general. The Klingons, by the way, also had heroes in that film — the chancellor and his daughter.

Real life is complicated. In every situation, those who may have opposed us may also have their villains.

I see Star Trek VI has an archetype for the next Star Trek movie.

Besides, both II and VI were directed by Nicholas Meyer, considered a genius for his direction. Both were successes. And both featured a strong and character-centric performance by the original crew.

Perhaps Mr. Meyer could be a consultant for Star Trek 2, informal or not.

33. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

^^”In every situation, those who may have opposed us may also have their heroes.”

As corrected.

34. Praetor Shinzon II - October 17, 2010

Putting Plot and Villian together is just wrong. They should be separate.I’m for a good plot but the ‘villain can be secondary or even tertiary.

35. Denny - October 17, 2010

@23 – from imdb trivia – “The original opening for the movie was going to feature the Enterprise NCC-1701 under the command of Robert April, with George Kirk second in command. At the climax of the scene the Enterprise would have been destroyed, and the Enterprise featured through most of the movie would have been its successor, the NCC-1701-A (which didn’t debut until Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) in the original timeline). However, Paramount told Kurtzman and Orci that the one thing they absolutely could not do was destroy the Enterprise, even if they were going to replace it with a newer one, and so the “original” Enterprise was rewritten into the USS Kelvin, with Captain April becoming Captain Robau. ”

dunno if all thats true or not but it would seem the ‘logical’ choice – to have had April in command of the original Enterprise (im talking pretty much the same model as used in TOS) and some big star as April (Hanks or Ford etc)

it would have certainly established clearly why the enterprise looked alot different to how it did in TOS!

maybe they couldve gotten away with calling the new enterprise NCC1701 as well (no need for ‘A’) – kind of the same mentality as what one proposal was regarding what to do after 9/11 – to build the towers again only higher (i dunno if thats still planned?)

36. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

^^There are a few archetypes one can draw upon for inspiration:

1. Star Trek VI, as stated hereinabove.

2. The Star Wars films, original trilogy. There were two main villains, Vader and the Emperor, with the Emperor a distant second in the villainy department. The “hero’s journey” (see: Campbell) was arguably much more important than Vader, especially in the 1977 movie (Episode VI).

3. The Bond films, where there is most often in fact a central villain (for the most part, primarily the manipulator and boss Blofeld), but he is often at the center of a much more involved conspiracy or criminal enterprise (SPECTRE) with subsidiary villains or henchmen (Oddjob, Jaws, et al.).

In other words, a central figure can distill an adversary, but the adversary need not be personal.

37. Denny - October 17, 2010

oh wait the NCC1701 wasnt launched until 2245 so thats why they couldnt use that opening (unless theyd just ignored the star trek Chronlogy)

38. Cap'n Calhoun - October 17, 2010

Why are Villain/Plot combined on the poll? You can have a Khan as your villain, but if the plot is a mess it isn’t going to help you.

39. Dee - October 17, 2010

Well…I really liked LOST from start to the End…. But… I don’t like to see in Star Trek2012… the young crew of the Enterprise in an existential or spiritual journey….I want a real space travel… With much struggle and challenges to be overcome.. the basics…but done with great competence!!!!….LOL!

40. denny cranium - October 17, 2010

I’m glad its about the characters.
I’m hoping for something that TESTS Kirks cockiness, dash in where angels fear to tread, confidence etc to his CORE.(maybe past it)
Where whats worked for him in the past doesnt work this time and he pays a heavy price.
He needs to come out of the other side a better man, Captain etc

41. Philip Dunlop - October 17, 2010

Interesting piece. I just hope they don’t go over the top and try TOO hard.

42. James - October 17, 2010

A few things – a key character is the enterprise itself (without the ship what have you got?)
I agree the villain shouldnt be as important as the plot itself or the character development (just look at the success of the voyage home which did not have one)
Personally i feel they need to attract a major Hollywood star to the sequel (will help with the worldwide box office)
Paramount will hopefully take heed of what happened when they shrunk the budget for Trek films and will provide an even bigger budget for the sequel (star trek 5 failed mainly due to lack of budget…although the plot whilst not that bad helped too)
Finally do not forget the the impact the first 12 minutes that JJ’s first film had on non-trekkies

43. Denny - October 17, 2010

I think Nimoy might have revealed the direction of the sequel….

Film 4 (UK film channel) is showing all 10 Trek movies over the weekend – inbetween movies they have interviews with Nimoy and Frakes talking about each movie and a 10 minute segement where they talk about their experiences with Trek itself. On this Nimoy said the last time he saw Roddenberry it was to discuss Trek VI and he said GR liked the script very much but said he would like to see one thing explore that no Trek had ever touched upon before ….the origins of the klingons – why they were the way they were, why so angry, what caused them to go down that route and become a ferocious warrior race, what happened…

Nimoy said he thought it was a great idea and he and Meyer went away and tried to interject some explanations in the movie but they couldn’t figure out how to in the context of the story that needed to be told so it didn’t happen….

Ive a feeling that the klingons will feature heavily in the trek sequel and we might get to see what GR wanted to see and what (to my knowledge) has yet to be explored (even in TNG) – the origins of the klingons (via flashback and explanation from various characters against the backdrop of a story of an epic klingon/federation conflict complete with some kind of mcguffin)

Kind of similar to the way ST09 was the origins of Star Trek itself (or the alternate origin)

44. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

Villain or no villain is irrelevant to me. Good story or bad story. That is relevant to me.

45. Flake - October 17, 2010

I thought the Klingons evolved the way they did because of Kahless and some form of alien enemy or something…

Memory Alpha will know.

46. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Great points, James (42). I agree that Paramount should give the upcoming sequel the Avatar treatment — i.e., as much money as reasonably needed to make it a cinematic hit on the order of any of the Star Wars movies. I hardly need to mention that SW is still the gold standard of space-based SF movies, or even movies in general, in the field of box office appeal.

There needs to be a certain grittiness that would be ideal for the modern sensibility, as well. Nicholas Meyer was sometimes criticized for militarizing Trek, but I think that in the world in which we live, some degree of militarization is inevitable. That is, Trek, at this stage, needs to be the furthest from “Logan’s Run” and closer to “Aliens,” without, obviously, being a bad clone of “Starship Troopers.”

Perhaps we could see a version of the Starfleet Marines, and in such manner start a relatively new, modern-relevant aspect to Trek. I recall that the space marines in Star Trek: Enterprise were a big hit. (Before anyone guffaws at the mere mention of ST:E, I would venture that ST:E was just hitting its stride when it was canceled.)

47. cugel the clever - October 17, 2010

The poll itself is flawed because it combined “villian” and “plot” into one category when in fact they are two very different aspects of the movie. “Villian” is one rather narrow element of the movie but plot is a wider category which essentially means the quality of the writing, and the originality and interest of the overall storyline. They should have been two separate choices.

My vote is for a quality plot but I don’t think this means there needs to be a “villian” in the traditional sense (e.g. Khan, Borg, Shinzon, etc). Some of the very best star trek tv eps (e.g. “City on the Edge of Forever”, “Inner Light”, “The Visitor”) did not really have a villian. Instead, the story focused on a character overcoming a challenging circumstance or dilemma rather than a tangible villian.

48. Denny - October 17, 2010

46 – Avatar also delved quite deeply into an alien race and its culture – so its possible the trek sequel might be going that way with the klingons…(home planet, their culture etc)

after all when a film is as big as Avatar (or star wars or any genre defining blockbuster) theres usually alot of similaly themed movies that follow

its a guess but maybe thats the way they are going to go…

49. Hugh Hoyland - October 17, 2010

I’m sure there will be a villian, Bob even stated as much, and truth be told, just for financial reasons, there almost has to be, its a sequel. Now what DL said is that the villian wont be the focus, thats a lot different than there wont be any at all. It will be in the tradition of Trek, a good solid story, with the crew (family) banding together in some sort of conflict.

50. Hugh Hoyland - October 17, 2010

I’m sure there will be a villian, Bob even stated as much, and truth be told, just for financial reasons, there almost has to be, its a sequel. Now what DL said is that the villian wont be the focus, thats a lot different than there wont be any at all. It will be in the tradition of Trek, a good solid story, with the crew (family) banding together in some sort of conflict.

51. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Perhaps, Denny. Interesting.

52. Thorny - October 17, 2010

Denny… “kind of the same mentality as what one proposal was regarding what to do after 9/11 – to build the towers again only higher (i dunno if thats still planned?)”

No, a single new building called the Freedom Tower will be built on the property but not on the footprint of either twin tower. It will stand 1,776 feet. Seriously ugly looking structure last time I saw pictures of it, alas.

53. Bernd Schneider - October 17, 2010

Damon Lindelof shows that he still knows what Trek is about. Unfortunately it has become a bad habit of the movies, as opposed to the TV series, to have the crew fight against a villain. And against a poor Khan re-issue in the two latest movies. I think the writers will have to make a difference in the next movie if they want to save something of the spirit of the TV series.

54. P Technobabble - October 17, 2010

Every story has a villain, whether it be Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Machine, Man vs. Alien Probe, etc. etc. There can be no hero, no story without a “villain” of some kind. Conflict is what drives a story.
# 19, Paul, mentioned “2001″ as a film without a villain. It may seem that way on the surface, but HAL was the film’s main villain. And the theme of the film was Man vs. Technology (Machine).
The next Star Trek film will definitely have a villain, otherwise Kirk has nothing that would make him a hero. The villain always takes the form of a threat (and he/it had better be a very serious threat), but, typically, the villain never achieves the result of the suggested threat. That’s because the hero finds a way to overcome the villain. Isn’t that what classic story-telling is about? Isn’t that what Star Trek is about?
Sure, there are many aspects to Star Trek: the great characters, the Enterprise, the mysterious unknown… but some kind of obstacle (villain) always confronts the characters, and that’s what ultimately makes them heroes… as Kirk says in TUC, “Once again we’ve saved civilization as we know it.” It was a funny, Shatner-esque line, but it was also the truth. And I don’t think anyone wants to see a Trek film where our heroes fail in the end. It just wouldn’t be Star Trek!

55. James - October 17, 2010

Personally i feel it doesnt need to be a villain per-se (just look at the doomsday machine – TOM HANKS as Commodore Matt Decker ;-)) like i and others have said plot should come before villain)

Star Trek generations whislt criticised had beautiful character interaction and development and weaved the themes of life and death together very well (just as TWOK did)

The thing is everyone (and i include myself in this) want the film to go in a particular direction – what TWOK and to a lesser extent Generations was mix seriousness with humour and action with thought.

On a side note it was interesting during the star trek to hear the character of Kirk in ST5 state ”I have always known i will die alone” and in Generations whilst his death was criticised ultinmately he did die alone with no Bones or Spock near by.

56. James - October 17, 2010

@ 54. P Technobabble

The voyage home had no true villain…

57. Thorny - October 17, 2010

44… “Villain or no villain is irrelevant to me. Good story or bad story. That is relevant to me.”

Amen to that! I don’t mind a villain. This is Hollywood after all. But if we’re going to have a villain, make him/her real. Please not an “insane revenge” motive as was done brilliantly in TWOK, terribly in Nemesis, and somewhere in between in ST 2009. And for God’s sake no scenery chewing, mustache-twirling bad guy as in “Avatar”. We need a real motive, and I would love to see Our Heroes ™ solve the dilemma with their brains instead of a barrage of photon torpedoes or yet another deus ex machina. Others may disagree, but I think Kruge in ST3:TSFS was actually the most well-rounded villain in the Trek movies. He wasn’t evil, he didn’t twirl his mustache, he didn’t want to blow up Earth ‘just because’, he simply wanted Project Genesis for the Empire. Of course, that natural villainy was undone by a campy performance by Christopher Lloyd and far from the best dialogue ever written, but the idea was sound.

58. AJ - October 17, 2010

56:

TVH DID have a villain, the worst one of all: 20th Century Humanity let loose on Earth’s animal resources without even a clue that one of them is a sentient species.

With the knowledge humanity has at the time of these whales, as recited by ‘Gillian Taylor’ during the tour, it is obvious that human greed trumps ‘logic’ in the 20th century, and is allowed by us to destroy this species.

59. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 17, 2010

31. Dee – October 17, 2010
Of course it will have a villain

Pretty obvious, yes. But he won’t be the central element of the movie.

60. James - October 17, 2010

@58. AJ – October 17, 2010

Note i said no true villain aka Borg, klingons etc

61. Richpit - October 17, 2010

Ok, where do I get one of those t-shirts??

62. Reign1701A - October 17, 2010

Lindelof nailed it. Thank you, sir.

63. Red Dead Ryan - October 17, 2010

The next movie will have a villain, guaranteed. And as the writers have previously said, a strong villain makes a strong hero. The villain doesn’t have to be “evil”, or power-hungry, or revenge driven. He/she could be a hero who has fallen from grace or become disenchanted with the current establishment (whatever that might be) and has taken up a cause which led the antagonist down a path into fanaticism while still maintaining some moral decency.

Perhaps a rogue admiral similar to Admiral Pressman(“The Pegasus”)?
He violated the Treaty Of Algeron by developing a phased cloaking device.
Pressman seemed to have gotten permission from Starfleet Security to circumvent the treaty because he and a few others felt the Romulans had an unfair advantage over the Federation. The majority of the Pegasus crew (except, of course, then-ensign Riker and Captain Pressman and a few others) ended up getting killed. Admiral Pressman wasn’t evil, though he was clearly a criminal who believed in his own actions. It was a very thought-provoking episode that dealt with the consequences and politics of a very controversial treaty.

Obviously, the writers can’t use that same formula for the sequel, but it does provide an interesting idea. Maybe have the Admiral or another starship captain go rogue by aligning with either the Romulans or Klingons against the orders from Starfleet and the Federation. Maybe the sequel could involve Section 31. And the Federation could be on the brink of war, with battles involving the Enterprise, Excalibur, Defiant against either the Romulans, Klingons, or other Starfleet ships, or even all three.

You’d have a lot suspense, action, great characters, and a lot of moral debate between Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

64. P Technobabble - October 17, 2010

60. James

If you reconsider my comments you will note that I was not differentiating between what you call a “true” villain and ANY kind of obstacle. In TVH, the probe represents a threat, “neutralizing” everything in its path. The probe may not be a villain like Khan, or Klingons, but its effect is still “villainous.” And I agree with #58 AJ, that in TVH 20th century Man is a villain to himself. It may sound like splitting hairs, but I think it is important to define what we mean by “villain,” especially when we don’t have all the facts relative to the Star Trek sequel. I understand where you’re coming from however…

65. Harry Ballz - October 17, 2010

Yes, most of us probably think of a villain as an individual, not as an entity, circumstance or threat. It will be interesting to see how the writers navigate their way through these “murky waters” in the sequel.

66. Captain Rickover - October 17, 2010

I think Damon’s comment adresses the Kahn or no Kahn-discussion in every Trek-forum (and meaning that no one will hear any official big announcement who the villain will be until the movie is released).

Character development might be the most important point for the most fans, but without a credible plot the movie will fall to be the worst or rise to be the best of the series. The villain/atagonist is the most important thing for any character development. The villian/atagonist is the essence of the story, might it be Kahn, the Klingons or some alien probe who threats the federation’s existence. It’s the atagonist who tests the characters, for the good or the worse. That’s what make the popcorne eating dude want to watch a Star Trek movie. It’s space battles, action, villians, humor etc. Not strange new worlds and exploration or a plot about how Kirk rises above his father.

And one thing must be clear: The days Star Trek appeals only to us sci/fi-fans are over. Geek-only-plots are a thing of the past. Since Star Trek 2009 the franchise is now in the mainstream-camp – like Star Wars.

67. Vultan - October 17, 2010

#63

Ooh, I like the idea of the Enterprise going after a rogue admiral. It would give an extra bit of irony as Admiral Kirk was once a ‘renegade.’

Other good examples of rogue (or semi-rogue) members of Starfleet can be found in the TOS episodes “The Omega Glory” (Captain Tracey) and of course “The Doomsday Machine” (the wonderfully unhinged Commodore Decker).

68. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

Look at Damon’s shirt. Star Trek is the new Star Wars.

69. Red Dead Ryan - October 17, 2010

66

“And one thing must be clear: The days Star Trek appeals only to us sci/fi-fans are over. Geek-only-plots are a thing of the past. Since Star Trek 2009 the franchise is now in the mainstream-camp — like Star Wars.”

Very true. Today’s Star Trek (at least on the big screen) must have a fast- paced action oriented story. But character development does matter as well. Exploration of strange new worlds works better on the small screen.

This is why Star Trek will always be known as a television franchise first, unlike “Star Wars” which was meant to be seen on the big screen from day one. Star Trek covers more space, i.e technology, characters, plots, cultures, science while “Star Wars” is mainly about characters, plots and mythology.

70. Vultan - October 17, 2010

#68

Which is good for Star Wars fans… not so much for Trekkies… :(

Imitation is the subtlest form of piracy.

71. Pro-Khan-Sel - October 17, 2010

I’m still convinced It’s going to be Khan. The marketing possibilities for a khan 30th anniversary tie-in are staggering.

Summer 2012 -30th anniversary of wrath of khan, almost to the day.

In november 2012, paramount releases the new film, along with the directors cut of wrath of khan (1982) on blu-ray as a box set. Along with it, deleted and restored scenes (some never before seen) along with the wrath of khan expanded cd soundtrack.

I’m guessing most of this only from a marketing standpoint.

I also predict that directors cuts all all of the star trek films would be released the same day.

Right now I’m thinking: save and preserve the franchise, to guarentee a third new movie, If the next film fails, then we won’t have a third movie for a while, and franchise fatigue will again be to blame.

I invite everyones ideas and critisisms. Thanks!

72. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

“He/she could be a hero who has fallen from grace or become disenchanted with the current establishment (whatever that might be) and has taken up a cause which led the antagonist down a path into fanaticism while still maintaining some moral decency.

Perhaps a rogue admiral similar to Admiral Pressman(”The Pegasus”)?”

Or, in my story, Pike. ;-)

73. Capt. of the USS Anduril - October 17, 2010

Wow, Damon Lindelof GETS IT!!! Give the man a trophy!

74. Janice - October 17, 2010

I like some of the ideas fans have for Admiral Pike!

I think it’s really important that Pike not only be in the sequel, but he should be a part of the main story. Not just a token cameo!!
Kirk may be Enterprise Captain now but he’s still very young, and, of course, cocky.. Also, the Enterprise crew is quite young (except maybe for Scotty). Pike has both the experience and the maturity that Kirk doesn’t have as yet. Pike should be guiding Kirk behind the scenes–after all, he was the one to recruit him into Starfleet and the Enterprise was his ship before it was Kirk’s. Pike would have a vested interest in both Kirk and the Enterprise.

Yes—i’m a Star Trek fan that wants to see Pike(Bruce Greenwood) front and center in whatever story we get–with the rest of the crew.

I’m confident the writers will do a great job and i’m hoping JJ Abrams will direct once more.

75. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Thanks, Janice. ;-)

76. Steve Roby - October 17, 2010

Why are plot and “villian” lumped together in the poll? You don’t need a villain to have a plot; too often movies have villains instead of plots.

Too many of the Star Trek movies went wrong because the writers thought they needed a Villain with a capital V. Go back and watch the original series. There are plenty of great episodes with no Khan-style villains.

77. CmdrR - October 17, 2010

Please, enjoy the process of writing. If you’re having fun and challenging yourself to tell a good story with good use of the characters, odds are it’ll be a good movie.

78. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Some more details:

About Kirk’s five-year mission:

Starfleet has learned (primarily from Spock Prime, whether or not he actually intended to tell them) that there are hundreds of sentient species out there that may or may not pose a threat to the Federation. Its original plan was to send several starships on five-year missions in a ten-year timeframe, but given both the destruction of Vulcan and Spock’s information, the program has been modified. Only one starship is allocated to the five-year mission program, technically called the EXtended Exploration, TElelocation, and Reconnoiter program (or Project EXETER). For reasons both known and unknown, that ship is the Enterprise, with specially modified navigation computers, under the command of James T. Kirk.

This plan is disrupted when Pike apparently “goes rogue.” Kirk, who sees Pike as a surrogate figure, is dispatched on a mission to pursue Pike and also determine the cause of the fleet’s aforementioned disappearance. He does so aboard the ship he already commands, under the informal tutelage of new Spock (not Spock Prime). While Spock is technically Kirk’s subordinate, Spock has secret contingent orders to assume command of the Enterprise if necessary.

Unknown to any of the command officers, the Enterprise herself has been programmed with hundreds of possible mission profiles on the basis of Spock Prime’s knowledge. This becomes both an asset and liability in the events to come.

In the meantime, Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy in a cameo) has independently determined that information he has deliberately kept from the Federation has made its way into Federation databases by unknown means. His attempt to convey this to new Spock fails, however. Not knowing this, he is determined to submerge himself into the task of building New Vulcan.

79. Captain Rickover - October 17, 2010

Despite the fact, that we will get obviously another mainstream-trek, I wish the writers and producers the best luck. They’ll need it. Because all the bonus and credits they’ve earned from the first movie won’t be helpfull. They will fail – in one way or another. It’s simply impossible to fullfill all the expecations that raised after Trek-2009. That’s what happend also with Iron Man, Pirates of the caribbean, Matrix, Casino Royal and every other movie-series with an over-the-top praised first part. It’s an old curse that work for nearly 90% of all movie-series. The only known esception is The Dark Knight. But without Heath Ledger’s tragic death the outcome would have been very different, I bet.

Nevertheless, I will watch Star Trek XII and still hope it will be as good as possible.

80. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

TESB was praised by the critics, though.

It may not have quite matched Star Wars, but as a sequel, it was highly regarded.

81. Captain Rickover - October 17, 2010

# 80 Hat Rick

You’re right. But TESB was a total different movie than the first Star Wars with complete new themes and reverse pacing. Big battle at the beginning, then slowing down the movie, get into character and made a little (but impacting) duell at the end. Lucas fighted for this kind of story and tricked the studio with the contracts from the first movie concerning any possible sequel. I doubt JJ and team has as much independence with the storytelling as Lucas had. The industry allways wants the same formulas for movie-series – to guarantee success. If Lucas wouldn’t have
includes his independence during the contracts, TESB would have been just an ordinary sequel.

But as I said, the sequel-curse counts for 90% of all movie-series. There’s still a chance of 10% that Star Trek XII will raise above the 2009 movie. But I think it’s unlikley.

82. Lancelot Narayan - October 17, 2010

All I care about is Jim meeting Carol.

83. Captain Rickover - October 17, 2010

# Oh my god What was I writing???

I meant ORDONARY sequel. Man, it’s allready to late for typing over here in Germany. Good night everyone!

84. BerserkerMecha - October 17, 2010

Star Trek: The Voyage Home was a 2 hour long “Save The Whales” advertisement. Not that having a villain is a critical aspect of a Star Trek movie but it wouldn’t harm to have one.

85. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Then let’s hope JJ had some good people doing his lawyering for him, 81.

86. Denny - October 17, 2010

@71

“I’m still convinced It’s going to be Khan. The marketing possibilities for a khan 30th anniversary tie-in are staggering. Summer 2012 -30th anniversary of wrath of khan, almost to the day.”

not really – few people would care beyond obsessive trekkies (like myself). was there that much of a big deal about Khans 25th anniversary in 07? apart from the new range of action figures (that wouldve come out anyway) – no…and the 25th anniversay is more of a milestone than the 30th. Was anyone that bothered that ST09 came out in the 30th anniversary of TMP? (the biggest Trek movie since then and in a way the ‘first’ one again as well) no – no one really noticed (i didnt even realise until afterwards) Or that ST09 also came out on the 25th anniversary of TSFS and the 20th ann of TFF? What about Star Trek Nemesis coming out on the 20th anniversary of TWOK? the fireworks and champange shouldve been in full flow right?(esp since NEM was a virtual remake of Trek II) It dosnt really matter about the anniversaries for the movies…the only Star Trek anniversary that anyone really gives a damn about is the original series..the 25th, the 30th, the 40th, the 50th

same applies to other stuff – did anyone care that AvP was out on the 25th anniversary of Alien? what about Terminator 4 coming out on the 25th ann of T1?…

in fact NOT having Khan in the sequel on the 30th anniversary of the best Trek movie might be a wise move as if they did alot of critics spurred on to view TWOK due to the 30th anniversary Khan connection might think ‘man they did it a WHOLE lot better in ’82…the new Khan SUCKS compared to Montoban!….sequel automatically gets 2/5 big letdown’

anyway even if there is no Khan, the sequel will still be out at around the 30th anniversary of TWOK….obsessive fans (like myself) can have our own private celebrations

“In november 2012, paramount releases the new film, along with the directors cut of wrath of khan (1982) on blu-ray as a box set. Along with it, deleted and restored scenes (some never before seen) along with the wrath of khan expanded cd soundtrack. I’m guessing most of this only from a marketing standpoint.
I also predict that directors cuts all all of the star trek films would be released the same day.”

er…buddy…theyve already done all that

87. gingerly - October 17, 2010

lol. This still won’t shut-up fanboys about Khan.

Though, I’m glad they made that Batman comparison. The Dark Knight only succeeded because Heath Ledger died and his final performance lives up to the hype.

The rest of that movie is not at all great.

…I’m STILL mad at that awful patronizing ship-hostages scene.

88. somethoughts - October 17, 2010

#87

Dark Knight was great regardless if Heath died, some folks didn’t know he died and still loved the film.

I believe you are in the minority there gingerly.

89. Harry Ballz - October 17, 2010

88.

Careful how you tread gingerly on this topic!

90. somethoughts - October 17, 2010

Some of the best episodes never had a villain.

The focus should be problem solving through morals and ethics.

TNG (All Good Things, Yesterdays Enterprise)

Voyager (Timeless)

TOS (The City on the Edge of Forever)

The Undiscovered County is what I believe Damon is referring to, you have this great storyline and character moments without a central focused villain, the villain being bigotry and conspiracy.

91. Devon - October 17, 2010

^^It’s success was largely due to Heath Ledger’s death, no secret.

92. Dee - October 17, 2010

#59

Okay!!!.. Quite different from Dark Knight then….it was on the villain…wasn’t it!!!

93. Captain Conrad - October 17, 2010

I hate his t-shirt!!!!!!!!!!!

94. somethoughts - October 17, 2010

#91

really? pity you feel that way, Nolan is a great story director and writer, he doesn’t need actors to die on him for his film to be successes. Just look at Momento and Inception, Dark Knight would have been a box office hit regardless if Heath died.

95. Dee - October 17, 2010

wasn’t???

96. Dee - October 17, 2010

I love his T-shirt!!!

97. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

5. 4 8 15 16 23 42 – October 17, 2010

“That Star Wars / Star Trek Mashup is going to raise some unhappy eyebrows here, I can feel it. Me, I think it’s cute & funny….”

I agree, I then started to look for Star Wars in Star Trek text lol.

98. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

ADMIRAL Pike going rogue doesn’t intrigue me. He had a brand new ship and they gave it to Kirk. Since he’s getting on in years and has already had a full career, the impression ST.09 leaves you with is that he’s now in the lower echelon of senior command.

I think Pike should be in the sequel, but he should have a relationship to Kirk something like what M has to James Bond, i.e., as Kirk’s closest and most supportive member of Starfleet HQ.

99. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

And why — in every picture I see of Damon Liindelof — does the guy always look like he can’t believe he’s getting away with something?

100. gingerly - October 17, 2010

@88

some folks didn’t know he died and still loved the film.

And they have bad taste….No, I kid. ;)

I wouldn’t presume to know who the minority is in their opinion of the Dark Knight, now.

…But back when it came out, most folks who saw it loved it and I know Heath Ledger’s death and fantastic performance had the most to do with that.

Between the fridging of Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character and that laughable little morality play on the ship to (weak, WEAK climax) to the thin plot and character development, the movie itself didn’t have much going on.

101. gingerly - October 17, 2010

@94

If it makes you feel better, I think being the worst film of Nolan’s repertoire (that would be The Dark Knight) is still pretty high praise for a mainstream movie these days.

He hasn’t made a bad movie, yet.

102. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

Not a fan of Dark Knight either. And only really liked about 60 % of Batman Begins. It started off well with the warrior monk angle, and then went comic booky. Not that I mind comic booky movies. The Losers was great. But the two types don’t mix. They draw on two separate levels of credulity and when you switch half way through it feels like the filmmaker got confused about what he was doing and didn’t realize it.

103. somethoughts - October 17, 2010

#100

You are entitled to what you like and dislike :)

I held The Dark Knight as one of the top films before Inception came out, felt satisfied coming out of the theater. I know folks don’t care about rotten tomatoes scores and other critics etc. but I recall it had a 93% to 96% score with 257 fresh to 18 rotten reviews. Pretty good sample.

Everyone has different tastes and can enjoy other genres I suppose.

Nolan imo has mastered the intelligent action genre, he’s the perfect fusion of wits and explosions.

104. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

21. AJ – October 17, 2010
“How about the evolution of ‘Q’ in TNG, whose challenges to Picard always resulted in poignant realizations about humanity’s place in the cosmos.”

Well said, exactly what it is.

Q labeled as a nuisance is basically hinting that humanity will surpass the Q.

105. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Pike isn’t really that old. Think about other starship captains — Jellico (“Pegasus”), Decker (granted, he was a commodore, but Pike could be easily be promoted to a commodore, as well), et al.

It’s just that Kirk is so young — the youngest captain in Starfleet ever to command a starship, if memory serves — that the captaincy seems like an office for the young.

In fact, if anything, Pike could be “kicked upstairs” and receive his promotion to commodore, which could also be an element of the plot. In fact, come to think of it, it would make sense that he would be commodore, if he were the commander of the initial fleet sent to Vulcan after its disappearance.

It wouldn’t be rogue admiral story, then, but a rogue commodore, but the general idea is the same.

We are also talking about an era in which the human lifespan has probably been extended by about 20% or more, making the age of 70 or 80 barely past middle age. Pike seems no more than about 60 in the movie — decidedly still in his prime. It would be equivalent of the mid-40′s in 21st Century terms, and there are plenty of captains in their 40′s in the U.S. Navy, for example. In fact, the average age of U.S. Navy captains is probably in that range.

106. gingerly - October 17, 2010

@102

I’ve been trying to stay away from the word “overrated” but that’s what The Dark Knight is. It’s not a bad movie, by any stretch, but it’s not the most amazing thing ever, either.

It’s got a few good moments and great acting, but the plot was patronizingly dumb.

It’s just an O.K. movie, with good performances. I remember being bored at moments when I saw it in the theater.

I did not care for The Losers, it was directed like a music video, it was predictable, and pretty much the only actor who’s character had the laughs/charisma that he was supposed to was Chris Evans.

And don’t even get me started on how badly written and played the villian was.

107. somethoughts - October 17, 2010

The other films I loved include.

Flight of the Navigator, War Games, Star Wars, Terminator 2, Matrix, The Undiscovered Country/ST2009, Mission Impossible (guilty pleasure), and Aliens.

108. gingerly - October 17, 2010

@103

Nolan imo has mastered the intelligent action genre, he’s the perfect fusion of wits and explosions.

I definitely agree with that. :)

Some other films I loved include Amelie, Bladerunner, Galaxy Quest, and Dark City, and Hot Fuzz.

109. somethoughts - October 17, 2010

I will have to check out, Amelie and Dark City. Bladerunner, GQ and Hot Fuzz was good also.

110. P Technobabble - October 17, 2010

I liked “The Dark Knight.” I didn’t LOVE it. As I watched the film, there were times my attention was wandering — which, IMO, means the film wasn’t doing its job. The Heath Ledger scenes were particularly interesting, and I thought he did a fabulous job of bringing something new to the Joker. A lot of the Harvey Dent/Rachel Dawes subplot made me yawn. I found Bale’s performance to be lacking the same sort of charisma as Ledger’s.
BUT that’s just me speaking.
I don’t take anything away from Nolan — I think he’s terrific. I don’t take anything away from the film’s success. But I am not amongst those who feel this movie was the ULTIMATE film, or even the ultimate Batman film.
The thing about the Star Trek film is that I already loved the characters, and the film was like coming home to those characters, being with old friends. That is really the main thing I felt. Of course the actors’ performances had a lot to do with accepting them as the characters I love. The actors really sold me.

111. boborci - October 17, 2010

99. dmduncan – October 17, 2010

LOL!

112. Starbase Britain - October 17, 2010

1#
thats it in a nutshell.

In My opinion, Star Trek 4 was so refreshing in that it had no real villian as such. Id rather a set of thought provoking circumstances in a similar way.
A bit less of ‘good v evil’ would be welcome.
Greg
UK

113. Harry Ballz - October 17, 2010

112.

Greg, thanks for agreeing with my original post.

114. gingerly - October 17, 2010

@110

As I watched the film, there were times my attention was wandering — which, IMO, means the film wasn’t doing its job. The Heath Ledger scenes were particularly interesting, and I thought he did a fabulous job of bringing something new to the Joker. A lot of the Harvey Dent/Rachel Dawes subplot made me yawn. I found Bale’s performance to be lacking the same sort of charisma as Ledger’s.
BUT that’s just me speaking

YES! EXACTLY!

I’m looking at the critical comparisons for Nolan films on wikipedia and The Prestige got comparatively low scores, but that movie was way better than The Dark Knight, IMO.

Swinging it back to Trek…

I like that the 2009 film made me remember why I fell in love with these characters in the first place. The development of the characters, especially in a fun, summer, action movie, was just so on-point to me.

The plot was a bit light in some areas (please, being the science this time, Bob!) but it was also heavier than it gets credit for, see the many possible future implications of Vulcan’s destruction and audiences missing those subtle romance clues.

It boggles my mind that so many people still believe the relationship started with the turbolift!

115. Gary Neumann - October 17, 2010

Why is the Star Trek T-shirt with a Star Wars font :-(?

116. Red Dead Ryan - October 17, 2010

Both “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” are classics in my opinion.
Although I do think that both of Tim Burton’s “Batman” and “Batman Returns” films are more fun in a different sort of way. I liked how Michael Keaton wouldn’t say very much as Batman, concentrating on beating up the bad guys, while as Bruce Wayne he was very quirky and charismatic.
Plus, Danny Elfman’s themes and scores were awesome.

117. Andy Patterson - October 17, 2010

@ 115

“Why is the Star Trek T-shirt with a Star Wars font :-(?”

Didn’t notice it until you mentioned it….but I think that basically boils down a lot of my complaints in a nutshell.

118. James - October 17, 2010

Why have a rogue admiral pike when you can have the insane and shell shocked Commodore Matt Decker? (played by Tom Hanks of course!!)

119. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

Because Greenwood wants to be in the sequel, and a lot of fans want him to be as well. New Trek fans, it seems, I might add.

Tom Hanks can cameo as a rival to Kirk, the former next-in-line to command the Enterprise after Pike, who was kicked down the promotion scale because of Kirk’s heroics. Otherwise, his asking price might be too high for this project.

120. James - October 17, 2010

You have misinterpreted what i meant – why have Pike as a bad guy/villain when there is no need (i do want Greenwood
Back but not as a villain

121. James - October 17, 2010

On a side note as i have previously stated it is my opinion that in order for trek to perform well in markets outside the US and UK then it needs a major Hollywood star and thats means Paramount having to stump up and realise that Star Trek (such as Hanks) cant be done on tight budgets anymore.

122. James - October 17, 2010

Apologies if the above reads wrong – stupid iPhone playing up.

123. Red Dead Ryan - October 17, 2010

God, I hope the writers NEVER even think about casting Tom Cruise for a part in ANY Star Trek film. I know no one has brought up his name, but after reading the posts claiming a big star is needed to help market the film overseas, I needed to let it be known that “Star Trek 12″ doesn’t necessarily need big names and big egos.

There were rumors that J.J Abrams wanted to give Tom Cruise a role in “Star Trek”. Thank god that didn’t happen!

124. Red Dead Ryan - October 17, 2010

oops,

I meant “…hope the director NEVER even thinks about casting Tom Cruise…”

125. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 17, 2010

115.

Think of it as the middle finger- aimed at the more obnoxious elements of the fan base.

126. Vorta3434343434343434343 - October 17, 2010

why is there not an option in that poll for “SCIENCE FICTION IDEAS” — just because its set on a space ship doesn’t mean you’re done thinking of futuristic or mind-bending science fiction, guys! I really think something like the Genesis device was missing from the first movie — red matter/black holes were too superficially related and glossed over to really make an impact.

So, before characters and plot, there is SPACE… THE FINAL FRONTIER…

Let’s see some amazing discovery/mind altering newness.

127. Gert Waterink - October 17, 2010

Star Trek used to be about important ethical and political questions in life. Star Trek used to be a mirror towards our own society on this plant.

Lindelof, Orci & Kurtzman created this new Star Trek universe, in which only the previous series ‘Star Trek: Enterprise’ is canon. Having seen the last -and probably best- season of ‘Enterprise’, in which Vulcans and Romulans played a pivotal role, and the destruction of Vulcan in the 2009 film ‘Star Trek’, I suggest to explore the new distribution of powers in the Alfa/Beta Quadrant.

The Romulan Star Empire in the new timeline must be utterly delighted about the destruction of Vulcan. It seems…logical that both the Romulan Star Empire and the Federation are going to fight about the remainder of Vulcans.

It is quite logical that these Vulcans will change themselves too. Because, let’s face it….their logics didn’t get them anywhere……except stranded on numerous places in the universe. It seems logical that these Vulcans would be the Bajorans of this new timeline.

I suggest to explore all facets of immigration politics that come with these Vulcans. Will they be regarded as outcasts? Could they loose their logic and instead opt for a more violent Romulan-like approach to get attention from the Federation?

A possible new villain could be a duo: A new high ranking praetor of the new, more powerful Romulan Star Empire and a human from Earth that is serving under the Federation president in Paris. This duo is plotting a merger of the Federation and the Romulan Star Empire, throwing away many ethical principles of the Federation charter (like for instance cancellation of the Prime Directive).

I really hope Lindelof, Orci & Kurtzman know where I am talking about. The Destruction of Vulcan was an easy thing to do. The next step is to redesign this new universe with the ideas I’ve just mentionned. And that’s not an easy task to do. To redesign this new universe, continuity will become more vital too.

Ooowh, and for that it isn’t a bad idea to bring back both Leonard Nimoy as Spock (You…can’t ignore him in the new film, because he is still alive) ánd Admiral Archer (He basically witnessed the birth of the Federation in ‘Enterprise’) as a special envoy to the Federation president.

I hope Lindelof, Orci & Kurtzman read this and do something with my ideas.

Kind regards from Holland,

128. Gert Waterink - October 17, 2010

plant = planet off course ;-)

129. G - October 17, 2010

I still say we need a Briefing Room scene, with a good Kirk speech, and debate about humanity (heavy on Spock & McCoy, of course).

We haven’t had a scene in the Briefing Room since the original series (none in movies I-VI). Closest thing they did to it in the movies was the dinner scene in The Undiscovered Country.

130. Gert Waterink - October 17, 2010

Having said all this, I really miss an important poll option: “Ethical and political questions in society”.

131. Vultan - October 17, 2010

#129

There was the BIG briefing room scene in The Motion Picture where Kirk informs the crew about V’ger… if that counts.

132. Vultan - October 17, 2010

#116

Totally agree with you, RDR. I like both directors as well.

A lot of Batman fans disagree over the different styles of Burton and Nolan, but I think we can all agree that Schumacher’s two films were complete garbage. Even Schumacher apologized for Batman & Robin on the director’s commentary (not that I watched it or anything; that’s just what I read).

133. G - October 17, 2010

@ 131. Vultan – October 17, 2010

#129

There was the BIG briefing room scene in The Motion Picture where Kirk informs the crew about V’ger… if that counts.
—————————————————————————————————

No. I believe that was referred to as the “Recreation Deck”, and he was doing a ship wide address.

I’d like one of those old scenes with just the bridge crew, and Spock and McCoy debating (bickering) until James T. rallies all of them together with a speech.

134. chrisfawkes.com - October 17, 2010

The city on the edge of forever didn’t have a villain yet it was great story telling.

@132 Burtons batman was crap. An attempt at a Frank Miller style but Burton just did not get it. Whereas Miller had written a darker batman the purpose was to bring him closer to reality. Burton went for dark then created a world that was surreal, it did not work. Burtons efforts were like the 60′s show with a dark twist and big budget. At least the latter two films of that series paid homage to the series rather than to pretend to be completely different.

Nolan on the other hand actually made decent films.

135. boborci - October 17, 2010

130. Gert Waterink – October 17, 2010

good point

136. boborci - October 17, 2010

129. G – October 17, 2010

to be fair, we had a version of it, but it was on the bridge!

137. Gary Neumann - October 17, 2010

@136 Well this time we can squeeze one in, right ;-) ?

138. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

Regardless of what you call it there has been a villain, adversary or, opponent in every movie. If they had a to deal with a natural disaster like in an episode you could not call that an opponent, but the Probe or V’ger, absolutely. None of you need a brush up, we all know this but just cuz.

Star Trek I 1979 V’ger
Star Trek II 1982 Khan
Star Trek III 1984 Commander Kruge
Star Trek IV 1986 Probe
Star Trek V 1989 Sybok
Star Trek VI 1991 General Chang
Star Trek VII 1994 Tolian Soren
Star Trek VIII 1996 Borg Queen
Star Trek IX 1998 Ruafo
Star Trek X 2002 Shinzon
Star Trek XI 2009 Nero
Star Trek XII 2012 ?

Conscience or not, organic or not, main issue or not, character or plot driven, every star trek movie has had – over villain we will say – an adversary or opponent. The main driving forces of Star Trek villains have always been objectives and or killing. With one or two Star Trek villains either kill to get their objective or their objective is killing. There have been two inorganic, artificial, or non conscience opponents V’ger and the Probe which both had objectives but were unaware or did not consider what they were doing was killing. But the main objective for both V’ger and the Probe was not killing. With Khan I would still say objective over killing. He wanted to make people suffer and feel pain not just kill them, and he wanted to conquer Earth and the galaxy, objective over killing. The same with Commander Kruge, main objective was to acquire the secrets of the Genesis device but would kill to get it. Sybok did not kill but had an objective. General Chang and Tolian Soren are again objective over killing. The borg queen I would say is like Sybok, their goal was to assimilate or “turn”, not to kill. Ruafo is once again like Chang, Soren, Kruge, Khan he has a clear objective and will kill to get it. We now get to Shinzon and Nero who are the only ones who are killing over objective, their objective is to wipe out populations.

None of the movies are mainly about the villain so much as they are a tool for the characters sake and – in Star Trek’s sake – are an ingredient in the plot to make the characters effort and tragedy that much more great. Can a villain or opponent ever be more than objectives or killers in a movie, other than using the cliche that they are a misunderstood being like let’s say…Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

If indeed this movie eliminates the villain or “singled out” opponent, it will be a first for Star Trek movies. I have a feeling that Damon is right, I am sure there will be a villain but it will not be the central aspect. Regardless of the direction of the movie, I am sure it will be solid!

139. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

Star Trek I 1979 V’ger
Star Trek II 1982 Khan
Star Trek III 1984 Commander Kruge
Star Trek IV 1986 Probe
Star Trek V 1989 Sybok
Star Trek VI 1991 General Chang
Star Trek VII 1994 Tolian Soren
Star Trek VIII 1996 Borg Queen
Star Trek IX 1998 Ruafo
Star Trek X 2002 Shinzon
Star Trek XI 2009 Nero
Star Trek XII 2012 ?

When you look at it that way, there are not that many “Klingon” movies, they usually have a part in the larger whole and as much as I would love the next movie to be Klingon through and through I am sure they will have their small part in the larger whole as most past films.

140. F.Scott McKown - October 17, 2010

Ever since the Klingons appeared in TMP ST1 I was hooked.but they wouldn’t sell us the replicas, costumes and (GAD!!!)the D’k Tahg.If you want merchandising bucks then update the characters, uniforms etc…but please SELL US A REPLICA D’KTAHG DAGGER!
Oh and please fangs and slight horns not bumps and bad teeth.
Thanks for the fun,you make this tedium barable.

141. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

11. JoeR – October 17, 2010

Very true but even with humans, we cant move forward without our past, its a part of us impossible to remove. Just like video games, when a new one comes out it build upon whatever came before. When star trek came out in 66 it did not have much sci fi to use as reference. When star wars came out in 77 there were far more references of sci fi. The new battlestar galactica would not have been what it is were it not for Star Trek and the decades of sci fi story telling from before. Hell BSG = Ron Moore = TREK TO THE MAX. Bottom line you draw on what has come before. If there is a new Star Trek TV series and Lucas finally makes his live action TV series they will draw on what has come before. look at Star Wars fans crying about the three latest movies….why? because well…22 years later there is far more sci fi to draw on.

I agree keep trek true but you cant block out everything that has come before, its like saying you have never been influenced by anything.

In my opinion, that fact that they made Star Trek 2009 more gritty does not mean they made it more Star Wars, regardless of what JJ or others might say in interviews. Star Wars is one of the few “cool” sci fi films to draw upon.

142. jas_montreal - October 17, 2010

Your right Damon, Star Trek isn’t a comic-book, nor is it a batman comic book. Therefor a villain is not always have to be a focal point of a Star Trek story. So what is a star trek story? Its definitely not a STAR WARS story !

Not that i have anything against Star Wars, but its not necessarily the greatest example of film-works out there. Personally, I’d like to see Trek revisit its roots as exploring the unknown and just bring up a really touchy subject and sorta weave it into the story. Now thats what Gene always loved doing in TOS and TNG. I can look at the best TOS or TNG episodes, such as “the drumhead” (my favorite star trek episode of all-time, hands down).

What issues are there nowadays that might be a good social-topic to explore in the Trek sequel , other then the environment? What about Twitter or Facebook ? I know it sounds silly, but those are perfect personifications of how chaotic our lives have become, due to the overload of information. I know its a weird subject, but a movie like ‘Dark City’ (1998), was exactly dealing with a subject like that. It was rather a commentary about our times, rather then a discussion about our times. Regardless, its food for thought. Hope someones listening, lol.

143. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

106. gingerly – October 17, 2010

That’s what I meant by comic booky. I enjoyed ALL of the characters, including Patric’s sociopathic CIA agent.

I think Inception is Nolan’s best work, but still not my favorite movie this year. Though I like his interest in the nature of consciousness and how it plays out in Tibetan Buddhist mashups.

111. boborci – October 17, 2010

So obvious!

136. boborci – October 17, 2010

As in TUC where Spock leads the others to deduce a phantom ship was responsible, the bridge is such a natural place for those dialogues.

Briefing room is good for situations where there is no emergency. The bridge IS the “brain” of the ship where “in contact” decision making should occur.

Loved TUC. Conspiracy. Prejudice. Overcoming prejudice. Kirk stepping out of his chair and clenching his fist. Classic Kirk, great Shatner.

P.S. If you know Michael Mann, would you tell him he’s a bonehead for not including the theatrical version of Last of the Mohicans in the just released Bluray?

Thanks.

144. dmduncan - October 17, 2010

Loved TUC but it still irks me that veridium patch Spock put on Kirk’s shoulder was the size of a carpet sample.

145. Federali Aundy - October 17, 2010

There must be some hardcore Trekies in here because NO ONE voted for romance in the poll LOL

For the sake of full disclosure, I obviously didn’t vote for romance either..

146. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

20. Dom – October 17, 2010

I agree with what you are saying about action.

147. Green-Blooded-Bastard - October 17, 2010

I would like to see Spock eat a toaster. That crazy Vulcan!!!

148. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

And with regards to comparisons, yes you can mention all the wonderful things in the TV episodes but in the end producers and writers will tell you TV episodes and movies are totally different. Some say some trek movies are two hour episodes, hmmm. In the end you can take elements from episodes but movie are very different entities. Budget sizes change the game which change the story. From now on, Star Trek movies are always going to be big epic spectacles and no longer the wallflower. “Ch ch ch ch changes.”

149. Gene L Coon was a U. S. Marine. Stand at ease. - October 17, 2010

Maybe not “romance”, but how about a little 60′s-level flirtation? Short skirts, and let Kirk kiss a girl for a change.

As for the briefing room scenes, I agree that they are a critical part of Trek. They don’t need actually be held in the briefing room, and as bob points out, they had a little confab on the bridge in the last movie. But the briefing room allows for the senior officers of the naval vessel Enterprise to give their perspectives as professionals, and have the ship’s Captain make a decision based on their input. It works on a traditional military level, on a professional level, it allows the Spock/McCoy emotion/logic conflict to grow, and it allows Kirk to display heroic decision making leadership. Everybody wins!

150. Omegawrath - October 17, 2010

I order for me to comment, I had to pass almost 140 comments. I’m not going to waste time establishing my credentials, nor am I going to read 137 other posts. (No disrespect intended, I am just a concerned fan who has to get up in the morning.) Khan is a footnote. The reason he worked so well in1982 is because no one saw him coming and there was established continuity. Let the Khan thing die. There are FAR more and better stories to be told in this universe. If you wish to give any respect to the “five year mission” either pick a story that falls in there (besides Space Seed) or pick up with the story from 1979 and redo V’Ger. Or the whales. Or any damned thing but Khan.

151. Phil - October 17, 2010

112. Starbase Britain – October 17, 2010

Trek 4 continues to rake as one of the more popular of the franchise. Despite the title, it was a solid, stand alone story that appealed to general audiences. While the story for the next flick has been written, I’m hoping management has learned this lesson. Again, as The Dark Knight showed, you didn’t need to be a fan of Batman to enjoy the movie.

152. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

147. Green-Blooded-Bastard – October 17, 2010
“I would like to see Spock eat a toaster. That crazy Vulcan!!!”

Then he could make green toast for St. Patty’s day?

153. moauvian waoul - October 17, 2010

I tend to think Bob will explore the resettlement of Vulcans, drawn from some personal experience. This’ll add more weight to both this movie and the last. The moral dilemas will then present themselves for those longing for a deeper Trek. Like the Commodore Pike idea. Hope to see the birth of the five yerr mission, and some of the other constitution class starships.
As for Dark Knight: gotta agree with those who think it was overrated. Nolan has proven his unquestionable talent. There was the subplot that added to the movie unnecessarily, that chase scene that wouldn’t end… and characters that seemed to me two dimensional. Did like Ledger however, and the motivations behind his character, seeming almost political.

154. moauvian waoul - October 17, 2010

Hope that made sense. I’m watching the football game.

155. Phaser Guy - October 17, 2010

No, no briefing room scenes please! I know they’re a part of Trek, but you can do the same scene on the Bridge. I never understood the point of a briefing room when they all have daily logs, etc.

156. Jonboc - October 17, 2010

They need to walk a fine line. if they get too pretentious with the “modern analogy” business or the villain that ain’t all bad, people will roll their eyes. There really is nothing wrong with a villain people love to hate…that’s why audiences enjoy the big payoff when the bad guy finally gets what he deserves. It’s really hard to throw boos and hisses towards an anomaly.

Keep it fun. Those original series episodes that showcased those much touted analogies were the exception, not the rule. And many, weren’t so cleverly subtle. Universal themes like love, hate, greed, humor, etc have and can continue to work in Trek. We don’t need obvious parallels to 911, the recession, the war in Afghanistan or any other such modern event. Let history tackle that. Star Trek needs to stay what it really has always been…fun,exciting, escapism . Nothing more, nothing less.

157. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

22. Eric – October 17, 2010

Yes I love it, pretty good, but rather than just clashing with a Klingon ship I say it starts with both all ships at maximum impulse speed so they are in normal space and not subspace so they zoom past the camera at high speed, the Klingon ship after the alien vessel with the Enterprise behind the Klingon ship just firing phasers and photons.

158. MC1 Doug - October 17, 2010

#18: “That’s a tough one. Star Trek: TMP had no villain and it was so boring.”

Oh contrare! Speak for yourself. I still like ST TMP the best of all of the movies. Yeah, it had flaws…pacing being one of them, but it was the most adult, most cerebral and contained the most TREK-like (duh) philosophy of all the films.

159. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

26. Kirk, James T. – October 17, 2010
“Star Trek has always been at it’s best when it has an awesome villain that somehow mirrors an important issue in the real world.”

No doubt, many times this has been said about Star Trek itself. All the movies and all the TV series naturally reflect the times they are in. Aside from making it emotional, make it relevant and it so much more meaningful to us.

620 days left….#&%$!

160. Hat Rick - October 17, 2010

121, Pike isn’t a villain. He’s pursuing the right cause against Starfleet orders — kind of like Picard in ST:INS or Kirk in ST:TSFS

There is a lot of subterfuge in this story — there are unexplained actions arising from various levels of command and control. Pike’s actions, in part, are to resolve the question of whether there exists a conspiracy analogous to an alleged 9/11 plot some present-day advocates claim existed to involve this country into war.

As I stated, Pike’s initial comments were that Starfleet had lost the kind of men with vigor and vim; presumably he would be interested in a vigorous Starfleet, and yet against his own philosophy as expressed in the first movie, he pursues the truth.

Pike is not a villain. He’s out to find out the truth, and to save his fleet of which he had personal command.

Neither is Kirk the villain; instead, in a turn of events, he is the representative of Starfleet sent out to recontact Pike — a direct reversal of roles.

There are layers within layers here, and the potential for character interactions between Kirk and PIke (the father surrogate), as well as between Spock and Kirk, are plain to see. Also present are opportunities for McCoy to deduce the human solution to various dilemmas to crop up as the ship, the Enterprise, works itself into the plot by the means I’ve already mentioned. In a very real sense, this treatment would give Enterprise an important role as a character the way she always has been.

161. VZX - October 17, 2010

I also think that it kinda sucked to have villain and plot on the same choice for the poll. The two elements I think are the most important in ANY movie are story and character development.

I am thankful and agree with Damon about keeping it “within the family.” I just read that online book by Micahel Pillar about the making of ST Insurrection, and this point came up often. Those seven main crew members should be the most important characters in the movie, and the relationships between them.

I am sure the action and effects will be amazing, but I more look forward to seeing the characters again. I was hesitant about the first JJ Trek movie, but I am excited about this next one. Cool.

BTW: The fact that Damon wore that shirt just rocks.

162. Sebastian - October 17, 2010

Lindelof addresses something “Tribbles” writer David Gerrold also said recently when he visited my city last month on a speaking/autograph engagement. He said he felt that the movies got away from what he thought were Star Trek’s core values, and became all about the black hat-heavy.

And frankly, they have a good point (as do many of the posts on this forum). Not that I don’t appreciate or haven’t enjoyed what the movies have brought to the table, but some of Star Trek’s best stories were the ones where about resolving a pressing issue or inequity, or taking time to learn about an ‘enemy’ who is merely misunderstood (“Devil in the Dark” is the prime example of this type of story).

And before Star Trek 2009, one of the most profitable and popular Star Trek movies was another “message” story without an obvious villain (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; unless you count a giant, space-faring hair follicle as a ‘bad guy’ ; D). “City on the Edge of Forever” (arguably the best classic Trek ever) was also without a villain (unless you count a hypo full of cordrazine). This approach is what Star Trek does better than most other sci-fi franchises. The villain-less approach would never work in a Star Wars film, for example.

If this is the way they’re going on the sequel? I salute them with fingers splayed!
Smart move, guys! ; )

163. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

28. Hat Rick – October 17, 2010
“By the way, just to clarify, my personal opinion — and it’s just an opinion — is that anyone who believes that the U.S. government conspired to destroy the WTC has been watching too many Hollywood films.”

True, and I in no way want to force upon you but I will look at any information. When I was introduced to the Zeitgeist movies it only expanded my perceptions. In the Zeitgeist movies in one of the other buildings you clearly see detonations charges go off, when it is said the buildings collapsed from a weakened state from the main impact of the WTC. The issues regarding fuel and temperature of flames from fuel, the missing wreckage at the Pentagon? You can’t escape these facts.

Zeitgeist deals with issues which Gene Roddenbarry himself would advocate like the ending of religion needed to fill the gap of the “unknown”, The Venus Project, and getting rid of the Federal Reserve Bank and monetary system with it.

Zeitgeist has released a third movie which I have yet to watch, but so far the first one is the best. The sheer number of topics he covers and the depth he delves into it is what makes these movies so great. He is intelligent and did his research. 9/11, the Bank (federal reserve), and religion. Most Americans are pretty religious (I would assume not many Star Trek fans) and this movie basically logically exposes it as a creation of humanity as well is its constant manipulations throughout time to keep up with the times. Interesting what December 25th, the sun, and the cross have in common throughout the ages outside of Christianity.

If you are not fearful of what might or might not be I challenge you to expand your mind..

I URGE EVERYONE TO WATCH THE THREE MOVIES IN ORDER.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

I don’t want to sound like a lobbyist but if you enjoyed the Zeitgeist movies I highly urge you to spread the word.

164. Phil - October 17, 2010

152. Chadwick – October 17, 2010

Maybe have Spock blast a toaster. Nice BSG tie in….

165. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

28. Hat Rick – October 17, 2010

P.s. Zeitgeist is not Hollywood movie. Nor do I believe those who will in turn say it is perpetuated by the government to induce an illusion of nonexistent conspiracy or act of treason. Frankly as a Canadian I don’t loose sleep over it, but I believe not as a whole but many many many people in the U.S. “government” as I am sure in many “governments” are as corrupt as satan himself lest he exist. I used corrupt instead of Evil as evil is a word created by the church and well…should never be used. You see how there is ‘good and bad’ or ‘good and evil’…where is the aloft word for good the way Evil is for bad? There is none. Why have ultimate good when you can strike fear into people and control with church or the dollar?

Ack! All this conspiracy talk, bittersweet. Sorry, I DO NOT want to turn this article into conspiracy talk.

What has star trek taught us? That power be it through money, church, or state is an illusion which is it is no longer the driving force….if only.

166. DonDonP1 - October 17, 2010

#8. Agreed. ‘Star Trek’ is owned by CBS while ‘Star Wars’ is owned by Lucasfilm.

167. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

161. Phil – October 17, 2010
“Maybe have Spock blast a toaster. Nice BSG tie in….”

Lol yes! BSG is just so great. Ron Moore, please come back and do Star Trek Television.

168. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

8. David B – October 17, 2010
163. DonDonP1 – October 17, 2010

Agree with you both, no buzz cola in my cheerios!

169. Trek fan - October 17, 2010

The original Trek had to deal with ethical and political questions of the present day (19960s) and disguised in a science fiction tv show format. The only other sci-fi tv program to handle those issues as well as TOS was the reimagined Battlestar Gallactica. I hope the new film tackles with these issues and down plays any superficial threat in hopes of becoming more like Star Wars which doesn’t leave much food for thought.

170. moauvian waoul - October 17, 2010

162. Chadwick
To your talk of religion… I’ll just add… With our level of technology/weapons, religion is a notion we can no longer afford.

171. Vultan - October 17, 2010

#160

Here, see if this expands your mind:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Science was a big part of Star Trek, too. Enjoy.

172. Ralph F - October 17, 2010

“it is about the crew and their relationship with each other – that family”

Amen to that. I’d be happy with a “Data’s Day” kind of film.

As far as the “Star Trek shirt with a Star Wars font”; that does indeed kind of give us an analogy to the problem; effects over elements, so to speak.

173. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

35. Denny – October 17, 2010

Interesting all around.

43. Denny – October 17, 2010

I did not know that about Nimoy, GR, and ST VI. We finally received an explanation for the ridges which I highly approved of, a wonderful explanation in cannon for why the budget was low.

174. Anthony Thompson - October 17, 2010

0% of Trek fans care about romance. Who woulda thunk? : D

175. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

46. Hat Rick – October 17, 2010
“Great points, James (42). I agree that Paramount should give the upcoming sequel the Avatar treatment — i.e., as much money as reasonably needed to make it a cinematic hit on the order of any of the Star Wars movies. I hardly need to mention that SW is still the gold standard of space-based SF movies, or even movies in general, in the field of box office appeal.”

I agree, I love Star Wars, can’t wait for the blu-ray treatment. But my love, adoration, and personal connection to Star Trek outweighs my love of Star Wars. And yes Star Wars is still the gold standard which is why I don’t want Star Trek to become Star Wars but yes, I would like Star Trek to have the fame and glory Star Wars does, why wouldn’t I? Because it will get corrupted? I roll my eyes at those people, give me a break. I said in an earlier post that Star Trek is a wallflower compared to Star Wars not in common knowledge of it existence by the general population but in the acceptance as cool and awesome by the general population.

176. Phaser Guy - October 17, 2010

Hmm. It’s not about the villain. Does this mean Mirror Universe?

177. Chadwick - October 17, 2010

174. Anthony Thompson – October 17, 2010
“0% of Trek fans care about romance. Who would thunk? : D”

Yea no kidding lol.

Regarding all the choices I voted for Character development. They are all important aspects. Design & effects, humor, action, villain/plot are also all very important to me, I am a techie and I love the tech aspect of Star Trek from the intricate schematics to the evolution of starship design. Guest stars are a nice treat. As # 12. Holger – October 17, 2010 said “Other (in the poll): For me that would be boldly going, exploration of space, new civilizations, new possibilities etc,” and for me that is what makes Star Trek retain its identity and separate itself from Star Wars. Star Wars will never be the “Human Adventure.”

178. Anthony Pascale - October 17, 2010

i admit that ‘theme’ should be one of the poll options, but it was created by a drunk guy at 1am….not all of them will be winners

179. Vultan - October 17, 2010

Oops, wrong number. Sorry, Hat Rick #160.

#163 Chadwick

Here, see if this expands your mind:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Science was a big part of Star Trek, too. Enjoy.

180. Double Entendre - October 17, 2010

174

Sulu: Ohhh My

181. keachick - October 17, 2010

Please – remember that Star Trek came BEFORE Star Wars!

“The Romulan Star Empire in the new timeline must be utterly delighted about the destruction of Vulcan. It seems…logical that both the Romulan Star Empire and the Federation are going to fight about the remainder of Vulcans.
It is quite logical that these Vulcans will change themselves too. Because, let’s face it….their logics didn’t get them anywhere……except stranded on numerous places in the universe. It seems logical that these Vulcans would be the Bajorans of this new timeline.”

Without having seen the last season of Enterprise, I am not sure what is meant by the Romulans and Vulcans having a pivotal role. However, I fail to see why the Romulans would fight the Federation over the remaining 10,000 Vulcans. That makes no sense. If Vulcan logic did not get them very far, except strand them…, then I fail to see why the destruction of Vulcan would mean much to any other race in or outside of the Federation, except for the technology that could bring about the implosion of an entire planet. The Vulcans were never a power or threat to be concerned or bothered about, nor were they empire builders.

I like a poster’s idea of perhaps exploring the effects of social networking like twitter or facebook, and this maybe could tie in why there should be a briefing or “ready” room on the Enterprise. It is a place where the officers could get together, see and talk to each other about a problem, sharing different perspectives and information on the topic. Eventually, if a command decision is needed to be made, then it is the captain’s to make.

I see that no one has voted for Romance. Can you vote more than once? Anyway, I also vote for romance. After all, “it’s love that makes the world go round” or something like that. Even though I prefer more of Pine/Kirk romance, I can also see a definite need for some nuSpock/… romance, culminating in the patter of tiny vulcan feet. Vulcans need to bonk lots and breed! Prime Spock has found them a new world… It may seem facetious, but this aspect cannot be ignored altogether, as I suspect it might be…

182. Phaser Guy - October 17, 2010

Maybe it’s a Doomsday Machine style episode? Or a trapped in a cage style movie?

183. Harry Ballz - October 17, 2010

#174 “0% of Trek fans care about romance. Who woulda thunk? :D”

Anthony, don’t you find most nerds need to get laid before they think about romance?

184. DJT - October 18, 2010

Grr… need….Trek fix…now.

185. somethoughts - October 18, 2010

#176

Maybe Bob putting on a beard and glasses in his twitter pic was a hint :)

186. keachick - October 18, 2010

163 wrote – “Zeitgeist deals with issues which Gene Roddenbarry himself would advocate like the ending of religion needed to fill the gap of the “unknown”, The Venus Project, and getting rid of the Federal Reserve Bank and monetary system with it.”

Has Gene Roddenbury ever been quoted as wanting to see the ending of religion? Not as far as I know. I think Gene, like many people, probably did not like much in the way that institutional religion has and is still often played out. People have a very narrow definition of what religion and spirituality actually mean. Many well educated, intelligent people choose to follow a particular religion because of the ideals, morality, ethics and lifestyle it inspires among these people. Frankly, I fail to see much that is not good common sense in the commandments/precepts that exhorts people not – to kill, to steal, to commit rape, adultery etc, to lie and cheat, to envy another person’s wealth, good fortune etc. If the religion does exhort people to believe in a higher power, spirit, being, God, then so be it.

The reality is that humanity does NOT KNOW much of anything really. We did not CREATE anything, even ourselves – we just play a part, use the elements, the components that were already there.

165 wrote – “I used corrupt instead of Evil as evil is a word created by the church and well…should never be used. You see how there is ‘good and bad’ or ‘good and evil’…where is the aloft word for good the way Evil is for bad? There is none. Why have ultimate good when you can strike fear into people and control with church or the dollar?”

Evil is not just a word created by the church and yes, there are times when that is the only word that can describe certain happenings, for instance, what took place in Nazi concentration camps during WW2.
Those with evil intentions are generally good liars, seductive, manipulative, corrupt, make good speeches, duplicitous and often appear to be anything but what they truly are until enough people get roped in and then find they can’t get out easily, if at all – think Hitler and Nazi Germany. People who died in concentration camps were just Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped etc but ordinary people who stood up against what they realised was wrong.

Evil has a way of stomping on what is fragile, subtle, undeveloped, quiet without good people always realising it. It is inherently destructive, as opposed to being creative, life affirming and it drags down even the best of people to manifest their more negative, nasty and cruel sides. That is something to be feared. Think of the effect that the “Ring” had on the innocent hobbit Frodo or his uncle Bilbo before him. I know this is a story, but it does point to a true reality that can and does exist.

To deny Evil is dangerous and stupid, just as it is depressing, cynical and stupid to deny Good.

Sorry for the “lecture”, but I just felt that this needed to be said.

187. somethoughts - October 18, 2010

#186

The universe is built on generation and destruction, negative and positive, ying and yang, evil is a necessary evil, for without the dark there cannot be light.

188. Hat Rick - October 18, 2010

I might add that while there are those who disclaim that movies should be about social messages — after all, Samuel Goldwyn is said to have sneered that if messages were what was wanted, then one should use Western Union — one of the biggest SF movies of all time had a very blatant social justice message.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, Avatar, a movie about an alien moon that essentially was about saving indigenous people from the ravages of modern civilization. With an environmental message (save Mother Pandora!) to boot.

A plot that had parallels to 9/11, and that yet allowed plenty of room for cool ‘splosions and galactic fight-ums, might prove to be salutary for our favorite media franchise.

189. James - October 18, 2010

Avatar = pocahontas on steroids.

190. James - October 18, 2010

Vulcans – rebuilding their shattered race
Romulans – not seen or heard from since their war with the federation (were only heard via radio) now ecstatic vulcan is gone
Klingons – still angry about something, have gleaned new technology from when they took the narada and nero abd his crew hostage.
The Federation having to deal with Vulcan problem whilst in the grip of unheaval and unrest (many arguing for Starfleet to become more militarized as a result of recent events)
The doomsday machine still on a course through the galaxy and federation space (liked one idea from one of the star trek books where it was designed to find the borg homeworld)
Ships vanishing near Tholian Space
Amiral Pike coming to terms with the mental trauma of his torture at the hands of Nero
Commodore Decker – An officer that many Starfleet captains revere… Until he meets the doomsday machine
Kirk having to come to terms with the huge responsibility he has now been given – still retains his cavalier attitude but is slowly becoming a career officer hence no long term love interest

191. Hugh Hoyland - October 18, 2010

#161

I’m reading that book by Piller as well, pretty interesting stuff for sure.

192. Hugh Hoyland - October 18, 2010

#186

Who said that we didnt create anything, its just as possible we created everything, including the universe, and just dont remember doing it. I tend to know we’re a lot more than just a small bit of chemicals and electricity that puffs into nothing at the end.

193. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@188

Good point.

…But it would be nice to see those messages done in a complex and original way.

In other words, tell the story well and raise some interesting questions like in the film, Munich, not hammering home what moral conclusions the audience should come to, in trite and predictable ways, like in Avatar.

194. Damian - October 18, 2010

186–Agree with everything you said. I never understood this argument against the whole good vs evil thing. Even if you are an atheist, what is so wrong with the 10 Commandments. Obviously, the first about loving God would hold no meaning. But the others are valid. You should not kill, steal, etc. What is so bad about that. If every human being practiced what the other 9 Commandments preach (irrespective of any organized religion), the world would be a paradise. Oddly enough, that is the vision of paradise that Star Trek has portrayed on Earth. By the 23rd century, poverty is gone, Earth is unified, and human beings work for the betterment of humanity.

Gene Roddenberry did have issues with organized religion. However, Star Trek was a show that was above all else about tolerance. While his creation never advocated a certain religion, it would not have condemned it either. His view was always that we should be accepted for who we are and that differences, whether by race or religion, should be embraced.

I myself do believe there are certain absolute moral standards. You should not murder or steal, for example, no matter what faith you practice, including atheism. Those would be absolutes. That is different than certain religions morals (gay marriage, for instance). I believe that someone like Hitler, or Saddam Hussein are evil people. I may not agree with someone about gay marriage, but that does not make that person evil.

195. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 18, 2010

Bob Orci. Just give us a Great Trek Movie and I will be happy. Enough Said. But. Please a real Engeneering set.

196. Buzz Cagney - October 18, 2010

So what IS the shirt about?

And Bob, what is the story gona be about?
Two hours i’m guessing? ;))

197. Buzz Cagney - October 18, 2010

#195 the brewery was as ‘real’ as i could take i think! Something a little less real perhaps? ;)

198. rogue_alice - October 18, 2010

Bring back the Doomsday Machine.

199. AJ - October 18, 2010

198:

Why? We’ll be yelling “send in a shuttlecraft!” throughout the whole darn movie.

200. AJ - October 18, 2010

I mean “Send in a Starship!” Sorry.

201. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Atheists don’t believe in murder either. One doesn’t need the guise of religion.

202. Damian - October 18, 2010

201–That was the point I and 186 were trying to make. That there are certain absolute moral standards no matter who you are.

My main problems with atheists are not their beliefs. You’re free to believe anything you want. My problem is some atheists make judgments and blanket judgments of anyone who is religious, ironically the very thing they accuse religious people of doing. (This part was a general observation and not specifically directed at 201).

203. Dr. Image - October 18, 2010

Bring back Roger Korby. Or Col. Green!
Or a V’ger-esque entity. Naaa…

204. G - October 18, 2010

@ 136. boborci – October 17, 2010

129. G – October 17, 2010

to be fair, we had a version of it, but it was on the bridge!
—————————————————————————————————–
I know. I just meant, we haven’t seen it since the original series (the actual room) LOL It’s always nice to see different locations on the ship. They still have staff meetings, don’t they? :)

205. Chadwick - October 18, 2010

179. Vultan – October 17, 2010

Right on, I am not one sided, I am open to all piece of information all philosophies, thanks for the article.

181. keachick – October 17, 2010
“Please – remember that Star Trek came BEFORE Star Wars!
The Romulan Star Empire in the new timeline must be utterly delighted about the destruction of Vulcan. It seems…logical that both the Romulan Star Empire and the Federation are going to fight about the remainder of Vulcans.”

I would have to disagree, its not like Vulcan is some frontier planet, it is the center of the Federation like Earth and Andoria. I doubt the Romulans are just going to annex the remaining Vulcans, its not their style. If Romulans were Klingons you bet they would.

206. Chadwick - October 18, 2010

181. keachick – October 17, 2010

Oh…..AND WATCH THE LAST SEASON OF ENTERPRISE IT WAS THE BEST!!!!

207. Chadwick - October 18, 2010

170. moauvian waoul – October 17, 2010

Hear hear!

208. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Then we are in agreement, and my point stands. The notion is unnecessary, and in fact limiting. We will never evolve (he he) whilst we dabble in such things. In the world of intolerance I’m afraid your side holds a slight edge. The irony here is that earlier sermon (not your comments) explains this is just common sense. So then why take credit for it? The sermon talks about the holocaust, as if religion wasn’t a factor. It’s not us who need to follow your view of the universe based on 1st or 6th century writings, or earlier…
Allow me to challange a misunderstanding. Atheist arent the ones judging, that job falls to others, they just won’t play along- so they’re a target. They don’t send missionaries out or say they have divine knowledge, or speak for God, or kill in his name. Ignoring all those wars? Ancient history? Look around the globe. Oh, those are foreign fanatics right? And trying to deny citizens of their rights, strip them of their dignity. Toss in some end of World prophecy and things get dangerous. And if you think those crazies don’t understand what the good book says I think you should reread it.

209. BiggestTOSfanever - October 18, 2010

I like it the villain turns out to be a misunderstanding (i.e. the Gorn.) I think it would be cool if in Star Trek 2012, the Vulcan colony is put on a planet the Gorn think they own.

210. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

My comments were directed at Damian. :)

211. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

How about Sherman’s planet? Anyone? Anyone?

212. Damian - October 18, 2010

208–Much of what you ascribe to organized religion would not have been approved of by Christ. I have read the good Book, as you call it, several times, and understand it well. Many so called Christians do not truly follow Christ. And my position still stands, if we as a civilization were to really, truly follow the life that Christ sets out for us, Earth would be a much better place. Christ’s was a message of love, including of your enemies. There would be no war, because there would be no hatred. There would be no hunger or poverty because we would be helping our neighbors, not trying to screw each other over. I never understood what can be so backward about that. In a very real way, that is the type of Earth that Star Trek has portrayed.

To me, religion and faith are two very different things, and don’t necessarily go hand in hand. I will challenge someone who calls themselves a Christian and acts in a contradictory manner to Christ’s true teachings just as much as I would challenge an atheist who makes blanket judgments about me because of my beliefs.

213. Chadwick - October 18, 2010

181. keachick – October 17, 2010 you can vote twice if you have different computes i.e. different I.P. address. I always vote twice lol one from my laptop and one from my desktop because there are always at least two things I want, so I cheat lol.

214. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Oooh. I didn’t mean to make blanket judgements about you Damian, just trying to illustrate an obvious point. Yes what you say may be true but you then have to ignore all the contridictions in the old and the rest of the new testement.

215. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Oooh. I didn’t mean to make blanket judgements about you Damian, just trying to illustrate an obvious point. Yes what you say may be true but you then have to ignore all the contridictions in the old and the rest of the New Testement. If religion doesn’t stop us from hating or killing or judging one another, then I would say it’s net effect is negative. At least from where I’m standing.

216. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Woops

217. Damian - October 18, 2010

214–The Old Testament is treated as a shadow, or forshadowing of what was to come in the New Testament. A testimony, or explanation of why we needed Christ in the first place. The life we should lead is described in the New Testament. That is the message, one of love and peace.

I’m not trying to be acrimonious. I am not pushy with my faith. But I will defend what I believe in. The Crusades, the Holocaust, the priest/pastor sex abuse scandal, none of these would have been approved by Christ, and I believe He would be deeply saddened and even angered by all these events.

I guess my faith is exactly how Major Kira put it one time. If you have it, no explanation is necessary, if you don’t, no explanation is possible. I can explain what and why I believe what I do, but I can’t convince you I am right any more than you can convince me you are.

218. James - October 18, 2010

One question what was virtually the whole of star fleet doing in the laurentian system or whatever it was during the last film?

Fleet on fleet battle tis what is needed – something that will once again make audiences jaws drop in awe.

219. Danpaine - October 18, 2010

Turning this into a religious argument is one sure way to suck the air out of this room….

You guys are too much.

220. Allenburch - October 18, 2010

Damon is right on that the best Trek is about the team and how they interact to conquer whatever the task is. It seems that our collective point regarding who the bad peeps should be is that the tougher the task, the more unity the team will discover.

(Still hoping for the Nimoy-Shatner team spirit to be in this film.)

221. Damian - October 18, 2010

218–Generally for literary suspense. A friend of mine asked why didn’t Terrell and Chekov just beam up from Ceti Alpha V, I tried various explanations and finally just told him it would have been a short movie. In this case, if entire fleet was available, the Enterprise would not have gone out with just cadets and Kirk and co. would have watched the events from Earth. It would have helped the suspension of disbelief, though, had they simply explained why the fleet was there. Now that seems to be water under the bridge.

222. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#214

No contradictions, just corrections. The New Testament is specifically meant for Christians—hence all the stuff about Christ in it. And it’s that rare better sequel—love thy neighbor, do unto others—what radical ideas! :)

223. Damian - October 18, 2010

219–Sorry. I love debating the two forbidden subjects, religion and politics. I guess we should take our fight to a more suitable playground:)

224. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Of course Damian. Technically I’m agnostic. I went to religious school for nine years and most members of my family are religious. I see where you’re coming from. You post here often and I enjoy reading those thoughtful opinions, on Trek or anything else.
What I really want to know, like post 218 here, is what was the entire fleet doing in the laurentian system?

225. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

222. If it were only that simple

226. Desstruxion - October 18, 2010

Assimilated Klingons please.

227. Damian - October 18, 2010

I noticed some people are calling for the writers to revisit some old story or episode that has been done already. # 200 really hit the nail on the head with why that would not work in a few simple words. The whole time, we would be yelling out the answer. Where would the suspense be. Sure they can find a different way to fix the problem, but we would already know the said problem can be fixed some how.

The only thing that would be cool to see is something Oz proposed at one time, a teaser sequence featuring an event from the series (such as the Doomsday Machine), before continuing on to the real story.

228. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#225

Actually, it is. It’s always worked for me anyway…

229. Damian - October 18, 2010

226–Voyager actually did feature assimilated Klingons, Cardassians and Romulans. However, Borg are Borg, no matter where they come from. Anyway, they are still about a 100 years off.

230. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 18, 2010

How about haveing in the first scene a firece battle with the doomsday machine and the fleet is able to destry it. But the real mission is finding out where it came from. Have the Big E set out in search of whoever made it. That would be a real mission and no one can say I know the answer after the first pitch but firece battle.

231. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

#221. Damian “water under the bridge”

There’s a swimming pool under the ship’s bridge??

So, that’s where they put the gymnasium!

Good idea, for when the officers need a break!

232. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

230.

Didn’t someone once postulate that some alien race created the “doomsday machines” to search through space and destroy the Borg, thereby protecting their own planet?

Hey, I promise not to shout this info out while watching the next movie! :>)

233. Damian - October 18, 2010

230–The novel Star Trek: The Next Generation: Vendetta actually did explore that. It was a very good novel. It was followed up on in The Next Generation novel Before Dishonor. While not canon, Bob Orci has said they feel the novels have some value and I just don’t see them contradicting a major element of a novel.

230–That’s why Kirk is always so cool on the bridge. Yuk Yuk.

234. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 18, 2010

#233. Yes. I read that Novel and it was a good one. Some great Ideas that can be used for the next Trek Movie.

235. Damian - October 18, 2010

Oh man, it was 231, not 230 I was referencing. What a way to kill my own comeback joke.

232–that was the Vendetta novel.

236. John from Cincinnati - October 18, 2010

Movies are not about the villains, but great movies do have great villains to show the heroism of it’s protagonists.

Sybok = weak villain = bad movie
Khan = Great villain = best Trek movie

However, my favorite Trek episode “City on the Edge of Forever” didn’t have any villains. So what does it all mean?

A good movie doesn’t need a villain, but if it has a villain, it needs to be a great one.

237. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 18, 2010

Hey. Harrys most beloved Actress Erica Durance can be on a Star Ship and in the first 30 secons she can be killed by the Doomsday Machine. Lol.

238. Chadwick - October 18, 2010

186. keachick – October 18, 2010

Exactly, I am not denying you and that is the problem with words you have to be very specific on the internet. But I am not going to get into a huge argument and ruin this post just to justify my views or correct what I said to someone on the net…cuz I would just get rather heated lol.

Its very well known that Gene Roddenberry was a Humanist. “A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.”

But I am glad you responded, it just shows passion for your views.

239. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 18, 2010

Here is my Idea. Have a big Battle with the Doomsaday Machine and then get on the real Mission. At the end of the Movie the Camra Pans out to another part of the Universe and we see the S.S Botney Bay just floating and then the Music Cues.

240. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

228. And that’s the problem.

241. Katie G. - October 18, 2010

Too many posts to read so forgive me if I’m repeating someone but I REALLY hope they keep Captain Pike in some way. I love what Bruce Greenwood did with the character.

Wouldn’t mind seeing how the crew grew together from the point of the last scene on the bridge (ST 2009) with a few small villains but not a major one and NOT, PLEASE GOD, NOT KHAN. He was excellent but I think we’ve done it to death. There are far more options out there. Let’s not make it like a soap and keep the same actors doing different things with the same people (flirting, fighting, making up, marrying their soulmate, divorcing their soumate, marrying their REAL soulmate, being unfaithful with their previous soulmate, divorcing, returning to their soulmate, having a fling with their first soulmate’s nephew… and I think you know what I mean [e.g. B & B]).

There are now many alien races to draw stories from since the series started in 1966: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. Just go to memoryalpha.com. Along the way we came across some great aliens. Let’s not do any more inbreeding so-to-speak but draw something from your vast resource: the remarkable imagination which we know you have!

Just my 2¢ worth…

ktg

242. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

237.

Nah, you know the Doomsday Machine only attacks things that are, well, you know, IMPORTANT! :>)

243. DataTheMusketeer - October 18, 2010

Murder became evil because religion deemed it so, otherwise what would prevent people from killing each other as long as they could get away with it? What would prevent brothers from marrying their sisters? Why is it that only heterosexual relationships are reproductive, and why is it that homosexual relationships increase the risk for contracting HIV and hepatitis B?

This anti-religion thing is a repulsive fad.

244. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 18, 2010

#242. Your right Harry. She needs to stay in Smallville where you can hate her there. Lol

245. AJ - October 18, 2010

The “old-school” interpretation of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship, or the “trinity,” puts each individual part into a whole which must be so in order to function.

The writers now have Kirk as the central nexus: Good friends with McCoy, and a budding relationship of great future significance with Spock.

While it was obvious that McCoy’s compassion was not part of the decision-making process that drove Kirk to comply with Spock’s wishes and destroy the Narada in ST09, let’s hope that his part of the equation is brought in as a strong influence, and that McCoy’s character is equal in stature to Kirk and Spock in the next film.

246. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

243. Dizzying. I think you’re using your religious views to justify your religious views.

241. I don’t know what B &B is, but daaaaamn…

247. Damian - October 18, 2010

245–I think that was the prequel concept of the film. It was really a prequel, sequel and reboot all rolled up into one. The prequel part was how these characters got together, especially your trinity. My hope is that in the next film they develop that further. It has always been my opinion that the original series was always about the 3 of them with the rest of the cast as supporting, though very important characters. In any universe, Kirk, Spock and McCoy would be almost a brotherhood, in my opinion.

248. Shannon Nutt - October 18, 2010

Star Trek IV didn’t have a villian (other than “man himself”) and that one turned out okay, I hear.

249. gingerly - October 18, 2010

243. Murder became evil because religion deemed it so, otherwise what would prevent people from killing each other as long as they could get away with it? What would prevent brothers from marrying their sisters? Why is it that only heterosexual relationships are reproductive, and why is it that homosexual relationships increase the risk for contracting HIV and hepatitis B?

Translation: HERP DERP

245. I think they’ve sufficiently set-up McCoy as Kirk’s corner and Uhura as Spock’s. So, the Trinity will simply be extended.

250. Damian - October 18, 2010

249–I hope not. The whole Spock Uhura love thing was a minor thing for me. I didn’t get to excited about it one way or another. But that’s still a far cry from making her part of the triad.

251. DataTheMusketeer - October 18, 2010

249.

I guess that’s how you translate anything which is too hard for your brain. Que, no?

252. Aurore - October 18, 2010

250- Do you believe the “triad” can be today what it was in the 60′s?

253. rogue_alice - October 18, 2010

In the 2009 film what actress played the crew member that was “sucked” out of the Kelvin??? Is that info on IMDb?

254. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

252.

Nah, the triad had three to it. Uhura makes four.

In this day and age, everything comes down to four-play!

More fun and, ooooh, just imagine the combinations!

255. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

253.

You can find her by going to http://www.myrolesucked.com.

256. Aurore - October 18, 2010

254-I do, I do…

257. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#240

Problem? What, me streamlining my philosophy and embracing “love thy neighbor” and the Golden Rule and ignoring all the harsh dogma that came before and after it? Okay… if you say so… but it’s really not MY problem.

Have a nice day. :)

258. I am not Herbert - October 18, 2010

…yeah, but don’t forget: you are going to be getting the JJ-K/O/L “version” of “character development”; which so far, has not pleased me (at least on ST)…

259. Red Dead Ryan - October 18, 2010

254

“In this day and age, everything comes down to four-play!”

Yup, and besides, Kirk, Spock and McCoy can always use a cunning linguist!

260. I am not Herbert - October 18, 2010

GROAN!

261. Aurore - October 18, 2010

254
Wait! what!?

262. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

How does one make Uhura the fourth member of a TRI-ad?

I don’t think anybody — most of all gingerly — wants to hear my 10,000 word argument against amplifying her favorite part of the movie for the sequel, yet again.

I think the relationship between Kirk and Uhura — WHATEVER that clearly was going on between them — should be fleshed out more.

And Star Trek, even now, has got to be the ONLY modern franchise where the doctor isn’t getting any.

263. Phil - October 18, 2010

181. keachick – October 17, 2010

Actually, if you think about it, for a lot of people, Star Wars did come before Star Trek. TOS had been off the air for eight years when SW hit the big screen, with STTMP two years after that. I know that TOS found it’s audience in syndication, but all that really menas is that if you were lucky enough to live near a broadcast station, you got to watch the show. The rest of the country was out of luck.

264. Aurore - October 18, 2010

Got to go. Good night.

265. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@251. DataTheMusketeer – October 18, 2010

249.

I guess that’s how you translate anything which is too hard for your brain. Que, no?

If your position sounds like something Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell would say, the last thing you should be doing is making cracks at those who call it what it is.

People like you are the reason those who actually follow a religion without the hatefulness you have demonstrated have been unfairly lumped in with it.

Ignorance, bigotry, those who denigrate people just for existing as your God made them and then have the nerve to condemn them for it?…

That’s called hypocrisy.

@262

lol. Look at the poll. People who love that part of the movie voted too, including me.

No one, not even people who liked the pairing wants to see a soapfest.

I personally just want to see that crew working together and being awesome (with more McCoy and Pike, of course).

Star Warsdid just fine with a couple and so did Firefly(though, you saw what happened in Serenity).

Zoe most definitely was established as having a character that was a stoic, all-business, held her emotions in check, etc… first officer and she did just fine with a personal relationship. Her character didn’t suffer and the stories didn’t suffer.

…And neither will Spock or the Triad, in capable hands.

266. capri - October 18, 2010

262. dmduncan –

“I think the relationship between Kirk and Uhura — WHATEVER that clearly was going on between them — should be fleshed out more.”

Nothing going on there man. She basically laughed at him, and treated him like the drunk amusement that he was. Plus – I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people who would rather NOT see Uhura being used in that way. They put her with Spock – which I actually think is a good fit. Leave should leave her there. Now, they just need to work on developing “her” more (still boggles the mind that it took this long to get her name on screen). So – I’m really glad to hear that the next film will be character driven.

267. Gary Neumann - October 18, 2010

Still, why don’t they add a short in the script which could be the bridge between the first movie and this one, make it quite cool and leave it on a light cliffhanger? Stick that short into a big movie from now to the release date (possibly very late 2011 or early 2012) and make people wonder ;-)

PS: That short would be part of principal photography to save costs, obviously ;-)

268. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

265: “Zoe most definitely was established as having a character that was a stoic, all-business, held her emotions in check,”

Nope. Zoe was human. Spock is only half. There’s no point in even having a half human Spock if he’s going to be a pointy eared human, unless it is to make fangirls with Spock crushes scream. I have NEVER ONCE contended that Spock cannot feel or even have a relationship; only that given the character he is supposed to be — which is not a pointy eared human — a relationship would be radically different from what humans would have. Amok Time. And please don’t come back with the spores that MADE Spock emotional, or the time portal that MADE Spock revert to ancient Vulcan passion.

The vehemence with which fangirls respond to this issue like no other proves my point about how you have an imbalanced investment in that one part of the movie, at the cost of what I have long described as the much more important meaning of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship, as Gene Roddenberry himself apparently designed it.

266: “Nothing going on there man. She basically laughed at him, and treated him like the drunk amusement that he was.”

Ooooh yes there was a little sumpthin sumpthin there. Didn’t you see that lovely SMIIIILE she gave Kirk when he was sober on the shuttle?

“Plus – I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people who would rather NOT see Uhura being used in that way.”

What way? I didn’t mention any particular way. There’s an interesting dynamic between them that should definitely be explored in the sequel. What’s the alternative? They ignore each other? Kirk inexplicably loses his attraction to her?

269. P Technobabble - October 18, 2010

I imagine doing a film with 7 essential characters presents a real challenge for the writers.

270. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

Hmmm, maybe some of you don’t want Kirk to mature. Maybe you fear the irresistible magnetism of a fully matured Captain Kirk.

Don’t fear The Kirk, ladies. The Kirk is your friend.

Here’s the scene: Spock is walking by Uhura’s quarters and is puzzled by a banging against the bulkhead. Spock enters and finds that scene from Sideways, only instead of Church and Oh, it’s Kirk and Uhura coiled passionately around each other yelling for him to get out.

271. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

269: “I imagine doing a film with 7 essential characters presents a real challenge for the writers.”

One way to solve: 6 more Spocks arrive from various alternate universes. Populate the bridge with only Spocks. Including Dumbshit Spock with buck teeth who wears his tunic inside his pants. When Captain Spock orders Dumbshit Spock to target ship’s nacelles and fire phasers, Dumbshit Spock targets and blows up Enterprise’s own engines.

272. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@268

a relationship would be radically different from what humans would have.

It sure would. There would probably be some two-finger touching. Like Amanda and Sarek. ;-)

Wash had to adjust to Zoe wearing the pants. He liked that.

Uhura adjusted to Spock’s culture of emotional control.

…Also you keep forgetting that there was a previously established relationship in that spore episode.

Ooooh yes there was a little sumpthin sumpthin there. Didn’t you see that lovely SMIIIILE she gave Kirk when he was sober on the shuttle?

Yes. Women smile at flirts they aren’t interested in, as well.
The gracious ones do. :)

273. Chadwick - October 18, 2010

190. James – October 18, 2010

Yea no kidding, imagine the tech the Klingons obtained from the Narada. I mean for 25 years were they conquering and plundering planets with it? Would it really have been docked somewhere for 25 years undergoing scientific dissection? Nah.

274. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@273

The deleted scene shows the Klingons trying to get info from Nero. I’m assuming they couldn’t get much of the tech from the Narada.

275. John from Cincinnati - October 18, 2010

I know, I know……make Pike the villain. Ha!

Kind of like when they made Jim Phelps the villain in the Mission: Impossible movie.

Hot yeah! I need to be a Hollywood screenwriter!

276. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

272: “…Also you keep forgetting that there was a previously established relationship in that spore episode.”

I really don’t want to do a pie chart showing the ratio of Spock interest to disinterest across TOS. But I can!!! You are going to end up with a very tiny slice of pie, gingerly! : )

277. John - October 18, 2010

Lidelof is right, Star Trek is not about the villains! Star Trek is a moral tale, and a hopeful look at the future!

278. capri - October 18, 2010

268. dmduncan

“Ooooh yes there was a little sumpthin sumpthin there. Didn’t you see that lovely SMIIIILE she gave Kirk when he was sober on the shuttle?”

Yeah, I saw it! It came right after that lovely eye roll. She’s amused by his antics. I don’t see polite amusement as attraction.

“What way? I didn’t mention any particular way. There’s an interesting dynamic between them that should definitely be explored in the sequel. What’s the alternative? They ignore each other? Kirk inexplicably loses his attraction to her?”

As the object of a love triangle. It would just be bad writing. Spock is evidently in love with the lady, and she with him. Kirk maybe attracted to Uhura – but in what capacity? He may just see her as the one he “can’t get”. There’s a reason why he went through his years at the academy, and still didn’t know her name. Uhura’s not interested. Let Kirk stick with his character mythos of promiscuity. I don’t want Uhura going after sloppy seconds, thirds, or fourths just when she’s starting to truly come into her own characterization. For once – a mature, loving, and healthy relationship was shown. I’d rather see it stay intact without unnecessary interference. There are many dynamics that can be explored with this relationship alone that doesn’t involve unrequited love. Kirk doesn’t need to be turned into the next Chapel. Kirk is the captain of the Enterprise – he has a lot of maturing to do on that front.

279. John from Cincinnati - October 18, 2010

Pine needs to gain some weight for the next Trek adventure.

280. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

278: “Spock is evidently in love with the lady,”

Yeah. Spock loved her so much that he had her assigned to another ship.

Spock loved her so much that he wasn’t going back to the Enterprise until Spock Prime convinced him that he and Kirk would have a strong and lasting friendship.

I get married to a woman who loves me that much, and there’s gonna be a divorce.

281. capri - October 18, 2010

280. dmduncan

“Yeah. Spock loved her so much that he had her assigned to another ship.”

How do you know Spock wasn’t pressured by someone who accused him of favoritism? Someone obviously knows something if he is concerned about it – which is an admittance from his character (to the audience), that he indeed was showing favoritism.

“Spock loved her so much that he wasn’t going back to the Enterprise until Spock Prime convinced him that he and Kirk would have a strong and lasting friendship.”

How do you know that he hadn’t planned on having Uhura join him once he completed whatever efforts he had planned to help assist his people.? See – I’m pretty sure that they would’ve had a conversation about it. He didn’t purposely go around her station, give her that eye contact and that little nod for nothing. He’s happy to be on the Enterprise “‘with her” as well.

I get married to a woman who loves me that much, and there’s gonna be a divorce.

Of course there will be a divorce – you will have missed so many important signs a long the way – she’d just be dern tired!

Really – it’s not that serious!

282. Damian - October 18, 2010

252–Yes. Obviously there would be changes to reflect the society of today, but the triad, I believe, is an integral part of Star Trek. One complaint of the Next Generation movies was that character development was muddied because they tried to highlight too many of the cast members. If you start having multiple characters highlighted in the next movie, character development will suffer. You have to pick and choose who your primary characters will be, in this case, Kirk, Spock and McCoy, The other actors are important to the story and should be developed also, but they will always be secondary characters.

Again, don’t forget, this is a 2 hour movie, not a weekly show. In television, you can develop all the characters fully, You do not have that luxury here. Even non Star Trek fans recognize Kirk, Spock and McCoy as the core of Star Trek.

283. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

279. “Pine needs to gain some weight for the next Trek adventure”

Sure, why not make the next film a full-blown comedy. Have Pine’s first appearance with him stepping from the turbolift. He’s 60 pounds heavier with a big gut hanging over his belt buckle. His face looks like a blowfish, with a dead rat for a toupee atop his head. As he struts around the bridge, overenunciating each word with pauses in between, he shouts, “I’M….CAPTAIN KIRK!! MORE…….DONUTS!!”

Hey, with scenes like that, you’re talkin’ Avatar box-office money!!

284. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

281: “Of course there will be a divorce – you will have missed so many important signs a long the way – she’d just be dern tired!”

Your perspective as a woman. My perspective as a man: If I assign you to a different ship? Means I’m just not that into you.

You take away the destruction of Vulcan and the loss of his mommy and see how much in love Spock is.

285. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

284.

Oooooh, dmduncan, you should wear a T-shirt that says THE ICEMAN COMETH!

(I kidz because I luvz)

286. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

In fact, Bob did with Spock what was always done with Spock in TOS. In ST.09 as in TOS, Spock is made emotional and vulnerable by extraordinary circumstances. But those circumstances also invariably end. The spore effect wears off. The shock of losing mother and planet fades. Who is the character then? He’s NimoySpock.

287. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Perhaps Spock was concerned about dating a subordinant and shipped her off. What is the policy in Starfleet? And before anyone says Kirk did, I don’t think he actually dated them. Ahem.

288. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

285. Harry Ballz – October 18, 2010

Logic is cold. Which makes a character devoted to it not the warmest member of the crew. I think a lot of folks are missing that Spock also has to grow. It’s not just Kirk. This becoming half way comfortable with his human half was a lifelong journey for NimoySpock. Even in the last film of the movies, TUC, Spock is insulted when Kirk calls him human.

289. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

Hmmm, I tease you about your logic and how do you respond? With more logic.

What to do??? Ah, I know!

(jumps off bridge)

290. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@286

Nimoy, you know, the guy who actually played Spock for 40 years, totally approved of the relationship.

I’ll say it again, there was a spore-free relationship with the botanist(?)
before that episode and Spock was into Droxine without any outside influences. Stop trying to cockblock Spock! lol

291. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Okay Vultan. I’ll remind you of your ‘love thy neighbor philosophy’ the next time you bring up your tough um…love politics. ;)

292. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

290. gingerly – October 18, 2010

lol.

293. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#291

To which “tough love” politics are you referring?

294. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

293. “tough love”

It involves a saddle and a whip. The safe word is Timmy!

295. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

290: “I’ll say it again, there was a spore-free relationship with the botanist(?)”

Haven’t seen This Side of Paradise in years and not googling. Memory is she had an unrequited affection toward Spock. Spores wore off, deal wore off, though Spock WAS compassionate and apologetic that he could not remain with her…which, I’m glad you mentioned it, might be the way Spock handles Uhura. : )

“before that episode and Spock was into Droxine without any outside influences.”

What do you mean by “into”? Certainly not literally as Spock made it disappointingly clear to her that he mated only once every seven years.

I, Mudd. Spock is pretty much the only one impervious to Mudd’s women. Mudd even tells them to save their charms, because they won’t work on him.

The Man Trap. Uhura tries to flirt with Spock, who not only doesn’t flirt back, he pisses her off.

296. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

Weren’t you guys talking about religion earlier? I think that’s less contentious than Spock/Uhura, can we go back to that? And appropriate on a thread about the guy who wrote Lost.

I transcribed this from Graham Hancock’s SUPERNATURAL. Hancock expertly summarizes the intriguing question:

Most human characteristics that are genuinely universal are easily accounted for in evolutionary terms, and the arguments are widely known. For example, we all live in families and societies, because to do so aids our survival and the propagation of our genes. We all have the capacity for love because it is an emotion that promotes family and social life. We all have laws of one kind or another because these, too, reinforce family and social ties and thus make us stronger and more competitive. We all eat food and drink water because we will soon die if we don’t. We all use the unique human gift of language to communicate more effectively than other species on the planet, to preserve knowledge handed down from previous generations, and to create culture — thus further sharpening our competitive edge.
But there’s one very odd thing that all of us at all periods of history seem to have done that defies an obvious evolutionary explanation. Against logic and reason, lacking irrefutable proof that we are right, and sometimes contrary to our own objective interests, every society that we know about since the appearance of modern humans on the planet has maintained a steadfast belief in the existence of supernatural realms and beings. Even in this rational and scientific century (the twenty-first since the crucifixion of a supernatural being called Jesus), more than a billion Christians still believe in Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil, angels and demons. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, the ancient Egyptians, the Maya, the Druids, and the practitioners of all other known religions living and dead have all also entertained similar ideas. The exact nature and multiplicity of the beings may change, the number and character of the realms may change, but in all cases, at root, what unites us are our unproven irrational beliefs of one kind or another in non-material dimensions of reality, inhabited by incorporeal beings that interact with us and frame our destiny in mysterious ways.
Many evolutionary scientists claim that beliefs of this sort are “hard wired” into our brains. This “neurological adaptation” is said to have been selected because, despite some obvious aberrations and exceptions, religious beliefs generally strengthen society and therefore aid the survival of our species — just like our propensity to love, or our universal inclination to live by laws. But even if religion does exactly what the evolutionists say it does, the central problem remains. We may have learned something more about the workings of society and its institutions, but we are no nearer to understanding why the common ground of all religions everywhere should consist of remarkable, unproven and deeply illogical beliefs in spiritual and supernatural levels of reality and their alleged influences upon our daily lives.
I want to re-emphasize that there is no dispute here about the social usefulness of religious beliefs. I take that for granted. The problem is better phrased if we ask why human societies have so consistently opted for these particular beliefs — in supernatural realms and beings — rather than others that might have served the same function without requiring such a radical disconnection from observed reality. To put the issue in some kind of perspective, one can hardly imagine that lions would be more efficient predators if they lavished large amounts of their time and energy placating nonexistent beings from other worlds. And what about the gazelles? Would they have any chance of escaping the cheetahs if they kept being diverted by parades of spirits, elves, or angels? Because it is hard to see the evolutionary advantage of such impractical distractions for animals, it is all the more difficult to understand how they could provide any possible advantage to humans. Yet if they provide no advantage, then how are we to explain the fact that every human society throughout recorded history in which religion has played an important role — which is as good as saying every society, ever, without exception — has been so thoroughly dominated and entranced by precisely such beliefs?

297. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

The one you’ve espoused here numerous times or wasn’t that you?

298. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

295. dmduncan – October 18, 2010

Correction to myself: I, Mudd = Mudd’s Women.

299. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

297. moauvian waoul – October 18, 2010

You mean me? I just transcribed that. I didn’t cut and paste and I never posted it before.

300. Phil - October 18, 2010

221. Damian – October 18, 2010

I had the same problem at the end of Phantom Menace….

Yoda: Great evil in the Force, I feel. However I know not where…(Obi_Wan tussles little Anikins hair)
Audience, screaming: It’s standing right next to you, kill him!!! The light saber, use it!!!! Ahhhhhh, kill him now…..

Somewhere, someplace, George Lucas is wondering who he needs to sleep with to score a Oscar for Best Screenplay….

301. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Well dmducan I think it’s because religion eases our fear of death, something that is equally universal and whose power should not be underestimated. Take for instance Christianity, which I know something about. Love and peace and helping our fellow.man. Fairly simple. But how many Christians do anything to help the less fortunate. In fact it’s the self proclaimed “most religous” who oppose such policies, who would deny fellow citizens the same rights they enjoy, those who don’t look like them or think like them or agree with them. That’s because they follow the religion so they might get into heaven. That’s what it’s all about. Eternal life/ fear of death. The he’ll with my neighbor. Hunger is something that could have been wiped out some time ago if we only cared for others such as ourselves. Personal savior/ Jesus loves me. Religous leaders realized a long time ago and so they created Hell. And it works. Until we become interested in the human condition instead of the afterlife the world of Trek will not be realized.

302. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

299 dmduncan. Sorry. My eariler post was not directed at you. My last one was. :)

303. boborci - October 18, 2010

296. dmduncan – October 18, 2010

wow. what a post

304. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@dmduncan

http://i33.tinypic.com/208gqdd.jpg

305. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Um a Bob, what about my um a post?

306. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

301. moauvian waoul – October 18, 2010

“Well dmducan I think it’s because religion eases our fear of death,”

Oh but in many cases religion may worsen one’s fear of death because of how one has lived one’s life. Religion rarely provides a promise of everlasting bliss. Even in Buddhism the effect of karma is made clear.

You can’t blame religion for the wickedness of men unless that religion teaches men to be wicked. Which Christianity does not. People will find reason to be wicked if they so wish to be, and use religion as a justification, but that hardly makes religion the cause. That’s bigoted.

Who killed more people in the 20th century than the atheist communists? What religion did they have? Who built atomic weapons and merged ebola with small pox as a weapon? NOT the Pope.

When men turn away from being vicious killers in prison, what saves them? Atheism? Hehe. I don’t think so. Atheism and materialism have nothing to tell us about how we ought to live our lives. Because those questions are normative, and beyond the reach of science to speak to. You can’t study ethics under a microscope.

307. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

Bob

just watched the latest episode of H5O. Being 55, and having grown up on the original, I truthfully wasn’t expecting much from this reboot. I was wrong. It’s very good*.

*and remember, I AM the pickiest SOB on the planet!

308. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Timmy!

309. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

303. boborci – October 18, 2010

Thanks Bob. Check out the book. It’s worth it. Star Trek could benefit from the big questions that people like Hancock are asking. (Can’t you just hear Spock saying that stuff?) And it’s plenty good for us too.

310. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

304. gingerly – October 18, 2010

That is a cheap shot because I don’t have any video to answer you with! So wrong!

311. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

308.

Tired of “riding” all ready? :>)

312. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Duducan. Your historical examples are selective to say the least. Yes the commies did such things and they are the rarest of exceptions. In fact the only example I could think of. There was another example this century and religion was a large part of it. Plus others throughout history too numerous to mention I’m sure you are well aquainted. Bio weapons are something both sides have had so I m not sure where your disagreement lies. Christians didn’t object to them. And the Pope? Well that’s too easy. As for believing in God to say one’s own skin (prison for example) I addressed in my last post. And materialism, well you’re not attacking capitialism are you?

313. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@310

:)

Perhaps a rewatch is in order? …So, you can be absolutely certain that those other proclamations about Spock’s character aren’t also wrong?

On religion, I have to say I totally agree. Religion is just a vector. There’s nothing innately good or bad about it. It’s what people inject into it that is such.

Regardless of whether one believes in a God or gods or not, they will find a reason to justify their own course of morality or lack thereof.

314. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Not yet Harry

315. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

314.

Giddyup!!

316. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Got nothing against God and Im not attacking people for their views. as I posted earlier I’m agnostic. But Religion has done real harm, now as in the past; just another if less honest form of politics, used to divide and exploit. Don’t look at the words, look at the deeds. And noble deeds don’t require a peticular religion. If anyone says they know what happens after death, well, sorry but they’re lying.

317. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Particular

318. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Just don’t stand there Harry, hand me those shackles! I’d ask dmducan to do it but he’s preparing a ten thousand word response that will take me til tomorrow to read. I’m a public school graduate, you see.

319. keachick - October 18, 2010

192 wrote – “Who said that we didnt create anything, its just as possible we created everything, including the universe, and just dont remember doing it. I tend to know we’re a lot more than just a small bit of chemicals and electricity that puffs into nothing at the end.”

We are a part of the creative process. Your statement suggests you are going from one extreme to the other, that because we don’t actually create anything, then we must just be “small bit of chemicals and electricity…” I feel, know that in fact ALL sentient life is more than just their material components or constituent parts, that there is something more. Some call it “soul”, “spirit”, also part of a larger process or dynamic.

Wow, this really got going and to think, my first sermon! Suddenly because I mention that “G…” word, I’m giving sermons. Well, I’ll be…holy crap.

Your post, 296, is certainly relevant to this discussion. Many religious will no doubt explain why, as they see it, whilst others have explained these things in terms of brain chemistry, neurology and psychology etc. I suspect that both may be right, in their own way. The answer may well be found in the middle (“*middle path?”) somewhere. Humans are not all knowing (may never get to *know* everything in fact), however we might like to pride ourselves on our advancements in so many spheres – science, medicine and technologies of all sorts that we often take for granted – even the fact that I have a car to drive around in, so common place, and yet in some ways, quite *miraculous* also.

*Middle Path is a Buddhist term. When I mentioned the words, “commandments” (oops – OMG, someone gettin’ all religious here…), I also used the word “precepts” (another Buddhist term), to demonstrate that these moral/ethical ideas are not just Judeo-Christian ones.

One aspect that has always intrigued me about Kirk, you know the Star Trek guy (back on topic, b.o.t.), is his adamant (some call arrogant) disbelief in the no-win scenario. For Kirk, it is always, at the very least, a win-no win scenario, or even better, a win-win scenario, no matter what the odds. Within the Trek world so far, his belief system somehow works for him and I fervently believe, should work for him in this alternate universe. (Bob, are you reading this…:)?) What this character has is Faith. This is a virtue believed in and held up by most, if not all, of the major religions, because this attribute (along with many others) exists, irrespective of a religious or philosophical explanation. However, this kind of Faith that Kirk has more of than most people, is subtle, not easily explained, even by him, and is not necessarily always constant and predictable. Being prepared to sacrifice oneself, if that is what a situation calls for, is a manifestation of that Faith.

I did not know that being a good captain of a starship meant that he had to forego any notions of having a good, loving (and hopefully longterm) relationship with a woman. Does Starfleet require officers to undertake vows of celibacy or similar? It better not. It hasn’t always worked quite so well for the Catholic Church over time and I doubt it would work within Starfleet either, nor would the (unspken) expectation that any and all relationships be kept to a casual “wam bam thank you m’am” style either. Kirk needs a good, loving woman. He has a lot of love to give, (along with a high libido).

Anthony – can I vote “Romance” as well? I’ve already voted for “Character Development”.

320. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

Shackles?

Speaking of religion, and I was raised in a strict Catholic household, it’s really hard to believe that anyone would believe the notion of GOD sending his “only son” down to Earth for our salvation………sheesh………

Listen up people………GOD DOESN’T DO PARLOUR TRICKS.

I’m surprised I even have to point this out.

321. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Bout time Harry. I thought you were going to stand on the sidelines all game.

322. ShawnP - October 18, 2010

320. Harry Ballz

The thing that started my trek from Christianity to atheism was wondering why god would need a blood sacrifice. Then it started to unravel once the absurdity hit me. It’s like, let’s sacrifice some virgins while we’re at it.

323. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Keachick, it was I who mentioned sermon. You used the term “lecture”. I preferred my term at the time because you were speaking in absolutes. Don’t know what motivates Kirk, but I wish I had some. I suspect it’s the writers.

324. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@320

Faith is belief regardless of whether it’s proven, or considered absurd by others. I’m sorry but I find the act of disputing someone’s faith profoundly disrespectful and counter-productive to the criticisms often leveled at people of faith, you know heavy judgements and the like?

It is possible to be an atheist and still respect faith and vice versa.

325. Red Dead Ryan - October 18, 2010

Good god, how did this thread “evolve” into a discussion about religion?

326. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

324.

Here’s the thing…..when people start spewing their irrational thoughts, which I find insulting, it’s only reasonable that PURE LOGIC be voiced and, hopefully, prevail.

It’s the people with a brain in their head, who recognize a “fairy tale” when they hear one, who have been disrespected.

327. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

gingerly 324. My comments @316 were directed at you, at least the first part. I appreciated your comments @249 & 265 and hope I did not offend you.

328. Gary Neumann - October 18, 2010

Still, why don’t they add a short in the script which could be the bridge between the first movie and this one, make it quite cool and leave it on a light cliffhanger? Stick that short into a big movie from now to the release date (possibly very late 2011 or early 2012) and make people wonder ;-)

PS: That short would be part of principal photography to save costs, obviously ;-)

329. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

I don’t know Ryan, but I thought it was very interesting myself. Besides we can only argue about Kahn for so long. No to Kahn by the way.

330. boborci - October 18, 2010

301. moauvian waoul – October 18, 2010
a wonderful rebuttal

331. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Ah you’re too kind.

332. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#297

I don’t think I’m the person you have in mind. I do like to argue and tease people about different subjects, but I like to think it’s all in good fun.

Anyway, despite Mr. Roddenberry’s opinions on religion, Star Trek has always preached tolerance—religious, agnostic, atheist—it’s all good. So, why don’t we all just have a great big group-hug right now, okay? And remember if you get uncomfortable…. the word is “Timmy.” :D

333. somethoughts - October 18, 2010

#306

“Who killed more people in the 20th century than the atheist communists? What religion did they have? Who built atomic weapons and merged ebola with small pox as a weapon? NOT the Pope.”

The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb, before the Germans or the Japanese. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) (sometimes referred to as the Manhattan District) it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.[1]

The project’s roots began in 1939 when at the urging of Leó Szilárd, Albert Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt expressing his concerns that Nazi Germany may be trying to develop nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project, which began as a small research program that year, eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in present day value). It resulted in the creation of several research and production sites whose construction and operations were secret.[2]

Project research took place at more than 30 sites, including universities across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site in eastern Washington state; the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. atomic weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

All religions played a role in dropping the only Atomic bombs ever in the history of man kind to help stop the war? Simply praying and believing in a religion wasn’t going to stop the war, research and development and planning help stop the war.

Don’t act as if one religion or belief is better than another, all of man has been guilty of killing or “sinning” one way or another since the dawn of time.

Religion is nothing more than a operating system for humans, there is a god(s) and there are many branches of beliefs that reach god(s)

334. Red Dead Ryan - October 18, 2010

I have nothing relevant or important to say.

But for me at least, Star Trek IS a religion!

335. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Bob @153, what did you think about my prediction concerning your story? Nailed it? No? Close but no cigar? Not even? What, dead wrong you say? Not even…? I was certain I was onto something.

336. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#334

Preach on, brother! :)

337. Basement Blogger - October 18, 2010

I would like to panic after seeing Damon’s mashup T-shirt of Star Trek and Star Wars. Can we stop seeking the Star Wars for inspiration. If I may paraphrase consummate Trekker and psychopath Harry Plinkett, Star Wars is fantasy and Star Trek is science fiction. Okay, there are some things from Star Wars I would use. The special effects. Non-humanoid aliens.

But back to the crux of Damon Lindleof’s comments about villains in Star Trek. I agree that Star Trek is not just about villains. In fact some of the best Star Trek had none. See “City on the Edge of Forever.” “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.”

338. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@327

It’s cool. :)

339. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Vultan! Are you certain? You wouldn’t try to fool a fool would ya? In that case my apologies. That’s only second time I’ve ever been wrong. But just in case, I’ll be watchin’.

340. somethoughts - October 18, 2010

#306

Every nation/religion has killed, no country/religion has been “perfect”

Who lived in the North American continent before settlers/explorers came over? You really think it has always been the way it was? :)

Slave trade, genocides, wars, every nation and religion at one point in their history has made mistakes, to say only athesist communists are guilty of such crimes is very narrow minded and to me is propaganda/brain washing.

341. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#339

I knew it. You’re CIA, aren’t you? ;)

342. gingerly - October 18, 2010

@338

Plinkett is right about a lot things, but he’s also wrong about things, in spectacularly entertaining fashion, of course. :)

The biggest thing the new production team took from Star Wars is that feeling, that sense of instant nostalgia for an ideal future. Though, I do think they need to inject more science as well, they shouldn’t lose that.

He was also clueless about women see in Spock, like many on this board, when the truth is Spock was partly there for the women, heck designed as such, from the beginning.

The devilish appearance was no accident.

343. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Um witness protection. Moauvian Waoul is not my real name.

344. Vultan - October 18, 2010

#343

Ah. Well, say hello to Henry Hill for me.

345. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

343.

Let me guess…………………Holden McGroin??

346. somethoughts - October 18, 2010

Beautiful Ship :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29

347. Red Dead Ryan - October 18, 2010

345

I believe his other aliases include “Harry Wood” and “Mike Rotch”

348. Vultan - October 18, 2010

AKA Langdon Alger

349. Red Dead Ryan - October 18, 2010

Oh, and I believe #343 lived under the name Bob N. Long-Johnson!

350. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

gingerly; right on.
Vultan: will do.
Harry: that was taken at the time.
Timmy!

351. moauvian waoul - October 18, 2010

Seymour Hiney

352. Red Dead Ryan - October 18, 2010

351

How about Seymour Dick?

353. dmduncan - October 18, 2010

Better yet, I wrote this on Michael Prescott’s blog…

Here it is again.

Well that has always been a problem for materialism. Ultimately, it’s nihilistic. It can give us no direction whatsoever on how we should live our lives other than because this person or that says so, vs. because there is really some ultimate point to our existence that isn’t a matter of any given person’s taste and opinion. There is no scientific reason why people ought to want to treat each other nicely or even to live. Sure, an atheist can choose to live as a good person, but he does so in ignorance of the ultimate nihilism behind materialism. If there is no God then there simply is no good and evil apart from what you say it is, and then life becomes a war between competing and arbitrary notions of what constitutes the good. Might makes right. Whoever wins gets to decide. And it doesn’t really matter how many people on the opposing side you have to kill to institute your point of view — exactly what communist regimes did throughout the 20th century; sure it will be messy, but where there is no ultimate good or evil, it ultimately does not matter who lives and who dies. Blood dries. Bones turn to dust. The memory of it is lost. Justice is just a scream of some vanquished minority before you make them extinct, and then all is peace and light again.

Sure religions produce evil people. But they also produce saints. Where are all the materialist saints? All I see from them is arrogance, venality, the provincial objective, the self righteousness of one who thinks he is god. All the same evil religion is capable of but without any belief in a right and wrong beyond themselves to mitigate their potential brutality.

354. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 18, 2010

Not used that one.
It’s all you.

355. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 18, 2010

Don’t you guys sleep? What is this third shift? If everyone’s down here who’s on the bridge?

356. Harry Ballz - October 18, 2010

mw

good night!

357. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 18, 2010

Good night my man.

358. Cygnus-X1 - October 19, 2010

296. dmduncan – October 18, 2010

——Against logic and reason, lacking irrefutable proof that we are right, and sometimes contrary to our own objective interests, every society that we know about since the appearance of modern humans on the planet has maintained a steadfast belief in the existence of supernatural realms and beings…The exact nature and multiplicity of the beings may change, the number and character of the realms may change, but in all cases, at root, what unites us are our unproven irrational beliefs of one kind or another in non-material dimensions of reality, inhabited by incorporeal beings that interact with us and frame our destiny in mysterious ways.—-

You may be speaking for 80% of the American society, but there’s a good 20% of us who are not “united” with you in your “belief” in things that cannot be seen, otherwise sensed, or rationally deduced.

This is not to say that we 20% feel a compulsion or emotional need to “believe” that you are mistaken, but rather that it is neither appropriate nor accurate to represent us as being like-minded with you. Neither should you interpret the aforesaid as enmity, for it is not, but just a polite request from a member of a group that is, without question, politically underrepresented in the USA, despite its Constitution and First Amendment thereof.

359. Aurore - October 19, 2010

-282

“Even non Star Trek fans recognize Kirk,Spock and McCoy as the core of Star Trek”.

How can you be so sure?

I’m not being facetious,nor am I trying to be confrontational.I am just curious.

On the internet, I discovered many people spoke of Kirk, Spock and McCoy as the”Holy Trinity” while,for me,McCoy was always like some kind of third wheel (ie: slightly “above” the rest of the cast).

Therefore,my point is;even if I am in the minority (or am I, here and\or off the internet ?), If you can’t speak for all the fans regarding what the core of Star Trek is,how could you possibly, and with certainty,as far as the non fans are concerned?

The three-way friendship is still possible with an expanded role for Uhura(it all depends on the writers’will of course).If we were to have the same dynamics as before, it would be a waste of timeline in my opinion.

360. AJ - October 19, 2010

306

dmduncan

“Who killed more people in the 20th century than the atheist communists?”

It is naive to believe that the Russians were ‘atheist communists.’ The symbols and power of the church, quite powerful in Russia in 1917 (The Tsar was next only to God) had to be taken down and replaced with similar symbolism preaching loyalty to the Party.

During WWII, Stalin restored the church as a nationalist symbol to galvanize the population during the war. The fact was that most Russians remained religious and worshipped, or at least, guarded their faith, secretly. Throughout it all, the slogan “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses” was not only taught as a starting point for official atheism, but was also used as an axiom by the ruling elite to affect the population’s overall mood, and set up the cults of State and personalities which dominated the Soviet bloc for over 70 years (and which we still see today in China and North Korea).

361. InSaint - October 19, 2010

It should be about the villain.

362. Jai - October 19, 2010

Back to the main topic of the next movie:

- The discussions on the previous thread (including Bob Orci’s evident interest in JFK) show that there is ample material for the new Trek movie to be a gripping political thriller, if Mr Orci & co wanted to take things in that direction. This includes a possible conspiracy angle; for example, we already know that Section 31 are active in the TOS era and are more than capable of such dastardly deeds.

This actually occurred to me over the weekend when I was watching Star Trek VI: TUC on FilmFour here in the UK; Leonard Nimoy mentioned that his discussions with Nicholas Meyer at the time included the major geopolitical events which were underway – the Chernobyl disaster, the ending of the Cold War etc – and the place of the Klingons in TUC as the “Russians” of the piece. Given the fact that, in the most recent movie, the tables have effectively been turned via the destruction of Vulcan, with such a huge disaster in the Federation and the impact this would obviously have on hostile neighbours such as the Klingons along with attitudes within Starfleet and the Federation as a whole, there’s plenty of scope to tie this in (relatively subtly, ie, not “Avatar”) with some of the things going on worldwide in our own time, including the associated political ramifications.

- There was a really entertaining episode of Stargate: SG1 a few years ago which parodied a number of other shows, including sci-fi shows such as TOS Star Trek and (more to the point) some of the “teen angst” dramas which have become popular. The episode actually had a hilarious segment showing younger versions of the SG1 team involved in Dawson’s Creek/Smallville/The OC-style “youth relationships” melodrama. Given the fact that the new Trek movies are obviously focusing on the Enterprise crew in their younger days, I think it’s imperative that they stay away from anything that depicts the characters in the same way which that particular Stargate episode parodied so brilliantly.

363. Jai - October 19, 2010

^^”Not just in terms of the fact that it’s a post-capitalist, single-world-government, “no greed, no hunger, plenty of education” culture,”

Certain anchors on certain right-wing internationally-syndicated news networks would of course be horrified by the notion, and would probably describe 23rd/24th-century humans as “socialist communist marxist one-world-government new-world-order godless anticolonial Kenyans” ;)

364. pock speared - October 19, 2010

363 jai
great post. those same anchors would be fretting over “illegal aliens” and demonizing starfleet as a science-based attack on god.

would love to see trek enter the creation/evolution debate again. (we’ve come a long way since gene’s standard plot: the enterprise finds god-and it turns out to be a computer, a child, or both. kirk then talks the computer/child to death.)

365. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

361: “It is naive to believe that the Russians were ‘atheist communists.’ The symbols and power of the church, quite powerful in Russia in 1917 (The Tsar was next only to God) had to be taken down and replaced with similar symbolism preaching loyalty to the Party.”

Notice how I used the word “communists” and you translated it for your own benefit into “Russians”?

That’s called a straw man argument. Not the one I’m making.

Atheism was the dogma of the communist party, the same party that killed so many of its own people who were not sympathetic to the cause.

359: “You may be speaking for 80% of the American society, but there’s a good 20% of us who are not “united” with you in your “belief” in things that cannot be seen, otherwise sensed, or rationally deduced.”

Hard to believe you understood the passage with a response like that. ???

To those of you who persist in making false generalizations about religion, here are some other false generalizations. Let’s see how you like them:

“Muslims are dangerous. We have to watch those Muslims.

“Jews control the world. We have to keep an eye on those Jews.”

“Black people are criminals. Best to avoid those black people.”

Not pretty are they? And yet your false generalizations belong in their company.

You may think you are being kind or diplomatic by attacking “religion” in the abstract, but the fact is that religion is not ink on paper. It is belief carried in our minds, and when you single out religious beliefs for attack, you single out those people who have those beliefs.

The larger point which many of you are missing is that particular beliefs — whether they are religious or not, and even the complete nihilistic absence thereof — kill people. Singling out religious ones which demonstrably do so much good as if they are productive of only evil, is bigoted.

But that is what happens when you meet the anomaly that evades your standard categories of a), b), and c), forcing you to dust off that other category you rarely use: d) none of the above.

It’s easier to pretend we know, than to learn that we do not. Get more hours in watching TV that way, I suppose.

Have to work now. When I come back, will be loaded for bear. : )

366. Desstruxion - October 19, 2010

229 Voyager actually did feature assimilated Klingons, Cardassians and Romulans. However, Borg are Borg, no matter where they come from. Anyway, they are still about a 100 years off.
——————————————————————–
Yes I know. I want MORE assimilated Klingons. Only I want their will to overpower the collective and make them pissed off Klingon/borg hybrids. Also make their ships be shaped like the Klingon ships only with borg crap all over them. Then make them look like Klingons and borg. I wanna recognize both. 100 years? This is the Abramsverse. The old order is gone at least in this series of movies. The timeline is no longer important. Maybe an ambitious group of borg show up early on Kronos.

More hot green chicks too.

And tribbles. Borgified.

367. The Only Real Trek Fan - October 19, 2010

Well, the first one was a combination of TWOK and A New Hope. So I suppose this one will be a combination of another Trek movie and another Wars movie. That is so sad. I love SW and ST. But they don’t belong together. Please, no Star Wars in the next Trek movie. We had enough in the first one. And how about some real phasers that actually fire a “beam” like they”re supposed to. And make them sound like phasers instead of Naboo blasters. And make the shuttles sound like shuttles and not the Jetsons car. And the Fuglyprise needs a refit. Let the Klingons blow it up so they can build a new one IN SPACE that looks like the Enterprise is supposed to look.

368. denny cranium - October 19, 2010

#359.

I think it might be interesting to see a more Kirk/Sulu relationship.

Sulu saved his behind on the drill platform
Kirk saved Sulu with the parachute jump

Sulu was in command of the Enterprise when the ship showed up at the end of movie phasers blasting to rescue Kirk Spock Pike.

367. I’m with you on the phasers bit- the rest of it? Naahh

369. Spaceboy - October 19, 2010

Four words: Starfleet Marines vs. Klingons

370. FroJoeKoolaid - October 19, 2010

Nemesis is disappointing because Tom Hardy proved in Inception he is a talented actor, I just don’t know why he sucked so bad in Nemesis

371. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Bob. I noticed your strange silence when it came to my prediction of your story. Either I’m dangerously close to the truth or you have a standing policy of not commenting on any issues concerning the development of the ongoing project.

It’s the former, isn’t it?

372. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

I knew it!

373. boborci - October 19, 2010

371. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 19, 2010

Sorry, which post? Haven’t read them all yet.

374. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Um 153. I think. :)

375. boborci - October 19, 2010

372. u talkin153?

I am silent on every idea expressed! My silence should be taken as neither a confirmation nor a denial of anything;)

376. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Come on Orci, fess up!

377. NuFan - October 19, 2010

Is it “Or-see” or “Or-key”?

378. Hugh Hoyland - October 19, 2010

I’m pretty sure Bob and the guys have a pretty interesting story, probably very much in line with Star Trek 09, and thats fine by me. The first one had all you really needed for a good Sci Fi movie (or any movie for that matter), lots of action, good dialog, great FX, humor, a pretty “deep” plot (i.e. Time travel, alternate universe’s, black holes ect.) other themes to that most people can relate to.

The difference will be the type of story, the first being the start (Act 1) and this one will be the conflict (Act 2), speculation of course, but its still fun to speculate.:]

379. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

It’s okay, I get it. I’ve got to go and write a story as well. I’m working on a novel, part two actually. Now if I could only get off my lazy butt and find an agent someone might read it one day. I’ll check in later. :)

380. Red Dead Ryan - October 19, 2010

#367—”The Only Real Trek Fan”

No you’re not.

381. captain_neill - October 19, 2010

To be perfectly honest I am not working myself up for the next movie.

Yes I enjoyed the last movie but as you all know that it was not the best ever Trek. I do feel then next one needs a stronger plot as that is where Star Trek XI was weak on.

Sorry Bob but using Destiny to bring the characters together in a contrived manner is a bit of a cop out.

Either way the reason I am not concerned either way is that JJ Abrams because with the changes that JJ Abrams made, I know I will like the film but I do feel that the best Star Trek movies have passed.

Why does dumbing Star Trek down and making it more like Star Wars make it more popular in the mainstream?

Anywho I am looking forward to the next film.

382. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

375.

Oh, so now it’s Silent Bob! Hey, where’s Jay?

383. Red Dead Ryan - October 19, 2010

#382

In this case, it should be “J.J”

as in:

“J.J And Silent Bob Strike Back” with the sequel in 2012!

384. Red Dead Ryan - October 19, 2010

381

“Why does dumbing Star Trek down and making it more like Star Wars make it popular in the mainstream?”

I wouldn’t say “dumbing it down” is the same as “making it less geeky”, which is what these guys have done. And this isn’t the first Trek movie to feature moments inspired by “Star Wars”.

“To be perfectly honest I am not working myself up for the next movie.”

Suit yourself. We’re all entitled to choose what we want to see/not see.

“Anywho I am looking forward to the next film.”

Wait…..now I’m confused. First you said you weren’t going to get excited about the sequel yet with your last statement you’re looking foreward to it?
Huh?

385. boborci - October 19, 2010

381. captain_neill – October 19, 2010

“Sorry Bob but using Destiny to bring the characters together in a contrived manner is a bit of a cop out.”

I didn’t. I used Quantum mechanics and the laws of probability. Hardly a cop out. We included lines, not used in the movie, dealing with destiny for those of you that did not care to learn why quantum mechanics is all we needed.

386. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

384.

Kinda like having a date with an ugly girl who’s easy! :>)

387. Damian - October 19, 2010

#359–I guess, to put it simply, the beginning credits of anything related to Star Trek from season 2 on has included Kirk, Spock and McCoy as the lead characters. More specifically, Whenever Kirk needs guidance he goes to Spock for logical deduction and McCoy is his conscience, reminding him of what is right and wrong. McCoy was always a key part of the triad. How many episodes featured the 3 of them together facing some crisis together, alone? To me, the 3 of them are more like a family that merely friends. I think that would apply to this universe as well. Plus, who doesn’t want more Karl Urban in the next film?

388. Damian - October 19, 2010

I’ve kind of said my peace regarding the whole religion, faith debate here. I was more or less an agnostic until my college years (I always believed in God but did not have a particular interest beyond that belief). My faith has brought me a certain amount of contentment and it has become very important to me. It also guides my life and I try my hardest to live up to Christ’s message of love and peace. That to me seems a worthy goal.

I would say regarding the ongoing argument here that the biggest problem for human beings boils down to greed. We all want what we can’t have, and we try to screw each other over to get a head up. Greed is not just money, it could be land, power, influence. We always want more of it. That was one thing that attracted me to Star Trek in the first place. Earth in the future was a place where somehow, greed was eliminated (or transplanted to the Ferengi:)

389. Phil - October 19, 2010

The dying gasp of conspiricy….
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_la3rf2iEyu1qzdlzeo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1287602345&Signature=3po3%2Fomdoaz5HvdYnocFr0ZxZ3o%3D

390. Hat Rick - October 19, 2010

Meanwhile, back at the ranch….

Kirk is still chopping wood.

391. boborci - October 19, 2010

389. Phil – October 19, 2010

You didn’t really read the chicago plot article, did you.

392. RedAlert - October 19, 2010

So bob, if you don’t mind me asking, whats your favorite episode of TOS?

Sorry if you answered this question elsewhere but I was just wondering. Mine is “Where No Man Has Gone Before” .

393. Aurore - October 19, 2010

368
That certainly would be something.

397
To me, the 7 of them are more like a family than merely friends.I think that would apply to this universe as well.Plus,I have nothing against more Karl Urban in the next film and wouldn’t mind more(or at least not less) Zoe Saldana either.

394. Aurore - October 19, 2010

Sorry :397=387

395. somethoughts - October 19, 2010

#387

Logic, Emotion and Ethics/Morality

Spock, Kirk, McCoy

This is what made the the 3 so great, the play on each other, sorta like the writers subconscious talking to the audience.

396. somethoughts - October 19, 2010

#388

If you were to take out all the positive aspects of each model, it should work, but you are correct. What collapses any model is the human greed and corruption factor. Communism, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, all failed due to human greed.

397. Charla - October 19, 2010

# 385 – Bob Orci

Signed, sealed and delivered! :-D

398. somethoughts - October 19, 2010

*Capitalism

399. boborci - October 19, 2010

392. RedAlert – October 19, 2010

Balance of Terror

400. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

400 posts already?? Yikes!

401. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

399.

Bob, I found the music to Balance of Terror to be one of the most compelling parts to it. It really sold the drama of the situation to me. I’m curious as to whether you felt the same.

402. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Damian. Interesting insight. We’re going in opposite directions. :)

Would like to make a point since you brought it up. @212 you wrote ” I will challenge someone who calls themselves a Christian and acts in a contradictory manner to Christ’s true teachings…”

And gingerly did @248 & 265.

403. gingerly - October 19, 2010

@389

I would say regarding the ongoing argument here that the biggest problem for human beings boils down to greed. We all want what we can’t have, and we try to screw each other over to get a head up.

I’d say it’s because so many are needlessly afraid of what they have being taken away; be that status or tangible wealth . What people do to protect themselves is what screws everybody over the most.

404. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Balance of Terror: Homerun!

405. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

Balance of Terror was great. I loved the Captain vs. Captain scenarios. Corbomite Maneuver. Enterprise Incident.

406. somethoughts - October 19, 2010

#399

Kirk hails the crippled vessel and at last communicates directly with his counterpart, offering to beam aboard the survivors. The Romulan commander declines, saying that it is “not our way” to accept such assistance. The commander expresses regret that he and Kirk live in the way that they do, pointing out that “In a different reality, I could have called you friend”. Then, with “one more duty to perform,” the commander triggers his ship’s self-destruct, preventing its crew and technology from falling into Federation hands.

The commander expresses regret that he and Kirk live in the way that they do, pointing out that “In a different reality, I could have called you friend”. ;)

407. AJ - October 19, 2010

401:

Harry, BoT has no composer credits; it’s a patchwork of existing cues mashed together. Nice cues, but it’s a hatchet job.

408. Daoud - October 19, 2010

Bob, you have my physicist approval of your reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics. Your altered universe is trying to maintain the same macrostates (the energy states of the larger universe, its “destiny” if you will), by adjusting statistically the microstates (the small butteflies flapping their wings). When you “integrate over time” as we physicists do, the value of the integral is the same, regardless of the path you took. Drat, that even holds with the Work-Energy Theorem in *classical* Newtonian mechanics.

If one wants to think of one’s strands of life (in an almost Norse sense, so bring out Urd (Wyrd to your mother), Verdandi and Skuld) as being fibrous strands that occasionally will cross other peoples’ strands, you simply had your new universe cross those strands at slightly different points, after George Kirk’s and a few others were cut prematurely. Cinematically, you’ve created the quantum equivalent of Star Trek’s version of “It’s A Wonderful Life”. I just wish your Zuzu’s petals of the Kirk hologram had been able to stay in, and then the parallel would have been perfect. (And had Kirk been able to ring Gaila’s bell… but anyway….)

As we often riff on the Washington somnohistorical issue, “Heisenberg may have slept here.” Or as I prefer, we know this of Schroedinger’s Cat, Kitty is either dead, or not dead, but most assuredly Kitty is not undead!

@401 Balance of Terror used its music cues better than about anything save for Amok Time.

409. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

406 Hmmm. You might be onto something since it’s a different reality.

410. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

407.

AJ, thanks for taking a “hatchet” to my dreams!

(sob)

411. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

Are the post numbers you guys are referencing screwed up? Or do I just have a case of Andorian Shingles?

412. pock peared - October 19, 2010

b’orci
“balance of terror” is indeed a TOS fav. you all probably know this, but it was very much based on “run silent run deep” (directed by robert wise!) and “the enemy below”, as was the final battle scene in TWoK.

and per this thread, BoT was as much study in racism as any trek since. in fact, given the nobility of the romulan captain in the episode, it could be said that the real villain WAS racism. further, the suggestion that vulcan culture is what the romulans would be without the romance of war is a rather deep contemplation on enlightenment as the peace process.

this was trek’s gold standard. well, that and space-tits, of course.

now why don’t you give a nod to your favorite episode and retell a great film (let’s say; “apocalypse now”) and send the enterprise up space-river to deal with a fat old madman who’s gone batshit native deep in the space-jungle. why? so that the kurtzman character could be played by a bald fat shatner. that’s why. and maybe get glenn beck to cameo as the dennis hopper guy.
the horror, the horror.

413. Chadwick - October 19, 2010

My Top 5 pics for favorite TOS Season 1 eps:

Balance of Terror
Court Martial
Space Seed
Errand of Mercy
City on the Edge of Forever

In my opinion about half the episodes from season one are pretty good. Just finished watching season one, moving to two. All this talk about the writing starting has made be go back and watch TOS and to really scrutinize it to see which episodes are the real gems and which could be partially applied to a feature film.

414. pock peared - October 19, 2010

411 dmdumcan
andorian shingles can only be contracted by copulating with blue-painted chicks wearing prosthetic antennae. assuming you have a few of those around, could i hang out at your place some time?

415. pock peared - October 19, 2010

in the new timeline, tribbles evolve into fierce, multi-fanged, truck-sized monsters that shit acid. there’s a villain for you.

416. somethoughts - October 19, 2010

#415

lol

417. John from Cincinnati - October 19, 2010

“It’s not about the villain”

Yeah and Star Wars would’ve been much better without Darth Vader. Sure. Ya.

418. pock peared - October 19, 2010

408 daoud
schroedinger’s cat is a zombie? that’s… cool.

419. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

415.

You just described my ex-girlfriend! :>)

420. Starbase Britain - October 19, 2010

Harry Ballz – no problem. your #1 answer summed it up nicely.

i think i might be in a minority but the episode Balance of Terror would not make it to my top ten.

Greg
UK

421. pock peared - October 19, 2010

417 john is so obviously from cincinnati
actually, in the first draft of star wars, the darth vader character wasn’t all that bad. he was called “soft padder” and had a lisp. he used the force only to give people wedgies. lucas only refined him after meeting dick cheney at a strip club in 1976. point taken, though.

422. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

421. Harry Ballz – October 19, 2010

You can’t just go around painting your girlfriends blue, Harry. Trust me. They don’t like it.

423. pock peared - October 19, 2010

419 harry
we appear to have been dating from the same gene pool. i was describing my ex-wife. a creature so vile that she made the ass-prolapse monster from trek09 look cuddly.

424. pock peared - October 19, 2010

422 dmduncan
yeah, and just try to get a girl to slap on prosthetic forehead as foreplay. god, do they get all uppity.

425. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

423.

Yeah, well, I think there was a little too much chlorine in my ex’s gene pool!

426. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2010

422.

How about green?

Orion slave girl……………can’t talk……drooling!

427. P Technobabble - October 19, 2010

All the religious talk is tempting me to join in….
But I won’t.
Instead, I will say “Balance” is also one of my favorite episodes; it is one of the TOS episodes I can watch again and again. The episodes #413-Chadwick mentions are also amongst my favorites. So, the episodes I really like (I won’t list them all), I REALLY like and can re-watch them over and over. The episodes I don’t care for (such as “And the Children Shall Lead,” or “Spock’s Brain”) I simply cannot bring myself to push play. In any case, TOS still manages to be my favorite incarnation of Star Trek, and that is primarily because of Kirk/Spock/McCoy. Without their relationship and interaction with each other, the show would have been a flop, IMO. This does not mean I didn’t like the other Trek series — I did. But I never felt any of those characters had the same dynamic as K/S/M.
And for their first time out, Pine, Quinto and Urban did a damn good job of capturing that dynamic. One can easily see them pulling out all the stops in the next film.
As far as religion goes…

428. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Dmduncan. If you referring to my numbers, 248 should have read 249. The rest are correct

429. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Errand Of Mercy. Another great one.

430. keachick - October 19, 2010

170 Moauvian Waoul wrote – “To your talk of religion… I’ll just add… With our level of technology/weapons, religion is a notion we can no longer afford.”

163 Chadwick wrote – “I used corrupt instead of Evil as evil is a word created by the church and well…*should never be used*.”

My “sermon” (as I was apparently talking in absolutes) was prompted by the second quotation here, where in fact, the poster uses an absolute, where he says that the word “evil” should NEVER be used. Then I read Moauvian’s statement, quoted above, where the poster is using another absolute (the same poster who preferred the term “sermon” to my term “lecture”) in the words, “religion is a notion we can no longer afford”. A pretty definitive statement I would think. There is no relative words used like “may not afford” or the words, “possibly”, or “probably”.

I have to wonder who are doing the sermonising here.

326 Harry Ballz wrote – “Here’s the thing…..when people start spewing their irrational thoughts, which I find insulting, it’s only reasonable that PURE LOGIC be voiced and, hopefully, prevail.
It’s the people with a brain in their head, who recognize a “fairy tale” when they hear one, who have been disrespected.”

What “fairy tale”? You mean, Star Trek, a “futuristic fairy tale” with so many mcguffins that would sink a modern aircraft carrier. I am reminded of Spock impressing on Valeris in Star Trek VI that, “logic is just the beginning of wisdom”. Who have “spewed out irrational thoughts”? Just because an idea or belief is beyond another person’s grasp, comprehension or experience does not necessarily make the idea or the person making it irrational. I find your remark rather disrespectful.

431. NuFan - October 19, 2010

377. Doesn’t anyone know?

432. captain_neill - October 19, 2010

384

What I mean is I am looking forward to seeing the movie. Did not mean to confuse you what I was getting at is that I do like JJ Abrams movie but there are changes he made that I was not a fan of and I did feel the story was weaker.

What I hate, especially on this site, is to talk about how annoying other Star Treks are and yet its not cool to have problems with the new movie.

I love the new movie but I feel First Contact has a stronger plot.

385

I am savvy with Quantum Mechanics, I was just pointing out that the way it is in a film it does play it very contrived.

Also Bob I use the Quantum Mechanics to accept the film. You worked hard to make sure the movie created a parallel universe which runs along side the Star Trek we know and love.

I would have disowned the film if it had erased everything. So I thank you making it parallel.

Also folks I do apologise for thinking First Contact is a better film. I really love that film. Just watched again last weekend and I still love it.

Be watching the new movie in a fortnight after another watch of Nemesis.

Can I ask Bob if you are using another Star Trek movie for inspiration or are you drawing from Khan again?

433. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Green chicks
Blue chicks
I don’t see color

434. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

430. Say it, don’t spray it.

435. captain_neill - October 19, 2010

Bob forgive me about the destiny card.

Would you be drawing upon THe Voyage Home more for the next movie

Khan and First Contact will always be my top two.

But I feel the last two movies have drawn on Khan. Nemesis tried to be it and you took things from it. How about something like The Voyage Home with no villain rather than another villain who wants revenge.

I feel a classic will be diluted if all people want is a redo ok Khan.

436. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

NuFan. I believe it’s pronounced Or-See

437. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

I’d tell you about an old ex of mine but I’m afraid I’d conjure her up. Otherwise I’ve been mostly lucky.
I tried to spell lucky and licky came out. (he he, smartphone)

438. Phil - October 19, 2010

391. boborci – October 19, 2010

Yeah, I read it. Looking around to see if anyone is linking that to Dallas who isn’t already connected to a conspiricy site.

Cheers….

439. Phil - October 19, 2010

391. boborci – October 19, 2010

I guess what I’m saying is I’m withholding judgement at the moment…

440. Hermioni - October 19, 2010

With regard to the discussion on the nature of faith and religion…

Another agnostic chiming in:

From my (current) point of view, I probably would call faith a specific dimension of consciousness (to which I personally do not have access, but which I also do not miss), created and sustained either by sentience´s own internal workings, impulses and needs, or in response to its intuitive recognition of actually existing, external (spiritual) forces. I certainly do not feel in any position to decide.

With regard to religions, I personally seem to best understand them as administrative systems constructed around the phenomenon of faith, which have developed into societal instruments used to explain, organize and regulate access to various forms of resources, be they of a psychological, hierarchical, spacial or material nature.

441. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

439. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 19, 2010

Ever read All The Birds Come Home to Roost, by Harlan Ellison? GREAT story.

442. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Dmduncan I have not. But I’m always looking for new material. My summer job provides me lots of down time. Finished Stranger in a Strange Land recently.

443. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

And A Scanner Darkly along with some Hunter S. Thompson.

444. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

444. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 19, 2010

Given what you said @ 439, you’d appreciate it.

445. Gary Neumann - October 19, 2010

Please give us that Glorious sequel we all deserve! Time for trek to STEP UP! ;-)

446. Dunsel Report - October 19, 2010

My dream villain:

We open with a flashback to the Starfleet Academy days, where Kirk has just won a key scholarship at the expense of then-girlfriend Janice Lester (Scarlett Johnnsen)…

…four years later, everything is going great for the new crew after a routine survey trip to Camus II, but Karl Urban is troubled by Chris Pine’s emotionally unstable behavior…

447. Vultan - October 19, 2010

#443

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas should be required reading for history classes covering the 60′s. It really does, in Thompson’s own rambling, gonzo way, get to the heart of what that era was all about.

448. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

dmduncan. Will definitely do. You’ve made me curious.
Vultan I didn’t read that one ’cause I saw the movie, though I gotta agree. I read fear and loathing on the 72 campaign trail. Another good example of his gonzo journalism.

449. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Vultan. I live in Colorado these days and have met several people who met him in and around Aspen. Colorful dude to say the least.

450. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

dmducan. My turn to ask. Are the post numbers you are referencing screwed up? Or do I just have a case of Andorian Shingles? @439

451. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

452. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 19, 2010

You’ve got it right. The story is about old girlfriends conjured up.

452. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

P.S. It’s a short story in Ellison’s SHATTERDAY collection.

453. Vultan - October 19, 2010

#449

Yeah, “colorful” is probably the best description. I was in college around the time he killed himself, which just happened to be a few days after I finished reading F&L in Las Vegas—that was weird!

You probably didn’t miss much by skipping the book and seeing the movie. They’re pretty much the same, with many of the lines from the movie being lifted verbatim from the book.

454. Vultan - October 19, 2010

“We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold.”

455. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Got it! My numbers aren’t matching up. Temporal Causality Loop…Temporal Causality Loop… Numbers aren’t matching up. What did I say?

456. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

Vultan. “As your attorney I advise to take a hit from the little green bottle.”

457. Dr. Crushass - October 19, 2010

you know he just bought that T-shirt to piss people on this site off, right? — Would love it if this movie was about an internal battle/circumstance on the Enterprise. Some sort of lockdown where most of the movie takes place in the ship. could make for good story having the characters running through the ship like in ST:V and ST: first contact. and we could get to see how f***ing huge the new enterprise is.

458. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

Spent last 3 hours writing Star Trek story that will never be made. Pretty sure I’m channeling this from an alternate universe where it’s actually a movie on opening day, and your alternate selves are cheering the screen.

Fun fun fun

459. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

A gentleman told me to read the books of the guy he traveled with. His name escapes me now. He said that he was even farther out there.

460. dmduncan - October 19, 2010

Plus…a LITTLE S/U for that unscrupulous gingerly.

461. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

dmduncan, gonna have to let us get a crack at it. Some ideas I’ve read on this site are you know okay, others not so much. But some really impressed me- ideas I would never have thought of, and I’ve been a fan a long time. Of course that doesn’t speak for the writting, but it’s a good start.

462. Vultan - October 19, 2010

#459

Yeah, I forget his name too. I believe he was the basis for the “attorney” Benicio Del Toro character from the story. I do remember a great quote from the book. Near the end, Raoul Duke sums up his friend:

“There he goes. One of God’s own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

463. Buzz Cagney - October 19, 2010

#457 and how much it looks like a shopping mall or office block no doubt. ;)

464. boborci - October 19, 2010

439. Phil – October 19, 2010

Fair enough:)

465. pock speared - October 19, 2010

i’d kill for some onion soup right now.

466. pock speared - October 19, 2010

don b’orci;
do they smoke cuban cigars in the future?
and if not, what the hell kind of future is that?
and if so, wouldn’t captain pike the dude to have one?

and hey, what the frak is up with the narada hanging around for 25 years without anyone deconstructing the tech? i mean, jesus christ on a bike, a single COMMUNICATOR can screw a culture, right??
oh, never mind. love yer werk.

467. Chris L. Harris - October 19, 2010

The most obvious direction in my mind for the sequel is the “trial by fire” angle. Due to the timeline being changed to such an extreme that the Enterprise crew are put together 7-10 Yrs. earlier than in the original timeline.

If the last movie wanted to justify the timeline changes to tell their story in the alternate reality, then the sequel must put the crew though the ringer in order to justify them having their current positions.

468. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 19, 2010

462. Great quote. I’m thinking the same about Benicio Del Toro. I believe he was the illustrator or editor for Rolling Stone. Something like that.

469. James - October 19, 2010

Leonard Nimoy before introducing Trek6 (TUC) talked about an idea Gene Roddenberry had that him and Nic Meyer loved but couldnt fit in due to how far down the line production was – why are the klingons so angry? What made them that way… The new film would be a good way to explore that…of course it shouldnt be at the expense of the storyline of the sequel (The doomsday machine featuring Tom Hanks as Commodore Matt Decker!!)

470. T'Cal - October 19, 2010

All I know is I’m in.

As for Batman 3, I’m at a loss as to how Nolan will top Ledger’s Joker. I’m actually worried a little, although I loved Inception. Nolan is amazing.

471. captain_neill - October 19, 2010

Bob I apologise for my previous comments

Just do a good movie, thats al I ask.

472. captain_neill - October 19, 2010

Bob

Please forgive me, I know I have been a bit vocal about my dislikes about the latest movie rather than the stuff you did that I DID like.

You wrote some great character moments and the film was a lot of fun.

473. sean - October 20, 2010

since they locked down the cast for a 2nd and 3rd film, how bout those 2 movies show the full 5 years of the enterprise mission? i think it would be really interesting if there was some kind of connective tissue/story/theme to the entire 5 yr mission and it will give us something we were robbed of by the show getting canceled, an ending to the first 5 yr mission (wasnt there technically a 2nd 5yr mission after ST:TMP we never saw?)

hollywood has a willingness to reboot franchises every 10 yrs, so by the end of the third one they prolly will want to start a tv show and end the movie run for a while, i assume it would be tough to resign the entire cast to more movies, so it’ll be the last we’ll see of kirk and the gang til they decide to reboot ST again from the beginning…i’d love to see a true a trilogy and then a new show taken in the future of the new timeline (post TNG yr of the new timeline) and have it be an HBO/Showtime style show with RDM running it.

474. somethoughts - October 20, 2010

#469

We already had doomsday machines in V’ger, Genesis, Whale Probe, Borg Cube/Sphere, Scimitar and Narada :)

I would like a 3.5hr movie with lots of intelligent action, morals/ethics and awesome space/space ship special effects. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others solving problems in space and becoming legends in the process.

Make a sci fi departed movie in space, spies, cat and mouse/drama. The mob can be the Klingons, introduce a machine that can harvest souls and plant them into different specie bodies, ie. soul of Klingon spy downloaded into say the President of earth or something and go from there.

475. Chadwick - October 20, 2010

473. sean

I agree with your theory, its pretty much spot on. The post TNG time line would be great for a new TV show or at least eras in trek that have never been explored in TV or Film (post Enterprise/early Federation, pre TOS, or post Kirk/pre TNG.) There is still so much story to tell in the roughly 250 years 2140-2390 that span the main time line. For the new movie and if you all remember for TNG the artist ended up producing designs which were “too far advanced or far in the future” for what felt right. Would be nice if a new Trek TV show went all out like the first bridge design for the new movie or sleeker like BSG or Star Trek Elite Force II, or just take it to the mid 26th 2564. Now you have Klingons, Cardassians, Farengi serving in Starfleet.

The only problem is, Paramount is trying to make Star Trek popular, you cant go out on a limb and cover something that is unfamiliar and expect to attract people. The reason the reboot is working – we all know – is not just because of the new effects or “style” but because its about Kirk and Spock, names that are known the world over.

I really want another seven season show about a ship boldly going. No reboots and no space stations. There is no more Lost, no more BSG, there is nothing epic to watch.

Anthony…would make a great poll.
Will a new Star Trek TV series beat a Star Wars live action TV series to the airwaves?

I’m a Star Trek fan…..your damn right I dream of the future.

476. Chadwick - October 20, 2010

474. somethoughts – October 20, 2010

“I would like a 3.5hr movie with lots of intelligent action, morals/ethics and awesome space/space ship special effects. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others solving problems in space and becoming legends in the process.”

Sounds good but a 3.5 hrs for Star Trek is not reasonable, JJ wanted to keep it two hours. Right now I would be happy for a 2.5hr Star Trek movie. And if they only go so far as a trilogy, then make the last movie LOTR 3.5hr length and make a phenomenally epic movie…”one that is worth of song.”

477. somethoughts - October 20, 2010

#476

Yea, I figure if I ask for 3.5hrs, we will get at least 2hrs :)

478. Jai - October 20, 2010

Pock Speared,

Re: #365

“great post. those same anchors would be fretting over “illegal aliens” and demonizing starfleet as a science-based attack on god.”

You can imagine what would happen if one anchor in particular decided to focus his ‘progressive-hunting’ activities on Star Trek. Complete with that damn chalkboard behind him:

“Patriots, I have something disturbing to share. Hollywood is actively plotting to steal your country from you. That’s right: You are already well on the way towards losing the republic. The name of this Trojan horse that the progressives are using to condition Americans into accepting the New World Order ? Two words: Star Trek.

Let me spell this out on the chalkboard. According to the insidious propaganda that this so-called ‘sci-fi show’ has been pumping out via television and films for more than 40 years, in 300 years America will not have a sovereign government. No. It will be a slave to a single world government based in….Paris. That’s right, Paris. It’s the French. They’ve been planning this as revenge for centuries, ever since the Louisiana Purchase. Praise God, and pass the phaser.

But there’s more. Trust me, you’ll want to bring Mr Smith and Mr Wesson out of retirement for this one. In the 23rd century, apparently the whole of this nightmare human society will be based on social justice. Nobody will ever mention Evangelical Christianity. Capitalism will be non-existent. Materialism for its own sake will be condemned. There will be free food and clothing for everyone. There will be free housing for everyone. There will be free education for everyone. And worst of all, free healthcare. You heard me: FREE HEALTHCARE ! Captain Kirk, why don’t you just shoot me in the head ?! Shoot me in the head RIGHT NOW !!”

And then he’ll ‘pretend’ to set people on fire and ‘pretend’ to put poison in their drinks, start waving a baseball bat around, alternate between fake crying episodes and screaming fits at the camera, and so on…

479. Jai - October 20, 2010

Re: James, #470:

“Leonard Nimoy before introducing Trek6 (TUC) talked about an idea Gene Roddenberry had that him and Nic Meyer loved but couldnt fit in due to how far down the line production was – why are the klingons so angry? What made them that way…”

I saw that too. I’ve always thought that the reason for the extreme belligerence in Klingon culture was a combination of natural warlike instincts and the fact that, at some point, too many Klingons began disregarding the spiritual & ethical aspects of Kahless’s attempts to channel his people’s aggression and instead focused too much on the warrior aspect in isolation. After all, Kahless was supposed to be a messianic, “divine” religious figure in Klingon history, not just someone who united the Klingons and founded the Empire. At some point, the Klingons clearly began giving excessive weight to the latter and not enough to the former. (Such things have happened numerous times worldwide in our own real human history too, after all).

I can’t remember the name of the episode, but there was a Voyager episode about a small group of Klingons who had left the Empire (I think) a century earlier and stumbled across B’Elanna, with many of them insisting that her unborn child was a prophesised “new Klingon messiah”. The guy who was the leader of that group had a noticeable clear-thinking ‘zen’ vibe and was shown to be a genuinely spiritual guy compared to the usual Klingon stereotype, even quietly reintroducing B’Elanna to some of the altruistic religious prayers/customs she hadn’t previously given much importance too. Personally I thought that Kahless would have been far more like him than the arrogant thugs that many later Klingons were shown as (with notable exceptions such as Martok, although he wasn’t always a saint either).

There were also a couple of discussions between some of the main characters towards the end of “DS9” about the decline in Klingon values and the resulting corruption in Klingon society. One of the episodes of “Enterprise” also showed a conversation between Archer and a Klingon where they discussed how Klingon culture wasn’t always as dominated by aggressive warriors as it obviously later became.

480. Jai - October 20, 2010

Since some people here have been discussing religion along with recommending books, the new Culture novel “Surface Detail” by Iain M. Banks also focuses heavily on religion and the way that the various alien civilisations deal with it. Banks’ Culture books are frequently excellent when it comes to ‘big picture’ issues from a thought-provoking sci-fi perspective.

481. AJ - October 20, 2010

479:

The Klingons were always portrayed as quite one-dimensional in the TNG+ incarnation of Star Trek. Just like any alien speces in that show, they were monolithic, with identical customs planet-wide, and with one language and no nation-states.

And Picard going forward only dealt with the ruling elite of Kronos. Maybe there were billions of ‘normal’ planet-bound Klingons who weren’t warriors, but just normal citizens: bankers and farmers and bicycle repairmen. Before figuring out ‘why they’re so angry,’ the race itself has to be fleshed out a bit more.

482. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

Jai. Your not comparing Klingons to…
Surely your not saying…
Hey, just wait one damn minute…

captain_neill I am curious. When you say the movie is not like the series, to which series do you refer. They’re all different, so I’m trying to understand your views on what makes Trek Trek.

483. boborci - October 20, 2010

438. Phil – October 19, 2010
391. boborci – October 19, 2010

Yeah, I read it. Looking around to see if anyone is linking that to Dallas who isn’t already connected to a conspiricy site.

Cheers….

———-

Linking it to Dallas, how? What kinda links you looking for? Links like, Jack Ruby was from Chicago?

484. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

Or is it the timeline?

485. Buzz Cagney - October 20, 2010

#469 or Stephen Collins for Matt Decker? ;-) Yeh, I like that. :-D

486. T'cal - October 20, 2010

Worf certainly had a deep character for a Klingon. And that’s what disappointed me about how he (and Data) was handled in the films. He became a joke with numerous failed attempts at humor at his expense. Pity. I would love to see a miniseries set in the post NEM era with Worf as the first Starfleet captain commanding his own ship. I’d love to see how he evolved from too often barking out, “I am a Klingon!” to “I am Captain Worf of the USS Defiant on a mission of Federation diplomacy.” He had to have learned quite a bit from Picard, Sisko, and Riker. He was a pretty good father. And he was an ambassador at the end of DS9.

487. T'cal - October 20, 2010

Make that first KLINGON Starfleet captain…

488. Vultan - October 20, 2010

#483

Just curious, Bob, but do you think the CIA was operating on some sort of Praetorian Guard mindset in the 60′s? Perhaps you could write a book called “I, LBJ” (as in “I, Claudius”).

;)

489. Vultan - October 20, 2010

Or if not the CIA, the Secret Service would probably be a more appropriate comparison to the Praetorian Guard.

490. BorgKing - October 20, 2010

What about Kurtzman, whats his favorite episode of TOS? Anybody know?

491. boborci - October 20, 2010

490

same.

492. boborci - October 20, 2010

488. Vultan – October 20, 2010

Ha — good idea;)

493. Desstruxion - October 20, 2010

Erica Durance as Yeoman Rand.

494. captain_neill - October 20, 2010

Well to me Star Trek is about a positive future were humans have worked out their differences and become better people.
It is a fun and it ha adventure and there is an idea behind that story.

I think Star Trek is excellent in exploring the human condition in the shows.

I just don’t want people forgetting about what came before as a result of this new movie.

Am I wrong to prefer First Contact over the new movie?

To me First Contact is an important part of Trek lore.

495. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

“Am I wrong to prefer First Contact over the new movie?”

No. Actually it was the only TNG movie I enjoyed.
Which series do you think came closest to those ideals?

496. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

478. Jai. Brilliant, you’ve connected the dots!
I see you’re a fan of the programming over here, and our history.

497. Hugh Hoyland - October 20, 2010

I disagree that Star Trek 09 didnt have a message that delt with the human condition. Two people that started out hating each other put aside their differences and work together to overcome a serious threat, and begin a friendship in the process is certainly in the Star Trek tradition. A comman man, delt a serious loss, choses hate and revenge to solve his situation, and loses everything in the process, classic.

I think some people have a mistaken idea that in order to have a “deep” or meaningful Star Trek story, it must plod along at a slow pace, and have a tremendous amount of exposition to explain it all for the audience. While thats all well and fine, it works just as well in a faster paced, exciting story to.

498. Hugh Hoyland - October 20, 2010

I disagree that Star Trek 09 didnt have a message that delt with the human condition. Two people that started out hating each other put aside their differences and work together to overcome a serious threat, and begin a friendship in the process is certainly in the Star Trek tradition. A comman man, delt a serious loss, choses hate and revenge to solve his situation, and loses everything in the process, classic.

I think some people have a mistaken idea that in order to have a “deep” or meaningful Star Trek story, it must plod along at a slow pace, and have a tremendous amount of exposition to explain it all for the audience. While thats all well and fine, it works just as well in a faster paced, exciting story to.

499. Vultan - October 20, 2010

#478

Some of you who praise the “ideal” culture of the 23rd-24th centuries as presented in Star Trek seem to forget that most, if not all, the progress is based on technology—warp drive, replicators, transporters, etc. All of them, if invented today, would take the hardships out of life; therefore there would be no poverty, war, starvation, or pollution, …but would religion suddenly disappear? I doubt it.

For me this is where Star Trek seems most unrealistic—to assume that an advanced culture would simply discard religion or spirituality is ridiculous (Bajorans must’ve found a loophole!). Our technology today would seem magical to someone from Medieval times, and yet religion is still here. Like it or not, most religions have adapted with the times. Thank God for moderates!

So, go ahead and invent warp drive. As long as there are humans, there will be religion/spirituality.

500. AJ - October 20, 2010

495:

“Which series do you think came closest to those ideals?”

There’s a scene in “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” where the People’s front of Judea is confronted with Brian’s imprisonment, and decide to take immediate action by sitting and having another conference around the table.

TNG’s crew under Picard often did that as well. Many story arcs were built around endless corporate chatting, complete with presentations and consensus building rather than beaming down and confronting the “thing” head on.

One of the worst inventions of humanity is bureaucracy and the inertia which can develop in a management hierarchy where the leader requires consensus to make a decision. Perhaps TNG was more “European” in that respect, but, looking back on it now, it would be excruciating to live in such a sterile environment as the Bermanverse 24th Century.

TOS is my pick.

501. Damian - October 20, 2010

402–I’ m not entirely sure what you are getting at here. I have only been able to get on the computer twice in the last 2 days and only was able to scan through what was said. I really did not have anything to add to the debate other than what I did.

The only thing I will say is that I have no love for the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. I may hold what would be considered as conservative viewpoints (though politically I tend to view myself as moderate), but people like that do not represent me. They don’t live up to Christian values so they hold no influence for me.

Just remember, not all conservatives are hate spewing Sarah Palin clones. There are some of us who believe it is more important to help our fellow man than to spew hate filled rhetoric. Jesus was not interested in politics (give to Caeser what is Caeser’s), I’m not sure why religious conservatives feel the need to inject themselves in politics. As long as there is freedom of religion, I have no interest in the government involving itself in my faith.

502. Damian - October 20, 2010

393–We seem to be coming at the issue from two different viewpoints. You feel all the characters had equal standing, whereas I always felt it was Kirk/Spock/McCoy with supporting characters.

I would love to see more Zoe Saldana, she is very pleasing on the eyes. But I just cannot see her being made a primary character like the triad. You can. At the end of the day, I guess we have to agree to disagree, primarily because we are coming at it from different views.

403–Seeing the news and even people I work with day after day, I see people trying to one up each other. I see millionaires trying to be billionaires. I see people trying to game the system. I believe if you could eliminate greed, many (not all) of mankind’s problems would disappear with it.

503. boborci - October 20, 2010

497. Hugh Hoyland – October 20, 2010

Thanks, Hugh!

504. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

500 AJ. I tend to agree, but was wondering what it was that captain_neill objected to since I read of his disappointment often.

501 Daman. I’m sorry, I wasn’t referring to the politics or trying to pick on you. I was simply recalling your comments concerning fellow believers using their faith to attack those they don’t agree with. And I felt DataTheMusketeer provided an opportunity to respond. To claim aids is some form of punishment towards gays or others we disagree with is at best acting as If believers don’t get sick or suffer or die and at worst hate speech which would quailify as being contrary to spiritual teachings, and justfying human prejudice. That’s it. I saw your post and was not sure if you were aware what was said. :)

502. Damian. I agree with the last part of your post.

505. Phil - October 20, 2010

497. Hugh Hoyland – October 20, 2010

Something that I don’t think a lot of people picked up on early in the movie, when Pike it talking to Kirk about joining Starfleet, he seems to imply that Starfleet is seriously undermanned, and possibly in trouble. Pikes character displays loyality, duty, service, all fine traits that speak to the best of the human condition, and in service to the fleet.

506. Aurore - October 20, 2010

502

I never felt all the characters had equal standing.For me, the focus of the show was clearly on Kirk and Spock.However, the crew was a family as far as I was concerned.Hence what I said earlier about the seven of them.

I think Zoe Saldana did a very good job in Star Trek 2009.Therefore, I’d like to see more of what she has to offer as an actress.As for your not seeing her being made a primary character”like the triad”,you don’t have to:it’s Roberto Orci and his colleagues’ job . If they decide Uhura’s role must be expanded,it will be.Meanwhile, I’ll just have to wait( just like the rest of us) to discover what ‘s in store for all the characters.

In any case,you are right. On this issue, we’ll just have to disagree.

507. Daoud - October 20, 2010

@488/9 Vultan, excellent idea. I would love to see something like that. But with a twist:

I’ve seen plenty of Shakespeare now done in “modern dress”, or recast into “modern times”. How about someone doing a modern event, such as the JFK assassination, and ‘playing it backwards’? Do the JFK assassination in ROMAN DRESS of the 43 B.C. era!!! That would rock. Roman togas and clogs, as the Emperor Quennedius with Praetor Connallius trod through a parade… an arrow from atop the Library swishes through the air: a single arrow? But folks swore they heard more than a quaver of a quiver! Rubeus later assassinates the barbarian assassin Oriforestus, but other still suspect Grassius Nulla was involved too. (Your I, LBJ thus leading to an I, IOHNSONIVS idea.)

@Damon, Alex & Bob: Just because you don’t have an outright villain, doesn’t mean you can’t have an antagonist! After all, your favorite Balance of Terror doesn’t really have a villain in the Romulan Commander: he’s not twirling his pointy non-mustache! He’s more the antagonist to Kirk’s protagonist. Or, you could pull another false protagonist like George Kirk in a prelude… Inquiring minds want to know: what’s that Laurentian System fleet gathering all about?

508. Gary Neumann - October 20, 2010

This has been an incredible threat, its a shame we don’t get paid to debate this much!

509. Vultan - October 20, 2010

#507

Excellent idea, Daoud. I love mixing historical events/time periods.

The allegory of the Soviet Empire’s collapse in Star Trek 6 was a stroke of genius. It may appear a bit dated now, but it was very timely for the… uh, time. :)

510. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

503. Damian – October 20, 2010

It’s bigotry, Damian. Unfortunately people like fast and easy options. They try to make snap decisions about which of two groups you belong to, and then respond to you according to how they are conditioned to respond to those groups.

In Orwell’s 1984, the dictionary of Newspeak was constantly revised and made slimmer and slimmer. The idea was to reduce the vocabulary, and therefore the ability to make distinctions, until thinking itself was as simple and as politically manageable as possible.

When you have nonstandard beliefs, people freak out and don’t know how to respond. You are a challenge to the simplicity of their world view. Religion bad. Science good. Nice and simple.

And if you look at how politics is currently operating, it is making people hate each other. It is emphasizing all the things we do not have in common with relentless amplification by the kiddie news media. It is hard to imagine how any solutions could come out of an arrangement like that which do not ultimately involve violence. Violence which the media will thoroughly cover, 24/7.

511. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

So I try to see into the future. Today, many of you think that the future we see in Star Trek is a world cleared of religion once and for all. But if you reread that Graham Hancock quote I posted, it seems pretty clear that in order for that to happen you are going to need a real miracle from God to get rid of religion.

What I think is more likely is that science, religion, and philosophy will all merge at some point, in the way that the emerging science of digital physics hypothesizes. And that fusion will change the world.

THAT is what the future will know that we cannot imagine today, because we are too STUCK saying silly things about each other to learn anything.

512. John - October 20, 2010

wow, this has certainly turned into a LONG comment thread. Nice to see bob up and posting, but make sure that script is getting some love, too! XD

513. captain_neill - October 20, 2010

495

I do feel that with TNG Gene Roddenberry got to do things he wanted to do on TOS as he had more freedom.

If you look at Pike in The Cage, he could be seen as a prototype for Picard, a more cerebral captain.

Now Each of the shows has their unique settings But I do think that a utopia future is common in all.

What I did find interesting in DS9 was that this utopia was viewed from the other side of the fence, thanks to the Bajorans and characters such as Quark.

Of course there are shows I like more than others but I do enjoy watching all the shows.

I don’t hate the new film, I never did. I guess I let the the anti TNG crowd get on my nerves when I should not as I read some of the posts here and feel fans here only love the new movie and not any of the others. I know its silly but I guess I get protective of what came before.

514. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

515. captain_neill – October 20, 2010

“the anti TNG crowd get on my nerves when I should not as I read some of the posts here and feel fans here only love the new movie and not any of the others.”

neill, you cannot control what other people like and do not like, so you ought not punish yourself if they don’t like the same things you do.

515. captain_neill - October 20, 2010

514

I know.

Just I am a huge TNG lover.

516. captain_neill - October 20, 2010

Bob

I am sorry for criticising the QM theory

517. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

499. Vultan
Not an “advanced culture” but an enlightened one. ;)

518. jas_montreal - October 20, 2010

Bob,,

Its fine and dandy that your working on the trek sequel. BUT WHAT ABOUT A TREK-TV-SERIES ?

519. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

Yeah Bob, (in my best Seinfeld) what’s up with the Laurentian System?

520. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

Bob…reading and…

How the hell you gonna do that show on CIA????

Makes my head hurt thinking….

521. Phil - October 20, 2010

For all the chatter about LBJ’s involvement in the Kennedy killing, the allegation in a new book that LBJ was a nanosecond from being gunned down by a jumpy Secret Service agent is just…ironic. This story would lend some credibility to Abraham Bolden, who contended that Kennedy’s Secret Service detail had some dicipline problems.

I remain a skeptic, but am willing to adjust my views as better information becomes available. Cheers…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101020/od_yblog_upshot/ex-secret-service-officer-i-almost-shot-lbj

522. Hermioni - October 20, 2010

Since this thread has touched upon so many disparate topics already, could i risk a throwback to Star Trek 09 itself?

Bob, if you are still reading and do not consider it too much of an imposition, may I direct a (couple of) question(s) at you, about the writers team´s choices concerning Nero´s background and character motivation?

A) Did you ever play with the idea of having Nero lose a parent rather than a spouse/child in order to create an even stronger parallel with New Kirk´s/Spock´s own situations so that you could potentially facilitate a direct compare-and-contrast interpretation of their respective attitudes?

B) The COUNTDOWN comic book series depicts an element of class conflict between the Romulan senate members and the miners, which also plays into Nero´s rage and thirst for revenge, but which seems to be missing from the film itself.
Would it be possible to learn a bit more about the rationale(s) behind these writing choices?

523. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

dmduncan
But I’d like to point something out, and perhaps I should address this to keachick as well. As mentioned earlier by Harry Ballz and ShawnP and myself, among others, we were raised in religious households. We get it! Most atheists/agnostics are not raised as such, and it only after years of questioning what we were taught that we arrive here. We don’t to it to be difficult or hateful. We grew up in your world, so I believe we understand the other side better than it does us. Most religious followers do not get to hear, misunderstand, or refuse to even listen, or take seriously our point of view. We avoid church but cannot avoid the constant drumbeat of your beliefs, even when they don’t make sense. Now that may not seem like much of a problem but consider if a group that you didn’t agree with, let’s say Muslims, made you take a pledge to their God, to swear on a Koran in court, or passed laws that affected you, maybe outlawing pork or something else, then maybe you would begin to understand our issues. Now add the history of exile, burnings, taunts, ridicule, unnecessary wars, and maybe you can see what I’m saying. No?

524. Damian - October 20, 2010

504–Sorry, I did not perceive any attack with your prior post, I just was unsure of whether your comment applied to gingerly or her response to Datathemusketeer. Yes, I think his comment was out of line that HIV was some sort of divine punishment. I never believe God enjoys or revels in inflicting punishment. I believe God is a loving God who wants the best for us. I may hold some socially conservative views, but I never take joy or feel righteous over someone else’s suffering.

I guess to clarify my earlier remarks–I can’t stand when I see someone who says they are a Christian use that to justify some hateful act. For example, murdering someone who is gay is not excusable and I find it despicable if someone uses Christianity as an excuse. Christ would never condone murder. At the same time, I obviously am not Mother Superior. I can’t call out everyone who makes an offensive remark. However, I just wanted to be clear that I don’t agree with any hateful remarks, even if I fail to point them out.

510-I agree to a point from a political standpoint. If you say you are a conservative, automatically some like to think you are some sort of fascist. If your liberal, your some sort of communist. I do think there are a lot out there who fall somewhere in the middle. They hold some views on either side. It’s just political discourse in this country has gotten almost hateful on both sides.

Anyway, what why was the fleet in the Laurentian system? Does nobody have an answer??

525. Damian - October 20, 2010

506–I guess it really comes down to that we have about a 2 hour movie. The writers are limited in how much they can give to each character. Most of the fans (at least that post here) seem to want more Kirk/Spock/McCoy interaction. I personally want more Karl Urban because he was excellent as McCoy. In addition I want to see an expansion of Scotty beyond comic relief, and a role for Bruce Greenwood as Pike. More Zoe Saldana is fine, I just disagree that she should be made a starring character in the next movie on par with Kirk and Spock. I guess that’s the heart of our disagreement. To give Saldana more time would probably mean sacrificing someone else. But like you, I’ll leave that to the writers.

526. Pierre - October 20, 2010

507: ” Inquiring minds want to know: what’s that Laurentian System fleet gathering all about?”

Not that I want to necessarily say I have an inquiring mind, but I tried to understand that one. Does someone knows what’s in the Laurentian system anyway ? I don’t recall off hand this being mentioned.

I suggest it’s time to have something controversial as a storyline and not just another villain that Kirk will defeat.. Didn’t somebody say that SF is a way to present a controversial subject without being attacked as controversial because it is slighly disguised.

527. Damian - October 20, 2010

Captain Neill-

You seem to be caught in some kind of temporal loop. You don’t need to keep apologizing for not liking the new film as much as the other. It’s ok man (or girl?). You know, I have a secret, of the 11, The Motion Picture was my favorite. Star Trek (2009) falls somewhere in the middle for me. Nothing to be ashamed of. I’m sure Bob Orci will forgive you.

Now there are some fans who are only fans of the new Star Trek, and it is much different. But I figure that can be a positive. Maybe some of them will start looking at what came before. It is popular to Berman bash. Me, I look at overall history. He oversaw a boom in Star Trek in the 90′s (much like Abrams today). Look at it this way, Star Trek led to the movies, which led to The Next Generation, then Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise and finally Star Trek (2009). You don’t have to like all of them, but each led to the next and have kept Star Trek alive and well for the last 44 years.

528. somethoughts - October 20, 2010

Laurentian system was a plot device to use cadets to rescue vulcan and setup story and move it along

529. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

525. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 20, 2010

I don’t think you really understand what I’ve been saying. What do you think I am? Who do you see when you look at my screen name?

Is it the child who hated going to sunday school? The one who avoided church as often as he could? The one who, with a broken leg in a cast from a fight in the park, was forced to go to communion?

How about the 16 year old atheist? The one with all the books who knew all the arguments against God? The one who, at 18, used them against a pastor his sister invited over to talk her brother out of his beliefs, which same pastor left incredulous that a kid could capably challenge everything he said?

Is that the “you” you reference about the drumbeat of my beliefs?

Hear and understand your point of view? My friend, I know it better than you do! It was mine!

So who do you think I am? Do I really sound like someone who doesn’t question what he thinks? That is precisely how I lost my faith in atheism.

You see, I had stopped thinking. I thought I had arrived. That my understanding was complete. But, peculiar thing. I am actually a very honest person. More than anything, I want to KNOW. I want that which is in my head to be as accurate as possible, even if it means looking at what I think I know for holes.

And I am telling you, even if you and the lurkers do not believe what I am telling you, that there are so many holes in what you think, there are so many opinions that are irreconcilable against facts that you do not even know exist, that I could accurately say that atheism IS a religion, a religion that replaces God with a gaping void of pointlessness.

But — that is neither here…nor there. Because what is in your head is your responsibility, not mine, and I haven’t the slightest inclination to dispossess you of what you think you know.

So. When you and others in here make false generalizations and then speak of the “drumbeat of your beliefs,” I want you to know that from where I sit, the drum belongs to you, and a whole bunch of you are making noise on it.

And when you say “add the history of exile, burnings, taunts, ridicule, unnecessary wars, and maybe you can see what I’m saying,” I can’t. Not because I don’t know what you mean, but because I strenuously disagree with the premise of the argument you are making. As I said earlier, you could do precisely the same thing to all that science has brought into the world, and it would be just as fallacious an argument to make there. So why is it good to make the same bad argument about religion?

Perhaps putting it in stark logical terms will help; the essence of bigotry is a fallacy:

Some x is y,
Therefore, all x is y.

As you should people, you should judge every religion individually on its own. Even harder, but equally as necessary, you must judge each person within a religion as an individual member who may live up to that religion’s teachings to varying degrees.

This is not easy to do. But then who promised you that telling the truth and being honest with yourself was gonna be easy?

And if you are in any doubt about what that religion teaches, go back to its source. It is very easy to see if people are acting in accordance with what their religion teaches, or if they are making human excuses to commit evil in the name of God.

530. somethoughts - October 20, 2010

If nero had travelled back in time, wouldnt it make sense to contact romulas and or try to prevent his wife from being killed? Instead of killing robau shouldnt nero hug and befriend robau and try to prevent the disaster?

Seems such a wasted opportunity for nero to go after spock and federation.

531. somethoughts - October 20, 2010

#529

Thats the great thing about star trek people with different ethnic backgrounds and beliefs working towards a common goal free of racism or discrimination.

532. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

The fleet was lured to the Laurentian system as an elaborate ruse. ;)

533. Vultan - October 20, 2010

#517

Would that be the same “enlightened culture” that produced John Paxton, Section 31, Luther Sloan, Admiral Cartwright, Admiral Leyton, Admiral Pressman, Admiral Dougherty, Admiral Kennelly (never trust an admiral), Captain Ransom, Captain Maxwell, Captain Tracey, etc., etc…?

Religion, no religion—there will always be selfish jerks and murderers among us. :(

534. John - October 20, 2010

530

Nero was going to go warn Romulus AFTER he took out the Federation. Remember, this is a psychotic man bent on revenge.

535. Hugh Hoyland - October 20, 2010

# 503 Bob, your welcome my friend. Very well done, and GR would be proud Im sure.

536. Hugh Hoyland - October 20, 2010

#505 Phil, good point, there are even more themes like that in the movie. I really wonder where some fans are coming from when they say this movie is just pop corn, when its loaded with stuff like that. Which is why so many trekkers are into it, as well as none/new fans IMO.

537. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

dmduncan. The ” you” I refer to Is plural, since we don’t use “ye” here. Perhaps we should. I don’t see anything particular when I see your name since we’ve never met. Nor do I know more about than you reveal. Since I have never read any of this before I did not know how you came to your positions. I went to religious school for nine long years so I’ve been were you are as well. I was simply explaining to those who may not have considered or experienced another point of view. This does not change the fact that atheists/agnostics are forced to play by the rules of an institutionalized religion that does not respect those with a different view. There are believers who would rather die than subject themselves to such humiliations that others are expected to tolerate, ie my earlier example of swearing on a Koran.
One last thing, it’s not only that those who don’t follow the bible properly use it to justify their crimes, it those who DO follow the ideas correctly commit these acts. In other words there’s a lot of immorality in the Bible.
If you took my words as a personal attack, know that it was not my intent.

538. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

Vultan. Of course you are correct sir, though I cannot speak to the actions of fictional characters. ;)

Bob you should really answer Damian’s question. Why was the fleet in the Laurentian system?

539. Harry Ballz - October 20, 2010

The Laurentian system?

I think I’ve got it.

In Canada we have the Laurentian Mountain system, with many ski resorts.

The rest of the fleet was on a retreat/ski vacation?

Damn, no wonder Cadet Kirk deserved to be promoted to Captain!

540. keachick - October 20, 2010

511 dmduncan wrote – “What I think is more likely is that science, religion, and philosophy will all merge at some point, in the way that the emerging science of digital physics hypothesizes. And that fusion will change the world.”

Very well put. Science, religion and philosophy all have something important to say to humankind and can help us understand ourselves, our world and the universe a little better. However, there is much in all these (esp. the latter two) that, well, are really nonsensical and irrelevant. It is really a case of separating the “wheat from the chaff” – no easy task, but ultimately better than “throwing the baby out with the bath water” as some would do when it comes to (organised) religion(s).

523. I understand not being able to avoid the constant drumbeat of a well-ingrained Judeo-Christian belief system that may not make sense to some. However, that is not the only constant drumbeat that I keep hearing. The other one is a sort of atheistic/rationalist belief system (not so sure some of it is necessarily all that rational either). I have been a regular user of the internet for 13 months now and sometimes even a mention of something to do with the predominant Western religion seems to engender such outrage and negative knee-jerk reactions.

My initial response in this thread was to something a poster has said. Are you saying that I should not have aired my views because you are sick of hearing the “constant drumbeat”? How was I (or some of the other posters here) supposed to know of your particular background as per religion? Should that have made any difference? What do you actually know about me or my religious background, other than what you might deduce from this thread? Finally, I was presenting my viewpoint to the entire board, not to just a select few. This is after all a public board!

541. somethoughts - October 20, 2010

#538

The same reason for the rabbits foot in MI3 and what was inside the suit case in pulp fiction :)

It doesn’t matter, it just helps move the story along.

542. pock speared - October 20, 2010

hey i’m no moderatian*, but this is a great thread. a shout out to anthony for making it happen. and large nods to the b’orci, whose presence fills with us all as sense of belonging to the cause;
which
is of course;
space-tits.

or plot, or whatever.

who’s with me?

*”moderatians”: a species that goes ’round moderating interwebizmalian idioglossia.

543. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

539. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 20, 2010

Not personal at all, brother. I know exactly how it feels for people to expect you to accept certain beliefs as if you don’t have a mind that needs to come to its own conclusions, when in fact the only way they can truly be yours is for you to come to them on your own.

“it those who DO follow the ideas correctly commit these acts. In other words there’s a lot of immorality in the Bible.”

There is, but it is not exemplary. Incest for example. In other cases of disagreement, the New Testament is supposed to be the final word, replacing the harsher parts of Moses’ law. There is absolutely nothing in the life of Jesus where one can point to an example of violence against others to model one’s own actions upon. He let himself be crucified rather than to incite or himself commit violence against others.

Buddhism is another fascinating and very peaceful religion, and yet during WWII nationalist Japanese pride had them chanting for war as well!

Other parts I think have to be understood as metaphor, but what is interesting about the wired link I posted is that biblical metaphor and emerging science are unexpectedly beginning to match!

I think the digital physics model will probably prove true because it’s the only model that provides a possible solution to the “hard problem” of consciousness, which most people don’t even realize is there. I’ve come to the same conclusion the digital physicists have from an entirely different direction.

And when the trajectories of all these different lines of inquiry lead to a confluence of identical conclusions, it’s hard to avoid the obvious.

544. John - October 20, 2010

It’s a testament to Trek fans that a discussion over religion ON THE INTERNET could be so civilized. Kudos to you all.

545. Chadwick - October 20, 2010

479. Jai – October 20, 2010

Yea I agree with you. The Klingon aspect of Star Trek is so rich and full of culture, Its an aspect of Star Trek that I always welcome. I would really like to see Klingons fleshed out a little more.

Voyager episode “Prophecy” season 7
and
Enterprise episode “Judgement” season 2

Both episodes among my favorite, respectably.

546. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

keachick. I’m not sure what i said that makes you think was talking about you as a person. I made the sermon remark about something you said not who you are. I don’t know you, nor would I pretend to. I’ve read what you’ve written and I agree with some things, disagree with others and confused but yet others. I enjoy discussions with those who can discuss their points, and even argue a little. Now dmducan took what I said personally. I don’t know if that’s an attempt to change the dynamic but when one claims to have a superior arguement instead of proving the superior arguement (example: “Hear and understand your point of view? My friend, I know it better than you do!” or “there are so many holes in what you think, there are so many opinions that are irreconcilable against facts that you do not even know exist,”)There really isn’t much to add.

547. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

Roger Zelazny. Lord of Light. Epic read. And still no movie? (Once on the boards, then dumped…and with CIA connections?)

http://lordoflight.com/cia.html

548. Chadwick - October 20, 2010

497. Hugh Hoyland – October 20, 2010

Everything…well said!

549. dmduncan - October 20, 2010

548. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 20, 2010

Dude, don’t mistake my impassioned argumentation style for personal animus! I like you!

And we are not in a persuasion dialogue here. If we were, then I would be obligated to prove to you that your premises better lead to my conclusions than they do to yours. Rather, in defense of what I felt was unfairly under attack I responded, but not to persuade you I was right. Rather, to persuade you that my perspective is very, very defensible. So you can’t say that I’m arguing in a circle, because the dialogue here is just not that formal.

In addition, what you ask for is impossible to provide in this setting. It isn’t as simple as presenting a superior argument; it’s actual evidence that what you think is mistaken. Some of it is as unique as individual experiences which can no more be reproduced for another person’s examination than a conversation you had with a total stranger on a bus may be, and some of it is well documented, and in neither case reproducible on this thread.

If you want to challenge what you think, read Chris Carter (Oxford, not X-Files):

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564

http://www.amazon.com/Parapsychology-Skeptics-Scientific-Argument-Existence/dp/1585011088/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287635546&sr=1-1-spell

550. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

dmduncan. “Dude, don’t mistake my impassioned argumentation style for personal animus!”
He he. I rather enjoy impassioned arguements. Been know to have some from time to time. Hard to believe you say? Never wanna be mistaken for the crew of the Enterprise D. Just jokin’ captain_neill. I just didn’t want to insult anyone else. Perhaps I’ll choose my words more carefully. Ya know, having left NYC at the age 26 I should used “yous” as in “whats wit yous guys.”. Can’t quite seem to loose the accent. Oh and by the way, yous are wrong. ;-)

551. Daoud - October 20, 2010

@532 D’oh! I figured the Laurentian System was a gathering point nearest the very pissed Klingon fleet in the vicinity of Rura Penthe, where Nero just stormed out of and disabled (was it 37 in the script?) Klingon vessels. Of course, Nobody Expects the Scriptish Exposition!

@538 Okay, I’ve always figured the “Laurentian System” was just an in-joke, a reference to the Laurentian Abyss that figured mightily in the film “The Hunt For Red October”. Thus, it’s clear Star Trek 2009′s unwritten subtitle should have been:
“Star Trek: The Hunt for Red Narada”

552. Buzz Cagney - October 20, 2010

#545 its odd, but I think i’ll die, just a very little, inside if I see/hear/smell (a bit lilacy for my taste) another bloody klingon.

553. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

Daoud. 47! 47! You know, as in 47! Now that is an inside joke.
But still it was a curious development. One that could/should be referenced again.

554. Vultan - October 20, 2010

#538

Well, I would reference REAL futuristic people living in a utopian society, but I haven’t met them yet. ;)

But you know the point I was trying to make. Getting rid of religion won’t magically rid humanity of all its problems. There will still be greed and petty competition and murder. What we all really need is… to either be put into suspended animation or… be heavily medicated! The gonzo approach! That might change things. :D

555. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

dmducan. Zelazny. Didn’t he write a series of scifi/fantasy novels? I seem to recall reading a writer by that name, or something similar. I can’t recall the titles but it was something like 10 books. It was ten years ago and I’m on the road now so I can’t dig them up.

556. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 20, 2010

Vultan. Now your talkin’!
Yeah I know what you meant. I just had nothing. But I’ll try.
I agree religion or the lack of won’t by itself make us behave. I guess it’s a hope that without the focus of energy and money and attention on an afterlife that I doubt we are close to understanding, we might address real needs and ease (notice I didn’t say stop) the suffering of millions around the globe. But I’m not so naive to think that greed will disappear. Like Damian mentioned, that is a real problem for us as a race. But maybe without fear and the need to appease a god that requires us to prove our loyality, and makes us see other points as evil we can learn to live together. How’s that? Not really?

557. Vultan - October 20, 2010

#556

Hmmm… well, I fall into the spiritual but not particularly religious crowd, so I won’t speak for all the religious people in the world. But I do know that a good many of them aren’t the hate-spewing sorts that blow up abortion clinics or ram jets into skyscrapers. All I can say is that I hope that all this radicalism will eventually (hopefully sooner than later) go out of style and the world will be full of moderates. Because, as a character in Futurama once said, “The world isn’t going to progress until we all come together and pretend to like each other.” :)

558. captain_neill - October 20, 2010

I think Damien’s T shirt is a sure comment on how Star Trek is turning into Star Wars. Lol

559. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

I hear that.
And I don’t think most people religious or not are evil. But as you probably gathered I do believe it is a distraction or worse. But I also seperate spirituality and religion. The former I don’t really comment on. I think these cultural warriors are worrisome. Trying to remove evolution from schools and the like sets a dangerous precedent. It seems to me that everyone has to think like them and I know of no other group that can believe this and be taken seriously. And it’s always been like this. How many lives are lost because science is their target, stem cells and such. Even when they don’t mean to these ideas can have severe consequences. The black death that took out half of Europe spread because without cats (suspected of being Satans familiars and nearly wiped out) the rodent population exploded. This I believe starts in Genesis as the forbidden fruit was…wait for it, knowledge. It been this struggle between enlightenment and fear, superstition, darkness for thousands of years. They don’t call ‘em the Dark Ages for nothin’. Sure it gives people hope but at what cost. There is a reason churches are the most segregated places in America and it’s not a positive one. Anywho, that’s where I’m coming from. I know, I know, it’s late and I’m rambling.

560. Hugh Hoyland - October 21, 2010

#548 Chadwick, thanks! :]

561. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

559.

As long as your rambles don’t become a shambles!

562. Aurore - October 21, 2010

525

“To give Saldana more time would probably mean sacrificing someone else”.

Not if that someone else is ,in fact, something else:the lens flares.

PS:Mr Abrams, if you’re here, I kid.

563. P Technobabble - October 21, 2010

“Religion” as it is practiced in the world today is not Religion. It is true, modern religion is mostly a method for maintaining some kind of order, and there’s a suggested long-term consequence if you don’t participate.
But the word “religion” comes from the word “religio,” or “re-ligare,” which means “to bind,” or “re-connect.”
I’ll leave it to you to decide what it is we are supposed to be re-connecting with…
Religions are always re-interpreted and re-invented over time, mostly to bring it into step with the politics of the time. We must go back to a religion’s founder, to its origin, in order to understand what its true meaning and intention was.
Just my 2c…

564. somethoughts - October 21, 2010

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread552176/pg1c

565. Damian - October 21, 2010

While religion can lead people to commit evil acts or be disconnected, it can lead to good. As a Christian, you are not simply supposed to sit back, dream of the afterlife and be disconnected to the rest of the world. If you are someone who loves Christ, you are supposed to practice what you preach. Love thy neighbor is just as important as loving God (Jesus said so himself). That means, if you are truly a Christian, you are supposed to be involved, help your neighbor, help feed and clothe them as it were. You are supposed to do this not for a reward, but because as a lover of Christ, it is the right thing to do. There’s a saying that resonated with me (I paraphrase) “The Christian may likely be the only copy of the Gospels the non-Christian ever sees.” It’s very important for me to try to live what my faith teaches. I am not perfect and there are many times I failed. But how I act I hope is a better teacher of what my faith means than anything I can say.

I see God in the miracles that happen every day. I see a miracle when I look at my daughter and she tells me she loves me. I see God in the firefighters and rescuers who ran into the World Trade Center, knowing it meant certain death, just to save one more person. Yes, human beings are capable of great evil, but there are times when the potential for good comes out.

566. Damian - October 21, 2010

525–I’d sacrifice lens flares for Saldana:)

567. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

565 Damian. Can’t find too much to disagee about there. ;)
563 P. Technbabble. Interesting as always.

543. dmduncan. Interesting premise.

I guess if I saw “organized religion” get as outraged about say poverty or the medically uninsured, where they could really help people, instead of something like gay marrage ( I know, but it’s an easy example) then I might see them as a force of good and not politically self-serving.

That’s the political side. On the faith side I tend to think that instead of saying The Bible is designed to guide us morally, I would argue that we already have/had a moral compass and The Ten Commandments are a reflection of this and an attempt to codify this. Another way to see this is to say we made God in our image, and that’s why religion so often falls short. All our limitations, jealousy, anger, vanity are all apparent there.

As for Zoe. Well I want more. Still the story needs more McCoy and Urban was fantastic. But Uhura… Yes yes yes. I guess I want my cake and want to eat it too. (and Harry, don’t say it.)

568. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

As long as the next movie has space-tits, I’m IN!

p.s. cake? I prefer pie!

569. P Technobabble - October 21, 2010

Harry
That’s pie in the sky

570. Sanjay - October 21, 2010

#497

Further to add. ST09 also delves into the importance of and emotional connection with ones family. In our fast paced lives, how much time do we devote to our parents?

It is ironical that we are made to realize our own emotional failings through the eyes of a race which suppresses its emotions.

The scene where Spock visits the transporter pad, after his ‘emotional compromise’, and his subsequent talk with father is so outstanding. I believe it is one of the highlights of the film and one of the great scenes of modern cinema.

Nobody writes like this anymore, especially in a modern sci-fi film. Kudos to the writers of ST09.

571. dmduncan - October 21, 2010

557. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 20, 2010

I think Zelazny won the Hugo for Lord of Light. It’s an epic science fiction novel where the crew of a stranded space ship take on the personalities and powers of the gods of the Hindu pantheon. Sort of like a dramatization of AC Clarke’s famous notion that at a certain point, technology will be indistinguishable from magic. It SOOOO deserves to be made into a movie.

572. dmduncan - October 21, 2010

565. P Technobabble – October 21, 2010

Re connecting is the key.

I think the story of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden is best understood as metaphor for something that really actually occurred: When we evolved and became what we call human, we gained self reflective awareness and with it the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. We left the “garden” of blissful ignorance in which we had no responsibility and were not obligated to behave according to any such knowledge.

When we reached this human consciousness, things changed for us forever. We began to see ourselves through our self reflective awareness as different than and separate from nature. And there is no going back. We cannot act like animals. That is not our path. So the method by which we reconnect will not be the same unconscious means we had before. Our reconnection NOW must reflect the state of our evolution. We must now find some way of conscious reconnection.

573. Jai - October 21, 2010

Moauvian waoul

Re: #498

“Jai. Brilliant, you’ve connected the dots!”

Thanks ;) You can also imagine them complaining about the most important space station in the Federation being commanded by an ‘anticolonial Kenyan with a sinister interest in African art’, along with ‘Dr Julian “Jihad” Bashir infiltrating that space station and turning sickbay into a gigantic victory mosque’…

“I see you’re a fan of the programming over here, and our history.”

We get Fox News here in the UK too (along with Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, CNN etc) so I’m familiar with the shenanigans involved. There’s also an increasing amount of coverage in the British media coverage about the American right-wing in general, especially with the rise of the Tea Party. And of course, thanks to the wonders of the internet, we can check out the more enlightened American newspapers/magazines/blogs online, all of which have had a few interesting things to say about the militantly conservative end of the political spectrum over there in the US.

Regarding American history, yes I am a great fan of it. I enjoy reading about global history in general, but I’ve recently been focusing on the US in particular.

As for Mr Beck…I’m just kidding when I say this, but it would be funny if there was a scene in one of the impending new Trek movies where Kirk was shown to be doing some reading about the 21st century, and for a few seconds you can glimpse the following words:

“After the events of December 2012, Glenn Beck dramatically joined the Hare Krishna movement and was last seen in an ashram near Goa.”

574. Jai - October 21, 2010

Vultan, re: #501

“Some of you who praise the “ideal” culture of the 23rd-24th centuries as presented in Star Trek seem to forget that most, if not all, the progress is based on technology—warp drive, replicators, transporters, etc. All of them, if invented today, would take the hardships out of life; therefore there would be no poverty, war, starvation, or pollution,”

I think it’s a ‘chicken & egg’ situation as far as the Star Trek universe is concerned. It’s absolutely correct to say that many hardships would be eradicated by the technological developments depicted in ST, but the point in ST is that these developments would not necessarily have been possible without certain ideological & ethical developments, because those changes enabled people to overcome their differences & previous negative behavioural traits and therefore work together in order to achieve that progress. Corruption still occurs due to human failings, of course, including in Starfleet and shadowy groups such as Section 31, but such actions are shown to have become sufficiently rare by the 23rd/24th centuries to be very shocking to other humans.

War in particular, at least between humans, is shown to have been eradicated due to major changes in attitudes, especially as humans are depicted as having learned this lesson ‘the hard way’ after a devastating global war in the mid-21st century which caused more than half a billion deaths.

Speaking generally, in the real world many wars would indeed be prevented by technological progress, but others would not. People aren’t always motivated by ‘hardships’ or fights over a lack of resources, especially if there are major ideological reasons for their actions.

“…but would religion suddenly disappear? I doubt it.
For me this is where Star Trek seems most unrealistic—to assume that an advanced culture would simply discard religion or spirituality is ridiculous”

It’s specifically human culture which is shown as having such attitudes – in fact, more accurately, they haven’t discarded religion, they’re just shown as not necessarily adhering to any formal organised Earth-origin faith in the traditional sense, at least not overtly. Humans are certainly not shown to be hostile to spirituality – and bear in mind that although ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ often overlap, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing.

(And in the more extreme cases, someone who is outwardly – and ostentatiously — very ‘religious’ may not actually be very ‘spiritual’ in the genuine sense at all. And vice versa. Obviously, it depends on the specific person; and as with all things, the ultimate evidence is their actions and their behaviour towards other people, not the extent to which they may adhere to the outer trappings of their particular religion).

Bajorans, Klingons and even Vulcans are, of course, shown as continuing to practice formal religions in the traditional sense.

“As long as there are humans, there will be religion/spirituality.”

Spirituality, hopefully. Religion, not necessarily, although predicting the future with any accuracy is frequently difficult; however, it’s likely that – as in the past – some modern-day religions will not exist in the future, others will go through dramatic changes, and completely new religions may also arise. Or something else will happen, for whatever reason – we can make assumptions, but we have no idea what seismic global events will occur in the decades and centuries ahead, and the impact of those events on human culture.

It’s also worth noting that societies which have many things in common sometimes also have markedly different attitudes to religion; for example, although a staunch belief in Christianity is still prevalent in the US, such attitudes have been markedly declining amongst the majority population here in England, who are predominantly either agnostic or outright atheist these days.

So again, making accurate predictions can be difficult. Whether ‘religion’ in the orthodox, formal sense continues to exist in the future is not the most important thing; however, we can hope that ‘spirituality’ does continue – and ideally flourishes — in terms of the very best qualities that mankind is capable of, our most noble ideals, and an awareness of the fact that these are heights which all people have the capacity within them to potentially achieve.

575. Jai - October 21, 2010

Damian, re: #503

“I’m not sure why religious conservatives feel the need to inject themselves in politics.”

Some people, of course, genuinely believe that getting involved in politics will enable them to make a positive difference to society, and are motivated by sincere reasons.

Others, however, are motivated by much darker impulses, namely Ego and Power. The same destructive human flaws which drive excessively ambitious people to inject themselves into any other sphere of life which enables them to gain status and a measure of control over others. Such things have happened for thousands of years worldwide, and haven’t been confined to any particular religion, or indeed religion per se.

576. Jefferies Tuber - October 21, 2010

I’m a huge fan of “The Enterprise Incident.” Not that it gets ignored or anything, but I don’t think it shows up in our discussions as often as it should. It’s a fantastic piece of spy fiction and by far the most interesting Spock love story of all time.

I would love to see a villain in that mold… a woman who is intellectually and morally a peer of Kirk and the crew’s. An enemy they almost regret dishonoring through defeat. I don’t want to see any lasciviousness, exposed breasts or bad teeth among Klingon women, though. Just cause it’s boring.

577. Jefferies Tuber - October 21, 2010

Regarding the tired Khan debate, I want to throw my 18mos old opinion on this matter back into the pyre.

In this universe, Khan and the Botany Bay should be rescued by another ship and we shouldn’t see or deal with him until he amasses vast power. Imagine the Botany Bay sent to an unfortunate colony world or urbanized planet with access to cloning and other other advanced technology. Then imagine the Federation being forced to war on a planet that he’s taken over with a genetically engineered army. The feature that’s been the most overlooked about Khan and his crew is that they’re supermen–all of them.

578. P Technobabble - October 21, 2010

572. dm
To a point, I agree with your take on this. I think the “Garden of Eden” is truly a metaphor relative to some kind of evolutionary advancement.
However, I think we can take some findings from quantum mechanics and propose that we are not, in fact, separate from anything — including God (whatever God turns out to be). Modern science suggests there is only energy. The gross material world is not merely some solid, fixed “object.” It is made of energy.
Then there is this conscious awareness, mysterious in its nature, definable only by the sense of “I.” Therefore, it would seem that energy and consciousness are completely and totally associated, and everything that is happening — all of these universes, all of these beings, and everything else — is all happening “within” this energy/consciousness. In this sense, everything is connected, there is no separation. Like trying to pick out drops of water from the ocean… can it be done?
The sense of separation comes from that self-reflectiveness you spoke of, the sense of being a “me.” There is “me,” and then there is everything that is not “me.” So, in some sense, the notion of re-connecting is an illusion, because we already are an aspect of energy/consciousness. But the state of our consciousness and the world at this moment in time is the evidence that we do not feel (or even believe in) this connection to each other, our world, or whatever is greater than what we are now.
When you say, “We must now find some way of conscious reconnection,” you are completely right that our reconnection must be presently brought into our conscious mind. But it is as much a conscious “remembering” as it is a reconnection, in that sense.
This is what I believe anyway…

579. captain_neill - October 21, 2010

I do think a redo of Khan will draw away a lot more of the hard core fans away from future Star Trek movies.

I will still see it but I have to admit that a redo of Khan will dampen my excitement. It be unoriginal and it will be third time in a row that TWOK will have been drawn upon.

Bottom line I know that the next film will be fun but I do know that with Abrams in charge things that I am not happy with will still be in the film. The price that is paid to make it popular again.

Please don’t do Khan. A stronger plot would be cool.

Also if Michael Bay ever got his hands on a Trek movie you don’t want to be in the same room as me when I hear that. My greatest fear is a Trek movie being turned into a Bay style movie. Fingers crossed that will never happen.

Bob
How much did you read up on QM?

580. mr. mugato - October 21, 2010

As long as they continue to borrow plot points from TAS they should be OK.

I have my fingers crossed.

581. dmduncan - October 21, 2010

578. P Technobabble – October 21, 2010

And that is what Buddhism tries to help people with, by inducing a mind altering experience of at-onement.

582. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

573 JAI. Dude, that made me laugh out loud.
572 dmduncan. Yeah, okay. I can see that.
578 P.Technobabble. Wow! What you said.

Vultan I would like to add to 574. While it is true that technology can and usually improves the quality of life, don’t underestimate the drive or desire for profit. We have world class doctors and hospitals in the US but not everyone can afford them. For those individuals who can’t, they are much better off in a poorer,” less advanced” country (I had to go to Juarez, Mexico in April to get a medical test,$400 vs $7000). And look what it took to get the electric car built. Those car companies went broke before doing the smart thing.

583. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

An old joke…….

Q: what did the buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

A: “make me one with everything”

584. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

Harry Harry Harry

585. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

What? I draw spiritual strength from humour!

586. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

That was for your pie comment. I liked the Buddhist one.

587. StarFuryG7 - October 21, 2010

After what this guy did with “Lost”, and how he ended it especially, I’m not sure I want to hear what he has to say about the next Trek movie. It strikes me as a bad dream on top of another bad dream.

588. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

All right I’ll admit it. I liked both.

589. Harry Ballz - October 21, 2010

Oh, goodie!

590. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

I know. I was suprised too!

591. MJ - October 21, 2010

Hawaii 5-0. Bob Orci, still loving 5-0, and this weeks episode was the best so far. I like the contrast between them basically torturing that guy from the bar and then them being offended at the end by a dog being potentially put down. One nit though — in the opening scene, you have a lady taking a cell phone call while underwater in a submarine. That is pretty much impossible my friend.

592. Vultan - October 21, 2010

#582

Oh, I agree. There’s a lot of money in future tech. If someone were to invent a transporter tomorrow, that person would be the next Bill Gates—and the world’s first trillionaire! Even if human beings and animals couldn’t go through the device, the ability to move objects around the world (i.e. shipping) would be… uh, most profitable. Sorry, I’m much more Ferengi than Vulcan. Hey, at least I admit it.

And it is a very interesting irony in Star Trek 4 when Scotty gives the guy the formula for transparent aluminum. Just think… a man from a future where money doesn’t exist essentially making a man in the past a millionaire, in return helping in saving that future (moneyless) Earth from destruction… fascinating…

PS: Oh, and the electric vehicle has been around since the 19th century. The problem ever since has been with the batteries. Build a better battery, or as some have suggested, a fuel-cell, and we’ll have better electric cars. But they are getting closer and closer…. Hopefully, Mr. Internal Combustion Engine’s days are numbered.

593. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 21, 2010

Hopefully

594. Jai - October 22, 2010

Dmduncan, P Technobabble,

Re: #578

Fascinating post. Interestingly, that’s pretty much the core of Sikhism: The whole of the universe is divine in its essence, that divine spark (our “true nature”) is also within each of us, and the perceived separation between ourselves and God (the concept of “duality”, including the perceived difference between the material world and the energy pervading the universe) is an illusion which people need to overcome in order to tangibly reconnect with God, their own true nature, and the universe as a whole.

Some of the more high-end historical versions of Hinduism along with (to some extent) the mainstream South Asian versions of Sufi Islam also have the same philosophy.

595. Jai - October 22, 2010

On a general note, you may be interested in reading the following scientific article, called “Creating God in one’s own image”:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

Some quotes:

“For many religious people, the popular question “What would Jesus do?” is essentially the same as “What would I do?” That’s the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Epley’s results are sure to spark controversy, but their most important lesson is that relying on a deity to guide one’s decisions and judgments is little more than spiritual sockpuppetry. To quote Epley himself:

“People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.””

596. Jai - October 22, 2010

Chadwick,

re: #545

“Voyager episode “Prophecy” season 7″

Aha, that’s the episode I was referring to in #479 and whose name I couldn’t remember. Thanks for reminding me ;)

597. Jai - October 22, 2010

Slight correction to #594:

“Interestingly, that’s pretty much the core of Sikhism:”

That should say: “Interestingly, that’s pretty much one of the core principles of Sikhism”.

Sikhism does have some metaphysical aspects but most of its core principles actually focus on universal humanitarian values & concepts of ethical conduct.

598. Harry Ballz - October 22, 2010

“universal humanitarian values & concepts of ethical conduct”

well, you know what they say…………sikh and ye shall find! :>)

599. P Technobabble - October 22, 2010

583. Harry

LOL!!!
Good one!!!

600. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 22, 2010

595. Jai. Now you’re in my head!

601. Harry Ballz - October 22, 2010

599.

Why, thank you, PT. Praise from you is very gratifying!

602. celticarchie - November 9, 2010

They really just don’t get it, do they. It’s not about villains, it’s not about the
“crew and their relationship with each other – that family”, it’s not about using a villain to flesh that out, and it’s not about making it “awesome”.

It IS about writing a consistent, fun, and intelligible story that doesn’t leave the audience going wtf what’s that supposed to be. That doesn’t leave the audience cringing about casting decisions, plot holes a galaxy wide, flagrant disregard for story structure, major inconsistencies, character neglect and completely writing the characters wrong.

In short…stringing together a bunch of clips from various Star Trek episodes…while following the “plot” from a spaghetti Sc-Fi rip-off of Star Wars. Like they did in 2009…is not a good idea.

603. Kira Malone - November 17, 2010

Well,i want humor and charecter developement. The crew isnt always fighting klingons and khan.They get some down time to! I also love humor. I loved the new movie because of it. They ARE family.(even if spock wont admit it >_<) but it helps to have an awesome villian

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