Harve Bennett Criticizes Star Trek 2009 + Talks ‘Starfleet Academy’ Movie & More | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Harve Bennett Criticizes Star Trek 2009 + Talks ‘Starfleet Academy’ Movie & More October 28, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Last Saturday Harve Bennett, producer of four Star Trek films, did a Q&A at a screening of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in Ashland Oregon, where he talked about his time on Trek, his never-produced Starfleet Academy movie, and he offered a critical opinion of JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie. Excerpts and video below.   

 

Bennett critiques Star Trek 2009 & talks ‘Starfleet Academy’

Harve Bennett, producer of Star Trek II, III, IV & V, appeared at a screening of Star Trek IV at the Varsity Theater in Ashland on Saturday as part of the Southern Oregon Film and Television Filmmaker series. Bennett spoke about his career in TV and film, and working on Star Trek.

At one point Bennett volunteered an opinion of the 2009 Star Trek movie, mixing his comments into a discussion of his his Starfleet Academy idea (which was rejected to make Star Trek VI):

Did you all see Star Trek recently? Does anyone want to know what I think of it? You now now know enough about me to know I honor tradition, that may make me a conservative film maker. They lost me when they put the Grand Canyon in Iowa.

I must add my bias. The last thing I did at Paramount before I left – wasn’t fired, I just said "no more." We had a script called The Academy Years – it was a prequel. It was Kirk and Spock aged seventeen entering Starfleet Academy. Kirk falls in love for the only time in his life. The cadets save the world. The premise of the film was racial tension. Spock becomes the first green-blood to enter the Academy, which is a red-blooded organization, and he is discriminated against. And there was a planetary cabal against green-bloods and the cadets at the Academy are the ones that save the day. Kirk’s love is killed heroically saving the planet from the ship. We had a great script and we had a location. If you are going to shoot Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century what should it look like? You may disagree with my choice, but the choice that we made and negotiated for was Washington and Lee University in the Shenandoah Valley. An ivy-covered Harvard on a river, and our logic was Harvard, MIT, Stanford – these are universities that have been there for hundreds of years. You can always build a laboratory building, a space hanger, stuff that brings it into the space age. But academically, we wanted it to be forever. Something that will always be there.

And the first sequence of that movie was Jim Kirk in a crop duster biplane, stunting about while his brother and his mother are "Jim, you wild ass – set down!" And he finally ends up crashing into a haystack. And it starts Iowa 2315. This picture starts in Iowa 2315, and then it becomes a crazy futuristic motorcycle thing and a dive into the Grand Canyon, and so that is my response to that movie.

When you blow up Vulcan and kill Spock’s mother, you are making a movie that I would never make, but it did make huge business and it created Star Trek for a new generation that likes big action and special effects and ‘bang bang’. So I think JJ Abrams succeeded in what he was trying to do

If you are wondering, here is what Washington and Lee University looks like:


Bennett’s vision of Starfleet Academy

Bennett talk covered many more issues, including William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, special effects, Wrath of Khan continuity and more. Here is full video broken into 10 segments:

(Video via BurtonDeppHBCfan on YouTube)

Comments

1. Captain Hackett - October 28, 2010

What a bitter man he is…

Get over it, Harve!

2. Kevin - October 28, 2010

Starfleet Academy sounds dumb. That would have killed the franchise years before its peak of DS9 was even thought of.

3. ProperTrekkieUk (aka OfficialSpudUk) - October 28, 2010

My biggest problem was with the need to create an alternate reality for the purposes of story telling…I don’t really car about the ‘Grand Canyon’ or if they stole your idea Harve…just the alternate reality bit.

Time to move on mate?

(Nicholas Meyer for Star Trek 2012!!)

4. SalvorHardin - October 28, 2010

i still don’t get why some have difficulty grasping the existence of a 23rd century quarry in Iowa and how that could be a deal breaker.

As for the “Kirk and Spock aged seventeen entering Starfleet Academy. Kirk falls in love for the only time in his life.”

We had people whining endlessly about Abrams making 90210 Trek with actors in their 30s. I wonder how a movie with 17 year olds would have been received. :P

5. mrweasley - October 28, 2010

He is so right! Especially the last part about “bang bang”!

6. mrweasley - October 28, 2010

He is so right! Especially the last part about “bang bang”! Watched the movie last night and it is not my StarTrek anymore. Just another summer-blockbuster.

7. Danya - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett sounds like the people in this video

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

8. Andy Patterson - October 28, 2010

You go Harve.

9. DaveK69 - October 28, 2010

Wouldn’t the year 2315 be after Picard was born?

Anyway, Harve I think that “Grand Canyon” you’re talking about was either a rock quarry or the setup for where the Enterprise was being built. Pretty sure it was the latter.

10. Cygnus-X1 - October 28, 2010

Iowa 2315?

Is that a misprint, or was it Harve’s mistake?

I’m assuming whoever made the mistake meant 2215.

11. Tim - October 28, 2010

Wow, what a bitter man. His comments about visual effects and “bang bang” ring particularly hollow considering that his greatest success (as a producer) was TWoK…which was by 1982 standards all VFX and action.

IIRC, he tried to sue Paramount several years ago over allegations of plagiarism when word leaked out that Abrams’ film would include elements of Starfleet Academy, so it’s not like he was ever going to view the film with anything other than disdain anyway. The mere fact that he continually refers to the obvious quarry as “the grand canyon in Iowa” should underscore this.

Really, he just comes off as a whiny fanboy hater.

12. Mattyb.uk - October 28, 2010

Well Harve you didnt get it made. ST09 brought the old girl back to life. The old style ST movies were fantastic stories but so boring to watch. I loved the camera work on ST09, just a little less flurish with the lens flares nxt time JJ and Mr Mindle

13. Shaun - October 28, 2010

“(Nicholas Meyer for Star Trek 2012!!)”

if j.j. cannot direct, i am all for it!

14. Kirk, James T. - October 28, 2010

I have to agree with Captain Hackett. Very bitter indeed.

For a guy who took Star Trek with Wrath of Khan and helped change it’s style and direction, I find his comments both bitter and slightly spiteful and not at all respectful – seems Harve has become a bitter old man.

Generally speaking I don’t understand why people have so much trouble grasping this new direction for Star Trek. Like TNG before it, Star Trek (2009) needed to radically change from the Star Trek as it had been for 18 years so that a new generation, the NEXT generation could get into it.

When I was a kid, I grew up with Picard, Riker and co, I had no interest with Kirk and Spock, the original series to me seemed dated and boring, as did the films. “MY” Star Trek was TNG – It’s only as a man have I gone back and appreciated the older TV series and movies. Harve Bennet should realise this, that Star Trek has always first and foremost been about inspiring young people and kids.

About His academy idea. It stinks to be honest, whilst conflict in Star Trek should happen (“you better mind your manners” “relax cup cake”), having cadets coming off as purely racist (“we don’t want no green-bloods in our academy”) Is a pathetic and ridiculous idea and isn’t the vision of a utopian society Roddenberry created for Humanity and Earth in the 23rd century other than that the idea is just dumb and sounds incredibly boring fanboy drivel.

@7 LOL definitely! Say’s it all about certain Trekkers/Trekkies

15. DeBeckster - October 28, 2010

Three words: Star Trek V. Need I say more?

16. Chingatchgook - October 28, 2010

After reading what Harve had to say, I think that saying ‘Harve Bennett Criticizes Star Trek 2009′ is a little inaccurate. He’s just saying that it isn’t the kind of movie that he would have made, that’s all. As for the overview of his concept, I’m sure it would have been entertaining. Plus it had an interesting message against racism. Sounds like it definitely would have followed in the tradition of Trek making statements on various social problems that afflict our society. Maybe it wouldn’t have been another Wrath of Khan, but it would have been entertaining.

17. AJCrane - October 28, 2010

Lens flare aren’t bad, for a certain type of movie. Watch a Hard Days Night and you will see what I mean. It’s raw and the lens flare work. I would have liked to see a little more Academy Days. It just wasn’t romping in the sheets or Kobamashi Maru trials. Special Effects are great, but ONLY if they move the story in a certain direction. That wasn’t the Grand Canyon in Iowa. I thought that the only way that scene worked with Kirk and his Uncle’s Car was that canyon was there because of the Eugenics Wars. That had to be some powerful weapon to leave a crater like that. The Eugenics Wars were mentioned in the original Trek when they met Kahn in the first place.

I am wondering what JJ Abrams is going to do next.

18. deeznuttts - October 28, 2010

THANKS Harve Bennett!!!!!!!!! I dont understand why people think this new movie is good. They took the star wars story, put it into the trek universe…then they took all the best elements from the other trek movie which “Harve Bennett” worked on… and just added it to that crapy movie….

You people here are the same kind that thinks transformers was a good movie…Harve Bennett is not bitter or sad…you guys are..That movie sucked!!!

19. Admiral_Bumblebee - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennetts Academy Years-movie would have been much more of a Star Trek-movie, dealing with problems like racism etc.
The movie we got last year was a good action-movie.
But reading what Academy Years would have been about makes me sad to realize that the new movie is not really that deep. It was a movie that floated on the ocean of Star Trek whereas the other TOS-movies dove really deep into it.
Star Trek should never have been about explosions, plantes blowing up and space battles and special effect…

I think it is sad to see that nowadays action and explosions are much more interesing than a deep philosophical sci-fi-storyline that deals with real problems.

20. Damian - October 28, 2010

There are a few things I agree with Bennett on, but not his overall opinion of Star Trek (2009). I thought the story and the actors were good. I was not as happy with set design being inconsistent with prior Star Trek and the special effects were taken right out of Star Wars. I agree with Harve that todays filmaking (not just JJ Abrams) involves making films look like they were filmed by a news photojournalist on the run. I much prefer steady cameras myself.

He sounds bitter to me too about his academy idea. I was never a fan of it, even when I first heard of it. I am not any more turned on by it after reading his synopsis. Starfleet being a human only club in the 23rd century makes no sense. Even by the time of Star Trek V, it was well known that the Federation had several founding members. There would had to have been other aliens in Starfleet by the time Kirk entered the Academy. Racism in humanity in the 23rd century would have flown in the face of what Roddenberry envisioned. His years are also off. 2215 (assuming 2315 was a misprint) would have been too early for Kirk to be in the Academy (even discounting Kirks birthdate in the new movie). Finally, I think it was generally assumed the Kirk and Spock did not meet until Kirk took command of the Enterprise.

My thanks to Harve Bennett for a number of excellent Star Trek movies, but I’m sorry, your Academy idea seemed flawed from the get go.

15–I don’t know how much of an active role he took in Star Trek V. He was ready to leave after IV and Shatner talked him into staying on. I think a lot of the flaws with Star Trek V lies at Paramount’s feet. Shatner wanted to make a straightforward film, but with the success of TVH, Paramount insisted humor.

21. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - October 28, 2010

As a Hard Core Trek fan and and as much as I respect Harve Bennet I completly disagree with him. I though Trek 09 was fantastic. it was not just about FX. It had a great comming together story that was well told. Maybe a couple of things could have been changed but all in all it was a great movie and I have seen it at the theather 10 times and I lost count how many times on Bluray. Harve you have a lot of respect but even you made some mistakes. Like you did with the Shat on Trek 5. But even to me a hard core fan I found some great things about Trek 5. Even though it is the worst of the 11 Movies.

22. Remington Steele - October 28, 2010

Lads, the man is entitled to his opinion.

Whether or not we agree, its still his opinion and he in entitled to it.

I, for one, am not a big fan of the new movie, I think it has glaring and unbelievable problems, but I wont hate someone for liking it.

Without Harve Bennett, there wouldnt be the Star Trek we have today…so if he wants to vent, so be it!

Good on Ya Harve.

23. Frederick - October 28, 2010

We really dodged a bullet on that one. Most of his arguments about the film only show his age and inability to understand what was happening (admittedly, pretty fast) on the screen. It was a quarry, Harve.

Funny, just the other day I had just posted an article on my blog where Walter Koenig spilled the beans about the Starfleet Academy plans to the public… synchronicity!

http://mystartrekscrapbook.blogspot.com/2010/10/starfleet-acedemy-article.html

24. gingerly - October 28, 2010

Though the film Harve would have made might have had an intriguing concept, the film ultimately made, was far braver.

…And all the more a remarkable success for having been so.

25. Stan Winstone - October 28, 2010

Harve was treated incredibly rudely by Paramount if you read Nick Meyer’s book. They basically strung him along for a year developing Starfleet Academy then said screw it we’re doing another original cast movie instead. And then he quit in a huff.

That said, it’s obvious Harve never let that go and is somehow convinced the JJ Abrams movie has something to do with him. Well sorry Harve, but you didn’t invent the concept of Star Trek and you didn’t invent the concept of prequels. So any ownership you feel now is about you and not about reality.

26. Harry - October 28, 2010

I don’t see how ST09 is any more of a Star Wars meets Star Trek than Nemesis is. Or DS9.

27. N - October 28, 2010

I”M GLAD Bennett didn’t get his idea to film. I didn’t like what I knew about it then & I dislike it even more now. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I never even like alot of what he did with TOS movies. Those changes to the brown unforms were the first mistake he ok’d.

28. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - October 28, 2010

Wait a sec – Bennett was asked his opinion, and simply says he had a differing vision, disagreeing with the kind of Trek movie that Abrams made.

And that makes him a “bitter man?” Good grief, you people are harsh.

If you don’t think there’s at least a ring of truth to what he says, you’re fooling yourselves.

Heck, I liked Abrams’ Trek as much as anyone, but I still find the destruction of Vulcan as arbitrary and gratuitous.

Do I think his Academy script would have worked? Frankly, no; consider how the canonistas tore apart Abrams’ trek; think how they would have shredded the notion that Spock and Kirk were similarly aged at the Academy.

Bennett figured out how to make Trek viable and workable after the TMP disaster nearly put the franchise to bed forever. We might want to give the guy a break.

29. Dac - October 28, 2010

WTF is with all this Harve Bennet hate? He was quite critical of the film and didnt slag it off in the slightest.

He’s an old man, and JJ’s film was not designed for an audience of his age. I think he accepts that, and is simply stating its not what HE would have done, he isnt saying it SHOULD have been like this or that.

Besides, there are more than passing similarities between his idea and JJ’s. Im not saying JJ and the supreme court copied him, far from it – but they are very similar ideas, and one who was unceremoniously booted from the franchise like he was is being far more gracious than I would be if I were in his position. Well done to the man.

30. trekprincess - October 28, 2010

Well it’s his loss if he didn’t like Trek 09

31. Patrice - October 28, 2010

Harve sounds like so many of the other traditionalists who cant seem to grasp the idea that Trek had and needed to change in order to connect with the next generation of new fans. The traditional ways were good, but like all things in time, they must change. Trek was old and dying plain and simple. The Trek franchise had two options, retire or change to appeal to a younger and tek savy audience.

I am not saying that we had to completely do away with old trek and its traditions, but old trek had and has to compromise a little to allow the younger audience the opportunity to become interested in trek. Now, thanks to JJ and his team, there is a new generation of individuals who are so interested in Trek that they are even going back and viewing the previous movies and shows. Trek Will Live On.

I praise JJ and his team for the new vision and direction and I will be in line for my ticket when the next feature comes out.

32. Mike Stivic - October 28, 2010

Why do people say that TMP “nearly put the franchise to bed”? It made a lot of money. Why not do another more in line with TMP instead of going all militaristic in TWOK?

33. trekprincess - October 28, 2010

So will I be in line for the next film :)

34. Andrew - October 28, 2010

Not sure I like Harve’s idea, but I am with #6. I enjoyed the JJ Version of Star Trek but to me it wasn’t Star Trek. It was just a good science fiction movie. I miss the Horatio Hornblower nautical elements of the original shows and movies. But we are in a new generation of fans and this is what they want. As long as it helps keep Star Trek alive I am for it, even if it is not my Star Trek.

35. Denny - October 28, 2010

meassage for Harve – take your SFA script over to IDW and lets have a comic adapation…

id buy it

36. Andrew - October 28, 2010

#32 I agree with you! I actually liked TMP.

37. Crispy - October 28, 2010

If you’re reading this Harve: thanks for the awesome II, III and IV Star Trek FIlms! You don’t sound bitter all, don’t worry what people say here. I agree with you JJTrek wasn’t too hot, but what do you know right? At least you never where called the ”Supreme Court of Star Trek”, jeez, what egos these guys have.

38. captain_neill - October 28, 2010

Why is it anyone who says they did not like the new movie is called bitter but yet its ok to have people criticised the other stuff.

Its called an opinion and it seems you are bitter if you don’t like Abrams movie on this site.

39. Crispy - October 28, 2010

#36 Well I don’t, TMP was trash. NImoy was right when he called a beached whale.

40. Cap'n Calhoun - October 28, 2010

I’m just assuming the Xindi came back and whacked Iowa.

41. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - October 28, 2010

@36 – I liked TMP as well, but it was a commercial and critical failure despite what it generated at the box office. It had something on the order of a $50M budget *in 1978 dollars*. Paramount was ready to consider it “one-and-done” until they brought in Bennet et al to give it “one last shot,” and that was TWOK. Bennet brought in Nicholas Meyer to direct, and the rest as they say is history.

Ironically, Bennett could be thought of as the Abrams of 1982, who took Trek from the cerebral TMP to the comparatively action-packed, battle-filled TWOK…

Still amazed at the myopia here that accuses Bennett of being a “hater” just because he didn’t share the mainstream opinion of Abrams’ Trek. That, to borrow a phrase, isn’t logical….

42. Jeyl - October 28, 2010

“ST09 brought the old girl back to life.”

With genocide, bickering and no realistic character interactions or relationships!

“The old style ST movies were fantastic stories but so boring to watch.”

So skip Star Trek: The Motion Picture and have a blast.

“I loved the camera work on ST09″

Yes, that’s why Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer failed as directors, because they didn’t constantly bang on the camera to make everything look shaky. Everything looks better when you can’t focus on anything.

And let’s not forget that Harve was the guy who brought Star Trek (not a Star Trek) back into the mainstream without turning it into something that even remotely resembled Star Wars. Star Trek II, for all it’s awesomeness, didn’t have that many action sequences or dialogue devoted to character nods that Trek 09 suckered to like crazy. Bones didn’t say “I’m a doctor, not a ___”, Scotty didn’t say “I’m giving it all she’s got Captain!”, Bones wasn’t always shouting and arguing, and Kirk wasn’t flirting around. The characters acted like responsible adults who, even at their age could still go through a change in character, not rank. Kirk in Trek 09 didn’t have any of that. He started as an a&$hole, and he stayed an a#%hole.

Oh, and if you want to bring up Star Trek V, I’ll bring up Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. At least Harve was man enough to say that it had problems both in the story and production department. You try getting Bob and Alex to say anything besides their self-congratulatory comments.

43. Jim Nightshade - October 28, 2010

AWW CMON Harve and harve Sympathizers……sheesh….Starfleet Academy racially pure as a plot device???? With Racial conflict???
This is the FUTURE so why does that sound like the past? Did Starfleet move from Liberal SAN FRAN to the deep south or something??? Who was Governer?? Maybe a future relative of Wallace?

Talk about a dumb idea…get the pitchforks and KKK Costumes we got a green blood to lynch boys! And Starfleet academys dean is ADOLF HITLER! WOW what a story…NOT

The first five minutes of the new Trek movie has a better plot than Harves whole story….

And I agree someone else already mentioned Trek should appeal to the young of whatever generation its in….JJ and Roberto et al had to update and change Treks surface to make it glossier less plodding and more relevant to todays audiences and they did a great job….

No movie is perfect, trek 09 isnt either but it did what it needed to and was a great start for Trek yet again….proving the old gal still has life in it….And without Trek there would have been no Star Wars….so I think its ok to borrow some elements for todays audiences—and Trek 09 paid great homage to what has gone before with much love and affection….

I Trekprincess will also be standing in line for the next film…Thanks to JJ, and all involved for making Trek relevant again….Harves story sadly would not have done that….it might have set us back about 200 years though haha…

44. Alec - October 28, 2010

I must disagree with Harve. Star Trek 2009 succeeds in its key aims: it introduces and reintroduces Star Trek for the 21st Century. It’s fun, exciting, sometimes funny, and takes you through the full spectrum of emotions. In many ways, it’s the best Star Trek film. However, overall, I rank it 4th behind TWOK, TVH, and TUC. The reason why I rank it 4th is that its story is its Achilles’ heel.

TWOK has a great story – deriving its structure, and even quoting and paraphrasing, from literary masterpieces such as Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and A Tale of Two Cities – with timeless themes such as age, purpose and meaning, life, death, friendship, revenge, and sacrifice. I can’t see this one ever being topped. TVH is a genuinely funny story with a good moral message and, remarkably, without a single bad guy or space battle. TUC is about the braking down of barriers, echoing the real life events of the Berlin Wall, and overcoming long standing prejudices; there’s also a good mystery sub-plot. All three of these films, but especially TWOK and TUC, have lots of action, great acting, and fantastic music.

Star Trek 2009, in contrast, had a pretty weak story overall. Instead of deriving its structure from literary masterpieces, it derives it from films such as Galaxy quest (the greatest influence?) and Star Wars. Of course, there were a great many Trek references, which I appreciated. Unfortunately, though, Nero was a rehashed, shallow villain. And there was an overreliance on bizarre coincidences and inexplicable instant promotions driving the story forward. Moreover, the music was average at best. The main theme was powerful and enjoyable in itself. However, it played far, far too often; and the music failed to tell the whole story of the film. In TWOK, every frame, every set-piece, is lived in its music. In Star Trek 2009, though, there are about four themes, at most; and they play over, and over, again. I only felt that the music fitted just right at a few key moments. Regrettably, the composer has said that he’s not going to incorporate more classic Trek music. A great shame, since the previous composers were brilliant, even if their source material, i.e., the films, was often not.

We mustn’t judge Trek 2009 too harshly, though: it was their first film; it was an origin story, anyway. The next one can break free of the restrictive origin story mould and open up the characters more. We need to explore Kirk’s being through his two halves: his emotional side, McCoy; his logical side, Spock. We need these two halves to be in conflict in the one, Kirk; and in the many, McCoy and Spock. Indeed, the Spock-McCoy banter is one of the highlights of Trek. We need a more intelligent story, dealing with some great themes of the human condition: in the spirit of classic and best Trek. A moral allegory has been rumoured. Now, I think that the Talosians would allow such a story to be created. Also, questions of dream, reality, illusion, and misdirection could be very interesting – as they were in the TOS episodes. I do worry, though, that there might not be enough action, there, for a two and a half hour film…

45. Jeyl - October 28, 2010

@41: “Ironically, Bennett could be thought of as the Abrams of 1982, who took Trek from the cerebral TMP to the comparatively action-packed, battle-filled TWOK…”

action-packed, battle-filed TWOK? Are you serious? There are only two action sequences in that whole entire movie and they only accumulate about 15 minutes out of the 116 minutes running time. TWOK is NOT action packed!

46. TrekkieJan - October 28, 2010

I hate sounding like a broken record, but I loved Herve Bennet’s Trek movies, for the most part, and to me the nuTrek is neither Trek nor good SF. It was speeded up and dumbed down and the destruction of Vulcan was as gratuitous as it was ridiculous (and a total rip of Star Wars, which was always another kind of story altogether than Trek in the good old days when movies tried to be original.) Kirk being made into a bonehead jock and Spock into an emotional mess and Uhura being demoted to love interest just threw who these characters were under the bus in my opinion too. Am I happy this movie breathed new life into the franchise and gained new fans? I don’t know. I would certainly have preferred to do that with a better movie.

47. Jim Nightshade - October 28, 2010

Also not saying Xenophobia wouldnt have been relevant at some time like Archers time for instance….before the academy and all that it did make sense for some to fear aliens and the rapid changes once Warp Drive brought other worlds to earth….but by Starfleet academy days one would think they would be more accepting of the new world view—and nowhere would that view be more accepting than at Starfleet Academy whose very existance relies on space travel, interactions with other worlds and assisting/learning from these other worlds….those entering Starfleet Academy would not be of the Xenophobe variety….quite the opposite….they would be MOST accepting of a new race…..why else would they be there?

48. Hugh Hoyland - October 28, 2010

#44 Alec This is a point some fans make about Star Trek 09 and one I simply cant agree with “It has a weak plot”. I and quite a few others have pointed out the Theme (and “sub-Themes”) in this movie that are quite strong IMO. The big one obviously being the main one, Two people, opposites in many ways, starting off as enemies, coming together to fight a major threat, and in doing so begin a strong friendship that will last a lifetime. To me, thats pretty potent suff, human relations, its actually dynamite and it this film had it big time.

It seems people think fast paced/action packed = No Plot or weak themed, And sloooow paced/little action = Strong Plot and Big Theme. Its not true IMO, Star Trek had a very solid plot, and themes in the finest tradition of TOS/TNG.

49. Jeffery Wright - October 28, 2010

Bennet is right about the radical timeline change in the 2009 movie.

Completely unnecessary for a good story. The origin could easily have been a trilogy:

1. Academy story (Kirk’s youth) / Pike crew adventure (the Cage)
2. Farragut adventure.
3. Kirk’s Enterprise story

No derived timeline change, plenty of adventure and character development, no need to rape canon.

The 2009 movie is just a well funded fan film. A good one, but deranged.

50. Hugh Hoyland - October 28, 2010

And although I like every TOS movie, including 5, I found the much beloved Star Trek TUC at times to be a little obvious, with a lot of “nudges” to let you know theres a conspiracy going on, and who’s in it. Its not my favorite by far, but see, thats just my personal tast, I still like it, but I dont think its the greatest thing since sliced bread either.

51. Hugh Hoyland - October 28, 2010

And for the last time, and I think Bob Orci has mentioned it as well, Star Wars ripped off Star Trek, which came before Star Wars! :]

52. Jim Nightshade - October 28, 2010

The 50 million budget for Star Trek The motion picture remember, also had folded into it all the costs of all the attempts to turn trek into first a tv series and a new network then a movie….also much of the cost was because of the special effects not being done well enuf or fast enuf to meet the movie deadline….soooo ALL PARAMOUNT screwups were thrown into the cost….IT STILL MADE MONEY…..even after the other lost money and hiring just about every effex company in existance to get the effex done by opening day….even with all this it was a very successful movie….so of course Paramount was going to make another one…..True TMP was far from perfect but I get tired of hearing how bad and unsuccessful it was and how it nearly killed Trek..BULL…..quite the opposite….and even now it is still one of the best looking Treks…the only Trek movie up there with JJS Trek as a visual Epic Motion Picture….and like JJS movie it had to bring the crew together again and reintroduce them and also be epic and Cosmic….Tall order for any movie….all that and it was still a hit….

53. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - October 28, 2010

@45 – Did you read my entire post? Did you see the word “comparatively?”

TWOK *compared to TMP* was action-packed. TWOK was TMP-paced *compared to ST09*. I was using the extremes to make a point – that Bennett commercialized Trek to the audience of the 80’s just as Abrams commercialized it for the audience of the 2000’s.

Just think, were it not for Bennett, Rick Berman would never have had the chance to turn the Enterprise into the Flying Marriott in TNG…. (grin).

54. Ran - October 28, 2010

I understand where is he coming from. The new Trek was made by young people for even younger generation. These days you blow 150 million on visual effects and non on the script.
This is what people like and this is what they got.

55. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - October 28, 2010

@52…I’m completely familiar with the Paramount nightmares, the botched 4th TV network, the botched Trek II TV series. Right or wrong, those expenses were rolled into TMP’s budget.

Beyond that, if TMP was as successful on its own merits as you claim, why didn’t they make another one just like it? Why dare to depart from this incredibly successful formula, changing producer(s), director, story pacing, even the division responsible for releasing it, if it was this halcyon of success?

The point is that, as much as you and I might like it, TMP (and I do), and despite the approximately $140M worldwide take, it fell miserably short of expectations. It took strong-arming and convincing to even persuade Paramount to make a bare-bones sequel that became TWOK.

56. Damian - October 28, 2010

Bennett is entitled to his opinion of Star Trek (2009). I give him kudos for not simply giving platitudes like so many others involved in Trek past do. I agree with some of his observations, not others. That does not make him bitter. Just his opinion.

The part that sounds bitter is the rejection of his Academy script. He still seems upset about that. To be honest, I doubt I would have liked it. Kirk and Spock together at the Academy, racism–which was supposedly eliminated by then.

But he still put together a string of good movies. The Trilogy of II to IV. I even liked V, though it did have flaws. Star Trek V did have good character moments, for example.

Oh, I loved Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so take that.
52–I agree, It did well enough for Paramount to want a sequel, admittedly with changes (such as forcing Roddenberry into a consultant role). Star Trek V almost killed the movies, if any. Paramount only agreed to do VI because of the 25 year anniversary, and they wanted budget cuts.

57. Mattyb.uk - October 28, 2010

@ 42. Sorry if you didn’t like the camera work. But i really do like the JJ and the whole Michael Bay type of shooting a film. Looks very fresh

58. jas_montreal - October 28, 2010

I have an admiration for Harve’s criticism. I definitely have to agree with him on most of his points. But once again , you never get what you want.

59. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

The reason people say TMP nearly killed Trek is because it nearly did- or at least that’s how I remember it. It was shredded by the critics and the general public alike. It did make money but at the time it was considered the
most expensive movie ever made with its state-of-the-art effects. Paramount green-lighted a second movie only after some pause and ensuring a new direction and look for the franchise. In hindsight it’s not such a bad flick and I wax nostalgic for it now.

34 Andrew- “I miss the Horatio Hornblower nautical elements of the original shows and movies. But we are in a new generation of fans.”
– I miss it too. And you’re right, Star Trek has always represented the era it was created.

60. Denny - October 28, 2010

I can see the title now.

“Saved by the Bell: the Next Generation. Directed by a guy who can’t tell the difference between a manmade quarry and the Grand Canyon.”

61. El Chup - October 28, 2010

Starfleet Academy was always a bad idea, and it was, ultimately the worst plot point of ST09. For me, Kirk making Captain in a few weeks is just as stupid as his STVI idea.

He is also absolutely spot on about “bang,bang” culture. Its so sad now that even in Star Trek, everything has to be dumbed down ans shallow in favour of sex and shooting. Its certainly not what Roddenberry wanted. I enjoyed ST09, but it wasn’t “my” Star Trek. That Star Trek died with the end of DS9, as arguably that is the last time Star Trek treated it’s audience with intellectual respect. Sure, the new movie has made loads of money, but it won’t have the longevity that something like TWOK has. TWOK relies on its story to stay appealing after nearly 30 years. It’s a bit like superhero movies in a way. Superman the Movie remains the tentpole superhero movie after 32 years and the reason is that is, is because it is a well written, directed and acted movie….not just a special effects show. Most modern superhero movies, with certain exceptions, just haven’t had the same impact because the assumption is that the audience been “kewl exccplosions”. I think that is incredibly, incredibly sad and I think the test of time will expose ST09 as having sloppy and forgettable writing and generally having very little uniqueness. I think the only part of ST09 that is truly memorable and deserves to stand the test of time is the open USS Kelvin scene, which I do think is good quality filmaking.

That said, I cannot agree with the rest of his complaints and there are certainly sour grapes there.

62. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

Thanks Harve. You are not alone.

63. Chadwick - October 28, 2010

Hell Bennett was an old man when he was producing those Trek’s which is why they are considered dry by todays standards. Bennett’s last Trek film was Star Trek V, oh yea Bennett that was your crowing achievement, that is how you left the Star Trek legacy boring and distasteful? If anything Star Trek V was NOT Trek, JJ’s trek was more trek then The Final Frontier.

54 Ran, its a bit more than that.

64. Anthony Thompson - October 28, 2010

Bennett made four Star Trek TV movies. And his proposed fifth one sounds even worse than I had imagined it would be. He was never a major motion picture producer. He was a guy without any vision who produced mediocre projects not fit for a silver screen. And he has the right to critisize JJ?

65. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

“Its so sad now that even in Star Trek, everything has to be dumbed down ans shallow in favour of sex and shooting. Its certainly not what Roddenberry wanted.”

Did you watch TOS?

66. Joben - October 28, 2010

The Academy Years idea sounds HORRIBLE. ugh..

67. CAPT KRUNCH - October 28, 2010

Does sound a little bitter…He shouldn’t be….TWOK is the best on the TREK movies….Though TREK5 was the worst!!!…
I don’t understand his complaints about bang bang for the younger generation. compared to STMP….TWOK had lot’s of bang bang. I’m 44 and have grown up with TREK my entire life… As much as I love SHAT, Nimoy and the others, it was time for some fresh air… as awesome as TREK was…it was just so damn slow sometimes!…
As for his storyline….racial tension in the 23rd century?!…
We saw it in the late 22nd century episode of Enterprise…didn’t like that either..totally went against everything Roddenberry stood for!…reality or not…

68. Damian - October 28, 2010

64–Mediocre Projects? Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which he helped write. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. These are movies produced, yes PRODUCED by a guy with no vision. 3 of his 4 movies were bona fide hits. Many think Star Trek II is the best Star Trek movie ever made. Even Bob Orci and JJ Abrams site Star Trek II as their favorite film. A film made and partially written by a guy with no vision. Really?

69. Polly - October 28, 2010

“Harve Bennett criticizes Star Trek 2009″…..hmmm I was expecting an intelligent criticism not a bitter rant but ok whatever.

As for that Starfleet Academy thing, come on Harve, racism? Seriously? I thought Gene Roddenberry meant for Trek to be way, way past all that crap….

As for the movie, it was a bit “bang bang” but you have to admit, Harve, it was a bit fun…..lots of fun :)

70. Kirk, James T. - October 28, 2010

@18, all I hear is fanboy noise…

the figures speak for themselves:

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

Lets face it. The direction Star Trek was headed in the late 90’s wasn’t a direction that foresaw a bright future. With every series, every episode, Star Trek became more and more convoluted and generic. Rather than each series being relevant to the ‘next generation’, Star Trek stagnated falling deeper and deeper into hard-core nerd aka Trekker obscurity. No one outside the shrinking fan base had any time for Star Trek – they had either felt it had been nothing more than a cheesy 60’s and 80’s TV series with a few low budget movies or simply didn’t care about it, calling it laughable and totally unrealistic.

What JJ Abrams has managed to do, and I think this is something you guys need to accept, is he has managed to totally bring Star Trek into the public eye again and has made it relevant to a whole new generation. Something essential to Star Trek’s longevity is that it once in a while reinvents itself – this is what we have here and I for one applaud the efforts gone to to respect the established fan base but to also make Trek inviting to new fans by starting again.

It’s each to their own, you either like something or you don’t but I think it is an absolute disgrace how some of you piss all over what has essentially had to happen to Star Trek – many of you simply will not be happy whatever happens and that is the truly sad thing, for someone claiming to be a Star Trek fan no less, a franchise that prides itself in being optimistic, it’s down right pathetic.

NO, this movie did not suck sir and we are not sad. We’ve embraced the change, we have understood that after 18 years, Star Trek needed this change, this injection of new blood with a new vision and a new direction was essential for it to do what it set out to do in the first place back in 1966; to engage the younger generation, a new generation, (the young girls and boys that will be left this planet when we’re gone) in relevant social topics, to comment on the real world and to showcase a human race, where in the end, through wars, disease, famine, poverty and all the bad that happens in this world, was essentially good and decent. If you or any of the other “loyal” fanboys don’t get that then perhaps you need to really think about what it is Star Trek stands for and who it stands for.

Jeez, people like that really piss me off. I know i’ve said this and I truly believe it but when all is said and done, what Star Trek comes down to is entertainment. It has always been entertainment, that was the purpose of TV and cinema in the 60’s and it’s the purpose of TV and cinema in the 21’s century. Whatever we take from these adventures onboard the USS Enterprise, is purely personal – other than that, Star Trek is just meant to be popular entertainment – It lost it’s way and now with Abrams, the fire has been re-ignited.

71. NuFan - October 28, 2010

No 17 year olds. Thank God he left. And racism going strong 300 years from now is utterly ridiculous.

72. Jefferies Tuber - October 28, 2010

Kind of ridiculous and sad. I wish he hadn’t spoken up.

It’s clearly a quarry. The Grand Canyon does not have sheer machine-made cliff walls. If you read the book that kinda inspired ST09, they make an interesting case that Dilithium Crystals are actually just simple quartz crystals. The same things that are lying around psychic bookshops. Iowa is a big source of Quartz, so it gives Kirk’s family a little context. The quarry in Iowa is actually a brilliant stroke.

The production design choice to use an old university campus is… fair and legitimate, but it also defies both precedent and the reality of the city of San Francisco. We’re given to understand a modern minimalist aesthetic in Starfleet Command… and they don’t build brick and masonry buildings in California because of Earthquakes. Nor is any part of the Bay Area leafy and green like the Shenandoah Valley. I’m sure their choice had nothing, Nothing! to do with cutting costs. Because that never happened under Harve.

Changing the crew’s fate to test Kirk’s heroic destiny and reset the drama is a whole lot more interesting that portraying humans as racist against Vulcans. A big yawn on that front.

73. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

“And racism going strong 300 years from now is utterly ridiculous.”

Why don’t you go back and actually WATCH TOS..

or how about a little memory alpha:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Racism

“During this century, as a result of his mixed Human/Vulcan heritage, Spock was the subject of constant discrimination, teasing and ostracision during his youth by his full-Vulcan classmates, which apparently at least once descended into actual physical abuse, this could have been seen as racism. (TOS: “Journey to Babel”; TAS: “Yesteryear”) This continued while Spock served on the USS Enterprise, where Dr. Leonard McCoy referred to him, as, among other things: “pointed eared”, “green blooded”, and a “hobgoblin.” This was done more due to McCoy’s frustrations with Spock himself than any real dislike of the Vulcan people, and sometimes even as friendly jibes or even nicknames. While Spock generally appeared to allow the insults to roll off his back, one time Spock temporarily lost his emotional control and reacted with anger to McCoy’s insults, to the point of lifting McCoy up against the wall by his throat. (TOS: “All Our Yesterdays”)”

74. El Chup - October 28, 2010

71# Why is it ridiculous? Racial and religious bigotry was going strong 300 years ago and its still going strong today. Why not in 300 years time? What is your rpoof that it will be gone?

Also, Ster Trek has done bigotry before….in its very first season. Ever seen Balance of Terror?

75. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2010

Harve doesn’t sound bitter to me. He just sounds like he has a difference of opinion. None of you are Trekkers for calling him bitter. Trekkers are open-minded and accept all differences of opinions.

76. Anthony Thompson - October 28, 2010

68.

I stand by what I wrote. ST2 was mostly well-written (by nick meyer, not bennett), but the ‘production’ of it was not up to par. Start with borrowed effects from TMP. Add truly awful sets / effects inside the Genesis planet. The casting of the guest roles was mostly awful: David; the captain of the Reliant, etc. Khan and his srew were outfitted to look like a heavy metal band. And the new Enterprise uniforms looked like bellboy suits. Bennet had very little to do with the writing, but a lot to do with everything mentioned above. It was mediocre.

I am not a fan of IV. At all.

77. Jeyl - October 28, 2010

@70: “I think it is an absolute disgrace how some of you piss all over what has essentially had to happen to Star Trek. Jeez, people like that really piss me off.”

Well, with comments like that, how can you not like a film that features characters who like to bicker, argue and use language like you do? I’m glad that I can go back and watch the other Star Treks while you stick around in this new sexist Star Trek universe. Enjoy.

78. Anthony Thompson - October 28, 2010

75.

Except that he went out of his way to critisize 09. No one had asked him so he brought it up himself. That’s where the ‘bitter’ part comes from.

79. Jefferies Tuber - October 28, 2010

ensign Joe: I think Human racism toward Vulcans has always been presented as reactive rather than proactive. Humans resent Vulcan superiority and their projection of superiority. It’s a metaphor for colonized nations. They played that relatively well in ENT.

Another thing: STVI was a pretty damn good movie all things considered. It’s fun to watch with great actors chewing the scenery. Considering the actors were older than Methuselah, the plot and reconciliation themes were pretty awesome.

Ye who produces STV should not throw stones.

80. El Chup - October 28, 2010

76,

what are you a fan of then?

81. Gary - October 28, 2010

Fans, at the time, wanted William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, et. al. not other actors in the iconic roles.

Even today, that’s what the fans want. If you could re-animate the corpses of DeForest Kelly and James Doohan (no disrespect intended) and get the other living actors to do another Star Trek movie, would you go see it? I would.

The latest Star Trek movie was loud and pointlessly frenetic. And don’t get me started on the lens flare nonsense.

82. Jefferies Tuber - October 28, 2010

Anthony Thompson: I’m glad you said it. TWOK is Holy in my household, but the production is embarrassing at times. Just goes to show: writers and actors make great science fiction, not effects guys.

83. Boborci - October 28, 2010

We had racism in “Star Trek.” Vulcans did not accept Spock’s human side. Guess it went by too fast?

84. Anthony Thompson - October 28, 2010

80.

TOS. STVI (the theatrical version), First Contact and ST09.

85. Denny - October 28, 2010

There is a difference between “respecting the audience’s intellect” and vacuous navel contemplaion. 90s Trek lapsed further and further into the latter. What must Data do in order to become a real boy? Are the “villains” in Insurrection really evil, or do they just want their mommies and to talk about their feelings?

ST has always been intellectual to an extent, but classic Trek ALWAYS relied on action, suspense, and yes, violence to draw you in.

86. Jeyl - October 28, 2010

@74: “Also, Ster Trek has done bigotry before….in its very first season. Ever seen Balance of Terror?”

Why, yes of course I have seen Balance of Terror. In fact, when Stiles says something that’s demeaning towards Spock, Kirk literally confronts him face to face saying “Well, here’s one thing you can be sure of mister. Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge. Do I make myself clear?”

And how does Trek 09’s Kirk feel about officers who act like this?
“Who was that pointy eared bastard?”
“You feel nothing!”
“You never loved her!”
*assaults on-duty officers on the bridge*

And does our hero show any signs of regret, understanding or even remotely delve on the fact that those were kind of harsh things to say and do? lol, of course not. Trek09 is a love letter to Kirk. He never says thanks, never apologizes and should always get his way simply because his name is Kirk.

87. trekprincess - October 28, 2010

70, well said:)

88. Captain Joe - October 28, 2010

While I disagree with what Harve said, I do to a point agree with his sentiments. Star Trek (2009) was a flawed movie with a weak and almost wonky plot. However the character development was what made the movie good and when you consider that the movie was a prequel, a sequel, and a reboot within canon, the Supreme Court did about the best anyone would be able to do.

As far as Starfleet Academy goes, I think it would have made a good movie. When it was first developed, there had been no prequel like Enterprise or glimpse into the history of interstellar travel like Star Trek: First Contact so there was very little canon to interfere with or contradict. Gene Roddenberry probably wouldn’t have liked the film, but fans very well may have especially if both it and Undiscovered Country were released within say a year of each other. The main fan beef would have been that the original crew didn’t have a proper sendoff. That’s not to say that there aren’t other things fans wouldn’t like, but honestly I think with everything said and done it would have been a moderate success pulling in Search for Spock box office numbers.

Actually, I would love to see Starfleet Academy made. Of course, the racism would have to be toned down and this “other” Enterprise would have to be explained and a few other minor things would have to be changed so it wouldn’t seem like a rehash, but with these changes SA could easily fit into canon and continuity. I mean, the “other” Enterprise could be the museum ship Enterprise NX-01 or perhaps a totally new Enterprise that was in some other military service than Starfleet because 84 years (from 2161 when Enterprise NX-01 was mothballed to 2245 when USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was launched) is a very big gap between Enterprises.

89. thebiggfrogg - October 28, 2010

19. You said it Admiral Bumblebee. I enjoyed Trek 09, mostly the origins stuff. The ‘A’ story was a bit of a lame retread. I hope the next Trek gives us something more for our brains to “chew on”. To spite the old NBC bring the cerebral back to Trek.

90. Damian - October 28, 2010

I think people are getting confused by the bigot term. Roddenberry had always portrayed humanity as having moved beyond bigotry. That does not apply to other species. In certain ways Star Trek funnelled the concept of racism through other races (such as Vulcans noted by Bob Orci, the Romulans, Cardassians, the Founders all had superiority complexes). The idea was always that human civilization had evolved. I think the problem with Bennett’s plan was that there was going to be large scale bigotry by human Starfleet cadets against Spock simple because he was Vulcan. Perhaps low level suspicion and hostility, but outright bigotry by human Starfleet cadets? That people would have had a problem with.

91. Mattyb.uk - October 28, 2010

@ 83. Maybe it was all to bang bang for him. The pacing was fast and fantastic but maybe to much 4 sum

92. C.S. Lewis - October 28, 2010

Washington & Lee, VMI, Shenandoah Vally, Blue Ridge Mountains … home to my beloved Sigma Nu and many honorable men and institutions. A splendid home for Star Fleet academy, certainly well known to Navy men of all generations from not so far Annapolis and Norfolk. The sense of history and destiny is palpable in the air of Lexington. The stories of the heroism of her sons in the War for Independence and the War Between the States makes the “blood run swiftly” to borrow a phrase.

If only… if only…

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

93. Jeyl - October 28, 2010

@83: We had racism in “Star Trek.” Vulcans did not accept Spock’s human side. Guess it went by too fast?

Well, since that was the ONLY thing you had that involved Vulcan society, it really didn’t help make us feel anything for their deaths when Vulcan was destroyed. Just because they’re logical doesn’t make all of them racist a–holes.

94. Damian - October 28, 2010

76–Nicholas Meyer was responsible for a lot of that too. He wanted different uniforms that were more naval in nature than those used in TMP. They were limited in set design because the starship sets were already there. Meyer was not a big fan of them but he had to use them. A lot of what you saw was what Meyer wanted. Bennett’s job was to make it happen.

Look, I agree, Bennett seems bitter about his Academy script. But the guy is allowed not to like the new movie. Just like it’s fine you don’t like Star Trek II, III or IV. I would say, you are in the minority on that. Many involved with Star Trek (2009) cite II as their favorite Star Trek film and openly note they were influenced by Star Trek II.

Oh, what’s was wrong with Captain Terrell?

95. Boborci - October 28, 2010

93. So you’re no problem with Vulcan being destroyed?

96. Boborci - October 28, 2010

You’ve got

97. CmdrR - October 28, 2010

IDIC.

But, wow. Hope he likes other things in his life.

98. CmdrR - October 28, 2010

ST:JJ aims for the heart and nerve endings, not the brain.
You are talking about the whole Hollywood system here. It’s no shock. Some day, if only in lightly-read books, ST will once again have an intellectual and societal component.

99. Phil - October 28, 2010

Hey, Harve, if you are going to go on record by hinting around that people might have ripped your script, get a lawyer. Otherwise you are coming across as another bitter “hanger on” type trying to claim a little share of the credit for someone elses success. If you didn’t like it, fine, but to sit there and point out all the similarities to your script, which of course would have been wonderful, is more then a bit disingeneous…

100. Boborci - October 28, 2010

98. Or more obvious ones that require much less while watching.

101. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - October 28, 2010

Well, I’m not 93, but just for my own sake, I didn’t like Vulcan being destroyed. I liked ST09 very much, and have no interest in nitpicking it to death, but if there were one thing I’d change in it, I wouldn’t have destroyed Vulcan. Doing so wiped out a very rich fabric on which a great many Trek stories and background have been built.

In all honesty, I thought you guys were going to pull of a traditionally Trekkie last-minute rescue by having the Enteprise go through the black hole created at the very end, and find themselves near Vulcan just prior to the drill being deployed, and then stopping it in order to save Vulcan. It would have been a little corney, but it would have been classic Trek :)

Alas…

102. Christopher Roberts - October 28, 2010

95. Speaking for myself, I had a problem with the destruction of Vulcan. I still do. But you can’t please everybody and most didn’t seem bothered. Whether they have some caveat in the back of their minds, so long as this will have ongoing significance through the sequels and isn’t just forgotten about.

103. Damian - October 28, 2010

Another note about Harve Bennett. He was charged with bringing Star Trek II to the screen. He was the one that came up with the idea of using Khan and came up with the theme of aging of the characters. Like any script, the script for Star Trek II went through many changes until the film was made. Nicholas Meyer was not brought on until later. Sowards was next in line to make changes to the script. Nicholas Meyer made the final changes. This is not to disrespect Meyer. He made a great film and put it all together. But he used ideas originally created by Harve Bennett and Jack Sowards. Bennett got the ball rolling and brought all the people together. He oversaw a popular period of Star Trek. I really believe you would not have had Star Trek (2009) if Harve Bennett was not there in the 80’s. There would likely not have been a Star Trek: The Next Generation either.

We can disagree with the man’s opinions. But give the guy some credit. Whether you liked II, III or IV or not, they did expand the audience for Star Trek. And remember, Paramount is in it for the money. If it isn’t a moneymaker, it’s dead.

104. Boborci - October 28, 2010

99. Hmm. Guess I am dense. Did not see the implication he was making.

Alex and I never read Mr. B’s script, and no element was suggested by Paramount. Since our story spends about ten minutes at the academy, that should be obvious.

105. Dr. Cheis - October 28, 2010

Sounds like a classic case of “revolutionary special effects and action were fine in my day but now that it’s the next generation’s turn it all stinks”.

106. Damian - October 28, 2010

104–It didn’t seem apparent to me either, reading what Bennett has released. His script had Kirk and Spock together as students. The only apparent similarity to me is they happened to be at the Academy at the same time. I suppose if you dig deep enough, you can find some similarities, but that is true of any film out today. Star Trek II, VI, Insurrection, Nemesis and Star Trek (2009) all had themes involving vengeance. Star Trek (2009) had some similar themes to Star Wars.

Somehow I don’t believe myself that Paramount came in and said “Hey we have this script Bennett wrote and it was never made. Why don’t you incorporate it into your movie. Oh, and don’t tell Harve Bennett. That will really tick him off.”

107. Doug Skywalker - October 28, 2010

I’m sure if the amount of people that saw ST09 saw the ST movies of the 80’s and 90’s, then he wouldn’t be so bitter. Mr. Bennett gave us all some great ST films, but in a way they never reached out to a broader audience. That was in no way his fault, but the more people you can draw in by not alienating them with a grandiose, pre-established universe then the more popular and successful you will be as a filmmaker.

108. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

Hey Bob, liked the scene where Kirk apologizes to the green girl. Too bad it didn’t make the final cut.

109. I'm Dead Jim! - October 28, 2010

There’s just no pleasing some people.

110. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

“they never reached out to a broader audience”

good films can stand on their own two feet

You don’t need to have watched TOS or even Space Seed to like TWOK.. its just a good movie..

also their are intrinsic elements to being human that are identifiable regardless of context..

111. boborci - October 28, 2010

108. all credit to Harve;)

112. VoR - October 28, 2010

Indiana….. let it go.

113. NuFan - October 28, 2010

100.

Thank you! Please don’t make things slow and obvious in the sequel. They will adjust to the modern style of filmmaking in time.

And they claim my generation has trouble paying attention. They seem to have missed almost everything that wasn’t mentioned multiple times. :-(

114. Phil - October 28, 2010

104. Boborci – October 28, 2010

I read the transcript, and did not watch the video, so it’s possible I’m reading something into it that’s not there. On re-read, he’s pointing out enough similarities that he does seem…bitter..that the franchise has headed off in a direction he was comfortable with, but without his involvement. Then again, there have been, what, about 10 bazilllion posts to this site about the vision, scope, and direction of the franchise, so what’s one more.

115. Anthony Thompson - October 28, 2010

94.

Terrell? I don’t think the actor was convincing in the role, plain and simple. Especially after he was ‘taken over’. His performance just didn’t ring true to me.

116. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

“They seem to have missed almost everything that wasn’t mentioned multiple times.”

lol maybe you should re-read those posts.. you seemed to have missed something there..

lmao

117. Data65 - October 28, 2010

Somebody tell Jimmy Carter…I mean Harve Bennett to STFU!!!!! He sounds like an old woman!

118. Captain Rickover - October 28, 2010

We actually don’t know the entire Academy-script from Harve, so we can’t judge over it. But back in 1991 Paramount was wanting an different movie than Mr. Bennett.

I can’t see why some people here get very personal against Mr. Bennett, because he disliked the new movie. Many people, many opionions. Show a little bit more tolerance, please!

I have to agree with Mr. Bennett, that I personally don’t like the Vulcan destruction and the overall solution of the movie. I also have my big problems with that clown called Scotty or the child called Chekov. And I still don’t like the new Gigantoprise… eh: Enterprise; of course (Should I mention the brewery? No, not this time!). The entire writing adressed too obvious the mainly the mainstream-movieguy – but that was the goal, wasn’t it? I missed the special Star Trek-moment previous movies had: The positive message about the future and for humanity.

Despite that flaws, I think the new movie had very good pacing. It was fast, the action was great, the effects were fantastic. And I think Bob & Alex had written the most emotional scene in Star Trek history: The death of Commander George Kirk and the end of the USS Kelvin. The effects were also great and I thought the Academy was great – as well as a set and also in design. I liked the Kobayashi-Maru-sequence and also all the Bones/Kirk-stuff.

More than a year after the release of Star Trek 2009 I say it was a nice action-movie, well executed and up-to-date with the young generation. I call it a necessary step in the right direction. It was about time someone made a movie like this one. But next time I expect a deeper and richer movie with true Star Trek moments and not just simple a story around a bloody vengeance.

119. The Riddler - October 28, 2010

I love honest people who aren’t afraid to speak their mind. Good on him and he is right. He is critical of the movie and he gives his own view. You can all disagree or agree as you like.

I for one agree and admire someone who says they don’t like this compared to typical praise given to be polite. Bennett didn’t Trach this movie. He just made a good point. If people can’t take that then it is they who are bitter…

120. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

111. Oh yes, of course.

121. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - October 28, 2010

@119 Agree completely. If they didn’t want his opinion, why on earth invite him to speak at a screening of a Trek movie? Don’t understand why it seems to be these days that if you don’t fall in with what’s deemed the “mainstream” opinion you’re instantly labeled a “hater” (or words to that effect).

Good grief, folks, if there’s no Bennett to orchestrate TWoK, you can just red-matter everything Trek that followed it…..

122. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

“Don’t understand why it seems to be these days that if you don’t fall in with what’s deemed the “mainstream” opinion you’re instantly labeled a “hater” (or words to that effect).”

It’s a divisive tactic used to present one’s self as a dissenter to the status quo..

it can be effectively interpreted as “I am here seeking religion and am ready to rally against our mutual foes!”

à la Fish Speakers

— from “The Divinity Chronicles: Sectional Roots and Baptisims, Vol 3″

(man I loves me some Herbert :)

123. boborci - October 28, 2010

114. Phil – October 28, 2010
104. Boborci – October 28, 2010

I read the transcript, and did not watch the video, so it’s possible I’m reading something into it that’s not there. On re-read, he’s pointing out enough similarities that he does seem…bitter..that the franchise has headed off in a direction he was comfortable with, but without his involvement. Then again, there have been, what, about 10 bazilllion posts to this site about the vision, scope, and direction of the franchise, so what’s one more.

—–

True. Which is why it’s no big deal to me. Of all he souls who have opined from Trek’s past, his reaction was the most… human.

124. boborci - October 28, 2010

Of all THE souls who have opined…

125. Phil - October 28, 2010

Mr. Bennett is to be thanked for the work he did for the franchise, it would not be here today if not for his efforts. However, if you have been invited to a forum on your participation in the franchise, and you head off in a critical discussion of someone elses work, you have to accept that it’s going to appear that you are not gracefully fading away.

126. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

Stop dumping on Harve Bennett. When he was brought on to produce and write ST: TWOK, he watched every episode to get the essence of Star Trek. He got it. Star Trek had heart, adventure and INTELLIGENCE. As a result of his work, he made perhaps the greatest Star Trek film.

I liked Star Trek (2009) very much. But it’s not a great movie. His Grand Canyon in Iowa remark is about pacing. Right after the big action sequence in the beginning, we get hammered with young Kirk driving a Corvette off a cliff all to the hard rocking music of the Beastie Boys. The filmmakers said that they wanted to make Star Trek for a modern audience. TRANSLATION: TEENAGERS. (Check out the NPR story below on who regularly goes to movies.) I agree with his distaste for the new movie’s destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda. Yes, I get it. They had to show this was an alternate reality. That doesn’t mean I have to like it. I mean seeing a great race like the Vulcans whose involvement in Star Trek was fantastic, and get virtually wiped out was not enjoyable or needed. For a reboot, was an alternate reality needed?

Yet, I’ve come to accept the Abrams Timeline. Star Trek (2009) needed to breathe. More dialogue in certain places and even changing the order of scenes would have made a better film. For example, after the destruction of Kelvin, go to Vulcan. I just hope that everyone realizes the modern movie audience spent a ton of money on three very smart movies, “Iron Man”, “The Dark Knight” and “Inception.” And yes there was big action in all three. “iron Man” had about twenty five minutes of exposition before the next big action sequence of Stark escaping the Taliban. Just remember. Star Trek is not Star Wars. One, Star Trek, is science fiction. The other is fantasy.

If you watch and listen to the interview, Harve Bennett does not sound bitter at all. He’s witty and a riot. He doesn’t kiss people’s asses. It’s his honesty that makes the talk refreshing. Even wiht those he criticizes, he still respects them. I’m grateful and glad for Harve’s voice in the world of Star Trek.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646

127. NuFan - October 28, 2010

Without Vulcan’s destruction, Spock losing control becomes contrived and unbelievable. You can’t let fanboy attachments interfere with the storytelling. The new writers obviously do not. You would end up boxed into the prime universe all over again.

128. Kev -1 - October 28, 2010

The title on this peace is misleading, because Mr. Bennett is just giving his opinion on the movie (ST2009). After what he achieved for Star Trek, he has no reason to be “bitter”. That’s just phraseology some people are using to attack him. Too many fans are acting like Nomad regarding the new movie — as if it’s so perfect it can’t be criticized. It’s a good action movie. As Star Trek, it’s problematical in many respects. In some ways, the new movie degresses Trek, taking it back to what sci-fi was like before TOS became the first “adult” sci-fi drama.

129. THX-1138 - October 28, 2010

Harve can be any way he wishes and there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it. He has earned the right to feel proprietary over Trek to some degree and offer up what he doesn’t care for. Not to diss the current crew helming NuTrek, but Harve has a longer record of it and his and Nick’s contributions are still more iconic. Things may change with time but that is how it is now.

And I still think destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda was a bad idea. Essentially the cooperative that the humans and the Vulcans had has been effectively diminished or eliminated. The Federation is back to a Humans Only club.

130. Jeyl - October 28, 2010

@127: “Without Vulcan’s destruction, Spock losing control becomes contrived and unbelievable.”

But his super quick “all is forgiven” recovery isn’t contrived and unbelievable?

131. Jai - October 28, 2010

“But next time I expect a deeper and richer movie with true Star Trek moments and not just simple a story around a bloody vengeance.”

For readers (possibly including Bob Orci) who may have now given up following the most recent mammoth thread on the next Trek movie, here’s my own suggestion for the sequel’s main theme, for what it’s worth:

http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/rumor-no-khan-for-star-trek-sequel-but-known-tos-villain/#2998178

And a brief follow-up clarification here: http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/rumor-no-khan-for-star-trek-sequel-but-known-tos-villain/#2998640

132. Hugh Hoyland - October 28, 2010

#121 Actually what we would have got if the studeo decided to give it another shot was Star Trek 2 Return of the Klingons, when Kirk and crew have to battle Klingons that used the GOF to go back in time and change the events around the assasination of JFK.

133. Alec - October 28, 2010

I’ve always thought that a StarFleet Academy TV series would be great. They could have the usual social drama stuff; but also all the training, the shuttle piloting, training missions, etc. We’ve had loads of ship-based action, a space station, even; so what else could they do that would be remotely original? And Harve can’t stop them doing a TV based in the Academy which has nothing to do with his script except it would take place in the same-ish (different time-line/universe) place.

Looking forward to Star Trek 12: 2012.

134. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

“For readers (possibly including Bob Orci) who may have now given up following the most recent mammoth thread on the next Trek movie, here’s my own suggestion for the sequel’s main theme, for what it’s worth:”

that you Harve? ;)

i kid! i kid!

135. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

@ 129

I wasn’t a big fan of destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda either. But like it or not, Bad Robot is in control. The idea of the Federation being a humans only club could be a plot point. If you play the videogame Mass Effect 2, the rise of humans draws the ire of other races. There’s also the Romulan-Klingon effect. What will these guys do? One more problem about wiping out Vulcan, is that Roddenberry created them to offer logic to cool our emotions. He wanted to show that logic would be better at times than to emotionally react all the time. Boy, could we use logic in our modern times.

136. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

I do wonder how Harve would have fared if the internet was around during his reign.

137. Pensive's Wetness - October 28, 2010

ill still watch his movies when they air but i dont care for the person anymore. Have a life….

138. ChristopherRoberts - October 28, 2010

135. Thank you. A Star Trek Universe with a Vulcan depleted Federation, is a poorer place.

139. skyjedi - October 28, 2010

Academy years might have been an interesting movie if Trek Top Gun before JJ did it. But not at the expense of their being no star trek VI. That movie dealt with issues too.

140. skyjedi - October 28, 2010

Mass effect is better than the new star trek 2009 and star wars prequels combined. at least until they went halo shooter with game 2.

141. TMMW - October 28, 2010

I agree with Harve.

142. Holger - October 28, 2010

I don’t know why people are talking about bitterness. Bennett’s comments are perfectly polite. In fact, it’s a great way to put it: “I think JJ Abrams succeeded in what he was trying to do”. Oh yes, he certainly did.

143. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

Bob, you like American Football? My favorite position is Monday morning quarterback. I see I’m not alone.

Some criticisms can be addressed in the next film, like Kirks rapid promotion, the engine room, bridge, the effects of transwarp beaming, even the Spock/Uhura thing, which could get interesting. But Vulcan ain’t coming back. The decision was made by the writers. It’s not a plot hole. Perhaps more emphasis on the event and its ramifcations is in order, an that too is something that can be addressed in the new film.

144. Damian - October 28, 2010

126–You make a good point. Words on a screen can be infinitely different that how they are said. It may seem like he is a bitter old man just reading it, but watching it can give a completely different impression. I know myself, sometimes I post things in jest then realize later that the words being read on the screen can seem harsh, which is not what I intended.

It’s fine to disagree with Harve Bennett. But to belittle his contribution to Star Trek because he did not like the new movie? Does that make Star Trek II or IV bad movies (well, except for Anthony Thompson, who apparently did not like them)? Let’s get a grip.

145. Devon - October 28, 2010

“This picture starts in Iowa 2315, and then it becomes a crazy futuristic motorcycle thing and a dive into the Grand Canyon, and so that is my response to that movie. ”

Ummm no. This picture starts in space in 2233, and then in Iowa probably 13 years later. You should know that Kirk shouldn’t be born in 2315 if TOS is set in the 22nd century.

146. paustin - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett hasnt stopped bitching about them not doing his cheap ass crappy Academy movie since the 80’s. He wanted to do it as a way to get the large paychecks out of the film and continue the name. For us that would have meant no STVI. And it would have meant not making a Star Trek film when they all were alive, which is just stupid.

147. VGer23 - October 28, 2010

I have to admit that Harve Bennett is the man, and I put him right up there with Roddenberry, Coon, Berman, Nimoy, and Meyer as far as being one of the most influential men in franchise history…but this is just sour grapes.

He’s been frustrated for decades about the “Academy Years” script not getting made. And, I think we’re lucky it did not, based on the elements described here.

“Destroying Vulcan and killing Spock’s mother are not things I would have done.”

Really, Harve? But killing off Spock, Kirk’s son David, and destroying the Enterprise were somehow different?

Like I said, I like Bennett and the value of his contributions are without question, but that’s a really ridiculous statement.

148. Damian - October 28, 2010

147–Just to clarify, killing Spock was their way of getting Nimoy on board. Originally he agreed to it when they promised to have him killed off in the beginning 1/3rd of the film. They pushed it toward the end. But no Spock death, no Spock as far as Nimoy was concerned (Nimoy later changed his mind and wanted to come back).

149. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

Oh, Harve, you’ll always have Star Trek V to look back on.

150. El Chup - October 28, 2010

@145

That level of fussing over something someone says is why us fans got a bad reputation as nerds in the first place.

“I am a fan. I am on internet. I told Bennett he was wrong. Hurrrrrgh. I am a hero.”.

Dear, oh dear.

Of course, Bennett is a multi-millionaire film producer who probably doesn’t give a crap if he got the date wrong.

151. El Chup - October 28, 2010

@149

Star Trek V, although possessing tragically bad special effects, actually has some outstanding character moments in it. For that reason its pretty underrating and Shatner has, frankly, been on the receiving end of some pretty unfair criticisim for deficiencies that were ultimately not the fault of either him or Bennett, but the budget wielding executives at Paramount.

But then I think you have to be a long time fan to really appreciate those character moments and the social comments made through them.

152. El Chup - October 28, 2010

@147

I’d say Bob Justman deserves a little shout as well.

153. gingerly - October 28, 2010

@43

Starfleet Academy racially pure as a plot device???? With Racial conflict???
This is the FUTURE so why does that sound like the past?

Because that particular human failing will never go away. It’s very present and will certainly be around in the future.

…As long as adults stick to their visual “tribes” and fear differences, that would be the case, even if this world (or worlds) all looked exactly the same.

We’d find something, height, hair length, whatever…or in Spock’s case regardless of his looks, genetic “impurity”.

There’s always something.

Personally, I think the film GATTACA (awesome and underrated) predicts what could be the next stage in “racism”.

@86.

I think TOS handles the bigotry Spock faces in a much more realistic and way in The Galileo Seven.

Bonus irony points for having the crew-member who has the biggest issue with Spock being black.

In the real world, someone righteously speaking out against racism and the person being that obvious about it, as in The Balance of Terror is super-rare.

154. MJ - October 28, 2010

@125 “Mr. Bennett is to be thanked for the work he did for the franchise, it would not be here today if not for his efforts. However, if you have been invited to a forum on your participation in the franchise, and you head off in a critical discussion of someone else’s work, you have to accept that it’s going to appear that you are not gracefully fading away.”

Exactly. Love his Trek movies, but it is going to get stuck with me now that his is a bitter old man who is still pissed off that his Starfleet Academy approach did not get green-lighted, while a somewhat similar project was green-lighted for JJ and company.

155. Daoud - October 28, 2010

Bob, it seems more that the Vulcans no longer had a problem with Humans (as developed superbly along 4 seasons of Enterprise 80+ years before in story-time)… but that their problem was with Spock being not fully Vulcan, and not fully human, that they were suspicious of him being “truly Vulcan”. What you guys wrote didn’t strike me so much as racism, but “you’re only a probationary Vulcan”.

There weren’t all that many Vulcans around by the time of TNG. Sarek even married another human wife (Perrin). Perhaps even in the Prime Universe, although Vulcan wasn’t destroyed, some other ailment destroyed 90% of the Vulcans in the galaxy…. Certainly the USS Intrepid in the alt universe now won’t exist as a Vulcan-crewed ship. Maybe Bendii syndrome was widespread in the prime universe, but here in the alt universe it never happens.

Plus, consider a scenario where England was destroyed by a neutron bomb. Could England be repopulated by Canadians, Americans, Australians, Kiwis, and others from the Commonwealth and still retain its Englishness? I suspect yes.

We should consider in the alt universe that by the 2250’s, many Vulcans were off-world, places like Coridan, Axanar, Izar, the Rigel worlds, Deneva, P’Jem and others, such that the populations of these off-world Vulcans might easily have surpassed those that had stayed on T’Khut, good ol’ 40 Eridani g.

156. MJ - October 28, 2010

@147 “Really, Harve? But killing off Spock, Kirk’s son David, and destroying the Enterprise were somehow different?”

LOL. EXACTLY!!!!!

157. gingerly - October 28, 2010

@155.

Bob, it seems more that the Vulcans no longer had a problem with Humans (as developed superbly along 4 seasons of Enterprise 80+ years before in story-time)… but that their problem was with Spock being not fully Vulcan, and not fully human, that they were suspicious of him being “truly Vulcan”. What you guys wrote didn’t strike me so much as racism, but “you’re only a probationary Vulcan”.

Broad generalizations never fully apply.

Certainly, it might not have been socially acceptable to have a problem with Humans, but you can be sure that some of the billions of Vulcans at the time would have issues with our emotional failings.

The very idea of a someone being a “probationary” member of a race that they are a part of is racism, regardless of whether it strikes you as such.

158. Damian - October 28, 2010

153–You make a good point with the Galileo Seven. I guess my problem with the script by Bennett was that there would have been wholesale bigotry against Spock at the Academy. Even on the Galileo Seven, not all the characters seemed to have racial hatred of Spock (Scotty, for example). Now McCoy prodded and complained, but he stopped short of any bigotry, even calling out Boma at one point when he went to far. I just see the the future of humanity Roddenberry tried to create and the race hatred Bennett’s script would have portrayed would have set that back. There are exceptions (Stiles in Balance of Terror), but it seems as a whole, human beings have moved beyond race hate.

You know, you mention about Boma being Black and his being the most vocal about his dislike of Spock. I have to admit I never thought of it in that way, and I can’t believe I never did. I wonder how audiences in the 60’s reacted to it, if at all. I guess when I watch Star Trek, I see an Earth where racism was finally excised. I don’t see Blacks, Asians, Caucasians, Russians. I see human beings all working together. We are more alike than unalike.

159. daniel - October 28, 2010

I never cared for the direction ST took after TMP. The following movies all looked and felt like made-for-TV movies. I still re-watch them though.

I like the way we are headed with ST ’09.

160. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

@ 140 On Mass Effect and Star Trek

Yes, the Mass Effect games are great science fiction. But both games were not perfect. The first one had overly complicated weapons upgrades and loose targeting. The second one had planet mining. Ugh. But overall, the writing was deep and reiminded me of works like “Dune.” Video games can be more intelligent than today’s movies. I mean play “Halo: Reach.” It’s tragedy. And it’s in a video game! When was the last time Hollywood made a big budget tragedy? “Chinatown” (1975) ?

By the way, there’s a funny Star Trek reference in Mass Effect 2. In the Citadel bar, Shepard, your character, orders a drink. It comes out green. Shepard says, “It’s green.” (By the way in the game you can be male or female, change your appearance to look like you etc. It’s awesome.)
The “it’s green” comment comes from TOS “By Any Other Name” where Scotty tries to get a Kelvan drunk. It’s also featured in TNG “Relics.”

Anyway, somebody put the game and the TOS drinking sequence in a video. Great work by this Trekker. ENJOY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtTn0uBbl88

161. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

So, Harve can’t figure out what a Quarry is doing in Iowa, when the sign Kirk runs through clearly says QUARRY?

No wonder we got Trek V.

162. Tekwardo - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett is *slightly* responsible for the storyline of TWoK, but only slightly. We can thank Nicholas Meyer for that wonderful film. He wrote Trek III, and Co-wrote IV and V. To me, that shows his track record for writing isn’t great (He only co-wrote half of a good movie), and his production track record is about half (Depending on what you think of Trek III). So as far as I’m concerned, I’m glad he is gone.

And the fact that he decided not to be involved with VI because they wouldn’t do his idea of the Academy film speaks volumes. Some may not like it, but Nicholas Meyer returning to VI was a blessing, and I loved that film.

He can criticize ST09 all he wants, but it was a good movie. They set up a new franchise based on an old concept, so the story was going to be more about introducing and setting everything up than it was about the issues Trek is known for (and I do hope JJ moves on to movies that tackle issues).

But lets be honest. Can you imagine a Teen Trek, in the 1990s? With Kirk & Spock saving the world? What was it going to be Trek Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain? No thanks.

My only ‘complaint’ about JJ’s Trek was that I liked what they came up for the original opening scenes of the Enterprise getting destroyed instead of the Kelvin, because I think that would have fit the story better. Otherwise I thought it was a fine film.

163. ster j - October 28, 2010

I thought the “quarry” was the remains of the Xindi attack!

164. gingerly - October 28, 2010

@158

Now McCoy prodded and complained, but he stopped short of any bigotry

Yeah. I always think of McCoy when people just outright say things like “the (American) south is racist”.

Nope. They’re just more honest about their feelings.

In McCoy’s case, I see him as a character being mostly bluster.

Sure, he prejudges certain aspects of his culture, but he does so upfront and honestly deals with them when his prejudgments are proven wrong, instead of pretending he doesn’t have a problem with them.

Honestly, I think if more us could just be honest on both sides, we’d make more headway in fighting racism.

As it is today, however, we are at an uncomfortable impasse of avoidance where one side is fears being accused, while the other blocks any progress by getting stuck in outrage.

…Spock being McCoy’s “Vulcan bastard” friend, but for whom he’d die for vs. other characters being polite but feeling far worse things about his Spock’s Vulcan-ness, makes McCoy the far nobler character, IMO.

He’d poke at him for his emotionally retentive culture, for sure, but that was more a matter of enjoying sparing and teasing the easiest thing about him to poke at.

…And McCoy’s general fear all things unknown…including germs and the reliability of transporter devices.

165. Damian - October 28, 2010

Wow. Bennett doesn’t like things about the new film and all of a sudden he is some sort of crackpot and the movies he was involved with really weren’t that good after all. I wonder, if he said he liked it, would everyone here be saying what a great guy he was, that he singlehandly saved Star Trek from oblivion.

For the record, he oversaw a popular period of Star Trek. He was a producer. He was responsible for some writing, but his responsibility was producing, getting the right people for the right jobs. He handled that job well. 3 of the 4 films did well, and usually are popular with fans. I would call that success.

Geez, I’d hate to see what would happen if Rick Berman criticized the film. Would he be getting death threats?

166. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

Nick Meyer was the one responsible for writing the best Trek movies II and IV. Bennet produced and the studio slashed the budgets on each movie even though they made money.

167. Christopher Roberts - October 28, 2010

155. English person within earshot… ;)

Personally I worry about even a theory that drops a bomb on my country! I suspect the fall-out would also affect the Welsh, the Scottish and the Irish. Who are very proud of their separate national identities, probably more so than the English.

As for Harve Bennett, somebody should just do a Prime Universe prequel on TV and use him as a consultant. Television is really the place for in-depth character exploration. Two hours on the big screen is usually only good for a couple of crew members, everyone else has to take a backseat and have litle moments. The Next Generation going from weekly TV to a movie every few years is proof of that.

168. Anselmo - October 28, 2010

Agree with Bennet, Star Trek 09 is a movie for people with ADD (attention deficit disorder) If you don’t get enought explosions, camera does not shake, and bright hologen lights don’t blind you and you get bored and are incapable of sitting still in a theater or are unable to watch an intelligent story, then the new Star Trek is for you.

169. Shannon Nutt - October 28, 2010

I always thought the latest STAR TREK movie was basically stealing Harve’s “Academy” idea and running with it. However, Harve’s a big boy and knows that other’s ideas get copied all the time. It’s obvious he’s still bitter about his exit from STAR TREK…he’s done virtually nothing since then in the industry (except the short-lived TIME TRAX in the 90s). No, STAR TREK may not have been the movie YOU would have made, Harve…but Star Trek needed to evolve for a new generation – considering you helped do that back in 82 with Star Trek II, you’d think you’d be a little more appreciative of what JJ has done with it now.

170. NC Trekker - October 28, 2010

We all owe Mr. Bennett our thanks for contributing to our Star Trek enjoyment over the years. What ever happened to respect and plain old civility? I liked Star Trek 2009 and I loved Bennett’s work back in the day. He is entitled to his opinion and we should not trash him here.

171. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2010

165.

We’re talking about real producers here. Rick Berman doesn’t qualify.

172. Kirk, James T. - October 28, 2010

“I liked Star Trek (2009) very much. But it’s not a great movie. His Grand Canyon in Iowa remark is about pacing. Right after the big action sequence in the beginning, we get hammered with young Kirk driving a Corvette off a cliff all to the hard rocking music of the Beastie Boys. The filmmakers said that they wanted to make Star Trek for a modern audience. TRANSLATION: TEENAGERS. (Check out the NPR story below on who regularly goes to movies.)”

I had to pick up on this little bit of 126’s post.

I liked The Wrath of Khan but like Star Trek (2009) it’s not a great movie (Personally I think Star Trek: First Contact is a far better movie all round).

His Grand Canyon in Iowa remark was partly to do with pacing but I felt it was more a pot shot at Abrams for putting a massive canyon/quarry in Iowa – which isn’t really important since putting a hole in Iowa isn’t totally unbelievable.

Whilst I respect what Bennett did for Star Trek with Wrath of Khan – his remarks on this incarnation aren’t welcome or justified since his Wrath of Khan movie was a big departure from what we had seen before it back in the 80’s. The new movie came in the same vein, the only difference being that the problems Star Trek faced before it were deeper and times have obviously changed in what people expect from a summer blockbuster (of which WoK was one). The same mission was at hand, how do we make Star Trek relevant again, the studio got rid of Roddenberry and brought in Bennett and changes were made.

As for making movies for teenagers, so what? Everything has to make money, it did back in 1982 and it does today and as far as the Beastie Boys go, “Sabotage” is a far better tune than “Saving Grace” and was used far more appropriately in this movie than “Saving Grace” was used in The Wrath of Khan.

lets not start defending Bennett’s rant just because he has more of a legacy with Star Trek than Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and the rest.

173. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2010

Hey BobOrci-

I have this idea, that may sound far-fetched. It starts with the mult-universe theory. In this case, a universe exists for every possible outcome. So why not have a universe where Kirk didn’t die on Veridian III? Kirk survives the scaffolding collapse and he lives on uninterrupted. The nexus exists in all universes, so as it moves through the galaxy it is simultaneously moving through all universes which partly explains how a person can leave the nexus at any point in time and space.

174. Charles Trotter - October 28, 2010

With all due respect to Mr. Bennett, I think he was predisposed to dislike the film. He also didn’t seem to pay much attention to it, judging by what he’s said about it. The movie started in 2233 and most of the film was set in 2258, so how the hell is the Iowa scene with Kirk as a kid going to be set in 2315? It was obviously the early 2240s. Also, why are people so upset about the quarry? For one, and here’s a fun fact for you — there are actually quarries in Iowa (gasp!!!) Even if there weren’t any NOW, that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be any there in the 23rd century. Hell, for all we know, the quarry was man-made for the purposes of Starship building. How do we know that quarry didn’t become the site where the ‘Enterprise’ was built, as seen later in the film? We don’t. I think Mr. Bennett is just sour that someone else made a movie similar to his and it not only became a huge success but reinvigorated the franchise.

175. Damian - October 28, 2010

172–It’s not about defending what he is saying.

1–He is free to say what he wants, first of all, and we are free to disagree with him.

2–My only other issue is somehow using his comments to suddenly say he made little contribution to Star Trek. Saying Star Trek II through IV were good in spite of him. That he had nothing to do with their success, which I feel is flat out wrong.

I disagree with his comments, but he’s not some pariah now because I disagree with him. That’s all.

176. Christopher Roberts - October 28, 2010

169. Do you ever think the producer of Time Trax ever saw those very similar films with Jean-Claude Van Damne…?

Also am I the only one wondering why General Chang is criticising the last film? :)

177. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

@ 140 More Mass Effect and Star Trek

First, I forgot some Trek actors have had voice parts in the Mass Effect games. Marina Sirtis, Dwight Schultz and Amin Shimerman were in Mass Effect. Michael Dorn and Amin Shimerman have small parts in Mass Effect 2.

Second, as I noted before in Mass Effect, the other alien races are getting annoyed with the upstart humans. If the Federation in Abrams Timeline is dominated by humans due to the lack of Vulcans, I wonder how the Andorians and pig guy Tellarites are going to react. One thing I did like about Star Trek 2009, there were some cool looking non-humanoid aliens. See bridge officer of the Kelvin. So there might be more aliens in the Federation. But it’s an interesting situation in this new universe. As I said before I wish we could use some Vulcan logic in our times. Anyway as a treat, here’s a link to short interviews by the stars of Mass Effect 2, it includes a funny remark by Dorn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QznjOF9e7sY&ob=av3e

178. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

” “Sabotage” is a far better tune than “Saving Grace” and was used far more appropriately in this movie than “Saving Grace” was used in The Wrath of Khan”

OK. I’m officially done reading your posts.

179. Areli - October 28, 2010

First Ron Moore slightly bashing ST, now Bennett being bitter.

The only difference between the two is that i like Bennett more than Moore, but that still doesn’t give him much right to get mad. I imagine if that Starfleet Academy film/show got made, it would have bombed.

If fans got pissed about Shatner and Nimoy being replaced by Pine and Quinto now (and this is years after the Trek craze has died down and now audiences get excited for crap like Twilight), I’m sure when Trek was on its uphill climb his movie/show idea with teen!Kirk and teen!Spock would have definitely been bashed and fans would have been in an outrage.

Mr. Bennett, you definitely need to get over it. So what if there is an quarry in Iowa right now? What is here now definitely will change in the 23rd century. If you would watch the movie, like genuinely watch it with an open mind you fight find you can better like what you see.

You gave ST something amazing in the past, let the future get something as well.

180. Jay - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett is NOT just giving his opinion. Those that keep saying that are simply refusing to see what is obvious to everyone else.

He was never even asked for his opinion on the ST09 movie. He brought it up.

His disdane and contempt for the movie is obvious. His bitterness is equally obvious.

No one is calling him bitter because he didn’t like the movie. He is entitled to his opinion. But when he brings it up himself, and goes out of his way to make fun of aspects of the movie that weren’t even factual (such as the Grand Canyon remark), then it clearly speaks of bitterness. Especially when he (not so subtly) implies that the ST09 ripped off elements of his Academy script.

Just like the new Lebron commercials make him look extremely immature and bitter, so too do Harve’s comments here.

As for my opinion, I liked ST09 and I also liked STWOK, and I have enjoyed all the tv series from TOS to TNG to ENT.

But, I can accept that today’s movie audiences are not going to sit through something like what Harve is suggesting he would have made. That is just a fact. It doesn’t matter how much he, or the minority of ST fans would have loved that movie. If it didn’t make money and appeal to a broader audience, then there is no point.

and to the criticixm of ST09 having too much action, or fighting or sarcasm or sex…… Really??? have you never seen TOS? That was most of what every epsiode centered around. Yes there was a story and a plot, just as there was in ST09, but action, fighting, sex and sarcasm was heavily used in every episode to move that story along. There is not one bit of this in ST09 that was not also in the TOS series.

To act as if you can make a sci-fi movie that is a commercial success in today’s world without those elements is just being extremely idealistic. Yes there would be a small minority of ST fans that would enjoy that movie, and I’m sure i would too, but no one else outside of that “hard-core” Trek fanbase would go see it, so it would fail and be the end of the franchise. I just don’t know why some people have such a hard time accepting that reality. It doesn’t mean you can’t make a good movie…I think JJ proved you can with ST09.

181. jas_montreal - October 28, 2010

okay everyone. relax. No ones always gonna like everything. Harve’s movies were great. JJ’s movie was great. Lets move on !

182. Trek fan - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett only produced one descent Trek film, that was the Wrath of Khan, all the rest do not measure to the TOS series as far as I am concerned. Gene should have had more involvement in the films and so perhaps we might have been spared bad scripts with poor plots and terrible special effects.

183. Jay - October 28, 2010

#172 “Whilst I respect what Bennett did for Star Trek with Wrath of Khan – his remarks on this incarnation aren’t welcome or justified since his Wrath of Khan movie was a big departure from what we had seen before it back in the 80’s. The new movie came in the same vein, the only difference being that the problems Star Trek faced before it were deeper and times have obviously changed in what people expect from a summer blockbuster (of which WoK was one). The same mission was at hand, how do we make Star Trek relevant again, the studio got rid of Roddenberry and brought in Bennett and changes were made.”

Exactly.. At least you seem to be more of a realist than so many other I read on here.

It is so ironic for Harve to ciriticize this movie when he did essentially the same thing. He was brought in to make a radical change to the franchise to “save” it, because as you and others have pointed out, Paramount was ready to kill it forever after TMP. He deserves credit for making some bold decisions to change the look and feel from TMP to TWOK. The goal was to broaden the audience base and make it more mainstream. The same thing JJ and crew are so heavily criticized for doing with ST09 by “hard core” fans. Yet now those same fans want to act like TWOK embodied all that is Star Trek while ST09 is an abomination.

Funny.

184. Captain Kathryn - October 28, 2010

Lens flares! Lens flares! Please JJ, NO more lens flares in Star Trek XII.

185. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

Ron Moore slams on Trek, but he killed Kirk. No excuse.

186. Vultan - October 28, 2010

Well, they could still make a TV show out of Harve’s idea. Nothing wrong with Trek being on the small screen. :)

187. Vultan - October 28, 2010

#185

Moore wasn’t the only one behind the decision to kill Kirk. And how is saying that technobabble can sometimes get in the way of drama slamming Trek?

188. Trek fan - October 28, 2010

Harve’ Star Trek movies lack all that was great about TOS except for the Wrath of Khan. As far as I am concerned he did little to nothing to add to the franchise. Gene should have had more input in the films, look at his input on ST TNG and how much better that series was than the films that were made in the 80s.

189. Jay - October 28, 2010

lol… yes, i could do with a little less lense flares. There were scenes where I think they added and others where they got in the way.

Overall, I love the look of ST09 more than any other ST film. The camera technics (including the shaking and flares) gave the film a sense of realism I’ve never felt watching any other ST film.

Overall the ST09 felt more real. Like I was in the film. Like i was there. Where as alot of the ST films, especially the TNG ones, felt more like TV shows. I think that helped me get more engrossed in the ST09 movie.

I thnk the sets, the space scenes, the live set usages…all made ever scene so much more realistic. Never at any point did I become aware of the set in the sense that it was a set and not a real place. So many times in some of the other movies I found myself “noticing” the set. Meaning I noticed it “looked” like a set and not a real place that the characters were in.

I think JJ and crew need to fine tune their use of these technics. I expect that they will.

190. John - October 28, 2010

#188

Gene had his chance, TMP. it wasn’t terrible, but it was a failure financially. Without Harve, WE DON’T EVEN GET TNG.

that aside, he’s dead wrong. JJ did a great job to restore this franchise after Nemeshit and now people won’t be afraid to bring it back to TV one day.

191. Jay - October 28, 2010

I think the scene of Kirk’s birth, starting with the shuttle with his mother taking off through to his father’s death, is one of the most, if not THE most, powerful of all Star Trek moments in the history of the franchise.

I think that scene was completely and totally Star Trek. I love how the sound was turned down and the music dominates and contrasts against the battle raging on. How the camera technics with the shaking and everything put you in the middle of the action. And on top of all that the raw emotion of love and sacrafice. The human element.

That scene to me has everything that is ever Star Trek. Hope for the future out of death and destruction. Space… action…. love… human experience…. hope…..

It has it all, but it’s done in the most realistic and most powerful way I think has ever been done in Star Trek.

192. Vultan - October 28, 2010

#188

Really? Voyage Home wasn’t in the spirit of TOS? Kirk and crew go back in time to save humanity… hmmm… sounds familiar (City on the Edge of Forever). And Final Frontier, despite its many, many flaws, was right in line with a lot of TOS episodes—Kirk gets in a fight with a God entity. Sounds TOS to me.

193. Dorotea - October 28, 2010

I agree with Harve….

194. Planet Pandro - October 28, 2010

Oh, Harve…*shakes head*

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I loved ST II-IV. But I also loved the new movie. And really, am I in a minority when I say I didn’t really see it as a big blowout special effects movie. I think this was one of the few modern day big budget movies for which the special effects supported the story instead of overwhelmed it. Any of the effects sequences were really in service to the plot, not the other way around. There’s not (in my mind) a gratuitous FX-heavy sequence in the movie. Yes there’s the drilling rig, but the FX were really just backdrop there.
I think a Trek movie w/ a little excitement isn’t a bad thing, and I don’t think it was turned into a Star Wars clone in the process.
and I’m sorry, but a racist Starfleet Academy doesn’t ring true for me, but maybe it does for Harve “up your shaft” Bennett.

195. Trek fan - October 28, 2010

Voyage Home and Final Frontier had good concepts but seemed way too cheesy to me. Voyage Home was a fun movie, but it never felt like an exciting film to watch. The Final Frontier should be taught in film academies as how to avoid creating cheap cliches and stereotypical one dimensional characters (the Klingons) . I can’t think of a worse Trek film or episode.

196. Jay - October 28, 2010

#194 I completely agree.

Yes compared to other ST films maybe it has more FX, but in today’s movie world, it is not that way at all.

Compare it to Transformers 2. That movie was NOTHING BUT FX. The first 10 minutes of ST09 blew away the whole of Transformers 2 in every movie making aspect. From story, to emotional involvement of the audience, to character development and realism, acting and yes FX.

There was way more to ST09 than FX. Just because the budget and modern technology allow for the best FX ever seen in a Star Trek movie doesn’t mean that is all there was.

197. ensign joe - October 28, 2010

#79. Jefferies Tuber

I can dig it.

198. Phil - October 28, 2010

188. Trek fan – October 28, 2010

TNG really didn’t hit stride until about season 4. As I recall, the first couple of years stories were somewhat shamelessly rewritten from TOS scripts, threads were developed that went nowhere, and at times the writers didn’t seem to know what to do with certain characters. On top of that, Picard had a bad habit of lecturing anyone and everyone about the virtues of the Federation at length. TNG was at full stride when it left the air, long after GR was done with it.

199. Trekpower.org - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennet had a lot of good ideas about Star Trek in the past. I would probably also be somehow “bitter” if they would always disagree with my ideas, although they are good. In my opinion his idea was good. BUT the new movie was also very good. It ist not fair to judge over the new Star Trek movieS, if there is only one that had to present the characters and get them together. I liked it and how good they are, we will see in the next chapter of the new star trek.

200. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

No, TNG hit its stride during the Best of Both Worlds. The first two seasons were terrible.

201. Phil - October 28, 2010

200. Phaser Guy – October 28, 2010
That was the end of season 3, and the beginning of season 4.

202. Josh - October 28, 2010

I think Star Trek (2009) was great. About the Academy movie, if Kirk falls in love for the only time in it, and he loves dies, then why does he have an ex and a son in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Was Academy going to be an alternate reality story, or did Harve Bennett forget those details about the second Star Trek movie?

203. denny cranium - October 28, 2010

Can no one be gracious anymore? (Harve Bennett)

You made some great Trek flicks and thank you for that. Yes you rescued the franchise with Khan.

Now another quarterback and team has the ball and you tear them up?

Call Bill Shatner, he did a book called Academy Years- try and get the movie financed- go and let your egos bash it out- (my money is on Shatner) and your movie can end up in development hell. Shatner counting lines- you telling him the holes in his story- telling him he can’t direct and so on.

The Texas Supreme Court just quoted a line from Khan- about “the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few” be proud of that. Ideas from your movie still resonate almost 30 years later.

204. That One Guy - October 28, 2010

I don’t care what his opinions on the movie are, but the whole idea with “Starfleet Academy” is terrible. I mean… I have not heard a worse idea for a movie since Transformers 2.

205. Polly - October 28, 2010

202. An excelent point…

206. Jay - October 28, 2010

Story Idea… I thought a good story idea for ST12 would have been a war with the Klingons. I mean they have always been the enemies of the Federation, but let’s see why.

I thought they could start off with there being a “cold war” existing between the Federation and Klingon empire and have a Hitler type figure rise to power in the Klingon empire, bent on taking over the universe.

I think that would be a good story to build on. It would allow for a more complicated and deeper meaning villain within the Klingon empire. Maybe have some faction of disent that are opposed to this new leader, but also afraid to stand up to him. I think you could develope a much deeper villain for audiences to fear/hate.

I think there would be opportunity for all kinds of sub-plot story lines involving our heroes. Including the possiblity for a multi-movie arc culminating in the death of this dictator and the restoration of an uneasy peace between the Federation and Empire.

Maybe it’s too dark of an idea, but you could write it to where it wasn’t that dark. I just would love to see a story on film that gave us a reason to hate the Klingons. A reason why they are the enemy of the Federation at this time in Star Trek history.

207. Denny - October 28, 2010

Parmount could have made BOTH the Academy movie and TUC back to back to celebrate the 25th Anniversary (taking note of the BTTF sequels which had just been done) and released the Academy movie May 91 and TUC Dec 91

Bennent couldve directed Academy with cameos from the original cast and Meyer couldve still done TUC

Kirk – Sean Patrick Flanery(like a Young Shatner),
Spock – John Cusak or David Ducovney.
Bones – Gary Sinese,
Uhura – Halle Berry,
Pike – Christopher Reeve or D Quaid,
Sarek – Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman,
Amanda – Mary McDonnell,
Carol – Samantha Mathis,
Gary Mitchell – William Campbell (The Rocketeer),
Finnegan – Jim Carrey,
Capt Decker – Tommy Lee Jones

208. GaryM - October 28, 2010

I couldn’t care less what Harve Bennett thinks.

He’s upset because HE didn’t get to Reboot Star Trek. That’s all it is, EGO, because at one point he made some great Trek movies. He feels he was the only one. Unfortunately didn’t James Doohan have a similar feeling towards TNG before it launched? That because it didn’t involve the original cast it was “doomed”. He was wrong, wasn’t he?

209. Denny - October 28, 2010

i wonder if theyd have touched upon Kirk’s experience with the Tarsus IV massacre or his cloud Killer Farragut incident ? (not the last one i suppose as thatd be after the Academy)

and what if theyd have gone on to do a movie series with them? a SFA 2, 3 etc (obviously not set at SFA but the early years on the Enterprise)

i mean if Paramount had gone with SFA in 91 as well as or instead of TUC and it had been a big success then maybe that would have led to SFA 2 in 1993, SFA 3 in 1996 etc…what would that have meant for TNG? would they have just continued with the tv series after season 7 (maybe not bothering with DS9 or VOY) as the SFA cast wouldve been the ‘movie crew’ theyd have been no need for TNG at the movies (until the SFA series had ended maybe in the late 90s)? or still finished up and made Generations in 94? (alternating with the SFA movies)

boborci you are an expert in alternate realities – what do you think?

210. Jay - October 28, 2010

#209… I just don’t think any “prequal” in Star Trek would have worked without doing an alternate universe.

If the possibility of the characters being in danger is removed, then it’s hard to get audiences to engage in the suspense of any of the movies. You know what I mean? If you are simply going back and doing movies about Kirk and crew’s younger days, then the audience knows that everyone will make it through whatever challenges they face, because obviously there are the TOS shows and movies etc.

So, I think an alternate reality was absolutely essential to rebooting the franchise.

211. NuFan - October 28, 2010

191. I think the scene of Kirk’s birth, starting with the shuttle with his mother taking off through to his father’s death, is one of the most, if not THE most, powerful of all Star Trek moments in the history of the franchise.

Yes, but apparently it wasn’t slow enough. Some people need their movies to be slowed down so they can ponder how deep and meaningful it used to be.

212. Vultan - October 28, 2010

Season 2 of TNG had some good episodes (Q-Who comes to mind), but the show really didn’t hit its stride until season 3. I can’t think of an episode in that season that I didn’t like (The Defector, The Enemy, The Survivors, Yesterday’s Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds part 1, etc.) Top notch sci-fi!

213. James - October 28, 2010

Has anyone ever bitch slapped Harve for allowing the monstrosity that was Star Trek V??

214. Jax - October 28, 2010

People are STILL complaining about ST 2009? It was really fun movie and the most fun ST movie EVER. Was it original Trek? No. But it was great in its own way. Old Trek is still out there if that’s what you want.

The only problem I had with ST 2009 is that the comic prequel would have made a TERRIFIC movie, maybe even better than what was made. It also explained the convoluted mess of Nero’s back story. If there is one thing I want them to do in the sequel it’s that they tighten up the writing and tell a whole story and not half.

215. Jay - October 28, 2010

Maybe he just fills the need to rip ST09 because it was easily the most critically acclaimed Star Trek movie ever. Maybe he’s just jealous that none of his were so well received by movie critics. Maybe he’s defensive about all the criticism of ST V, so he feels he needs to criticize someone else’s ST movie.

216. Brett L. - October 28, 2010

While I thoroughly enjoyed Abrams’ take on Trek, I do sympathize with where Harve is coming from. I’m in my late 30’s and understand that the latest Trek is not for my generation. The “space opera” TOS movies were more my “speed.” Still, I thoroughly enjoyed Abrams’ Trek for its writing and creative way of rebooting the franchise while respecting the past. I made the adjustment to the lens flares and fast-cut action just fine. Imagine the adjustment you’re asking an 80 year old man to make. Cut him some slack…

Bennett (along with Nick Meyer) played the Abrams role back in 1982 when they rescued the franchise with TWOK. Bennett showed Paramount that he could make a good movie for the fraction of TMP’s budget. As featured in the DVD special feature, Bennett also advocated for TWOK’s epilogue in order to give fans some hope in the wake of Spock’s death (a move Meyer opposed). They made a good team, and some of Bennett’s instincts made for some very enjoyable film memories throughout the 1980s.

217. Corinthian7 - October 28, 2010

I’m immensely grateful to Star Trek 09, despite the fact I would have preferred something in the prime universe it came at a time when I thought we would never see any new trek and I loved it. Therefore I don’t feel the need to have to take sides here. Harve Bennett produced some great trek and I’m sure I would have enjoyed his Starfleet Acadamy movie but in a way I’m glad it was never made as we probably would never have got TUC which was probably my favourite TOS movie. However, I love reading about all the aborted projects and imagining what Star Trek might have been like. Phase II, Starfleet Academy, Logan’s sequel to Nemesis, a Captain Sulu series, Berman and Jendreson’s Romulan War movie and season 5 of Enterprise! They are all so fascinating to me.

218. VZX - October 28, 2010

Bennet does come off as sounding bitter. He made some good Trek movies. One of the best, actually.

Poor old man.

BTW: I’m curious to see how Vulcan society progresses in the new movie since the loss of their planet. I would guess it would a logical progression. But, as Sarek said, their feelings run deeper than humans, so I wonder if any just went crazy, dropped their logical ways, and etc.

219. Will - October 28, 2010

Harve had racism from humans, JJ had racism from Vulcans. Harve had silly crop-duster showing-off, JJ had silly convertable car showing-off.

I don’t think he has much grounds to complain.

220. Starbase Britain - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett’s contribution to STAR TREK cannot and should not be underestimated. He really got Star Trek and what it meant to the fans.

I dont see this as being bitter at all. He’s entitled to his view and for him the new movie wasnt how he would have done it. I rtespect Harve and admire his efforts.

The starfleet academy movie he mentions sounds good but i doubt he would have had the kind of backing needed available to make the impact this new one had. Paramount would have wanted it done on the cheap like trek V especially given the competition that year.

I think people have short memories. If it wasnt for this bloke making star trek 2 the franchise might have ended there and then.

Greg
UK

221. Vultan - October 28, 2010

Comparing Abrams’ Trek with Harve Bennett’s is really apples and oranges. They’re both enjoyable… just in different ways.

222. Phil - October 28, 2010

218. VZX – October 28, 2010

Oh, I think the Vulcans will do just fine on Planet Vegas. Plenty of places to go to get them in the mood to repopulate the species.. :-)

223. Damian - October 28, 2010

220–People have short memories. Before even coming up with a single idea for Star Trek II, he sat down and watched all the episodes of Star Trek to figure out what would work best. I love some of the revisionist history going on here. Board after board I read people saying how II through IV were some of the best Trek made. Now that Harve criticized Star Trek (2009), now they’re not such great movies. And if they are, Harve had nothing to do with it. I disagree with his sentiments about the film, and yes I think he is still bitter about his script, but he was an important part of bringing Star Trek in the mainstream, like JJ Abrams today. Star Trek II, III and IV did very well at the box office. IV was liked by Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike. I don’t understand people who say II and IV were not “trekkie” enough. Star Trek is many things, not the least of which is an exploration of humanity.

Maybe he is bitter now. Maybe his comments were out of line. But that does not change Star Trek history and his role in it.

The attitude I’m sensing here is “How Dare he criticize Star Trek (2009).” Sometimes I think Captain Neill’s complaints have some basis after all. He is always saying that it’s in vogue to criticize prior Star Trek regimes, but don’t date criticize Star Trek (2009), (Again, it’s fine to disagree with Bennett’s sentiments, but not to minimalize his impact on Star Trek).

224. John from Cincinnati - October 28, 2010

The best thing I loved about Harve Bennett’s contribution to Star Trek is that he went and watched all 79 original episodes, and honestly thought about a third were garbage, a third were ok, and a third were great. It was HE, Harve Bennett, that decided to go back to an original series episode and update the story for the big screen. A true sequel!

What other Hollywood producer would do that today? NONE! They all lack the cajones to do that. Today they would all rather rely on special effects, lens flares, quick one-liners, quick camera motions and gimmicks to tell a story.

225. Damian - October 28, 2010

218–I’d like to see the ramifications on surviving Vulcans and the Federation in the next movie. A founding member of the Federation is gone. That has to have some impact.

226. MJ - October 28, 2010

Dear Harve Bennett,

Just researched on the web that their are over 100 communities in Iowa that each have at least one quarrie.

227. MJ - October 28, 2010

@221 “Comparing Abrams’ Trek with Harve Bennett’s is really apples and oranges. They’re both enjoyable… just in different ways.”

Well put! The guy is still behaving like a jealous old fart though.

228. Corinthian7 - October 28, 2010

I wouldn’t exactly say they are gone Damian but you’re right there has to be an impact and it makes great material for future movies. The Vulcans have clearly exerted a great deal of influence in how the Federation and Starfleet have developed. With their voice greatly diminished those organizations could now evolve along vastly different path than what we have seen before.

229. Vultan - October 28, 2010

#227

Well, actually I agree with some of the things Bennett said, but I really consider his Trek and Abrams’ Trek completely different species. He’s entitled to his opinion. I’ll always enjoy watching his films, and I look forward to seeing what happens in this new universe.

Can’t we all just enjoy the different versions of Trek for what they are? Some are like fine wine and others are like bubble-gum. :)

230. Greg2600 - October 28, 2010

I don’t see how Harve was being bitter?

231. MJ - October 28, 2010

@229. I just think it is unprofessional of him to take potshots like this at a Trek public event. Can you imagine Gene Roddenberry doing this to Harve Bennett — I remember at the time of TWOK that there were rumors that Gene did not like the action/adventure refocus of that movie, but he certainly had the class not to embarrass Have Bennett in public about it.

Perhaps Harve Bennett and Fat Shat should have a pity party together and compare notes about how they were so mistreated by the Trek franchise.

232. Desstruxion - October 28, 2010

One would think by some of the comments on here, that JJ made this film just to get back at the “true Trekkie” for some reason. That he did it as an insult and just to aggravate them. I don’t understand this. Why can’t we just enjoy it all. Old Trek, new Trek, animated Trek, comic book Trek, TNG Trek, DS9 Trek, Voyager Trek, Enterprise Trek, etc. I’m a Trekkie. I can watch “TWOK” and then without skipping a beat will pop in “First Contact”. Then when that’s over I can watch “ST09″ and guess what, heaven forbid, enjoy them all. I’m 41 years old and grew up on TOS re-runs and then was thrilled to witness the Motion Picture (with my dad) and even more happy when TNG premiered. I remember the so-called purists then crying “oh no this is the end of Trek! No one but Kirk can command the Enterprise!! Oh the humanity!” Seems it not only brought a re-birth of my most favorite fictional universe but it created a whole new generation of Trekkies. This new version will do the same.

233. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

Wow. You guys that hate Harve Bennett, are forgetting he made Star Trek viable as a movie franchise and he saved Star Trek. Without ST II: TWOK, there’s no TNG, or future Star Trek movies. He took the time to absorb Star Trek by watching every episode of the original series. He got Star Trek. Look at his comments on Star Trek (2009). He merely criticizes it. SO WHAT? He didn’t call it “Plan 9 from Outer Space.” I like Trek (2009) but won’t worship it. And his comments are logical. Did you guys like destroying Vulcan, killing Amanda and making Kirk look like a punk? Come on, Trekkers, destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda are gigantic moves. They are not positive moves. Did you really root to kill the Vulcan species off or kill Amanda?

I will again quote psycopath and consumate Trekker Harry Plinkett. When Jonathan Frakes made the comment “I think the audience wants Star Trek to be an action movie.” Plinkett yells at him, “Wrong. Wrong. You a… hole. Wrong.” He then says Star Trek should be about good story telling and great dialogue. (Video link below.) He then states action propels the story. There’s no action for its sake only. Plinkett then uses video from TNG’s “Power Play” as an example of action serving the story. He then says that walking down the halls of the Enterprise was great action. You want to know something? He maybe right. And before you say Plinkett liked Star Trek 2009, he did, but with reservations. He thought it was made for popcorn eating stupid masses. His first review on Star Trek 2009 was that it literally raped a fan.

I will continue to ask Trekker Vultan to pray for me since I don’t worship Star Trek (2009) I still believe the greatest Star Trek ever made was “The City on the Edge of Forever.” No space battles and no villlain. Star Trek must coninue to shoot for the stars not the lowest common denominator.

Plinkett’s Part Three Review of “Star Trek: Nemesis.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QznjOF9e7sY&ob=av3e

Here’s Aretha Franklin singing she’s going to say a little prayer for me since I merely like Star Trek (2009) but don’t worship it. Hey fellow Trekkers we can all enjoy Aretha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STKkWj2WpWM

234. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

@ 233

Sorry guys, I got the wrong link for you. Here’s the correct URL for part 3 of consumate Trekker and psychopath Harry Plinkett”s review on Star Trek: Nemesis. Check it out. It’s great commentary for future screenplay writers on how action serves the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DT7sSp-3_I

235. Vultan - October 28, 2010

#233

Aretha rocks! Love her in Blues Brothers.

236. Ensign RedShirt - October 28, 2010

Good for Harve; at least he has the balls to say what’s on his mind.

237. MJ - October 28, 2010

@233. This guy you so admire is quoted as yelling at Frakes that he is an a-hole for his opinion of Trek (that comment right there means that I will not recognize this guy nor will I open his link). No wonder you approve of Bennett taking pot shots at JJ and company.

238. Daoud - October 28, 2010

Bennett: “They lost me when they put the Grand Canyon in Iowa.”

That’s where I lost Bennett. He needs glasses, or to pay attention. Was the sign by the gate QUARRY: KEEP OUT difficult to see? Was the ‘cut out’ look of the cliff that hard to see?

Clearly he’s never been to the Grand Canyon either.

But he only sealed the deal stating “Iowa 2315″. The REASONS Paramount rejected his script was it didn’t even TRY to fit into what had already been established for TOS backstory. At this point in development, the timeline had just been gelled to having the 5YM run not just in the 2200’s (23rd century) but specifically in the 2260’s, with TNG in the 2360’s. Iowa 2315!?!? That’s the 24th century. TOS had been placed in the 23rd century back in the TMP era!! And having McCoy, Kirk and Spock all the same age as fresh 17 year olds?? Using McCoy as the “racist” against Spock with Kirk bridging the gap is so wrong on so many levels.

Plus, Washington & Lee? Making the Academy look like a pale version of Heinlein’s Starship Troopers universe? Hell, Bennett latched onto the wrong series.

Plus, Bennett was trying to eliminate the need for Shatner and Nimoy, who he’d had problems with on V and III/IV respectively. “Admiral Bob” wanted to be in charge, and clearly Nimoy was more highly thought of by Paramount. Plus, further analysis clearly led to Paramount realizing Nick Meyer was the key reason STII succeeded so well, not Bennett. That’s why the brought him back for STVI and paired him up with Nimoy.

So there’s what the guy is bitter about.

Plus, Bob & Alex and the gang created their script from fresh thoughts. Bennett trying to suggest they simply took his old Starfleet Academy script and “changed it” is almost actionable. He’s about as sorry-sounding as Art Buchwald.

239. Stanky McFibberich - October 28, 2010

The only problem here is that Mr. Bennett did not go far enough in his criticism.

240. sean - October 28, 2010

#233

The opinion of anyone who equates watching a movie he doesn’t like with non-consensual sex is automatically voided. In fact, it should take away their right to ever offer their opinions in public again.

241. bill hiro - October 28, 2010

No criticism of Star Trek ’09 goes unchallenged by the cheerleaders at TrekMovie.com, a website whose success was built on sucking up to and fawning over the right people. TrekMovie.com – the Fox News of Trekdom.

Like it or not, Harve Bennett knows more about the entertainment industry than 99% of the people posting here. Just because you don’t like what he said doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

242. meme - October 28, 2010

Harve bennet got it right Kirk’s dad was a farmer he was not an starfleet academy officer this trek was soooooooooooooo off and weird spock was not cold like that to kirk and kirk always was successful with women this trek I hate to say it was WAAAAAAAAAY off different timeline or not it should have at least captured some of the characters personalities this one did not I hope they get it right on the second try

243. Hugh Hoyland - October 28, 2010

Well this is my take on it. Harve was, and still is, a bit mad that his idea of Star Trek: Academy Years was not done. Hey, cant blame him there, it was something he wanted to do, he had his heart into it (It seems like ST: AY became to Harve B. what Star Wars is to Lucus, His main artistic focus), it was either do or die as far as he was concerned and it was rejected, I would be disapointed as well honestly. As we all know, rejection isnt a fun thing usually. But he’s not the only figure that worked in the Star Trek franchise that had that happen to them, and probably wont be the last. I say he has a right to his opinion, and to speak it, I just dont agree with him, np. :]

244. Basement Blogger - October 28, 2010

@ 237 MJ

First, Plinkettt’s comment calling Jon Frakes an “a.. hole is satirical It’s part serious, he disagrees with Frakes but he is trying to be funny. If you know anything about comedy, and watch the video, you’ll get the timing of the “insult.’ For example, Betty White has great comic timic. So relax MJ. If you’ve ever watched Red Letter Media’s scathing reviews of Trek movies, you realize these guys are consumate Trekkers. They research all five series for video to support their arguments. And I don’t agree with their all of their reviews. “Star Trek: First Contact” was an excellent film. Harry Plinkett hated it. And by the way, Harry is not a real character. There’s humor to his reviews. They are satirical and meant to make you laugh. The point is you can learn a lot from his critique of what makes good Star Trek and for that matter what makes good drama. The walking down the hallway scene from “Power Play” he loves so much works because of the dramatic tension.

Second, I don’t like is ad hominem attacks. You said, “no wonder I support Bennett taking shots at JJ and company.” Really? Do you know me? I merely see where Harve Bennett is coming from. I won’t worship J.J. Abrams. Abrams is a great film director but that doesn’t mean Star Trek (2009) is Casablanca. FORGIVE ME VULTAN. I love Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and J.J. Abrams’ “Fringe.” So don’t say I support pot shots at these guys. Please disagree with me but if you take ad hominem attacks without evidence, that merely diminishes your viewpoint.

245. meme - October 28, 2010

Uhura like bones enjoyed teasing spock she was’nt interested in him like christine chapel was they were facinated by the fact that he was half human and did not display emotions because he had the most control out of everyone so i do not recognize this trek at all

246. RaymondS - October 28, 2010

In all this talk, no one has brought up one of Bennett’s biggest blunders- saying Kirk only had one “love of his life” and she was killed saving a planet from destruction. I guess Bennett forgot about “City on the Edge of Forever,” where we DID see Kirk’s one true love, Edith Keeler. How can he completely disregard canon like that?

A few years ago the script of this debacle was posted on TrekWeb. And while much of it was true to character, a lot more was way off base. I think the fans would have called for Harve’s head if it had ever been made.

And like one previous post mentioned, we needed Star Trek VI after the agony that was STV. We needed one more good movie with the aging original cast while they were still here. Is there anyone really reading this that would have preferred The Academy Years to TUC?

247. Hugh Hoyland - October 28, 2010

And I agree that Harve B. did contribute to the Star Trek franchise, Im not trying to take that from him. He did a great job with what he had to work with. But that phase ended, The TNG films came after that, and now we have entered a new phase with Star Trek 09. Pretty dang exciting phase to! :]

248. Zebonka - October 28, 2010

He is bitter, no doubts there. But he’s right, right, right and right.
I’m glad we didn’t get a late 80’s Academy movie (would’ve gotten in the way of ST6) but it couldn’t have been as bad as the new one. At least it would’ve had the hilarity of the late 80’s going for it.

249. DarthMcWord - October 28, 2010

hahaha W&L for the Academy. They’re way too fratty to be in Starfleet.

250. Vultan - October 28, 2010

#244

“FORGIVE ME VULTAN”

Uh, forgive you for what? I don’t think Trek ’09 is Casablanca either. Faaar from it, in fact. Are you sure you have the right Vultan? I’ve never been a big cheerleader for Abrams’ Trek anyway….

251. Brandon R - October 28, 2010

The Wrath of Khan, which he shepherded, totally changed Star Trek, and for the better. Star Trek the show and “The Motion Picture” were a bit too utopian and fantastical sci-fi for a lot of people. TWOK added a more militaristic aspect to the franchise while retaining the idealism, giving it a nice balance.

Considering how he helped transform the franchise for a new generation, moving it towards something it had never been before, it’s a bit hypocritical – and, as others have said, bitter – for him to say that.

252. Michael Hall - October 28, 2010

“Or more obvious ones that require much less while watching.”

Well, a nod or two to the notion that Trek could actually be relevant to our lives in 2009, and that was just as ‘obvious’ as the tit-grabbing and Mickey Mouse hands, would have been nice.

253. paustin - October 28, 2010

#216 Uhhh I’m 45 and ST2009’s pacing was just fine. I love the TOS films…saw them all as they came out, but honestly 2-4 are hard to watch because they look like tv movies. STV I’ll watch for the character moments (no other tos movie did them as right as they were here) Khan of course kicks ass.

254. Jax - October 28, 2010

My problem with Harve Bennett’s comments are – to be blunt – that he’s old. Star Trek is now multi-generational and, unfortunately for him, his time has passed. I LOVE the Trek he was involved with, but Trek wouldn’t be where it is right now if JJ & Co. hadn’t had a more modern take on the material. They did find a creative way to approach this re-boot and I am curious and excited to see what they do next.

Don’t take this to mean that old people can’t make good movies. That’s not my point. But Trek is now bigger than any one person and has grown way beyond Roddenberry’s original vision. Like Walt Disney, Trek will only survive if it appeals to a broader, younger audience. I for one will gladly go along for the ride.

255. Boborci - October 28, 2010

252. Which publication would you like me to link you to to discuss Trek 09’s relevance? Salon? Newsweek? Huffington Post? Wall Street Journal?

256. Boborci - October 28, 2010

U know, the usual movie publications.

257. Jax - October 28, 2010

Boborci:

How do guys read the internet and still keep your sanity? People can be flat out CRUEL in their critique of stuff that you worked hard on, saying things they’d never say if they met you face to face. I was part of a comic book release a couple of years ago and we really obsessed over the negative reviews instead of the positive ones. I completely understand now why filmmakers and writers such as yourself tend to stay far away from fan sites like this one. God bless, ’cause I don’t know if I could handle the way people criticize on here if it were my work.

258. MJ - October 28, 2010

@257 Agreed. I can’t imagine being Bob and reading some of this stuff…Bob, do you need sleeping pills some night after reading some of these posts?

259. Boborci - October 28, 2010

257. Well, Alex doesn’t do it, but I find it fascinating.

260. Boborci - October 28, 2010

258. Only one in a while;)

261. Boborci - October 28, 2010

Ultimately, I know how lucky I am to have anyone complaining about me or my work.

262. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 28, 2010

241. bill hiro – October 28, 2010
No criticism of older Star Trek goes unchallenged by the fanboys at TrekMovie.com

Fixed!

263. Jonboc - October 28, 2010

Wow…so many outraged fans….sounds like Harve struck a nerve lol. Must be a bit of truth in there somewhere.

264. MJ - October 28, 2010

@241. This is ridiculous and hilarious — thanks for a great laugh. So Anthony would be Bill O’Rielly then? What website would then be the MSNBC of Trekdom? LOL

265. MJ - October 28, 2010

@263 — No, he just made a horses behind out of himself and irritated a lot of us in doing so.

266. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 28, 2010

Truthfully, Bob, you should be ignoring us every bit as much as Alex and Damon do.

Also, it’s past your bedtime.

267. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennet to write book “Why I hate the new Trek”.

268. MJ - October 28, 2010

@261. Bob, tell that to Brett Favre.

269. boborci - October 28, 2010

241. The reason I post here is because of all the Trek sites I saw, this one was my favorite. No other reason. Anthony and the staff here won me over only by having a good destination and a true love of Trek.

270. boborci - October 28, 2010

268. ha

271. MJ - October 28, 2010

@266. Good point, you need to get some sleep Bob. I would hate to see you sleep deprived from reading and posting here, and then make some critical mistake on the script due to fatigue….

(yawn)…how do I get Spock to get out of this jam…(yawn)…I give up, there is no way to handle this…going to have to bring back Old Kirk from the future to fix this…(yawm)….email to JJ: “Sign up William Shatner”

PLEASE GET YOUR SLEEP!!!!!!!!!!

272. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

242. Kirk did get the girl in this movie, the green one.

273. Hat Rick - October 28, 2010

No one can fault Mr. Orci for his taste in Trek websites!

I, too, have posted on other Trek websites, and have participated well and truly on AOL back in the 1990’s when the AOL member known as Captain April (or Robert April) was able to induce the interest of Ronald D. Moore in answering questions about the then-ongoing Trek series he produced, Deep Space Nine.

I’m sure that the responses over a very long period are available on the WayBack Machine archival website under “Ask Ronald Moore” or “Ask Ron Moore.”

I still have an open account, as it were, at TrekWeb.com, as well.

But this website has been consistently the most insightful and informative, and I can understand why Bob prefers it over all the others that are presently maintained.

274. dmduncan - October 28, 2010

259. Boborci – October 28, 2010

What fascinates you about it, Bob? Why doesn’t Alex do the same thing?

275. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

I’d like to see the break down of fans who enjoyed the 2009 Trek vs. those who didn’t and the corelation between those who grew up watching TNG and those who grew up on TOS. I suspect a trend would reveal itself. It may not be the older fans who have the hardest time reconciling this latest chapter afterall.

276. dmduncan - October 28, 2010

Also, I’ll bet Harve doesn’t know about MWI. He’s probably thinking there’s one Vulcan and these whoopersnappers blew the dang thing up!

277. Red Dead Ryan - October 28, 2010

Harve Bennett deserves credit for offering valid criticisms of J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek”. I think people need to cut the guy some slack. And the J.J-bashers need to cut the new guys some slack as well. Both parties were able to reinvent Star Trek. Both Bennett and Abrams have shown they knew/know what they did do or are currently doing.

For people to come out and bash Bennett for speaking up, all the while regarding “The Wrath Of Khan” as the “Holy Grail” of Trek films is downright hypocritical and pathetic. People can criticize Mr. Bennett for his criticisms, but NO ONE can deny the impact he had on the Trek franchise.

278. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 28, 2010

The Vulcans were created as a contrast to humans, or a mirror to which we might see ourselves or any other reasons to move the story along. And they will continue to be… in a different light.

279. Phaser Guy - October 28, 2010

I heard Brett Favre really liked the new Trek.

280. Daoud - October 28, 2010

Bob, you’re really somewhat the Sarek to fandom, eh? :) (Alex must be more of the T’Pau.) I know you could probably tell dmduncan (#274) that your being here was “the logical thing to do.”

Thanks for always being around here! Indeed Anthony has created the site that is the “rolling convention”. It may not have the bells and whistles of a BBS like TrekBBS always had, but.. it’s bright and shiny. Here’s to hoping that Trek 2012 is bright and shiny like 2009. In uncertain times (such as the late 1960’s) and optimistic future Trek is just what the doctor ordered!

@279 Yeah, I heard Brett wanted Gaila’s phone number. He’s hoping she wasn’t on one of the ships Nero blasted apart!

281. Daoud - October 28, 2010

…an optimistic future Trek…

(One of said TrekBBS bell and whistle is the ability to edit a post! But I can live without it.)

282. Phaser Guy - October 29, 2010

So, the Starfleet in Bennet’s script would discriminate Spock? That’s just insane BS. Starfleet s open to all races except Vulcan in that script? I can see why it wasn’t made.

283. Admiral New - October 29, 2010

Is there a copy of that (The Academy Years) script anywhere? Sounds like an interesting read.

284. Jim Nightshade - October 29, 2010

Ok i admit that prejudice will probably always be a negative aspect of humanity but one would assume there would be less of it in an enlightened cosmicly aware humanity of the future–i also admit since we havent read harves script that it could have been done as a good story if done right–jjs trek did have more action but bob n alex did a great job on the personalities n depth of the characters we know n love–that n the perfect casting,the humor n fantastic sets n effex all came together to reboot our franchise for all of us-it was also positive n bright n fun-a trek movie hasnt been this fun in many years-harve is entitled to his opinions but i doubt his story would have been one tenth as big or popular as jjs n robertos n alexs trek was-just what trek needed to reinvigerate it–thanx roberto for your great trek story–n thanx also for choosing trekmovie.com and us fans to check in and communicate with -i dont know how he finds the time–and i am sure bob knows and is not hurt by negative comments and does not take it personally realizing all fans n all viewpoints make up trek fandom-i would never label harve b as bitter and i know most here posting are just being passionate bout their opinions n certainly dont hate harve b–or anyone–keep on trekkin

285. Crispy - October 29, 2010

#241 You said it pal, you hit the nail on the head their.

286. Trevor John - October 29, 2010

For what it’s worth, I mostly agree with Bennett.

287. James - October 29, 2010

Before Harve critiques other Trek films i want an official apology from him for Star Trek V.

288. Trekprincess - October 29, 2010

Bob I think fans are harsh on what you and the rest of the supreme court have done

289. Nuallain - October 29, 2010

Like others, I’m still flummoxed by the way Bennet can’t grasp that after 250 years and a nuclear war someone may … *shock* … have dug a quarry in Iowa.

(Of course one could argue the same about his idea that two centuries after a nuclear war the same college campuses from today would still be standing, but that’s a much lesser point)

And I don’t think his comments really qualify as a simple ‘not what I would have done’ thing. He’s plainly being derisive when he talks about ‘bang bang’. He’s entitled to his opinion but that opinion is plainly that Trek 09 is an empty, soulless, FX led action flick. Which isn’t really true – it’s got more soul and character than half of Bennet’s entries at least.

290. P Technobabble - October 29, 2010

I don’t see any point in ragging on Bennett. It’s all water under the bridge. His time with Trek came to an end when Paramount decided to go with TUC rather than his “Academy.” Clearly, Bennett had specific reasons for wanting to do his film, but he did see the advantage in “re-starting” the franchise. In that sense, I think he was right.

As for things like the destruction of Vulcan and the loss of Amanda in Trek09, I think these elements were a reflection of 9/11. Tremendous loss. Something that cannot be undone. And while the destruction of Vulcan implies a great loss, the death of Amanda is what makes it personal. It’s not just billions of faceless people being killed. It is people whom others love and care about. And our caring about Spock is what makes Amanda’s death personal for us.

The loss of Vulcan and Amanda are as much a part of the drama as the loss of the Enterprise and Kirk’s son was, as others have already mentioned. To harp on Bob and Alex is unfair, then.

291. Trekprincess - October 29, 2010

Some are just too critical on their judgement of Trek 09 :(

292. denny cranium - October 29, 2010

BobOrci re post 261

Good point

293. Trekprincess - October 29, 2010

Well said Jim Nightshade :) I agree with everything you have said

294. Damian - October 29, 2010

242–I’ve read that George Kirk was a farmer, and I’ve read him as a Starfleet officer. The novel “First Frontier” had him as a Starfleet officer while the recent Crucible series had him as a farmer. So there’s contradictory back story on him. Also, the Crucible series (which came out before Star Trek (2009)) noted he died when Kirk was a child, about age 11 while the movie said he lived to see Kirk take command of the Enterprise in the prime timeline. Obviously, the on screen reference takes precedence in this case.

Re: Spock, when Kirk first took command of the Enterprise Kirk and Spock were not close. Mitchell was his best friend. It was not until “Where No Man Has Gone Before” that Kirk started warming up to Spock. This is also further developed in some of the novels depicting Kirks early command.

295. Damian - October 29, 2010

294—Not until the end of “Where No Man Has Gone Before” that Kirk started warming up to Spock. (I forgot to add the word -end-)

296. Vorta3434343434343434343 - October 29, 2010

I totally agree with him — blowing up Vulcan was stupid and cheap.

297. Tekwardo - October 29, 2010

I have no problem giving Mr. Bennett credit for producing Trek II, having said that, anyone who knows what they’re talking about will tell you that Nic Meyer is the Savior of Trek. Bennett did a decent job of producing, but that film was so great because of the awesome writing (Meyer wrote the entire thing in a weekend), direction, and stellar performances of the cast.

I personally liked Trek III, but it wasn’t what I consider a great movie. Trek IV was obviously well liked and a good film, but again, I think that had more to do with the writing (of which Harve only had a hand in) and direction.

I won’t even get into Trek V.

“Geez, I’d hate to see what would happen if Rick Berman criticized the film. Would he be getting death threats?”

Rick Berman absolutely destroyed Trek becuase he should have gotten out way sooner. He doesn’t have to criticize Trek 09 for me to voice my distain for him. He’s like Michael Eisner, he stayed on way past his expiration date.

But dont’ worry, I feel the same way about Gene, and Trek was his baby, afterall.

298. ensign joe - October 29, 2010

255. Boborci – October 28, 2010

252. Which publication would you like me to link you to to discuss Trek 09’s relevance? Salon? Newsweek? Huffington Post? Wall Street Journal?

Here boborci let me link it for you (U know, the usual movie publications):

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/05/05/enterprise-ethics.html

“Enterprise Ethics”

“The original ‘Star Trek’ series dealt with important issues of the day, while the new film is all explosions and action.”

299. Damian - October 29, 2010

Sometimes I miss the days before I found message boards. Before, I just lived in my own little naive world. I liked all the Star Trek that was being put out. Some more than others, but I can honestly say I’ve never actually hated any episode or movie. I found things to like in everything. I didn’t care what others thought. It was all good. I could have cared less who was behind it.

I find myself trying to convince others why it was all good. Why Rick Berman didn’t rape Star Trek. Why JJ Abrams isn’t trying to create the Star Wars in Star Trek. You know what. It doesn’t really matter. I loved it all. Curse me if you want. But I liked the Star Trek Gene Roddenberry put out, I like what Harve Bennett/Leonard Nimoy/Nich Meyer put out. God save me, I liked what Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Mike Piller and Jeri Taylor put out. And I liked what JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman put out.

So everyone is entitled to what they like and want to believe. But no one is going to ruin it for me. I’m going to watch Star Trek: Voyager “Threshold” now. BLPTHBLPTHBLPTH ;)

300. Patrice - October 29, 2010

I loved trek 09.
I loved everything about it. Lense flares, shakey cameras (it felt real- more so that the other stuff out there), the opening, the closing and everything in between. It was a fun, wild ride that has promise and potential. I look forward to the next two films. Thanks for reinventing Trek for me (although I have been around since the 70’s) and a new generation, Bob, JJ, etc.

301. Boborci - October 29, 2010

298. Funny given on eof the obvious themes of our movie is “cheating.” chewting on Kobayahsi Maru, cheating through time travel, etc. In other words, ethics. Right?

302. sean - October 29, 2010

Bottom line: criticizing the new film doesn’t make Harve a bad guy any more than decrying technobabble makes Ron Moore a bad guy.

JJ is the new Harve, and you’d think Harve might cut him some slack in that regard, but he’s earned the right to express his opinions. He might have done it more tactfully, and his back-handed compliment at the end was gratuitous and basically amounted to ‘I think JJ wanted to make a terrible movie, so I guess he succeeded!’, but still. Maybe he’s forgotten the vitriol directed his way after TWOK by hardcore fans that felt he’d turned the series too militaristic? It’s possible.

At the end of the day, much like Rick Berman and others before and after him, Harve was involved with Trek for a very long time, so I imagine it’s difficult to see someone else take the reigns and do things that would have been sacrosanct during your tenure.

That said, I always try to remember Kirk’s line to Scotty in TSFS: ‘Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.’

303. P Technobabble - October 29, 2010

I don’t agree that the new Trek was “all explosions and action,” regardless of WHO wrote the article. And TOS was not always, entirely, preaching something. Yeh, “City” is a great episode cos it’s overflowing with heart, soul and an impossible situation for Kirk to be in. But how about that “Spock’s Brain?” Where’s the big moral lesson in that one? Grave-robbing while the person is still alive is a crime?
I could go on.
And then sometimes the show would hit you over the head with a message, like “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” Prejudice can only lead to an endless battle. Nothing subtle about that one.
Trek09 had a message in it. And I saw it every time Kirk was hanging at the edge of a cliff, or a ledge or platform. Kirk never fell because he never gave up. The struggle to overcome, to beat the Kobayashi Maru for real, the will to keep trying. That is what Kirk is about, after all, and that is what we want Kirk to be about, because Kirk is us.
It’s also about loss of all kinds — a husband, a mother, a world, a universe. Surely, everyone can relate to the loss of someone, or something… except the guy who wrote the article.
All IMO, of course…

304. Damian - October 29, 2010

It seems people have to have some sort of theme or message in every Star Trek they watch. I watch Star Trek because I enjoy it. Even “Spock’s Brain” and “The Way to Eden” were fun to watch, even if some of the concepts were ridiculous. To me, it’s did I enjoy the voyage. Themes and messages are bonuses. I think the overall message of Star Trek is a positive future for humanity. That we have to capacity for tremendous growth, but at the end of the day we are still human and sometimes are going to screw up. I thought Star Trek: The Next Generation “The Pegasus” summed that up pretty well. Here you have Commander Riker, who made a mistake years earlier. The easy thing would have been to obey orders and pretend it never happened. But the entire episode he is struggling, twisting his head around what he should do. At the end he does the right thing, to hell with his career. While Starfleet is not happy over the incident, Riker clearly feels better at the end. There are many examples of that.

Star Trek (2009) had a number of themes in it, Yes it had explosions and action, but I don’t have a problem with that. Maybe they didn’t swamp you with an overriding message, but there were lots of little messages throughout. This isn’t Hitchcock. You’re not going to find foreshadowing, symbolism or a gotcha moment. It’s a sci-fi action film. Judge it as such.

305. ensign joe - October 29, 2010

Hey I’m just pointing out that your “linking to major publications” method as an argument supporting your case works both ways.

Of course cheating is related to ethics but there was the question of relevancy.. I suppose you could say cheating is a relevant topic.

But I don’t really have a problem with the relevancy as a 2 hour movie trying to revive a franchise is not quite the vehicle to discuss topical issues (like a weekly television show can be).

.. just didn’t like the argument..

306. Sailors Lair - October 29, 2010

Why are people pissing on Harve Benett? He made Star Trek better in every way in his time and so what if hes not crazy about the new film?, he was so right about Vulcan and The Lady Amanda, etc. Sounds like some insecure “new” TOS fans, not all but just some. meanwhile Star Trek for me is DEAD, Long live the REAL Star Trek with Shatner and those other guys.

Sailors Lair

307. Phil - October 29, 2010

298. ensign joe – October 29, 2010

Not entirely sure what your point is. The Newsweek op/ed piece really seemed to be pineing for the Progressive good ole days, but the example is flawed – TOS treated 90% of the female cast as barely dressed arm candy, and the crew seemed bound and determined to have a woman in every port. Again, TOS was a product of it’s era, before STD’s, AID’s, and drug abuse took the wind out of the party that was the 60’s. If we want to look at ethicial issues in Trek 09, we can discuss duty, honor, sacrifice, single parent households, cheating, revenge, self sacrifice, and the list goes on. TOS at least saw that even if we were seeking some sort of utopia, that perhaps even then, we needed to examine the cost.

308. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#305

I’m suprised Bob Orci gave links to major publications given his distrust of the media. After all, the CIA controls the media, right Bob? Oh wait, they haven’t gotten to you too, have they?!!!

;)

309. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#307

Uh, drug abuse and STD’s existed long before the “party that was the 60’s.” Just ask Al Capone.

310. Jai - October 29, 2010

Ensign Joe, re: #134

“that you Harve? ;)

i kid! i kid!”

Very funny :) No, it’s not Mr Bennett — it’s “Jai” (not to be confused with my near-namesake “Jay”, who I see has made numerous excellent points on this thread).

I added a short note about my suggestion for the sequel via the second URL in #131, as follows:

“I think it covers plenty of relevant bases — it’s got direct consequences of the events depicted in ST09, historical & contemporary parallels which most of the audience will be able to relate to, life-or-death moral dilemmas with no easy answers, political scheming, shadowy intelligence organisations, military decisions whose impact would span the galaxy, no “outright villains” in the traditional sense, idealism vs. pragmatism, Admiral Pike, and Klingons. And if people are looking for an epic scenario which would push Kirk and the Enterprise crew to the very limit and really test what they’re made of, this would definitely do it.”

Anyway, I’ll stop plugging my suggestion, as it’s off-topic and interested people can read about it in detail via the first URL in #131. Since it was posted towards the end of the other thread (which was already in the process of fizzling out, although I’ve noticed that another commenter has already responded very positively to my idea), I’ll re-post a slightly shorter version of my suggestion on the next thread that focuses on the possible storyline for the next Star Trek film. I expect another one of those will turn up sooner or later ;)

311. ensign joe - October 29, 2010

307. Phil – October 29, 2010

boborci implied that “the usual movie publications” supported his claim that ST09 was relevant

I pointed out one that did not support his claim.

I believe the overall argument was that it would be nice to have Star Trek have a relevant and moral issue, a message if you will, that humans as a whole could learn from.

boborci implied that it did in fact have one.. but I would wager that any overt message relating to current issues was disposed of in order to not be divisive at the box office (there was torture in ST09 but if you notice there was never an endorsement or discouragement of torture).. nothing as controversial..

but then again you could argue the prejudice between humans and vulcans was the topical issue..

so iffy subject that can be argued both ways but somehow I don’t think boborci sees it both.. as evidenced in his “publications” rebuttal..

312. ensign joe - October 29, 2010

310. Jai – October 29, 2010

Sounds like the outline is there.. All you need to do is just sit down and write it.

Sites like Orson Scott Card’s medicine show might even publish it (probably not with the Trek references unfortunately)..

http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/

313. Jax - October 29, 2010

#311

You can’t completely blame the filmmakers for not presenting an old fashioned Trek social issue in ST09. FIrst and foremost Abrams and Co. had to show the studio that Trek can make money and is still relevant to modern audiences. It’s box office receipts showed that it is. Besides, not all of old Trek was about social issues of the day. Don’t forget that the studio didn’t like the STO pilot because there wasn’t enough action.

314. ensign joe - October 29, 2010

313. Jax – October 29, 2010

I don’t blame them at all I was just addressing the argument..

As I said in #305:

“But I don’t really have a problem with the relevancy as a 2 hour movie trying to revive a franchise is not quite the vehicle to discuss topical issues (like a weekly television show can be).”

So, yes, I agree with you.

But I also think the request for more relevancy is not an unreasonable one and should not have been dismissed as it was..

315. Phil - October 29, 2010

309. Vultan – October 29, 2010

True. Perhaps a better observation would be that attitudes about the acceptability of these vices changed during the 60’s.

316. Charlie - October 29, 2010

Harve lost me when he couldn’t tell the difference between a quarry and the Grand Canyon…

317. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#315

There you go. Drugs and “free love” became more “mainstream” as it were. But it’s still self-destructive any way you look at it. That’s why Trek will always be my favorite work of fiction. Hope, camaraderie, and intelligence are a way of life. :)

318. Jai - October 29, 2010

Ensign Joe, re: #312

“Sounds like the outline is there.. All you need to do is just sit down and write it.”

It’s very tempting, although right now this is what I’ve got: http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/rumor-no-khan-for-star-trek-sequel-but-known-tos-villain/#2998178

…….which is probably already pretty detailed if the sequel’s writing team want to build on it; I have no problem with Bob Orci and his colleagues expanding on the ideas & issues summarised in that post if they think they’re viable concepts. It could be actually be one hell of a movie if handled properly (especially if they’re using “The Dark Knight” as a template for the high quality & sophistication they’re aiming for), and I’m not just saying that because I’m the person suggesting those ideas :)

As I said earlier, it covers all the bases and (hopefully) logically extrapolates the political & military fallout from the destruction of Vulcan combined with Spock Prime’s sweeping strategic knowledge of the rest of the galaxy. I think the moral dilemmas and “pre-emptive actions” it discusses are pretty realistic, along with the fact that everyone’s justified (to varying degrees) in their own actions and there are no stereotypical villains. And it plausibly includes a range of characters & subjects which numerous commenters here have said they’d like to see in the next film.

Since I’m just a fan offering suggestions and (unfortunately) I’m not part of the next movie’s writing team, I guess it’s in Bob Orci’s hands now ;)

As a general observation, it’s impressive to see that he regularly follows the discussions here along with taking time out to talk to other commenters — plenty of other successful Hollywood figures wouldn’t necessarily do that, so it reflects very well on him. Especially when you consider the more abrasive aspects of the internet, as some other commenters have also mentioned.

(By the way, thank you very much for flagging up that website you mentioned; for future reference I’ll definitely check it out).

319. Boborci - October 29, 2010

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/26/star-trek-on-cover-of-newsweek/

Here ya go,

320. Gooseneck Viewer - October 29, 2010

Star Trek V was bad enough. We didn’t need Starfleet Academy to add insult to injury.

321. Lt. Bailey - October 29, 2010

Harve is entltled to his opinion and he has some good points as he was involved with a lot of the ST films.

Even I have heard from some ST Fans that they were less then thrilled with ST09 for what happened inspite of teh alternate time line thing. Some people just don’t like or want a change. I was very upset back in 1979 when I saw the bland uniforms for TMP, but as Jon Provil explained to me in the Spacequest Casino at the Hilton, that is what the director (Bob Wise) wanted the actors to be in, to focus on the charactor, not a bright gold, blue or red shirt.

Just because it came out as a ST film does not make it a great film to some people. ST09 very well may be an action film to these people and only ST in name. To me, I was just glad something came out as we really needed it. Could ST09 been better or different? Sure, maybe, why not, I don’t know? I enjoyed the film each time we saw it with our friends and fellow fans. Its the entertainment that you get out of it and being with friends.

Harve film sounds like it would have been a good film too. People would be raving about that film after a long drought, so don’t kid yourself in knocking it.

Although I think he should have chosen the Pepperdine campus in Malibu, Calif but that is only because I went there and it is on the coast, which could have been looking close to a Frisco setting.

322. ensign joe - October 29, 2010

319. Boborci – October 29, 2010

Here you go,

Star Trek Sequel Will Reflect Contemporary Political Issues

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/09/16/star-trek-sequel-will-reflect-contemporary-political-issues/

“The first movie was so concerned with just setting up the characters — their meeting each and galvanizing that family — that in many ways a sequel will have a very different mission. it needs to do what [the late Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory. It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant.”

-J.J. Abrams

323. I am not Herbert - October 29, 2010

“When you blow up Vulcan and kill Spock’s mother, you are making a movie that I would never make…”

FULL AGREEMENT =D

324. Disinvited - October 29, 2010

#301.

But I thought the whole point of your “new” time travel point of view was that you can’t cheat using time travel because it leaves the parent universe unchanged, i.e. nothing really has changed?

But I must say that reconceptualizing your 2009 effort as the new colonized title, STAR TREK: CHEAT does present an interesting path to pursue in review. In this light, Spock isn’t injecting red matter after the fact in a futile attempt to reverse the physical effects of the destructive forces already released in real time but rather he is purposely attempting to induce a time travel and/or time reversal cheat a la Chris Reeves’ Superman, Hmmm… sort of hearkens back to his “GALILEO 7″ action. But you would have him discover that the time travel mechanism(s) he unleashed has surprised him by causing his craft to undergo a first for him: QM time travel. And apparently, that has also changed the new universe’s flavor of time such that QM is the only time travel mechanism now available to him?

Fascinating

325. Seany-Wan - October 29, 2010

Bottom line: Paramount Pictures asked JJ Abrams to breathe life into Star Trek and he did so. Yes, there are similarities to Star Wars, but JJ & crew now have a clean slate to work with. Superman Returns was a thinly veiled rehash of Superman 1 and where did that get the franchise. I say give JJ and crew time (like 2012 ;-)

326. John Dean - October 29, 2010

That is a terrible picture of Washington and Lee. It has a classic Greek Revival facade on the top of a green hill and surrounded by ancient oak trees. Built around the turn of the century. The nineteenth century. Founded 1749 folks. I do a film and screenwriting class there, donating my valuable time to teach overpriviledged children.

327. RB - October 29, 2010

All this talk really makes me want to watch ST09 again. It was without a doubt the most fun I’ve had in a movie in years. The next movie I hope to have that much fun watching is the next Harry Potter.

328. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#326

Well, whether you’re teaching the trust fund crowd or not, I commend you for being an educator—especially one in the arts!

Just curious, but what is your favorite film? Or better yet, what is your favorite sci-fi film?

329. MJ - October 29, 2010

@287 “Before Harve critiques other Trek films i want an official apology from him for Star Trek V.”

WELL SAID!!! Nice job as well Harve for cheaping out and not using ILM for special effects on V. You are the producer — that is one battle with the studio that you should have fallen on your sword on. ST V is the Spocks Brain of the movies.

@289 “Like others, I’m still flummoxed by the way Bennet can’t grasp that after 250 years and a nuclear war someone may … *shock* … have dug a quarry in Iowa.”

I pointed out to Harve and his cronies here in my earlier posting that some web research I conducted yesterday showed that there were over 100 quarries in Iowa. Guess what folks, if you dig under the topsoil and cornfields you find rock? Believe it or not, there is not rich Iowa top soil all the way down to the earth’s mantle. Does anyone take high-school level geology anymore?

330. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

326. John Dean – October 29, 2010

lol

331. boborci - October 29, 2010

322. ensign joe – October 29, 2010

Uhuh. And? Two not mutually exclusive. What he said was true. We were also concerned with making it Star Trek and all that that means to us as fans. And yes, the next mission will be different. And? You are reading meaning into his statement that isn’t there. Did he say we were interested in preserving canon while freeing ourselves form it? No. Is that clearly part of the movie? Yes.

332. NuFan - October 29, 2010

Even if the sequel is about global warming and gay equality, people will complain anyway. Social relevanc is in the eye of the beholder.

333. rocketscientist - October 29, 2010

It looks like some info is needed here.

First, WRT ST5: The Final Frontier, nobody should blame Mr. Bennett for the problems with that film. He did his best to steer Mr. Shatner from the story he insisted on telling. He knew the story and script had problems but did the best he could to make the best film possible.

WRT TFF’s sfx, ILM was unable to get the visual sfx done in the time required. They were busy with Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade and some other films, so I don’t believe Mr. Bennett deserves blame for that aspect of the film either, or at least the primary blame. The primary culprits for TFF were Shatner and Paramount, not Harve Bennett.

It’s sad to see so much hatred for this man, particularly the ageism I’m seeing here. He really made some wonderful films for the franchise with STII-STIV. So what if he’s bitter? I can understand why he would be. He really believed in his SF Academy story and, after all the work he had done for the ST franchise, Paramount told him to walk. It’s understandable that he took it a bit personally.

So what if he didn’t like ST XI? He’s certainly allowed his opinion. He’s right in the sense that ST XI was a bigger, louder, more action-packed ST film than his films were. Heck, Nimoy and Koenig made the same sort of observations. ST XI is a different kind of ST film, one with some of SW’s action and energy added to it. IMO, that wasn’t a bad thing. I loved it! I thought it was a really refreshing and new sort of ST film! Mr. Bennett obviously feels differently and that’s fine with me. I don’t take it personally, like some people here apparently do? What is up with that? What happened to civility? I mean, look at Mr. Bob Orci here. If anyone has any cause to take Mr. Bennett’s remarks personally, it’s Mr. Orci, since he was one of the writers of ST XI. He’s not lobbing insults at Mr. Bennett, especially ones based on his age. Mr. Orci is showing what some people here are lacking: compassion and class.

(BTW, I loved ST XI Mr. Orci. Not as much as TWOK, that’s my fave movie ever, but you guys really made a great film! Thank you so much for bringing back those classic characters in such a clever way!)

Bob (yup, I’m a Bob too)

334. NuFan - October 29, 2010

331.

That’s my point. You went to the trouble of preserving the old universe and they complained anyway. With some fans, it’s the no-win scenario (yes, I’m learning trek) . Maybe you should just blow it up in the sequel.

335. Phil - October 29, 2010

317. Vultan – October 29, 2010

At least in recorded history, it seems like every great society crumbled when the exercise of self-indulgence became the driving force in society. Considering that in the Star Trek universe Vulcan seemed to symbolize self restraint, I wonder if there would be any thought to the concept that the loss of Vulcan represents the beginning of the end of the Federation?

336. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#335

Hmmm… good point. The loss of Vulcan would definitely mean a great loss to Federation society. Hopefully, humans in the 23rd century have more self-control… you know like keeping themselves from getting into bar fights, sleeping around with green women… oh… yeah, well, they’re screwed. ;)

337. MJ - October 29, 2010

@333 “I mean, look at Mr. Bob Orci here. If anyone has any cause to take Mr. Bennett’s remarks personally, it’s Mr. Orci, since he was one of the writers of ST XI. He’s not lobbing insults at Mr. Bennett, especially ones based on his age. Mr. Orci is showing what some people here are lacking: compassion and class.”

That’s because The Supreme Court bunch have too much class to cut down another ST producer. As I said earlier, you didn’t hear Gene Rodenberry take pot shots at Bennet in public in the 1980’s even though their were rumors that he did not like the direction the movies were talking after his beloved “motion sickness” movies. Rodenberry, The Supreme Court, and even the somewhat fairly victimized Rick Berman, all choose to take the professional and classy high road, while Bennett comes off looking like a grumpy old man who is trying to score against perceived wrongs that others just don’t see.

338. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

I don’t think Bennett understands what they did with the MWI thing, and that’s probably half the reason he didn’t like it. And Gene Roddenberry probably wouldn’t have allowed something so big as the destruction of Vulcan either.

But I also maintain that GR was at his peak during TOS and that TNG didn’t have the same mojo, so GRs disapproval might not always be a bad thing. Sometimes you need new blood, a fresh pair of eyes to find what you can’t see anymore.

George Lucas, same problem.

In fact, would love for George L to will creative control of any future Star Wars reboots to Bob and Alex after he is gone.

339. Phil - October 29, 2010

337. MJ – October 29, 2010

If anyone would have cause to give some members of the fan base a f*** off, it would be Mr. Orci. It’s one thing to disagree with someone, it’s another thing to make it personal. It’s simple, really – don’t post something you would not be willing to say in person…

340. Data65 - October 29, 2010

There’s nothing I would say that I wouldn’t say to his face.

341. MJ - October 29, 2010

@339. PHIL, WELL SAID!

342. keachick - October 29, 2010

336 Vultan wrote – “Hmmm… good point. The loss of Vulcan would definitely mean a great loss to Federation society. Hopefully, humans in the 23rd century have more self-control… you know like keeping themselves from getting into bar fights, sleeping around with green women… oh… yeah, well, they’re screwed. ;)”

First of all, it takes at least two to get into any (bar) fight. Kirk was actually minding his own business. The wannabee red shirts were not!

Secondly, what was shown was Kirk apparently having an intimate relationship with one green coloured woman called Gaila. Is there something wrong with him being with a green Orion woman or with her being with a white caucasian human male? My – what a racist statement, Vultan. I also notice that when people refer to Kirk’s “sleeping around” (what? because he acknowledges women by saying “Hello, ladies!” on a couple of occasions), they never bother to mention the name of the actual woman he is shown to be with. Her name was GAILA.

I do have to wonder just how many really understood the Star Trek 09 movie and I really do not understand the harsh criticisms they have of some characters, especially Kirk. They compare this young 25 year old Kirk to a Kirk more than twice his age in films like TWOK, who had done the five year mission and more and was now an Admiral. Really silly, imho.

343. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#338

Why reboot Star Wars?

It’s bad enough Hollywood is rebooting/remaking every other franchise and cult movie from the past forty years. Could we just leave Star Wars alone? Or, please, just make movies about other characters in the galaxy far, far away. I don’t think I could handle seeing some twenty-something metrosexuals playing Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. It was bad enough what they did with that JC Penney model that played Manakin/Darth Vader in the prequels. Ugh…

:(

344. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#342

Lighten up, cupcake. I was referring to Vulcan self-control being a good influence on humans. Ever see Spock (or any Vulcan for that matter) walk out of a bar with a bloody face?

And if you think Kirk being involved with that Orion chicky was some sort of special, meaningful “relationship,” huh… well, I don’t know what to tell you—thanks for the laugh anyway! Besides, I don’t want to keep you. I know you’re probably busy planning to march on Selma in support of Orion civil rights. Good luck! :D

345. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

343: “It’s bad enough Hollywood is rebooting/remaking every other franchise and cult movie from the past forty years. Could we just leave Star Wars alone?”

Could say the same thing about Star Trek. ;-)

If anything needed fixing after Episode IV: A New Hope, it’s Star Wars. Someday. Will happen. But probably not for a long time.

346. Jim kirk - October 29, 2010

The crew of the enterprise travel back in time in search of humpback whales
— sounds crazy but it worked, so it is impossible to say what story premise will work or not based on short synopsis

347. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

OT but….

Would anybody like a Friday night mind twisting puzzle involving an MWI/QM hypothetical proof of God? Popped into my mind, and got me out of bed to write it down last night. Won’t force it on anyone though. Would love to have somebody tear it up if they can. It’s untested, even by me. Could be fun! Anyone?

348. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#345

Yeah, well, I know it’s blasphemy around here, but I would’ve been happy if they decided not to reboot Kirk and crew and focus on a ship other than the Enterprise. A trilogy of movies about the Kelvin and Captain Robau would’ve been aces with me. :)

349. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

348. Vultan – October 29, 2010

Problem is, when you do that — another crew, another ship — you are still rebooting the TOS premise. So why not return to the characters that made it great in the first place?

Otherwise it’s like trying to avoid Superman with a new character called Superduperman. It starts to get silly trying to sketch out the entire history of the Star Trek universe and all of it basically looks the same.

350. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

The Star Trek universe starts to look cartoonishly small.

351. keachick - October 29, 2010

To Harve Bennett’s story (which takes place in the original/prime timeline)

Frankly, it sounds awful. For a start, I seem to recall that in fact the Vulcan/human Spock is a lot older than Kirk and he first met Kirk as the new captain of the Enterprise because Pike was no longer able to command. Spock had already served with Pike for several years but did not want command. He preferred to be first officer/science officer. So, even if Kirk and Spock had first met at the Academy a few years before, they would not have been the same age.
(What is the minimum age for entry into Starfleet Academy, btw? – Most 17 year olds today are usually in their last year of high school and I would think that in order to get a place in a starfleet academy a student would need at the very least a high school diploma or its equivalent)

Why the need on Harve Bennett’s part to walk over established Trek TOS canon?

Racism in the 23rd century? Well, it is quite possible, unfortunately. Even an advanced, intelligent race like vulcans had it. Spock, being part human, suffered from it while on Vulcan. I think that would be one of the reasons why he chose to join the Academy (and be on his mother’s home planet), because he knew he would not be subjected to the kind of meanness, disguised as “pure logic” or some other bs, as he was on his other home planet, Vulcan.

Bennett’s story mentions a planetary cabal, which is a political clique or faction. I take it that this faction is trying to influence or in fact has persuaded the Academy administration to discriminate against the green-bloods, which includes Spock. Somehow it all seems a bit silly, actually quite dumb, given the period where many different (alien) races belong to the Federation and attend Starfleet Academy. Then you have two 17 year old wannabees and a love interest of a similar age who end up “saving the day” for everyone. Of course, Kirk’s first love just has to die – wow now there’s something *original* (oh God, so clicheed and mean, honestly, please…). Sorry, Harve, but it just has me wanting to gag. No wonder it didn’t get made, thank goodness.

I have not watched all the videos (tech problems again…yawn, sigh) of Harve Bennett, but he does appear to be a reasonably bright, kindly sounding gentleman. I don’t agree with his opinion of this movie but that’s OK.

352. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

And if you notice, even in TNG Roddenberry wanted to keep the idea of an all logical character to have that contrast to the surrounding humans in the premise of the show. He had Data do that. So he was still running the same basic ideas in a different form.

353. Brent - October 29, 2010

ST09 got one thing right that Harve Bennett proposed script did not, Spock was older and had already served some years when Kirk was in the Academy. Bennet’s story about prejudice would have gone against canon as well or was the entire crew of the Intrepid younger than Spock!!

354. keachick - October 29, 2010

344 wrote – “Lighten up, cupcake…”
I thought that only big burly men in red shirts got to be called “cupcake”.
Oh and that reminds me, Bob Orci, what have you got in mind for Kirk in his handling of the Cupcake? – nothing too mean; more in the vein of showing Kirk’s humourous, mischievous side. CP is willing, I have read.

Anyway, I’ll only lighten up if I can have some tea with that…really got to bake some cupcakes.

“And if you think Kirk being involved with that Orion chicky was some sort of special, meaningful “relationship,” huh… well, I don’t know what to tell you—thanks for the laugh anyway! Besides, I don’t want to keep you. I know you’re probably busy planning to march on Selma in support of Orion civil rights. Good luck! :D”

All of the quote above – presumptuous assumptions!

355. Rocket Scientist - October 29, 2010

Just to clarify, the poster named ‘rocketscientist’ is not me.

356. Mel - October 29, 2010

I am glad they made Star Trek VI and not Starfleet Academy. Starfleet Academy sounds lame. A teenage love story, racism (which don’t really work in the utopian Star Trek universe) and an academy, which doesn’t look futuristic.

357. MJ - October 29, 2010

@356 “I am glad they made Star Trek VI and not Starfleet Academy. Starfleet Academy sounds lame. A teenage love story, racism (which don’t really work in the utopian Star Trek universe) and an academy, which doesn’t look futuristic.”

Agreed. If it sounds like lame, looks like lame, and tastes like lame, then is probably is LAME!

358. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 29, 2010

Come on duducan. Post it!

Vultan, are you saying one cannot have a deep, rewarding and mutually respectable relationship with an Orion Slave Girl? Shame on you sir! I’ll have more to say when I return from Selma. Good day to you!

359. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 29, 2010

Sorry dmducan.

360. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#358

Hmmm… well, regardless of race, it’s difficult to have any respect for your significant other when she has “slave girl” listed as her occupation. ;)

361. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 29, 2010

Judgemental?

362. keachick - October 29, 2010

To 299 Damian – I am with you totally here. So true for me as well.

301 Boborci wrote – “Funny given one of the obvious themes of our movie is “cheating.” cheating on Kobayahsi Maru, cheating through time travel, etc. In other words, ethics. Right?”

Yes, there were a number of ethical themes touched on in this movie. You just need to be paying attention.

I’ve never really understood the term “cheating death”. Either you die or you don’t die. A lot of people cannot stand this nuKirk because of the way he handled the Kobiyashi Maru test. Actually we don’t know how the prime Kirk passed the unpassable test – he might have also smiled inanely and chomped on an apple as well. In TWOK, which is where we first hear about this test, Admiral Kirk, many years later after having done several missions etc, still appeared more flippant about the KM test and his apparent cheating than did this alternate timeline younger Kirk.

However, the younger (Pine)Kirk did say to McCoy the day before, in all seriousness, “Doesn’t it bother you that nobody has passed the test?” to which he got a standard answer.
At the Academy hearing, in front of all the cadets, Kirk said that the test itself was a cheat. Spock gave the expected answer. However, Spock also managed to rub it into Kirk about the death of Kirk’s father (my partner and I both thought that was a nasty “below the belt” remark). Given that James Kirk and his mother in this timeline had to deal with the memory of George Kirk’s death every time Jim Kirk had a birthday, along with many unanswered questions surrounding the events that lead to his death, Spock’s comment was downright insensitive and rude. Up until now, Spock only had to deal with bullying (much like many young kids have to cope with today) but he had never lost anyone very close to him, in the way that Kirk had.

I think the thing that got Kirk was that in real life, nothing happens in exactly the same way. Very similar happenings occur all the time, but nothing actually repeats itself EXACTLY as before. My impression is the KM test did the same thing every time, which is not reality. It left no room for the unexpected, the possible, the improbable…in other words, the KM test, as Spock had programmed it, was totally contrived. So Kirk rightly challenged the test.

363. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#349

You know you’re right. Another ship and another crew would be pointless. I’d rather see something—oh, I don’t know—something NEW! We already know Kirk, Picard, Janeway, Archer, and the like. (That’s why DS9 has always been my favorite Trek series—because it was like Star Trek but different.)

IDIC all the way! How about a new series focusing on Starfleet Accounting?! Or the daily struggles of a Ferengi stockbrocker?! Hmmm… I smell an Emmy.

;)

364. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#361

Judgemental? Well… slavery has been a bit of a touchy subject in the United States… so I’m gonna go out on a limb and side with that radical abolitionist party.

Vote Lincoln.

365. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#363

Correction: stock broker.

366. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

359. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – October 29, 2010

You’re forgetting the N too! dmduNcan!

367. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

358: “Come on duducan. Post it!”

That’s the spirit!

The proof involves a Hypothetical Syllogism (HS), which has the following form:

If A then B,
If B, then C,
Therefore, if A then C.

Several things to remember:

MWI/QM: If something is possible there is a universe where it is actual.

If the premises are true, the conclusion follows.

Stipulative definition of God:

A. God is an omniscient (all seeing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnipresent (everywhere) being.

If God does not exist NOW, that is not to say that God will not exist EVER. (Science Fiction precedent for this idea: Destination: Void and The Jesus Incident, both by Frank Herbert) And this is where it gets paradoxical.

HS:

1. If God is possible in any universe, then there is a universe where God is actual.
2. If there is a universe where God is actual, then God is actual in ALL universes (a denial here denies A.)
3. TF, if God is possible in any universe, then God is actual in all universes.

If so, then it would appear that even if God is YET TO BE, then God exists right now.

Fun philosophy Friday!

368. MC1 Doug - October 29, 2010

@ #41: “It had something on the order of a $50M budget *in 1978 dollars*. ”

It is often quoted that ST TMP cost $42 million dollars to make. That really is not a fair statement. Most people in the know said the movie cost more in the neighborhood of $22 million dollars….

Where the extra $22 comes in is from all the start-up costs and cancellations of the Star Trek movie that was supposed to have been directed by Philip Kaufman… and the costs associated with the proposed and canceled ‘Star Trek Phase II’ TV series.

Paramount lumped all those costs into the 1979 movie, one that I still remember VERY fondly.

369. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

I haven’t tried to tear it apart yet myself. Just thought it was interesting enough to get back out of bed last night to write down, and since we all like the MWI talk around here, I thought some might enjoy the stretch.

370. Hat Rick - October 29, 2010

Frank Tipler, in his book, The Physics of Immortality, attempted to present mathematical proof of the existence of God as a great machine that is created by a future version of mankind, that eventually transforms itself into an omipresent deity through the manipulation of spacetime. As I recall, this machine is said to slow down the processes of thermodynamics and resurrect the dead.

371. Boborci - October 29, 2010

370. Good book.

372. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

370. Hat Rick – October 29, 2010

Never read Frank Tipler’s books, but that’s pretty much the same result that Frank Herbert managed to dramatize in Destination Void and The Jesus Incident.

It occurred to me last night that MWI/QM might have something to add to the discussion.

373. keachick - October 29, 2010

Harve Bennett said – “When you blow up Vulcan and kill Spock’s mother, you are making a movie that I would never make…”

A recurring theme since this movie was first released has been the anger shown against the movie makers and the dislike of the movie is, in some part, because of the destruction of Vulcan and the death of Spock’s mother, Amanda. People are angry, agrieved, upset and say that the writers should not have done that to the Vulcan planet. Well, I say, of course, it is upsetting. It is meant to be upsetting and frankly, there would be something wrong if people weren’t upset by this turn of events. An entire world was deliberately imploded/wiped out of existence, along with every single strand of life that lived on it.

Unfortunately, this is also a fact of life. People, towns, cities, countries get destroyed, whether by terrorists flying two jets into the twin towers, or by massive earthquakes following by tsunamis, millions in Pakistan left starving, stranded because half their entire country is flooded…need I go on. Shit happens now and will happen, in the future, as well. Whether shit happens for one person or for billions of people, it is still the same – it is not very nice. We have to pray that this kind of stuff does not happen too often, at least in our lifetimes, and hope for the best.

We knew of a very bright young woman many years who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, leukaemia. She was given between 18 months to three years to live. She lived for seven years. Often people in her situation will go “Why me?”. She said, “Yep. I ask that, but then I also think, why not me?” Believe me, she thought her situation sucked big time. She passed away on 5 November 1989 at the age of 33.

Vulcan was a fictional planet. She was not a work of fiction, but a real, living human being. Please, some of you need to get a better perspective on all of this. (BTW, Bob & co, if you kill or seriously injure my captain (Pine/Kirk), I will cry).

374. MC1 Doug - October 29, 2010

@ #42: “Yes, that’s why Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer failed as directors, because they didn’t constantly bang on the camera to make everything look shaky. Everything looks better when you can’t focus on anything.”

Huh??? I would venture a guess that most people still think Nicholas Meyer was the best of the TREK directors. I also think Robert Wise was an excellent director. I count his ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ and ‘The Andromeda Strain’ as some of the finest SF movies. His ST TMP was hampered with an unfinished script and with Paramouime nt interference (locking it into an unrealistic theatrical release schedule).

As to Harve, originally I was one of his naysayers, knowing his past (‘The Six Million Dollar Man’ was one of those shows that I thought cast doubt on his ability to do good TREK), but his involvement in ST: 2-4 changed my mind! He is certainly allowed to have his opinions about ST09. I agree with some of his thoughts, like the destruction of Vulcan and death of Amanda… I would NOT have done that under any circumstances… I still don’t agree with it.

375. Vultan - October 29, 2010

#374

I think that was a sarcastic dig at Abrams’ style of film-making, not against Meyer or Wise.

376. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

The interesting thing about the MWI component is that the sheer number of alternate universes increases the odds that the conclusion is true, if God is possible at all.

Which reminds me again of AC Clarke’s Three Laws of Prediction when considering whether or not it is possible:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

377. Michael Hall - October 29, 2010

“252. Which publication would you like me to link you to to discuss Trek 09’s relevance? Salon? Newsweek? Huffington Post? Wall Street Journal?”

That’s an impressive list of publications, Mr. Orci, but in truth the reason their critics liked your movie was that they considered it a fun, breezy, big-budget entertainment with a great cast–to which I will cheerfully stipulate. That it was fairly pedestrian Star Trek (I’m actually trying to be kind here) was of no more interest to them than its utter lack of relevance to life as it’s lived, let alone to anything meaningful or uplifting or constructive. Those were the fogyish concerns of a cheap, cheesy ’60s space opera with cardboard sets and horrible special effects, and not your slam-bang “re-imagining” of a multimillion dollar tentpole franchise.

378. Boborci - October 29, 2010

377. I am glad there is a percentage out there like you that didn’t get it. Means we didn’t dumb it down too much. Thank you.

379. dmduncan - October 29, 2010

377: “its utter lack of relevance to life as it’s lived, let alone to anything meaningful or uplifting or constructive.”

George Kirk’s sacrifice. Spock’s childhood, Pike’s speech to Kirk, Kirk and Spock meeting in the cave, Spock’s experience of loss, Kirk sharing that experience, Spock’s transporter pad confession and the overarching idea (which even the MUSIC seemed to be expressing) that good people CAN triumph against adverse circumstances and come out the same (compare to Nemesis’ fatalism).

It had all those things you say it had none of. That’s WHY I liked it so much.

Except Star Trek’s traditional slow speed and low budget.

380. Phil - October 29, 2010

342. keachick – October 29, 2010

Take a deep breath there, my observation was made about the stabilizing influence Vulcan has (had??) on Federation society, not any shots on the development of the character known as Kirk.

381. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 29, 2010

366 dmduncan. Thanks for the help. Rough night.

382. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 29, 2010

364. Vultan. Good man.

383. MJ - October 29, 2010

@377 “That’s an impressive list of publications, Mr. Orci, but in truth the reason their critics liked your movie was that they considered it a fun, breezy, big-budget entertainment with a great cast–to which I will cheerfully stipulate.”

Huh??? Critics usually despise the kind of movies you are referring to here.

“That it was fairly pedestrian Star Trek (I’m actually trying to be kind here) was of no more interest to them than its utter lack of relevance to life as it’s lived, let alone to anything meaningful or uplifting or constructive.”

Wow! Completely off-base. What movie did you see? And BTW, you are not being kind. As a matter of fact you just insulted one of the great guys who brought Trek back for us. If you, Bob Orci and I were having this conversation in person right now, I think I might just slap you for being so rude and embarrassing everyone on these boards like this. Shame on you!

“Those were the fogyish concerns of a cheap, cheesy ’60s space opera with cardboard sets and horrible special effects, and not your slam-bang “re-imagining” of a multimillion dollar tentpole franchise.”

Huh, what is the point with this sentence? I’m not getting it, but then again, I don’t speak elitist.

384. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

dmduncan, my arch enemy, ( hope I got it right this time… been out smarted by my not-too-smart phone)

Interesting premise. Though wouldn’t all the universes have to have the same origin? Or not.

385. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

dmducan, have you read the short story by Asimov (don’t ask the title, it was along time ago) where a computer is asked “if entropy could be reversed” ? Anyway the story keeps checking in with man along his evolution. Of course computers keep evolving and continue to work on the problem. Eventually man dies off but the computer merges with his consciousness and becomes one (Vger?). The stars die and grow cold and eventually everything ends, but the computer keeps on working until… after trillions of years it comes up with an answer: yes. It then it begins the process with a simple sentence: Let There Be Light.

386. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

October 30th? Damn it’s late.

387. Vultan - October 30, 2010

#378

Wow, Bob, a guy criticizes your work for being pedestrian and you call him dumb. A little, uh… pedestrian, don’t you think?

Aside from all that, I think there were some deep, meaningful things said in Trek ’09. It’s just the pace was at such a faster speed than any Trek movie or TV show that came before it—call it a Cliff’s Notes version of Trek—that a segment of fans long for the day when there was more focus on “the moment.” And having said that, it’s a criticism that should be leveled at the director and not the writers.

But just because some enjoy a slower pace doesn’t make them dumb. I’d never consider Robert Wise or Stanley Kubrick dumb. (Just watched Paths of Glory for the thousandth time—great film!)

388. Boborci - October 30, 2010

387. Me and 377 go way back.

389. Devon - October 30, 2010

Yes… that is true actually.

390. Devon - October 30, 2010

#311 – “I believe the overall argument was that it would be nice to have Star Trek have a relevant and moral issue, a message if you will, that humans as a whole could learn from.”

Yeah, and it’s had 40 some years to do it and still hasn’t done it yet.

391. James Tyler - October 30, 2010

The Academy concept was dreadful. It was too over the top and didn’t click. Maybe I’d have felt the same reading a synopsis before Trek 2009 – but it just sounded like a really bad idea.

Besides – there coms a time when the old guard need to step down and make way for a new generation of film makers to appeal to a new audience. You can’t live in tradition forever.

392. captain_neill - October 30, 2010

As much as I enjoy the new Star Trek film, I do admit the fast cutting and camera being all over the place in each shot is not how I love my films.

Having done a short film I love crafting t he shots to tell the story. Some shots are like artwork in the way they are framed.

I don’t like the mentality that a shot has to be less than 2 seconds and that it must move all about in each frame to keep the audience entertained. I hate it.

Its assuming the audience is like a bunch of Homer Simpson’s who shout “BORING” when no explosions are happening.

Well despite not being a fan of JJ Abrams at least his character stuff has more integrity than Michael Bay.

But unlike most others here, I don’t think he made the ideal Star Trek film. He made a cool movie.

I only wish a lot of the past Star Trek films and TV got the attention that this one movie got.

393. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

Harve Bennett isn’t being “bitter” in expressing his opinion, at least not any more than any other filmmaker who has thought that he could do a better job of the latest film, in spite of the fact that it was very financially successful.

Just like anyone who makes anything, HB has his own ideas about how he’d have made the thing. We all see people in our respective crafts and professions doing jobs that we think we’d do better or at least differently. That’s not bitterness. It’s called “having an opinion.”

The undertone of HB’s criticism is that he feels that Star Trek ’09 was a bit insulting to his intelligence and a bit dumbed-down for a younger audience. He probably feels protective of the franchise, having been a major contributor to it.

And, yes, Star Trek ’09 was more in the genre of Big Dumb Action movies than TWOK, which had more the pacing of a drama and partly for that reason was more dramatically effective; and Harve Bennett is exactly right about the reason for this: ST09 was exactly the kind of movie that JJ Abrams wanted to make. He wanted an exciting, popcorn-munching blockbuster that would open up Trek to a new generation of fans. And the new generation of fans has grown up with movies for people with A.D.H.D—movies that are paced more like video games than movies of the past. That’s just the way it is. Cut, cut, cut, lots of flashing lights and eye candy (lens flares were JJ’s way of keeping the eyes constantly stimulated) and have the camera moving at all times or their minds will begin to wander a bit. If JJ had set out to make a movie for a different target audience, it would’ve been a different movie.

And the older generations still enjoyed Star Trek ’09 enough to make it a huge success. It’s not going to hold up as well over time as TWOK has. It’s not going to be considered a classic. But it’s a decent, fun movie with some touching, human moments, that has rejuvenated Trek and laid the foundation for great Trek stuff to be done again.

But what is with the canyon in Iowa? Did we ever get an answer to that?

394. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

Vulcan being blown up in ST09 was not “gratuitous.” It was a major plot point of the film. Without that event, one of the pillars of the move is gone. Spock has no reason to be emotionally overwrought, Kirk doesn’t get to replace him as captain, and the villain of the film isn’t as menacing and villainous if he fails to exact his revenge. The whole movie becomes, “Whoa, that was a close call. Let’s go have a beer.”

Gratuitous was the scene on the ice planet where Kirk is chased by the monsters. An action scene there was totally necessary. But, it’s an action movie, so they figured they had to get Kirk into the cave where Spock was somehow, so why not have him chased by a monster, then have that monster grabbed by the jaws of a larger monster who doesn’t eat his catch, but rather throws it away and then, instead of simply grabbing the tiny human who’s standing before it in shock, the big monster growls at the relatively tiny human, then chases the tiny human all the way into a cave for no apparent reason and won’t leave it alone until Spock wards off big monster with fire.

That scene was a gratuitous chase scene in an action movie.

395. captain_neill - October 30, 2010

I am one who agrees that Star Trek Xi is Star Trek dumbed down

That does not mean I am a hater but I do feel it is Trek dumbed down

396. P Technobabble - October 30, 2010

What’s with this attitude that Star Trek MUST present some Grand Message to be relevant or even taken seriously? You mean like one of those public service announcements that M*A*S*H would deliver from time-to-time? Why does any “message” have to stand out in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS for some of the audience to get it? Are ya that lazy? Why can’t the message be subtle, so that you have to actually think about it? And what if you think about it and you still don’t get it? This automatically implies there’s no message, huh? And why does it have to be a message that will, somehow, affect all of humanity?
And what sort of message, specifically, should have been in “Star Trek?” This was a plot and character-driven film designed to set-up our future Treks. You consider this a blasphemy?

What is the theme of “Star Trek?” I believe it is “overcoming the odds,” which is something Kirk truly believes in, in this universe or any. The Kobayashi Maru scenario is the crux of the theme. And, yes, Kirk cheats in order to beat the test. But he clearly states he doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario, and that the test, itself, is a cheat.

I still don’t get the vehemence with which the Trek nay-sayers express their criticisms, and spit their condescending and mean-spirited remarks at Bob Orci, who is, apparently, not any less a Star Trek fan than anyone else who frequents Trekmovie. And like many others here, I find embarrassing and hypocritical, coming from people who are crying about “moral messages” while speaking like arrogant snobs. Oh well, I guess it takes all kinds, eh?
All IMO, as always…

397. P Technobabble - October 30, 2010

re: 396.

“… I find IT embarrassing…”

398. Jonboc - October 30, 2010

#392. “I only wish a lot of the past Star Trek films and TV got the attention that this one movie got.”

You must have not been around in 1979 or 1982!

Also, TOS always struck the right balance of imaginative action/adventure, laced with humor and romance. TOS was NOTHING like TNG which told stories in a completely different fashion. Bob and JJ’s Trek was based on TOS and used the blueprint of the original series, and naturally, the result was nothing like TNG. I don’t see the problem.

But I agree with Captain Neil in respect that I would love the camera to sit still so I can enjoy and see the 200 million dollars that was spent on sets, costumes, etc. Shakey and drifting cams are ok when it’s a high energy scene…but when two people are talking…don’t peek behind a plant…let me see the actor act…and keep it still.

399. skyjedi - October 30, 2010

There are things about Trek 2009 i can underage people disliking. The role of the female characters again to being a communications officer and /love interest unlike on Voyager how a female was captain of a starship. Overly militaristic and less evolved sensibility than TNG.

Spock Prime renounces logic in favor of emotion, forgets how he time traveled in star trek IV etc.

All explosions, sexed up and lens flares and no substance.

A bar seen with dialog that could have been written by Kevin Smith, rap music etc.

400. skyjedi - October 30, 2010

I meant understand.

401. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

Yeah, I guess I prefer my Star Trek a little slower paced, but let’s not confuse pacing with intelligence.

402. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

TNG was never TOS. This was TOS.

403. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

I just think Michael Hall is mistaken about this.

I agree that things aren’t explicitly spelled out, but then Bob would probably agree; that is what he means when he talks about the DNA of the movie. But they’re there, giving form and structure to the events.

But there are no humans and aliens waxing poetic about human nature, making very clear what everything is about so there is no mistaking it.

But then the dumbed down version of Trek is the one that DOES do that. As a child, I needed that kind of thing to help me understand, so I’m glad now that it was there. But again, evidence that ST.09 wasn’t dumbed down.

Example: In The Cage when Pike and the others escape to the surface we can clearly SEE that the elevator entrance really HAD been destroyed by the ground laser; moments earlier Pike made the point that the Talosians kept them from seeing the hole in the cell that Pike made using the hand laser, so the point was still fresh in our mind, and yet they have Number One commenting on what is obvious, something like “Oh, we really did blow a hole in the entrance and didn’t even know it.”

Duh. Thanks Number One. Wouldn’t have got that without you pointing it out.

So I’m actually really excited by how Bob doesn’t do that sort of thing. He isn’t repetitive, so the movie in addition to being fast is concise because he doesn’t verbally cover what is visually clear, which results in communicating a lot of information in a compact amount of time and making the whole Star Trek world seem bigger.

I’ve learned something about good story telling by how Bob constructed ST.09. And I’m grateful for it.

404. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

393: “But what is with the canyon in Iowa? Did we ever get an answer to that?”

Yes. Many times. Including, I believe, on this very thread.

405. John - October 30, 2010

Star Trek (2009) was a complete abomination and the biggest waste of celluloid I’ve ever seen in all my life. In a single stroke it not only attempted to destroy everything Star Trek but to rewrite it in away that made absolutely no sense.

Star Trek has an established canon and that must be preserved because that is what makes Star Trek what it is. Wiping everything out and rewriting it is a complete destruction of that canon, a complete destruction of what Star Trek is, and a betrayal of everything that has come before.

The movie could have been framed inside an alternate universe (similar to “Mirror, Mirror”) to show how that Jim Kirk came to be. But no… that talentless little shit and all-around hack JJ Abrams decided to destroy our Star Trek universe. Well.. f**k him. His pathetic little POS movie doesn’t exist and never did (see, I can rewrite history, too). Star Trek continues as it always did.

406. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

393: “the new generation of fans has grown up with movies for people with A.D.H.D—movies that are paced more like video games than movies of the past. That’s just the way it is. Cut, cut, cut, lots of flashing lights and eye candy (lens flares were JJ’s way of keeping the eyes constantly stimulated) and have the camera moving at all times or their minds will begin to wander a bit.”

I assume you don’t mean that literally. Given that watching a movie is a single activity that requires two hours of focus, and that video games require constant focus and participation for much more than 2 hours, then ADHD seems the unlikely culprit.

In addition, the eye isn’t being stimulated. The mind is. Faster movies require faster processing by the audience. Which means more brainwork, not less, in the same period of time as, say a David Lean masterpiece where the camera stays planted for 2 minutes while a black dot on the horizon gradually becomes a man on horseback.

407. Admiral_Bumblebee - October 30, 2010

I fear that many elements in ST09 were in the movie just to shock and to make it a different Star Trek. For example Vulcan blowing up. I doubt that this will be carried over into the next movie(s). Why? Because I believe they want to have the movie stand on it’s own. And mentioning the destruction of Vulcan in ST09 would be too much for the new audience of moviegoers the new movies are aimed at. They want to see explosions and action and not some philosophical things and they don’t want to think about what happened in a movie that was released some years ago.
And this is another point that makes me sad. There are some very important things happening in one movie that will imho not be carried over to the sequel. This is one of the reasons I miss the style of the old movies.

If the new villain would be Trelane as it was mentioned in another post, I would love to see a scene in which Spock tries to use Trelane and his omnipotent powers to undo the destruction of Vulcan. This would be logical, but I doubt that something like this would happen…

408. Kirk, James T. - October 30, 2010

Michael Hall represents a percentage of “critics” that would never understand Star Trek if it, in the end, became a reality.

409. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

And HALO isn’t just a video game, it’s a great STORY with humor, tragedy, emotion, and great music. An amazing experience worth having.

410. Trek Lady - October 30, 2010

373: A recurring theme since this movie was first released has been the anger shown against the movie makers and the dislike of the movie is, in some part, because of the destruction of Vulcan and the death of Spock’s mother, Amanda. …..frankly, there would be something wrong if people weren’t upset by this turn of events. An entire world was deliberately imploded/wiped out of existence, along with every single strand of life that lived on it. ”

Well, except that I was more upset because I DIDN’T feel much when Vulcan was destroyed and Amanda killed. It went by too quickly, and seemed rushed. I felt no emotional investment at all. A whole planet destroyed – a whole people wiped out – and it was sort of, “Oh, there went Vulcan. Well, that sucks. Hurry on to the next action sequence!” I know it was used to set up Spock’s emotional reaction, but due to the lack of emotional investment on the part of the crew and the audience, it comes across as simply a plot contrivance – when it could have been so much more. Even a few scenes of Vulcan citizens desperately fleeing and being struck down, of children in their schools being crushed by falling debris, of ships trying to lift off and spiraling out of control – SOMETHING that gives the impression of a whole society destroyed – would have added more weight. The old “SHOW, DON’T TELL” adage. I didn’t even have much time to engage my imagination to visualize what might have happened because everything rushed by and we were on to the next exciting moment!

This is why I sincerely hope they deal in some way with the planet’s destruction in the next film, because, at least for me, and others I have spoken too, the destruction of Vulcan in Trek 2009, was emotionally flat and ultimately unsatisfying.

411. Kirk, James T. - October 30, 2010

@ 393 & 406.

I can see where this argument is coming from. It’s clear for all to see that summer blockbusters in particular are paced a lot faster to keep those young minds engaged. The video game industry might be to blame because whilst games last a lot longer than a 2 hour movie – you are involved with the game far more than your involved with the movie – in a movie you sit and watch the action unfold, in a video game you take part in the action forging your own destiny so for an industry that is loosing the battle with the gaming industry it’s no wonder that Avatar was shot in 3D and that Star Trek was a lot more fast-paced and sexed up…

BUT, Whilst Star Trek NEEDED this injection of fast-pace action after 18 years of diluted action spread over a lot of deep and meaningful talk (I love TNG but it was very 80’s, inward thinking, talking their way out of war rather than engaging in war), What I saw was that Star Trek was unlike every other summer blockbuster, in that it had a depth barely reached by the likes of Terminator Salvation or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Within all this frenetic action and explosions the story had a meaning and a point to it and it re-introduced these characters with such dignity and excitement. It was a story about love, loss, dealing with loss. I lost my dad to cancer earlier this year. Star Trek (2009) inspired me to be the person I was always meant to be, Kirk’s dad died, Spocks mum died, my dad died si for me Star Trek (2009) was really inspiring that through the pain of loosing someone, you can live on and live up to the people who mean the most to you. Like so many good Star Trek movies and episodes it had an underlying message to it, a message that is there if you want to see it. What it “lacked” (thank god) above the other more recent Star Trek movies was the tiny budget and bad publicity…

If we look back at Trek through the decades, it has always mirrored, in style and substance the world we live in today – Star Trek 2009 is a sign of our times, fast paced, flashing lights, cool CGI, a uber cool ipod-like Enterprise, and a return to soot first ask questions later. Whilst it took it’s inspiration from the past, Star Trek stood in the face of other doom-and-gloom blockbusters and showed us that the future is going to be better than our past. Trek has always been at it’s best when it mirror’s the real world and that’s why the 2009 movie did so well at BO. Michael Hall and all the other nay-sayers out there who don’t really understand what Star Trek stands for anymore don’t have a clue.

412. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

407. “I fear that many elements in ST09 were in the movie just to shock and to make it a different Star Trek. For example Vulcan blowing up. I doubt that this will be carried over into the next movie(s).”

I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether these new custodians are all shock and awe or if they will use these events to tell great stories, to explore great themes in the coming years. I can’t wait to find out.

413. Kirk, James T. - October 30, 2010

It’s the idea’s behind Star Trek that remain important, as long as that remains the core of whatever story comes next then all the “bang bang” in the world could be added to it and it would still be Star Trek through and through. Thats what happened in 2009 and I hope it continues into 2012 and beyond.

414. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

410: “of children in their schools being crushed by falling debris, of ships trying to lift off and spiraling out of control – SOMETHING that gives the impression of a whole society destroyed – would have added more weight.”

I think that’s a valid point. I suggested the same. Maybe scenes of Vulcan families huddled together trying to maintain their serenity in the face of certain death, with the children less successful at maintaining their serenity than the parents. A montage of scenes…in other words, more cutting, more imagery, from the surface. The long view of David Lean’s style didn’t capture the horror.

Might it be possible to add something about that in a movie about Talosians? What if what is in their minds manifests itself, and Spock is haunted by imagery of Vulcan’s destruction from the surface, turning his dreams into nightmares of destruction and snapping him out of the illusion?

415. Lord Garth, formerly of Izar - October 30, 2010

Yeah, what a bunch of suck ass dopes. As soon as one incarnation or another of Trek becomes popular a large number of Wendy’s snarfing sociopath Trekkers rabidly attack what came before whenever they may say something that is not in with the new party line. I heard the same crap when Next Gen came around and many followed the breeze proclaiming it to be superior and anyone who disaggreed from Shatner to Nimoy to the avg fan to be some sort of Commie monster. Now many seem to have realized that Next Gen is pretty weak in the grand scheme of Kirkdom.

Get a grip fatsos

Harve Bennett MADE the Star Trek Film Franchise. Star Trek II was 40% Harve Bennett, 40% Nick Meyer and 20% Ricardo, Shatner and Nimoy

He was also a minimalist who made small budgets look big without CGI and a lot of running and shouting and quick jarring cuts and a guy who had a great eye for detail and realism. He brought in NASA peeps and MIT types to ensure that all the techie stuff was theoritically possible in the same way Gene did withwith TMP and Matt Jeffries did in the original show. I love the grandness of this film but things were made to look cool, not made with any accuracy or aeronautical realism.

The Grand Canyon in Iowa was a bit snarky but laughably true. The terrain in all those scenes was 100% California. The clay colored dusty soils, the dirty roads and the scrubbrush and the giant Grand Canyon like quarry of which there really are none in Iowa. That’s lazy film making, exciting and fun but lazy and that was Harves point. How about filming some stuff in Iowa? Or a location that really actually looked like Iowa?

I love the new Trek but it was made for the loud, short attention span, dopey generation with enough passion and respect in there for the fans of the original show to make me happy.

It was well documented (a few years before the internet took off) that we was developing a reboot (Yes JJ Trek is a reboot) very very similar in the same vein as JJ Trek. The studio decided to make VI instead. Glad they did but his vision was very similar to what eventually became JJ Trek. So if anyone can offer an opinion (and it is allowed you whopper munchers), Harve Bennett should be welcome to do so.

416. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

405. John. I’ll put you down as “no”?

417. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

415: “The Grand Canyon in Iowa was a bit snarky but laughably true. The terrain in all those scenes was 100% California. The clay colored dusty soils, the dirty roads and the scrubbrush and the giant Grand Canyon like quarry of which there really are none in Iowa.”

Do you have any idea how BIG the Grand Canyon is? You could probably fit several million of those TINY little Iowa ROCK QUARRIES of ST.09 inside of it. Stop with the nonsensical exaggeration already. It’s laughably UN true.

http://quarriesandbeyond.org/states/ia/iowa.html

And 100% California?

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/landscap/landscap.htm

Next fatuous complaint?

418. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Dirt roads in Iowa. It’s an outrage I tell ya, an outrage.

419. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 30, 2010

The TNG movies were extraordinarily dumbed down versions of the tv show. Mindless, mainstream action movies with Data saying shit for the short attention span teen crowd. And Picard pretending to be Rambo for fanboys who wish they were 100 pounds lighter. Idiotic boob jokes and the pointless, unnecessary death of Vulcan-I mean Kirk.

Yet, somehow, the canon-lapping escapists did not take to the internet to whine about Star Trek being deep and meaningful, with profound messages and a “no youngsters allowed” pretentiousness.

Why not?

420. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

The impact of Vulcan’s destruction for me came mostly from watching Spock Prime and Kirk. The pain was written on Nimoy’s face as he watched it happen, and in Kirk’s breathlessness after the mind meld, which itself — without unskillful verbal exposition — says something about how much Spock felt AND of how much he had to control to keep looking as composed as he was. THAT is the Spock I remember from TOS.

421. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

The Spock that I hope young Spock becomes.

422. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Also, anyone notice that Nero’s torpedoes were cluster bombs? That’s what I mean about how sneaky Bob and Co. are. I JUST noticed that after HOW many viewings now, LAST night.

ST.09. The gift that keeps on giving.

423. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 30, 2010

399. skyjedi – October 30, 2010
i can underage people

Interesting Fruedian slip there.

424. MJ - October 30, 2010

@393 “But what is with the canyon in Iowa? Did we ever get an answer to that?”

Does anybody bother to read these posts before they post? For the third time, I will post here again, that THERE ARE OVER 100 QUARRIES IN IOWA.

THERE ARE OVER 100 QUARRIES IN IOWA

THERE ARE OVER 100 QUARRIES IN IOWA

THERE ARE OVER 100 QUARRIES IN IOWA

THERE ARE OVER 100 QUARRIES IN IOWA

425. P Technobabble - October 30, 2010

405. John

Where ya been? I think you’re about a year and a half behind the other nitpickers.
By the way thanks for proving my earlier observation…

426. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

423. DeShonn Steinblatt – October 30, 2010

399. skyjedi – October 30, 2010
i can underage people

Interesting Fruedian slip there.

***

lol. Seize that man’s computer!

427. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

We like real science in ST, advised by Real Men of Science, like Jesco Von Puttkamer on ST-TMP.

How did our piddly little Voyager probe survive a journey into a black hole and come out on the other side of the universe again?

Rock quarries. Dirt roads. Indeed.

428. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

406. dmduncan

—-I assume you don’t mean that literally. Given that watching a movie is a single activity that requires two hours of focus, and that video games require constant focus and participation for much more than 2 hours, then ADHD seems the unlikely culprit.—-

Correct. I don’t mean that literally. The point is fast pace, scenes hurrying along, not stopping to explore phenomena—human emotional or otherwise. Did you happen to read Bob Orci’s response to my criticism about a paucity of historically Trek themes in ST09? His response was to cite QM, Bush vs. Obama, and Kirk Prime vs. Alternate Universe Kirk. And my rejoinder was that those themes were only superficially treated, at best. Throwing in a line at the end of the story about the Kirk of the other Universe isn’t the same thing as spending 2 hours delving into and developing that or any other theme. I mean, for that matter, why not just have one of the characters say, “Be careful that you don’t let revenge consume your life and destroy everything good that you have but have been taking for granted” and nothing further. Would that satisfy you as much as watching the Revenge theme developed throughout the entirety of TWOK?

–In addition, the eye isn’t being stimulated. The mind is. Faster movies require faster processing by the audience. Which means more brainwork, not less, in the same period of time as, say a David Lean masterpiece where the camera stays planted for 2 minutes while a black dot on the horizon gradually becomes a man on horseback.–

They’re both being stimulated in a way—the eye and the mind. But that kind of mental stimulation is no substitute for contemplation of meaning in scenes and of the story in toto. In fact, one of the purposes of the fast pacing is precisely to fool you into thinking that the story is more complicated, meaningful and deep than it actually is. It’s a bit of a shell game, and the recent “INCEPTION” is an exemplar of this technique. By way of contrast (no pun intended), darkness is used in films in order to hide the seams of the costumes and sets—see “ALIENS” for a good example of this.

There are different kinds of mental stimulation; one moves you to figure out meaning and relevance; the other moves you to try to keep up with a story and visual images that are being presented very rapidly so that you’ll have to try to keep up. With the former, your thinking has a greater purpose—meaning and relevance; you’re discovering things about yourself and about humanity. With the later, your thinking is an end unto itself—a diversion and exercise, rather like a video game.

429. Aurore - October 30, 2010

There are over 100 quarries in Iowa. I didn’t know that.
Now I do. Thank you sir.

430. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

417. dmduncan – October 30, 2010

Thanks for the links. I’d forgotten about the scoring of the cliff face where it had ostensibly been quarried.

431. boborci - October 30, 2010

Correct. I don’t mean that literally. The point is fast pace, scenes hurrying along, not stopping to explore phenomena—human emotional or otherwise. Did you happen to read Bob Orci’s response to my criticism about a paucity of historically Trek themes in ST09? His response was to cite QM, Bush vs. Obama, and Kirk Prime vs. Alternate Universe Kirk. And my rejoinder was that those themes were only superficially treated, at best. Throwing in a line at the end of the story about the Kirk of the other Universe isn’t the same thing as spending 2 hours delving into and developing that or any other theme. I
——

Here is what your argument does not take into account:

We have ALL OF CANON to compare to what happens in our movie. Canon, in our movie, IS BACKSTORY. And since the event that causes the diversion from canon happens in the first minute of the movie, it means that every second of the movie thereafter, mainly Kirk’s life, and Spock’s life, is an exploration of how differences arise and what things stay the same. It’s not an after thought. That theme determines the very structure of the movie.

432. boborci - October 30, 2010

as for QM being superficially treated, I don’t know how you can say that when it literally defines the rules of how we preserve canon while freeing ourselves from it. It’s why Spock Prime does not endanger his younger self ‘s existence like in back to the future. It’s why he doesn’t consider going back to “fix” the timeline knowing what he knows about QM. It’s why Spock Prime has memories of the Prime universe, where Kirk and Spock’s father and mother lived Also happens to be the most current thinking on the subject. Hardly an afterthought, and again, determines pivotal events in the plot.

433. Colin Ellis - October 30, 2010

You’re a bitter old fart, Harve. You’re just lucky Nicholas Meyer put up with all of your bullshit for all of those years.

434. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

431. boborci

—-We have ALL OF CANON to compare to what happens in our movie. Canon, in our movie, IS BACKSTORY. And since the event that causes the diversion from canon happens in the first minute of the movie, it means that every second of the movie thereafter, mainly Kirk’s life, and Spock’s life, is an exploration of how differences arise and what things stay the same. It’s not an after thought. That theme determines the very structure of the movie.—-

Yes, the TOS crew are different in your story because they the products of an alternate universe. I get it. But there’s a difference between just having them be different, and exploring how those differences have affected the various components of their personalities. For example, the Alternate Kirk might be more rebellious because he grew up without a father whereas the TOS Kirk had a father. Did the TOS Kirk grow up with his father? The vast majority of the audience has no idea. And you certainly didn’t explore the issue in your story.

What you’re doing by your argument here is exactly what I referred to vis-a-vis TWOK and simply telling us that a theme exists, as opposed to developing it throughout and by means of your story. My high school Lit teacher used to always advises in his criticisms of our essays, “Show, don’t tell.”

Right now, you’re telling in lieu of having shown in your story.

435. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

428: “But that kind of mental stimulation is no substitute for contemplation of meaning in scenes and of the story in toto. In fact, one of the purposes of the fast pacing is precisely to fool you into thinking that the story is more complicated, meaningful and deep than it actually is.”

I disagree. Here’s why.

Contemplation is something that you have to engage in. It’s an active process you choose to do. The best time to do that is not in the movie, unless you want to miss significant portions of it, because you can’t focus on an internal dialogue and external events equally well at the same time. The more focused you become on one, the less focused you become on the other.

The most meaningful parts, the parts that had personal relevance to me, were the emotional parts like those I mentioned above; that’s where the meaning really is because it’s dealing with universal human issues: George Kirk’s choice, young Kirk’s choice, young Spock’s choice, Spock Prime’s choice. There was a lot of power in all those things, and that power is what makes you think — if you are so inclined — after the movie is over and you reflect on what you just saw, which is when you should be doing your reflecting.

But the contemplative part is up to you. The movie gave me plenty of things to think about. The record of my thinking is extremely long right now and archived on this very site. And it’s hard evidence that ST.09 inspires contemplation.

But it can’t make you do it. No movie can do that if you don’t already have the inclination.

When I first saw Kubrick’s 2001 on TV as a child, I thought what a boring movie. When I saw it years later as a teen at a Star Trek convention in one of the side rooms, I was floored. After seeing the bone become a spaceship, I stumbled around pondering the power of what I’d just seen. I didn’t even finish the movie just then. I walked out and started bumping into stuff.

But at one point of my life I had one judgment that made me experience it one way: boring. And at another time I had an entirely different judgment that colored my experience another way: awesome.

Also. I’ll draw a comparison with painting here. Great artists put symbolic meanings into their paintings in the way figures are seated, their relationship to each other, the expressions on their faces, etc.

Movies aren’t long series of well thought out beautiful compositions, however. But spread out in time they can accomplish the same effect by including little things that DO have meaning, like Nero’s cluster bomb torpedoes, and Pike strapped to a table looking like his hair is drying while Nero walks about knee deep in water. So the movie is giving you little occasions to think about things like that if you want to, without being so obvious that you can’t avoid it. Which gets to be annoying.

You wouldn’t call a painting stupid because of it’s symbolism. No, you’d regard it as a sign of its intelligence. Same thing applies to movies.

436. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

432. boborci

—-as for QM being superficially treated, I don’t know how you can say that when it literally defines the rules of how we preserve canon while freeing ourselves from it. It’s why Spock Prime does not endanger his younger self ’s existence like in back to the future. It’s why he doesn’t consider going back to “fix” the timeline knowing what he knows about QM. It’s why Spock Prime has memories of the Prime universe, where Kirk and Spock’s father and mother lived Also happens to be the most current thinking on the subject. Hardly an afterthought, and again, determines pivotal events in the plot.—-

I agree with you here. Those deductions about the relevant effects of QM’s MWT can all be made from the plot points in your story.

But the problem that most people had—and that I would have had without the benefit of having heard/read you explaining the MWT component of your plot hither to my viewing of your film—is that you don’t explain any of that with dialogue. And, in fact, you kind of obfuscate the issue a bit by having the characters call it “an alternate reality,” with no further explanation. One first needs to know about QM’s MWT in order to then deduce the respective rationale for Spock’s decisions and so forth that you itemized. You have the benefit of taking for granted a basic working knowledge of QM’s MWT; the audience doesn’t necessarily have that background or even know that you’ve assumed it as the premise of time-travel in your film.

I saw your film opening night with a Trekkie friend of mine who’s an engineer that graduated from one of the top technical colleges in the US, and I had to explain to him that you’d assumed QM’s MWT to underlie your time-travel plot device, because he was a bit confused. After I briefly explained it to him, he immediately understood. But, again, he had the benefit of me, and I had the benefit of you.

Again—show, don’t tell.

437. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Really, I was watching The Cage this morning and after ST.09 last night, I was struck by how like a child I felt was being treated by the style of film making of The Cage.

It has some great ideas, but it felt like the producers were worried people couldn’t keep up and told the story in such a way as to ensure that everybody would.

ST.09 doesn’t do that. It’s like bootcamp for Trekkies.

438. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Peter Travers was stumped by the MWI device too. But he still gave it a great review:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/8550/50340

Why? Because the film works on multiple levels. Travers review is evidence of one level it works well on.

And it inspires contemplation as well.

This site and all of its long posts about what it meant is evidence of ANOTHER level it works well on.

439. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

435. dmduncan

Whether you like contemplating meaning in film during or after the viewing is personal to you. I enjoy doing it both during and after, to varying degrees depending on the film.

But that’s not relevant to my point.

My point was not about when people should contemplate meaning in film. My point was that the kind of mental stimulation caused by fast-pacing is not the same (and not as valuable as) the kind of mental stimulation caused by meaningful thematic development and dialogue.

If you consider ST09 to have been a deep movie that evoked contemplation, that’s great for you. You got more out of it than I did, and I’m pretty sure that I’m not going to get much more out of it in the future.

The humanity in the film—Kirk’s father, Spock—all that stuff was very well done, as I’ve said before. I have no issues with that. I enjoyed it and look forward to more of it.

But I’d also like to see some more historically Trek themes and some more sophisticated thematic development generally. I’d like to see a good Trek theme developed over 2 hours. I’d like to see the story centered around that theme. I’d like to see the movie be “about” that theme.

Take the original Star Wars as an example. What’s it about? It’s about a son going down the same dark road as his father and the danger of becoming corrupted like his father. It’s about the possibility of redemption. It’s about destiny and how much influence our parents have over us, even if we grow up without them.

Those movies were “about” those themes. The themes were developed throughout the arc of the trilogy. The plot points of the story were in service of those themes.

What was ST09 about? It wasn’t nearly as thematically well developed as the Star Wars trilogy, for example. And it’s primary theme, Revenge, was weak due to a major flaw in the logic of the relevant plot points.

440. Basement Blogger - October 30, 2010

In defese of lens flares.

I was watching the excellent BBC documetary “Planet Earth” with a Blue Ray player on a HDTV. If you haven’t done that, please do. It’s extraordinary. Anyway, I noticed on occasion, there was a lens flare. That gave me a feeling that there was a reality to the shot. Someone was pointing a camera at a mountain and the sun caused a slight flare or light blemish. The use of them in Star Trek (2009) to me, was an attempt to make the action feel like reality. So the use of them on exterior shots didn’t bother me.

I do think that Star Trek (2009) had too many lens flares. There’s no need to have them on interior shots. And by the way, if you play Mass Effect 2, the video game is full of lens flares. Perhaps it was influenced by the film.

The judicious use of a lens flare to an outside shot, say of the planet killer coming out of a sun, would give a reality to shot in a space opera. Okay, I really want to see “The Doomsday Machine” given cinematic treatment. : ) Additionally while I’m at it. I wish filmmakers would sparingly use the handheld camera. For example, the last two films of the Bourne trilogy are nearly unwatchable. Almost every shot in those movies seems to be filmed with a handheld camera. I get motion sickness trying to watch it. The audience needs to breathe., even in an action movie. Using a handheld camera say in a big action scene is overkill.

441. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

the original Star Wars TRILOGY*

442. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

438. dmduncan

—-Peter Travers was stumped by the MWI device too. But he still gave it a great review:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/8550/50340—-

But I enjoyed the acting as well. I thought that was a great improvement in ST09 over previous Trek films.

I’m not complaining about the acting. I’m asking for more substantial thematic development throughout the arc of the film.

443. Boborci - October 30, 2010

436. I did show and not tell. U r asking for the opposite.

444. Boborci - October 30, 2010

Obfuscate q,? The second entry you get when you google “alternate reality” is an explanation of parallel universes!

445. Boborci - October 30, 2010

439. So what u r saying is our ONE movie did not contain as much as the Star Wars TRILOGY! And the theme you point out as being the theme of the entire trilogy does not even appear until the second movie!

446. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

439: “My point was that the kind of mental stimulation caused by fast-pacing is not the same (and not as valuable as) the kind of mental stimulation caused by meaningful thematic development and dialogue.”

But how could you possibly measure the “value”?

All you can really say is that you experienced value, or did not, which is always going to be the case for each individual with every film he sees.

And then people align themselves on the basis of what their experience was. The people who like it have multiple reasons, such as those Travers gave, or like mine, which include Travers’ reasons and different reasons of my own.

“Take the original Star Wars as an example. What’s it about? It’s about a son going down the same dark road as his father and the danger of becoming corrupted like his father. It’s about the possibility of redemption. It’s about destiny and how much influence our parents have over us, even if we grow up without them.”

But when you say “the original Star Wars” you are speaking about six whole movies of story!, since we didn’t learn that Vader was Luke’s father until the fifth episode, and it was a shocking revelation, so you can’t literally mean Episode Four, the actual “original” by itself. And comparing one episode of Star Trek to a longer story arc over six episodes of Star Wars is not fair.

Compare Star Trek more fairly to Episode Four and you get a story about a boy who finds his calling as an emerging Jedi Knight and saves a planet by destroying the Deathstar. Very comparable to Star Trek, but Star Trek compacted more ideas in its space-time than Star Wars did in its.

The MWI trick of rebooting the franchise and freeing the future from canon was an ingenious device worthy of the 120 plus dollars I spent on opening night alone for it.

447. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Doh! Looks like Bob is covering that too!

448. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Actually I look at Star Wars as ONE story with a father finding redemption through his SON.

449. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

443. Boborci

—-436. I did show and not tell. U r asking for the opposite.—-

How in your movie did you show the differences between Alt Kirk and Kirk Prime which were products of their having grown up in different Universes that yet had some similarities, the manner by which those differences affected the Kirks’ respective life choices and personality traits, and whether such differences were inevitably due to different environments vs. whether the similarities were inevitably due to the two Kirks’ simiar genetic make-ups?

You threw in a line at the end of your film where Kirk asks about his doppelganger, and then you tell me to compare the Alt Kirk to the Kirk of the TOS TV and film and perhaps the books (none of which I’ve read), that is, to the works of other people.

Is that what you call showing and not telling?

450. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

444. Boborci

—-Obfuscate q,? The second entry you get when you google “alternate reality” is an explanation of parallel universes!—-

OK, so you wanted the audience to Google “alternate reality” while sitting in the theater watching your film, in order to deduce what exactly Uhura and Spock meant by “alternate reality” and the means and manner by which such reality was “altered” from “normal” reality, and what about “normal” reality makes it normal vs. what about the “alternate” reality of your film makes it different?

Is that what you expected, Bob?

451. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

445. Boborci

—-439. So what u r saying is our ONE movie did not contain as much as the Star Wars TRILOGY! And the theme you point out as being the theme of the entire trilogy does not even appear until the second movie!—-

The Star Wars Trilogy had an arc spanning three films. I gave it as an easily accessible example here.

But there’s no shortage of self-contained films that had well developed themes throughout them. Here’s a somewhat less accessible example: “Hedwig and the Angry Inch.”

What’s that story about? It’s about learning to be yourself after suffering the anguish of trying to fit yourself into one of society’s pre-defined roles for you.

The entire story is in service of that theme.

452. Michael Hall - October 30, 2010

“377. I am glad there is a percentage out there like you that didn’t get it. Means we didn’t dumb it down too much. Thank you.”

Oh, I think I got it just fine, Mr. Orci. What there was, in fact, to “get.”

dmduncan, we’ve gone around and around on this in these fora ever since Trek ’09 made its grand entrance into our lives, and I think it’s safe to say at this point that neither one of us will convince the other. Regarding your comments re “The Cage,” though, setting aside the obvious fact that the pilot was shot in the months following JFK’s assasination when audiences were far less sophisticated about SF tropes (e.g. mind control and illusion) that are taken for granted now, the point about the sheared-off knoll was a necessary follow-up to the earlier attempt to rescue Pike, notwithstanding Number One’s statement of the obvious. Since I always just took that as her marveling aloud at just how well they’d all been duped, I don’t think of it as a sop to the audience, and in fact can easily picture a modern screenwriter developing the scene in exactly that same way. But YMMV, of course. :-)

FWIW, I do respect the intelligent defenses you’ve made of the film over the past year, and thought that certain “what-if?” scenarios you developed (particularly the scene between the adult Kirk and the Iowa motorcycle cop) in your posts were far better than most of what ended up in the actual product. Which turned out to be, to my great regret and disappointment, an overbudgeted, hyped-up action-adventure popcorn movie put together by people who, however good their intentions, had no real feeling for or understanding of the source material. Compared to reboots like Casino Royale or Batman Begins, which managed the neat trick of updating those franchises for modern audiences while maintaining their essence, Trek ’09 to my mind is a spiritless, by-the-numbers exercise.

And yes, I have been very critical of the film here, but they are criticisms I would have no problem repeating (politely, of course) in Mr. Orci presence, since they are about my honest impression of the work, and are not meant personally. So in any hypothetical meeting between the three of us, #383, please refrain from writing any checks you aren’t prepared to cash.

453. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

444. Boborci

—-Obfuscate q,? The second entry you get when you google “alternate reality” is an explanation of parallel universes!—-

And there are various ways in which a “reality” might be “altered.”

“Back to the Future,” which you’ve often cited as having a different time-travel logic, had an “alternate reality.” Is the alternate reality from Back to the Future the same kind of alternate reality as in your film? Here, we all know that the answer is definitively no. But we only know that because of your having prefaced the issue for us prior to our viewing the film for the first time. That’s what I mean by your having obfuscated the issue in your movie. You supplied a terse explanation with the dialogue, presumably thinking that it would be less confusing and that your explanation might be applicable both to viewers familiar with only the Back to the Future or linear time-travel logic, as well as to viewers familiar with QM’s MWT. And maybe you succeeded more than you failed in that goal, but you also left the issue very unexplained and unexplored on screen. Yes, one can make deductions about the plot points if they know that you’d premised them on QM’s MWT. But that’s not a good assumption to have made with a general audience who hadn’t necessarily been reading your blog entries hither to viewing your film.

454. Boborci - October 30, 2010

449. To take the example of this particular theme you bring up, The ENTIRE movie is a demonstration of the fact you pointed out above(434) indicating you clearly did get it, that the death of Kirk’s father set him on a path that made him more “rebellious” (your word) as a result of a different life (dad killed in Starfleet) which we make text for those who weren’t aware of it, even though you say the audience has no idea. Yes they do, we tell them. Further, since Nero is from the future, as we all eventually learn that he is, then you KNOW that every single thing resulting from his presence is different from what it was. Spock says this explicitly. “Whatever our lives might’ve been, our destinies have changed.” And yet, nonetheless, our famous crew ends up together in the same configuration through their choices and actions.

Apparently, you would only accept a split screen of events depicting a side by side comparison of a prequel depicting known canon next to this one.

Or to put it another way, if QM is correct, and there are parallel universes with copies of each of us running around, why aren’t you spending your day pondering the “theme” of all the different choices you are making in parallel worlds? It would only occur to you or come up if you were exposed to travelers from other realms, and that’s exactly what happens in the movie.

But you can’t play dumb as a fan and say you have nothing to compare this movie to. You said it lacked Trek themes, so you clearly follow trek. But even those that don’t follow trek can perceive the things we riffed on because they are ingrained in our pop culture… Like Spock being logical. EVERYONE knows that, so when they see him emote in the movie, they know and feel that it is significant because it is different than what they know about the character. It is as though you are watching the new movie in split screen with what you know, even non fans.

455. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

451. Cygnus-X1 – October 30, 2010

Star Trek also had to reinvigorate the franchise. The solution was brilliant.

It was brilliant because it USED canon to show the difference between the Kirks but didn’t require it for all those new people just coming to the franchise. As a consequence, for those fans who are familiar with TOS it will have more of an impact than those new to Star Trek. But if you expect a film to be made for those who know the least about Star Trek (which includes 79 episodes and 6 movies), you will lose a wide swath of audience, including people like me who don’t want to pay good money for a nap in a movie theater rehashing what I already know about Kirk Prime.

Star Trek is NOT self contained, and nobody ever said it was which is also why it’s described as both PREQUEL and SEQUEL rather than as a standalone movie having no prior relations, although it functioned as one to all the newbies which is a testament to exactly how well it was designed that it was able to do so many different things at once.

Yes, you do need to bring some basic knowledge with you if you expect to get it all on the first viewing, but the cool part is that even if you don’t, it still works on another level. And for those who know a lot about Star Trek, it works on a whole other level.

Paintings don’t talk to you. If you don’t put some thought into them, you aren’t going to get anything out of them, and you may have to do a bit of research to fully understand one. Star Trek isn’t a painting, but it used some of the same techniques in moving images spread out over time.

456. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

446. dmduncan

—-But how could you possibly measure the “value”?

All you can really say is that you experienced value, or did not, which is always going to be the case for each individual with every film he sees.—-

Without getting into a Metaphysical tangent here, I measure the value of things by what they do for me or what benefit I can derive from them. Contemplating a good theme can change your life. It can cause you to realize things about yourself, about humanity at large and about the world or even the Universe. Being mentally stimulated in order to keep up with a story and images that are being presented very rapidly isn’t likely to deliver any of the aforementioned benefits. And since I believe that this is true in vast majority of cases for the vast majority of people, I implied it to be a general premise.

457. Boborci - October 30, 2010

452. I think everyone would agree with you, that without understanding it at all, we just filled in the blanks of an obvious thing to do to with Trek. It was literally on the tip of every body’s tongue. Paramount would’ve had a screenwriting program punch out this story, but they wanted a human face to the whole thing.

And Nimoy, who knows nothing about Trek, just came out of retirement because he needed the cash and because we fooled him.

458. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

452: “dmduncan, we’ve gone around and around on this in these fora ever since Trek ‘09 made its grand entrance into our lives, and I think it’s safe to say at this point that neither one of us will convince the other.”

And I realize that as well because it really is a YMMV sort of thing, and I got a kick at how it made me look at Star Trek, but if you didn’t get that feeling it’s not something I can make you have. It just is what it is.

Some films, like Apocalypse Now, highly regarded, just mesmerize me over and over again. Then other highly regarded films, like No Country For Old Men I will probably never watch again, although I may now on occasion call somebody “friendo.”

“FWIW, I do respect the intelligent defenses you’ve made of the film over the past year,”

Thank you. I respect your comments as well, and when you are critical you are smartly so, which is refreshing given some of the nonsense other people come up with to say.

459. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

456: “Without getting into a Metaphysical tangent here, I measure the value of things by what they do for me or what benefit I can derive from them.”

It’s a normative issue. And that’s exactly what I mean. We are each going to measure the value differently. If you want to discuss The Good or why some things might be better than others, it opens up a Chinese cargo container full of worms that will plunge us into the depths of philosophy and religion and back up again. But for just now, we do reckon it differently. We may even reckon value differently at different times of our lives as the example I gave about 2001.

“Being mentally stimulated in order to keep up with a story and images that are being presented very rapidly isn’t likely to deliver any of the aforementioned benefits.”

And yet it did for me! I don’t expect it to or claim it will for everyone, or even to know what the percentages are, but it did that for me, and my experiences are really the only ones I can speak with very much authority on.

460. Michael Hall - October 30, 2010

“Some films, like Apocalypse Now, highly regarded, just mesmerize me over and over again. Then other highly regarded films, like No Country For Old Men I will probably never watch again, although I may now on occasion call somebody “friendo.”

LOL. Again FWIW, we agree completely on both of those, Apocalypse Now in particular being an all-time favorite (though I’m not as fond of Coppola’s 2003 recut version).

461. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Can I do what George Kirk did? I dunno. But seeing him do that fills me with the kind of emotion I’d need to call on if I was ever going to.

Did Kirk really do something wrong by hacking the KM? Or was Starfleet wrong instead? I actually find myself siding with Kirk against a lot of people who think he was a cheat. I suspect the wikileaks guy might side with Kirk as well.

462. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 30, 2010

During the Rally to Restore Sanity, Jon Stewart worried that he and Cobert would get “crushed in the Star Trek chat rooms” for getting the details of the Corbomite Maneuver wrong. He knows of what he speaks.

463. Boborci - October 30, 2010

We didn’t use the phrase “altered reality.” We used “alternate relaity.” you cannot refute that the Second google entry under our precise term links to parallel worlds and quantum mechanics. It’s ranking as google’s second entry is irrefutable evidence of the term’s importance and relevance to the conept of QM and parallel worlds.

464. Colin Ellis - October 30, 2010

Harve, you’re a bitter old fart. Just consider yourself lucky that Nicholas Meyer put up with all of your bullshit for all of those years.

465. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Watching Iron Man. Love the movie. It’s fun. Was my favorite comic book character. But not much there besides Tony Stark gets a conscience and decides to build Iron Man.

Not knocking it. But it is the sort of thing people are saying Star Trek is — a fun summer SF action movie — when Star Trek has so many more themes to it, and more emotion, and deeper emotion.

So it puzzles me how anyone can argue they are the same sort of thing. It’s very clear to me that Bob is a fan and that he put his love of Star Trek into it and it worked.

Thanks Bob.

Friendo.

466. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

463. Boborci – October 30, 2010

The real gem that you put in there was at the end between the two Spocks where Spock Prime speaks about grandfather paradoxes without mentioning them explicitly.

They speak about them as if they each already know what they are and there is no audience out there listening and watching that needs them explained which increases the verisimilitude of that scene and has the feel of eavesdropping on a real conversation.

467. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Some people might complain that’s a weakness, but to me it’s a signal of that other layer the film had that might make curious folk want to look into MWI.

You get the basic idea just by what the film said, but then it also had threads reaching beyond the movie that you could choose to follow if you wanted.

You don’t NEED to google anything to understand the major plot points.

468. Boborci - October 30, 2010

466. Thanks. We figured a conversation between two Spocks should be hard for a general audience to follow.

469. Cygnus-X1 - October 30, 2010

454. Boborci

—-The ENTIRE movie is a demonstration of the fact you pointed out above(434) indicating you clearly did get it, that the death of Kirk’s father set him on a path that made him more “rebellious” (your word) as a result of a different life (dad killed in Starfleet) which we make text for those who weren’t aware of it, even though you say the audience has no idea. Yes they do, we tell them. —-

You tell the audience that Kirk Prime grew up with his father, but you don’t tell them that Kirk Prime was different because of it. You don’t tell the audience that Kirk Prime was less rebellious than Alt Kirk, do you? I was just positing that as an example of how you could have developed that theme. If you’re telling me now that you did, in fact, intend for Alt Kirk to be more rebellious due to having grown up without his father, then my question to you is: How do we know that Kirk Prime wasn’t equally or nearly as rebellious? Was it mentioned in some book that most of the audience wouldn’t have read?

In any case what you propose is a relatively simple comparison—Alt Kirk grows up more rebellious because he grew up without a father—and that’s it. That theme is not developed beyond that point. And the story is not “about” those differences in Kirk nor in any of the crew. You did include the theme in the movie, or you’re now explaining that you meant it that way, but it’s not the main thrust of the movie.

—-Further, since Nero is from the future, as we all eventually learn that he is, then you KNOW that every single thing resulting from his presence is different from what it was. Spock says this explicitly. “Whatever our lives might’ve been, our destinies have changed.” And yet, nonetheless, our famous crew ends up together in the same configuration through their choices and actions.—-

We KNOW that every, single thing is different because of Nero? How do we know that? Why should nothing at all in the Alt Universe be similar to what it would have been if Nero had not entered the picture? Why does Alt Kirk’s personality have to be COMPLETELY different from that of Kirk Prime’s because of Nero having caused him to grow up without a father? Why couldn’t Alt Kirk have grown up to have a very similar personality and temperment to that of Kirk Prime? Was Kirk Prime less rebellious growing up than Alt Kirk? Maybe the rebelliousness of Alt Kirk is due to Nature as much as to Nurture. These are the kinds of questions that could have been answered with a more thorough development of that theme.

As an aside, genetics would vary also in an alternate Universe, but for the purposes of this issue. Alt Kirk might have gotten gene “a” from his mother where Kirk Prime had gotten gene “b” from his father, resulting in a major personality difference and thereby throwing a monkey-wrench into your whole Nature vs. Nurture examination, being that neither Nature nor Nurture was really held constant. But, moving on….

—-Apparently, you would only accept a split screen of events depicting a side by side comparison of a prequel depicting known canon next to this one.—-

Yes, I get your point. You’re the subtle artist and I’m the circus-grade moron who wants to be spoonfed art.

But the fact is that, if we are to remain with the Nature vs. Nurture theme, you could have used Spock Prime’s knowledge of Kirk Prime as the vehicle to explore the differences between the two Kirks, for example. You had a couple of lines of dialogue about it between Alt Kirk and Spock Prime; you could have done more with that. OK, so Alt Kirk is more rebellious because he grew up without a father. Is that it? You can’t think of anything more to show about it than that? Growing up without a father makes some people more rebellious, and that’s all you have to say about it?

But, you are right in saying that there are certain limitations to developing that particular theme. So, develop another theme instead. Pick a good historically-Trek theme. I’m just asking you to more substantially develop whatever theme you do choose. I’m asking you to make your story “about” that theme.

—-Or to put it another way, if QM is correct, and there are parallel universes with copies of each of us running around, why aren’t you spending your day pondering the “theme” of all the different choices you are making in parallel worlds? It would only occur to you or come up if you were exposed to travelers from other realms, and that’s exactly what happens in the movie.—-

Nature vs. Nurture was YOUR example of an important Trek-type theme in your movie, not mine. How you go about developing that or any other theme can hardly be blamed on me or on anything else. I never demanded a Nature vs. Nurture theme be developed in your movie. You’re the one who brought that theme up. Maybe pick a more readily developed theme next time.

—-But even those that don’t follow trek can perceive the things we riffed on because they are ingrained in our pop culture… Like Spock being logical. EVERYONE knows that, so when they see him emote in the movie, they know and feel that it is significant because it is different than what they know about the character.—-

This point I agree with. The whole Spock emotion/logic struggle was very well done, and I enjoyed it a lot, and you’re probably right about the general audience having enough background to pick up that something’s amiss with this well-known Trek character. That was good character study shown and implied in your movie, but it was not the theme about which the entire story revolved. Your movie wasn’t “about” Spock’s internal struggle. BUT, THAT is a very interesting theme to center a Trek movie around. In your movie it did partially serve to develop the MWT theme, but on its own it was relegated to secondary status. It wasn’t the main theme of your story.

(And let me assure you that I’m not “playing” dumb here.)

As I said previously, you had good stuff in your movie; you just didn’t develop it enough. You gave the potentially powerful themes secondary or superficial treatment, and you gave priority treatment to more superficial stuff, like a villain whose motive didn’t make much sense. Instead of having Kirk be chased by monsters for no apparent reason, you could have spent that time developing the Nature/Nurture theme in the two Kirks via a longer dialogue between Alt Kirk and Spock Prime in the cave. That would have lent a lot more depth, substance and meaning to your film than some ridiculous monsters pointlessly chasing Kirk just to get him into the cave with Spock. And nothing makes action scenes more emotionally compelling than when their result is meaningful because of the implications to what we know the characters are dealing with.

470. Bucky - October 30, 2010

I thought the story of altering the timeline was actually ingenious because it shows how these characters have a best destiny, and win the impossible situation, Kirk gets on that bridge, and he doesn’t even realize that’s what he was always supposed to do. And it leaves the story wide open because things can happen that we don’t expect as Trek fans who know canon inside and out.

471. Bucky - October 30, 2010

Actually screwing up the timeline makes the characters even more awesome because they are still the Enterprise crew and will always be it, even if a crazy Romulan throws a huge monkey wrench into it.

472. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

469: “As I said previously, you had good stuff in your movie; you just didn’t develop it enough.”

Pardon my intrusion, but this is where your own individual preferences come into play. I’m sure SOMEBODY out there thinks No Country For Old Men is the best movie ever. At least one person, gotta figure. But it’s not me, no matter how much the critics liked it.

Given many competing interests and objectives, I thought they developed the ideas enough for a reintroduction of the franchise to new audiences and opening up the future clear out to the horizon.

A while back I posted an idea for a new Star Trek series that revolved around Kirk in his youth, because I think there’s enough material involving how this new Kirk grew up in the 23rd century to make a really interesting and currently relevant show.

A two hour reboot movie where everything is on the line if it fails is a lousy place to make that sort of character exploration, and you still couldn’t do it properly.

They did enough for one movie. And that’s what it is. One movie.

473. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Imagine squeezing twelve hours of Star Wars into one two hour movie.

Anyone ever catch BSG on SyFy Rewind where they summarize all three previous seasons in 60 seconds? It’s hilarious.

474. Re-invited - October 30, 2010

It was just an awesome movie from start to finish and I would be sad if the sequel were slowed down to provide exposition and details of interest only to Trekkies. Yes I understand that the more detail you get the easier it is to pretend it’s real, but it’s entertainment not a documentary.

I think this movie is being held to a higher standard than previous ones because of resentment over change.

475. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

468. Boborci – October 30, 2010

It worked really well.

I should add to my other comment that nobody needs to google anything to get all the major plot points — Spock Prime crossed over into an alternate reality and changed what their lives otherwise would have been — but to answer the fan-centric questions — remember that hilarious video of the Scottish guy who was stunned that the Prime Timeline had been totally erased? — you know, the questions that only fans are going to chew their nails off about such as whether or not there is still a prime timeline, THAT you will have to google grandfather paradoxes if you aren’t already familiar with them.

But those are only questions that fans want answers to. Nobody else who never saw TOS will be thinking about that, and it’s not relevant to the plot of ST.09.

Yet, sir, you graciously provided the clues even those fans needed to ease their worried minds and to repair their nailless fingers.

476. Bucky - October 30, 2010

If there’s anything in the sequel to appeal to Trekkies, it’d be nice to see some sort of way that indicates the Prime timeline still exists, because all off the time-travel on Star Trek, from City on the Edge of Forever to Past Tense to First Contact to Year of Hell indicates timelines get wiped out when you start mucking about in the past. Yes, we know that QM theory implies that the other universes still exist, and alters reality and doesn’t wipe it out, but there’s nothing in “Star Trek” that indicates that. Maybe Spock’s line of “He inferred that universe ending paradoxes would ensue” but that’s kinda streching it.

477. boborci - October 30, 2010

469. “You tell the audience that Kirk Prime grew up with his father, but you don’t tell them that Kirk Prime was different because of it. You don’t tell the audience that Kirk Prime was less rebellious than Alt Kirk, do you? I was just positing that as an example of how you could have developed that theme. If you’re telling me now that you did, in fact, intend for Alt Kirk to be more rebellious due to having grown up without his father, then my question to you is: How do we know that Kirk Prime wasn’t equally or nearly as rebellious? Was it mentioned in some book that most of the audience wouldn’t have read?”

—————

no, does not require having read anything, as you yourself proved by elucidating the difference. How do we know that him being rebellious was different? You tell me. How did you know that? But really, do I have to tell you that your life would be different without a father? Really? The mere absence of a father is a difference.

You said:

“We KNOW that every, single thing is different because of Nero? How do we know that? Why should nothing at all in the Alt Universe be similar to what it would have been if Nero had not entered the picture? Why does Alt Kirk’s personality have to be COMPLETELY different from that of Kirk Prime’s because of Nero having caused him to grow up without a father? Why couldn’t Alt Kirk have grown up to have a very similar personality and temperment to that of Kirk Prime? Was Kirk Prime less rebellious growing up than Alt Kirk? Maybe the rebelliousness of Alt Kirk is due to Nature as much as to Nurture. These are the kinds of questions that could have been answered with a more thorough development of that theme.”

——————–

Precision of words matter here. I said everything “resulting from his presence” is obviously different. So, if Nero blew up Vulcan, you KNOW that it wasn’t destroyed originally because originally THERE WAS NO TRAVELLER FROM THE FUTURE! If Nero killed Kirk’s Dad, Spock’s Mom, and brought everyone together on an adventure to stop him, we know that never happened originally because NERO IS FROM THE FIRGGIN’ FUTURE! What other interpretation could a logical person who is paying attention possibly have?

Now, that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING is different. If we had written a strictly within canon version of the movies, I still would’ve had Kirk meet Spock the same way. Nero had nothing to do with that.

You said:

“As an aside, genetics would vary also in an alternate Universe, but for the purposes of this issue. Alt Kirk might have gotten gene “a” from his mother where Kirk Prime had gotten gene “b” from his father, resulting in a major personality difference and thereby throwing a monkey-wrench into your whole Nature vs. Nurture examination, being that neither Nature nor Nurture was really held constant. But, moving on….”

——-

Not in the case of Kirk and Spock, because both are conceived BEFORE Nero appears in their universe.

You said:

“Yes, I get your point. You’re the subtle artist and I’m the circus-grade moron who wants to be spoonfed art.”

—–

Don’t mean to be that harsh, but I do think part of your reaction is that you feel embarrassed for not catching everything on the first viewing, and now that you’ve spoken up about it, you feel the need to defend your position to save face. I get it. Nobody likes to feel stupid. Don’t mean to make you feel that way. But I think I have demonstrated that things you feel we paid no attention to actually had a lot to do with our construction of the story. Sorry if that is painful.

You said:

“But, you are right in saying that there are certain limitations to developing that particular theme. So, develop another theme instead. Pick a good historically-Trek theme. I’m just asking you to more substantially develop whatever theme you do choose. I’m asking you to make your story “about” that theme.”

——

We did. Happy to discuss any one of them with you.

You said:

“This point I agree with. The whole Spock emotion/logic struggle was very well done, and I enjoyed it a lot, and you’re probably right about the general audience having enough background to pick up that something’s amiss with this well-known Trek character. That was good character study shown and implied in your movie, but it was not the theme about which the entire story revolved. Your movie wasn’t “about” Spock’s internal struggle. BUT, THAT is a very interesting theme to center a Trek movie around. In your movie it did partially serve to develop the MWT theme, but on its own it was relegated to secondary status. It wasn’t the main theme of your story.”

——

You seem stuck on the idea that movie can only be about ONE thing. I disagree. Nonetheless, we both seem to agree that one of the things that the movie was about revolved around Spock’s internal struggle.

In any case, I appreciate your passion and your persistence in defending your point of view. It can only come from a love of Star Trek, and that is something all of of us posting here share.

Live long and Prosper.

478. boborci - October 30, 2010

476. Bucky – October 30, 2010

Will try.

479. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

I mean imagine if you hadn’t put that in there. We would still be talking about the great Trekkie suicide wave of 2009. Bob, Alex, and JJ would’ve been brought up on charges. Lindelof would still be across the north border swearing he had nothing to do with it.

480. Jonboc - October 30, 2010

Themes were there a plenty in Trek 09 and I am grateful that Bob and Alex didn’t hit me over the head with them. Plenty of food for thought there for those that choose to partake.

481. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

477: “You seem stuck on the idea that movie can only be about ONE thing. I disagree. Nonetheless, we both seem to agree that one of the things that the movie was about revolved around Spock’s internal struggle.”

Right, and as I think about it there is a theme of choices in the movie. Making BRAVE choices. Robau’s choice. George Kirk’s choice. Sarek and Amanda’s choice of each other. Spock’s choice of Starfleet over the VSA. Kirk’s choice to stop sulking. His choice to beat the KM. His choice to confront Nero.

There is a theme of not doing the easy and predictable thing.

482. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

And those are just some choice examples.

483. boborci - October 30, 2010

482. YOu available to be our press agent?

;)

484. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

Start shipping me cases of Henry Weinhards Cream Soda and I’ll really start saying nice things about you.

485. Bucky - October 30, 2010

481 – You forgot Scotty’s choice to atomize poor Porthos. :(

486. boborci - October 30, 2010

485. In the novelization, he appears alive and well!!!

487. boborci - October 30, 2010

last thing I will say on this thread:

I am disappointed that Mr. B would imply that we lifted elements from his movie while simultaneously saying the movie we made is not one he would ever make. Mr. B, you gotta pick one.

Nonetheless, I would not be here without his contribution, and for that, I will forever be grateful.

May HB live longer and prosper.

See you all next time…

488. dmduncan - October 30, 2010

See ya Bob.

Live long and prosper.

489. MJ - October 30, 2010

@436 “But the problem that most people had—and that I would have had without the benefit of having heard/read you explaining the MWT component of your plot hither to my viewing of your film—is that you don’t explain any of that with dialogue. And, in fact, you kind of obfuscate the issue a bit by having the characters call it “an alternate reality,” with no further explanation. One first needs to know about QM’s MWT in order to then deduce the respective rationale for Spock’s decisions and so forth that you itemized. You have the benefit of taking for granted a basic working knowledge of QM’s MWT; the audience doesn’t necessarily have that background or even know that you’ve assumed it as the premise of time-travel in your film.”

Hmm. I went opening night with my non-Trekie wife and my 3 kids and the ALL understand the alternate timeline. No emergency phone call to Bob Orci was necessary. LOL

490. MJ - October 31, 2010

452 “So in any hypothetical meeting between the three of us, #383, please refrain from writing any checks you aren’t prepared to cash.”

If you are THE Michael Hall — the producer of that trash show, Dexter, then you can be sure that I would cash this check.

491. Michael Hall - October 31, 2010

“452. I think everyone would agree with you, that without understanding it at all, we just filled in the blanks of an obvious thing to do to with Trek. It was literally on the tip of every body’s tongue.”

Without trying to be unnecessarily cruel or provacative, Mr. Orci, I fear that’s more or less precisely what you did. Take the basic framework of Top Gun, add a dollop of The Wrath of Khan and the Spock backstory developed by D.C. Fontana, season heavily with ILM, dump it all in a brewery vat, and simmer. Aside from a few nice beats that occur mostly in the first ten minutes, I just don’t see what you brought to the table dramatically that hadn’t previously been done far better by other people, supposed philisophical musings about Multiple Universes and altered destinies notwithstanding.

Which brings us to Leonard Nimoy. The truth is that I had high hopes for your film based solely on his involvement and obvious enthusiasm for the project, and have spent a fair amount of time over the past year wondering just exactly what motivated him to do it. (No, I doubt he needed the cash.) I have some notions on that score, but my profound respect for the man prevents me from going into detail. Suffice to say that Mr. Spock’s alter-ego is as human as the rest of us, timing is everything, and that your offer came along at a point in an actor’s life where he might be inclined to accept, regardless of its real value. But that’s just a guess on my part.

492. MJ - October 31, 2010

“Without trying to be unnecessarily cruel or provacative,”

YEA, RIGHT. LOL

493. MJ - October 31, 2010

“Which brings us to Leonard Nimoy. The truth is that I had high hopes for your film based solely on his involvement and obvious enthusiasm for the project, and have spent a fair amount of time over the past year wondering just exactly what motivated him to do it. (No, I doubt he needed the cash.) I have some notions on that score, but my profound respect for the man prevents me from going into detail. Suffice to say that Mr. Spock’s alter-ego is as human as the rest of us, timing is everything, and that your offer came along at a point in an actor’s life where he might be inclined to accept, regardless of its real value. But that’s just a guess on my part.”

Oh please, don’t share with us your personal suspicions of the issues in Mr. Nimoy’s personal life….dude, you are a real piece of work. Do you not have any shame or common decency?

494. Michael Hall - October 31, 2010

“If you are THE Michael Hall — the producer of that trash show, Dexter, then you can be sure that I would cash this check.”

No, that would be Michael C. Hall, the actor who plays Dexter, and who probably has better things to do than hang around fan websites. My middle initial is “J”. I do happen to share your distaste for “Dexter,” though I very much enjoyed Hall’s earlier stint as David Fischer in the excellent series Six Feet Under. But in any case, cash all you like.

495. Michael Hall - October 31, 2010

My suspicions, “MJ”, have nothing to do with Nimoy’s “personal life,” but merely the emotional needs most of our lives have in common, and which might be especially important to an actor in the closing years of an illustrious career. I thought my post was pretty clear about that, along with the admission that I was just guessing in any case–but then, your difficulties with reading comprehension are as apparent as your lack (disagree with someone, so your first impulse is to slap them) of impulse control.

496. Boborci - October 31, 2010

491. U can’t be unnecessarily cruel or provocative, no matter how hard you try!

497. skyjedi - October 31, 2010

The interview is saw with JJ Abrams talking about how he approached the project made more sense to me than any technobabble.

This interview making of thing, was not on the DVD. But made it all make sense.

I could care less about Multiple worlds theory or quantum mechanics, if the story does not engage me at a purely human level, that the characters and motivations make some sort of sense.

498. Michael Hall - October 31, 2010

“491. U can’t be unnecessarily cruel or provocative, no matter how hard you try!”

Thanks (I think). I haven’t tried at all, actually. Since you come to these boards to see what the fans think, I’ve felt free to express my unvarnished opinions–always with the understanding that they aren’t personal. (Nor do they reflect any opinion on your other work–I haven’t any, actually, since I haven’t seen it).

Though truthfully my expectations aren’t high, FWIW I do have some hope that I’ll be happier with your work in Trek ’12, and have been encouraged by some of the things you and your colleagues have said with regards to the film.

499. skyjedi - October 31, 2010

To me the scene that made the most emotional impact was Older Spock meeting younger Kirk and mind melding with him. After Kirk has been dead for some time in the Prime Universe.

That felt real to me, in the same sort of way as Picard mind melding with Spock giving Spock the experience of Picard’s meld with Sarek, in that 2 part episode unification.

500. Canon Schmanon - October 31, 2010

Harve then took his horse and carriage home and called up some friends on his rotary phone, while music played quietly in the background on his Victrola.

Making Star Trek the old way was failing. They needed to remake it. Doing Star Trek 90210 would have been a horrible idea. The fact that Bennett still thinks it’s a good idea is a shining example of how out of touch he has become. Star Trek continues to grow and evolve, Bennett and others like him just lay fallow. I’m so happy to see Trek in new hands.

501. Dom - October 31, 2010

Star Trek: The Academy Years doesn’t strike me as a movie, but a TV show concept! After seven years, the cast could have taken over the films from the originals!

502. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

I am glad they did Undiscovered Country instead of Starfleet Academy. I never bought the idea of the entire crew meeting at the Academy and going straight to the Enterprise, given their different ages.

To me it made more sense they all met on the Enterprise.

Even though this was the case in the new movie, a point in the movie which is another convenience in how things come together in the new movie, it was not a major problem because it is an alternate universe.

I am watching the movie again later on as I have been going through all the movies.

503. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

I noticed an error in my last message

To me it made more sense they all met on the Enterprise

This should have read as
To me it made NO sense they all met on the Enterprise

504. ensign joe - October 31, 2010

@ Cygnus-X1

Well spoken sir!

505. Rocket Scientist - October 31, 2010

Maybe I’m just an old fart, but Bennett made Trek I could relate to. These new guys made Trek that merely entertained me. But in the long run, I guess I still come out ahead either way.

506. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

496. Boborci – October 31, 2010

(extremely short video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

507. Boborci - October 31, 2010

496 is not me.

508. Boborci - October 31, 2010

496. Read it wrong. It’s me.

509. Boborci - October 31, 2010

508. The biggest clue I have is that you use your real name and made a distinction of your middle initial. In my experience, that has frustrated writer all over it.

510. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

Are there two boborci’s? I’m confused here.

511. Boborci - October 31, 2010

511. iPad and computer;)

512. Boborci - October 31, 2010

491. I’m sure film history will share your opinion. It is so insightful. My guess, since you felt free to psycho-analyze Nimoy, is that you are a frustrated writer.

513. Boborci - October 31, 2010

And to anyone else who is trying to write – not all aspiring writers are frustrated, so don’t give up if you are trying to write. The frustrated writers are the ones who think they can do better than anyone else and who think it’s a breeze to do so. Just add one part top gun, one part whatever, and simmer…. Etc…

514. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

Well I want to apologise for criticising the negative points of the new movie rather than praising the stuff you did brilliantly

I know how difficult it is to write and I apologise for being critical just because the movie is different from the Trek I grew up loving.

515. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

509. Boborci – October 31, 2010

Not sure I understand, but if you mean me at 506, I am sympathizing with you, Bob. I’ve said it too. Every time I say I’m done somebody takes that as an opportunity to say something I have to respond to, so I get drawn back in. I’m not taking shots at you, brother!

As for my middle initial, if you do mean me, there are so many David Duncans, including famous ones and different writers by the same name, there are few options of distinguishing myself as none of those. Thought about tagging my grandfather’s last name on the end, just to honor that side of my family which I grew up in.

I’m confused right now because I think I’m the only one with a middle initial here so you must mean me, and yet I’ve consistently noted how much there is to learn — for me — in how you do things. Your Star Trek is teaching me things.

I don’t think it’s easy or that you are cranking out product at all. I’m not Michael Hall.

516. Boborci - October 31, 2010

514. You have nothing to apologize for. I have never detected anything but sincerity in your posts, even the negative ones.

517. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

515. Boborci – October 31, 2010

Thank you. I’m here because your film inspired me the way Star Trek did when I was a kid. It’s created a lot of exciting energy in me that finds expression in here in what I say, so it’s me giving back to you some of what you’ve inspired. When I do get Star Trek ideas, I feel like I have an internal Bob Orci coaching me, without which they would just be flat. Not to say that they are great, but it does feel like it’s coming from how I saw you do things in ST.09 which was a new way to think about Star Trek for me, and very exciting.

518. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

Bob

I want to apologise about my comments on this site.

I never meant to cause offense.

Despite being vocal about things I didn’t like I want to say there is a lot of stuff you did in the movie I liked. I guess being different from the Trek I love makes it all diff if that makes sense.

But I do want to apologise.

519. Boborci - October 31, 2010

515.

No, I don’t mean you! You’ve never made a point of it. I was referring to 494. Using your real name is not the giveaway. It’s that PLUS x.

520. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

I love TOS and I still find it better than a lot of modern shows, great characters and adventure and stories which were about something as well as being great fun.

But I do also love the spin offs as well and I am a huge TNG fan as well and I do feel a bit annoyed at the hate it gets here.

I never tire of watching any of the shows

I do wish TNG got one more movie, they deserved a better send off than Nemesis which was a disappointing end.

521. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

Oooh, I see now. Michael Hall referenced his middle initial. You DID mean him.

Whew! I was self conscious that my middle initial screamed “frustrated writer” when in fact I’m a frustrated philosopher.

522. Boborci - October 31, 2010

521. Ha!

Of course, i could be wrong about poor mr 494. Just a guess. Only he can confirm my suspicions. As for your philosophizing, it seems to be doing well. Is there any such thing as a non frustrated philosopher?

523. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

…among…other things. Always have problems with simple self definition. (See 520).

524. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

521. Boborci – October 31, 2010

The bad ones are not frustrated. And then the really really good ones.

525. P Technobabble - October 31, 2010

Famous cliche — those who can, DO. Those who can’t TRY to TEACH. They even want to teach those who are doing. I find this highly illogical.
Keep doing, Mr. Orci. Most of us are diggin’ it.

526. MJ - October 31, 2010

ORCI: “491. U can’t be unnecessarily cruel or provocative, no matter how hard you try!”

@498/Michael Hall “Thanks (I think). I haven’t tried at all, actually.”

Dude, it is called IRONY/SARCASM. LOL

527. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

I will be rewatching Star Trek XI tonight.

528. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

Bob.

I was wondering if the attitude of some fans has disheartened you?

I hope it hasn’t.

529. MJ - October 31, 2010

@495 “My suspicions, “MJ”, have nothing to do with Nimoy’s “personal life,” but merely the emotional needs most of our lives have in common, and which might be especially important to an actor in the closing years of an illustrious career.”

Any objective person reading your comments on Mr. Nimoy (see post #491) would come to conclusion that you have a “dirty little secret” about why Mr. Nimoy participated in Trek 10, but no, no, no — you personally respect him so much, that you can’t release this privileged information on our suspicious to us. This is ridiculous, in that it allows you to support a fictitious argument about Nimoy not being in the movie for the right reasons without back up such a ridiculous assertion. Like we think have you have some personal insights into Mr. Nimoy’s private feelings and thoughts…are you a relative of Mr. Nimoy? Are you a close friend of Mr. Nimoy? Are you his next door neighbor. Or maybe you search his trash?

Sling all the insults you want my way, but I am not going to backing down one iota on this absolutely ridiculous arguments about you having secret suspicions of Nimoy having the wrong personal reasons for appearing in Trek 10. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

The moral of this story if that if you are going to make ridiculous claims on these boards (e.e. attaching Nimoy’s character), then be prepared to back them up with believable information. If you are not prepared to do that, then you should not make such claims in the first place, as nobody will believe you and you will lose all credibility.

530. ensign joe - October 31, 2010

Did he say anything about the reason being wrong?

Just sayin..

531. MJ - October 31, 2010

@527. I agree. Orci’s skin must be as big as his heart — I can’t imagine dealing with some of the negative and moronic posts here. Thank goodness it is only coming from a few bad apples.

Can you also imagine as well what Leonard Nimoy would think if he read some of this crap? I can only hope that he does not read any of this.

Anthony, I think you should remove the Michael Hall Nimoy post #491) and all subsequent posts (including mine) that comment on it. This manufactured issue being brought up and discussed should be an embarrassment to all Trek fans.

532. Basement Blogger - October 31, 2010

As Cygnus-X1 correctly points out, there was confusion about the time travel theories in Star Trek (2009). We saw that when Anthony Pascale was at a Trek covenention and found out that many Trekkers didn’t get the parallel universe or “alternate reality” theory behind Star Trek (2009). I got it wrong also because…

1. “Damn it, Bob, I’m a Blogger Not A Physicist.” You see I thought if you go back in time and alter it; you alter the future. I mean Star Trek taught us that. “The City on the Edge of Forever.” DS: 9 ( “Trials and Tribble-ations.” See Ray Bradburry’s “A Sound of Thunder.” Then as I was watching ST: 09, I thought one, Spock is going to get a nasty chewing out from the Department of Temporal Investigations. (See “Trials…”) : ) Second, how can Spock be alive if they destroyed Vulcan. Didn’t he need Vulcan in Srar Trek III to reunite his body with his katra. Then I got a Katheryn Janeway size headache.

So I researched the movie and found an excellent interview with Bob Orci from this website. (Link below.) Ah ha. Parallel universe. Bob talks about TNG’s “Parallels.” Got it. Is this the correct view of time travel? I don’t know. We should wait for an explanation from the grey aliens of Zeti Reticuli. The problem was that I had to research it. Which leads us to the question, “How much is too much explanation in a screenplay?”

2. “The Fear of Midi-Chlorians.” In “Star Wars I: The Phantom Menance”, Qui Gon Jinn explains what makes up the Force in physical terms. Midi-Chlorians living in your cells. Some people cite this as what killed the movie. Really? Did you go to the movie and say to yourself,”Oh no. They just explained the Force. I hate the movie?” Of course, you didn’t. What killed this movie was Jar Jar Binks, nineteenth century art direction and the idea that a little kid could pilot a starfighter. Regardless, it’s an example of too much explanation. The Force was supposed be a metaphysical, almost spiritual. No need to sully it with a lame explanation.

So how much is too much? There’s an old axiom to writing a screenplay, “Show don’t tell.” Yet with any rule there’s exceptions. The more complicated the concept, the more you’ll need to explain it. Remember overexplaining something can be lame but usually will not kill the movie. See “The Phantom Menance.”

How has the idea of parallel universes been handled in sci-fi drama? Well, let’s go to TOS classic “Mirror, Mirror.” After the crew beams aboard to find radical changes to the Enterprise, the away team gathers in sickbay. After a short discussion, Kirk explicitly tells them they are in a “parallel universe” and explains it. Further discussion elucidates the concept. The audience knows what is going on.

In “Fringe”, Dr. Walter Bishop uses a blackboard to draw and demonstrate the concept of parallel universes. It had this branching timeline depiction that works well because in TNG: “Parallels” Data uses a computer depiction and a short explanation to demonstrate the concept. Not lame anywhere. Parallel universe is a mind blowing concept. One that needs explanation. The audience once given the information can sit back and think about. That’s fine. I like thinking when I’m watching a movie or show.

In “Star Trek 2009″ there was a quick comment by Uhura about an “alternate reality.” That was about it. I’m sure some were thinking ‘The City on the Edge of Forever” time change, hence the confusion. Would a Data-Dr. Bishop like diagram help? Of course. And how long would that take? Two minutes? We can sit through that. There was another opportunity to explain the parallel universe the Spock Prime -Kirk meeting. I was listening to the commentary and somebody before that scene said they wanted to add more dialogue. Here was a great emotional opportunity to ponder about another universe. Should I be like that Kirk? What was my father like in that universe? And the audience can think along. Holy sh#t. Another universe. Is there one where I’m married to Kate Beckinsale? : )

I will acknowledge that the parallel universe concept in Star Trek 2009 is less important than the other shows I’ve cited. That might dictate the brevity of the discussion. On the other hand, the film destroyed Vulcan and killed Amanda. If you didn’t think parallel universe, you might have thought they destroyed canon.

Regardless, all this discussion on parallel universes will have all Trekkers ready for the next film. We now know this is a new universe. So get ready for Jean Luc Picard, male stripper. : )

Here’s that interview that will help you understand Star Trek 2009’s parallel universe.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

533. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

Just rewatched the new movie tonight and I still think its a good movie despite the flaws in the logic of the film and the conveniences of how everything and everyone comes together.

Still rate it as 4 out of 5.

Despite hating some changes JJ Abrams made and a questionable plot that defies logic I still think its a good movie.

532
The reason I accept the film is because it is a parallel universe, so that way it can still be enjoyed and I can be rest assured that Star Trek canon is intact. But the way it is mentioned it can be open to interpretation as it is not very clear, Uhura says Alternate Reality but then Kirk does say to Spock on Delta Vega that “You really screwed our lives.” this seems to contradict the other statement.

But I accept it is a parallel universe. But still I hated seeing Vulcan be destroyed.

One request for t he next one would to have JJ Abrams ask the cameraman to use steadycam in more shots.

534. keachick - October 31, 2010

I think that the alternate universe concept was explained in various scenes, after the initial explanation given by Spock and Uhura. It happened in the cave, not only Spock showing Kirk the events that lead him to being in this new/alternate universe through the mind-meld, but also when Kirk asked Spock if he knew his father. Clearly, in the universe that this nuKirk lived, he didn’t know his father. However, the older Spock told the younger Kirk about the father he had indeed known in the other universe.

Another scene was where Pike was lying on the table in the Narada and Nero was ranting on about Romulus being destroyed, along with his wife and unborn child. Pike, who was unaware of the existence of an alternate universe, kept telling Nero that Romulus existed, was still out there. However, the audience had seen the destruction of Nero’s Romulus. The reality was that both Nero and Pike were correct!

A peculiar thing (just for me) was that I got the notion (why – I have no idea) that by the end of the movie, not only was Vulcan destroyed but Romulus also, in this new alternate universe. I had written a story outline which begins where this movie finishes, where I had the Enterprise picking up/rescuing the few remaining homeless Vulcans and Romulans who were scattered about, forced to live on spaceships, small space stations, colonies etc where they were no longer receiving basic supplies because of the destruction of their worlds.

It was actually my young sons who had only seen the movie once at the cinema, who told their mother how dumb she was and that Romulus had not been destroyed, only Vulcan and how come their mother didn’t get the movie? Oh *beep* At this point, their mother was unaware of the fact that so many seemed to “get” less of the movie than she did. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Dumbed down for the masses, eh? I don’t think so.

You go, Bob Orci. Take care. Work well and be cool!

535. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

534

The point that Spock said that Kirk knew his Dad in the Prime universe is a good example.

I was pointing out the reasons why some fans feel it is not a parallel universe.

In watching the movie again tonight I was thinking how drunk someone could get by having a drinking game in which you take a shot whenever a lens flare appears on screen?

536. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

533: “it can be open to interpretation as it is not very clear, Uhura says Alternate Reality but then Kirk does say to Spock on Delta Vega that “You really screwed our lives.” this seems to contradict the other statement.”

Yes, but you have to understand that Kirk is mistaken there. Spock Prime is actually the “father” of this new universe by creating the black hole for Nero to go through splitting the universes and creating an alternate copy of Kirk with a different future to unfold. In a sense it is still true that in comparison to the life the Kirk Spock Prime knew had, Kirk Pine’s life unfolded differently, and that was due to Spock and Nero. And that’s true within MWI simply as Kirk comparing himself to what could have been had his father not died.

But as Spock Prime says in the end, Kirk Pine wrongly inferred that universe ending paradoxes would ensue if young Spock were made aware of the older Spock’s existence. In other words, “universe ending paradoxes” is a lie, it wasn’t true. There is absolutely no jeopardy or risk of such a paradox by one Spock meeting the other. The two Spocks could have gotten into a knock down fight with young Spock losing his life, and there would have been no paradox BECAUSE they are actually two different Spock’s from different universes versus the SAME Spock from the SAME universe at different times.

Google the MWI solution to the grandfather paradox and you will see this is exactly the solution that MWI has proposed to resolve the grandfather paradox, and it is a direct reference to MWI which Spock Prime is affirming is the case with that conversation.

537. captain_neill - October 31, 2010

536

I understand that, I was citing it as an example as to why some star trek fans think that the movie erases everything.

I agree with your point about Kirk’s belief and Spock indicating to his alternate self at the end that he ‘implied’ this to Kirk eliminates the Grandfather Paradox.

I was only citing it as an example of why some Trek fans cannot accept this as a parallel universe.

538. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

And don’t take “grandfather paradox” too literally. See the idea behind the thing. If future Spock travels back in time to kill his younger self, how could there be a future Spock to travel back in time to kill his younger self? No grandfather, same paradox. Grandfather Paradox is the historical example but by no means the only way of constructing the same paradox.

539. dmduncan - October 31, 2010

537. captain_neill – October 31, 2010

And I addressed that problem @ 475.

540. Basement Blogger - October 31, 2010

The Marketplace of Ideas and Harve Bennett

One thing that I’ve noticed writing comments and reading them is that there are some who will attack those whose viewpoints are different. I’m not talking about mere disagreements. I see insults. It’s approriate as we head into Tuesday’s election to think about another tenet of American democracy. Freedom of speech.

Okay, Harve Bennett had criticisms of Star Trek (2009). I LIKED THE FILM but agree with his points on the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and the pacing. Does that make Harve, me, Roger Ebert or others who may have had a negative opinion of the movie to be idiots, or bitter old men? When I saw the movie, I told some teenage kids on a mock trial team that I coached that the movie was made for them. And after hearing Edward Epstein’s interview about who Hollywood makes movies for, maybe I’m right. (NPR interview link below.) Since the filmmakers said they wanted to make the movie for a modern audience, to me that translates to teenagers, That was probably the point with the ad stating, “This is not your father’s Star Trek.”

What does this have to do with freedom of speech? Well, this comment section is a forum for Trek fans to discuss or express their opinions. It’s part of the great marketplace of ideas. I’m sorry if any filmmaker comes to the forum and expects adulation. She should expect to see positive and negative views of her work.

Let me quote Justice Fortas in regards to the marketplace of ideas that it is a “robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S. 503, 512 (1968) What other things do we get from a robust exchange of ideas?. Wisdom. Justice. See Thomas v. Granville Central School Dist. 607 F. 2d. 1043 (1979) Ah, pretty good stuff we get from the marketplace of ideas. 1. Truth. 2. Justice. 3 Wisdom.

So, from the voices on this forum and other forums what can a Trekker get? Well, some filmmaker may be listening. Perhaps a consensus arises. Then maybe they make a better movie next time. Maybe there will never be another Star Trek V. And on a more serious side, all the voices against prejudice directed at Muslims might get a naton that recognizes that NOT all Muslims are terrorists.

I would like to see less ad hominem attacks. Please disagree or agree. But attacking the speaker is petty and juvenile. It does not add anything to your argument.

1. NPR article on who Hollywood makes movies for.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646

2. Roger Ebert’s Review of Star Trek 2009.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997/1023

3. Roger Ebert reviews Star Trek IV, (1986) my favorite of the Trek films. A witty and eloquent review. Check out the last paragraph.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19861126/REVIEWS/611260301/1023

541. MJ - October 31, 2010

@549 “Okay, Harve Bennett had criticisms of Star Trek (2009). I LIKED THE FILM but agree with his points on the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and the pacing. Does that make Harve, me, Roger Ebert or others who may have had a negative opinion of the movie to be idiots, or bitter old men?”

You are missing the point. HB is part of the select fraternity of Trek producers and creators that also include Roddenberry, Berman and JJ/Supreme Court. These are professionals who have built, resurrected and continued the Trek franchise over the past 45 years. As part of the select group, there is an obvious unwritten rule not to take potshots are those who preceded you and those who succeeded you. HB has violated this rule, and that is simply unprofessional at best and not cool at worst.

You and Roger Ebert can complain all you want about Trek XI — that is not material to HB’s comments and that is not what is upsetting folks about HB here.

542. Anthony Pascale - October 31, 2010

I do not think Harve Bennett is “bitter”, however I dont think he is able to view the 2009 trek objectively. He admits that he has a bias. I get the sense, like how he pointed out he “wasn’t fired” that the whole issue of the Post Star Trek V period, his pitch and rejection and leaving Paramount is a very sensitive issue for him.

I have read the Academy Years script and it really wasn’t that great and would have been the wrong move for the 25th anniv and I am very glad Paramount made Star Trek VI. And Invariably any script dealing with Kirk at the academy is going to have similiar things, but that doesn’t mean lifting it is just the nature of it. In fact, I have also read the Erik Jendresen Romulan war movie script, and it also opens with a scene with a Kirk (ancestor to James) recklessly using old-fashioned vehicle (in this case a sailboat in San Francisco Bay), but Jendresen didn’t take that from Bennett either.

The thing that actually bugs me most about what Bennett said is the end where he implied that people who like this movie are only interested in special effects and ‘bang bang’. Well polling shows the vast majority of trek fans liked the film so is he saying they are all somehow wrong or not as good as fans in the 80s?

Maybe someday i will get a chance to interview him and ask him

543. Basement Blogger - October 31, 2010

@ 541 “As part of the select group, there is an obvious unwritten rule not to take potshots are those who preceded you and those who succeeded you. HB has violated this rule, and that is simply unprofessional at best and not cool at worst.”

There’s a Star Trek Gag Rule? I have not heard of that one but since you say it’s unwritten maybe somebody could have said one exists in an interview. I have yet to hear of this gag rule in an interview.

I remember Producer Ralph Winter making some negative comments on Star Trek V. Did he violate the Star Trek Gag Rule? (From this website, link below.)

Ralph Winter: We had fun and felt good about IV, that wasn’t the case on V. I think on V we were smoking our own press releases…

And, unfortunately I almost killed the franchise in terms of the visual effects. We felt like we got taken advantage of by ILM and so we shopped to go to other places.”

I mean “smoking your own press releases and being taken advantage by ILM” sounds pretty negative to me.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/06/30/producer-ralph-winter-on-star-trek-v-we-almost-killed-the-franchise/

544. Basement Blogger - October 31, 2010

@ 534 Keachick

I’m glad you got the parallel universe plotline. But there were Trekkers who didn’t. See Anthony Pascale’s article on the Las Vegas Star Trek Convention. (Link below.) I dont’ think that makes them dumb or non-attentive. The discussion in the movie goes by pretty fast and frankly the audience is not attuned to it like TNG “Parallels.” Again, I’m old school. I thought if you go back in time, you run the risk of polluting the timeline. See “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Deep Space 9, “Trials and Tribble-ations.” Heck, Q even talks about it in the TNG “Tapestry” where he tells Picard that his little experiment allowing Picard to change the past won’t pollute the timeline. Plus I don’t think it’s been proven one way or the other. : )

On your comment regarding the destruction of Romulus and it still existing at the same time. In Spock-Prime’s timeline, the destruction occurs in the twenty fourth century. Star Trek (2009) takes place in the twenty third centrury. Yes, in the alternate timeline, Romulus could still exist in the twenty fourth century but that alternate timeline has not occurred yet.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/08/21/video-trekmovie-star-trek-fan-panel-at-trek-las-vegas-con/

545. MJ - October 31, 2010

@543. Thanks for providing the link to the Ralph Winter article. He takes responsibility for Star Trek V in an honorable way. Does he take a pot shot at Shatner? No! Does he take a potshot at Bennett? No! Does he come across as bitter? Does he claim David Loughery stole his story? NO! He self-deprecates with class.

I guess if HB had offered his comments about Trek 11 while at the same time mentioning, “boy, did we blow it with ST V,” then I could accept his criticism a little more easily. By making those comments he in effect puts his Trek movies on a higher pedestal than Trek 11, while we all know that ST V was so bad that it made “The Motion Sickness” look like Citizen Kane in comparison.

546. MJ - October 31, 2010

@544 “Again, I’m old school. I thought if you go back in time, you run the risk of polluting the time-line. See “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Deep Space 9, “Trials and Tribble-ations.”

The current thinking by most astrophysicists is that there are parallel universes. This thinking has gained traction in theory over the past decade and now physicists hope to be able to prove this and other elements (dark energy, dark matter) through future experiments in the Large Hadron Collider.

Just from reading the newspaper and following popular media, most people should by now be up to speed on parallel universes, dark matter and dark energy. Again, my wife and 3 kids had no problem digesting the ST parallel universe/timeline device. I found the way it was handled in the movie to be just fine.

547. keachick - October 31, 2010

544 Basement Blogger
I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I thought that others were dumb for not understanding the parallel universe plotline. I was referring to myself and what my *charming* smartass teenage sons had said to me.

However, I have been on the Star Trek 09 IMDb board for more than a year and even now when other posters have painstakingly explained the MWI theory many, many times (one poster is extraordinaryly patient) and use examples from the various Trek series to help explain the differences, there are still those who come on and say really silly, negative stuff because they have still not understood the premise of the movie. As I said, I didn’t quite get all of it at first.

What I find a bit bewildering is that this Star Trek movie was released almost 18 months ago (8 November) to an international audience, the DVDs have been available for nearly a year now so that people can watch the movie again to see what they may have missed the first time through and yet there is still this confusion, and even anger expressed by some that JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and co destroyed the prime TOS universe. So not true!

548. keachick - October 31, 2010

Harve Bennett said – “It was Kirk and Spock aged seventeen entering Starfleet Academy. Kirk falls in love for the only time in his life…”

This is another problem I have with this story line of Harve Bennett’s. I am correct in assuming that he was writing a prequel in the TOS prime timeline (MWI theory was not much thought of then?) and that what we see in the TOS television series and movies follow on from this. So why does he completely ignore canon? According to canon, Kirk is seen to fall in love at least four times – first, with Carol Marcus, then Edith Keeler, then Miramanee and finally the android Rayna (he does not realise she is an android). Unfortunately, these relationships did not end well, with three of the women dying. Miramanee (The Paradise Syndrome) was pregnant with Kirk’s child at the time.

I am sorry but Harve Bennett’s story makes Kirk out to be a rather emotionally shallow individual with little room for love in his heart. The examples given from Star Trek canon clearly show this not to be the case. This annoys me, that someone, so well connected with the franchise, thinks so little of Jim Kirk’s relationships and emotional life, as to completely disregard them.

Many people think that the “Supreme Court” have crapped all over Star Trek canon, but not as much as Bennett appears to have wanted to do with his story, The Academy Years. Unbelievable!

549. MJ - October 31, 2010

@548 “Many people think that the “Supreme Court” have crapped all over Star Trek canon, but not as much as Bennett appears to have wanted to do with his story, The Academy Years. Unbelievable!”

Well said — I could not agree more!

550. Harry Ballz - October 31, 2010

Well, I just plowed through all 549 posts here and all I can say is…..Bob Orci has the patience of Job for persevering with some of these conversations!

dmduncan, and a select few, make intelligent comments, but some other people here……well, let’s just say, when they’re driving and they read a STOP sign, their lips probably move!

551. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 545

My point is this. You made the comment that there is an unwritten Gag Rule that people invloved with Star Trek cannot criticize the people behind Star Trek berfore and after. Your post @ 541. Producer Ralph Winter criticized IlM and his own team. If your’e mad at Harve Bennett for not taking responsibility for Star Trek V, so be it. I was just looking at your comment THAT THERE IS A STAR TREK GAG RULE ON PEOPLE WHO WHERE INVOLVED IN CREATING STAR TREK THAT THEY SHOULD NOT CRITICIZE STAR TREK BEFORE AND AFTER. RALPH WINTER VIOLATED YOUR UNWRITTEN RULE. If you hate Harve Bennett for critcizing Star Trek (2009), then go for it. But as my man Spock would say, be logical about it. Ralph Winter did violate your unwritten rule regardless of Bennett’s not taking responsibility for Star Trek V. You should also go after Producer Ralph Winter. UNLESS this is about your total love for Star Trek 2009 and that anyone who is critical of it is without merit. If that’s the case, we agree to disagree.

552. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 546

Your wife and three kids are brilliant. But “damn it MJ, I’m a Blogger not a Physicist.” Many of us have followed Star Trek for decades. And many of us have adhered to the theory that if you go back in time you could change the timeline. “The City on the Edge of Forever”. Deep Spae Nine” Trials and Tribble-altions.” “Tapestry” Voyager “Year of Hell” And of course there’s Ray Brandbury’s “classic ” A Sound of Thunder .’ And since this an aniversary for “Back to the Future”, there’s that view of time travel. Actually, I’m holding my copy of Star Trek, “Time Travel” a Fan Collective. and none of the episodes say if you go back in time , a parallel universe will happen. So many of us Trekkers are idiots? You should say that to the many who didn’t get the parallel universe theory at the Las Vegas Star Trek convention.

Do I disagree with the parallel universe theory? Absoultely not. Do you really want to accuse fellow Trekkers of being stupid? By the way, until we can go back into time or the grey aliens from Zeit Reticuli tell us which version is corect., we may not know. I personally, like the parallel universe theory. It’s good to know that in another unvierse I’m rich and married to Jennifer Aniston.

553. MJ - November 1, 2010

@551. You are providing an example where a producer essentially criticized HIMSELF AND HIS OWN TEAM, not another Trek producer’s effort on another ST film. There is an obvious difference here. Did you see Roddenberry taking potshots at HB, or Berman taking potshots at JJ? No, of course not, as they are professionals and wouldn’t violate this unwritten coder of conduct.

Do you see James Cameron bitching about Ridley Scott’s take on Alien or vice versa…of course not, as these guys are consummate professionals and would not stoop to embarrassing each other in public.

Where this unwritten rule is violated by those in Hollywood, you can bet jealousy or sour grapes area rearing their ugly heads.

554. MJ - November 1, 2010

@552. LOL. You have some good points there. Sure, I don’t like the orginal canon time travel stories being made invalid, but on the other hand, we do have these new parallel universe theories. I don’t have a great solution for how to reconcile this within Trek except to enjoy TOS episodes as is and not worry to much about them violating physical laws…not a great answer, but let me know if you have a better suggestion?

555. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 547

Keachick, I agree with you on if you’re confused with Star Trek (2009) and eighteen months later, you won’t talk about or research the issue on the parallel universe plot, you absolutely should . Look if you’re a Trekker, you have to be curious as to the discontinuity with the official Trek canon. And once you think about the fact that Vulcan was not destroyed in Roddenberry’s timeline then you really should access this website (I’m kissing a__ here) , research it or talk to another Trekker. Then we all get it. Regardless, of my criticism of Star Trek (2009) a film that I like, we’re in a new universe.

So get ready for Khan, ball room dancer! : ) His tango is sublime.

556. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 553

MJ, please enlighten us as to the protocol on the Gag Rule on criticism on past or future productions of a franchcise. Let me get this straight, according to you, I can criticize my own team but nobody before and after. We need this for future refeerence just in case any of us make it big in Hollywood.

557. MJ - November 1, 2010

@556. Right, sure. LOL. Like I said, it is unprofessional at best, and not cool at worst. Remember when Reagan said he couldn’t define p*rn, but that he knew it when he saw it. Same approach applies here. It is subjective — you have me on that part of this if that helps.

558. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 554

MJ, If I knew how time travel worked and could travel back in time, I would not tell anyone. I would go back into time and buy IBM and Apple stocks when they were cheap in the eighties. And if that happend my name would not be Basement Blogger but Billionaire Blogger. But since I don’t know my name is still Basement Blogger.

559. MJ - November 1, 2010

This just in from a parallel universe:

“Bob, and everyone, I apologize for making a jackwagon out of things here. You were right, I was wrong. Please except by sincere apologies. Michael Hall”

560. captain_neill - November 1, 2010

I accept it is a parallel universe, always have done.

561. Hugh Hoyland - November 1, 2010

# 542 Anthony , You wouldnt happen to know where we could get a look at the two scripts you mentioned do you?

562. Hugh Hoyland - November 1, 2010

Actually Im more interested in the second one more than the academy, but I would read them both.

563. P Technobabble - November 1, 2010

“Why you… get up there and paint that parallel universe!”

“But it won’t be out for another hour!”

BONK!

564. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

Don’t be naive.. The use of parallel universes was simply a device to free the writers from canon.. this malarkey about being true to science is just that.. malarkey.. Since Star Trek 09 is soooooo scientific how do you explain all the other science faults? That’s right. You don’t. You choose to ignore what doesn’t suit you. Because if you did it would paradox and your whole Star Trek world would crumble away like the crusts of Vulcan.

565. P Technobabble - November 1, 2010

564. ensign

I respectfully disagree. Throughout the history of sci-fi, in all its forms, it has been common for writers to base some ideas on current understanding (based on current or past technology), and so forth, while at the same time speculating about what is possible, no matter how impossible it may seem.
Certainly, it is quite possible that scientists could put away the idea of parallel universes with some breakthrough test. On the other hand, current theoretical physics suggests this may not be the case. We may find out there are countless universes all taking place in this moment, and this one, and this one, ad infinitum.
I don’t think there was ever the intent of the writers to say “Star Trek 09 is soooooo scientific.” It’s science fiction to begin with, and Trek09’s premise presumes the multiverse theory is true, and that something like Red Matter is a real thing, etc. This is no different than Jules Verne presuming that man would, one day, go to the moon using the only technology available in his time — a cannon. Also, I do not think the writers were simply ignoring what didn’t suit them. The entire story is built upon the framework of infinite possibilities — and I believe that aspect of the film is intelligent enough, puzzling enough and mysterious enough to generate some degree of thought, some consideration on the part of the viewer. If the concept of infinite possibilities isn’t enough to evoke some heavy thought, then what is? In this sense, I do not believe Trek09 was “dumbed down.”
In any case, being free of canon is, IMO, a breath of fresh air. After years of tv Treks, I felt a sense of sluggishness every time I watched — especially during the first years of ENT. And since the Kirk-era was my favorite, I was very glad they had brought back my favorite characters. I also thought for certain it would be more of the same old stuff. What Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof did was to turn Star Trek on its head. So, whatever goes along with that is fine with me. I’m not that big a proponent of canon anyway…
IMO, as always.

566. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

565. P Technobabble – November 1, 2010

“Trek09’s premise presumes the multiverse theory is true”

I don’t discount the multiverse theory. In fact I conjectured 7 years ago that our current existence is the “sum total” of all the possible universes coexisting at the same time similarly to how a sphere consists of an infinite number of “circle-slices”.. the resulting “super universe” whilst comprised on infinite universes manifests itself as the reality we see today.. an infinite number of vectors still eventually leads to one direction.. but that is neither here nor there..

My point is that its use here is simply a means to free the writers from the hell that would be managing the timeline. If they were telling a “Back to the Future” type story I’m sure no mention of the multiverse conjecture would have occurred.

i.e. they are not trying to bring science back to trek.. it simply suited their needs and gave them something they could hold the fans to if push came to shove.. (newer science trumps canon)

567. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

565. P Technobabble – November 1, 2010

“In any case, being free of canon is, IMO, a breath of fresh air.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you there.. and I applaud the writers decision to make such a bold statement as destroying Vulcan.. As good writers/artists know, setting traps for yourself is a good way to keep it interesting.

I suspect that the loss of Vulcan will play a significant part in the new movie.

568. P Technobabble - November 1, 2010

566. ensign

“…(newer science trumps canon)…”

I believe that is how it should be. If the newer science turns out to be the case, then canon is what it is (in the past) and should be abandoned in favor of the new science. Using the “new science” because it suited their needs is likely what most sci-fi writers do to legitimize their stories, except that in the case of the Supreme Court doing this in Star Trek it’s more of an issue.
Meanwhile, I, too, cannot imagine that the destruction of Vulcan would simply be forgotten, as if it never happened. That was one thing I hated about a lot of tv Trek. Especially during the TOS era, continuity between episodes was non-existent. A major event as what happened in “City” was finished by the end of the episode, and the following week Kirk was back to his old smiling self, as if Edith Keeler never existed. So, I think the new Trek has no choice but to develop a continuity between films, in order to generate a canon of its own.

569. NuFan - November 1, 2010

540. Basement Blogger – October 31, 2010
I LIKED THE FILM.
Does that make me, who may have had a negative opinion of the movie…

Make up your mind.

570. captain_neill - November 1, 2010

well personally I use the multiverse to allow me to enjoy the new Trek movie.

As it is a new universe I can treat the new movie as a separate entity from the rest of Trek and still enjoy the new movie.

But even though I like the new movie I will always prefer the prime universe.

Hope this doesn’t make out to be a hater just because I have a preference for the prime.

571. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

568. P Technobabble – November 1, 2010

“I believe that is how it should be. If the newer science turns out to be the case, then canon is what it is (in the past) and should be abandoned in favor of the new science.”

Does this apply to Star Trek or Star Wars?

I thought plinkett pointed out rather nicely how Star Trek 09 worked as fantasy not sci-fi..

572. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

“As it is a new universe I can treat the new movie as a separate entity from the rest of Trek and still enjoy the new movie.”

That’s exactly why they did it. The science behind it takes a back seat.

573. Boborci - November 1, 2010

564. We could’ve freed ourselves from canon with EITHER set of rules for time travel. What really let us get away with it was not wether it was a linear time travel movie, or a multiverse… What freed us was the fact that SPOCK HIMSELF (and Nimoy) is, in a sense, the very cause of the change. Even if he had erased history, it would’ve been a within canon solution.

Don’t forget Marty McFLy frees himself from canon, too. When he returns, his parents are winners, the bully is neutralized, and Marty has his dream truck.

Therefore, the motive you ascribe to our actions is not logical.

574. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

573. Boborci – November 1, 2010

“Even if he had erased history, it would’ve been a within canon solution.”

Correct. I said canon when I should have said:

The use of parallel universes was simply a device to free the writers from destroying the prime universe timeline.

575. Boborci - November 1, 2010

574. We could’ve made a trilogy, at the end of which, the Prime universe is restored. After all, if we’d used back to the future rules, the possibility of “fixing” things always remains.

576. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

573. Boborci – November 1, 2010

“Don’t forget Marty McFLy frees himself from canon, too. When he returns, his parents are winners, the bully is neutralized, and Marty has his dream truck.”

“Even if he (McFly) had erased history, it would’ve been a within canon solution.”

Perhaps the first sentence should also replace “canon” with “prime universe timeline” no?

577. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

575. Boborci – November 1, 2010

“We could’ve made a trilogy, at the end of which, the Prime universe is restored. ”

Certainly. But since it was the first Star Trek attempt buy you guys I assume you didn’t want to upset the fanbase anymore than you had to..

If you tell me the multiverse concept was not used primarily as a means of preserving the prime timeline I will believe you.

578. Boborci - November 1, 2010

577. It is one of many reasons.

579. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

578. Very good sir!

580. NuFan - November 1, 2010

So how many will you make, Bob? Just taking it one at a time for now? What’s it like with three writers instead of your usual two?

581. dmduncan - November 1, 2010

552: “It’s good to know that in another unvierse I’m rich and married to Jennifer Aniston.”

Sorry, alternate universes only contain what is actually possible. But you may be hooked up with Betty White. ;-)

582. Harry Ballz - November 1, 2010

581.

Yeah, well, all I can say to that, dmduncan, is that in some alternate universe, you’re hooked up with BARRY White!

“Oh, baby, baby…….gimmee your lovin'” :>)

583. P Technobabble - November 1, 2010

571. ensign
I don’t see Star Trek 2009 as a fantasy at all. Star Trek has always fallen under the category of “space opera,” and I believe this film fits that description just fine. It has never been an example of hard sci-fi. Space opera, in fact, doesn’t tend to focus too heavily on technology or explanations, anyway. Gene Roddenberry used to say something like, “When Marshall Dillon pulls out his Colt .45, he doesn’t explain how it works. He just shoots.” The point was to try to be scientifically accurate but not make that the focus of the story. The scientific “suggestions” presented in Trek09 are suited to the story in the same sense that the Genesis device suited TWOK, or the Genesis Wave suited the regeneration of Spock in TSFS.

Personally, when I think of fantasy I think of something that has absolutely no basis in scientific reasoning at all — such as “The Wizard of Oz,” or “Harry Potter.” Science fiction typically has some basis in scientific reasoning, despite its speculative or far-fetched nature. I do not think of Star Wars as, specifically, a fantasy either. It certainly has elements of space opera, even though scientific reasoning takes a comfy back-seat.

Also, you say, “…The use of parallel universes was simply a device to free the writers from destroying the prime universe timeline…” That’s one way to look at it. You could also say the Genesis Wave was simply a device to get Spock back. But as the Genesis Wave was necessary to make that story work, the use of parallel universes is necessary to make Trek09 work.

Now, I’m just calling it as I see it. Obviously, I wasn’t a fly on the wall, and I do not mean to presume to know what Bob Orci intended, or what he and the others had in mind when they wrote it. But it seems to me that so many sci-fi stories must have /something/ that glues all of their parts together, and Star Trek is no exception. The time-travel/parallel universe theory is, IMO, a perfectly legitimate “glue” to use in order for the story to hold together and make sense, whether it adheres to Star Trek canon or not (even though we know canon has not been annihilated).

Finally, I like the idea of not being able to simply “fix” the new universe. In fact, if the writers had given us another time-travel story where everything ended happily ever after, I’d have been severely disappointed.
Just my 2c…

584. P Technobabble - November 1, 2010

581 dm
“…Sorry, alternate universes only contain what is actually possible…”

Too bad. I was hoping there might be some alternate universe where I was being stalked by that little hottie, Betty Rubble.

585. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 569

It’s a nuanced opinion, Nu Fan. I may have a negative opinion of PARTS OF Star Trek (2009) and I like other parts of it. You left out the part where I say I agree with Harve Bennett’s criticisms. Some fans liked the movie but didn’t like say the engine room. I hope you get the distinction. There are movies you like but don’t love. But I own the Star Trek (2009) DVD and have watched it many times. So you can rest easy that I can say good things about he movie. Here it is. Great special effects. The Vulcan scenes should make a Trekker weep. The cinematography is beautiful. George Kirk’s sacrifice packs an emotional wallop. The movie holds up after multiple viewings. And I thought Karl Urban’s portrayal of Dr. McCoy was right on.

Speaking of McCoy, I would like to see more of him in the next movie. I enjoy the triinity of Kirk-Spock-McCoy. I will assume since you use the moniker “NuFan” that you are new to Star Trek. Might I suggest checking out the good old talky-gooey original series. Watch the friendship in “Amok Time”, “Journey to Babel” and the minimalistic “The Empath.” It is fun to watch them fight but if you see “The Empath” be prepared for a lack of action and a depiction of the depth of their friendship. Great stuff.

586. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

583. P Technobabble – November 1, 2010

“The scientific “suggestions” presented in Trek09 are suited to the story in the same sense that the Genesis device suited TWOK, or the Genesis Wave suited the regeneration of Spock in TSFS.”

I agree.

587. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

“In fact, if the writers had given us another time-travel story where everything ended happily ever after, I’d have been severely disappointed.”

I am soooooo done with time travel.. multiverse or no..

Ever read the “Crisis” series from DC comics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths

“Crisis was used by DC as an opportunity to wipe much of its slate clean and make major changes to many of their major revenue-generating comic book series. Frank Miller’s revamp of the Batman with Batman: Year One, George Pérez’s relaunching of Wonder Woman (see Gods and Mortals), and John Byrne’s reboot of Superman (see The Man of Steel) all took place shortly following Crisis on Infinite Earths, and changed substantial elements of the characters’ backstories. Green Lantern was also changed, to Green Lantern Corps, chronicling the adventures of a group of Green Lanterns led by Hal Jordan and stationed on Earth.”

588. NuFan - November 1, 2010

575. Boborci – November 1, 2010
“We could’ve made a trilogy, at the end of which, the Prime universe is restored. ”

Hah! I agree it would have been lame to set your movies in the Prime and then reset everything at the end. I hate reset buttons. No drama there. A new timeline is the perfect solution for revisiting old characters without being repetitive and predictable.
And thanks for going with modern theory over old traditions. Slingshotting around the sun for time travel is just silly. So my thanks to Bob and Alex for updating.

589. ensign joe - November 1, 2010

588. NuFan – November 1, 2010
“Slingshotting around the sun for time travel is just silly.”

Not as silly as you might think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive_(Star_Trek)

“This ‘slingshot’ effect has been explored in theoretical physics: it is hypothetically possible (though not practical or at all safe) to slingshot oneself ‘around’ the event horizon of a black hole. The result of such a maneuver would cause time to pass at a faster rate, relative to the ship within the event horizon. Such a journey would, unfortunately, be a ‘one-way’ trip into the future — the pilot of the craft would not have ‘traveled through time’ in the classical sense, but would instead have merely ‘skipped over’ the intervening years. Travel in entropic directions other than forwards remain impossible to ascertain within the rubric of Special Relativity.”

Or watch Carl Sagan give his explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzOqO12up6Q

590. ChristopherPike - November 1, 2010

Keep in mind, 487 was the last thing boborci said in this thread…

591. captain_neill - November 1, 2010

Bob

Can I ask if you considered at one point putting the film in the prime universe or did you always plan to put it in this new parallel universe?

Also I want to thank you for allowing the film to be a parallel universe instead of overwriting things.

592. ChristopherPike - November 1, 2010

590. Either that or it’s an evil MU Bob.

593. Basement Blogger - November 1, 2010

@ 584

So, you want to be stalked by Betty Rubble from the Flintsones in your alternate reality fantasy. Are we going to talk about alternate universes where cartoon characters are available for our fantasies? Okay, I call dibs on Cheetara from ThunderCats. Grrrrowl.

http://spandexcity.com/images/P/JAN101509.jpg

594. boborci - November 1, 2010

591. captain_neill – November 1, 2010

Did consider doing a prime universe story.

595. Phil - November 1, 2010

575. Boborci – November 1, 2010

Yeah, but why? I’m not speaking for any element of the fan base that strictly adheres to canon, but you can’t, or should not fix something that’s not broken. ST09 was a fine movie, well received, critically acclaimed, and a financial success. There is nothing to fix, and spending anymore time on timelines/alternate universes will just serve to alienate the audience you worked so hard to reach.
With the possible exception of STV, I enjoyed all the movies, but when Spock died at the end of TWOK, I would have much rather the studio left him dead and produced stand alone stories that were not tied into “fixing” the problem of the dead Vulcan, as opposed to expanding the Star Trek universe a bit.

596. Christopher Roberts - November 1, 2010

575. Boborci – “We could’ve made a trilogy, at the end of which, the Prime universe is restored. ”

You still could! There are always possiblities.

Please…

597. Aurore - November 1, 2010

“We could’ve made a trilogy,at the end of wich, the Prime universe is restored.”

I’m so glad you didn’t.But,that’s just me.

598. Aurore - November 1, 2010

wich=which

599. captain_neill - November 1, 2010

Bob

At least you did it in a way that the prime universe still exists

600. Aurore - November 1, 2010

“Did consider doing a prime universe story.”

Would it have been an adventure from the “missing years”?

601. captain_neill - November 1, 2010

And if it were prime universe how would set design go?

602. captain_neill - November 1, 2010

Why does it seem information about whether the prime Universe still being there seem conflicted?

Accepting the movie as a parallel universe allows me to enjoy it as a stand alone movie. If it had erased everything then I would not be watching the film.

603. dmduncan - November 1, 2010

It would be very surprising if they had NOT considered a prime universe story. Also seems like a rebirth story using MWI would only be apparent after a lot of searching.

596. Phil – November 1, 2010

Generally agree with leaving dead characters that way. But Kirk destroying the Enterprise, and the whole sequence at the end with Kirk reversing Spock’s “good of the many” argument, McCoy pointing at his head, and Spock finally remembering, was priceless. Loved those moments as much as any in all Star Trek.

604. Cygnus-X1 - November 1, 2010

re: 477. boborci

Well Bob, you’ve been a good sport here, and I appreciate your engagement. Just a few brief points that I feel I need to lay down….

—-You said:
“As an aside, genetics would vary also in an alternate Universe, but for the purposes of this issue. Alt Kirk might have gotten gene “a” from his mother where Kirk Prime had gotten gene “b” from his father, resulting in a major personality difference and thereby throwing a monkey-wrench into your whole Nature vs. Nurture examination, being that neither Nature nor Nurture was really held constant. But, moving on….”
——-
Not in the case of Kirk and Spock, because both are conceived BEFORE Nero appears in their universe. —-

Here I’m honestly confused. My understanding of QM’s MWT, and of it as the premise of the Alt Universe in your movie, is that it is a universe composed of some different events and some identical events as the Prime Universe, both varying as their probabilities, given the QM precept that all possible events do occur somewhere in the multiverse. Have I got that wrong?

If my understanding is correct, then of what relevance is it to my point about alternate genetics for the alternate universe characters that Kirk and Spock were conceived prior to Nero appearing in their universe? Being indigenous to their Alt Universe, they’d still each comprise some different quantum events from their counterparts in the Prime Universe, wouldn’t they?

—-You seem stuck on the idea that movie can only be about ONE thing. I disagree. Nonetheless, we both seem to agree that one of the things that the movie was about revolved around Spock’s internal struggle.—-

I don’t think that a movie can only be about one thing, but I do think that the main theme of your movie (Revenge) was weak and that the other themes that we’ve discussed were not developed to their full potential, and that centering the next movie about one powerful theme would be a great structure.

I give you credit for the fatherless-Kirk theme being subtle (or for my taste being too unsubtle to have assumed your intention, as I admitted), but I recant my agreement that the emotionally turbulent Spock theme necessarily contributed to the development the MWT theme; the audience might really just have assumed that the famously logical character’s uncharacteristic emotionalism was due to his immaturity and lack of discipline in the prequel that they were watching, as most of us tend to be more emotionally volatile, less disciplined and less intellectually proficient in our youth.

I think that you are lumping all of my criticisms into the basket of my not “getting” your subtlety. And while I appreciate that you seem to have more of a taste for subtlety in film than I do, it’s simply not true that all of my criticisms/requests have been attributable to my not getting your subtle intentions. I maintain that the better themes of your film were less than fully developed, and that you spent a lot of time on less powerful, less meaningful stuff.

However, it may well be that we just have different tastes in movies, and you made the kind of movie that you’d most have liked to see, which I have to respect. There’s no shortage of people, for example, who think that Wes Anderson movies are the bee’s knees while I find them to be insufferable. But then, I love Kubrick and David Lynch. So, what does that tell you? That I like to be hit over the head, punched in the face, shaken and disturbed. And that’s just on my way to the theater.

I think that dmduncan actually provided your best defense to my criticisms:

—-488. dmduncan
“Given many competing interests and objectives, I thought they developed the ideas enough for a reintroduction of the franchise to new audiences and opening up the future clear out to the horizon.”—-

In any case, you obviously got my enthusiasm, and maybe you’ve taken just a grain of what I’ve been ranting about to heart. At least, I hope that you have, because I know that I’m not totally wrong!

Oh, and my self-deprecating comments in my previous post were meant purely as levity. But I thank you for your *ahem* sincere concern for my emotional well-being.

Salud!

605. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 1, 2010

595. & 596.

Neither of you read that right.

606. Dennis Bailey - November 1, 2010

#436, Cygnus-whatever:

“But the problem that most people had—”

You realize, of course, that “most people” didn’t have a problem with the movie. Most people who saw it enjoyed it.

607. Harry Ballz - November 1, 2010

Dennis, did you ever see The Illusionist starring Edward Norton?

I asked you a long time ago, but never got your answer… I, personally, liked it!

608. dmduncan - November 1, 2010

542. Anthony Pascale – October 31, 2010

From what I can tell, Harold Livingston is still alive. As of this past July, that is. 86 and in LA.

Has anyone ever read his original script for ST-TMP…the one he wrote which he was pissed at Roddenberry for altering?

609. Boborci - November 1, 2010

604.

1.universes are identical until moment Nero appears. His incursion CREATES differences in new universe.

2.main theme, in my mind, is not revenge. Main them: in post911 world, we can still hope for best if we stick together and strive to understand each other.

610. Cygnus-X1 - November 2, 2010

609. Boborci

—-1.universes are identical until moment Nero appears. His incursion CREATES differences in new universe.—-

Ahh. Well, that’s different.

Kirk was obviously affected by his father and mother having experienced the battle with Nero, but how would Nero’s incursion into the alt universe have affected Spock growing up on Vulcan? It is a Quantum Mechanical phenomenon?

611. Cygnus-X1 - November 2, 2010

606. Dennis Bailey

—-#436, Cygnus-whatever:

“But the problem that most people had—”

You realize, of course, that “most people” didn’t have a problem with the movie. Most people who saw it enjoyed it.—-

As did I.

But, believe it or not, it’s actually possible to enjoy a movie and still find parts of it unclear and/or think that it could have been better in certain ways.

612. Hermioni - November 2, 2010

Once again, my apologies to everyone for the interruption of the the ongoing discussion:

Dear Anthony,

For the second time in a row now, a strictly topical post of mine (this one revolving around one of the concepts of Trans-Media Storytelling and how it might relate to ST09 ´s MWT narrative) has been erased from the talk back message board.

After the first occurrence, I did try to reach you twice, through feedback (October 6) and then later (October 14) by posting on the talk-back thread itself.
In my messages, I asked you for your advice on the matter and stated that, if you should have decided that my, on occasion longish/somewhat academic, topical posts do constitute an ill fit for your talk-back board in general, I would of course refrain from posting them in the future.

But, unfortunately I never received any kind of response from you or any other moderator. To be honest, I am sort of at a loss at what is happening and feel saddened that I do not seem to be worth even one word of explanation.

Best regards, Hermioni

P.S. Should you prefer to contact me privately, I do not have your e-mail address, but I believe that you have mine.(?)

613. KingDaniel - November 2, 2010

For those who care, here’s the official timeline chart:
http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/stotimeline.jpg

BobOrci – rich hollywood screenwriters should have better things to do on their halloween weekends! You’re crazy! (and I’m looking forward to ST12!)

614. Christopher Roberts - November 2, 2010

610. Nero’s incursion didn’t affect Spock until later in the film.

Both Spock’s childhood and joining the academy, are scenes which occur in the Prime and Nu Universes.

The way Kirk cheats the Kobayashi Maru and meets Spock would also play out the same in a “traditional” prequel movie. Although not in the year 2258…

615. ensign joe - November 2, 2010

610. Cygnus-X1 – November 2, 2010

“but how would Nero’s incursion into the alt universe have affected Spock growing up on Vulcan? It is a Quantum Mechanical phenomenon?”

The probability fields are affected by the presence of energies that were not formed in the same universe..

Certain events may play out similarly to the prime timeline but if you were able to view them on a quantum level you might perceive a change..

Sometimes that change is significant sometimes its not (depends on how you define ‘significant’).. but either way you can rest assured that the local universe’s energic reaction has been impacted by prime energy..

This could be devastating to that universe if, say, universal expansion occurred such that any additional mass would be enough to tip the scales and cause a collapse of said universe.. (or conversely the given a collapsing prime universe the loss of energies could lead to an expanding prime universe)..

You could also make a case for areas of quantum energy “tunneling” or currents where the foreign energies from Nero’s presence are not enough to change the vectors (This may be the science behind plot items such as Pike’s relegation to the chair, Kirk’s ascension to the chair, and if so I don’t agree with the usage)..

616. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 2, 2010

The Kobyashi Maru-scene in ST 09 was one of those things I criticize about modern films. Kirks reaction on the bridge, how it all played out, the electricity failure and the fact that his cheating was exposed so fast (or at all) is typical for modern fast-boom-boom-action movies.
I believe it would have played out differently if ST 09 would have been made by Harve Bennett for example.
Kirk would have acted a normal captain on bridge, the simualtion would have gone on smoothly and everyone would have scratched their heads as to how this cadet could have beaten the test. I also think that the cheating wouldn’t have been revealed as such.

617. Boborci - November 2, 2010

610. Spock probably not affected much at all until he sets out to deal with Nero. Hence, his backstory we kept pretty much as we knew it. Born to Vulcan dad and human mother, picked on by kids at school, accepted to Vulcan science academy, but decides not to attend over his fathers objections.

618. Boborci - November 2, 2010

616. Our intention was not to have Kirk seem like he was going to get away with it. Our intention was to have him be the first to deduce that the test wasn’t just hard, but unwinnable, and thus itself a cheat. However, I understand your criticism. Could’ve worked either way.

619. Boborci - November 2, 2010

616. Although I don’t know how you can call our version of that scene a result of fast boom boom action. It’s played as comedy, right now. TWOK played the KM scene totally straight, with audience thinking it’s a real action scene, with explosions, fire, and everything.

620. P Technobabble - November 2, 2010

Bob —
I don’t know if this question has been answered, but I always wondered what would you have done if you couldn’t get Nimoy? Was the story written before you knew you would get him, or did you get him and then write the story? And was there a backup plan if Nimoy said ‘no?’

621. Boborci - November 2, 2010

Honestly, we were kind of working without a net. We pitched Nimoy a loose version of our story and his role in it. He said he would agree to read a script, and was open ot it, but no promises. So we wrote the script over the course of six months. Sent It to him… And waited.

If he’d said no, we woulda had a big problem. we gambled and we won.

622. Hermioni - November 2, 2010

Bob, since this talk-back thread does seem to develop into a Q&A session, may I, too, 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?

623. rogerachong - November 2, 2010

A small opinion. During the late scene when Kirk and Spock beam on-board the Narada they immediately come under Romulan phaser fire. I understand this plot choice and it is good. However I would relish an alternate timeline where the writers of Star Trek 2009 chose to put them in the belly of the Narada and there is a scene where they have to “Devil in the Dark” their way through parts of the Narada to get to the bridge and Nero. I hope in the new film that there is a scary, tense and emotional scene in the body of the film that can rank with the unparalled opening with the Kelvin.

624. dmduncan - November 2, 2010

Re Kobyashi Maru: I recall some criticism of Spock’s claim that the KM test was meant to instill fear as too unrealistic a simulation to achieve those aims.

I should point out that his very much depends on the Starfleet culture surrounding the KM test.

Kids have actually killed themselves over bad grades. And of course it may seem trivial inn the scheme of things to want entry into a fraternity or sorority, but if you really want in those things bad enough then it’s serious business to you, and you may experience failure very sharply.

So if the attitude toward the KM test is that cadets desperately want to pass it, or to be the first to do so, then failure can be very traumatic, achieving the results Spock said it was there to achieve.

McCoy gives us a clue to how the KM test is regarded when he says that “nobody goes back for seconds let alone thirds,” which implies that not passing the test is not an easy thing for cadets to endure.

625. Admiral_Bumblebee - November 2, 2010

@boborci
By comparing the Kobayashi Maru scene to boom boom action I just meant that a “slower” scene with a different approach like the one I mentioned doesn’t seem to work in modern movies anymore. I understand why the scene was like it was in the movie. A scene like the one I mentioned wouldn’t have worked in ST 09 I think as it would have destroyed the pace of the movie.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that ST 09 was bad, not at all. It just felt like a different sort of Star Trek – more like an action- movie compared to the more “philosophical” ones of the past.
I grew up with the “old” Star Trek movies, they were a part of my childhood. And I would have loved to see a new Star Trek movie similar to those films. And I have to admit I would have loved if the movie stayed in the prime timeline or at least that it had been more clear that both timelines exist alongside each other.
And I hope that some elements of ST 09 will be carried over to the next movie, like the impact of Vulcans destruction.
And of course, I would love to see William Shatner as Prime Kirk in the next movie – along with Leonard Nimoy… together one last time. ;)

626. dmduncan - November 2, 2010

his = this

627. P Technobabble - November 2, 2010

621. Boborci
Obviously, we’re all happy about the way that one turned out!

625. Admiral
I would imagine that trying to cram a lot of information into a two-hour movie had something to do with the way the KM test was presented. Agreed, a “slower” scene wouldn’t have worked in this film, but there was so much else going on that I don’t think any more time could have been spent on the matter. IMO, this film — next to TMP — had the most epic quality to it. The story was huge, and quite a few things had to take place to “re-set” Trek — you know, getting the characters in place, presenting the circumstances which put them where they are, painting enough background and back-story, and so on. If this were a 12-part mini-series, an entire episode might have been dedicated to the KM — which might’ve been interesting!

628. Triton - November 2, 2010

Many of the fans viewed the “Star Fleet Academy” project as Paramount’s trump card to deal with the feud between cast members, the increasing salary requirements of the original cast, and the creative and directorial control demanded by Leonard Nimoy and/or Wiliam Shatner in the “Star Trek” films. It would have permitted Paramount to create new “Star Trek” product without Nichols, Koenig, Takei, Doohan, Kelley, Nimoy, and Shatner. While the original cast was still ambilatory, we wanted to continue to see the original cast on the screen and we saw “Star Fleet Academy” as Paramount cheating us from seeing our beloved actors and cheating the actors out of a paycheck.

It’s a shame that Harve Bennett continues to have a chip on his shoulder that Paramount’s contingency plan to cheat Nichols, Koenig, Takei, Doohan, Kelley, Nimoy, and Shatner out of paycheck didn’t get the green light or that the success of JJ Abram’s film should be his because his project also dealt with the original character’s early days.

Get over it Harve! It happened over twenty years ago! Also sorry that anyone only wants to interview you about “Star Trek” and not the other television programs and miniseries you produced over the years.

629. Cygnus-X1 - November 3, 2010

617. Boborci

—-610. Spock probably not affected much at all until he sets out to deal with Nero. Hence, his backstory we kept pretty much as we knew it. Born to Vulcan dad and human mother, picked on by kids at school, accepted to Vulcan science academy, but decides not to attend over his fathers objections.—-

OK, I think I understand what you were going for. When I saw your movie in the theater my understanding was that the Alt Universe was, as predicted by the MWI which you had often cited, a universe composed of some quantum events that had identical outcomes to their counterparts in the Prime Universe and some of which were different than those of the Prime Universe. That is my understanding of the MWI: all possible outcomes for each quantum event do occur in some universe, and further, that the more probable outcomes occur in more universes. Have I got it right so far?

And you’re now clarifying that (though it could have been wildly different regardless of an incursion into it by Nero) the Alt Universe was actually more or less identical to the Prime Universe—that is, not substantially or meaningfully different—until Nero’s incursion into it, which affected people in the Alt Universe in the normally causal way that we perceive every day: the Kelvin and her crew do battle with Nero, everyone involved in that battle is affected and they subsequently affect other people in a cascading reaction of normal causation.

Yes?

630. Christopher Roberts - November 3, 2010

Contingency plan! ;)

Here’s a link to my original post…

http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback/#3005573

…just in case, we’ve got a TNG “Remember Me” situation here!

631. Christopher_Roberts - November 3, 2010

Wow. Just wow. The TrekMovie site has real issues with my response to 627 for some reason…

632. Boborci - November 3, 2010

629. Yeah!

633. MJ - November 3, 2010

Everyone — keep posting — 1000 posts is within sight if we keep at it!

634. MJ - November 3, 2010

@625 Admiral Bumbleebee.

I think you must be my mirror universe self, as I disagree with everything in your post from they way the Kobayashi Maru scene was handled to your suggestion of bringing back fat Shat for the next movie, to wanting a return to the slower pace 80’s style Trek movies. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

635. MJ - November 3, 2010

@628/Triton: “It’s a shame that Harve Bennett continues to have a chip on his shoulder that Paramount’s contingency plan to cheat Nichols, Koenig, Takei, Doohan, Kelley, Nimoy, and Shatner out of paycheck didn’t get the green light or that the success of JJ Abram’s film should be his because his project also dealt with the original character’s early days.”

I could not agree more!

636. Boborci - November 3, 2010

635/628

Had never heard that theory.

637. Aurore - November 3, 2010

There are over 100 quarries in Iowa.
(Doing my part to reach the “1000 posts” target).

638. Cygnus-X1 - November 4, 2010

One hundred?

You don’t say.

Perhaps we should discuss several of them in mind-numbing detail.

639. Cygnus-X1 - November 4, 2010

Perhaps the next Trek film will also have a scene with a quarry.

Maybe rock quarry scenes will become a signature of the new Trek movies, a sort of counterpoint to the TOS redshirt scenes (and I’m sure we all got a kick out of the redshirt scene in ST09 as well).

At some point in the story, as opposed to an expendable redshirted crewmember dying rather meaninglessly, a hero of the movie (most likely one of the Trek bridge crew) will have a near-death experience involving a rock quarry and this scene will serve to remind the audience that the protagonists of the film are unusually nimble and lucky.

640. Aurore - November 4, 2010

Yes, I think we should,indeed, discuss several of them.

But, I’ll let “my” expert speak ( see post 424). He taught me everything I know about geology.
As far as your other suggestion goes, I don’t like it, but, would love to hear what the posters of this thread think.

641. Aurore - November 4, 2010

of=on

642. Cygnus-X1 - November 4, 2010

How can you not like my earnest suggestion that I shared in complete earnestness? It’s Trek gold!!

(And what better place to find gold than in a quarry.)

643. MJ - November 4, 2010

649. Maybe a scene in the next movie where Kirk and Spock can go back to the original quarry from Trek 09, and descend using gravity boots to view the rusted Mustang. Kirk can then comment to Spock that hew knows he will die alone.

Who needs Yosemite…quarries rule!

644. Aurore - November 4, 2010

Well, what do you want me to tell you? Maybe you weren’t earnest enough after all.
Try again. You can do better than this.

Yes?

645. skyjedi - November 4, 2010

Its reminds me of Gary Kurtz tearing the star wars prequels to shreds, deservedly i might add.

I mean did the new star trek destroy star trek, like the new star wars destroyed star wars ?

646. Harry Ballz - November 4, 2010

642.

Tell you what, I’ll be frank if you’ll be earnest!

647. dmduncan - November 4, 2010

646. Harry Ballz – November 4, 2010

At this point, neither of you are germane.

648. Christopher_Roberts - November 4, 2010

Screenprint of mysteriously vanishing post…

originally numbered 632
reattempted 648

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5237/publication1x.jpg

649. Harry Ballz - November 4, 2010

647.

dmduncan

Frank, Earnest and Germane? Hey, throw in Tito and Michael….voila! Jackson 5!

650. Cygnus-X1 - November 4, 2010

Yes, Frank and Earnest: the lesser-known Jacksons.

They all hung out at the quarry, though.

And they were always off-topic.

Except for Germane.

He had a knack for being….

Shoot, what’s the word?

651. Harry Ballz - November 4, 2010

….a good mechanic? Oh, wait, that would make him GERMAN!

652. Cygnus-X1 - November 5, 2010

Relevant.

653. Chadwick - November 5, 2010

First off being a Canadian “green” Liberal (Democrat) I can’t stand conservatives or Republicans. We all know conservatives usually don’t like change, hence Harve’s views. I have never traveled to the U.S. while a Republican is in office, its a personal choice. Change is good, change is necessary, and if douche bag, mama bear, tea party, killing animals of a devil Sara Palin ever gets into office, I will NEVER travel to the U.S.A. again (America don’t be foolish!) Only Americans still have the need to defend liberty and freedom. For fracks sake, liberty and freedom is established, you don’t need to act like it 1861, or the colonial era. You still have this need to defend your country with guns. Who bombed the white house in 1814 during the war of 1812, oh yea those people from the country north of you!!! See how much of an ass I can be when I behave like a midwest or southern American. Sorry for the rip Anthony, I just had to let it out.

Bottom line….when you get old, unless you adapt to the current society and stay up to date – as I plant to – you end up falling behind and not understanding ANYTHING about the way the present society works, and you end up falling behind. People from the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s have the hardest time with this, where as my generation, those born in the 80’s – and the 70’s – have no problem adapting. I am 27, by youths standards I am old, by a 40 year olds standards I am young, either way, Star Trek has become far too dry. Don’t get me wrong, I love all Star Trek, but things that dont change die, or fade away into history. If Star Trek is to reach a 100th anniversary – which I am sure it will – it has to change and adapt. I wanted something fresh, new, energetic, and fun. This is something Harve Bennett does not understand, and it is a real shame. If you love Star Trek V Harve, fine, its all yours LMAO!!!! Thank god, Rob, Alex, Damon, and JJ are at the helm. If Leonard Nimoy knew this had to be done AND he appreciates it who the hell can question Leonard!? Mr. Nimoy you are a wise and timeless man….more than I can say about those who disapprove of the new movie.

And don’t be a fracking douche bag Harve, its a fracking quarry NOT THE GRAND FRACKING CANYON!!!!

Your fracking right “JJ Abrams succeeded in what he was trying to do” he is adapting Star Trek so it can reach 100th anniversary and not fade off to a dim memory.

CHANGE IS GOOD! CHANGE IS GOOD! CHANGE IS GOOD!

654. ensign joe - November 5, 2010

Lay off the sauce friend.

655. Hermioni - November 6, 2010

In reference to (my) posts #612 and #622:

Well…First the erasure of my topical posts and Anthony´s continued radio silence on the issue, and now Bob´s tacit, yet very targeted and visible decline to engage me in conversation…

I have to say that I find it very difficult to interpret all this as anything other than a strong signal of disapproval. But of what? The specific question(s) I asked in particular? The style of my postings? The topics I picked to present my considerations on? My very presence on the talk-back message board itself?
From the looks of it, I am very much left to my own devices to try and make heads and tails of this whole situation. And, as those devices are clearly insufficient for me to draw any valid conclusions, I will not even attempt to do so. As I see it, I have now the following two choices of how to proceed with regard to this matter:

A) I (try to) continue to offer my personal views and observations on those topics I find most interesting and engaging, in other words the specific issues, that truly do keep me invested in Star Trek, both as a (mega)narrative and as a franchise.

B) I do resolve the issue by simply withdrawing from the talk-back message board altogether.

For what I think should be obvious reasons, I would really like to believe that A) will remain a viable option for me, and that I will not have to resort to B).

656. Boborci - November 6, 2010

655. Hi!

Is your post about Kirk sleeping with Orion girl to cheat on KM?

We did try a version of that in one if the drafts to make the whole KM thing more elaborate.

657. Boborci - November 6, 2010

622.

Did not consider making Nero lose a patent because that didn’t seem as horrible. Losing a parent is a more “natural” thing to happen.

Yes, we did have a class distinction in mind. We figured Trek had dealt with plenty of villains who were leaders, etc, and we thought it would be interesting to have our villain be a bit more of an Everyman.

658. Boborci - November 6, 2010

Parent. I hate autocorrect!

659. dmduncan - November 6, 2010

655. Hermioni – November 6, 2010

You could also just touch your wand to his username and say “compellio verbosus.”

660. MJ - November 6, 2010

@655 – Hermioni. Yes, it is a conspiracy. I just got off a conference call with Bob, dmduncan, harryballz and others, and we decided to continue the post embargo against you.

Just kidding of course! Seriously, perhaps you are just a bit too sensitive here my friend?

PS: Bob ignored two posts of mine of how you can’t have a cell phone conversation underwater in a sub. :-)

661. Aurore - November 6, 2010

He royally ignored me while writing the “represeq”( and still does to this day).

So, I feel the pain of all the posters who do not get answers to their questions.
Especially when they ask politely.

662. Boborci - November 6, 2010

661. Oh, no! What can I answer for u?

663. Aurore - November 6, 2010

662

Could you take a look at my post in 600,please?

664. dmduncan - November 6, 2010

Hey Bob, I’d like to know what some of your favorite movies are. What influences the Star Trek scribbler? I just read that interview you and Alex gave about loving Indie films.

665. Boborci - November 6, 2010

600. Yeah, we were thinking along those lines. Although, we were also still thinking of a academy years type story. Many things in the first act of the movie are consistent with canon. Love the missing years books. But we felt it was still too limiting.

666. Boborci - November 6, 2010

664. All cliches.

2001
Back to the Future
Sex Lies and Video Tape
JFK
Tootsie
Some like it Hot
Superman

667. Aurore - November 6, 2010

665.Thank you.

668. dmduncan - November 6, 2010

666. Boborci – November 6, 2010

That’s funny. After reading that article I thought you’d have all these tiny indie films on it! Ashamed to say I haven’t seen SL&VT yet! Tried to watch Days of Heaven two nights ago, and could not tolerate it and I’m not ashamed to say that at all.

But was watching ST.09 on the desktop while working last night and I was thinking of Superman a lot. I see the influence there. Also love Superman. John Williams was in his prime scoring that film.

669. Anthony Pascale - November 6, 2010

655

I have no idea what you are talking about I havent erased anything in this thread. The system auto deletes some times usually if something has certain keywords/phrases or too many links or profanity. Or maybe it was just a server hickup, but no conspiracy.

670. Harry Ballz - November 6, 2010

666.

Bob

Oliver Stone’s JFK was very well done! I am just finishing reading JFK And The Unspeakable (on your recommendation)…..superb book! Any chance you can persuade Tom Hanks to read it before he makes a fool of himself with his “Oswald alone” miniseries?

Speaking of which, I know you’re busier than a hooker at a naval convention, but did you receive my postcard with my contact info regarding my Kennedy assassination screenplay?

671. boborci - November 6, 2010

670. Let Tom Hanks make a fool of himself. His fame will bring attention to the subject, no matter what position he takes, and that will ultimately help the truth.

672. boborci - November 6, 2010

670. I will look for your postcard.

673. Harry Ballz - November 6, 2010

672.

Thank you so very much! I appreciate your help!

Just in case the postcard got lost “in the mail”, my real name is Michael Appleton and my e-mail is appletonmike@hotmail.com.

674. MJ - November 7, 2010

Bob, Harry,

Speaking of movies, my wife and I just saw “Hereafter” tonight. All I can say is WOW!!! Eastwood just keeps better and better with age…I hope he has another 10 years of directing movies left in him. This is the best movie I have seen this year.

675. Harry Ballz - November 7, 2010

MJ

thanks! I’ll be sure to check it out!

676. Cygnus-X1 - November 7, 2010

671. boborci – November 6, 2010

—-670. Let Tom Hanks make a fool of himself. His fame will bring attention to the subject, no matter what position he takes, and that will ultimately help the truth.—-

What is the truth? That all the shots that hit JFK and Connolly were fired from one rifle, but the shooter of that rifle wasn’t Oswald? Last I saw, it was provable with ballistics that all of the shots that hit JFK could have come from one rifle, given the positioning of the seats in the car they were riding in, which had hitherto not been taken into account.

I’ve started watching that “Evidence of Revision” series that you recommended, but it’s very long so I watch a bit each week and am slowly getting through it. It’s great because it’s just footage and recordings without any narration or editorial over it, though of course the choice of footage and the way it’s presented is a form of editorial. Still, in it, Oswald looks like anything but a guy who’s just gunned down the President of the United States. So, either he was a phenomenal actor, or someone else done it.

677. Boborci - November 7, 2010

671.

You must be referring to Gerald Posners conclusions, which have been discredited. Keep reading!

Yeah, agree about Oswald.

678. dmduncan - November 7, 2010

670. Harry Ballz – November 6, 2010

Unfortunately, if he’s that invested in a project it’s unlikely he’s going to change his mind about it so easily no matter what you show him.

We like to think our minds are always open and that it’s merely the best evidence that persuades us one way or the other, but it more often seems to be the case that we attach ourselves to a position and then use all our energy to defeat any attempts to pry us apart from them.

Unspeakable is next on my list. Will start it this week. Given what I know about other things, though, it’s not that far a stretch to accept LBJ had something to do with his murder even though I’ve never looked into it in detail before. But what Bob said is right, I think. There are a lot of icebergs in the water. Dealing with ANY of the small tips risks also dealing with the question of where you live. And we do seem to prefer to stay in the calm azure waters of the islands.

I recommend a five part PBS miniseries We Shall Remain as an introductory tour of the house in which you live. Everybody should know where they live.

Won’t post the link because Anthony hates links. He said so. But if you Google We Shall Remain, you can watch the episodes online. Also on Netflix instant streaming I think.

679. dmduncan - November 7, 2010

If all you know is the JFK murder, you will see familiar themes playing out in that miniseries that indicate JFK is merely one more mile marker along the same road.

680. dmduncan - November 7, 2010

And I do believe, as I strain to get enough distance on the whole massive thing to see it whole, that the ultimate goal will be that it will not matter what the truth is or who knows it anymore, because nobody will be able or willing to do anything with that knowledge anyway by then. Few will even CARE.

But those who do will have to find each other and stick together because they carry something sacred.

681. Harry Ballz - November 7, 2010

678. dmduncan
“it’s not that far a stretch to accept LBJ had something to do with his murder”

I came to the conclusion, many years ago, that LBJ was deeply involved in Kennedy’s assassination. And, just to be clear, I don’t mean I think this, or maybe believe it, but that I simply accept it as a fact.

682. dmduncan - November 7, 2010

The idea that there were a number of players all of whom had an interest in seeing him dead? Not a stretch at all.

There’s a speculative documentary on Netflix called Virtual JFK examining the idea of what Kennedy would have done in Viet Nam had he not been murdered.

683. dmduncan - November 7, 2010

Another thing: Keep talking about it.

Reminds me of that story about the Rabbi who went out every day and kept preaching against how wrongly people were living their lives. One day a man approaches and asks him why he even bothers. “You’re not going to change anybody, Rabbi,” the man says.

“Change anybody?” the Rabbi replies. “I’m not preaching to change anybody. I’m preaching so nobody changes me!”

684. Harry Ballz - November 7, 2010

682.

dmduncan, the issue of Kennedy and Viet Nam is covered in detail in JFK And The Unspeakable. I’m confident you’re really going to enjoy the book.

683.

I like that!

685. Hermioni - November 7, 2010

@657. Boborci – November 6, 2010
and @ 669. Anthony Pascale – November 6, 2010
Many thanks for your responses, and of course my apologies for the misreading of the situation!

@659. dmduncan – November 6, 2010
Consilium utile, :-) !
Oh, and by the way, concerning my board-designation: I am not really posting as an ardent admirer (and idiosyncratic speller) of a HARRY POTTER character; “Hermioni” is indeed my own, real, first name, ;-).

@660. MJ – November 6, 2010
Ah, it would seem that I have now finally made contact with an informant inside of the cabal…, :-). From now on, all my inquiries regarding any suspicious activities will directly be forwarded to you, and, in an instant, problem solved, ;-) !

686. Cygnus-X1 - November 7, 2010

683. dmduncan

Hear, hear!

687. MJ - November 7, 2010

Guys, JFK was as interventionist in terms of foreign policy, with McNamara, and interventionist Secretary of State hand-picked by JFK who wanted to take the Soviets to task across the world. So I really doubt he would have got us out of Vietnam. That is wishful thinking and confuses the leanings of his more liberal brother, Bobby, with the more cut throat JFK. JFK took Nixon/Eisenhower to task in the 1960 election for being weak on defense, and was more like the 1960’s version of Regan versus the Camelot liberal Democrat that some historians would have you believe.

688. MJ - November 7, 2010

Although it is not sexy, I believe that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy. He had delusions of grandeur and identified with the communist revolution. A squad mate of his in the marines said that Oswald wanted to be something that ten thousand years from now people would be talking about. His wife, Marina, said her husband viewed himself in an historical light and compared himself to the great figures of history whom he read about in biographies. He revered Fidel Castro, and he was an ardent supporter of the Cuban revolution. Certainly he was not in favor of Kennedy backing the Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Castro. We know that Oswald in late September of 1963, just a month and a half before the assassination, tried to get to Havana to help Castro, and he was rejected at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. He got very, very angry, almost in tears. So in my opinion, he took it on his own to take Kennedy down.

689. MJ - November 7, 2010

686 correction – McNamara = Sec Defense

690. Cygnus-X1 - November 8, 2010

On second thought, it does seem as though HB was feeling embittered for some reason. The rock quarry really is not a good reason to block out and dismiss the entire film, even if he did mistake it for an out-of-place Iowan canyon.

But, in his defense, people who work in artistic fields are often insecure and very protective of the perceived value of their work. Al Jolson used to run the water in the sink backstage in order to drown out the sound of the performers before him singing on stage. Remind you of any Trek producers?

In any case, the contributions of HB are not at issue, regardless of how ST’09 performed.

691. Cygnus-X1 - November 8, 2010

687. MJ
—-A squad mate of his in the marines said that Oswald wanted to be something that ten thousand years from now people would be talking about. His wife, Marina, said her husband viewed himself in an historical light and compared himself to the great figures of history whom he read about in biographies.—-

So, then why he did totally deny his would-be heroism at the very moment when he had the eyes of the world upon him which would have guaranteed him the place in history that he so coveted? Why did he deny having acted in aid of Castro and the Marxist cause generally? Why does his reaction to the question of whether he’d just killed the President seem to be one of befuddlement as he appears completely taken aback by the weirdness of the question? Unless he was a phenomenal actor, it really does appear that he thought that he’d been arrested for some other reason…or some other role.

And while I’m normally leery of the “where-there’s-smoke-there’s-fire” brand of inductive reasoning, as regards the JFK assassination, it’s not as though there’s a bunch of smoke arousing our suspicions; it’s that the entire friggin’ building is ablaze and the Feds are out front waving people off, telling us to move along, there’s nothing to see here, and these aren’t the droids we’re looking for. I mean it’s as though every single witness to the assassination and the events surrounding it who is NOT a Fed offered testimony directly contracting the official government statement and largely agreeing with the testimony of the other non-Fed witnesses.

And, then, of course, we have the would-be Marxist-hero not only denying his claim to fame, but looking utterly dumbfounded in the process.

692. Harry Ballz - November 8, 2010

687+690.

Please read the new book JFK And The Unspeakable. This will provide you with a mountain of detailed evidence that Kennedy was killed by people in his own government.

Read that book, cover to cover, and then come back here with your opinion.

693. MJ - November 8, 2010

I’ll be happy to take a look at this book out of respect for all of you who have recommended it. Just reviewing it on the internet here though raises some red flags for me:

— this guy’s bio says a pacifist who’s previous books all cover religion. I don’t see any of his qualifications on politics and history?

— why are there no independent reviews of this book from the NY Times, LA Time, Kirkus, or others. The only reviews I could find are from obscure web sites plus one by Daniel Elsberg.

The problem I have with almost all JFK assassination books is that most all have a hypothesis, and then they go about using selective information that is available to prove their hypothesis, thereby making seemingly tight arguments that really don’ hold up to muster if the 95% of the other information that was ignored was considered.

I recommend the book, “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” by Vincent Bugliosi. This is THE most important, well researched and objective work that I have come across on the Kennedy assassination — based on 20 year of exhaustive research by a major criminal attorney. Because Bugliosi DOES NOT use selective information, you get over 1500 pages plus footnotes which are so extensive and researched that they come on an accompanying CD-ROM. His compelling conclusion, which is mine, is that Oswald acted alone. Are you willing to read this book, cover to cover, and then come back with your opinion?

694. MJ - November 8, 2010

@690 “So, then why he did totally deny his would-be heroism at the very moment when he had the eyes of the world upon him which would have guaranteed him the place in history that he so coveted? Why did he deny having acted in aid of Castro and the Marxist cause generally? Why does his reaction to the question of whether he’d just killed the President seem to be one of befuddlement as he appears completely taken aback by the weirdness of the question? Unless he was a phenomenal actor, it really does appear that he thought that he’d been arrested for some other reason…or some other role.”

Simple, because he was one unstable Mo-Fu. He was not a rational actor, and so how could he be expected to behave rationally. Trying to put our logical views of how we would behave in his situation completely missed the point.

Occam’s Razor: “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”

695. dmduncan - November 8, 2010

@693: But lawyering is only sometimes about the truth of what happened. Lawyers are quite ready to use spurious reasoning whenever it suits their purposes. A book about history from an attorney is one which I would implicitly distrust because as an attorney rather than a historian his job is to pick a side and to defend it vigorously no matter what the truth really is. So long as he can say that he believes it, then he can defend it, even if his beliefs are wrong.

696. Cygnus-X1 - November 8, 2010

694. MJ

Well, what we have is a man whom we’re stipulating dreamed of being remembered for some great historical act, and when presented with the perfect opportunity to realize his dream and take credit for the Marxist-heroic act of assassinating JFK, not only denies credit but appears utterly dumbfounded whilst doing it.

So, which is simpler? That he’s a singularly irrational, chaotic person whose behavior is not at all predictable with respect to with what we’ve all seen of human behavior; or that he looks like a guy who hadn’t just gunned down the President because he actually hadn’t just gunned down the President?

697. Harry Ballz - November 8, 2010

MJ

hard to give a thorough answer here. I am surprised that you have read assassination books where they use “selective information”. Most that I have read use pretty much every detail at their disposal. I have read through major chunks of Bugliosi’s book, but not all. I don’t agree with how he framed a number of his conclusions.

As to the background of the author of JFK And The Unspeakable…tell you what, why not read the book and let the work speak for itself.

Tell me, did you ever read Jim Marrs’s book Crossfire or Anthony Summers’s Conspiracy?

698. MJ - November 8, 2010

I believe I read Crossfire about 20 years ago — the book that Stone used for JFK, right? I remember that being an advocacy book for the conspiracy theory, but it did have a lot of good information it it. I will look up the Summers book.

I’ve never really trusted Oliver Stone ever since in “Born on the 4th of July” he substituted made up major protests for 1968 Republican Convention for the actual major protests at the 1968 Democratic convention because he said “it fit better with the overall theme of the times.”

@695. Well, then try Gerald Posner’s “Case Closed,” by a respectable investigative journalist; and this book was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1994. He also wrote the seminal work, “While America Slept,” about the failure of our intelligence for 9-11 and exposed the major Saudi connections to Al-queda. Poser lays out all the evidence in an easier read than Bugliosi. if you don’t trust Posner, then I’m not sure I can help you. :-)

699. MJ - November 8, 2010

“So, which is simpler? That he’s a singularly irrational, chaotic person whose behavior is not at all predictable with respect to with what we’ve all seen of human behavior; or that he looks like a guy who hadn’t just gunned down the President because he actually hadn’t just gunned down the President?”

Based on what is known of Oswald, I would say the simple explanation is “that he’s a singularly irrational, chaotic person whose behavior is not at all predictable”…I would not add the statement you added that “with respect to with what we’ve all seen of human behavior”, because those extra qualifications you provide (which I think you have included to support your argument) would not apply to this crackpot. So yes, I do see this a much simpler theory.

700. MJ - November 8, 2010

THE 700th POST — 300 MORE TO GO TO REACH 1000!!!

701. Harry Ballz - November 8, 2010

Well, if we’re going to continue our discussion on JFK’s assassination…BRING IT ON!

702. Aurore - November 8, 2010

No,no,no,no,no,no.

Now is the time to go back to our discussion on Iowa and quarries.

703. Aurore - November 8, 2010

Then again,maybe not.

704. Harry Ballz - November 8, 2010

Hmmmmm……….discussing quarries or the Kennedy assassination.

Talk about between a rock and a hard place!

705. MJ - November 8, 2010

Maybe Jimmy Hoffa is buried in an Iowa quarry?

706. Harry Ballz - November 9, 2010

Either that or Shea Stadium?

707. Aurore - November 9, 2010

Oh my god…

100 quarries… in Iowa….
Maybe he’ s “buried” in every single one of them…

708. Aurore - November 9, 2010

Either that or Shea Stadium ,I think.

709. Cygnus-X1 - November 9, 2010

699.
—-Based on what is known of Oswald, I would say the simple explanation is “that he’s a singularly irrational, chaotic person whose behavior is not at all predictable”…I would not add the statement you added that “with respect to with what we’ve all seen of human behavior”, because those extra qualifications you provide (which I think you have included to support your argument) would not apply to this crackpot. So yes, I do see this a much simpler theory.—-

And what evidence have you seen to support the premise that Oswald had a psycho-emotional make-up so radically different from that of everyone else, that his behavior was so irrational and unpredictable, or that he was a good enough actor to appear so convincingly bemused at the accusation that he’d just carried out what to him would have been an act of great heroism and then deny it for no explicable reason?

I mean, do you understand what it means to be a completely chaotic person whose behavior makes no sense from one moment to the next? Such a person would surely have been locked up by Oswald’s age. A chaotic person would just go around acting on irrational whims from one moment to the next, knocking things over, hitting people, driving his car into a tree for no reason and putting his own life in jeopardy out of obliviousness. Do you know that Oswald lived this kind of a life? Did his wife say that he lived this way?

710. Aurore - November 9, 2010

Kennedy assassination it is ,then.

1000th post here they come!

711. MJ - November 9, 2010

@709. A good people out of the 10’000’s who were mentally unstable like that would be institutionalized or locked up as you put it. The many though who slipped through the cracks though are a danger to themselves and us everyday, as was Oswald. But I disagree with you that a “crazy person” would behave like a drunken fool, knocking stuff over and driving into trees — I don’t think you have a good understanding of mental illness if you really think that? I have been exposed to 2 bipolor people in my life, and they were delusional at times, and one took his own life, and the other was institutionalized, but when you briefly interact with them or meet them in the street you would have a hard time separating them from anybody else. Look at John Hinkley Jr. — he nearly had a college degree and had a very scary obsessive personality that led to an assassination attempt on the President.

712. Cygnus-X1 - November 9, 2010

711. MJ

But we’re not talking about a “crazy” person or a bipolar person or an obsessive person. That sort of mental illness would not account nor necessarily address what you are alleging to be irrational, unpredictable behavior on the part of Oswald.

We’re talking about Oswald being irrational to a degree that the predictability of his behavior would fall largely outside of the norm. We’re talking about a man who allegedly wanted to be remembered for a great act denying the perfect opportunity to do just that and looking sincerely dumbfounded whilst doing it. Bipolar, OCD and Schizophrenia don’t account for that sort of behavior.

Go to YouTube and find the clip of Oswald being asked if he’s shot the President. Then tell me how you explain his reaction while maintaining that he was the lone gunman.

713. Cygnus-X1 - November 9, 2010

Maybe if he had MPD, I could believe that the Oswald who shot the President wasn’t the same Oswald who was arrested and asked if he’d done so. But he doesn’t even appear to be in an altered or trance-like state of mind typical to episodes of alter-egos coming out. He appears pretty much calm, serene and sober.

714. MJ - November 9, 2010

712. The self-denial of that video reminds me a lot of OJ. Of course it is hard to understand his behavior, because the guy is unstable. Most of the 911 bombers denied it as well, when logically, one might think they would be proud of it and announce it to the world, right? What I find more interesting from the TV report, is the reaction of Mrs. Oswald — she has the look of “oh god, crazy Lee went and did it.”

715. MJ - November 9, 2010

713. “He appears pretty much calm, serene and sober.”

Exactly. I would be freaking out and probably screaming my innocence if I was in his position and falsely accused. He is borderline smug, not unlike OJ.

716. MJ - November 9, 2010

Someone earlier mentioned LBJ might be involved. Explain this to me then — how could LBJ be so corrupt, so power hungry and have such balls (no offense Harry) that he had JFK assassinated, but then would wimp out on running for a second term because of a tough nomination fight that year? Sorry, but that defies all sense of logic. You can’t really have it both ways. If he was the kind of kingmaker who had his foes taken down then he is not going to call it quits over a tough primary season…no fracking way folks!

717. dmduncan - November 9, 2010

716. MJ – November 9, 2010

Well there is some evidence that LBJ was bipolar. So you can have it both ways. And even if he wasn’t we are still human beings. We are not required to be logical. If he did have something to do with JFKs death, who but LBJ was privy to the cost to his own state of mind? There could be many reasons why he decided not to run, few of them imaginable to those who did not do what he did.

But only the evidence matters. I found the piece Bob linked to by Edwin Black very interesting.

I wonder if Vallee was an MKULTRA test subject. Wouldn’t that be interesting? Oh what tales those destroyed records would have told.

718. Harry Ballz - November 9, 2010

716+717

Lyndon Johnson was a crook his whole life. Just before the Dallas trip, Johnson was in deep shit over a scandal with his buddy Boby Baker. Criminal charges were pending. Kennedy had told people that he was planning on dropping Johnson from the 1964 re-election ticket. Johnson had a bad heart. He knew it was now or never to seize the presidency. As soon as Kennedy died, and Johnson was sworn in as POTUS on Air Force One (while smiling and winking to a cohort), the charges against Baker and Johnson died the same day. Nobody pursued it after that, and Johnson, now with all the power of the presidency, orchestrated the cover-up from the Oval office beginning that very evening. The order was given that ALL evidence collected in Dallas regarding Kennedy’s killing was to be immediately forwarded to Washington.

As to why he didn’t run again? LBJ’s heart was in such bad shape (like tissue paper), he had to step down for health reasons alone. My god, when you see pictures of him in 1968 he was only 60 years of age! He looks more like 80! He died in 1973 at the age of 64!

Hope this answers a few questions.

719. Harry Ballz - November 9, 2010

“Bobby Baker” /\

720. MJ - November 9, 2010

Yea, and the Kennedy Clan, they were not crooks of course. ;-) You thought Monica Lewinsky was bad, you can’t imagine what JFK was doing…check out “The Darker Side of Camelot” (see my summary from Amazon pasted below) if you want to see what we really going on with the Kennedy Clan’s practices. And there is obviously a big difference between being a crooked politician like JFK, LBJ or Nixon and taking out a contract to assassinate a president.

THE DARKER SIDE OF CAMELOT, SEYMOUR M. HERSH
“The private version, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, is quite different. His meticulous investigation of Kennedy has revealed a wealth of indiscretions and malfeasance, ranging from frequent liaisons with prostitutes and mistresses to the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro to involvement in organized crime. Though scandals in the White House are nothing new, Hersh maintains that Kennedy’s activities went beyond minor abuses of power and personal indulgences: they threatened the security of the nation–particularly in the realm of foreign policy–and the integrity of the office. Hersh believes it was only a matter of time before Kennedy’s dealings were exposed, and only his popularity and charm, compounded by his premature death, spared such an investigation for so long. Exposure was further stalled by Bobby Kennedy’s involvement in nefarious dealings, enabling him to bury any investigation of his brother and–by extension–himself.”

721. MJ - November 9, 2010

@717 EXACLTY HARRY !!!

Robert Kennedy, was able to arrange a deal with J. Edgar Hoover in order to quell the Senate investigation of Bobby Baker. This prevented public scrutiny of Baker from leading to exposure of President Kennedy’s sexual liason with Ms. Rometsch, a Soviet spy. Talk about your crooks! LBJ’s dealings were penny ante compared to the Kennedy boys!

722. Harry Ballz - November 9, 2010

MJ

I just want to make a distinction here. Nobody is arguing that different presidents had character flaws. I’m far more intrigued by the fact that LBJ and his team committed the “crime of the century” and got away with it! I’m more interested in who killed Kennedy, how they did it and how it’s been covered up. It’s kind of like solving a puzzle. The moral failings of these leaders doesn’t really interest me.

723. MJ - November 10, 2010

722. As a lot of the people from the 60’s who might have been involved in such a “crime of the century” are already dead, wouldn’t you expect at least one of them to leave a letter to be opened after their death providing the groundbreaking announcement of this crime? Considering that something this elaborate would take at least a couple dozen people, I find it hard to believe that it would still be secret today — someone would have released compelling and unequivocal evidence by now that implicated LBJ. Look at Deep Throat — dead — and now we know who he is and what he did.

724. Cygnus-X1 - November 10, 2010

714. MJ
—-The self-denial of that video reminds me a lot of OJ. Of course it is hard to understand his behavior, because the guy is unstable. Most of the 911 bombers denied it as well, when logically, one might think they would be proud of it and announce it to the world, right? What I find more interesting from the TV report, is the reaction of Mrs. Oswald — she has the look of “oh god, crazy Lee went and did it.”—-

You honestly think that Oswald’s reaction appears even remotely similar to OJ’s?

OJ was CLEARLY lying. “One-hundred percent not-guilty!!” I mean, come on….

715. MJ
—-713. “He appears pretty much calm, serene and sober.”

Exactly. I would be freaking out and probably screaming my innocence if I was in his position and falsely accused. He is borderline smug, not unlike OJ.—-

OJ wasn’t smug, at all. OJ was faking righteousness and doing a very poor job of it and everyone could see it. And the point is not that Oswald was totally innocent such that he would be screaming his innocence. The point is that he believed he’d been arrested for some other role in the whole thing, and this is corroborated by the testimony of the cop (I forget his name) who witnessed Oswald’s interrogation.

But if you think that Oswald’s reaction and OJ’s reaction are even remotely similar, then there’s no point in arguing this any further.

725. MJ - November 10, 2010

“But if you think that Oswald’s reaction and OJ’s reaction are even remotely similar, then there’s no point in arguing this any further.”

OK, there is not point in arguing this any further then because I do think they are similar. So at least we agree on that! :-)

726. Boborci - November 10, 2010

693. Have also read reclaiming history. Yiu can find excellent refutations of it online. VB ignores mountains of evidence.

727. Harry Ballz - November 13, 2010

Well, looks like this thread is going to fade into oblivion. Shame!

728. Disinvited - November 14, 2010

#727.

I regret the holidays have, and are likely to continue, prevent me from doing my part to assist in keeping these long-lived threads going.

I bet we could have come up with something to have at least made it to 1000.

729. Harry Ballz - November 14, 2010

Good to see you here, Disinvited!

730. Aurore - November 15, 2010

It ‘s so quiet here.

731. Harry Ballz - November 15, 2010

Ya got that right! :>)

732. Harry Ballz - November 15, 2010

Disinvited+Aurore,

you should join us over in Live Chat. It’s a fun group!

733. Aurore - November 16, 2010

Mr Ballz,

While you were doing your level best to to keep this thread alive, I was hanging out at the quarry, with the lesser-known Jacksons. You know, Earnest, Frank, and that other guy.

We were carrying (or was it quarrying?), a tune in hommage to Mr Jimmy H.
It went something like this:” Fa ,Sol, La, D,E,F,4,5,6…”

734. Aurore - November 16, 2010

May I keep an eye on this thread,from time to time, to see what becomes of it…please?

735. Harry Ballz - November 16, 2010

Be my guest!

736. Harry Ballz - December 5, 2010

So much for seeing what becomes of it! Drop the ball much?

737. Aurore - December 6, 2010

You are so ruthless.

I LOVE it . :)

738. Aurore - December 6, 2010

I hope you are OK.

739. Aurore - December 6, 2010

Mr Ballz : So much for seeing what becomes of it! Drop the ball much?

Moi: You wish.

740. Harry Ballz - December 10, 2010

Tell you what, Aurore. I prefer we keep our discussions contained to Chat and our other thread. I’m going to give you this one. Generous, aren’t I?

741. Aurore - December 10, 2010

Sweet victory.

742. Harry Ballz - December 10, 2010

Ah, but what do I get in return for allowing you to go LAST?

(ooooops)

743. Aurore - December 11, 2010

Come ON !

Couldn’t you let this ONE little thing go?

Unbelievable.

744. Aurore - December 11, 2010

LAST.

745. Aurore - December 11, 2010

You know what?

I can keep an eye on this thread quietly. As I did before.

I AM allowing you to go last. Am I not merciful ?

746. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2010

Glad to see it only took you three posts to make your point!

The remaining two threads are sufficient. You may have this one, at LAST!

747. Aurore - December 12, 2010

Sweet victory?

748. Aurore - December 12, 2010

Sweet…….

749. Aurore - December 12, 2010

……..victory!

750. Aurore - December 12, 2010

Mr Ballz,

You were right; I do take my time to make a point!

:)

751. Real Fan - January 15, 2011

Star Trek sucked!

752. Aurore - January 16, 2011

I don’t mean to be rude, but, could you be more specific? Please?

Thanks in anticipation for your answer.

Happy New Year by the way!

:)

753. nice strategy - July 5, 2011

The upstream comments about the Abrams movie and its supposed lack of character development betraying the Roddenberry tradition really don’t get it. A movie with young adult characters ought to be stocked with immaturity. We know how the characters turn out later in life. They act different because they were young, full of potential but unformed, you know, like young people. Especially rich are the complaints about how Abrams portrayed female characters as sex objects, unlike TOS. Say what? TOS was progressive for its day but come on.

754. Aurore - July 6, 2011

753. nice strategy .

This is all fine and good, but…. Who let you in ?!

:))

755. Holden von Vloppen - December 2, 2011

Frankly, I think he wasn’t hard enough on Star Trek 2009. That movie is not even a Star Trek movie. It doesn’t remotely resemble Gene Roddenberry’s original vision in any of the ways that count. All the major characters behave out of character. It’s completely inconsistent with the original series and illogical. For example, we learn in the original series that it took Kirk 15 years from graduation to make captain. The ’09 movie made him captain straight out of the academy as a cadet on probation. Ridiculous. Spock was vastly out of character in the way he fondled up Uhura. Hello???? Vulcans only mate every 7 years.

Worst of all, Trek ’09 failed to have any theme that relates to human values and how we might evolve into better people. That was central to what Roddenberry was doing, and every Trek series and movie other than ’09 has dealt with it in some way. Trek ’09 doesn’t do it. Therefore it’s not a Trek movie by definition.

The only way Trek ’09 succeeded was financially. Other than that it was a dismal failure and by far the worst Star Trek movie, even worse than Star Trek V. Trek V was terrible, but at least it was a Star Trek movie. Trek ’09 isn’t one. Harve Bennett’s academy movie at least would have actually been Star Trek themed, and perhaps it could have been a quality Trek movie. Bennett has just cause to be angry that the garbage that is Trek ’09 was made instead of his movie. For his trashing of the Trek franchise, JJ Abrams deserves to be marooned for the rest of his life on Ceti Alpha V.

756. Aurore - December 3, 2011

Oh! a NEW comment…

I feel so privileged, right now.

757. VZX - January 18, 2012

Well, I liked Trek 09. Sure, it had its flaws. There is no such thing as the perfect movie. But this last one is the best reprsentation of the original series from the 1966-1969 seasons than any other Trek film.

758. Aurore - January 18, 2012

VZX,

What the H*LL are you doing here????

This is a PRIVATE property….MINE!!!!!

:))

759. TheWayItIs - June 4, 2012

To all those who say he’s bitter – Hollywood treats you like imbeciles and you beg for more. The way you people behave is as you fell straight out of “Brave new world”! If you have any brain cells left, you should feel embarrassed.

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