Chris Pine: JJ Abrams Is Like ‘Kid in Candy Store’ Regarding Star Trek Sequel Story November 25, 2010
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Celebrity, ST09 Cast , trackback
Today brings another brief comment about the Star Trek sequel from Chris Pine, Star Trek’s new James T. Kirk. In an interview promoting the opening of Unstoppable in the UK, Pine discussed talking about the Star Trek sequel with producer (and possible director) JJ Abrams, who is apparently quite giddy about the movie.
Star Trek Candy store
Chris Pine’s new movie Unstoppable opened this week in the UK, and British site Digital Spy has a video interview with the star talking about the film, but they also talked some Star Trek, here is what Chris Pine had to say about the sequel:
I don’t know a goddamn thing. I do know it is going to take place sometime next year. I have spoken to the producer [presumably J.J. Abrams] and I will say that he is so excited by it he is like kid in a candy store, he was so excited about the initial meetings about the story. But those guys – I would be the last person to find out, but I put full trust in them.
While not anything major, Pine’s comments about JJ Abrams are another good sign for those reading the tea leaves regarding Abrams decision on whether or not to direct the Star Trek sequel (just like Abrams’ recent comment about the sequel having a "really cool" story). Abrams won’t make up his mind on directing the sequel until the script is handed in in early 2011. He is currently shooting Super 8, which he also wrote.
Here is the full video where Pine also talks about his Unstoppable stunts and his latest project, This Means War.
Loading ...
Comments»
I would be a kid in the candy store too if i could shape trek history
Well, you won’t be the LAST person to find out…
Can’t wait!!!
I can’t wait either:)
Just saw Unstoppable a couple of days ago….terrific movie. Chris Pine and Denzel Washington did a great job. I might just get the blu-ray copy of that one for my collection.
#2 “Well, you won’t be the LAST person to find out…”
Yah, that would be us…
#5
No,it is the people who go see the movie that don’t lurk sites like these.
I saw Unstoppable a couple of weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised at what a good flick it was. Not quite as good as Tony Scott’s Crimson Tide, but it was his best since that movie. Anyway, Chris Pine and Denzel were terrific together—good acting all around.
Yeah, the fact that JJ is excited is a REALLY good sign.
Yes, “baby blue eyes’ …. I believe in you! .. Hmmm ..
And yes “Unstoppable” is a good movie!
The Reasons As To Why JJ Abrams is Excited About The Script:
1. The Star Trek Sequel is a crossover into the Star Wars franchise
2. The Enterprise converts into the millenium Falcon
3. George Lucas has a secret cameo
4. Captain Kirk isn’t really Captain Kirk. Its really Hans Solo in disguise.
5. Maybe the mirror universe in jj-abrams universe is the Star Wars universe.
6. Anthony Pascale has a cameo. (just kidding)
7. Bob Orci will be the new nurse Chappele.
Obviously i’m just kidding with all these points.
And you guys hear that? … if my ears did not deceive me! .. CP has a crush on Reese Whitherspoon! … OMG! .. I need to handle this! LOL ..!
Chris pine still looks about 17 at times!
If JJ is excited, then it means that it likely has a LOT of action (His writting indicates this), big action! And thats always a good thing. And also some twists and tweeks on more of the original concepts of the franchise. Deep emotional conflict might be in there to. Sounding good to me. :]
“I do know it is going to take place sometime next year.”
Hmm. Does he mean the *plot* takes place sometime next year? Are we talking another time travel story…?????
(haha! Worry not–just rumor-mongering…) ;-)
“I put full trust in them.”
Star Trek. Hoping to rival amount of “Yes Men” that Lucas has.
I think JJ will be pleased there’ll be no strike so the cast can keep shaping the script and putting input into characterisation each day. Should make the sequel feel quite different, as XI was such a tightly plotted and scripted film.
Yes, Unstoppable was a pretty good movie.
Jeyl, you actually never have anything to say…do you? You simply post occasionally to remind everyone how irredeemably bitter you are and how personally you take disliking a movie.
1. DS9 IN PRIME TIME
“BAM!
4. Chingatchgook
I just saw Unstoppable on Saturday and thought it was fantastic as well. I recently saw Skyline and RED. RED was pretty funny, Skyline was terrible, great special effects but the story and characters were SHIT!. Unstoppable was fantastic, great characters, good story without the need for violence or profanity, it kept me on the edge of my seats.
7. Vultan I agree, Pine and Washington were great together, pleasantly surprised.
18. Dennis Bailey
Interesting observation, I have noticed that too, Jeyl among others. If people post nasty things about the new star trek they should at least post one good thing they like about it as well. One should always strive to achieve balance in any walk of life.
JJ was excited by the first movie, and granted they are just words and hype but the fact that he mentioned its really cool and that he is giddy like a kid in a candy store is great. and exciting. #10. jas_montreal did jokingly make star wars references but if I were to choose a reason why JJ is excited, its because it movie is going to be about the Klingons, which yes – 13. Hugh Hoyland – means lots of action. JJ loved the Klingons, after going back and reading the dozens upon dozens of news articles from the time of production and post production of the first movie and all the behind the scenes interviews and clips one thing JJ referenced the most, loved the most, were the Klingon aspects. Granted I may be wrong, but I have just been doing my own research and deduction and would rather believe my own rumors then someone else’s. I can’t ignore this feeling that Its going to be mainly Klingon oriented, they are the original Star Trek adversaries.
Well isn’t it to up to Jeyl if he doesn’t personally like Abrams Trek?
In regards to #16. Alientraveller’s comment – what script changes would they have made if the writers’ strike didn’t prevent them? Curious…
What a beautiful white chocolate man!
@15: Yeah, he should totally call JJ an unlikeable douche that he can’t stand to work for. Employment — who needs it?
Chris Pine has a crush on Reese Whitherspoon? He & many others (myself included).
I am looking forward to seeing ‘Unstoppable’, I read bits on the true story of this & though I’m sure there is a bit more drama in the movie than the real event the movie looks good.
#21 Chadwick, its possible he digs the Klingons (who doesnt eh lol). And I wouldnt be suprised if they dont at least make an showing or are the main antagonist. My initial reaction to the possible villian based on the “leaked” comments were the Talosians.
But Bob has since said no to that. So Im throwing a dart and guessing Gary Mitchell. But thats a guess and could be wrong to of course.
I like that JJ is excited about the script mostly because that increases the chances that he will direct the movie. Not saying another director could do a good job, but I think hes the best man for the job at present. And my reasoning behind the guess of “lots of big action” ect being in it is that is his style of story telling and scripting from what I’ve read of JJ’s own writting.
He likes BIG ACTION in his story lol. or at least his action/adventure ones, no pulling punches. And usually faced paced as well. He also likes strong emotional stuff, so its possible we could see something quite dramatic, maybe a couple of moments of Those. And on top of it he likes to add “twists” to the original concepts. Adding something new and different to them without changing the basic characteristics. Pretty cool, and I like his style, although the split dialoge stuff gets on my nerves sometimes lol
Star Trek II – Kirk runs a candy store.
22. trekprincess
Don’t defend the negative, encourage the positives….princess
Star Trek Return of the Candy Machine. Lol. I hope J.J Directs.
22. trekprincess
And no, its not ok! If Jeyl doesn’t like it, he can get out of here!
I kid I kid :P :), your too kind but im sure Jeyl is a big boy or girl and can defend their views and can rebut for his or herself.
27. Hugh Hoyland
When did Bob say no? Not to imply you are wrong. Also when has Bob not used misdirection? :P
@ 28. Phaser Guy & 30. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire
Lmao no no no, not candy.
Star Trek II – Kirk Runs a Donut Shop or
Star Trek II – Scotty Discovers Donuts
Star Trek II – The Food dispensers go crazy and flood the ship with candy.
#10: Respectfully, I don’t want ‘Star Trek XII’ to crossover with ‘Star Wars’, for ‘Star Trek’ is owned by CBS while ‘Star Wars’ is owned by Lucasfilm. Of course, I was once a Trekkie and a Warsie myself.
Chris Pine has a crush on Reese Witherspoon? Better not tell Harry Ballz. He doesn’t take these things well!
As for Jeyl bitching about “Star Trek”, well its clearly in her nature to do so whenever an opportunity presents itself.
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that she will hate the sequel even more than the first even if #12 is superior to #11.
@33: I remember a Trek novel where a starship computer went slightly nuts and flooded an escape pod with milkshake, so it’s not totally out of the question…
Well don’t you think that the bitching has gone on long enough:/
I’m guessing JJ’s excitement means he’s that much closer to being officially on as the director for this installment? Right?
31
What happened to philosophy of IDIC on this site. We all embrace differences.
It’s a bit fascist to insist that every Star Trek fan must like the new movie and not spew hate of it on this site.
Yet its ok to spew hate on Star Trek: Voyager or Star Trek: Enterprise on this site and no one criticises that. Although not my fav show I have enjoyed rewatching Voyager again.
Now in regards to the new movie it is a good fun movie and I rated it 4 out of 5 but the movie does have its flaws.
I am just pointing out it seems people can be a bit hipocritcal on this site. If you can’t stand a few people not liking the new movie, how do you think fans who do like all of Trek feel when people bitch about Voyager and Enterprise.
I get annoyed at people who bitch about TNG, but am I meant to be okay with that when apparently you get penalised for having a similar opinion on the new movie.
I love the new movie but I still love what came before.
And if this sounds like a repeat then I am sorry, I just wanted to point out how HYPOCRITICAL people are on this site.
Hope that ‘kid in a candy store’ excitement is a feeling we in the audience will share when the movie comes out.
Fingers crossed… ; )
It’s recently occurred to me that Denzel Washington might make a very good villain (or anti-hero) in a Star Trek movie — given his brilliant previous performances in ‘Training Day’ and ‘American Gangster’, for example.
Somewhat different personas in both of those films, of course, but Denzel can do the swaggering, charismatic bad guy thing very effectively indeed. You can imagine him psychologically messing with Pine’s Kirk and deliberately trying to intimidate the hell out of him.
The varieties of religious experience will be different for each individual, but I am a believer that art is a type of ecstatic creation. A great movie can be as positive, eudaimonic, and fulfilling as anything experienced in a religious environment given the right circumstances.
A movie can change lives.
If so, then let’s hope JJ’s candy store has something pretty darn sweet for all of us.
One more thing: I noticed that Pine talked about a project with Tom Hardy, who is apparently another one of those young actors who have that Hollywood buzz about them. This is the same Tom Hardy, I think, who played Shinzon.
Small universe.
I am looking forward to the next movie.
I am sorry for my rant in the last post but I do happen to prefer a lot of past Trek.
I hope that while it has lots of action that I hope that Abrams does not lose site of the ideals of Trek.
captain_neill. Can you like the new movie and hate TNG? :)
#39….”And if this sounds like a repeat then I am sorry, I just wanted to point out how HYPOCRITICAL people are on this site.”
…sounds like a repeat? Naahhhhhh. :)
captain_neill if you prefer past Trek that’s great you don’t have to apologise
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as no one involved is “PLEASED” with anything, we’re good ;-)
Yes, that was a slam at B&B, deal with it okay ?
Please no time travel, JJ.
49
“Yes, that was a slam at B&B, deal with it okay ?”
Good message for Captain Neill! (Even though I’m a TNG fan myself, ironically!)
And anyone who rips into the new Trek movie like Jeyl does repeatedly is NOT a Trek fan. Its just that simple.
#45 Yes, it is possible. I can vouch for it. ;-))
“Yeah, he should totally call JJ an unlikeable douche that he can’t stand to work for. Employment — who needs it?”
Who would want to say that?
@53: You apparently want him to, or else he’s JJ’s sycophantic yes-man. No winning with you, is there?
45
I do like the new movie, remember I gave it 4 out of 5.
I assume you are joking about the Next Gen. I will always be a TNG fan.
I love all 5 shows.
And despite my gripes with the changes I do love the new movie.
Must I hate one and love the other, why can’t I like both?
By the way folks I was not criticising the new movie because I do like it but I do believe some fans on this site are getting about hypocritical on what our tastes in trek our and I think the mentality that it’s ok for the fans of the new movie to bash what came before but the fans who love the new movie can’t take it and cal hard core fans haters if they bash the new movie.
I happen to like it all, including the new movie. Please tell me I am not the only one who sees something is a bit off in what is allowed to be said.
captain_neill please stop going on and on I don’t have a problem with other people disliking the new Star Trek film, and you’re entitled to your opinion.:)
#56
If you don’t have a problem with differing opinions, then why do you keep making comments and asking questions to the contrary?
# 43 Ricky Hat
again … I’m imagining that my comment was removed because it was # 45 at the time … then … Yes Chris Pine/Kirk and Tom Hardy/Shinzon in the movie “This Means War” … with Reese Witherspoon!
In defense of Jeyl (@ 15) , let’s revisit the concept of “the markeplace of ideas.” I do note that First Amendment rights are not always applicable on this website but we can at least adhere to them. Anyway, the concept is that truth comes “out of a multitude of tongues rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.” Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 512 (1969)
Jeyl made a relevent comment to Pine’s comments about the producer being excited about the new movie. In fact it’s similar to what Red Letter Media’s review of Star Wars I regarding “yes men..” Yeah, he doesn’t like the Star Trek (2009) SO WHAT? But let’s assume he’s right for a second. Then his voice can change Star Trek for the better. Maybe the next film because of the other voices makes it as great as “The City on the Edge of Forever; The Wrath of Khan, The Doomsday Machine, etc.”
I do have to note the things Chadwick has said and wants us to do. First, Chadwick (@ 20) wants a negative comment about Star Trek to followed up with a positive comment. Kind of totalitarian isn’t it? But we’ll try it. Second your comment @ 31 “If Jeyl doesn’t like it, he can get out of here!” is again totalitarian.
I will now obey the edict of Chadwick (@ 20) by posting a negative comment of Star Trek (2009) to be followed by a positive comment.
1. Star Trek (2009) was designed to appeal to the largest mass audience possible rather than be a film about serious science fiction.
Okay, before you open a can of whoop a_s on me, I liked Star Trek (2009); saw it three times in the theater and own the DVD. Not a great film, but a good one. And consumate Trekker and comic pyschopath Harry Plinkett had the same criticisims, he liked the movie too. TrekMovie link below.
Now here comes a positive comment as ordered by Chadwick, (@ 20) .
2. J.J. Abrams is a god. He’s not the God but a god.
(I’m a Christian and have to watch the blasphemy.)
Um, …. positive enough Chadwick?
a. Harrry Plinkett likes Star Trek like a “guilty pleasure.”
http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/01/red-letter-media-takes-on-star-trek-2009-and-likes-it/
59… What does a god need with a starship? :-)
OMG!!!…:-)
I worried that JJ does’nt need a Starship. Mainly the “E.”
There was a star trek movie out recently?
Oh you mean the one that came out in 2009?
I thought that was starship troopers with vulcans.
On another note I saw a really annoying guy at the supermarket the other day. He looked just like JJ abrams, had a phony metrosexual voice and all. Gave me a nasty look which I answered by snarling at him. He must have known I hated the new star trek movie. He was a little on the chubby side, so I told him to live wrong and perspire.
Yeah, it does seem like YEARS ago.
Can’t we get the Supreme Court to rule from the bench that htere MUST be a new Trek out at least once a year?
Hey, come to think about it, Where have the “New Voyages” gang been recently? The good Lord (and Aurore) knows that I am done posting on thier last page here at TrekMovie. We REALLY need another adventure, Caws’.
Thanks for the info, Dee (58).
@19 Chadwick
WIN!
@63: Ha, ha, good one! It’s like you’re trolling, but just terrible at it.
49.
Abrams’ movie really sucked.
Deal with it, okay?
39. captain_neill: ‘What happened to philosophy of IDIC on this site. We all embrace differences.’
IDIC was nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell tacky plastic hippie medallions! ;)
69
I know that but the term Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations in the shows is a good ideal.
I see no one has addressed my comment on the double standards of fans. MY comments about people being hypocritical in criticising one thing but not allowing someone to criticise another is all over the net, I also seen it on the Doctor Who forums.
I like both shows of Doctor Who as the same show.
56
Thanks but as I said before I do enjoy the new Trek movie.
Why are there such double standards in fandom or am I just reading to much into some comments?
No double standards with me…I loved the original series, hated TNG and it’s spin offs. Loved the new movie, as it brought Trek back to the Star Trek I am a fan of. And it stands to reason, that those who are fans of Berman and Roddenberry’s NuTrek formula may not like JJ’s movie, as it is so radically different in style from what they are accustomed to. Nothing wrong with that.
70. captain_neill: ‘I see no one has addressed my comment on the double standards of fans.’
That’s assuming people think it’s worth addressing! ;)
‘MY comments about people being hypocritical in criticising one thing but not allowing someone to criticise another is all over the net, I also seen it on the Doctor Who forums.’
Then again, ‘organised’ Doctor Who fandom is full of spiteful little sh**s! I like Doctor Who but have nothing to do with its fandom.
‘I like both shows of Doctor Who as the same show.’
I treat them as separate, but find Matt Smith’s Doctor a completely acceptable continuation of the character from incarnations 1-8. On the other hand, I think Eccleston and Tennant were rubbish Doctors written for by and arrogant, lazy, lowest-common-denominator producer. I prefer to pretend the first two nu-Who Doctors never happened! I’m not a fan of the Barry Letts/Terrance Dicks era either! Guess how popular I am with Who fans!!! ;)
The JJ Abrams’ movie is really great!
Assuming … just guessing … CP was not talking about JJAbrams! … yes he could be speaking of Alex Kurtzman….. they’re probably talking about “Welcome to People,” the film that Kurtzman will direct and Chris will star! … and Alex Kurtzman is one of the producers of “Star Trek 2012″, is not it? … I’m just guessing!
#10: I suppose you think that the “JJ” in Mr. Abrams name means “Jar Jar”?
PLEASE!! DO NOT let JJ direct or make any artistic decisions!
…what JJ thinks is “cool”, is not cool… =(
…if there are lense flares in ST2012, I will demand a refund!!!
71
Even though I do like Berman era Trek I am a huge TOS fan.
I felt the new movie captured the fun adventure aspect of TOS.
But the new movie also has a more Star Wars like vibe, which was to get the mainstream more interested.
I like Chris Pine as Kirk but I think to me William Shatner will always be Kirk.
I am not being disrespectful of the new, but I grew up loving Shatner in the role. I hope this makes sense.
68
Abrams’ movie rocked. Deal with it, okay? Jesus F**king Christ!
Neill
It’s YOU who is being hypocritical here. You bitch about others not liking what you like. You have no problem lashing out against those who prefer the new movie over the TNG era Trek while feeling “penalized” when someone lashes out on what you like. And you have no right to quote IDIC when you’re ramming your opinions into everyone else’s faces. And you always repeat everything on every thread. It got tiresome a long time ago.
So a few people here don’t care for TNG and it’s spinoffs. Who gives a rat’s a**!
Jesus F**king Christ!
63
That wasn’t J.J Abrams. That was you looking at yourself in the mirror.
And to all the militant Trek fundamentalist Talifans and haters:
J.J Abrams, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindeloff have shown us the light to great Star Trek with “Star Trek”. They put together a great cast, wrote an entertaining story and filled it in with great action and visual effects. The opening scenes featuring George Kirk’s heroic sacrifice will go down as perhaps the greatest opening act in Star Trek history. This movie returned Trek to the mainstream while bringing in some new fans.
All this movie required from us were open eyes and minds. But some of you went in with your eyes and minds shut. Well, then, that’s YOUR problem, NOT OURS.
SO STOP TRYING TO PUNISH THOSE OF US WHO ACTUALLY ENJOYED THE MOVIE!!
God F**king Dammit, Man!
Red Dead Ryan:
quit yer bitchin’… let others have their opinion…
don’t take it personally… no need for gratuitous profanity… chill, dude…
if you don’t like an opinion, counter it, instead of bitching about it, and stop trying to tell people where to go (we’ve been over this…)
not every comment / question needs to be answered… you don’t really “need” to “win”…
in addition, your partisan rhetoric is boorish and unnecessary.
80
I’m telling it as it should be told. People shouldn’t have to feel bad about liking the new movie. I can’t stand it when I see some people punishing others for liking J.J Abrams’ film. On most threads on this site, I read posts from people that unfairly trash the new movie and its writers.
I mean, why can’t everyone just accept the new movie for what it is? It’s a reboot that exists in a parallel timeline. The old Treks still exist. It’s not like the new movie wiped out existing canon. If some people don’t like the new movie, that’s fine. But they don’t have to trash it.
I just don’t like to see fans of the new movie being persecuted and attacked for liking the new movie. It drives me crazy.
…nobody feels bad for liking the movie, but obviously YOU DO feel bad that OTHER PEOPLE do not like the movie… get over it.
…the criticisms are valid. You are not going to convince us that we are wrong… let it be what it will, in the eye of the beholder…
I don’t like to see fans of real Star Trek being persecuted and attacked for not liking the new movie. It makes me unhappy. =(
Well said Red Dead Ryan :) I am one of the fans that loved the new Star Trek film see when I watch it I honestly don’t see anything wrong with it :) so there you go anyway I think people should just enjoy the movie and quit bitching and bitching about it:( it drives me crazy as well
STAR TREK 2009 IS AWESOME!!!
I’m definitely not unhappy or mad about little things! … but I am absolutely certain that nobody cares about my opinion here, right? … here it is so irrational sometimes! … or was it always? . LOL! … and ..+ LOL!
With regard to what one could perhaps call our unending rounds of fruitless (and it would seem for quite a few of us exasperating) squabbling over the merits of the latest (and any other) incarnation of Star Trek:
For me at least, Alec Austin´s very interesting, interpretational concept* of the existence of an “implicit contract” between the creators/purveyors and the consumers of media content does constitute the most convincing explanation for the underlying mechanics of our conduct. It certainly helped me to better understand and ultimately (sort of) accept our often seemingly immature and nonsensical behavior.
Instead of unnecessarily reformulating Austin´s succinctly stated considerations on the subject, I would like to simply present some of his main arguments in the form of a citation:
“Everyone wants something from their entertainment. Whether they’re looking for special effects or nuanced characterization, a climactic conclusion or an ongoing narrative, an audience’s satisfaction with an entertainment product is dependent on how well their expectations were fulfilled. UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PURVEYOR OF AN ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTY AND THAT PROPERTY´S AUDIENCE AS A CONTRACTUAL ONE DOES A GREAT DEAL TO EXPLAIN WHY AUDIENCES ENJOY AND ACCEPT CERTAIN CREATIVE CHOICES AND REJECT AND ARE ANGERED BY OTHERS. …
… audience members would not waste their time or attention on an entertainment product unless it had been presented in a way that suggested it would entertain them. WHILE SUCH CONTRACTS HAVE NO LEGAL FORCE, THE PERCEPTION THAT THEIR TERMS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WILL TYPICALLY CAUSE BOTH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. (To wit, audience members who feel they have been cheated are likely to be vocal about their unhappiness, and will stop giving their money to content providers which they feel have treated them unfairly.) …
…WITHOUT AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR PERCEIVED VIOLATIONS OF THE IMPLICIT CONTRACT, AUDIENCE MEMBERS MUST TAKE ON THE ENFORCEMENT ROLE THEMSELVES.
In practice, audiences have three means by which they can attempt to redress perceived contract violations. THE FIRST IS DISSATISFACTION, WHICH MANIFESTS ITSELF BOTH IN LESSENED ENGAGEMENT WITH AN ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTY AND COMPLAINTS MADE TO OTHER FANS AND THE PROPERTY´S CREATORS. The second is withdrawal, which manifests itself in the loss of the audience member as a viewer or customer. And the final means is boycotting, which manifests itself in an audience member actively trying to dissuade others from supporting or engaging
with a property. … ”
* [ taken from "Expectations Across Entertainment Media" by Alexander Chane Austin, thesis submitted to the Department of Comparative Media Studies on May 11, 2007 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Comparative Media Studies at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, pp. 5-12, capitalization for emphasis added by me. ]
Red Dead, don’t sweat it. I absolutely love the new movie, lens flares and all, because it represents…after all these years…THE Star Trek. Unlike TNG and it’s spin offs, JJ’s Trek felt RIGHT. It was called Star Trek, and, by golly, every TOS fan I was with on opening night was grinning ear to ear when that movie ended. After being led down strange and unfamiliar paths for almost 20 years. JJ took us home again. Star Trek IS in good hands and I’m giddy as a schoolgirl.
So let the haters hate…it still made a ton of money, it still is critically acclaimed and it still put Star Trek, with Kirk Spock and McCoy, back on the map…in a HUGE way. Other fans can try all they want to try and make new fans of the movie feel bad. But it ain’t gonna happen. Something tells me JJ and fans like myself, will do just fine without their support. :)
85, to put it more succinctly, might I say that the article basically says that if the movie stinks, audiences will complain about it, avoid it, or even boycott it. Am I missing something?
Here’s my take:
Since as measured by box office, audiences haven’t exactly avoided ST2009, one conclusion that could be drawn is that the movie doesn’t stink. There’s obviously no credible boycott in play here, so that third option is completely off the table.
So let’s look at the “complaint” part of the thesis. The fact that some people complain about it doesn’t mean much to me unless the complaint is otherwise persuasive. The very fact that people complain has only very limited value, since as to most things in life — even the very best things — you will find almost always find someone who will complain.
Complaining about things is our right as Americans (or citizens/residents of whatever Westernized country may be in question).
So it seems that we’re back to square one.
@85: Sounds like Alex Austin visits this site. Withdrawal is what I did to Enterprise. I simply wasn’t interested either in watching them try to do TOS all over, but without the charm, or in the T’Pol / Tripp soap opera. I walked. I didn’t care enough to do 1 or 3.
Oops! Alex = Alec
So, I guess if all the Mr. and Mrs. AngryPants bother to come here and complain at all, it means either that they’re still on the Star Trek hook, in which case they can be counted on to remain paying customers, if only to have new material for their complaints, or else they’ve gone mental-Khan and from hell’s heart will stab at Bob and JJ for hate’s sake.
Rick… How on earth do you know that a movie stinks if you haven’t seen it? So how can you boycott because it stinks?
I like all Trek (okay, maybe not “And The Children Shall Lead”, “Profit and Lace”, or “Threshold”) I liked Trek 2009 enough to see it multiple times in theaters and buy the Blu-Ray. But I think it could have been a better movie. If people don’t say, “Hey, it could have been better if Kirk didn’t make Captain while still a Cadet”, or , “Hey, Delta Vega is a planet way out on the outskirts of the galaxy, not next door to Vulcan”, or, “Hey, if one drop of Red Matter ate Vulcan. why didn’t that whole bottle of it eat half of the Alpha Quadrant?” how would the writers know what pitfalls to look out for next time? Since most of us won’t bump into Mr. Orci or Mr. Abrams on the street, pointing out the movies mistakes in public forums is the only choice we have.
Everything can always be better, and without feedback from people on your work it’s hard to make things better. But there’s constructive feedback and there’s asinine feedback. You’re not going to change anything you thought was wrong in ST.09 by being a stubborn stupid head. And why would anybody listen to you about the sequel if that’s all you show yourself to be in here? So what exactly is the advantage of asinine feedback except the equivalent of hitting yourself in the head with a rock?
@ 79 @ 80
Dear Red Dead Ryan,
I’ve looked at Captain Neill’s posts and Jeyl’s. Yes, they critcize Star Trek (2009) . If you read Captain Neill’s posts, he actually likes Star Trek (2009) See @ 39. I know you love Star Trek (2009) but dropping “F” bombs and using Jesus’ name in vain is letting your emotions guide your actions. Please take this advice, don’t let your emotions control you. I won’t go over what I do but I see people make mistakes by allowing their emotions dictate their actions. The reason why Gene Roddenberry created Vulcans was to show that humans are too often controlled by their emotions.
As far as Trekkers repeating themselves, it’s okay. Why? Not everyone reads every thread. And what we do in this “marketplace of ideas” is to encourage change; if change is needed. Remember, truth comes out of the multitude of voices. We all repeat ourselves. We want to reach as many people with our opinions as possible.
Not all Trekkers who didn’t like the new movie or had criticisms are punishing those who loved the movie. Jeyl and Captain Neill did not make ad hominem attacks on you. I think it’s great that you loved the new movie. I agree with Captain Neill, that I liked it but had issues with it. I don’t wish any ill will on you for loving the movie. But you should also try to recognize trolls who only interest is to inflame your passion.
I will take issue calling critics “talifans.” There are some Trekkers who feel the new movie was not made for them but someone else. J.J. Abrams initially looked at Star Trek through the parody “Galaxy Quest” (1999) saying “it spoils the Star Trek universe.” He preferred Star Wars over Star Trek. (Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 28-29) In the making of documentaries, the team looked to Star Wars for inspiration. And of course, they decided to rub Trekkers faces in it, with the “This is not your father’s Star Trek” campaign.
So who was this movie made for? Or should I say who was this movie aimed at? I watched the three times at the theater and many times on DVD. I coached high school kids in mock trial. So, I realized this movie was aimed at them. Studios look to teenagers for the big bucks. (NPR article below.) Yes, they produce an occasional cerebral film like “Inception” but “The Kids Are All Right” won’t bring home the money. And I have no problem with profits but I believe there can be balance between art and profit.
Okay, I must obey the edict of Chadwick @ 20 who says if we say something negative about Star Trek (2009) we must say something positive.
Postivie Comment: “Chris Pine has great hair.”
Movies are directed at teenage audiences
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646
92. The problem seems to be “who decides what is constructive criticism and what is an asinine comment?”. If you are that person, I must not have gotten the memo.
91: ““Hey, it could have been better if Kirk didn’t make Captain while still a Cadet”
Bob already explained that the Shatner scene was supposed to introduce the idea of some passage of time before Kirk’s promotion. Then the writer’s strike happened and they couldn’t make any changes.
“Hey, Delta Vega is a planet way out on the outskirts of the galaxy, not next door to Vulcan”
Not a mistake. In the Prime universe Delta Vega was in the galactic boonies. In this universe they (the writers) gave that name to a different world (intentionally, to express the idea that there are differences between the universes). The planet called Delta Vega in the Prime universe is still out there, just probably called something different.
“Hey, if one drop of Red Matter ate Vulcan. why didn’t that whole bottle of it eat half of the Alpha Quadrant?”
Perhaps because Red Matter doesn’t function like dynamite where you get a bigger bang with more sticks; perhaps the effect of its use flattens out after a certain quantity, and you’re just wasting Red Matter after that; perhaps it’s extremely valuable and no more than what is needed is used.
Red Dead Ryan, my post @ 93 refers to @ 78, @ 79. Sorry about that.
94. “The problem seems to be ‘who decides what is constructive criticism and what is an asinine comment?’. If you are that person, I must not have gotten the memo.”
If you haven’t made any asinine comments, then no need to feel like you have. I’m fairly sure those who do make them know who they are.
And no need to make it more of a mystery than it is. If you take any pride in your work at all, whatever it is that you do, and then I come along and tell you that you are a lousy hack, you probably aren’t going to regard that as useful commentary.
@87. Hat Rick – November 27, 2010
“85, to put it more succinctly, might I say that the article basically says that if the movie stinks, audiences will complain about it, avoid it, or even boycott it. Am I missing something?”
I am not at all certain if I interpret your position correctly, but I believe that my understanding of the article/thesis differs from yours in that I read it as not just as an explanation for certain behavioral patterns of a postulated, generalized audience, but also as a description of individual audience members´ reactions to a specific piece of entertainment.
In my opinion, a viewer´s conscious, semi-conscious or subconscious perception of an (implicit) contract violation perpetrated against him/her on a personal level, does explain (and justify to a degree) the sometimes very strong emotional reactions on display. And, as I see it, the same concept can also function as an explanation for the often exuberant and most protective stance of individual audience members towards a piece of entertainment, which they feel has fulfilled their personal (implicit) contract.
93. Basement Blogger – November 27, 2010
I was more challenged by the plot of Star Trek than Inception, which I do not think was a very “cerebral” film. Inception: Four dream layers down and back to put an idea in somebody’s head as if it were their own. But did he really make it all the way back?
Shutter Island was much more fascinating to me than Inception.
Man oh man…
I’m not really understanding why some of you are getting so upset because some didn’t like the new movie. There’s a reason it says “Comments” and not “Abrams Bandwagon” at the very top of this blue-purplish box. If you like it or don’t like, just say why in a civil manner. No need to get nasty about it.
And the only thing worse than a complainer is someone complaining about the complainers. Or… in my case… complaining about those who complain about the complainers. ;)
Peace.
Well one thing is for sure. TREK2009 gave us all alot to talk about.
And it was well done (cinematically) for what its worth.
Many of my friends still think Trek is dead. We need more Trek to energize the franchise. It’s obviously a profitable venture in any venue.
I’ve got nothin to say but it’s ok
Good morning… good morning… good morning-ah
I enjoyed Trek ‘09 also… for what it was worth—some good parts (the acting, special effects, Leonard Nimoy!) and some bad parts (certain aspects of the script, the set/ship designs, the villain). Although, I find it better to simply place the movie among the other reboots of the past decade and compare them with each other on how successful they represent the original product rather than compare it directly with the original. New and old Trek—it’s really apples and oranges now. New universe. New kind of fruit.
93
Thanks for defending me, everyone seems to think I am a hater.
Guess no one is reading that in my posts I said that I LIKED the film.
But I also am a huge TOS fan who also loves the spin offs and that includes also being a huge Next Gen fan.
I know this will be misunderstood but all I was trying to say was why is ok to be allowed to say things against one thing but not against the other.
God its best to not have opinions becuase on this site it seems like Fascism. Definitely anti Roddenberry.
And Red Dead Ryan I am not a bloody hypocrite, just pointing out the behaviour I see from people on this site.
You know I like the new movie but to me this site is showcasing Trek fans in an anti Roddenberry light.
I try my best to respect other fans who do like the film, I just don’t want the past to be forgotten because of something that is new and shiny.
In Doctor Who now I love it when it makes references to the past Doctors as it ties the two shows together.
Why do I bother, my bloody words will be twisted to make me sound like a hater which I am not.
Just trying to defend some people on this site who have differing opinions.
Just because I am defending someone who didn’t like the movie does NOT make me a hater.
How do you think I feel when someone criticises TNG.
I wont defend anyone else again, my words will only be twisted again.
thanks basement blogger for actually getting what I was saying, you seem to be the only one.
92. dmduncan
“You’re not going to change anything you thought was wrong…..by being a stubborn stupid head”
I LOVE IT! THEY SHOULD TEACH THAT IN “CONFLICT RESOLUTION” CLASSES!!
Neill
I never said you didn’t like the new movie. I just said that you don’t like it when some people don’t like TNG. I recall you calling J.J Abrams an overrated director and Bob Orci an overrated writer while getting upset when people criticise Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. I should have been more clear on that. It is why I called you a hypocrite.
And secondly, I went over the top in lashing out against others. I shouldn’t have cursed and called people “Talifans”. I’m sorry for that. As for everything else I wrote, I stand by it.
I’ll clarify my position. I like the vast majority of Trek. TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and all of the movies. Some more than others. Every incarnation had its bad moments as well as good moments. There were flaws. There were also things that were done perfectly. The new movie wasn’t perfect. I didn’t like the brewery, the expanding hands, and the “madman bent on revenge” plot was a bit tired, but I still think the writers did great with the characters. The casting was perfect (especially Karl Urban as McCoy). The action and visual effects were awesome, and the first ten minutes were some of the greatest moments in Trek history. I measure the positives against the negatives. And in my opinion, the positives vastly outweigh the negatives. As much as I can’t stand the brewery, I understand why it was used. Plus I’m able to get over it because not a lot of screen time was spent there.
As you can see, I have my criticisms. I don’t mind people not liking the new movie. I just can’t stand people like Jeyl who for whatever reason feel the need to slam the movie and its writers on most threads while never offering any positive praise or constructive criticisms. And there are others who like to tear into J.J Abrams and Bob Orci unfairly and unjustly. These guys deserve a lot of credit for making Star Trek relevent again, whether one likes the movie or not.
95… “Not a mistake. In the Prime universe Delta Vega was in the galactic boonies.”
You know, that name doesn’t make sense in either WNMHGB or in Star Trek 2009. Delta Vega should presumably be the fourth planet around the star Vega, which is a real star only 25 light years from Earth. WNMHGB places it something like 40,000 light years away at the edge of the galaxy. Star Trek 2009 tells us Vulcan orbits Vega, since Vulcan looms (or loomed) large in Delta Vega’s sky. (Vulcan has traditionally been said to orbit Epsilon Eridani or 40 Eridani, although I don’t think either is canon.)
And no, I don’t buy the “some time passed” argument about Kirk’s promotion for one moment. He’s still in his cadet’s uniform when Pike hands over command to him, and the accompanying Spock/Spock Prime scene clearly takes place only a short time after the destruction of Vulcan. Sounds like someone was trying desperately to rationalize Cadet to Captain Overnight there.
The red matter bit is really just a quibble, easily explained by saying that a bunch of it together has a repressive effect. Of course, that leaves the question of why Spock Prime needed so much of it in the first place.
108. Thorny – November 27, 2010
Seriously? If you want everything to make sense why do you watch Star Trek? Spock said Vulcan has no moon. And by TMP there were 3 or 4 giant balls sailing across the Vulcan sky at ramming speed. What were those? Planets? Close enough to reach by balloon flight? It should be reasonable for Star Trek which always has required some suspension of disbelief. Bob ad Alex, and JJ were playing by the established rules of Star Trek by renaming Delta Vega.
I think it’s funny that some people get bent out of shape over such an irrelevant detail that was meant to dramatize a difference between the two universes.
106. Harry Ballz – November 27, 2010
;-)
Star trek is indeed a big candy store to play in for all involved. And IDIC to all the trek series @ movies…Abrams included. Trek in all its infinite combinations. For those who dissent and disagree with one another its their right but please as one other said don’t use God’s name in vain or other profanities. God di’nt do anything to be bashed in this manner. This Christian-Trekkie has spoken
#109
Wise’s Director’s Cut of TMP eliminated Vulcan’s “moons.” And making a mistake isn’t establishing a rule; it’s just making a mistake. You can either roll with it or not… or fix it twenty-something years later. ;)
I would like to see the sniping at each other end. I especially don’t like people throwing around words like fascism, etc. No one has the monopoly on the right opinion, because there is no such thing as the right opinion. Also everyone is welcome here, regardless of opinion, as long as they are civil with their fellow fans. and that is the most important thing to remember, we are all fans here.
There can be more than one Delta Vega. I mean, c’mon, there are like fifty-one towns/cities in America called “Springfield”. Springfield….Oregon, Springfield….Illonois, Springfield…..Massachusetts, and Springfield……Vermont, the one Matt Groening loosely based his Springfield on in “The Simpsons”. Why can’t there be more than one Delta Vega?
And yeah, DMDuncan is right about Star Trek being full of mistakes. He’s also right about the need for suspension of disbelief when watching Star Trek or any other sci-fi movie or show.
111. Vultan – November 27, 2010
That’s the problem that so many fans have. What’s a “mistake”? Inconsistency? As if it’s supposed to be a non contradictory real world when it’s not?
The only “mistake” is having that attitude toward a pretend universe where inconsistencies are both predictable and expected given the number of contributors that have created it.
Vulcan wasn’t “fixed.” Now you have two versions of it. So YOU have to ignore the one you don’t like. Which is what you ALWAYS have to do with Star Trek if your sanity is challenged by the inconsistencies in a collaborative work of fiction.
And when the characters in both universes throughout the entire duration of the franchise on both TV and in the movies can rush headlong down the corridors of a spaceship while in space as if they are on the surface of a planet with no explicable means of creating gravity, or they can beam from a transporter to the surface of a planet with no receiving pad to reconstitute their forms, then “mistakes” like that DO become rules of the franchise.
And mentioning “neutronium” doesn’t make it better. It compounds the mistake with another.
Also, to add to what DMDuncan has said, many fans seem to think the science in Star Trek is based on fact. Well, they’re only 5% right, since most of the science that the various Treks have based theirs on is 95% theory. Things like warp speed, artificial gravity, alternate universes/timelines, time travel, phasers, transporters, tachyon particles are all theoretical, either “invented” by various writers or postulated by scientists and physicists. This is also where suspension of disbelief is crucial, since nobody knows how or if these things work.
Star Trek is known for science…..as in concepts and ideas, but not facts.
Star Trek is not like Harry Potter where you have one talented woman in charge of the story beginning to end. Star Trek is more like a song in several alternate universes where several different Sinatras sung it their way.
@ 99
First “Inception” was not aimed at teenagers. Action propelled the film and had purpose. There was no fear of exposition because the concept was complicated. It was okay to let the audience think. When you invite the audience to think about the ideas in the movie, I consider that cerebral. Second, the film dealt with the concept of reality. While science can measure reality, it’s the mind that determines it.
“Star Trek” (2009) was aimed at teenagers. If you remember the original series, the crew was in their late twenties to their thirties. The new crew is anywhere from seventeen (Chekov) to McCoy’s mid-thirties. They didn’t reboot the movie during the five year mission but when the crew was at the youngest. And it’s great to have very young people in movies but if your demographic is teenagers then you’re going to make the movie for them. For example, right after the emotional open, the movie doesn’t breathe but goes right into the corvette chase that ends up with it going over the cliff, all to the hard rocking music of the Beastie Boys. This is not your father’s Star Trek.
There’s more to the idea that Star Trek (2009) was designed to appeal to teenagers and less to one’s intellect. Remember, the filmmakers inspiration was Star Wars. Star Wars is not science fiction. Star Trek is science fiction. J.J. Abrams says on his preferrence for Star Wars, “ALL MY SMART FRIENDS LIKED STAR TREK. I PREFERRED A MORE VISCERAL EXPERIENCE..” (Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 29) To paraphrase Roger Ebert, big colorful action has taken over ideas. (See Roger Ebert’s review, link below. ) The camera can’t stay still. Characters yell and fly through dialogue. Not your father’s Star Trek.
Here’s more. Get out the Star Trek (2009) DVD (disc 2) with the deleted scene, “Prison Interrogation and Breakout.” It’s a glorious scene on the Klingon prison planet. Why was this cut? At the 2:30 mark, J. J. Abrams says, “It made the audience think too much.” Now there’s nothing wrong with the audience thinking unless the purpose of your movie is to be a visceral experience dictated by action.
Okay, I want to reitierate I liked Star Trek (2009). The special effects were spectacular. Loved the Vulcan scenes. At times, I wasn’t sure it was Star Trek but a cross between Star Wars, Star Trek, and Starship Troopers. Still, it’s a fun movie.
Since I made more negative remarks than positive about Star Trek (2009), I feel I must obey the Edict of Chadwick (@ 20) and balance it with a positive remark. By your command, Chadwick….
Positive Remark: “I love Uhura’s go-go boots.”
Roger Ebert’s review cited above.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997
117
“Star Trek” may have been written to appeal (partially) to teens, but that is because J.J Abrams wanted to bring in younger fans. And the only way he could do that was to bring in some “Star Wars” vibe in terms of action and pacing. But there were still plenty of adult moments in the movie, including the Kelvin scene as well as when Spock Prime met young Kirk. They needed to re-energize the franchise so that is why leaned towards including a bit of sex to spice things up. I suspect that since the crew have come together to defeat Nero and save Earth, the sequel will be a little more “grown up” to parallel the growing maturity of the crew, Kirk in particular. So you have nothing to worry about.
And by the way, J.J Abrams is a fan of the original trilogy, not the prequels. So any influence came from the classic films. And its not necessarily a bad thing to add a bit of ‘Wars’ to Trek from time to time. The space battle in “First Contact”, where the fleet is attacking the Borg Cube, was inspired by the fighters attacking the Death Star in “Star Wars”. As long as Star Trek remains Star Trek, there should be no problems.
I do agree with you on “Inception”. Great movie and another Christopher Nolan classic.
117. Basement Blogger – November 27, 2010
I disagree. I don’t think it was aimed exclusively at any one group. Teenagers? Sure, but no way only. I’m not a teenager and I had more trouble getting some of ST.09’s plot points than anything in Inception. I doubt, for instance, many teenagers who saw ST.09 but who did not read the debates over it this past year on this site, can identify how or which part of the movie implied MWI as the most comprehensive explanation for the events of the film.
The movie targets multiple groups simultaneously and, I think, successfully. That’s part of why it’s so cool. It isn’t Transformers.
I also don’t agree with Ebert on ST.09 OR TMP, which he LIKED, whereas Gene Siskel did not. I like TMP because I’m a fan, as opposed to because it is a good movie, which I don’t think it really is.
#114
As I said before, you can either roll with it or not. Some care enough about these things (Robert Wise) to eventually change them… and some perhaps don’t (The Supreme Court) and want to focus more on the spirit of Trek rather than get bogged down with the minutiae. It’s up to whoever is in charge, just as it’s up to fans to care about these little things or not. Either way, as long as there are fans there will be complaints.
And I’m not just talking about Star Trek fans but fandom in general, whether it be movies, sports, music, stamp-collecting, etc., etc…..
117: “Here’s more. Get out the Star Trek (2009) DVD (disc 2) with the deleted scene, ‘Prison Interrogation and Breakout.’ It’s a glorious scene on the Klingon prison planet. Why was this cut? At the 2:30 mark, J. J. Abrams says, ‘It made the audience think too much.’ Now there’s nothing wrong with the audience thinking unless the purpose of your movie is to be a visceral experience dictated by action.”
I’ll take your word that you quoted him properly as saying “It made the audience think too much.” But then you say, in your own words: “Now there’s nothing wrong with the audience thinking unless the purpose of your movie is…”
See what you did? JJ said “think too much,” and you translated that as “thinking” as if to say ANY thinking was TOO MUCH thinking.
Obviously this is not true, since several scenes, including the scene between the two Spocks at the end depend very much on you thinking to understand them and how they reflect on the events of the movie. If you don’t think about that scene between the Spocks, I don’t see how you can understand the part MWI plays in the entire movie at all since it isn’t until then that MWI is definitively implied.
I think at that point of the movie JJ was talking about — the beginning — he was going for a fast start and the Klingon scene really slowed things down. In fact, I don’t miss it at all. Except for the Shatner scene, which I think he was completely wrong about, I agree with all his editing decisions.
A lot of the disagreements I’ve had with fans here over the past year seem to come down to battles over what ST.09 IS. I disagree with those who try to say ST.09 is either this thing or that. Actually, it’s not any one thing; it does multiple things simultaneously, and it does them all well, and that’s part of why it’s so cool. It works as a fun action movie AND as a more challenging puzzle AND as a very clever cosmic rebirth myth. It successfully made new fans AND kept plenty of established ones too. And it did all that while being recognizably Star Trek on a bigger scale than ever before.
As always, Chris Pine looks and sounds great. I am pleased that some people who have seen Unstoppable liked it. I have to wait till the new year till I get to see the movie…:(, but it all seems very promising.
When I saw the new Star Trek movie, I never thought Star Wars for a second. I was just pleased to meet those great characters from my favourite television series again, albeit slightly younger and played by a new cast. My heart pumped with excitement at seeing them again. I could see them emerging as the movie played out, especially “my captain”. I wasn’t sure about the overly bright bridge, silly ugly monster stuff and inappropriate lens flares but it really does not detract from the overall enjoyment. I have watched the DVD many times.
Every time I hear/read the letters JJ (as in JJ Abrams), I never think of Jar Jar Binks ( whoever it/he was in Star Wars – been a while since I have watched any Star Wars), I think of a creature who is way better imo. Jay Jay is our labrador-cross bitch’s mother, who lives with her owners a few doors’ away from us. Jay Jay is one lovely dog, just like her daughter, our dog Shadow. JJ Abrams/Jar Jar Binks – indeed. No way – not here. I don’t know what Mr Abrams might think if he knew this, but when I hear people denigrate others by using names of animals, I always want to apologise to the animals, especially if those people are really nasty, horrible individuals.
Reading through these last few replies (interesting!) and I have to say a few things.
I kinda resent the implication that “written for teens” or in many cases “kids” is often used to indicate substandard material or to excuse bad material away.
On the contrary, a film for young people should be that much more full of depth to be able to grow with the child, enabling them to glean further meaning from it later in life, as opposed to looking back through nostalgia-tinged glasses only to realize that the thing you used to love, actually kinda sucks.
I also don’t think the youth of the characters involved is automatically indicative of lesser depth for the material, either.
Someone made a point about Trek being more about scientific ideas as opposed to actual science and I agree. But I think what makes Trek stand apart and what filmmakers should continue to strive for is design and ideas of a quality that actually have a chance of coming to fruition, as many already have.
As for the Klingon breakout scene?? At least for me, I would not have included it for the silliness that was tossing up the papers and a Klingon having a very posh British accent. Also “the plot plant”, that was threatening slug usage felt a bit too predictable and cliche.
It’s a shame, because I really dug everything about that weird-eyed alien snitch.
As for what it is? I absolutely agree with dmduncan’s assessment. I also believe a lot of disagreements come down to what it was vs. what one expected it to be.
Folks often say I expected this and got that, therefore it sucks.
Very little criticism is based on whether it was good for what it was going for.
Well I hope the sequel will be more grown up :) just to please some disappointed fans anyway fans are entitled to their opinions.
@ 122, 123
I refer to J.J. Abrams commentary to the deleted scene. Yes, take my word for it because I actually watched it again to make sure I got the quote correct. Check it out. By the way, you’ll note that I like to cite my references when I can. And remember, Abrams quotes his love of of Star Wars versus Star Trek, “All my smart friends liked Star Trek. I preferred a more visceral experience.” (Entertainment Weekly, 10 -24 -08, pg. 29. first paragraph)
If Abrams cut the scene because it confused the audience, he could have said so. Frankly, having the Narada captured by the Klingons would explain what happened to Nero for twenty some years. We’re left to assume that he spent the years moving around the Alpha Quadrant looking for Spock. But in fact, the captrure by Klingons is hinted at when Uhura explains that a number of Klingon ships were destroyed right before the Narada attacks Vulcan. (Dorm room scene; and multiple times on the bridge.) The reason for the cut, “thinking too much” by the audience. Must get to the next action sequence.
Second, I never said during the film, it didn’t make you think. But the primary purpose of the movie is not science fiction, say like “Moon” or even a better mix of action and intellect like “District 9.” When you’re worried about “thinking too much”, you start cutting things to make it more accessible to the lowest common denominator. The year of 2009 was a great year for science fiction film. The Hugo for best dramatic presentation went to”Moon” a film which had no space battles, or laser fights. I would have voted for District 9.
Third, can’t agree with you on the two Spocks scene if you’re saying that parallel universes are explained. That’s because,”I’M A BLOGGER NOT A PHYSICIST.” I’m holding in my hand the fan collective of Star Trek TV episodes on time travel. Each one espouses the theory that you run the risk of polluting the timeline by going back into time. And you bettter watch out for the Department of Temporal Investigations. (DS:Trials and Tribble- ations.) In fact, Janeway confronts her fomer self in the Voyager finale! So, according to Star Trek, one can confront themselves in the past without creating a parallel universe. And don’t tell me that Star Trek (2009) is the correct view of time travel. Until our alien friends from Zeti Reticuli, assuming they like us, tell us, we don’t know. I do think the parallel universe theory is the better theory but again we don’t know.
The better way to do the parallel universe theory is to explain it. And no, it’s not dumbing down to the audience. There’s plenty of exposition in “Inception.” That film did not dumb down the audience. Discussing a complicated idea in a film is not dumbing down the audience. It actually allows the film to breathe and let the audience think about it. Again, I refer to “Inception.” In the TNG, “Parallels” Data explains it very weill. And it took Data, what two minutes, probably less? They explain it in a explicit way in the original series “Mirror, Mirror.’ And also in the Orci-Kurtzman-Abrams” “Fringe.” That’s done by Walter on the blackboard. But fear of Star Wars One’s ‘midi chlorians” explanation and the need for speed trumps all.
I will agree that Star Trek (2009) works on a few levels. 1) For better or worse, appeal to the largest demographic but aimed at the modern movie audience; Translation: teenagers; 2) Make a lot of money. That’s a great thing. 3) Be a good action movie.
Oops, said a bunch of negative things about Star Trek (2009); by the command of Chadwick (@ 20) , I must say something positive.
Positive comment: Rachel Nichols is a beautiful woman even if she is green.
123
I found the new Trek movie fun but I didn’t find the movie a challenging puzzle. I found it more a fun visceral experience.
I guess it simplified the time travel stuff more so for the mainstream can get it and also try to appease us Trekkies in saying that our Trek is still there.
I do know for a fact that if the new movie had erased everything, like how some fans do feel about the movie, then I would have disowned the movie. But in the way it is done I treat it as a separate entity, I see it as part of the Star Trek legacy but I don’t see it as canon rather than separate canon.
Also I still hate them for destroying Vulcan. I REALLY HATED THAT DECISION by Abrams and the writers.
I agree with Red Dead Ryan what this new movie succeeded in was in the characters, although some were different from the characters I knew and love, like Pegg as Scotty, I still think the character moments were well done. The opening ten minutes of the movie was amazing.
I had a lot of fun watching the movie.
But where as the characters were great and some nice scenes were written by them I have to admit that the plot was al over the place and was extremely thin and I still feel that Nero is one of the worst villains ever created. However, Eric Bana did a good performance despite how bad a villain Nero was.
My problem with is that you need to read the comics to understand his motivation, which is fine with me as I read the Star Trek comics but for the ones who don’t it does seem like Nero is a pissed off child who just wants to destroy the Federation because Spock got there a little late to try and save Romulus.
Also I am getting tired of the “villain out for revenge” plot line which has been used in the last three films in a row.
I won’t defend any haters as I don’t want to spew hate but all I will say I can understand why they feel like that.
I had great love of TOS and the spin offs. Loved them all and I apologise for not being the biggest fan of the new direction of Trek.
Part of me misses the Prime Universe. But I am still looking forward to the new movie.
Yes Red Dead Ryan you are right I do hate the TNG hate.
And I am sorry BUT I do love all the shows and I am a big fan of TOS , TNG and DS9 the most
What do people think of the term “dumbing down”? I used it to describe how simplistic the new movie was in comparison to some of the past Trek. I mean in having no technobabble et all. It Doesn’t mean I am criticising it but using the term to showcase it in comparison with what has gone before. Does that make sense?
Unfortunately dumbing things down is a problem with mainstream Hollywood. Its more about the shiny stuff rather than the good plots.
If you look at mainstream films these days a lot of them are shot so frantic with fast cuts that they seem to be worried that a shot longer than 5 seconds would bore the mainstream. It’s why I am not a fan of the way the new movie is shot if that makes sense.
Its a great movie but the style of shooting and pacing in the new Trek does annoy me as a cinema lover.
I think them destroying Vulcan was a but much but it doesn’t detract from my enjoyment and love of the new movie I may have to agree with that aspect.
Vulcan was a bit much why would they destroy Spock’s planet:(
130
Thankfully because it is a parallel universe I can treat it like Quark from the mirror universe being killed in “Crossover”
It’s still there in the prime universe but still its a very painful part of the movie.
It did provide a great dramatic moment but it is the scene that pulls the rug from under the Trekkie’s feet I feel.
Where most fans happy with the destruction of Vulcan?
Might go and see Unstoppable, it sounds good.
I do believe that Chris Pine is a great actor. He did a good job with Kirk but I am always going to prefer Bill Shatner as Kirk as he defined the role.
I want to see Chris Pine in other roles.
How do most people rate Chris Pine in comparison to Mr Shatner. Or best not to compare the two?
@ 125
I did not say that material written for teens is substandard. But let’s take a movie that was designed for teens, “G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra.” It pounded you in your seats with action until you were numb. That’s bad. It was illogical and no thought was given to the art of actining. And of course it made a bunch of money. So much, that according to a story on this cite,(below) along with Teenage Mutant Turtles, Paramount is looking forward to it being one of the tentpole movies of 2012, along with Star Trek. Will G..I. Joe become the model for major studio releases? I hope not.
The concern is that Hollywood looks to the teen audience for profits. (See NPR article, link below) That’s why you’re getting a lot of superhero movies. That ’s okay if they’re good. But you can forget a film that is as deep as say the beloved “The Inner Light” “The City on the Edge of Forever” and you may not ever get a “ST: IV The Voyage Home.” Yes, I know we’re comparing a couple great TV episodes but can’t we have the same intellectual quality as those shows for the films?
Second, my concern is whether the new Trekker will embrace the old “talky-gooey” Star Trek. If the model for Star Trek is the new movie then I’m worried what Star Trek will become. Will it be all about big colorful action and no longer about ideas, scientific or philosophical? A teenage student loved the new movie and asked me for a list of TOS best episdoes. I havent’ heard back from him, hopefully because he forgot. I certainly hope it’s not because he found “Journey to Babel” boring compared to Star Trek (2009) (And since I’ve worked with teenagers, I agree not all of them are ADHD. In fact some of them are smarter than I am.)
You may not be talking about me but I never said Star Trek (2009) sucked. I saw the movie three times in the theater. Have the DVD. I like the movie but believe it could have been better. My criticisms is one of the voices in the marketplace of ideas. Truth comes out of the multitude of tongues and not of one authoritative selection. Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503, 512 (1969)
Oh, and by the way, that Klingon was not English. It was Canadian Victor Garber who was very scary as spy and sometimes torturer in J.J. Abrams’ “Alias.”
1) Paramount lists as a tentpole, G..I. Joe for 2012
http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/11/viacom-coo-to-investors-we-are-very-excited-about-star-trek-sequel/
2) NPR article, Big Hollywood movies are geared for teenagers
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646
@ 118 Red Dead Ryan
Well said. I see your point. I am looking forward to the new Star Trek film. I just wish CBS and/or Paramount would do something to keep us excited like a CGI TV movie or direct to video CGI feature before 2012. It would be great if they used the voices of William Shatner and Leonard Nimory for it. Of course, the feature would be in the prime universe.
I didn’t take it to heart that they destroyed Vulcan it was made implicit that anything can happen in this universe that no-one is safe anyway captain_neill have you got a tolerance problem it seems to me that you can’t tolerate new trek.
136
Read my post again, I said that although I was unhappy with the decision to destroy Vulcan it doesn’t matter because it is still there in the Prime Universe.
I don’t have a tolerance problem with the new movie, I do own the blu ray and think it has great stuff.
When I went through all the movies I did include the new on in the mix. It is a great movie.
Remember I gave the film 4 out of 5. THere is a lot of stuff I liked in the new movie and I should be focusing on them, not on the gripes that I had with some of the changes. I should focus on the positives.
But I still love the other stuff in Trek as well.
Bottom line I love the new movie but I don’t like it as the best ever one and I apologise if it sounded otherwise in regards to the new movie.
Its Delta Vega, based on the same one seen in TOS. JJ likes doing that kind of stuff, mixing things up in a esoteric way. Like it or hate it, the movie sure makes a lot of people think! :]
Yes people need to focus on the positives not the negatives I must be blind to see anything wrong with the new Star Trek film:) and I don’t care.
127: “I’m holding in my hand the fan collective of Star Trek TV episodes on time travel…So, according to Star Trek, one can confront themselves in the past without creating a parallel universe. And don’t tell me that Star Trek (2009) is the correct view of time travel.”
ST.09 does something completely different than what the book you are holding says, so the book is irrelevant with respect to what ST.09 does.
That’s where a lot of fans got confused, myself included, thinking it was old rules Trek when it was not, which is what the Spocks conversation was about, i.e., by saying that there really were no paradoxes possible with the two Spocks meeting each other, where Spock Prime earlier led Kirk to believe there were, Spock Prime was also confirming the alternate reality scenario mentioned by Uhura on the bridge, and that no paradoxes were possible because it was NOT straight time travel, but paradox resolving MWI time travel where the paradoxes are resolved because they are from different universes. Totally different than what Trek has done before.
And you may be a blogger, not a physicist, but if you’re saying you need to be a physicist to understand what the MOVIE was doing, then that undercuts support for the idea that it’s just a visceral action film aimed at teens.
Also agree with gingerly. Mostly teens at Harry Potter too, but that is a very intelligent series of stories/movies.
127: “Until our alien friends from Zeti Reticuli, assuming they like us, tell us, we don’t know. I do think the parallel universe theory is the better theory but again we don’t know.”
But it’s not a real universe we are talking about. It’s a fictional universe. So the means of discovering what is true there aren’t the same we have for discovering what is true here.
Bob and Alex were the makers, so they are the defacto gods of the universe they created. If you are confused about it and you feel the movie doesn’t tell you clearly enough, there’s no place to go for answers beyond those two, and Bob has already said what their intention was.
I was satisfied, however, by what the movie did and said. Once all the pieces fell into place I was satisfied the original timeline hadn’t been destroyed in the context of the movie.
And really, it isn’t even about what the “correct” view of any piece of science ultimately is, since all the science is a backdrop in good science fiction against which to tell a good story. Even if the science in a good Asimov of Clarke story proved “incorrect” tomorrow, we could still suspend disbelief and enjoy the fiction where the science just helps to create the drama. It’s all speculative anyway, which means it could be wrong. One’s enjoyment doesn’t depend on it being “correct” so much as on it having a good dramatic function in the story.
of = or
109… “Bob ad Alex, and JJ were playing by the established rules of Star Trek by renaming Delta Vega.”
Right… because destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda two scenes earlier didn’t quite tell long-time fans that “this is a different universe now.” Whatever. Look, if you enjoyed the movie and saw no faults in it whatsoever, I’m happy for you. I enjoyed the movie, too, but I don’t deny it has faults. I see faults in TWOK and First Contact as well, movies I rate higher than Trek 2009. It doesn’t mean I don’t like a movie if I find faults with it, and it doesn’t mean I think Mr. Orci is a hack if I point out a fault or two in a public forum.
It would seem the basic intentions of JJ and Co., with regards to Trek09, are pretty obvious — to bring new life to Star Trek, to appeal to a younger generation, to broaden the fan-base, etc. It also seems that the (negative) critics of the film believe these intentions have ruined Star Trek.
Whether one likes the film or not, I don’t think anyone can argue that the writers and producers achieved their intentions. I would imagine, from their point of view, they believe they hit a home run by achieving what they set out to achieve. Their mission — to bring Star Trek back to life — was a success.
I believe, once the film opened, if enough people came out of the theaters with a negative view of Trek09, it would not have gone on to become the major hit that it was. If enough “pro” film critics came out with “thumbs down,” that may have persuaded a good number of people to skip the film, or wait for the dvd release. And, as the dvd release, itself, also saw huge sales (upwards of $100, 000, 000, I believe), it would indicate a fair number of people who saw the film liked it enough to want to own it. There is plenty of evidence that the film was successful and achieved what it set out to do.
The only thing left for negative critics is to simply say, “I didn’t like the movie.” One can nit-pick the film to death, but that is all simply based on one’s not liking the film. If one liked the film, not one jot of “nit-picky” stuff makes a shred of difference. If one liked the film, there is no problem — even if one wishes to question issues like “Delta Vega.” It’s only if you didn’t like the film that there are problems. And if those problems are enough to raise your blood pressure and bring you to the point of vomiting insults at the writers and producers, or, worse, other fans, then there are bigger problems than the movie.
In a civilized, Trek-loving world, Anthony shouldn’t have to be telling us to keep things civil. That should be a given. I urge people to consider the fact that the planet Earth — in real life — has serious problems that truly need our attention, rather than wasting such precious energy arguing about a fictional movie. As much as we all love Star Trek, we should keep things in perspective, hmm?
144
Agreed, if you look hard enough you can find faults with most films and shows.
144: “Right… because destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda two scenes earlier didn’t quite tell long-time fans that ‘this is a different universe now.’”
Destroying Vulcan said nothing about an alternate universe since if it was old Trek rules it might have been the destruction of the past Vulcan of the Prime universe.
That’s what a lot of fans actually thought happened.
In the next movie most everything will again be different. So;
I WILL NOT be surprised when after watching Star Trek 2012(?), that
I WILL NOT really do not know if it’s the same universe as in Star Trek 2009.
When it comes to Star Trek, you can hit the reset button almost after every story. To me, that speaks for the level of continuity of Star Trek for the past 40 years – Including TOS. And that is also why many of the people I know really just don’t care about Trek anymore. There is ZERO consistency.
All I know is that if the next Trek movie is about an insane villain out to destroy Earth or some other planet/civilization with a superweapon… well, let’s just say I’ll be seeing something else that weekend.
Sorry, but the whole villain-out-to-blow-things-up is getting tiresome. I don’t know, maybe a quest storyline would be refreshing… as long as it’s not about an entity at the center of the galaxy wanting to buy a slightly used starship. ;)
#149
I agree. I don’t have a problem with a villain for the sequel, but let’s get away from the “madman bent on revenge” angle. It’s been done to death in Star Trek, and done to extinction in Hollywood. Some of the best villains in Trek weren’t evil or vengeful, just people who had different agendas which either broke the law/Constitution or put the Federation at risk of war.
Admirals Leighton and Pressman come to mind. Guys who believe they are doing the right thing but for the wrong reasons. And yet they remain rational and the audience can understand and maybe even support their motives.
@134
I think you misinterpreted my points. I wasn’t making accusations. I was saying that often when people say a modern film is bad, and they justify that this is because it was aimed at young people to explain why that is…
It buys into false notion, because that isn’t really the problem. The problem is people’s perception of what aiming at teens or kids means, be that the producers or those criticizing a film.
As I said, it is in many ways a far greater challenge making a film worthy of young people (with the capability of this film growing with them) than it is to make a straight forward “adult” film.
Why?
Because a great family or children’s movie has the extra burden of working on several different levels, maintaining a high standard of story-telling, without the easy adult fallback trappings (expletives and excessive violence or sexuality) while not talking down to any of it’s audience,… including the adults chaperoning them.
So, really the greatest challenge the sequel has, and one success I don’t think Star Trek ‘09 gets enough credit for (I honestly think it should have been PG-rated) is being a great family adventure film.
Making it for teens isn’t an insult, unless you make things of a lesser quality because they are teens.
How many movies JJ is going to produce before the franchise moves to other people?
Correction to @ 117
The complete comment made by J.J. Abrams was “it made the audience think too much, [too early in the film.]” The material in the parenthetical is the correction. I’m sorry that got left out. I did not mean it, I missed it on my post it note.
The discussion was about which film was more cerebral, Inception or Star Trek (2009) . I still stand by the evidence that Star Trek (2009) was a movie inluenced by Star Wars, designed to be more ” visceral” than cerebral.
(digression)If they don’t put in a reference to Commander Adams of the NCC-57-D *now*, well, shame on them.(/digression)
154.
How strange that you mention that today……..Leslie Neilsen just died.
RIP Leslie Nielsen
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/ForbiddenPlanet1-2.jpg
Star Trek 2009 was one of the best films I’ve seen in a long, long time. I love that we get to see new adventures with Kirk, Spock and the crew. I’m glad that it starts things over and was not afraid to take a risk with destroying vulcan and such.
I also believe the “alternate universe” was just a way as to not make fans upset and boycott the film. Nero went back and changed the timeline, just like the Borg in First Contact tried to do, except there was no “reset” button available to undo his actions. I’m fine with that because my DVD collection is still there, unaffected, lol
I find it very interesting that Leslie Nielsen portrayed the first starship captain*, followed years later by William Shatner. Both men are Canadian.
*(Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers don’t count)
Got to hand to you Canadians, Harry.
Thanks, TMMW. I just thought, with the U.S. having 10 times the population of Canada, it was an interesting fact. Plenty of good actors in the U.S., but it just happened to work out that way!
It’s not just Nielsen and Shatner. There are quite a few Canadians that have made it big in American entertainment. You guys have something special in the water up there, Harry, or what? :)
Vultan
I attribute it to the fact that we, in Canada, have the distinct advantage of viewing your wonderful country from “a distance”, and therefore have our own spin on, what we think and, how we act out our said perceptions.
Objective observers with a slight flavour of British influence and all that!
Leslie Nielsen was actually related to a high Canadian official. He played his role as captain in Forbidden Planet with great authority — and perhaps this was not coincidental; he himself had a certain flair about him that he was humble enough to make fun of in later years. But there is no question in my mind that he had it within him to actually succeed in anything he might have wanted.
There was a generation of actors that proved themselves in the military after, during, or even before success in Hollywood. James Doohan, for example, was one of these. As a Canadian, he participated in the invasion of Normandy during World War II.
Among the Hollywood heroes and movie idols of the world, there were, and doubtless are, real ones who risked their very lives in the service of their respective countries.
RIP, Mr. Leslie Nielsen.
Regarding the intellectual nature of Star Trek, I haven’t really had time to delve into what JJ might or might not think about that, but one thing strikes me as I think about Trek:
A hundred years from now, no one will remember the “visceral” nature of any science fiction film, because by then technology will have made entertainment so much more impressive that things of the senses will be a quantum leap more impressive than anything Hollywood entertainment can work up today.
What will survive a century hence, therefore, is what makes Milton and Shakespeare and, well before them, Aristophanes and even philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle persist to this very day. Likewise, the works of Lao-Tzu and Confucius, for example, are well-known thousands of years after their deaths. The quality of permanence arises not from passing fancy, but from access to truth and fundamental values.
Trek is important not because it appeals to the senses. Trek is a hallmark of Western civilization because it contributes to our sensibility — the continuing dialogue of artists and philosophers that in the past gave rise to our present culture, and even entire fields of inquiry such as science itself, and that proves its virility through not years or decades, but centuries of inquiry borne of fascination.
Trek is art; the movies, as they should be, are also art. And we forget this, it seems to me, only at our peril.
158
Its an alternate universe, if it erased everything I would have disowned the movie.
Only thing is that it could have been explained better. Its a cool movie but it is a parallel reboot to the Trek I love.
Sorry to be so blunt but I would have been very angry if they had erased everything.
Leslie Nielsen was one of my favorites. Of course, I will always remember him for his role in “Forbidden Planet.” But when he eventually began doing comedy, it came to a point where I would crack up just seeing his face. His dry, deadpan deliveries were right on the mark. I remember a scene where Detective Drebin bursts into a girl’s dressing room, gun in hand.
GIRL: Is this some kind of bust?
DREBIN: Yes, it’s very impressive.
In the land of Hollowood remakes, where was the Forbidden Planet?
169. TrekMade
There’s speculation that Cameron is going to remake it. Another film I don’t think should be messed with.
The main reason why Original Trek failed, was that everyone involved and the fans refused to be critical of it and let it just go down and down and down in quality. Most likely, all the new Trek fans will repeat the sins of the past, keep their blinders on, accept everything force fed to them and without a speckle of criticism, everything will become complacent and the quality will go down and down and down. Maybe, just maybe, there are those few of us left who care enough to want to see the best Trek possible, and have the courage enough to speak out, in efforts to improve the product. Some people just have a problem with that and that I don’t understand.
171
Old Trek never failed.
It just got over milked.
I never see changes as improving a product, just making it fresh. Improving makes it sound like the Original Series got it wrong and that I don’t agree with ad this is the show that started it.
166: it’s all good. But that was exactly why it was written as a alternate universe, to avoid exactly what you said would happen, a vast majority of “old fans” would disown it. Don’t get me wrong, it was a smart move, but from my little weird nitpicky part of me, it just made the plot of many Trek episodes that dealt with time travel rather pointless. Why go back and fix the problem if all it would do is create an alternate reality and have zero effect on the current one.
Smart move.
171. John
“…Maybe, just maybe, there are those few of us left who care enough to want to see the best Trek possible, and have the courage enough to speak out, in efforts to improve the product. Some people just have a problem with that and that I don’t understand…”
I do agree with you to a point.
But first, I don’t think there are “few left who care enough to want to see the best Trek possible.” I think ALL Trek fans want the best Trek possible, and I believe JJ & Co. gave us the best Trek they possibly could. Now, one may not have cared for it, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t give it their all. Obviously, what is “best” for one person is “not best” for another person, based entirely on one’s preferences and perspective.
However, I agree, everyone should feel free to make whatever criticisms they want. I don’t know how much that criticism will guide the writers and producers, but we know that Bob Orci has read pretty much everything people have had to say on these boards, and perhaps he finds some of it useful.
For me the issue here is HOW people present their criticisms. The planet is swarming with snobbish, snotty, sarcastic individuals and some of them find their way here. They really offer nothing of value, and are, apparently, only yammering to stir up some conflict.
Constructive criticism and intelligent debate are what makes these boards so interesting, and we are not obligated to agree with each other. When someone challenges our point of view it should cause us to work our brain a little more, rather than causing any mean-spirited tirades. What I don’t understand is how some people become so vehemently angry and sarcastic when debating points of view over a simple movie. I just find that highly illogical…
#164
Yes, I don’t know how many years I’d watched Doohan playing Scotty without knowing he was a veteran of Normandy, but let’s just say my respect for him quadrupled after learning that. Like James Stewart and Clark Gable, he was a hero in both real life and in Hollywood Land.
Anyway, didn’t Doohan lose the end of one finger in the battle? I know he was always trying to hide it while on screen.
175. He lost the whole finger, middle one, during battle. You can see this in the Trouble with Tribbles. Most visible.
Leslie’s got company.
Irvin Kershner has joined him the the great beyond.
Thank you Irvin, what I know of you is limited, but “Empire” was Great!
176.
How did Doohan ever manage to drive in L.A. traffic while missing his all-important middle finger?
#176
Ah, that’s right. I was thinking of Lee Van Cleef, who had the end of one finger missing. It can be seen in the finale of “The Good, The Bad & The Ugly” during the close-ups of his gun hand. Supposedly, he lost it while building a play house for his young daughter. Not exactly D-Day… but honorable nonetheless.
Anyway, RIP Irvin Kershner. He was the best director Star Wars ever had and (judging from the film’s audio commentary) a very nice, intelligent man.
Star Trek doesn’t remind me of Star Wars. It reminds me of Superman.
dmduncan
why is that?
I for one was very impressed with the new Trek. It limited the technobabble and went back to the original crew of characters. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, the action over adventure element, I could see why they went that route. The movie was of it’s time. Nowadays, action action action and adventure go a long way. Granted, most of us Trek fans want a movie with some sense of the unknown and do not need a major villian with a beef to pick with the good Captain, but that would only satisfy us Trek fans, not the mass of humanity. Besides, we have hundreds of episodes of adventures into the unknown. Right now, I do not think that us Trek fans alone can hook a Trek movie up with enough box office revenue so that a sequel of equal or greater budget is approved, if at all.
Also, the mass of humanity out there is familiar with both JJ Abrams and Kirk, Spock, McCoy, a great combo if I may say. That would have been like getting Speilberg to do a Trek movie back in the 80’s.
New Trek may have had a “few” instances of out there plot developments…such as the 8 year difference between Kirk getting his Gold Tunic of Awesomeness, and the changes in the Big E. It still was easy to blow off (easier then the way Shatner Kirk died, and the 2002 obsession with Clones and Picard whimpiness that gave way to Star Trek: Nemesis) and enjoy.
Admiral Kirk said it best…”Young Minds, Fresh ideas. Be tolerant.”
Oh, and by the way, that was not meant to diss Nemesis. I enjoyed aspects of the story. Other things bugged me, such as the Clone (we just had Episode II), the total ineptitude of Captain Picard in the end, giving up like that..lame, and the fact that it came out only a few days before Two Towers. Death of TNG.
Now, that was meant as a diss on Generations. I hate that movie, and will not watch it unless I have too. That was not cool at all to kill the Captain, especially in the way it was done. Destroying the D, fine by me, was ugly anyways and pretty whimpy ship if you think about it, but kill Captain Kirk..NO!
“Star Trek” doesn’t remind me of either “Star Wars” or “Superman”. It reminds me of Star Trek. Classic Star Trek.
Along those same lines, Karl Urban reminds me of DeForrest Kelley.
More McCoy. More Kirk-Spock-McCoy moments for the sequel, please!
RIP to both Irvin Kershner and Leslie Nielson. Both made great contributions to the world of entertainment, though in different ways.
They were both geniuses in their respective fields.
They’re never truly dead if we find a way to remember them. :-)
#170
If anybody does a remake of “Forbidden Planet”, it should be Duncan Jones, who directed “Moon”. He did a terrific job on that film. It was classic sci-fi. “Moon” has an independent-film quality to it. Something a “Forbidden Planet” remake would need for it to work.
182
Fair enough. I must be the only Trek fan who can watch Star Trek Generations.
I don’t find it a bad film but it does have flaws. I think like the new movie it relies on major plot contrivances to get the characters from point A to point B.
In the new movie the whole Delta Vega sequence is very convenient to get Alt Kirk and Prime Spock together, in Generations the Nexus to get Kirk and Picard together. Of course Star Trek XI is the stronger movie but pointing out that the movies had to have contrivances in the plot to get the plot going.
To me Star Trek XI was stronger on the characters than it was on the plot.
I don’t see it as a complex movie unlike some of the past Trek episodes, I see it as a fun movie and I don’t see the film as more complicated than Inception.
The complex stuff was mentioned more so than being really developed.
And Technobabble is cool, but I do admit it got overused and sometimes became the deus ex machina solution. But I still like it.
I don’t mind it being dropped but if they start saying things like Swirly thing alert or push the big blue button then it will be a case of having technobabble.
183
Can I ask if you see new movie as parallel universe?
I think the new movie captures the fun of the original series but I do feel JJ Abrams leans more towards the Star Wars vibe with the story.
As well as being a fun adventure that explore humanity through Kirk, Spock and Bones I d find that TOS had some of the best sci fi ideas ever.
The spin offs also had some ideas as well.
It had action but there was something more as well.
Bottom line who do you prefer as Kirk Shatner or Pine?
I will always prefer Shatner but like Pine’s performance.
Very true, captain_neill. Well said. One of the little neat things about the original series was using intuition, Logic and emotion to win the day, not setting the deflector array to do this and that and the other.
I do hope they avoid that road with new Trek. I also want more Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I wished that they would have focused on how the three of them came to work together to overcome the threat of Nero.
Also, why did Spock and Kirk have to hate each other? That was not cool. Maybe not feel like they could work together, but show a little respect early on.
Now, my idea for the opening would have had Nero time warp into the path of the Farragut and have Kirk fumble in a way that would have left him feeling a lot more unsure of himself then the Vampire Cloud left him. Make him the soul survivor and have Original Spock come back around the time that Kirk would have been Captain anyways. That could have been used to explain that the threat of Nero caused all the Constitution class ships to be refitted to something more affective then the original Farragut proved to be. Old Spock just sounded silly asking 25 year old Kirk why he was not the Captain. Hello, 8 years too soon Spock.
William Shatner will ALWAYS BE KIRK to me, but I really enjoyed Chris Pine and I refer to him as the Captain when I see him on movies. I think of it as I do a Bond actor.
The new movie…I personally see it as the Time Line is screwed up and what happend will not happen the same way, but will still happen in the overall way of things. Picard will still be Captain of the Enterprise, Data will still be found and the Dominion and the Borg will still be enemies. Just things will happen a bit different. Maybe because the Narada was part Borg, the Borg (and V’ger? will arrive a bit earlier. Maybe Khan will drift off course or was encounted by Nero or Klingons during his wanderings. Klingons, as a space fleet, are crippled and may seek peace with the Federation, or see the Feds as being weakend and attack while they can. Who knows.
Think of the possibilites for future shows? Yummy!
186
At the same time I don’t want them to dumb it down any more for the mainstream crowd.
I see the new movie as a parallel universe, if it screwed everything up then I would not be happy. Besides there is still prime universe books and Online is in the prime universe.
or better yet, the Andromidans may invade or Human Fusion Klingons will get screen space (little nod to pre-TNG Trek cannon based from Starfleet Battles and FASA Star Trek.)
Speaking of FASA Trek, the Starship Tactical Combat Simulator was a kick-@$$ trek board game and tons of fun to simulate battles. The Excelsior was the thug of starfleet. Fun times!
Both stories begin with destruction where the father dies saving the son. So Clark and Kirk both lose their dads. Both of them are very talented, growing up in podunk towns.
That’s also Luke’s story somewhat, but Kirk more closely matches Clark Kent’s story.
When its William Shatner, its Captain Kirk
When its Chris Pine, its the man who plays Kirk in the new movie.
187
Also the last thing I want to see is this new team ‘reboot’ every great classic episode. So be careful about that wish.
I am dead against a redo of Khan. God I am fed of reboots and remakes.
188…the lovely thing about Sci-fi. It is whatever you want it to be. Official cannon is overrated. I prefer to believe that Shatners books are Cannon and that Kirk is alive and trying to find out how to recover Spock Prime somehow. I also prefer to ignore most of Enterprise. Sci-Fi gives us fans that right.
Now, if only we can get Prequel Star Wars and Special editions to be viewed as Alternate Universe…….
181. Harry Ballz – November 29, 2010
dmduncan
why is that?
Sorry! 190 was for YOU Mr. Harry Ballz.
I’m very against doing past episodes as new movies. I meant that more as books or TV series stuff, not movies.
NO Khan, Kruge, Spocks Brain, Trouble with Tribbles, etc. Klingons as a race for a story, fine by me, just leave out the Organians.
190
Yea it does have elements of Superman The Movie in there and Star Wars Episode IV- A New Hope.
I do feel the new movie worked better on character.
There is an article on trekweb.com about Tim Russ talking about Paramount pitching a new Star Trek TV series. Looks like a new TV series is much closer than we thought. Looks like it will not come as late as some time after the third new movie. I am sure that actors like Tim Russ and their agents would know of something like this because they are always on the look out for jobs.
P.s. basement blogger you still suck
185
I see the movie as being in a parallel timeline. As well as being a preboot. But there were a number of moments in the movie that echoed “The Original Series”, including Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban’s performance as ‘Bones’ and Kirk’s daring rescue of Captain Pike and his command abilities displayed when the Enterprise destroyed the Narada.
Chris Pine has made a fine Kirk, but no one beats the one and only, William Shatner.
One thing, regardless of our opinons that ALL Trek fans should be happy about….we have new TREK!!!! Trek was dead and almost buried but brought back.
It had some rought edges and stretched some logic, but it was new Trek stories with “new” versions of Old Friends. I’m thankful for that alone.
The last Trek that any of us had was “These are the Voyages..” and that was not how I wanted to see Trek go out.
In the final act that was when Pine’s Kirk began to be the Kirk I know.
When he told Sulu to destroy the ship when he had the tactial advantage to take it and not worry about him, that was the Kirk I know and love.
Karl Urban really channeled De kelly as McCoy. He was great even though De Kelly will always be the Real McCoy. See what I did.
Simon Pegg is a case of I love his performance but I felt he turned Scotty too much into comic relief. I know the character had comic moments but I did not see our Scotty in Pegg. But he was fun to watch.
199.
There was one time I saw our Scotty…the “You bet your ass, Captain” when he is running to his station in Engineering. Pay close attention to the man, not the line, and you can make out Scotty that we all know and love. The 3 lines after that…our Scotty. I could see, and did see, him talk that way and behave that way in Episodes. The rest of the movie and before (with the exception of the first transporter scene when Pine Kirk starts becoming KIRK)
Movie original series characters are a different beast in ways then TOS versions.
The only thing missing was Kirk telling him that he “earned his pay for the week.”
I also thought that Sulu was too gloom and doom. He always had a smile on his face in TOS…well, mostly.
forgot to finish the thought….The rest of the movie and before (with the exception of the first transporter scene when Pine Kirk starts becoming KIRK) was comic relief Scotty from Trouble with Tribbles and such.
193.
Yes, thank you, dmduncan. I got that!
@ 177 @ 179
Sorry to hear about the passing of Irvin Kershner, director of “Empire Strikes Back.” We talked about Star Wars on this thread. In a galaxy, far away, I worked at a movie theater and ran the projector. We played Empire. I must seen Empire hundreds of times including the viewings I’ve seen it on TV and DVD. And it never gets tiresome.
Some consider it the best of all Star Wars movies. When it came out, I remember fans complaining about its cliff hanger ending. Yet as time passed, its greatness grew. Beautifully filmed, and well acted. Kudos also go to the writers. George Lucas for the story. Leight Brackett who wrote the screenplay for “The Big Sleep” (1946) and Lawrence Kasdan (Body Heat; Raiders of the Lost Ark) did the screenplay for Empire.
Harry Ballz
I don’t know if you’ve seen “Unstoppable”yet, but if you haven’t, you ought to. I remember you saying how you’re not a fan of Denzel Washington, but it was a really fun movie. Rosario Dawson was great in it as well as Chris Pine. Worth the twelve bucks!
#190
If Trek ‘09 is like Superman: The Movie, then could we possibly see a trio of villains in the sequel?
“Kneel before Kor!”
:D
@ 155 @ 168
Keith Olbermann did a salute to Leslie Nielsen. I’ve linked it below, whoope cushions, Ricardo Montalban and all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#40425261
204.
Ryan, I appreciate the suggestion, but I can’t stand Denzel Washington’s acting style. Twelve bucks? I’ve been in situations where I could watch one of his movies uncut for FREE and I’ve passed!
Sean Penn, Johnny Depp, Edward Norton, Leonardo Dicaprio…..these are talented actors. Mr. Washington has been very lucky in his career.
Two more great actors are Tom Hanks and Morgan Freeman.
You are never going to like the fact that there is new actors playing Kirk, Spock and McCoy
#209
Who is this “you” of which you speak?
More Leslie Nielsen (”Forbidden Planet, 1956)
Nielsen did this promo for Monday Night Football in 2004. The crux of the promo is the mystery of why the Cincinnati Bengals have not been in the prestigious game for years. Well, it’s because they sucked. And they suck today. See Chadwick, I’m not the only one who sucks. (@ 196)
Leslie, I’ve got my whoopie cushion ready. Let him RIP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyhTw3r0-tE
209
While I am am always going to prefer the originals I do like the new actors, they were very good.
Just because I prefer the originals does NOT mean I hate the new guys. Please understand that.
But I grew up with reruns of TOS and then watched the spin offs for 20 years. When we grow up loving those actors in those roles, it’s hard to imagine other people in those roles. WIlliam Shatner and Leonard Nimoy et all defined the roles. So I am always going to prefer them.
But I do like the new cast.
I know there was comic relief in Scotty, but there were also times when Scotty had command of the Enterprise, remember when faced off against the Klingons in Friday’s Child.
At the moment I can’t picture Simon Pegg’s interpretation to assume command. He might do it successfully.
All I am saying is that I think they went further with the comic relief than they had before. I did find the water pipe scene painfully unfunny last time I watched the new movie, yet I liked it more the first time I saw it.
Harry, did you see Glory? Liked Denzel in that one. Freeman as well.
214.
Yeah, I saw it…..m’eh! Freeman, on the other hand, is good in anything!
@ 171 “all the new Trek fans will repeat the sins of the past”
It all works in cycles John from Cincinnati.. let me offer this quote:
“In the cradle of our past, I lay upon my back in a cave so shallow I could penetrate it only by squirming, not by crawling. There, by the dancing light of a resin torch, I drew upon wells and ceiling the creatures of the hunt and the souls of my people. How illuminating it is to peer backward through a perfect circle at that ancient struggle for the visible moment of the soul. All time vibrates to that call: “Here I am!” With a mind informed by artist-giants who come afterward, I peer at handprints and flowing muscles drawn upon the rock with charcoal and vegetable dyes. How much more we are than mere mechanical events! And my anticivil self demand: “Why is it that they do not want to leave the cave?”
-The Stolen Journals
216 god i hope they’re not talking ’bout bringing back tng.
207+208
Denzel Washington was also in “Philadelphia” alongside Tom Hanks. They were BOTH great in that movie. I really think you should check out “Unstoppable”. It’s a chance to see Chris Pine blossom as an actor outside of “Star Trek”.
All of the other actors mentioned in your posts, I agree with. I happen to like Liam Neeson as well as the late Heath Ledger.
Speaking of Liam Neeson, when is he going to grow the beard and make that Abraham Licoln movie with Spielberg? That has Oscar written all over it!
Correction: Lincoln.
219
I think the producers decided to go with someone else.
#216, I doubt that’s going to happen anytime soon, if at all.
Though #171 has a point here. Are we going to be getting a sequel on the level of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?” which most critics threw up on? While the recent Trek movie wasn’t as bad as some people say it is, it certainly isn’t the holy gold standard that some make it out to be.
The worst case scenario is we get something on the level of “Transformers 2″ as the sequel, yet be praised by critics as a “Dark Knight.”
#221
Ah, the John Wilkes Booth family must have threatened to sue. ;)
I would not want to see TNG Redone, although I think Jim Parsons from The Big Bang Theory would make a good data. He kinda reminds me of an antisocial version of the golden android.
Not sure that anyone would care, but there is a Trek tribute song that London Symphony Orchestra released on itunes about 2 weeks after Trek 11 came out in theaters. It combines the original series theme and the Motion Picture theme in a way that is unique and pretty cool. Worth a download.
219-221
I hear Daniel Day Lewis is playing Lincoln. Good choice! Far superior to Liam Neeson, who has such limited range he seems to play the same part in every friggin’ movie!
Hello, I am from Indonesia. Chris Pine is right. JJ Abrams is like a kid in a candy store when he is enthusiastic about doing the sequel of Star Trek. I hope he sees the cool science fiction movie Tron Legacy which will be shown on cinemas on 17th December because it has stunning special effects & cool imagination. The technology behind the movie Tron Legacy can be an input for Star Trek XII.
#225
If that turns out to be true, Harry, it would be a bit ironic since Daniel Day Lewis’ Bill the Butcher killed Neeson’s character in “Gangs of New York.”
The two of them were also in the Mel Gibson version of Mutiny on the Bounty. Small (cinema) world.
You do realise that it was Karl Urban who described JJ Abrams as a “kid in a candy store”. It may be on one of the DVD Special Features section, but I do remember Karl Urban referring to JJ Abrams with those words in an interview in April last year or thereabouts. We are only assuming Chris is talking about JJ Abrams. He may be talking about one of Trek’s other producers, of course, but the “kid in a candy store” does seem to describe well JJ’s enthusiasm and excitement better than anybody else’s.
225
Liam Neeson was great in “Schindler’s List”. I thought he would have made a great James Bond after watching “Taken”. He was good even in “The Phantom Menace”. As well as in “Batman Begins”.
But I do agree with you on Daniel Day Lewis. Great in “Gangs Of New York” as well as “Last Of The Mohicans”.
The year was 1989. In the Academy Award race we had, for Best Actor, Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot and Tom Cruise in Born On The Fourth Of July. When one watched each film, you could see a brilliant, nuanced performance from Lewis and a…..well, a high school play performance from Cruise.
I think Tom Cruise actually thought he was going to win that year…….but, of course, Daniel Day Lewis won the Oscar.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
(wipes tear)
Oh, talk about friggin’ hilarious!! A putz like Cruise trying to go up against a genius like Daniel Day Lewis! Absurd in the extreme!!
230
Tom Cruise stinks like a PILE OF LAST WEEK’S SUN-SOAKED TRASH!!!
Tom Cruise must have sold his soul to the devil….there’s no other explanation for his success in Hollywood all these years!
Well, “Mission Impossible III” didn’t make as much as many had predicted, and nobody has seen his last couple of movies (I can’t remember the titles of them, natch!) so hopefully his career is headed into the dumpster………..where he should have been tossed after his first ever audition!
Also, back in ‘96 everyone was saying how great he was in “Jerry Maguire”. Cuba Gooding, Jr. was another overrated hack who got an Oscar. And the movie was a vastly overrated piece of dog sh*t!
“Show me the money?” How about showing me the barf bag!
And that sappy romance with the overrated smushy face Renee Zellweger was the rotten cherry on top of the turd!
(Sniff!) “You had me at hello!”
I should have just said good-bye at that point, but I ended up torturing myself by watching the entire film!
Wow. How quickly things change. I remember when everyone loved Tom Cruise before the scientology debacle.
I think Tom Cruise did a great job in Interview With a Vampire as Lestat.
It wasn’t just the Scientology debacle…..he also claimed to be an expert on psychiatry when he razzed on Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants while pregnant. And lets not forget his couch jumping tantrum on Oprah’s couch! Plus he sucked ass in “War Of The Worlds”.
I thought Cruise was talentless long before any of his personal antics!
If they do put him in the Trek sequel, he should be put inside a photon torpedo equipped with a radiation-seeking device to blow up a cloaked ship………voila….a “Cruise” missile!
I never thought Tom Cruise was too bad in the films that I have seen him in. He is not bad looking and OK as an actor.
Yeah – the whole Scientology stuff gets to me a bit and it was very rude of him to call out Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants while she was pregnant. He was not her doctor, nor is he any kind of medical professional. Any medical professional would not have done that and indeed has not. Such an arrogant prick.
Clearly, he should have been putting more time into honing his acting skills rather than being a rude ass in public.
How did we get from commenting on what the lovely Chris Pine has said recently to talking about a very average Tom Cruise? Please – back on topic. I’ve already got a headache…
Okay, Ryan, I think most would agree that we’ve wasted enough “ink” on this hack!
Next subject?
I saw one of Tom Cruise’s recent movies. It was called “Valkyrie,” about the attempted assassination of Hitler by his own men. It was pretty good… as historical dramas go.
234. Red Dead Ryan
“I should have just said good-bye at that point, but I ended up torturing myself by watching the entire film!”
And you call yourself a sci-fi fan?
241.
Vultan
let me clarify…..Tom Cruise has been in some well-crafted films. It’s just a shame that it took his involvement to get them made.
Catch-22? Nah, Cruise-22!