JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Still Being Written + Paramount Wants It In 3-D | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Still Being Written + Paramount Wants It In 3-D January 14, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

TrekMovie is back with a quick update on the 2012 Star Trek sequel. Producer JJ Abrams has made some new comments in a couple of interviews that reveals the script is still being worked on, and Paramount wants the film to be in 3D. He also talks about his pending decision whether or not to direct the film. Details below.

 

Abrams gives Trek sequel update on directing, script and 3-D

JJ Abrams has done some interviews at the recent TV Critics Association press tour, promoting his Fox TV series Fringe, but he of course has also got questions about his other projects including the Star Trek film planned for June 29, 2012. Firstly Abrams tells Collider that he has not yet decided if he will direct the film which should go into production this summer, confirming TrekMovie’s previous reporting that he is waiting for the script to make the call:

I guess the idea of not wanting to choose to direct a film, for which I’ve not read a script. It’s a tough decision to make without seeing any pages. That’s not to say that I don’t have all the faith in the world in the spectacular writers. Damon Lindelof, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman are awesome. My hope is that they’ll write the script, it will be great and we can make a fun, exciting sequel to Star Trek

Abrams also confirmed with New York Magazine’s Vulture Blog that the script is still being worked on, noting it "is being written by very smart people. I look forward to reading it."

The producer of the next Star Trek also confirmed talked to NY Mag’s Vulture Blog, telling them Paramount has asked him to consider to make the sequel in 3-D. Like with directing, Abrams said he will await the script, noting:

I have nothing against 3-D in theory. But I’ve also never run to the movies because something’s in 3-D. [As for Trek], as soon as I read the script, if it says, "Somebody pushes a weapon toward the camera in a menacing way," and we think, "That’d be better in 3-D!"… I dunno. What do you wanna see? 2-D or 3D?

Abrams also noted that his style of directing may not fit well with 3-D, saying:

I’m a big fan of whip pans, which is very hard to do in 3-D. You know, when I was in New York fifteen years ago, and I sort of had the flu, I remember turning the TV on. There were these kids in a very dark, kind of muddy movie that was on a local channel, talking about making out. Then you cut to them walking in the forest, and somebody had a paddleball, and they were doing it right to the camera. It was like this weird, experimental Fellini movie. I was like, “What the fuck is this movie?” And it was Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D — without sex, violence, or 3-D! It was genius.

That is a good point. Abrams style of shakeycam (including physically rapping on the film magazine), pans, lens flares, etc. might have to be altered when adding that extra dimension.

Two D or Three D?

It is worth noting that Paramount also wanted the 2009 Star Trek movie to be in 3-D. Abrams decided to stick with 2-D because he felt that since it was his second feature film, adding 3-D would be too much to deal with. Speaking at the Star Trek DVD release event, the director said he was "worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D [movie]". However, at the same event Abrams noted "if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun." This comment makes 3-D sound like a possibility, especially with so many other tentpole films coming out in 3-D, including the next Spider-man film which opens just days after the Star Trek sequel.

But it isn’t clear that even though he is open to it, that Abrams is a big fan of 3-D. Last summer at a Comic Con panel with Joss Whedon, Abrams noted he was " not totally on board" with 3-D. And Abrams latest film Super 8, opening this summer, will not be in 3-D.

What do you think? Should the next Star Trek be in 3-D? Vote in the latest poll. 

 

Expect new crew to return for fourth Star Trek film?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

For more from Abrams on Fringe, Super 8 and more, see full interviews at collider.com and nymag.com


 

Comments

1. Victor Hugo - January 14, 2011

First!(after the reboot)

Welcome back Tony!

About the 3d, We need to see multilayered nebulas, asteroid fields, solar flares (not lens flares) and a bizarre alien forest, not unlike “Avatar”.

No more Earth like “M class” planets please!

2. bobbob - January 14, 2011

yes – more 3d – first?

3. Commander/Captain/Ambassador Spock - January 14, 2011

I still feel that 3D is too much of a gimmick and is not really necessary for film. Now this is not to say that it will never be really really useful and good in movies, but I just don’t see it being all that great at the moment.

Then again, it is one step closer to the holodeck.

Here’s hoping J.J. directs!!!!

4. The First Son of Krypton - January 14, 2011

I still hate 3D, it dosent add anything to the films ambience.

5. Gigastazio - January 14, 2011

Agreed – if you’re going to do 3D, make it worth my while. Give me deep, beautiful landscapes and space scenery to feast my eyes on. Well-crafted eye candy.

Stay away from planned action shots and that blow-em-up-in-yer-face and oh-there’s-that-giant-flying-chunk-of-thing-that’s-gonna-make-me-duck schlock that makes 3D the bad cliche that it is.

6. Hat Rick - January 14, 2011

3D could work.

7. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 14, 2011

3D isn’t any better now than in the 80s, no matter what anyone says. I regret having seen Avatar on screen in 3D. Eventually, I’ll watch it again in 2D, and be able to focus on the story better.

Points to Abrams for referencing Fellini….

8. Ian - January 14, 2011

EFF no to 3D! It’s an over-priced and over-used gimmick.

9. JKP - January 14, 2011

3D films are too dark. Stick to 2D please, JJ.

10. MJ - January 14, 2011

I can just see it now — lens flares in 3D — argh!!!

11. Sprout - January 14, 2011

“Avatar” was made to be blown away by the 3D, if you want to focus on the story, just watch “FernGully: The Last Rainforest.”

Trek in 3D. Why not? Warp would be pretty cool.

12. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 14, 2011

Abrams, baby, what kind of message does it send if you don’t direct? It’s like a vote of no confidence. I understand if you want to see the script first, but you’re practically in charge… make sure it is worthy of your directing it!

And, to you writers — Kurtzman, Lindelof, Orci — please, please, please make the story deeper than Star Trek XI. Believe me, I enjoyed the movie as much as any of the fans (or at least any of them over 25), with its fast pacing and high degree of action. I acknowledge that Star Trek XI wasn’t without some depth to it. But now, it’s time to take a page from some of the best, most thought-provoking TOS episodes, and bend our minds!

13. Dee - January 14, 2011

First it doesn’t matter to me if the film is in 2D or 3D … I want to see a great sequel to Star Trek!

And JJAbrams will direct the movie or not …? hmmm … one wonders if he decides not to direct the film … is because the script is bad? … either way is what everyone will think, is not it?

I suspect that JJAbrams will be the director! … LOL! I HOPE …

14. MJ - January 14, 2011

As long as it is fully shot in 3D, I am fine with it. But no way would I support a 3d conversion.

15. Ryrun - January 14, 2011

The production and style of the first film was so unique and great. I really feel like doing the next film will take away from the style and look making it corny. 3D wouldn’t help the story telling element necessary to make a great Trek film. Leave it out make another great story based film and not some gimmicky “oh look the rocks are falling right in front of my face” – There is a place for 3D and it gets better every year but leave it to the films that need it as a story telling device and let Trek be great because of why it has always been great the story and the relationships and life lessons.

16. keachick - January 14, 2011

I don’t want Star Trek to be in 3D, unless he is able to give us scenes as described by #5 Gigastazio. Otherwise, just give a good movie that is well paced, character driven with a good story and lots of fun, love and beauty. Some of the world’s finest movies were actually 2D movies…;)!!

Welcome back, Anthony. My guess was wrong or was it? I said you would be back Monday morning 17 January. Are you here for the long haul? I’m sure you’ve seen what’s been going on with one of the threads. Be gentle now with that batleth, if you must use it…:)

17. Dac - January 14, 2011

For films which take place in a “dream” world, 3D is OK. Namely Pandora and The Grid in Avatar and Tron. However, JJ spent a LOT of time in the first film using real locations and such to make the film/ship feel “real”. While I wasnt a big fan of the brewery Engine room, It did add a realness that I feel shooting in 3D will take away.

Skip 3D. Shoot an alien planet sequence in HDR Video. Be a first for a film to do so – THAT would be otherworldy, look fantastic and put it in a history book.

18. Dac - January 14, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlcLW2nrHaM

Imagine an alien planet action sequence shot like that. It would be the most alien thing seen in a big budget movie for a while, and could start a bullet time like trend.

19. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 14, 2011

@10 — a comment that perfectly illustrates modern viewers’ complete inability to appreciate substance over style. James Cameron is quite skillful at blending story with action, and Avatar is no exception.

I don’t watch Jerry Bruckheimer flicks, for example, and I don’t care if they are 3D. Just don’t cheapen good drama with immature technology.

When I was 10, I went to see Jaws 3-D. It was complete dreck, obviously. Even at 10, I could tell that (1) the story was inane, (2) the 3D was a complete gimmick, and crucially, (3) no amount of 3D could save that film-abortion. I’m serious when I say that 3D 2010 is not technologically improved over 3D 1983.

20. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 14, 2011

^ Oh, sorry, Avatar is from 2009… same point about the 3D, though

21. Victor Hugo - January 14, 2011

I wanna watch “Requiem for Methuselah” in 3d!

22. That One Guy - January 14, 2011

If the story is good, I’m glad. If they do it RIGHT in 3D, I’m on board. I would never support a 3D conversion though.

3D is here to stay, I feel. Get used to it.

23. Spectre-7 - January 14, 2011

I don’t care as long as I can buy a non-3D blu ray

I totally agree with # 17!

24. Tyrone Alfonso - January 14, 2011

3D has it’s place in the world but this isn’t it. I have always preferred the sharp image quality and color to the novelty of 3D.

I rarely see a movie in 3D only. I always end up going back and watching it again later in 2D and it’s always better. (including Tron and Avatar)

Although having the choice is nice, I say don’t waste the effort, most people are learning 3D isn’t worth the higher price.

25. keachick - January 14, 2011

JJ Abrams is being a fool. He does have some idea of the storyline. The writers are part of his production company, Bad Robot.

Abrams – Yay or Nay? Stop the teasing. It is pathetic. This indecision etc can’t be good for the morale of the cast and crew either.

If the answer is no, then they need to find another director who is as good, if not better.

Surely, the Star Trek sequel should already be in the pre-production phase, but it isn’t. Come on, you guys. Focus. Start “rattling those dags”.

26. Tyrone Alfonso - January 14, 2011

…also, I’m imagining what ST11 would have been like in 3D and it’s not appealing. Fast camera movements and cuts would have people poking their eyes out in the opening scene alone

27. Karen Brown - January 14, 2011

I hope they resist using 3D. Too gimmicky, and I don’t think it’d fit this kind of movie.

28. Hugh Hoyland - January 14, 2011

I think Star Trek 2.0 3D would rock, I really think that its the wave of the future, like it or lump it. Yes the technology isnt quite up to snuff yet, but the industry (T.V. and Motion) seem to determined to perfect it.

And I hope JJ decides to direct it, I think the guys will come up with a script that will get him excited.

29. RB - January 14, 2011

I see a lot fewer movies nowadays since there’s a 3D “tax” on so many of them. I also have real trouble with 3D and it hurts my eyes. Unfortunately, my theaters never offer a 2D alternative, so when I want to see 2D, I have no choice. I have learned to hate 3D and wait for the 2D blu-ray more and more often.

I also think there’s starting to be diminishing returns to 3D. the recent spate of 3D movies really hasn’t blown away the box office in any meaningful way, and I think this coming summer will be the true test, with movies like “Thor” and “Captain America”. Will there me a 3D effect on the box office? I sure hope the numbers for those films are much lower than Iron Man so studios will reconsider 3D and instead make good stories.

30. davidfuchs - January 14, 2011

3D is and always will be gimmicky. Until they create a system that doesn’t use glasses, thus not distracting me from the movie by the fact that I have to run around with thick frames that don’t cover my entire vision, it’s well nigh useless. From a cinematography standpoint, it forces filmmakers to compromise on exposure and what they can shoot on. To top it off, the tickets cost $2-4 more.

3D has and continues to be an abomination for serious films.

31. daniel - January 14, 2011

I would have thought that if you want to do 3D, the script writers would have been notified in advance. I don’t see how it helps the story, so I voted no. The last 3D movie I saw (Tron Legacy) didn’t need the 3D.

32. Patrice - January 14, 2011

NOooooooooooo !

Stick to 2D Please ! There is an absolute NO need for 3D … NO Need at all.

I’m thinking of putting together a Coalition of Cinephiles Against the Third Dimension … CCATD …. Anybody wanna join ?

33. Phil - January 14, 2011

No 3D. A million times, no!!! No NO NO!!

34. Reign1701A - January 14, 2011

The great thing about 3D movies is that you can ALSO watch it in 2D. Why not give us an option? I vote yes for 3D.

35. Odkin - January 14, 2011

Definitely no Abrams if Paramount wants the movie in 3-D. He doesn’t like it and his shaky, glare-y, frantic style is not suited to it.

3-D works best in movies with lots of long “beauty shots” where the mind can take in the panorama. Minds and eyes do not adjust well to hyper-kinetic action scenes.

Funny thing is, Trek works best when it is more steadily paced and mature like a\n adult movie. Trek doesn’t work as an arcade game movie.

36. Craiger - January 14, 2011

Welcome back Anthony.

37. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2011

I say maybe. It obviously depends on the script and whether or not the technology is at a point where it allows J.J to shoot the sequel in a similar manner to the first film.

38. John - January 14, 2011

Please stick with shooting this on 35mm film.

39. Craiger - January 14, 2011

I missed my daily Trek news.

40. Xai - January 14, 2011

NO, NO, NO 3D!

4D will be accepted.

41. combatkarl - January 14, 2011

Screw 3-D. I’d be happy with a new engine room minus beer vats.

42. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2011

41

“Screw 3-D. I’d be happy with a new engine room minus beer vats.”

Agreed!

43. Khan was Framed! - January 14, 2011

if it’s like Avatar quality, fully immersive 3d that makes me feel like I’m standing on the bridge, then yes please do it in 3D.

But if it’s that post production, pop into 3D after the fact crap like “Alice in Wonderland” then please don’t bother.

44. Ricky - January 14, 2011

I was not impressed with Avatar in 3-D. As a matter of fact I wasn’t impressed with Avatar at all. I think the movie would suffer because JJ Abrams style is more in your face type of action. If any one can pull it off though it would be him.
I agree I hated the engine room.
I do want to see Shatner in this film though.

45. weyoun_9 - January 14, 2011

Dude(s). Seriously. Until I can get 3-D in the theatre without wearing something on my face, I’m not into it. It’s worthless. Avatar was a mess. The 3-D was worthless and it adds nothing to the experience whatsoever. (Not that I have an opinion, really.)

Can we let it go already and focus on making good films?

46. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2011

3D = HUGE MISTAKE!

47. Jim Nightshade - January 14, 2011

always the avatar 3d bashing-i loved the movie n the 3d–imax 3d was good for tron legacy- i thought it added to the experience–not sure if trek would be good in 3d–it could be if done right—

48. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 14, 2011

I think that 3d would not be a good fit for Trek. Trek does not need it. Some Movies can have 3d and be good and some not so good. Trek Is Great on it’s own and does not nee it. Would I see it in 3d. yes. But would rather have it in 2d with a fantastic story and F.X

49. jorDe' - January 14, 2011

I saw all kinds of 3-D at the CES in Las Vegas. 3-D is a joke. You must be directly in front of the screen and wear glasses. It appears to be just another gimmick.

50. Cygnus-X1 - January 14, 2011

Well, it appears that Abrams has tied his opinion of the script to his decision to direct it. So if he’s not the director, it means that he had problems with the script.

Abrams is of course not an absolute barometer for quality in movies, but if you like JJ’s taste in general, then his decision of whether to direct this movie might be a good indication to you as to how much you’re going to like the forthcoming movie.

And I hope they don’t get lured into doing it in 3D.

Because that would be G-I-M-M-I-C-K-Y.

51. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2011

Appears? It IS just another gimmick! And not a very good one at that!

52. Dr. Cheis - January 14, 2011

I saw my first modern 3D film just recently, Green Hornet. I don’t have much of a basis on which to compare it to other movies, but I would hope Hornet ranks in the lower or middle range of 3D quality. Some scenes were just too blurry to see properly, particularly flat images and drawings. If anybody else out there has seen the movie I’d love to hear if I’m right about this. Bottom line is though, Green Hornet was an action/comedy. Star Trek is more serious (even if it is silly at times), and if Green Hornet’s 3D is quality is the norm, the technology still isn’t good enough for Star Trek to use.

53. Devon - January 14, 2011

I would help that the 3-d is done around what is already presented on screen, rather than arranging the whole movie around the 3-D. This way it can be viewed in 3-D and in 2-D without any differences.

54. FarStrider - January 14, 2011

Wow. . .this has given me a lot of thoughts. . . the reason that Avatar worked as a 3D film is that it was shot as a 3D film. . .but that process was extremely labor intensive and expensive, making Avatar one of the most expensive films ever made. . . studios have been trying to make 3D on the cheap, and there has not been another live action movie that matches Avatar’s 3D quality. . . I think that when JJ says he’s waiting for the script, he’s actually waiting to see if the studio is going to force the script into the 3D mold. . . if they do, and they aren’t willing to do it right (spend the money and time), then I don’t think he will direct it. . . I think that just may be what the hold up is. . .

~FS

55. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2011

TELL THE SUITS AT PARAMOUNT TO KEEP THEIR NOSES OUT OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS FOR ONCE!!!!!

56. number6 - January 14, 2011

It would be great to see a Trek film in 3D, as long as it serves the story..

I hope JJ Abrams does direct!!

57. dmduncan - January 14, 2011

No 3D. Tron was cool in 3D, but by and large it has been an irrelevant feature of the other movies that use it, and the glasses mute the colors.

58. Cygnus-X1 - January 14, 2011

OK, I’ll take a hard position:

If JJ directs, the movie will be about as good as the first one—fun, respectable, but not a classic.

If JJ declines to direct, the movie will either be disappointingly lame or surprisingly awesome.

It would be great fun if they start taking odds at Intrade.

59. Buzz Cagney - January 14, 2011

The main reason the studios are so keen on 3D is it makes piracy that much harder.

60. garen - January 14, 2011

it’s been pointed out before in these comments. but i want to say it again…just because it was my initial thought when reading JJ’s comments.

If JJ decides to NOT direct this film after reading the script…what does that say???? It does not reflect well on the quality of the story!

tread carefully, JJ!!!!

and…please direct…in 2D..not 3D.

61. FarStrider - January 14, 2011

@60. That is one way to interpret what he says,, but not the only way to interpret it. JJ has a very specific directing style, and if the script is not conducive to his style, then no matter how good the script is on paper, the film probably won’t be good. . . people have to know what their talents and limitations are. . .or you get messes like the Star Wars prequels.

~FS

62. dmduncan - January 14, 2011

Some people experience adverse side effects from watching 3D and, curiously, I do not recall studios posting any disclaimers on these possible side effects.

And with JJs style of whip panning, does Paramount really want to risk making Star Trek the first movie where a studio gets sued for making people puke at?

Forget the litigation. Think of the reviews.

63. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2011

Maybe some people will puke after READING the reviews.

64. dmduncan - January 14, 2011

@60: Really.

JJ: Well…yeah…I’ve read the script and it’s really great! Bob and Alex and Damon are geniuses at their craft, uh…but…after looking at my calender the shooting schedule is really going to create some problems…my wife and I have an anniversary coming up…and you know, we…uh…have the flight booked to the French Riviera months in advance…and the wife…she’ll…uh…she’ll kill me…I mean, we’re talking divorce at LEAST if I put it off AGAIN, so…uh, no, I’m uh NOT going to direct the Star — oh is that Steven Spielberg over there? Steven! I gotta go, thanks. STEEVEN!”

65. Vultan - January 14, 2011

3D movies are the way of the future!
That’s what my dad said in the 80′s…
and my grandpa said in the 50′s…
Hmmm… wait a minute….

66. keachick - January 14, 2011

#64 LOL

Why do I feel like I’ve just been listening to JJ? Oh dear…

67. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2011

3D stands for…..

Dull

Diluted

Desperate

68. MJ - January 14, 2011

Once we have more movies that were really shot in 3D and not converted, then I think the genre will be fine. Still, it should be reserved for 5-6 movies per year. I am not going to pay $14 to see Yogi Bear in 3D. However, Tron in 3D kicked-ass IMHO.

69. MJ - January 14, 2011

@60 “If JJ decides to NOT direct this film after reading the script…what does that say???? It does not reflect well on the quality of the story!”

I don’t think you can really say that. Case in point, George Lucas turned Empire Strikes Back over to Irvin Kersnher and we got by far the best SW movie in the series, and one of the best movies of all time.

70. Danpaine - January 14, 2011

A good film means, a good story.

Period.

If it’s in 3D, and the story is bad, it’s still just a bad film.

71. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

Look, folks, TPTB claim to read these posts for input regarding the making of the films. We might not be able to stop the Spock/Uhura romance or influence the storyline in any significant way, but we can speak out in a unified voice against 3D barbarism!

DON’T LET FLAVOR OF THE MONTH TECHNOLOGY RUIN TREK LEGACY!

JUST SAY NO TO 3D!

72. =A= - January 15, 2011

3D not worth it also for kids….

73. boborci - January 15, 2011

this is how an a-list director tells his writers the deadline, and that the movie better be good. hooray for the world wide web!

74. Kirk, James T. - January 15, 2011

I just don’t think 3D is all that great, unless someone comes along and changes all the cinema screens in the world to IMAX then I don’t think it matters here nor there – We all know why all of a sudden every suit is wanting their movies to be shot in 3D – Avatar, whilst a spectacular movie visually, it lacked a lot in story – this is just another example of how the studio’s know NOTHING about making a movie or perhaps they do know what works with people – say’s a lot about humanity really, I blame James Cameron, the internet and video games. Can anyone remember when movies were about stories rather than what movie can beat all the other movies to number 1?

Let the story do the talking. I’m with Abrams on this one, I thought his style of film making for Star Trek was fantastic on its own without the addition of 3D.

We know tho that Paramount will do it anyway, summer of 2012 is going to be really hard for Star Trek, Spider-Man, Batman, just two of the big movies coming out in 12, – it’s just so they can sell more toys and put more kids into the theatres.

75. Aurore - January 15, 2011

HOORAY!!!

76. Schultz - January 15, 2011

3D is crap, a completely unnatural and un-filmic viewing experience. Four of my best friends are directors of photography, and three of them agree that the whole 3D thing is over and was just a hype.

2D is still the best 3D.

77. Tanner Waterbury - January 15, 2011

The only 3D movie I want to see is Holographic 3D projection movies. Seriously though, I went to see a couple 3d movies, and after walking out of the theater, I had a MAJOR headache! No 3D for me please.

78. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

73.

Bob, is that really you?

79. Aurore - January 15, 2011

The movie better be good …

I’m looking at you. You know who you are.

:)

80. boborci - January 15, 2011

73. who the hell else would it be?

81. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

80.

Read any good scripts lately? :>)

82. Dom - January 15, 2011

I ‘saw’ Tron: Legacy in 3D, but, having slight double vision and depth perception issues, I actually gave up on the glasses and watched it ‘raw!’ I know I’m not the only one who has sight issues with these 3D gimmick films. The trouble is, cinemas here in London are all rushing to upgrade to 3D, meaning I have absolutely no chance of seeing a 2D version – not that they look much cop in 2D when they’re made for 3D anyway!

Never in my life have I seen a bigger farce than the current incarnation of 3D. Studios are telling everyone that everyone must like 3D, but 3D itself hasn’t proven to have been the reason people have seen these films. After 20 years of moronic CGI fests, the CGI was finally starting to be integrated properly into a film to aid the story. Now, along comes neo-3D and we’re back to vacuous spectacle!

Sadly, if Star Trek 2 is released in 3D, I won’t be able to see it, which will be a great shame. Sooner or later, hopefully, the studios will wake up to the fact that they’re driving away a significant percentage of their audience. Eventually, everyone will have those stupid glasses, so there’ll be no money to be made off selling those at screenings and all the extra charges for 3D will achieve is paying for those of us who won’t be able to see the film! Fifty years from now, people will laugh at pictures of dolts getting conned into sitting in cinemas wearing cheap sunglasses!

I hope Abrams sticks to his brand of filmmaking and, like Christopher Nolan, isn’t seduced by this idiot fad!

That said, calling the next Trek film ‘Star Trek 3D’ does avoid issues with comparisons being made to STII:TWOK! ;)

83. Phobos - January 15, 2011

Perhaps just full quality 2D IMAX would be better. ST 1 was on narrow width IMAX tape.

84. Phobos - January 15, 2011

@74

ST 2 coming out alongside Batman… would that not be a good side promo? People go to see Batman, then say: “hmm we had a fun time, lets come back next weekend and watch that ST2″

Or does it not work that way? i.e., people have a budget, pick 1, then that’s it for them for awhile.

85. Phobos - January 15, 2011

By the way, ST2 better be in IMAX. IMAX is so much better, and one of the reasons I went 9 times for ST1.

86. Capes - January 15, 2011

I’ll say again and not for the last time that 3D is a worthless gimmick and not worthy of 90% of the movies it is attached to.

The most notable exception is Piranha 3D which was a watchable train wreck that you just couldn’t stop watching if you tried…..

87. MJ - January 15, 2011

@74. With all due respect, Avatar had a great story. You may not like Avatar, and that’s fine, but hit had a great story.

88. Keeg - January 15, 2011

Saw the trailer for Pirates 4, and it was exactly like he said. “So-and-so points weapon menacingly at camera”. and that was the only notable 3d in the thing. The characters were monodimensional cardboard cutouts with swords waving in the audience’s faces.

On the other hand, Thor’s whole face was like bursting out of the screen on imax… so it CAN be impressive. But it can also be really, really lame.

89. Jack2211 - January 15, 2011

73. Awesome. Nothing like a little pressure.

Me, I can’t write without it.

90. Sputnik - January 15, 2011

There are a lot of people, including me, who cannot watch 3D movies because of eye damages etc. So please stop that pointless 3D hype and let me see my Trek in 2D. Thanks

91. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2011

Although I like to watch 3D movies, I have voted no for a good reason.

Some of my good friends who are Star Trek fans, are prone to suffer motion sickness.

92. Simon - January 15, 2011

JJ – Just say no to 3-D.

Just say HELL F*&&*S NO to *converted to 3-D*

Stick to anamorphic Panavision please.

93. MJ - January 15, 2011

@91 — are you sure you aren’t confusing things with the first star trek movie…aka Star Trek — The Motion Sickness? :-))

94. captain_neill - January 15, 2011

Mr Abrams please say no to 3D.

Too many films are being put into 3D these days and they add NOTHING extra to the cinema experience.

And the weapons pointing towards camera is the gimmick part of 3d I want to see avoided.

Please stick to 2D

95. HARRISON!!! - January 15, 2011

I say yes, with the caveat that it should be *good* 3D, like Avatar or Toy Story 3; *not* that weird, pop-up book, 2.5D, multiple layers of flat images-style “3D” like TRON: Legacy… ¬_¬

96. Chris Pike - January 15, 2011

what the heck…go with Imax full frame cameras and 3D JJ and devise some sort of dual maglight stereo practical lens flare!

97. Mark Lynch - January 15, 2011

If the next Star Trek film is done in 3D then we would lose the shaky cam and lens flares.

Sounds like a good trade off to me! Perhaps the engineering brewery might gain some depth… ;-)

Actually, I don’t mind whether the film is in 3D or not, as long as it is a good story which does not use 3D as a gimmick to sell the movie.

98. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - January 15, 2011

Skip the 3D and just make a good movie.

Please.

99. Captain Rickover - January 15, 2011

No 3D!

After watching several movies (Avata twice, Alice once, Narnia once, Avatar SE once) in 3D is nothing special. I even can’t remember any special 3D-moment after seeing Avatar twice in any other 3D-experience. I just remember the doubled ticket price! 3D is not worth the money (okay, studios might think different)!

100. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - January 15, 2011

Screw 3D…

101. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

The question is what constitutes a good script to JJ. From reading Superman Flyby I have an idea….

102. binaural - January 15, 2011

3D will stop the film flowing well with the first.

same goes for LOTR and The Hobbit, they wont feel like the same series if half of it is in 3D.

Keep 3D to films made for 3D such as Tron and Avatar. Trek should be 2D

103. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

How many times do I have to offer to direct this movie if JJ wont before I get a call from Paramount???

104. Holger - January 15, 2011

I’m surprised that so many oppose 3D (72% of 797 votes right now). What happened to boldly going?

105. Elliot - January 15, 2011

NO 3-D PLEASE!!!!

106. Patrice - January 15, 2011

Wow. Thats amazing. 7 out of 10 polled say NO to 3D … Hope that the suits in Paramount read this.

I feel less alone … I simply don’t like going to see movies in 3D … and it pisses me off that they charge an extra 3 $ for something I dislike so much.

Tron was the last movie that I saw, wearing those ridiculous and uncomfortable glasses … I’m starting a boycott.

The next STAR TREK flick in 2D please JJ. 3D is a gimmick and it seems that more people think it is than i first thought.

107. Mr Phil - January 15, 2011

A part of Star Trek is about showing us how advanced technology can better our lives. 3D goes the other way, a poorly conceived technology making the cinema-going experience worse by lowering light levels, poorer colour rendition, and introducing a nausea inducing flicker on fast moving foreground elements.
Maybe if they’d actually tried to improve the basics first 3-D would be more worthy of acclaim, at the moment though it’s just a headline to grab some more cash. Short-termism!
Star Trek 2-D! (In Colour)

108. Jonboc - January 15, 2011

The trade off of a nice, bright, clear picture for a drop-kicked tribble that seems to bounce right into your face just isn’t worth it. The first one did just fine without it. so will the sequel.

109. Scooter - January 15, 2011

The movie should focus on characters and story. I think 3D would take away from that.

110. MaxPower - January 15, 2011

NOOOOO Please no f 3D! Lens Flares OK, but no 3D

111. Charla - January 15, 2011

Shew, glad to see new content here- was a little worried again- but that may be the mother in me-

Next, really good to see Bob here kickin it with us! I would really love to know how Bob, Alex and Damon feel about Trek in 3-D. I personally am with the majority here, that Star Trek doesn’t NEED 3-D, it wouldn’t make it any better and may possibly detract from it. I embrace new technology most of the time, but 3-D for Trek is like some of the other posters stated as being gimmicky, etc.

I would love to start a letter (hate to say petition) to ask Paramount NOT put Star Trek in 3-D, but wouldn’t step on Bob’s or the others toes so to speak if they are all about it-

What does everyone else think? Would it be a waste of time? Would Paramount actually listen to what the fans would like, if we could get enough interest to write them? To me it would be worth the effort, but they wouldn’t listen to just a few of us.

112. Sebastian - January 15, 2011

I agree with earlier posts that Avatar’s story was not very original (it’s essentially “Ferngully” meets “Dances With Wolves”), but I respect that, as it was told with a lot of passion and conviction (and heart). It was in 3D because it was meant to be an ‘immersive experience’ more than just an A-B movie (that was it’s angle). “Star Trek” doesn’t really need those kinds of tricks to get an audience. It wasn’t in 3D last time, and it did just fine. It has (as this site attests) a built in fanbase, and I know many newbies who were brought into the fold with the last one as well.

If it has to be in 3D, then I hope that it’s not just for a bunch of ‘ooh’ and ‘aah’ moments (of which Avatar had plenty). Star Trek will have people lining up whether it’s projected in digital 3D I-Max or on a white bed sheet on the side of a barn.

Personally, I don’t think it really needs 3D.

113. Dr. Image - January 15, 2011

I say, adapt or die.
When we (well, I’ll just use photographers as an example) transitioned from film to digital because of practical demands, we did it. Like it or not, 3D IS here to stay- this time. When you shoot 3D, yes, you have to adapt your shooting style, but in the end it just makes you a better artist.

114. That rock thing in that episode with the tunnels - January 15, 2011

If the movie is in 3D, I will not see it. It’s a simple as that.

115. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

Studios are forcing 3D because it’s harder to pirate 3D and because they think it’ll make more money. On the second point, it hasn’t been the explosive success they were hoping for. So there is no “transition.” It’s a marketing ploy that works best for films that have a certain wow-factor, not a transition. Tell me you absolutely can’t wait for a Pride and Prejudice reboot in 3D, and I’ll call your BS.

116. Niall Johnson - January 15, 2011

#-D is thorny. Two points against it::

1) This is the third time it’s come around. It worked beautifully of Coraline, but didn’t do anything for me for Tron. You have to convince me that this is not a fad.

2) Star Trek is too big and too important to too many to be a test-bed for 3-D. If Mr. Abrams wants to do 3-D, I’d prefer him to be absolutely sure of himself before doing it. He has too much doubt to pull it off successfully. I suspect that the bigwigs at Paramount (with all due respect, they too have difficult demanding jobs) are treating 3-D as a buzzword. I never buy a movie ticket based soley on 3-D.

117. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

80. boborci – January 15, 2011

lol. Star Trek giving you gray hairs Bob?

118. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

WILL be seeing Green Hornet today, with several other people. WILL NOT be seeing it in 3D.

119. Iva - January 15, 2011

On the other hand, if he keeps up the whole glaring-white-lights-on-the-enterprise-thing, some sort of shades might be a good idea, 3d or no 3d.
Or at least give all actors a tan, so that we can see them while in action on the bridge.

120. ncc - January 15, 2011

“The great thing about 3D movies is that you can ALSO watch it in 2D. Why not give us an option? I vote yes for 3D.”

So true. I feel sorry for those “no no no no no no NO 3D” people. What’s the term here…? “Dog in the Manger”?

121. Magic_Al - January 15, 2011

The question should be, what does 3D have to do with telling a Star Trek story? When I think of past Star Trek movies, the only one that seems 3D-ish is TMP, because it was focused on effects. The other films each have a couple shots that would look cool in 3D, but not enough to justify wearing the glasses the whole time.

The technical demands and pressure to justify 3D alter how a film is made, whether you choose to see the 3D version or not, and history shows it’s hard enough to make a good Star Trek movie without adding unnecessary constraints. That said, 3D could be right, for the right story. Avatar explored a strange new world and so could Star Trek.

122. I'm Dead Jim! - January 15, 2011

@80

If that really is you Bob, you seem much more irritated than usual.

123. SemperExploro - January 15, 2011

Avatar raised the cinematic bar with dense, multilayered visuals and 3-D that amplified the story elements. In some ways, Avatar was like watching the first true science fiction movie (visually, Pandora reminded me of pictures that I’d formed in my mind’s eye when reading classic science fiction novels). Whether or not the story for the next Trek calls for 3-D (please no “Dr. Tongue’s 3-D House of Tricorders” [a reference nugget for SCTV fans]), I hope that the production crew is able to match the sort of visual richness and attention to detail that Avatar nailed so well.

124. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

You WILL get an option until the studios realize it’s not in their interest to give you one, and that realization will ultimately come from box office data. WE will decide what’s “here to stay” by deciding where to put our dollars unless they collectively decide to stop producing 2D versions. And if box office receipts drop after THAT decision, you can bet your best set of thermal underwear we’ll be seeing 2D again, which brings us back to people voting with their dollars again.

125. Great Bird of the Galaxy - January 15, 2011

What matters most is a good story. Then you should ask weather fans would want it in 3D, or not.
I imagine it is difficult to write Star Trek when there are so many expectations, and boundaries to respect. But I think it’s important to not be intimidated by this, or the characters popularity. Writing Trek is not unlike sitting in the captains chair- quick decisions, and a captivating approach should win over Klingons, and fans alike.
Good luck Bob, Alex, and Roberto….
May the Great Bird bless you with great ideas.
I’m very excited, and can hardly wait.

126. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

#80

Hey Bob, hows it going? I mean things in general. Kinda tired here, but plugging along.

127. boborci - January 15, 2011

122. Not at all!

128. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

127. Hey Boborci! greetings from Brazil! Honored to be in the same chatroom with ya!

Just wanted to mention that the 1995 computer game: “Star Trek: The Next Generation: A Final Unity” is a cauldron of good ideas!

Nuff said! :)

129. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

126: “Kinda tired here, but plugging along.”

Missed opportunity, Hugh. One more “t” and you could’ve had one hilarious typo.

130. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

127.

……and, he’s back!

131. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

129 Dmduncan

Ya your right lol

132. Trek Lady - January 15, 2011

Add me to the list of those against 3-D. It gives me a serious headache and eye strain. It is problematic for people who already have to wear glasses. It ups the cost of the movie ticket a lot. (So rather than going to see a movie many times, I would go once.) And no, it is not always available in a 2-D version if you don’t live in a bigger city.

3-D ruined any enjoyment I might have gotten from Avatar because I spent the second half of the film with a migraine,. It can too easily become the main focus of the movie – the “cool” factor if you will…. the same thing helped ruin the Star Wars prequels, IMO… the,”Let’s do this cool thing because we can! And to hell with good story telling!” fiasco.

If Trek goes to 3-D, do you really think they will be able to resist having events or scenes that exist soley to exploit that “cool” factor? I mean, if you are going to put the money into it, you had better “use” it, right?
“Oh, let’s have have big space battle in 3-D! That would be so cool!”
“Oh, we need to fire that weapon right at the screen!” ”
Oh, have Spock throw Kirk through the screen! Yeah! Awesome!”

133. boborci - January 15, 2011

128

loved that game

134. trekervt - January 15, 2011

why is there no new updates whats going on a slow two months on the news?

135. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

Bob

you must be really good with your time management to be able to stay on top of such a hectic work load!

136. Jason - January 15, 2011

If it’s done right, like Avatar or Tron where they use the latest 3D cameras, then I don’t really mind it. But if I’m at a theatre and see that they have a 2D option playing, I’m going for 2D.

But here’s a suggestion: why not, instead of shooting 3D, they shoot segments in IMAX and have shifting ratios, ala Dark Knight (which I hear is how Brad Bird is shooting M:I-4). Just imagine, the crew is on the bridge and the image is at 2.40:1, then as the beam to the surface of a planet it jumps to the 1.44:1 image that fills up the entire IMAX screen.

137. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

Please forgive this somewhat but related off topic, but I just read that Riddley Scotts Alien Prequel has evolved into something quite different from its original story, in part due to Damon L’s work on the script. Sounds kind of interesting, “Prometheus” .

138. Allen Williams - January 15, 2011

hell no to 3D. I refuse to wear glasses. There is a reason why I wear contacts.

139. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

“Men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses!”

140. janice - January 15, 2011

I want to see a really good Star Trek sequel with Pike definitely in it.
I don’t care about 3D. I’ll be so happy with a good movie.
I do know though, that if Pike’s in it, I’ll love it, be it 2D or 3D!!

141. Allen Williams - January 15, 2011

oh and no lens flares either. As much as I loved trek 2009, I had a lot of issues with it. Beer doesn’t power the engines and lens flares suck. (i had more issues, but those are the main ones).

142. TonyD - January 15, 2011

I happen to like 3D. I’ve watched the TOS cast movies using my TV’s 2D>3D conversion and they work surprisingly well.

However, a film natively shot in 3D really needs to be filmed in a certain way. 3D works best with relatively static camera angles and slow pans, so that your eyes can focus on the image and your brain has time to process the left and right eye imagery to create the 3D illusion. That is why the TOS movies and stuff like 2001: A Space Odyssey still look pretty good when converted on the fly.

JJ’s cinematographic style from the last movie really wouldn’t work in 3D; it’s too kinetic and chaotic. Likewise, all the lens flares would probably serve to sabotage the 3D effect as well. If he does go 3D, he’ll probably need to rethink how the film should be photographed and maybe even how the special effects are composed.

The idea of seeing the USS Enterprise flying thru space in 3D is really exciting to me, but if they go that route, I just hope they take the time to do it right.

Also, even if Trek is shot and released in 3D, people shouldn’t worry about not being able to see a 2D version. There is a certain percentage of people who physically cannot see in 3D for one reason or another and there will always be a 2D release on some screens for that audience. No recent movie has had a 100% 3D release and I doubt that Trek would break that trend.

143. Holo J - January 15, 2011

I have yet to see a 3D film thats been worth the extra admission fee. I just want to see a good Star Trek movie that connects more with the Prime universe. That brings back Vulcan and has alot more exploration. I know thats not going to happen though. I guess jumping on the 3D bandwagon is more important to Paramount than pleasing the long time fans ;)

144. John Gill - January 15, 2011

3-D: As long as it is like most recent 3-D films have been in most theatres: Available at the same theatre on two different screens, one in 3-D, one in 2-D.
3-D is o.k. with me, but I do not like being FORCED to watch a movie in 3-D if I don’t want to…

145. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

143. The movie “Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole” was really worth the extra admission fee in 3D.

The flight of the owls on the hurricane, with Lisa Gerrard´s soundtrack was truly sublime.

146. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

145.

Yes, but the image of a guest appearance by the Shat in 3-D evokes a line from ST:IV…………………….

“There be whales here!”

147. somethoughts - January 15, 2011

Star Trek 3D will be the best 3D movie, as long as the film stands on its own in 2D, 3D will rock!

148. Dom - January 15, 2011

144. John Gill

The trouble is, cinemas are rushing to convert their screens to 3D because money men are ordering us to believe that 3D is great. Those of us who can’t physically watch it are worthwhile collateral damage in the bigwigs’ eyes at the moment.

3D is nothing new: it has been around since the dawn of photography, but it remains a pointless gimmick publicised by the king of the pointless gimmick: James Cameron! Remember Trite-tanic? The guy hasn’t made a decent film in years, but gets to push out crud stories by focusing on how he’s manipulated technology! He’s a mechanic, not a filmmaker!

Will Tron: Legacy, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland or any of these other films be of any note in a few year’s time beyond being made in 3D? I doubt it!

3D is, more than anything, a way to prevent pirates making dodgy copies of films at the moment, until they figure a new workround! As a result, studios are happy enough to tell me to lump it! It’s not something I’ll forgive or forget!

149. Will_H - January 15, 2011

It would look cool in 3D, but if the director (who ever it may end up being) thinks it will get in the way of shooting a good film then no, not worth it.

150. falcon - January 15, 2011

If you believe the information coming from last week’s CES, 3D is all but dead. Sales of 3D HDTV sets are flat, if not on the decline, and the main reason given is “those #@*# glasses.”

I’ve heard folks who’ve seen 3D movies complain about the headaches they get from watching them. I’ve heard others complain about the cost of the glasses for 3D sets. As an entertainment option, 3D has a niche, but that’s about it. There won’t be any general acceptance of 3D unless it can be done holographically, eliminating the need for glasses. And that ain’t happenin’ any time in the near future.

JJ, go ahead and shoot the next Trek in HD instead of film (use the Arri Alexa camera, not that piece of drek Red), cut down on the lens flares, and make sure it’s a dramatic story that keeps audiences on the edges of their seats, with some emotional resonance thrown in, and you’ll have another blockbuster. But DON’T SHOOT IT IN 3D!

151. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

146. hehe true! Shat in IMAX and in 3D. :)

I wouldn´t mind to see T´POL in the big screen.

152. CmdrR - January 15, 2011

No gimmicks. Just Trek!

Please.

Seriously, if you shoot a 2012 film in 3D, by 2015 it will look old. Watch Titanic again and tell me how convincing the shots of people walking on the decks look. All special effects age, some better than others. 3D and cgi do NOT age well. And Trek is something we’d like to watch for generations to come.

153. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

148. The solution would be to kill the people who make illegal downloads…oh wait…..

154. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

93

How do you get motion sickness from “Star Trek: The Motionless Picture”? The only sickness people got from it was motionLESS sickness.
Others died from boredom according to legend. :-)

155. The Red Shirt Diaries - January 15, 2011

128, 133: Awesome game! Also loved ST:TNG Echoes from the Past on the old Sega Genesis.

BTW Bob, just a reminder before you finish the script. Shatner and Nimoy in a proper send off scene (maybe rework that hologram scene?).

It may be the last chance to honor these men properly before they are gone.

156. Guy from Berlin - January 15, 2011

Im so bored of the actually 3D bashing from trekkies everywhere!!! 3D needs a classical way to shoot the film. And this is what i prefer!!! More Cameronlike Pictures in the next Star Trek – and less “Abramsstyle” !!!

157. Another Q - January 15, 2011

I was actually shocked to see that the majority
(71% at the time I voted) agreed with me in not
wanting Trek VII in 3-D.

Unless a movie is specifically designed to be
in 3-D (like Avatar), then it’s not really needed
and actually distracts from the storytelling.

IMHO, I thought in the last couple of years that
the only movies it was good for was Avatar and
Shrek Forever After, and I was real disappointed
in the effect in Tron Legacy.

JJ – get a good script and produce it well. This
will sell more tickets than a poor movie with
3-D being used as a gimmick.

158. Bucky - January 15, 2011

JJ said it best – his style does not work for 3d -its fast, jumpy, and handheld, all things that do not work in 3d.

159. ST:EXP - January 15, 2011

There is no reason not to do 3D. It won’t affect the 2D version for the audience.

Just creates more work for the production team.

It could look very nice and add a whole new dimension of depth to a Trek movie.

Good 3D does not have stuff coming out at you. Good 3D should make the screen look like a window you’re looking through live-in-person.

And if it the filming technique helps reduce all the Abrams-esque jump cuts, shaky cam, etc, that is annoying in the first place, then what a side-bonus!

160. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - January 15, 2011

I, for one, have no use for 3d as some idiotic gimmick layered atop a bad movie – and then being expected to pay an extra $5 a head for the privilege.

Tell me a good story, make a good movie, and I’ll see it multiple times -just like I did for Trek 09.

Trek needs 3D like a caesar salad needs cream gravy.

161. Thomas - January 15, 2011

I personally voted “Unsure/Maybe” in the poll; Before yesterday, I likely would’ve voted “No”. Yesterday, I went to see The Green Hornet at my local theater, which was only screening it in 3D. It was, in fact, the first 3D movie I’ve ever seen. The 3D wasn’t a draw for me (never has been), but my transportation options are limited so I had to go with the closest screening. I have to say, I wasn’t blown away by the 3D (I did have to wear the glasses over my regular glasses), but I was relieved that I didn’t end up with a headache. That said, I have no particular inclination to want to see more 3D movies, but I know now that if I do see one, I could at least enjoy it from a physical standpoint.

162. I am not Herbert - January 15, 2011

…this is going to suck…

…on top of his already hackish gimmicky style, let’s hack some more gimmick on top… =(

3D COULD be cool. (high hopes for Thor!) ,but not in JJ’s hands… =(

163. I am not Herbert - January 15, 2011

JJ should concentrate on TV, and stay away from cinema.

164. Areli - January 15, 2011

3D=No

Unless you are going to visually stun me with nebulas and galaxies in vibrant colors. Which will not happen because J.J. doesn’t concern himself with that stuff. His style gives us the aesthetically pleasing in small bursts. You blink and it is gone. He uses lens flare and fast movements, none of which fit for 3D.

I kinda wish ST was a television show than a movie. We’d have already gotten new stuff by now. -sigh-

165. Capes - January 15, 2011

#87 MJ

Dude…..Avatar was structurally pretty flawless.

But regarding the story……I liked it better when it was called
“Dancing with Wolves”……

166. Capes - January 15, 2011

…..and 3D sucks.

Bob Orci……PLEASE pass it on! The fanboys vote NO !

167. 2-D Fan - January 15, 2011

Please oh please….NO 3-D! I try to avoid 3-D movies simply because they give me terrible headaches and aren’t all that spectacular. I swear most of it is all hype.

JJ’s directing is fantastic and can easily stand on its own without needing 3-D to try to compete with the newer movies. I think sometimes some movies almost need 3-D to try to keep your attention because the movie is so bad….but at least for me, the 3-D doesn’t even really do that. JJ’s style of filming and directing is my favorite and it’s because he uses unique tactics and angles and creative ways to enhance the film….filming in 3-D I think would sort of tie his hands behind his back and limit him.

JJ’s Star Trek reboot was amazing. The sequel has great potential….but I’m afraid it will go down several notches in my book if he bends to film it in 3-D.

DON’T DO IT IN 3-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

168. AJ - January 15, 2011

Any more films like “Narnia 3″ which are pre-blurred to force us to borrow de-blurring glasses (i.e. faux- 3D) and add $4 to the cost of a ticket should be ratted out. The posters should say “Converted to 3D” and not be eligible for an added charge.

169. Starbase Britain - January 15, 2011

Im all for a 3D trek. Why not?
There seems to be an assumption that you cant have a good script/movie if you have it in 3D. It didnt do Avatar any harm.
Is there something i dont know about 3D here?
Greg
UK

170. samrock83 - January 15, 2011

JJ is holding out on his decision to direct as a negotiating tactic. He wants the question to stew in the minds of Paramount execs so they’ll throw more money at him. I don’t blame him. Plus, he’s busy.

And I am waaaaay more interested in a thought-provoking, interesting and original story than 3D any day. If the story is amazing they could slash the budget by a 100 Million dollars and I wouldn’t care an iota. 3D is too riddled with cliche and gimmickry. I don’t see it lasting, and I don’t see it making its way into films without chunks of shit flying at the audience. If anyone doubts the gimmickry nature of 3D, then explain all these movies coming out in the past 2 years titled “Something-3D.”

I want my Trek!!!

171. TJ Trek - January 15, 2011

UH….after 1689 posts, is there really anything left to be said…..I think not.

172. EM - January 15, 2011

All I know is that if my local cineplex gives me a choice between a 2D version and a 3D version of a movie…I go to the 3D version.

173. Basement Blogger - January 15, 2011

Okay, a story about the 500 pound gorilla in the room. With the commercial success of 3D, we knew that Paramount would put pressure on Bad Robot to film the Star Trek sequel in 3D. The problems with 3D even if its shot in 3D, is that it’s too dark. (TrekMovie comments with Abrams link) That’s because of the polarization. (wiki link below) For Abrams, it will affect his style of directing which features shaking the camera, and hand held shots. Nausea will ensue in 3D. And let’s face it, it it’s converted, it will probably stink. See Last Airbender, a horrific conversion.

The advantages? I’m not a fan of the hand held camera. It’s annoying. Those shots probably will be gone. Yet, you can still do fancy shots in 3D. SEE AVATAR. Of course, for Paramount, there’s profits to be made. And sadly, that’s why Star Trek will probably be released in 3D.

My answer about 3D? IF PARAMOUNT WANTS 3D THEN SHOOT IT IN 3D! NO CONVERSIONS.

And by the way, down below on on Green Hornet story, we’re trying to reach 2000 posts. So join us and go where no Trekker has gone before..

1. TrekMovie story; Abrams not on board with 3D, picture gets dimmer.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/07/22/jj-abrams-talks-3-d-movies-super-8-at-comic-con-full-abramswhedon-panel-report/

2. Wiik on why 3D is darker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#Criticism

174. Devon - January 15, 2011

Of course, I everyone who is against the 3-D are also aware that the film will be presented in 2-D of course, and they will not be forced to see it in 3-D.

175. VulcanFilmCritic - January 15, 2011

3-D has it place, especially when you have deep panoramic landscapes to depict. Although I found “Avatar” to be boring and derivative, James Cameron’s use of 3-D Imax for his documentary on the exploration of the wreck of the Titanic was awesome! And inspiring.

What bothers me, though, is the indiscriminate use of the medium. That is why it died out in the early sixties. This tendency to overuse the “new toy” has been lampooned many times, especially by fictitious filmmakers Woodie Tobias, Jr. and Dr. Tung of “SCTV.” I mean every time ANYTHING approached the camera it was given the 3-D treatment, including fingers and plates of pie.

“Star Trek” has always been relationship-driven storytelling, not special effects-driven space opera. Even cynical director Nicholas Meyer discovered that while making “Star Trek II.” I’m not sitting in the theater crying because the black hole “looks so real.” I’m crying because 78 year old Leonard Nimoy is bring down the house, because Karl Urban is hitting one out of the park, and because totally solid Bruce Greenwood is holding it all together. That’s why I showed up to see ‘Star Trek.”

And I guess I don’t need to remind anyone of what happens when special effects become the main event (“Star Trek: The Motion Picture”)

P.S.- This is all about demanding a higher ticket price from the fans whom the powers-that-be think will automatically show up for anything Star Trek-related they feed us. History has shown them otherwise.

176. Capes - January 15, 2011

@175

Amen.

BTW ……3D Suuuuuuuuuuuucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

177. Simon - January 15, 2011

#175 – Meyer & Paramount were still smart enough to go with Industrial Light & Magic.

For STAR TREK, visual effects are *important* but not the main event. BAD visual effects can actually hurt the story, witness STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER.

People may not have cried with a black hole, but people did when the Enterprise went up in a blaze of glory in STAR TREK III, and what about the shock of seeing Vulcan consumed in the STAR TREK 2009?

STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE suffered from story & script problems, the plethora of effects was used as a cover for it. There is no problem with a film having a ton of effects if the *story* holds up.

178. losira - January 15, 2011

I don’t think that star trek in 3d is vital. its been a successful franchise,without it. maybe a occasional in-your-face-shot could be fun. however. I’m more interested in a well written and well acted storyline.3d cannot ever makeup for it. just plain ole star trek please

179. buui - January 15, 2011

NO 3D. Its just an excuse for lazy filmaking. Hollywood suits

“just do it in 3D, who cares about plot, story etc etc. Just do it in 3D, they will come, cause it’s in 3D, thats all there has to be, nothing else”

Er no actually, maybe for a few Justin Beiber types they will come, but for the rest of the population, Ya, know, the people you need to make films actually hits, they want. I dont want to stick some lame arsed, dirty, cold ridding, snot ridded, puss ridden glasses on to watch a movie, that some foul thing had on just an hour ago, screw that, sorry.i just wanna , ya know, what a watch movie.

If your a REAL director, that loves film, you will reject 3D, cause it’s just hollywoods latest attempt to cause in on something.

Hollywood, where creativity ends.

180. Cygnus-X1 - January 15, 2011

73. boborci –

—-this is how an a-list director tells his writers the deadline, and that the movie better be good. hooray for the world wide web!—-

Don’t worry, Bob; If your movie comes across as half-baked, we’ll all know who to blame.

YOU!!

(j/k – we’ll blame JJ.)

181. Trek Lady - January 15, 2011

174 “Of course, I everyone who is against the 3-D are also aware that the film will be presented in 2-D of course, and they will not be forced to see it in 3-D.”

Not necessarily. Where I live, they have converted the main two theaters. When a 3-D film comes to town, it is shown in the 3-D screens. The 2-D screens are reserved for other films. I have had no choice with several of the recent 3-D releases – and as a result, have not gone to see them. Of course, I could have driven over an hour to the near by big city I suppose, but with cost of gas it just isn’t worth it. Avatar literally made me ill, and that was a “well done” example of 3-D!

182. Lou - January 15, 2011

3D is both a gimmick and a fad.

Abrams already has bright blicky lights and fast camera shots at bizarre angles and motions. 3D is even more overkill, IMO

183. Chadwick - January 15, 2011

I enjoy 3D in the theaters, it makes going to the movies a little more fun…for most, I have always loved going to the movie theaters. I have not adopted 3D into my living room. Movies I have seen in 3D I have in 2D on blu-ray and its fine for my living room, I don’t need 3D or digital downloads in my living room…not just yet. But I love going to see 3D movies in the theaters, some are good some are bad. I have seen Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, clash or the Titans, Resident Evil Resurrection, The Last Air Bender, and Tron. Tron and Avatar were fantastic! RE Resurrection and Last Air bender looked OK in 3D, with Clash of The Titans and Alice in Wonderland were just terrible.

I would enjoy to see Star Trek in 3D and I feel Gene R. would as well.

184. boborci - January 15, 2011

maybe ive missed it, but has anyone said, “lets just hope the characters are 3 dimensional?”

185. Joel - January 15, 2011

I could tolerate Star Trek in 3D if it were actually filmed with 3D cameras. This post-production conversion BS typically looks awful. With a great cast in place, another solid script and assuming Abrams directs, 2D is just fine.

Star Trek (09) looked wonderful in theaters, especially the IMAX print, and plays beautifully on blu-ray. I didn’t need clunky glasses to impress me, they did a damn fine job without and extra dimension.

186. John - January 15, 2011

Hey Bob everyday you slack off or go on a chat room you are delaying the movie, get back to work and one more day I have to wait for the new movie. Get crackin’!

187. Dom - January 15, 2011

184. boborci.

I think the biggest priority for all of us is the story. If the story is solid, the characters and their dialogue should come to ‘three-dimensional’ life naturally! After Alias and Fringe, I trust you, anyway! ;)

I’m not keen on 3D in principle anyway, but if I’m suddenly made unable to go to the cinema for an otherwise trivial sight defect that doesn’t otherwise affect any other aspect of my life, then something’s wrong! Where I live, there’s no chance of seeing a 2D version anyway so it’s a case of whether the studios are interested in my cinema ticket and my Blu-ray purchase or just a Blu-ray purchase!

And how dismal not to be able to take a girl out on a date to the pictures!!

188. boborci - January 15, 2011

im multitasking. currently in the editing room of Cowboys and Aliens with Steven S and Jon F, teeling SS to help usbconvince JJ to direct Trek, like he helped us concinve him last time!

189. Thorny - January 15, 2011

175… The endless V’Ger encounter was ridiculous, but the four minute “Enterprise Flyaround” in ST:TMP was worth the price of admission. I suspect you’re under 30 years old and didn’t live through the 1970s drought of Star Trek. For those of us who did, the Enterprise Flyaround was almost a religious experience.

190. Samuel - January 15, 2011

I want to see a montage over the end credits of “missions” the ENTERPRISE crew have been on since the first film – like ENTERPRISE pulling up alongside the Botany Bay…Pine emerging from a pile of tribbles…and “new” images/missions, of course.

191. CmdrR - January 15, 2011

Yes, Bob, we really care about these characters. They’ve been with us for a long time. We’d really like to see the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad shown prominently. And with all due respect to the supporting cast, that’s what those characters have always been. Films such as STVI:TUD gave everybody something to do without shifting the focus away from the Big Three. It’s pretty obvious you’re going to have a villain or three. Hopefully, they’ll be interesting. It’d be nice if the villain were more grey and wasn’t out to rule/destroy Earth/the universe. Smaller stories can work wonderfully well. Personally, I’d love to see Kirk snagged into an adversarial relationship with a Klingon woman… who does NOT die at the end!

Anyway… thanks for checking in with us. It’s always a pleasure to hear your viewpoints.

192. Aqua - January 15, 2011

Dry eyes and headaches, that is my 3D experience whenever I’ve tried it.

193. P Technobabble - January 15, 2011

Most (or all?) of the films that have been released in 3D have also been released in 2D, so you have your pick. I suppose many people – who, while they don’t really want to see the sequel done in 3D – will see it in 3D simply out of curiosity. But, for me, the idea of Paramount asking for a 3D Trek is akin to a singer coming on the Tonight Show singing “My Way,” or “Feelings,” as if they were offering something new.

194. CmdrR - January 15, 2011

191 – love/hate/sex/mission/survival/sex kinda thing…

195. Jeyl - January 15, 2011

I’d rather have 3D than JJ banging on the bloody camera all the time.

196. Basement Blogger - January 15, 2011

@ 184 boborci

That’ s funny Bob. By the way, the numbers on the posts change, so I’m probably writing from an alternate reality. Anyway just saw Green Hornet in 3-D. I am surprised that the conversion was not bad. Picture is still too dark. Made worse by the night scenes which made sense for the movie but did the writers and director consider the 3D? Another problem with conversions, shots are not designed to take advantage of it. Oh, the film? A sarcastic take on the superhero genre which doens’t work as comedy or action. 3-D won’t save the Green Hornet.

I’ll say it again. Your competition Spider-Man is being shot in 3-D. IF PARAMOUNT WANTS 3D, SHOOT IT IN 3D.

197. Trekboi - January 15, 2011

3d could be good if it doesn’t effect the storytelling but it doesnt seem compatible with JJ’s style-but the star trek2 barf bags would be an awesome collectable to keep after seeing the movie

198. Derf - January 15, 2011

Film is 2D.
If I want to watch actors in 3D I see a theatre production.
I don’t put on glasses from an old mid-90s infomercial to experience real life on a 2 dimensional surface, nor will I when you don’t need glasses.

Next thing you know we’ll be telling strangers in 180 characters that we’re in the bathroom and think they care, or be impressed with ourselves for having friends we don’t know.

199. keachick - January 15, 2011

I voted No to 3D. I had heard that wearing 3D glasses is very annoying for those who need to wear ordinary glasses but I had not heard of the terrible headaches that some people get. I actually think that perhaps the medical authorities should look into this aspect. This is not good.

#109 Phil wrote – “a poorly conceived technology making the cinema-going experience worse by lowering light levels, poorer colour rendition, and introducing a nausea inducing flicker on fast moving foreground elements.”

Oh goodie. So I could expect my son to possibly have another epileptic seizure if he goes to watch the next Star Trek picture filmed in 3D. (Never been more serious in my life).

I think that JJ Abrams has enough smarts to realise that he would need to change his directing and filming style if he were to do the film in the 3D medium. It is more a question of whether he wants to change and whether or not this change will improve the overall look and feel of the next Star Trek movie. There is no reason why JJ Abrams could not tone down the use of lens flares especially, in the 2D production of Star Trek. The shakey camera stuff does not really bother me, but I did find some of the lens flares annoying and unnecessary/inappropriate.

Happy New Year to you, Bob Orci. I know it’s 16 days into the new year (well here, in NZ, it is), but better later than never.
Good to read your posts again. I thought you might be a bit peeved when I wrote that you guys needed “to rattle your dags” about the new Trek script and mentioning some supposed deadline. Anyway, keep up the good work. Remember to include lots of good Kirk loving with a nice lady…

200. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

Wouldn´t be nice if Harrison Ford and Mark Hammil could play Admirals in Star Trek 12?

It would be in tune with JJ Abrams philosophy to bring more Star Wars to Star Trek.

Bruce Boxleitner could be in it too.

201. captain_neill - January 15, 2011

I hate the philosophy of bringing more Star Wars to Star Trek.

they are two totally different franchises with different ideals.

202. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

It´s all the same thing, it´s about flying saucers firing lasers on each other, bzim, bzam.

203. I am not Herbert - January 15, 2011

…why not throw in that stupid robot from Buck Rogers too? =(

204. Viking - January 15, 2011

3D – bah! If the story is good, it doesn’t need to be 3D. And I refuse to sit there and wear cardboard birth control glasses just to ‘enhance the experience’. I love exploding ships as much as the next guy, but a good character moment trumps gratuitous gimmickry every time.

205. Victor Hugo - January 15, 2011

203. Actually why not? “Star Trek” is partially based on “The Forbidden Planet”, there was a robot there too. I think we could have robots in regular Trek.

206. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

188. boborci – January 15, 2011

im multitasking. currently in the editing room of Cowboys and Aliens with Steven S and Jon F, teeling SS to help usbconvince JJ to direct Trek, like he helped us concinve him last time!

***

That is so cool.

207. T'cal - January 15, 2011

I saw The Green Hornet in 2D last night. I can identify only one scene that was in it that appeared to be there to show off 3D: the scene in which Kato opens the beer bottles and the caps go flying toward and away from the camera. Otherwise, the end credits were in 3D. Apparently this film was shot in 2D and converted to 3D. Now I’m noticing that some 3D films advertise “Filmed in 3D” I’m guessing to emphasize that they’re not just regular films converted later to 3D.

As for STXII, if it’s released in 3D, it wouldn’t prevent me from watching it. If they MUST go 3D, then let’s hope it’s filmed in 3D, not converted. That would be cheesy.

208. ensign joe - January 15, 2011

#184 boborci

Actually I’d like Spock to be a little less 3 dimensional if you know what I’m saying.. :)

209. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2011

What are the odds that Paramount will spend upwards of 150 million dollars on a summer tentpole film for 2012 and agree to release it in 2D only because their first choice as director “isn’t entirely onboard with 3D?”

Not likely.

210. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

I want to know what’s going on in the editing room, like a live play by play! Before they realize what’s going on and snatch his iPad.

211. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

208: “Actually I’d like Spock to be a little less 3 dimensional if you know what I’m saying.. :)”

Well there ya go. Now we know what’ll be popping out of the screen at us if the sequel is in 3D.

212. Dee - January 15, 2011

# 188

Hey boborci , looks like I sounded profound … Chris Pine is really so CUTE? … would be great to catch him in 3D! HAHAHAHAHAH!

Sorry guys I’m just kidding a little!!! :-)

213. keachick - January 15, 2011

“208: “Actually I’d like Spock to be a little less 3 dimensional if you know what I’m saying.. :)”
Well there ya go. Now we know what’ll be popping out of the screen at us if the sequel is in 3D.”

I’m not quite sure what is being alluded to here. Perhaps it is just my *dirty* mind…:)

214. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

#188

I hope there’s enough fresh air in the editing room for the three of you guys, Bob!

Oh, and if Steven Spielberg can’t convince J.J Abrams, just tie up J.J and send him to over to Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. He has an agony booth set up! He’s had a lot of experience “convincing” people!

HEH HEH! HA! HA! MMMMMWWWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

215. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

201

Part of trying to bring in younger fans involves adding a bit of “Star Wars” to “Star Trek”. It’s a neccessity, because “Star Wars” is a lot more popular and “Star Trek” needs something to hang it’s hat on. Also, “Star Wars” is the superior (film) franchise to “Star Trek” in terms of theatrical spectacle and awe. It’s just the way it is.

216. ensign joe - January 15, 2011

#211

OY!

217. MJ - January 15, 2011

@188. Sounds good Bob. And thanks for not name dropping. :-))

218. Jonboc - January 15, 2011

#136. “But here’s a suggestion: why not, instead of shooting 3D, they shoot segments in IMAX and have shifting ratios, ala Dark Knight (which I hear is how Brad Bird is shooting M:I-4). Just imagine, the crew is on the bridge and the image is at 2.40:1, then as the beam to the surface of a planet it jumps to the 1.44:1 image that fills up the entire IMAX screen.”

Douglas Trumbull used a similar technique very effectively in his film Brainstorm….shifting to the full 70mm ratio every time the device was used and we were taken into the mind. it wasn’t Imax, but it was damned cool. haven’t seen the film in almost 30 years, but that effect sure left an impact on me. Not sure how the story structure of Trek could effectively use a shift like that though. But when a given scene, in that film, shifted from 35mm to 70mm, it certainly packed a punch!

and Bob Orci…by all means, get SS to twist JJs arm…he has a great visual style and his agreeing to direct would sure put a lot of people at ease!

219. Cervantes - January 15, 2011

I’ve always thought that if the ‘STAR TREK’ reboot has been the first major live-action movie to showcase the new polarized 3D technology, rather than ‘AVATAR’…that it would have made a far bigger impact at the time.

‘AVATAR’ garnered plaudits due to it’s amazing CGI of course, but to me, it’s cutting-edge 3D element was the major selling point when it was originally released.

Having been around to catch the poor and gimmicky ‘JAWS 3D’ in the old-style red and green ‘anaglyph’ type of 3D during the short-lived 3D fad at the time…I remember thinking the new, improved polarized process was REALLY going to be the future way of seeing things, this time around, when I caught ‘AVATAR’…but I also remember being disappointed that ‘STAR TREK’ hadn’t been the first cutting-edge movie to properly show it off to the world… I absolutely believe it’s here to stay this time around…both theatrically and in the home. Too much is being invested this time around for it not to be.

There are plenty of problems at the moment of course. Here’s my main ones in no particular order –

1. It’s been an absolute pain that the ticket prices have been inflated for everyone to be able to see the 3D versions…

2. The other recent 3D development of ‘converting’ 2D movies to 3D has been wildly hit or miss where quality is concerned so far. Rushed, bad ‘conversions’ by certain companies are far inferior to the properly-filmed 3D seen in the likes of ‘AVATAR’. Ideally, only PREVIOUSLY-filmed movies would have ever ended up ‘converted’, rather than new movies too…but hopefully this process will improve in general as time goes on… Having said that, the new ‘RED’ 3D cameras are so flexible and small now, that there’s no excuse for director’s not to get onboard with them from the start, and 3D camera’s will get even more user-friendly as time goes on.

3. Some people in the population seem prone to being adversely affected by watching 3D to begin with, while others have vision problems already, and don’t like wearing the glasses over their own. Can’t suggest much to help those, unfortunately. But to be honest, I don’t care for the type of standard ‘throwaway’ glasses that are used in my local cinema either, as seeing the edges of the frames in my ‘peripheral vision’ kinda spoils the full effect…which is why I’ll be investing in some pairs of the ‘WRAPAROUND’-style of 3D glasses for myself and the family this year, which will solve this problem (do an online search for the likes of the designs by Oakley and Polaroid to see what I mean) Unfortunately, they aren’t too cheap yet, but as more and more manufacturers make them, they WILL be eventually, and kids sizes are available too.

Bottom line…I reckon 3D would be a terrific fit for a ‘STAR TREK’ movie in future, and the sooner the better as far as I’m concerned. It’s bound to only be a matter of time before some of the previous TREK movies are ‘converted’ for the 3D Blu-ray format at home…but I’d sure love to see the Enterprise in all her 3D glory against the depth of space…on the big screen one day. (Even if the current ‘fugly’ re-designed one!)

220. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

What about SS directing if JJ won’t? Like I haven’t mentioned that a hundred times. You guys are all in the same room together and the question hasn’t come up?

Had to. Had to. Am I lying? Had to.

221. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

I’m guessing if J.J doesn’t direct, the movie doesn’t get made until a new script is written or until he gets all of his other projects done. There’s a good possibility the sequel could get pushed back a year to accommadate J.J’s schedule. I don’t think Bob is interested in anyone else directing. It seems to be J.J Abrams or bust.

222. Captain Archer - January 15, 2011

No 3D!!! I’d like to see something with Klingons, Cardassians, or even the Doomsday Machine. Just imagine the Doomsday Machine with todays CGI technology, it could be incredible!!!

223. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

If I was signing checks, I would have Star Trek — The Sequel projected in a 1:1.6 aspect ratio. Paramount’s own creation. The Golden Section. Good juju, baby. Good juju.

224. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

188 Bob

If SS cant convince JJ to PD ST we’re SOL.

225. Hugh Hoyland - January 15, 2011

220 Dmduncan

I had the same thing in mind. I would be so dang cool for SS to do it if JJ wont. (Still hope JJ will though)

226. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

Back to what Bob asked earlier about the characters being in 3D, well that goes without saying, man. I mean that’s what TOS always had that made it so good, because it didn’t have money. It had good characters that felt real to me.

If you can make the background real without losing the characters, like Lucas lost them, you’ve hit pay dirt. Because a lot of nice scenery for boring and uninteresting characters to play around in isn’t so good.

It would be nice to see ALL of that coming together for Star Trek again.

227. dmduncan - January 15, 2011

And if you shot and projected the movie in 1:1.6 aspect ratio, wouldn’t it be totally awesome to get some special effect, perhaps of a spiraling ship in space — fit to the story, of course — that spirals in a fibonacci sequence on the 1:1.6 screen?

Radical.

228. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2011

Paramount’s not going to push back the release date this time.

229. Jim - January 15, 2011

No 3D. A million times, no!!! No NO NO!!

I get a headache from it, I will not watch in 3-D

230. keachick - January 15, 2011

How much time would be needed for pre-production for the Star Trek sequel?

How much time would be needed for its post-production?

It took almost a year to do the post-production for a movie like Unstoppable, where there was not as much as CGI etc as there is in other movies. Also, an action rom-com movie This Means War may not be ready for release until much later this year because of the time needed for post-production. I am mentioning both these movies because they both star Chris Pine (“my captain”).

Does the time taken have something to do with the producers and others multitasking, which means each project takes longer? I don’t know. Just wondering. Bob?

231. joe - January 15, 2011

If Paramount feels like it must absolutely be in 3D then fine. I just wish that they would make 3D glasses that people who already wear glasses can wear.

232. Jim Nightshade - January 15, 2011

You guys all have so many different things to say..some of you thought the tron 3d was cool state of the art others say it stunk…U cant both be right can ya? hahah….

What else…3d sucks, no its great….avatar had a crummy story no it had a great story…

3d in avatar didnt help anything at all….oh the 3d in avatar is what made it cool blah blah blah heheh

Obviously SOME people have trouble with the 3d causing headaches and the like…THAT I can understand….but MOST people dont…..Ive seen several of the newer 3d movies never had a problem…Personally Avatar did not stick it in your face 3d it had real 3d where it looks like you are looking into a real world of pandora…..Face it Camerson knows his movie stuff….he had a good story, acting and efx and the 3d was more NATURAL than any other to date…

Toy Story 3 had GREAT 3d especially the opening sequence incredible…UPs 3d was soso at best…Trons 3d was pretty spectacular long as you understand the entire movie was not in 3d that is probably why so many seem to say they were not impressed….

Other than the above movies most other 3d movies I have seen were soso…..I was smart enuf to avoid Clash of the Titans…Loved the original Ray Harryhausen version too much…

So I still say it depends on how and who is doing the 3d if it is worth seeing….obviously the story should be good no matter what….

233. boborci - January 15, 2011

224

lol

234. Dan - January 15, 2011

I can’t believe Bob and Alex went working on another project when the demand from fans was so great for the sequel to Star Trek. Thanks for putting your priorities in the right place.

235. MJ - January 15, 2011

@234. Not cool Dan, given Bob is taking the time to really connect with us fans.

236. boborci - January 15, 2011

234. nothing tops trek

237. Phobos - January 15, 2011

@234
I agree. This multitasking stuff can be dangerous. But that is a tabout touchy subject. We have to give the writers the benefit of doubt.

238. Thorny - January 15, 2011

@234… I suspect Mr. Orci and Co. like to get paid. People are funny that way. :-)

239. Phobos - January 15, 2011

@238 How much did Kurtzman and Orci earn on ST 1?
I have no clue how much, but a fair $ would be.. hmm…

150 000$ ea
But that is of course only due to the fact that ST had been idle for years and no one knew how much ST would make.

For ST2 they should earn 1.5$ million ea. imo

240. boborci - January 15, 2011

237. thanks, but lets get even more into it.

Alex and I have our deal at Dreamworks. they pay our bills, give us offices, executives, and have generally given us amazing opportunities. They are our main home for movies. So consider this… our home studio gets NOTHING out of Star Trek. Nonetheless, Spielberg not only wished us well when we went off to write it, he actually helped us convince JJ to direct it.

So when SS then comes to us and says he’d like us to produce Cowboys and Aliens for our home studio between Treks, after everything he has done for us (and for Trek), u figure we r just supposed to spit in his face?

the above is just one of a half dozen considerations that might shed light on our decision making process. one of the few i can talk about, but one of the most instructive.

241. Thorny - January 15, 2011

I’m on the fence about 3D. “Avatar” gave me a headache that lasted for about two days afterward. “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and “Shrek 4″ did not. (It might be an issue about the length of time wearing those stupid goggles, or the way the 3D was made.)

I’ll go see Trek 2012 in 3D if that’s how it is made, and will risk the headache. Quality of the story, directing, and acting is enormously more important to me than whether there’s a cool shot of a phaser zapping right over my shoulder in the theater.

242. cd - January 15, 2011

73 – O

184 – >;>}

243. Phobos - January 15, 2011

@240
Fair enough. I respect that judgment and sense of loyalty.
=-=-=
On a sidenote, I really wish Spielberg would rejoin Paramount.
At the very least, I hope the movie collaborations between P/DW continue/increase.

244. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

240.

Thanks for the explanation, Bob!

245. Phobos - January 15, 2011

To any suit at Paramount:
How come these ST writers consider DW their “home”?
Increase their pay asap please.
ST is one of Paramount’s core franchises, and any winning elements should be secured. Not so long ago P was on the verge of serious financial times, I hope no one forgets.

246. The Vulcanista }:-) - January 15, 2011

Just tell us a good story with interesting characters. And really cool special effects. It is scifi, after all. luvyakthxbai!

Peace. Live long and prosper.

247. cd - January 15, 2011

234, etc – I have no problem with Bob and Alex working on as much as they possibly can, while they can. Strike while the iron is hot. They work as they possibly can because a) in a few years or 10 years or whenever that streak of success could end, or b) they work as hard as they possibly can and that streak keeps going. And working with people like what-his-name SS is probably not too bad a career move.

248. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

240

Dreamworks, eh? Would you ever consider writing an animated feature (if you haven’t already)?

249. yuh muthuh - January 15, 2011

@245

read 240

250. boborci - January 15, 2011

248. maybe. but animated features take a lot longer.

251. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

Also, Bob has earned the right to do whatever he wants. And get paid for it.
He owes us nothing. We do, however, decide whether or not we want to see any of his movies or shows. And he wants to write as many scripts as possible because life is short and he enjoys it. He cares about “Star Trek” and all of us,so nothing else would be worth pants-crapping about.

On the flip side, since I’ve paid to see the movie in the theatre five times (about $63.00 total) and bought the Blu Ray (which I’ve watched about a dozen times, special features four times) I owe Bob nothing except my gratitude. I support his work because he’s a talented guy who knows what he’s doing. “Star Trek” is an awesome movie and can’t wait for his encore.

252. boborci - January 15, 2011

248. and actually, really, technically, dreamworks animation and dreamworks live action are seperate companies. comfusing, i know.

253. keachick - January 15, 2011

I guess I am answering my own question by suggesting that most producers and writers are multitasking, ie they probably have many projects on the go at various stages of production.

Steven Spielberg is a great producer/director and I am really happy he is giving you lots of encouragement as well as work. Work is good as, among other things, it brings a pay cheque. I see he is also behind Welcome to People. This must be so encouraging for you guys, Bob and Alex. So cool!

I hope JJ does direct the next Star Trek. He knows the material and the cast. Just remind him that this is Star TREK, not Star Wars.

Anthony, can you vote more than once? My mate says he’ll only get interested when they start making films in 4D…:), otherwise just film a good Trek story in 2D.

254. Remington Steele - January 15, 2011

#250

Come on, we all remember The Animated series, just do an extended one of those with the exact same animation style and you’ll have it done next week:)

Joke of course…I bloody love the animated series

Bring back the aqua shuttle for the next trek movie…you read it here first

255. boborci - January 15, 2011

253. blame us for the Star wars thing. we orignally said that ti serve as a metaphor for the fact that we wanted trek to be a tad more rock n roll, that’s all.

256. cd - January 15, 2011

How about Hawaii Five-O: the Animated Series? >;>}

257. Remington Steele - January 15, 2011

Bob, go on, we’re all dying here…can you give us even the tiniest piece of goss on the new movie that we can mental on and blow out of all proportions???

I’m half delirious after being up over 24 but nonetheless, the plea stand!

Please:)

258. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2011

Bob, are you guys planning on doing another comic mini-series leading up to the sequel?

259. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2011

Tell me, in an animated Hawaii Five-O series, how would Danno “draw” his gun?

260. Phobos - January 15, 2011

@255 ST as an action movie is appropriate.

Paramount owns the movie rights.
CBS owns the tv rights. When they release a new ST tv series, would you be interested if they contacted you for writing? A ST tv serie would be more intellectual and paced differently.

261. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

I hear they’re coming out with a girdle for men…………it’s called “the Shatner”.

262. boborci - January 16, 2011

258. Would love to. Mike Johnson, who co-wrote Countdown with us, is continuing to work on Trek comic tie-in ideas.

257. I can only give you this, but it is significant, and it is in the form of a question –

Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?

263. boborci - January 16, 2011

260. Phobos – January 15, 2011

It would interest me. But interestingly, for the second time tonight, the subject of commitments comes along.

We have a contract with FOX TV. Hawaii 5-0 is at CBS because it pre-existed our partnership with FOX. Now that we are committed to FOX for 3 years, CBS and FOX would have to agree to partner before we could be allowed to work on another CBS show. And CBS owns Trek.

So if someone can get those two kids together, we’d love to!

264. Phobos - January 16, 2011

Think people think!

265. Remington Steele - January 16, 2011

Bob, very good.

I like it.

Wish I wasnt half asleep so I could ponder it properly!

Thanks!!

And I know its been said before, but it’s cool you check up and contribute here so frequently, it shows you’re not a faceless goon out of touch with fans

266. Phobos - January 16, 2011

…of the tos in their past…. what does he mean?!
ST1 starts with Pike.. ok.. then the movie finishes with Kirk as captain..
but all the tos tv series already have Kirk as capt… * thinking *

267. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Bob, do you have any idea what direction you’d like a Star Trek TV series to take?

268. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

262.

“A question! Since before your Sun burned hot in space, I have awaited a question!”

Now I only wish I had a friggin’ answer for it!!

269. Remington Steele - January 16, 2011

I suppose of you take it like this

Star Trek 2009 takes place on a sunday
The original series started on a monday
The new movie will take place on a friday

what events happened on monday, tuesday, wednesday and thursday

Something in those days could be the basis for the new movie.

Boom.

over simplifying it maybe, but thats what im thinking

270. MJ - January 16, 2011

Bob, my prediction, for what it is worth, is that the new movie will open up with a 10-minute sequence in which the Enterprise crew will be in the process of concluding an action sequence that is consistent with the ending of one of the TOS episodes. Then, the STAR TREK title will appear. And then the real story starts which will be separate from the 10-minute opening sequence, and the new story will be a totally new Trek adventure.

271. cd - January 16, 2011

262 – Does that question indicate the progress on the sequel? >;>} The destruction of Vulcan I think would have a significant impact on the course of events, so many of the things originally encountered would not be, but some things would still be in place, like the increasing threat of the Klingon and Romulan Empires, for example.

272. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

263: Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

Are you saying elapsed time between ST.09 and ST.012 is in real time? 3 years?

273. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

270.

Yeah, the movie opens with Kirk kicking the Gorn’s ass then on to the new stuff!

274. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

I.e., 3 years movie time = 3 years real time?

275. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@272
ok lets figure this out…
ST1 = 2009
ST2 = 2012.. so that’s 3 years.
Im looking at the tos episode list and their stardates on wiki.

276. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

I mean, how else could you know how many adventures from TOS are in the 2012 crews’ past unless some significant time has elapsed? If the answer is none, then it would be a relatively recent continuation from ST.09. No?

277. Phobos - January 16, 2011

How many stardate years represents 3 standard Earth years?

278. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

272.

Well, it can’t be like what happened between ST:II and III. In those films it’s supposed to be only a couple of days later, but Shatner looked like he had aged 5 years! The next movie will probably depict at least a few months having gone by. In a few months they could have squeezed in a dozen adventures!

279. cd - January 16, 2011

270 – Scotty: “…where they’ll be no tribble at all.”
Keenser: “Yeah.”

280. MJ - January 16, 2011

@274. How can you assume that?

281. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

@275: Yeah but as usual, Bob is covering all the possibilities from none to many, which gives us no definite factor to work from. But go ahead and do the stardate thing anyway…let’s speculate….

282. MJ - January 16, 2011

@278 “The next movie will probably depict at least a few months having gone by”

Yes, I doubt it will be much more than a year into the mission.

283. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

280: “@274. How can you assume that?”

Easy. Just do. Doesn’t mean it’s correct. Just means we’re modeling possibilities for fun.

284. MJ - January 16, 2011

Besides, didn’t that all get the Enterprise several years early than in TOS? So aren’t we at least several years away from the start of the original 5 year mission at the end of ST09?

285. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

Sounds like an ad campaign for a theme park….”possibilities for fun”!

286. MJ - January 16, 2011

@283. OK.

287. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Dunno. We need the stardates. Phobos is on it.

288. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

284.

Yes, but in an alternate reality who’s to say that some of the people and variables from the original 5 year mission didn’t come along earlier?

289. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@281
If we can figure out how long a stardate is (which per wiki is very complex), we can narrow the st2 movie story to one of the first few tos ep.

the oldest tos ep is
Where no man has gone before is stardate 1312.4

so we start with 1312.4 then add 3 years worth of “stardates” then we can check all the ep OLDER than the stardate of our calculation.

290. MJ - January 16, 2011

@288. Which gives them even more freedom to mix and match stories, timelines and characters from TOS episodes, right?

291. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

289.

Gawd, I need a drink!

292. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

277. Phobos – January 16, 2011

How many stardate years represents 3 standard Earth years?

***

Calculate from where ST.09 left off in earthdate. Kirk was born same time in alternate universe as in prime universe.

293. MJ - January 16, 2011

@289. I don’t think it is that simple. See mine and Harry’s posts above.

294. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

290.

Correct!

295. Phobos - January 16, 2011

List of TOS and their stardates http://tinyurl.com/39pgce
TOS definition of a stardate http://tinyurl.com/7nrqe

296. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

The MWI/QM split occurred AFTER Kirk was already conceived, thus, same birthdate for Kirk’s in both universes. What was his birthdate? Then, how old when he joined starfleet? Plus three years. Events with Nero all close together in time, same year. Some time passed after Nero was destroyed and he got promoted, but let’s say not much. So 3 years on top of that gets us where?

297. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

What earth year?

298. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

Remember, in the last movie, when Spock Prime and young Kirk first meet Scotty on the planet, he has a tribble in a cage on his desk. That one simple example proves that all bets are off as to when any of our beloved crew would have encountered any person, place or thing from TOS. Everybody got that??

299. cd - January 16, 2011

Bob’s question is very important, without a doubt, but there is another question that is much more important and must be answered:
Is Olivia Wilde going to be in the sequel?
>;>}

300. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

cross reference earth year to stardates after that. Memory Alpha can do that? Probably not.

301. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

298: Why?

302. Phobos - January 16, 2011

oh no Harry Mudd’s stardate is one of the older ones..
Mudd’s Women” stardate 1329.8

please… ANY tos theme except that one. :(

303. Phobos - January 16, 2011

I bet you that is what they did. They used that *censored* Harry Mudd like was rumoured a long time ago.

304. MJ - January 16, 2011

@298. I agree completely. That is why trying to calculate what will happen in Trek 2012 versus TOS time-line is really a moot point.

305. Mel - January 16, 2011

3D movies cost 3€ more in my local cinema. They aren’t worth the money. You also have to wear those stupid 3D glasses. And 2D movies have sharper pictures. Unfortunately a lot of 3D movies aren’t shown in 2D in my cinema, which is annoying.

306. DJT - January 16, 2011

3-D? Negatory.

I want Star Trek 2, Star Trek 2-D.

307. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

301.

Because the last movie established Kirk getting command of the Enterprise years before Kirk Prime did. And as we know, in TOS the crew only encountered tribbles some episodes into the first season. In TOS Scotty had never seen them before. So, for Scotty to have a tribble on his desk YEARS before he should have ever encountered one, illustrates to us that the alternate reality is unfolding in a completely different chronological way. All bets are off as to the order of things.

308. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Kirk took command at 25. 2255.

309. MJ - January 16, 2011

@305. Just refuse to see the 3D movies then and the studios will eventually get the message. My personal policy is to only pay for 3D movies that we actually shot in 3D. So the only 3D movies I have seen to date are Avatar and TronE. And I was real happy with my 3D experience on both of those films.

310. MJ - January 16, 2011

@308. What is the reference point for Kirk’s age in Trek 09. Did Alan Dean Foster cover that in the novel?

311. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

Trying to think this hard while drunk is somewhat taxing! :>)

312. MJ - January 16, 2011

@307. Exactly!

313. MJ - January 16, 2011

Although Harry, we are not sure how many years he hanging out in Iowa doing nothing after high school though, so this kind of complicates things further, right?

314. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

NONE is the answer to Bob’s question, given the assumptions I am making, if we are going by Memory Alpha. Kirk Prime assumed command in 2264. Kirk Pine in 2255. Three years after Kirk Pine assumes command is 2258, maybe 59. No TOS adventures would be in this new crew’s past yet.

315. Phobos - January 16, 2011

“Where No Man Has Gone Before” 1312.4 (yr 2324)
Presumably when Kirk starts his 5 yr mission.
===
So I add 3yr to 2324 (ST2012 minus ST2009 = 3yr)
===
which comes out to all the ep prior to 2327
which is means all the ep with a stardate older than 4000
(converted with http://www.hillschmidt.de/gbr/sternenzeit.htm)
===
which means the next ST movie will be any of the tos ep
from season 1 entirely
or any of 15 episode from season2

316. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Whoops. Excuse me. 2258 would be the date, not 2255. According to Memory Alpha. But that still puts us at 2261 if three years have passed, and still before Kirk assumed command in the prime universe.

317. MJ - January 16, 2011

@314. What is Memory Alpha’s source for this? I fear they just guesstimated this? Unless it was in the Foster novelization, which I have never got around to reading yet?

318. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

Isn’t it well established that approximately 25 years went by between Kirk’s birth and seeing him in the bar in Iowa?

319. Phobos - January 16, 2011

boborci
Can you narrow it down for us more? lol

320. MJ - January 16, 2011

@318. Come to think of it, didn’t Nero say he waited 25 years? So I think you are right!

321. MJ - January 16, 2011

So then, Kirk Pine may actually have graduated from Starfleet Academy as many as 5-6 years after Kirk Prime would have graduated.

322. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Kirk Prime and Kirk Pine have the same birthdate: 2233.

Kirk Pine tells Pike he’ll graduate in 3 years, which Memory Alpha puts at 2255.

3 years later he pounds Nero and gets command. Allowing for some time passage, but not much, that still puts Kirk in command at 2258, 2259.

If 3 years movie time = 3 years real time, then sequel starts in 2261, 2262.

Memory Alpha puts Kirk Prime in command at 2264.

According to those numbers then, NO prime universe adventures are in the new crew’s past.

Now, if everything is out of sequence because it’s a new universe, then it’s a trick question. There’s no way to answer it because there’s no way to predict a new sequence of events. Bob’s question only seems to make sense as a legitimate question given the assumption that some things are still in sequence. No?

323. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

However, THE CAGE would already have happened in the prime universe.

324. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Kirk wasn’t in command at that time. So that episode and, of course, events referred to in TOS but which weren’t actual episodes would have already happened if they happened at all in the new universe.

325. MJ - January 16, 2011

@322.

OK, I found confirmation: “Nero, Ayel and the Nerada waited 25 years for the arrival of Ambassador Spock (Star Trek)”

So Memory Alpha is wrong here as I suspected. Kirk was 22 when he entered the academy and 25 when ST09 took place.

To me this calls into question any dates on Memory Alpha concerning Trek 09. How could they have messed up the dates this badly?

326. Phobos - January 16, 2011

This is torturous game of date and timeline logic. Where is a good Vulcan when you need one. Someone email Nimoy. :-)

327. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

But again, that doesn’t mean THE CAGE really IS in the past of the new crew. Bob asked which adventures SHOULD be in the new crew’s past.

That doesn’t mean any given adventure necessarily IS in the new crew’s past. So does that bring us back to the Cage rumor?

328. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

325. MJ – January 16, 2011

No, it’s consistent. Kirk is born with Nero’s arrival, when Nero also got imprisoned. And Kirk took command at 25, after pounding Nero who escaped at the same time and captured Spock Prime.

The numbers mesh.

329. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

In other words, Nero was imprisoned during roughly the same time that Kirk was born and took command: 25 years. Nero captured Spock Prime soon after escaping.

330. Phobos - January 16, 2011

I think we are overthinking it. I bet Bob used my approach and started with stardate 1312.4 (Where no man has gone before), even though some resources say Kirk was capt. in 2264 (huh? oddity explained on some site as being a quantum dating thing. I dunno..).

If MY calculations are right, then boborci inspired ST 2012 on an epsiode from season1 of tos or any of the 15 ep from tos s2 which are older than stardate 4000 (per the tos stardate calc. formulas)

331. MJ - January 16, 2011

@ 328. You are right. Too late for me here to think straight. :-)

332. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Phobos, there’s no consistency or logic to stardates, so there is no way to calculate from them. There is to earth years.

333. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

From wikipedia:

This time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel’s speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth’s time as we know it. One hour aboard the USS Enterprise, at different times, may equal three or more Earth hours. The stardates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading.

Roddenberry admitted that he did not really understand this, and would rather forget about the whole thing (from Whitfield’s book):

I’m not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I’ve been lucky again, and I’d just as soon forget the whole thing before I’m asked any further questions about it.

334. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Am I the only one not in bed yet?

335. Phobos - January 16, 2011

My bet is that the next ST will be based on episode dated below stardate 4000 on http://tinyurl.com/39pgce

Time will tell.

336. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@334 Inspired from the word of Bones in ST Wrath of Khan: “Food?! How can you think of food at a time like this?”

Sleep? How can you think of sleep at a time like this? :)
That teaser from boborci was exciting.

337. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

@335: But no matter what, if Memory Alpha did their homework right, Kirk Pine took command several years earlier than the earliest Kirk Prime adventure. The stardates wouldn’t matter under this scenario.

The only actual TOS episode-adventure which would cross reference to the past of the NEW universe would be The Cage.

338. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Correction: Earliest CAPTAIN Kirk adventure, that is. Earlier adventures were of course referenced for when Kirk was NOT YET a captain in TOS. But I’m not counting those. I’m counting only actual aired episode-adventures.

339. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

336: “That teaser from boborci was exciting.”

Yes, now if he would just post the correct “upside down” answer at the bottom of the page.

340. Phobos - January 16, 2011

hey how about boborci confirming he would be interesting in writing for a new CBS Star Trek TV series. That’s huge news also.

341. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

That is cool too. I would love that.

342. Phobos - January 16, 2011

boborci may not have realized how good his hint was. If Im correct, if indeed its inspired by a stardate <4000 ep.; that means from hereon, ANY little tiny bit of info that comes out about the movie will most likely allow us to pinpoint which episode exactly. Wohoo! :)

343. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

342.

…..and if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon!

344. Phobos - January 16, 2011

Among the episodes with a stardate <4000, I can see these as being potential storylines which could allow for Shatner to appear in a cameo:

"The Enemy Within" (transporter splits Kirk into good and evil) could spin that story a bit to become young vs old.

"The Alternative Factor" it uses alternate dimensions.

"The City on the Edge of Forever" The guardian of forever – time travel gate.

"Mirror, Mirror" parallele universe

345. AJ - January 16, 2011

Which TOS eps should be in the past as ST2012 begins?

WNMHGB definitely. Unless Gary Mitchell is in the film.

The one that springs to mind, mainly as a way to develop Kirk, is “Operation: Annihilate!” We sort of met Kirk’s brother in the re-boot, and we got an idea of his situation growing up in Iowa. Having him ‘face death’ in this way would certainly mature him as a character.

The only caveat is: Don’t take the 1st season eps in order. Future stories may require the first meeting with the Romulans, Organia, Khan. It’s all juicy stuff which shouldn’t be simply ‘referenced.’

346. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@345 yeah, that would indeed be a good story for ST 2012.

“Operation: Annihilate!” Enterprise arrives at Deneva – the home of Captain Kirk’s brother, Sam – and discovers that the entire planet has been infested with large, amoeba-like aliens that have attacked and killed much of the human population. One of these aliens attaches itself to Spock, who volunteers to become a subject in Dr. McCoy’s medical tests. After McCoy accidentally blinds Spock during one of his test procedures, the doctor must quickly find a way to neutralize the dangerous creatures.

347. JMAN - January 16, 2011

I would have to say that Star Trek is not about gimmicky crap like 3-D, it’s about good stories, well-told. If Paramount feels strongly that they want a 3-D movie… well, then, it had better look good in 2-D as well, because that’s the only way I’ll be paying to watch it.

348. cd - January 16, 2011

boborci – you see what happens when you give no information but only ask a question? >;>}

349. Mel - January 16, 2011

262. boborci – January 16, 2011

“Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?”

I hope none! I hope that the sequel starts shortly after the last Star Trek movie. I like to see how Kirk gets used to his position. I think it would be great, if we could see some Admirals, which are doubting the qualification of the Enterprise crew. I mean they were only cadets and are suddenly responsible for the flagship of the Federation. And it would be interesting to see, how the Federation reacts in the aftermath of Vulcan’s destruction.

350. cd - January 16, 2011

I think we are looking in the wrong place for clues. I think Spock will continue his path to Kohlinar with Keenser, who is actually a Vulcan master, and Kirk will be frozen in a slab of Corbomite…
>;>}

351. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@345 hmm the more I think of it, the more I think Operation Annihilate would be an amazing ST 2 or 3.

Think of it, a disease going from planet to planet make everyone insane, the Enterprise rushes to put a stop to it, Spock goes blind (temporarily).
Of course the little pancake beasts would have to be turned into powerful Alien style monsters.

352. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@350 lol
I wonder if Keenser will make it back in the next movie. Not so sure.
His role appears to be merely to sell more ST Keenser action figure toys to kids.

As for Spock and the Kholinar, that would be interesting to see. Maybe he will dump Uhura and get back on the path of intellectual mastery.

353. Seb - January 16, 2011

Please no 3-D!
It’s just a gimmick an Star Trek isn’t about gimmicks.

354. keachick - January 16, 2011

You guys have been busy.

“A question! Since before your Sun burned hot in space, I have awaited a question!”
The Guardian said this in City on the Edge of Forever.

I think the answer to Bob Orci question may be NONE or TWO SEASONS. Either it is none because this crew are in an alternate universe where nothing happens necessarily in the same way, at the same time or to the same people as it did in the prime universe. Or – he is referencing an episode early in the second season but it won’t be what we are used to seeing.

Bob – please remember to bring Admiral Archer’s prized beagle back safe and sound!

I’ve just watched on TV a classic NZ movie, Smash Palace, directed by Roger Donaldson, made in 1981. Good story with good acting. Got to see a pair of breasts, two bottoms, the main male character’s little “character” and pubic hair – nothing over the top, all just a normal part of the plot, depicting normal human behaviour between a couple. No zoom ins and zoom outs, not a lot of shakey camera, just natural lighting, which was quite lovely at times as it was filmed in the South Island. Just a regular 2D movie.

So, I reiterate – don’t get caught up by this 3D, lots of special effects, CGI, FX – I don’t even know or understand half the words. Just do a good solid, character driven story, with real people (and assuming most are adults) doing healthy normal adult activities – being leaders, scientists, communicators, doctors, engineers, navigators, explorers and lovers and so on, if that all makes sense.

355. keachick - January 16, 2011

“As for Spock and the Kholinar, that would be interesting to see. Maybe he will dump Uhura and get back on the path of intellectual mastery.”

With only 10,000 Vulcans left, having a whole bunch of young healthy sexually chaste Vulcans pursue the Kolinahr and the path of intellectual mastery is just, well, ILLOGICAL! Besides having a good intellect and making good use of it and having a girlfriend, I did not think, were mutually exclusive. Perhaps this may be for some but there is also such a phenomenon as emotional intelligence and social acumen. Surely these are just as important as pure intellect.

Actually, that was one of the points that was made in Star Trek:TMP. Spock realised that he had concentrated on one form of intelligence to the exclusion of others, when he came into contact with V’Ger, which was simply pure intellect searching… That mind-meld/contact almost killed him.

356. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@355
2 words … Pon Far
every 7 years

Spock lusting for Uhura is because of his human half.

357. AJ - January 16, 2011

Phobos:

Not to have “O:A” as the story, but have it something, as Orci said, “in the past.” Kirk’s brother is dead, and it registers with Kirk, perhaps, much as Spock’s mom’s death registers with him.

It gives Kirk and Spock a bit of common ground, as Spock in the JJverse has lost his mom, and could flesh Kirk out a bit.

Star Trek V said “Other people have families, Bones. Not us.” That was bullcrap. Kirk was the ultimate defender of the lives of the redshirts, and the super-ultimate mourner of them when they died. Maybe a reference to “Operation: Annihilate!”‘s events would give young Kirk a certain needed gravitas when his colleagues die in the line of duty.

358. VulcanFilmCritic - January 16, 2011

@74 Kirk, James T. I’m in total agreement.

@82 Dom Exactly! The higher ticket price might drive away a significant part of the audience. Or at least diminish multiple viewings.

@ 177 Simon. Actually, seeing Vulcan destroyed did nothing for me!

@189 Thorny Yes, I did get a little…emotional on seeing the ST:TMP’s Enterprise flyaround, but not because of the great “practical” special effects which included self-illumination lights. It was the effect of the passage of time, reflected in the faces (and girth and facial hair) of the actors.
Imagine that scene without William Shatner’s awe-struck viewing of the refitted Enterprise. Or without James Doohan’s chest bursting with pride. Imagine it without the thrilling new score which now MEANS Star Trek. All of these old school crafts (story, acting, music) make this moment a “religious experience” for us. It is the craft of filmmaking, not embracing a new toy simply for the sake of newness.
Oh, and by the way, I’m NOT under thirty. I’ve been a fan since 1966, and I too prayed at several Star Trek conventions in the 1970′s that we would “get her back!”

What worries me is the Guys-In-Suits making CREATIVE decisions for the director, even before he has a script in hand. Now I’m sure that somewhere in the history of filmmaking there may have been some Guy-In-A-Suit who was able to help a picture, but by and large, Guys-In-Suits are an annoyance. They are not creative types. Otherwise, they would be out making films instead of doing deals.

Remember that it was the opinion of some Guy-In-A-Suit that Gene Roddenberry dump the fellow with the pointed ears after the first pilot.

I trust the taste level and judgement of JJ Abrams. If he feels that he NEEDS 3-D to bring his creative vision to the screen, then so be it. I will embrace the concept and I will show up. But let him make that decision. If the studio is going to push him too hard on this and we end up with a crappy picture or a new hack director, then this old dick-head (Leonard Nimoy’s term, not mine) is leaving the franchise.

359. P Technobabble - January 16, 2011

I’ve said on numerous occasions I don’t believe there is any need to worry about The Court running behind schedule, or procrastinating with the script, or paying more attention to some other project, etc. Some people are just worry-warts. Our Heroic Scribes know what they’re doing, they’re pros. And with Bob O being such a devoted fan, I’m sure the new script is consuming him.

I still think the less the writers say about the story the better for us, the better for our level of surprises. I would much rather see Bob giving us quizzical, I Am The Walrus sort of hints than spelling it out — which he’s not gonna do anyway. Isn’t it a drag to go into the theater and already know what the story’s gonna be about, who’s gonna be in it, etc??

As for the Star Wars influence, we’ve been through this before. I totally get the Court wanting to make Trek “rock n roll” a little more. Certainly, this could be done, as they’ve already shown us. Now, they’re gonna have to keep it up — in fact, out-do themselves if possible. In a world overwhelmed by loop-produced, utterly shallow dance “music,” we need more rock n roll!!! I’m just saying…

360. Jeyl - January 16, 2011

@353: “Please no 3-D! It’s just a gimmick an Star Trek isn’t about gimmicks.”

The shaky camera is a gimmick as are the lens flares. And if you think JJ isn’t above using gimmicks, just look at all the behind the scenes footage for Star Trek. JJ is practically bathing in the gimmicks he’s using for Star Trek. If he’s not banging on top of the camera profusely in one shot, he’s shining handheld flashlights at it in another. At least with 3D, it’s constant and has a flow, where as shaky cameras and lens flare are just intrusive and random, and that’s during scenes that on paper have nothing random about them.

361. captain_neill - January 16, 2011

Where the stardates changed to make them more accessible to the mainstream?

Would the mainstream be asking how they work when it was just done to add a another sci fi element to the show?

362. DD - January 16, 2011

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not like this 3D format.

I feel this 3D format is being forced on us whether we like it or not, without being given a choice. I wonder how many customers are being lost who are not going to the cinema as a result of it?

I have already missed two films I wanted to see that were only available in 3D in my local cinema – Tron Legacy and the Green Hornet. So I’ve decided to wait until the 2D DVD comes out to watch it on my 2D HD Tv. The price of the DVD is not that much more than the cost of a ticket to watch a 3D film, so I will wait.

Please don’t do this to Star Trek as I really enjoy going the cinema seeing it on the big screen.

363. chrisfawkes.com - January 16, 2011

3D is a fad and even then one that is being thrust on the public. It is not there by demand but because many cinemas are doing less screenings of 2d films so often you don’t have another option for the most convenient time.

Not only will not add anything to the bottom line but 3D has one major technical suck factor that no one seems to have addressed.

When you put on your 3D glasses you lose a stop of light. The film looks darker because they don’t compensate and it’s tacky and just bad form as it lessens the viewing experience.

Every now and again they try to market 3D to the masses both in film and as a photographic medium. A few geeks think it’s cool but the masses never really care for it.

Star Trek in 3D gets a huge thumbs down, in my professional opinion.

364. chrisfawkes.com - January 16, 2011

Just one more thing to consider. The masses are on a knife edge wondering which way the Trek series will go.

Will they build on a great start and up the anti in terms of quality story or will future Treks go the way of transformers sequels and become lamer and lamer.

The vibe of 3D overall is cheap gimmick so for the above reasons i would stay as far away from it as possible.

P.s in my previous post when i say the light drop off has not been addressed i don’t mean by critics but by the studios witht he power to do something.

365. Chief Engineer - January 16, 2011

Strictly speaking it’s not 3D… Until you can look all the way around the image instead of watching flat images that are layered. You also lose brightness of the image because of the glasses. I thought Avatar and Alice In Wonderland suffered… the effect is not quite there.

366. Kent Butabi - January 16, 2011

An interesting thought – what TOS adventures take place between ST’09 and ST’12. Hmmm…

Good question or brilliant ruse, boborci.

367. captain_neill - January 16, 2011

I would prefer it in 2D

3D is getting used too often.

3D won’t ruin the film but it doesn’t add anything to it either.

I will be buying it in 2D.

3D does nothing to make the cinema experience any better. it already is a great experience in 2D if the film is good.

368. TNG 4eva - January 16, 2011

@262. boborci
“Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?”

A: all of the 79 eps and the 6 films and all of the seven seasons of TNG and their 4 movies – leading straight into the 5th TNG movie starring Patrick Stewart, Frakes, Spiner etc

no more of the star trek SNL 90210 imposters!

369. David - January 16, 2011

I’d say yes to 3D if it was a different director

I’d say no to 3D if was Abrams was directing

370. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Assuming Bob is asking a legitimate question, which is one that isn’t a trick and actually has an answer we can figure out given the clues he’s given, then stardates do not matter in the figuring. Stardates are arbitrary devices that have no real, calculable value because they are imaginary and therefore not required to proceed in a consistent and known way like earth dates do.

Interestingly, my way of calculating the answer did produce the result of The Cage as the only possible answer, which has also been a rumored plotline of the sequel.

Now, will a certain beautiful actress, who will have to suppress an accent, enter the picture to play the character of ___________?

371. Rico - January 16, 2011

PLEASE – no 3-D, JJ. Not needed if you make another great Trek movie.

372. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

3D? HELL, NO! THAT WOULD BE BAD!

WE WANT RAD, NOT FAD! DON’T MAKE ME SAD! MAKE ME GLAD! :>)

373. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2011

370. dmduncan “a certain beautiful actress”

Trying to be like Orci with a cryptic question, eh? Okay. Is she French?

374. Buzz Cagney - January 16, 2011

#368 which is the precise point that my interest would be lost.

375. Buzz Cagney - January 16, 2011

oh, and to BobO’s question- I want the movie set just as soon as possible after the events in the last movie.
Perhaps the launch off on the first 5 Year Mission? That’d be great. Thanks in advance! ;-)

376. Buzz Cagney - January 16, 2011

And I just have to say this- I really enjoyed ’09. I mean REALLY enjoyed it. However, they are not yet my beloved crew. They are still very much actors portraying my beloved crew. They are a work in progress but my heart very much wants to take them in.
So no pressure Bob!

377. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

373: “Trying to be like Orci with a cryptic question, eh? Okay. Is she French?”

Lol. And you’ll get the same kind of answer out of me that my questions get out of Bob O.

378. Chadwick - January 16, 2011

Hi Bob,

Stepping aside from 3D for a few moments, I have a question regarding theme music.

Would you ever consider or push the powers that be to use the Jerry Goldsmith Motion Picture/Final Frontier theme music? I realize you didn’t want to use the TOS theme at the beginning of the movie, it was saved for the end when the entire crew was together, much more appropriate. I am guessing if you adhere to that principle then I have answered my own question, and the theme will not be used as the TMP theme was used for the elder years. I wish to challenge that.

Star Wars has its recognizable theme and its never changed yet has still offered some great music in its six movie saga. Star Trek’s TOS theme has been debated as the one and only theme for Star Trek as a whole and I personally feel no theme reflects the entire Star Trek franchise better than the TMP style theme. Proud, glorious, and bold.

The TMP theme started it all but when compared to iterations which follow, its sounds kind of light and flaky. The Final Frontier version had a grander symphonic presence. With the TNG TV series the music sounded far too synthetic and synthesized. And finally with the TNG movie series they used that theme and brought back that grand live symphony for the ending credits.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the theme for the Star Trek movie, especially the way it starts off with the violins and that ever so recognizable clicking sound from Wrath of Khan. Michael did a wonderful job. It reflects another aspect of Star Trek I love, the variety of beautiful music we are privileged to hear, like the opening music for First Contact, its a tear jerker. And I know you love the TMP scene where Scotty is showing Kirk the refit Enterprise, its your sit back with a glass of wine moment :), and its the TMP theme played in a much slower time so it really resonates on your emotions. I know you know how powerful of a moment that is.

If Michael came back to do the next movie I would love to hear the classic TMP theme updated a bit, revamped with Michael’s style.

Would it be a strong possibility for either of the following Star Trek movies?

379. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Though she’s not the actress I am referring to, Olivia Wilde is starting to look like she’s at the cusp of a Shia Leboef-like whirlwind tour of movie appearances, so it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see her in the sequel too.

380. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

But if there’s any daylight left in the decision making process, and IF it’s an either/or kind of thing without room for both, I’d say do the brave thing and cast the atypical actress with the funny accent.

381. oneQ - January 16, 2011

J.J. knows it better. Trust him, Paramount, if you want to be on the sure side.

382. Michael - January 16, 2011

Forget 3D, use super 8mm and upconvert to IMAX, then layer animated cells over that and project digitally on a off-white painted wall. In otherwords, stick with 2D please! Tell Paramount to pull their hands out of the pot and get a grip on their goal of ticket-inflated 3D prices/profits and MAKE a good film w/ a great story!

383. TNG 4eva - January 16, 2011

if JJ dosnt wanna direct maybe they should just get the guy who everyone thought had directed the first one –

Michael Bay.

384. somethoughts - January 16, 2011

Star Trek 3D will sell a lot of 3D TVs!

Seriously though, Star Trek 3D will work, as long as the movie rocks in 2D, how can it fail in 3D?

385. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 16, 2011

So let me get this straight…Star Trek fans are prone to headaches, susceptible to motion sickness, can’t see in the dark, can’t wear movie glasses, are cheap, don’t like 3D, hate lens flares, don’t care for jj’s camera work, want things to remain as they always were, and prefer less sex and action. Not exactly Academy material. If this were a starship, we wouldn’t make it past drydock.

386. TNG 4eva - January 16, 2011

some stuff i gots to see in the sequel

-loads more lens flare – the first one didnt have enough!

-a lot more shakey cam.i cant watch The Wrath of Khan or any of the other movies now as they are too still and calm

- Kirk and Spock shooting things with a blaster in each hand screaming

-shuttlecraft vs shuttlecraft blastin each other zippin and zoomin everywhere

- a khan like villain out for revenge threatening to destroy the earth and only the enterprise can stop him!

-a sex scene between Kirk and some alien (played by Megan Fox) to loud rock music

-a hip hop star like Jay Z cameo or minor role

-space zombies

387. Bucky - January 16, 2011

Boborci re. timechange

About a year or so from the end of the last movie. Just so those Pocket Books JJ-verse Trek novels can come out and whatever other tie-ins to fill in the gap (maybe another comic book series, which would be great but it’ll be hard to top Countdown).

Gotta show some love for the spin-off materiel!

388. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

#383, 386

Judging by your name, and your anti-J.J rhetoric, I suggest you GET THE HELL OFF THIS THREAD!!!

389. TNG 4eva - January 16, 2011

388

after you

390. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

389

Nope. I was here before you. And unlike you, I actually have NICE things to say. You, on the other hand, are a hold out, a relic from the 90′s who still hasn’t joined the twenty first century.

391. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

386: “-space zombies”

In Star Trek they’re called Borg.

392. Basement Blogger - January 16, 2011

Announced last year, this March Nintendo will launch a 3-D portable gaming system. The 3DS will play games and movies WITHOUT the glasses. According to the story, a version of “How to Train Your Dragon” will be made for it. That was good at 3-D.

Story
http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/314-nintendo-3ds-the-story-so-far?nc

393. Allenburch - January 16, 2011

Don’t care – just make a great movie from a great script.

If the 3D gimmick adds quality to the movie, generates more money and boosts the budget for more Star Trek movies/shows, then I’m all for it…But a great movie has always been made from ingredients that are not reliant on special effects.

394. captain_neill - January 16, 2011

I am all for Star Trek to stay with the times

But to say that all steady cam work is dated is wrong

395. jimbokett - January 16, 2011

I don’t enjoy wearing those stupid glasses at the movies. I’d rather watch a nice HD Blue Ray at home.

396. FlyingWok - January 16, 2011

No, no 3D.

It’s a fun gimmick most of the time, but in the end I find it really distracting to actually watching the movie. My eyes are never sure where and how to focus, and I tend to come out with a bit of eyestrain after the movie.

I can only speak for myself, but I find myself spending more time figuring out how to process the 3D image than focusing (ironically) on the visuals and shot composition, the dialogue, and the plot.

Eh, I guess I’m a little bit ambivalent. I just saw Tron: Legacy in IMAX 3D, and it was a fun experience, but I can’t say that the 3D *made* the movie.

397. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 16, 2011

I find it hilarious when someone comes on here and argues that we should all just accept 3D because it’s the wave of the future, but don’t substantiate that claim in any way. As I stated earlier there is no difference between 3D films from 2009-2011 versus 3D films from 1983 — and I don’t mean in terms of HOW the cameras are different, but in terms of WHAT the net effect is on the viewing experience. No one can give any evidence supporting the claim that the 3D we’ve known to date is a viable technology with room for growth and long term potential; that’s the evidence you’d need to summon to demonstrate the technology’s maturity and inexorable climb to universality.

Other commentators have noted that unless the 3D imaging is holographic (to take it to its logical conclusion), or at the very least viewable without glasses, it’s not new. Period. And if it’s the same old crap repackaged, then it is anything BUT the wave of the future.

I mean, seriously, if you want to make analogies with the analog to digital transition, or the 4:3 to widescreen transition, or the black-and-white to color transition, come up with something concrete and compelling as proof!

398. Sebastian - January 16, 2011

#113.
“I say, adapt or die.
When we (well, I’ll just use photographers as an example) transitioned from film to digital because of practical demands, we did it. Like it or not, 3D IS here to stay- this time. When you shoot 3D, yes, you have to adapt your shooting style, but in the end it just makes you a better artist.”

The above comment strikes me as very subjective and somewhat shortsighted. I know MANY photographers who still very much use and enjoy the visual aesthetic of film. Not everyone has gone digital, let alone 3D. Many movies today are still shot on traditional 35 mm. Granted, the big event movies are going more and more towards digital and 3D, but at least they all allow the option of 2D presentation as well (and that’s as it should be, IMO).

Also, there are many people who for various medical reasons (including headaches, dizziness, etc) simply cannot watch movies in 3D. And I don’t see how the inclusion of more gimmicky pop-out moments would make one a ‘better artist.’ ALL art is subjective. Otherwise, we should upconvert ALL movies to 3D (imagine “Annie Hall” in 3D; WOW!) or why not redo all the paintings in the Louvre in 3D while you’re at it? Ridiculous…

And believe me; not all future movies will be made in 3D. First, there is the cost factor. Then there is the issue of necessity; is it really necessary to see a Jennifer Aniston date-com in 3D?? And then of course, there will always be some people who just prefer not to have to wear glasses and get sick and or dizzy just to watch a damn movie. And many more don’t want to spend an extra $5 for a ticket either; especially in this economy.

And I also agree with the post-CES analysis from the earlier comment; 3D TV sales have been tepid at best. The home 3D market is just NOT catching fire at all.

But to arbitrarily state that use of 3D makes one a ‘better artist’ is just ridiculous.

399. Allenburch - January 16, 2011

262. boborci

Regarding – “Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST? None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?”

When my group left the Corte Madera theatre in Marin after our 1st viewing of ST-2009, we all said, “Wow…great new young cast that really grabs the spirit of the original cast. They wont need to worry about the mortality factor for a long time.”

I think it would be really cool to have a movie in Year 4 of the mission, but your youthful cast makes it easy for the setting to be in any time between ST-2009 and Year 4.

I think that just about everyone I know who watched ST-2009, (prolly a couple-hundred peeps), expected the setting of the next movies to be at least similar to a back-to-back-to-back trilogy like your awesome boss did with Back to the Future or Star Wars IV-VI or ST II-IV or the Bourne movies.

Just giving you more feedback …

Hope your having fun with Cowboys and Aliens … Went with friends to a Willie Nelson concert at the Fillmore last weekend and wore my Indiana Jones hat!! Working with Harrison Ford had to be a blast, (and Daniel Craig).

Rock on…….

400. Craiger - January 16, 2011

Mr. Orci, Hawaii 5-0 is one of my favorite shows. The writing and cast are great! You guys should ask CBS to let you do the Trek TV Series!

401. MJ - January 16, 2011

@383 @386

Dude, please go back to your bong and six pack now.

402. MJ - January 16, 2011

#378. I like move forward with the new music. While the Goldsmith stuff is awesome, it is forever now tied to the Star movies of the 80′s and TNG, so I really think we need to keep a clean break from that now moving forward,

403. MJ - January 16, 2011

@368. Are you Bob Orci?

Please let Bob Orci himself address questions asked to him.

We get that you hat Trek 09 — fine — but please don’t have the audacity to try to speak for Bob Orci with ridiculous answers the deliberately support your position of hating Trek 09.

404. keachick - January 16, 2011

“2 words … Pon Far
every 7 years”

Actually I find that whole Pon Farr concept a crock and somewhat biologically deranged, for want of a better word. Given that there is a very long gap between one reproductive cycle and another (7 years), I can’t believe that Vulcan could have anything like 6 billion people. Some even less sensible canon placed on top of non-sensical canon. What to do?

It would appear that the Vulcan planet was similar in size to Earth (slightly larger, I think) but hotter. It had fewer natural resources, ie fewer varieties of vegetation along with animal life etc, and much less rainfall than Earth. Our human population only reached the 6 billion mark not so long ago (I’m not sure but it might be now 7 billion or almost – Yikes) Our 6 billion population was the result of there being a lot more resources available to people almost everywhere, even though many do not get enough, a MUCH shorter gap in the human reproductive cycle, and advances made in medical technology, hygiene practices, housing etc.

I’m not sure how the writers might get around this stupid Pon Farr in Star Trek canon, but I hope they can find a way. Perhaps Dr McCoy and other Federation medical “experts” may find a way of decreasing the gap between Vulcan reproductive cycles. This is where the half-human Spocks may be able to help.

As for us worry-warts – I guess it is just the mummy in me…:)

405. MJ - January 16, 2011

@404. If we might assume that Pon Farr was artificially instituted through generations of Vulcans as their move from savagery to logic, then perhaps, given the Vulcan emergency of having their planet destroyed and only 10,000 remaining, the newly assembled replacement Vulcan High Council could consider suspending the Pon Farr practice indefinitely so that the race could more quickly rebuild.

406. boborci - January 16, 2011

378. Chadwick – January 16, 2011

Could certainly happen. I’m a fan of that music as well.

407. boborci - January 16, 2011

399. Allenburch – January 16, 2011]

Thanks for the feedback!

408. Phobos - January 16, 2011

If there is a budget, I would put aside 3D and instead do:
IMAX 2D 70mm film/48fps

ST1 was on IMAX 35mm/24fps

409. boborci - January 16, 2011

@368.

Again, I truly prefer Melrose Space to the 90210 jab;)

410. Phobos - January 16, 2011

Well bob, you had us calculating stardates all night last night long after you went to bed. lol
I concluded ST2 will be inspired from a TOS show with a stardate < 4000, which means any ep. from season1 or any of the 15 ep. from s2 which are < 4000.
Everyone mark down the predictions and place your bets; 2012 is just around the corner. :-)

411. Devon - January 16, 2011

Boborci – With the film slated to come out in June 2012, are you confident that all will be on schedule? Is this a normal schedule for a sequel with the script still being written a little under a year and a half away from release date? It seems like things could be done faster since most casting is done, set design is done, outside of new sets or characters for sequel. Just hope things aren’t going to get rushed!

412. boborci - January 16, 2011

411. Yeah, exactly, much is already done –

and we have such a shorthand with our producing partners at Bad Robot that we can actually begin prepping the movie off our outline. All good.

413. MJ - January 16, 2011

@412 OUTSTANDING NEWS BOB !!!

I think a lot of us were nearly expecting to hear of a shift to December 2012 given our false perceptions that things might be moving slower than expected.

THANKS !!!

414. MJ - January 16, 2011

Bob, would you contemplate doing something in the hard scifi genre in the future…aka 2001, Blade Runner, Minority Report?

415. Phobos - January 16, 2011

Per wiki: “Bad Robot is a production company owned by J. J. Abrams. It is responsible for the television series Alias, Lost, What About Brian, Fringe, Six Degrees, Undercovers (2010) and the feature length films Star Trek (2009) and Cloverfield (2008).”

I think JJ playing hard to get is a $ negotiation ruse. ST is too important to Bad Robot’s portfolio. Him going on how it all depends on the script makes me smirk. He will do it, because he knows there are many other directors that would e.g., Nicolas Meyer.

416. MJ - January 16, 2011

@ 415. Love Nick Meyer, but he has not directed a feature film in 20 years and I would argue is probably past his prime in being to come in and do Trek 2012.

Lest us not forget the seemingly great idea by Roddenberry of bringing in a past-him-prime Robert Wise to direct TMP — that did not work out so well.

If JJ can’t go, I say give Orci his first crack at directing a feature film!

417. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@416 Funny you mention Orci, I actually thought of them as a possibility, but I chose not to mention it because 1) it might go to their heads 2) I think they have enough enough their plate right now.

As for Meyer, think of Spielberg, he is no young chicken and yet he is still very capable. Meyer is only 65, he did ST 2-4-6. I think we can all agree those are excellent. Also, ST2 was done on a shoestring budget.

imo, JJ has first grabs, but lets just say he gets cocky and starts asking for some insane amount of money and holds up ST2 (which now has no more time to spare); Paramount has to have a backup plan.

418. Rocket Scientist - January 16, 2011

Robert Wise did just fine with TMP. It’s one of my favorites. They ust simply ran out of time to fine tune it so what we got is essentially a rough cut. The tightened up Director’s Edition DVD is definitely more like it!

Regarding a previous comment by someone that the naysayers “get the hell off this board”, that’s a ridiculous demand. Not to mention immature. ST 09 was entertaining but it certainly shouldn’t be above reasoned criticism. There were parts of it that didn’t sit right with some viewers and they have as much right to verbalize their opinions as anybody else.

419. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

Bob, do you still play video games? You co-wrote “Aliens And Cowboys”, so I have to think that you’d enjoy “Red Dead Redemption”.

420. Chadwick - January 16, 2011

@ 408. Phobos – January 16, 2011

Good call, very nice. I was happy to hear they went with film over digital for Star Trek. I am a fan of both, but motion picture film is still so much richer. For consumers digital cameras are fine, but movies still look better in film. I am curious to see if RED cameras will ever make a large influx into the motion picture market.

421. Chadwick - January 16, 2011

418. Red Dead Ryan

RDR is great, I am also loving Undead Nightmare, but its hard to pry myself from Black Ops :S

422. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

420

“Undead Nightmare” is a blast as well. Cowboys and zombies. “Call Of Duty: Black Ops” is a classic as well. Some JFK moments in it.

By the way, plans are in the works for a “Red Dead Redemption” movie that may star Brad Pitt as John Marston.

423. BLFSisko - January 16, 2011

Paramount, do you read this?

NN N OO 33333 DDDD
N N N O O 3 D D
N N N O O 3 D D
N N N O O 3333 D D
N N N O O 3 D D
N N N O O 3 D D
N NN OO 33333 DDDD

PLEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

424. BLFSisko - January 16, 2011

ups, that should have been like a picture,

but i can repeat it

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3D !!!

425. StarFuryG7 - January 16, 2011

I’m not thrilled about the whole 3-D craze over the last year, but I’m not opposed to seeing a Trek movie filmed in 3-D necessarily. I just saw “Tron Legacy” last weekend and enjoyed it for what it was, having gone into the theater with low expectations also, and despite how the critics have panned that movie, I didn’t hate it and enjoyed the 3-D aspect of how it was filmed. (“Avatar” on the other hand fell short in terms of its 3-D shooting technique IMHO.) But the bottom line is that “Star Trek” started off as a pioneering series that took intentional risks, pushing the limits also of the technology in the era in which it was created, so why should it now all of a sudden be gun-shy and afraid of the advancement of technology available to filmmakers? To make it seem so strikes me as ridiculous and misses the point of how it all started and what some of the intended goals were of Roddenberry and the people behind the series way back at its beginning.

Having said that though, I’m not looking forward to a world in which everyone is wearing a pair of 3-D glasses in their homes when watching television. I don’t mind it as an occasional departure to traditional filmmaking, but I’m not hoping that all films and shows end up going that route one day.

426. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

“Tron Legacy” is a classic. 3D didn’t add anything though. “Avatar” in 3d looked more like a Blu Ray shown on the big screen.

But 3D is here to stay. It’s an excuse for movie studios to raise ticket prices and a lot of people automatically assume 3D means true “3D”. So a lot of people are still going to go, assuming that 3d is better than 2d when in fact it isn’t.

Of course, it could all just be me, since I have a lazy right eye and need to wear glasses. But I just don’t see anything that jumps out when I see a “3D” movie. I have no intention of getting a 3D tv. 2D is good enough.

I’ll wait for the holodeck, thank-you-very-much!

427. Lee - January 16, 2011

I wonder if when Bob Orci through out that movie hint, whether he was counting “The Cage” as the first episode, or “The Man Trap” or “Where No Man Has Gone Before”.

Of course, if two seasons worth of adventures have passed, I believe the next adventure is “Spock’s Brain.” Now that would be crazy scary if those events were worked into the next film.

428. sean - January 16, 2011

3D can be fun. I thought Tron Legacy was the best 3D I’ve seen so far. It just fit the film very well and was not distracting in the slightest. But as far as Star Trek goes, I’d rather not deal with it.

Still, anyone saying 3D hasn’t advanced since the 80s is either blind or smoking something. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it hasn’t progressed. And it unquestionably has.

429. Mariah - January 16, 2011

I’m gonna say it this way: If Star Trek 2 is in 3D, I will not watch it. 3D gives me really bad migraines.

But who am I kidding I’ll just wait until it comes out on DVD and see it then.

430. Christine - January 16, 2011

Well, I personally support the idea of Abrams directing STXII. I loved what he did with the last film and can’t wait to see what he and the other writers, producers, etc… Come up with.

As for 3D or not.. I really don’t care. I’ll probably watch it without the 3D, but it all just depends.

431. jas_montreal - January 16, 2011

Hi bob,

Instead of trying to get SS to convince JJ, how about trying to convince SS to direct the star trek sequel ?

432. boborci - January 16, 2011

419

yup. still a gamer. love red dead. loved th first one, too. red dead revolver.

433. Craiger - January 16, 2011

Killzone 3 is Feb 22nd with Malcom Mcdowell, the guy that killed Kirk, he voiced the main bad guy in it.

434. Craiger - January 16, 2011

Orci should be in charge of the next Trek TV series.

435. Leatherman - January 16, 2011

Please no 3D. It makes me nauseous. Really, I have to take the glasses off or close my eyes frequently. My brain can’t handle it. I would hate to think I have to give up Star Trek due to a gimmick.

436. keachick - January 16, 2011

On other boards, I am getting No’s to 3D as well.

#412 Bob Orci – “and we have such a shorthand with our producing partners at Bad Robot that we can actually begin prepping the movie off our outline. All good.”

Does this mean that if I look on the Untitled Star Trek Sequel or any of the main actors’ homepages on the IMDb, that I will see the words “Pre-Production” instead of just “Announced” against the movie’s name?

Now that would be really COOL!

I hope the issue is not one of money. I have to be honest, but it just does not sit well with me, when people hold out for more millions, when others are expected to live on a few thousand dollars and often have families to feed and clothe. Holding out for more money all the time tends to be inflationary and does nothing to help those at the other end. In fact, it often makes things harder for them.

437. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 16, 2011

boborci, re: “Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?”

My answer: None. In my opinion, the next Star Trek should see Kirk & crew still a little wet behind the ears. I say, keep the prequel quality up a little longer. Maybe even explicitly before the 5-year mission referred to in the TOS opening credits.

I’ve been in favor of seeing some classic TOS situation, such as with the Tholian Web or the Doomsday Machine. If you decided to riff off of the Doomsday Machine, you could start with a scene introducing Kirk to Commodore Matthew Decker, setting the stage for their interaction later, when the sh*t hits the fan. This would be kind of a repeat of the introduction between Kirk and Pike in Star Trek XI… retaining the theme of Kirk meeting his mentors or whatnot.

438. Cervantes - January 16, 2011

@ #262 boborci – you asked:

‘By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST? None? Two seasons worth? Ten episodes? Which ones?’

Well, here’s my own thoughts on this, but I warn you…this could get a little complicated…and not a little controversial, lol:

Although the movie reboot’s ‘ALTERNATE timeline’ storyline deliberately re-configured some ‘PRIME timeline’ elements totally differently (making it highly improbable that any of those ‘PRIME timeline’ adventures would still occur in *exactly* the same way as before, if at all)…I’d STILL like your sequel to begin around the BEGINNING of the ‘same kind’ of 5 – year mission that was seen in the original series ‘timeline’.

(I prefer to look on the movie reboot as being in an ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ rather than an ‘alternate TIMELINE’, so that I can still imagine the ‘Prime Kirk and co.’s adventures happened *exactly* as seen in the TOS series…because this gives the impression they were from an ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ to the one your’s was set in… Which means that the ‘Prime Spock’ seen in your movie is merely one from your movies ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ future too, as opposed to the universe that the TOS series is set in! And taking that viewpoint further…I can look on the whole of the ‘Next Generation’ series/movies (and ‘Voyager’ etc. too) as merely happening in the SAME ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ as yours, or even just yet another ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ to the original TOS one if I want, lol!)

In other words, my answer would be that NONE of these potentially ‘similar’ TOS UNIVERSE episodes should be in the past where the rebooted movies are concerned…as I hope you’ll all draw on the biggest pool of available great TOS storylines/characters as possible, for your sequel. I only hope that *whichever* ones you end up ‘referencing’, will give a kick-ass movie at the end of the day, no matter what you choose to do.

Just to go back to the 3D thing before I go – I meant to add in my previous post that *another* unfortunate drawback is the darker ‘lighting levels’ that are evident due to the current process, as was pointed out by some here.

Well, I’m sure glad I didn’t let that put me off seeing the likes of ‘AVATAR’ and ‘TRON:LEGACY’ in that format on the big screen, as that wasn’t a problem in the least for myself and my family who had a great time with them. The overall effect of the 3D ‘look’ far outweighed this current limitation for us, however.

Although I’ve now initially experienced these 2 aforementioned movies in 3D on the big sceen…I have to say, that having recently watched a Panasonic 3D Blue-ray demo of ‘AVATAR’, I was blown away by how good the effect was on an HD TV too!

And to those that want to know why they should believe that this latest 3D trend is going to be the future of presentation this time around, where it wasn’t before…well, here’s the difference – In the past, there wasn’t the same sheer amount of money and attention being spent on 3D from different fields as there is this time around…and there wasn’t the ‘conversion’ technology available back then to turn 2D into 3D either (it’s been effective in some instances, and will improve), which widens the back-calalogue possibilities this time around…and there weren’t TV manufactures and broadcasters and games manufacturers around in the past to help push the format at the same time as cinemas either, unlike now. Kids are going to be growing up with this type of effect all around them this time around, even on their mobiles and computer screens…and there’s unlikely to be any going back.

So bring on that sequel in ‘properly’-filmed 3D from the start I say…rather than leave it to be merely ‘converted’ from 2D. Just leave ‘alternate’ Scotty’s little ‘side-kick out of things, thanks.

439. Cervantes - January 16, 2011

Oh, and I sure wish that ‘Two Steps From Hell’ music from the 3rd trailer could feature in the sequel somewhere too. THAT should have been the your ‘alternate’ TREK theme Bob!

440. Cervantes - January 16, 2011

Oh, and also forgot that I still love the idea of starting the movie ‘MID-adventure’ in some way as an opener…before going onto the beginning of the main storyline in the movie.

441. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Deniro delivers a crack up speech at Golden Globes!

442. Charla - January 16, 2011

First, # 233, Bob, ***running up to you giving you a big e-hug**** for that comment! (A clean grateful hug, guys, minds out of the gutter Hehe) That is good to hear you say that.

Secondly, having to work most this weekend, I had a lot of catching up to do with these posts!!! I had the best time reading all of the posts after Bob’s post at #262- where he asks:

Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?

Almost but not quite 90 posts later, everyone seemed to be scrambling for an anwer- ROFL!! It was reminsent of a war room- I pictured all of our posters together putting what information they could come up with for a plausible answer. I was laughing just looking at the multitude of responses! It had to have been entertaining for you too, Bob, admit it – :D

I do admire the diligence exhibited here, and wish I had more time to put into it myself- such fun we have here!

As for the 3-D topic, for s**** & giggles I have a link to a man who claims to have solved the dilemma of wearing those funky glasses- you need to watch it, it is funny! Bad thing is, is I think he is serious!

http://www.jonathanpost.com

443. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

442: “Almost but not quite 90 posts later, everyone seemed to be scrambling for an anwer- ROFL!! It was reminsent of a war room- I pictured all of our posters together putting what information they could come up with for a plausible answer. I was laughing just looking at the multitude of responses! It had to have been entertaining for you too, Bob, admit it – :D”

LOVE to brainstorm like that.

444. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

442: LOLOL! That link was hilarious, Charla! Still cracking up!

445. Charla - January 16, 2011

Oops my bad! I meant to refer to Bob’s post at # 236, not # 233- but hopefully everyone will no what one I am talking about – ( “nothing tops Trek” – Bob Orci ) Loved that comment from him- :D

Glad you liked it dmduncan, I thought it was funny too~

446. boborci - January 16, 2011

read a lot of posts wondering if JJ is holding out for more money. You shoud know that all of our deals are prenegotiated, so when JJ says he just wants to make a decision based on making sure he is right or the material, he means it, and we should all respect him for that.

447. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 16, 2011

Bob, me thinks the next installment should pick up a few months after the last. Shouldn’t be in a rush to get through the five year mission least we end up like Spidyman, a reboot after a few movies.

448. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

446. boborci – January 16, 2011

Appreciate ALL you guys really taking the time to make what you all feel are the right decisions. Star Trek deserves it, and I am glad you guys got picked to handle the franchise. Can’t think of anybody else I’d rather see doing it than all of you.

449. VZX - January 16, 2011

I am not opposed to 3-D, but am not a fan when it interferes with a director’s style. I am curious to see how it meshed with Michael Bay’s style for the next Transformers.

But, since I am a huge fan of old-skool shooting action, I think that 3-D would tone down a lot of the quick cuts and shaky cam that is done too much now-a-days. I always liked action done in wide shots, like in old kung fu movies. That would be cool in 3-D.

450. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

446

It seems, unfortunately, that you guys have a lot of haters who just want to spread rumors and try to tear you down. Don’t pay attention to them. You have many more supporters. You’re pursuing your dreams and doing a damn good job!

451. boborci - January 16, 2011

thanks. but niw worries. complaining is truly part of the fun!

452. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

451

Seen any good movies lately?

453. boborci - January 16, 2011

loved City Island with Andy Garcia.

454. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

453

Not familiar with it, though I’ll keep it in mind.

Just finished watching Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks’ “Band Of Brothers”. Great miniseries. “Why We Fight” (episode nine) was the most powerful, sad and poignant. Great acting.

And it starred two former Trek guest stars. Tom Hardy (Shinzon from “Nemesis”) and Neil McDounagh (Lt. Hawk, “First Contact”)

455. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Streamed Unthinkable last night. Samuel Jackson, Carrie Ann Moss, Brandon Routh. Had me trembling. Horrifying movie.

456. gingerly - January 16, 2011

LOL this post. :)

I can’t wait for the We’re Done (but still not spoiling you for anything in it) headline.

P.S. Seriously, though. Y’all better not spoil anything. Tease, taunt, misdirect, BUT DON’T give away anything crucial to the plot, even in the trailers before it’s released, please.

Thanks.

457. gingerly - January 16, 2011

Also, no to 3D.

Not one film that I’ve seen in 3D has had a story to match the visuals.

458. gingerly - January 16, 2011

@453

Yeah, what is it with Hollywood making sure crappy movies are on every screen in every theater (Yogi and Littler Fockers) and films like City Island are blink and you miss it for one week , in one theater in New York and LA???

459. MJ - January 16, 2011

Well True Grit is one of hell of a fine movie. Hopefully its success will bring back some more westerns.

Avatar and TronE had good stories to go with the 3D. I realize it is impolitic to say anything good about Avatar on these boards, but I liked the movie a lot and I am not apologizing for that.

Also, while not good as the original comedic classis, Little Fokkers had some really funny parts. It was definitely better than the weak 2nd Fokkers film.

460. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Some really good stuff I’m seeing lately either bypasses my theaters or goes direct to video. Lots of interesting documentaries out there.

461. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Well, I am not much of a James Cameron fan, and I believe that where you put most of your thinking will show up on the screen, and James Cameron consistently puts his thinking into the technical side of things.

And that shows in Avatar as it does for most of Cameron’s work.

What would be cool is to just write the very best story and then tack on the 3D as an afterthought instead of approaching the story as the less important factor next to the 3D and the visuals and the details of an imaginary world.

Cool stuff, but less important than real seeming characters methinks.

462. MJ - January 16, 2011

@458. Part of it is marketing. I never heard of the movie City Island until Bob mentioned it today.

463. MJ - January 16, 2011

@461. Well DM, the reason I know the story in Avatar is good is because Cameron lifted 80% of it from Dances with Wolves. :-)

464. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

I mean, for all the time it took Cameron to make Avatar, the story doesn’t seem to have gotten much time devoted to it. Kind of disappointing.

465. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Dances With Wolves, yeah Shugmani tu tanka ob waci.

Don’t quote me on that. My Lakota is still good for getting laughs.

466. MJ - January 16, 2011

@464. Well you are entitled to your opinion, and I certainly realize that there is an Avatar backlash in Trekdom, just as a sizable group within Trekdom turns their noses at the Star Wars films.

467. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

James Cameron has said that he has read the complaints and will focus more on story next time. Remember, this is the guy who did “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” and “Aliens”, two movies that are generally considered equal to or better than their predecessors.

I think “Avatar” was more of an experiment. To see how things work or don’t work. Now that James Cameron knows it does, I think you’ll see him refine the characters and story next time.

The characters were well acted and well-written, though a bit too black and white. The story was good, though as others have said, it was derivative.

The movie is clearly an instant classic. Even though it will most likely be remembered for its beautifully stunning visuals.

468. cd - January 16, 2011

370, 379 -dmduncan- I agree that Carey Mulligan would be a great Carol Marcus! And Olivia Wilde as T’Pring and/or a Romulan!

469. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

For me it has more to do with Cameron’s style and not any competition with Trek. I think Aliens is the best film he ever did. And I loved the first Star Wars, and Firefly/Serenity is better than any filmed SF besides Trek, to me.

I adore Firefly/Serenity too. The ‘verse feels more real to me than anything I saw in Avatar.

470. MJ - January 16, 2011

@465. BTW, the Extended (nearly 4 hours) Directors Cut of Dances with Wolves was just released this week on Blu-Ray and in 7.1 sound. You can find a coupon for $5 off on it at coupons.com, which you can then use at Wal-Mart or Target. I got mine today for only $13 with the coupon at Wal-Mart. This Blu-Ray is very highly rated; see:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dances-with-Wolves-Blu-ray/281/

471. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

468: After seeing her win the GG tonight, I still think Clare Danes is perfect for Carol Marcus. She even LOOKS like a young Bibi Besch, and she’s a good actress — hence the award.

472. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

470

I hear its a very loooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnggggggggg movie.

(Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

473. MJ - January 16, 2011

@469. I agree with most of what you say here — I love Firefly/Serenity and Aliens, but I also like Titanic and T2 (which I assume you are less keen on given you left those out). Serenity was an outstanding movie — that could have been a big hit if it had been marketed better.

474. MJ - January 16, 2011

@471. Yes, I could see that.

475. MJ - January 16, 2011

@472. Yes, it is Peter Jackson/David Lean-level long. :-)

476. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Yeah, no fan of Titanic or T2. I thought T2 wussed out with the happy ending. I enjoyed the ending of T3 much more.

Yeah, watched Serenity again last night too. Just love that movie. Great music too.

477. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

Claire Danes…….mmmmm……was great in the ’96 “Romeo+Juliet” opposite Leonardo DiCaprio. Was also in the short-lived but much beloved “My So-Called Life”. Was also in “Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines”. She was replaced by Bryce Dallas Howard for “Terminator Salvation”.

478. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Clare Danes won a Golden Globe tonight for her performance as Temple Grandin.

479. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

If you have the Skynet Edition “Terminator 2″ Blu Ray, just punch in 28897 and you’ll get the “extended special edition” featuring the T-1000 searching John Connor’s bedroom and an alternate scene with a sixties-ish Sarah Connor at a playground in a future where the war with the machines never happened.

480. Chadwick - January 16, 2011

422. Red Dead Ryan

Nice! A red dead movie would be great. I also loved Tron Legacy, awesome!

481. VulcanFilmCritic - January 16, 2011

Dear Paramount,

Why don’t you save the money you would waste on 3D and invest in a truly unique special effect? William Shatner.

We all agree that the Shat-Man is too old to play Captain Kirk, right?
But he’s not to old to do voice work. He still has those great stentorian pipes!

There was some talk of him leaving some kind of message for Spock Prime in the first movie. Imagine the tears generated over that, as the aged Nimoy listens to the voice of his dear departed friend, perhaps sharing the moment with the younger Kirk.

It that’s too humdrum, then create a video message using old deleted footage from any of the older Star Trek movies. Surely you must have hours of this stuff hanging around somewhere. Hopefully some footage of Shatner from the 1980′s looking straight ahead at the camera talking. Using a trick from ST:TMP, write dialog that closely matches the lip movements of the 1980′s era vintage Shatner. Tweak it with CGI if you have to. Then have our contemporary Mr. Shatner dub it.

Perhaps have Mr. Quinto’s Spock trying to wrap his head around who his new friend is or who he could become. Or, if there really is a Drama God, recruit Mr. Nimoy again to watch this. If Spock really needed to shed a tear, it’s here, not over V’ger.

P.S-Zachary Quinto says he doesn’t mind if Mr. Nimoy comes back.

482. MJ - January 16, 2011

@467. RDR, yea, what you on Avatar is pretty much my take as well, but you said it better and with more details.

483. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

480

Let’s hope the planned remake doesn’t suck like most video game-to-movie adaptations.”Lara Croft:Tomb Raider” was good when there was action, but was a bore when it resorted to dialogue and expostion. “Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time” was pretty good though. Silly but fun.

484. MJ - January 16, 2011

@483. Yea, I actually kind of liked Prince of Persia, but I doubt we will see another one given it didn’t do to well.

485. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

I enjoyed POP, but I don’t understand why people in the ancient world, be they Persians or Romans, has to speak with a British accent, even if American actors are playing the roles.

Jake Gyllenhaal with a British accent. W-Whyyy?

486. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

481

The only way a Shatner appearance could work is if it’s a cameo. If its a big role, he’ll overshadow Chris Pine, who is now the captain. And then the writers would have to come up with a logical way to fit him in. Though I suppose they can forget that and just put him in the movie and not worry about trying to please the canonites. But the writers won’t do that because they said they wanted to respect canon. Plus its looking less and less likely we’ll ever see William Shatner as Captain Kirk.

487. dmduncan - January 16, 2011

Anything is possible if you have the thinking to match.

488. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

484

I think it made over $300 million worldwide. But it did cost $250 million to make, so I have to agree that it’s unlikely to get a sequel.

485

The Prince does speak with a British accent in the game(s) as well. I don’t know why. I guess not many actors do a very good Arab accent. And maybe folks would find an American accent way to distracting.

489. StarFuryG7 - January 16, 2011

For those of you fretting over the prospect of the next Trek film being shot for 3-D, it needs to be pointed out apparently that just because a film is produced that way doesn’t mean it won’t also be released in theaters in traditional 2-D as well, as was the case with “Avatar” and other films that followed also shot for 3-D viewing. So the movie can be shown in both formats in different theaters at the time of its release, and if you have a problem with your eyes and 3-D movies give you migraines or what have you, that doesn’t mean it will be the only option available to you necessarily once the movie hits theaters. So calm down.

490. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

487

I think the writers to have the imagination and creativity. But what it comes down to is how much screen time is given to Shatner versus Pine and the rest of the cast. But maybe all Shatner wants is just a few minutes to pass the torch to Chris Pine.

491. MJ - January 16, 2011

@486 “Plus its looking less and less likely we’ll ever see William Shatner as Captain Kirk.”

I am fine with this. Please, no Fat Shat — he has become a parody of himself and would be distracting for a lot of people in the next movie.

492. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

489

The problem is more and more theatres are upgrading to 3D making the choice of either 2D or 3D moot. A lot of people are going to see the movie in 3D, while others (who don’t want to pay the extra three dollars, wear another pair of glasses over their own, or just don’t want the headache) will just wait until the dvd/Blu Ray.

493. MJ - January 16, 2011

@490. I think what it would really come down to is whether they would be willing to pay Shat a couple million for probably a 5-minute cameo. He’ll do anything for a buck these days, and he will try to maximize his dollar value on ST especially.

494. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@493 Couple of million for Shatner?!!! lol I don’t think so.
A 5 min cameo would be maybe 100K$, if even that.
Anyone in the industry know roughly how much something like that costs?

495. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

#493

He might take a discount for a part in the sequel. He’d obviously have to.

But I don’t think we’ll ever see him in Trek again.

496. MJ - January 16, 2011

@494. Agreed, and that is kind of my point about why we won’t see him in the next movie. His version of his fair market value will be a level of magnitude about what Paramount and JJ would see as his fair market value.

FYI — Marlon Brando was paid about $10M in today’s dollars for just two-weeks of work in Superman.

497. Phobos - January 16, 2011

Here is my idea for an organic way to include Shatner:
Spock downloaded some data files from the JellyFish ship before he rammed it into the Narada. “Stealing” data files from the future ship would be logical considering he weighed the threat to Earth and was seeking any available tactical advantage. Some of those data files would contain holo-files of Kirk prime.

boborci, I hereby donate those ideas to you in whole. I hereby forfeit all and any rights to the above ideas for the sake of the hope of seeing Shatner in the next movie. ;-)

498. MJ - January 16, 2011

How about we all just let go of Shat and move on???

499. Phobos - January 16, 2011

And if Shatner is reading this, I say, do this cameo, for a reasonable price. You are 80 years old, not long for this world, and the true value of the cameo is not the $ you would earn but rather for you to consolidate your legendary status, and provide entertainment for future generations.

500. Phobos - January 16, 2011

@498 Because it “Sounds like fun!” (ST Generations) :-D

501. MJ - January 16, 2011

How about the movie opens with Shat and Joan Collins sitting in a couple of armchairs, inside the Nexus, and reunited as Captain Kirk and Edith Keeler through the space-time magic of the Nexus. After giving Joan a playful slap on her behind, Joan could be frying up a 6-egg omelet for Shat as Shat talks about the old days….fade to Chris Pine and Trek 2012….

502. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

498

“How about we all just let go of Shat and move on???”

Because as long as the script isn’t finished and until we get some idea of what the movie is about, the question of whether William Shatner be in the sequel is still wide open, though the writers seem to have indicated that they’re moving on. I’d ask Bob to confirm either way whether the Shat will appear in the sequel, but somehow I don’t think he’ll be confirming anything for awhile.

503. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2011

502

“….the question of whether William Shatner WILL be in the sequel……”

DAMN ACCIDENTAL OMISSIONS!!!

504. ISS - January 17, 2011

3D?!?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reasons?

First, it limits filmmakers in films not specifically conceived for 3D. Abrams said so himself.

I don’t want to be distracted from the STORY. Do I love the space-based effects in Trek? Sure. But the real reason I’m there is because I love those CHARACTERS. I don’t want to have to watch the best writing in the film delivered by Zachary Quito’s nose. I want to watch Spock say it.

The world as seen through two eyes is ALREADY in 3D. Remember that scene in the last Trek when Nero jumped up and out of his chair and thrust that spear through the chest of the Kelvin’s captain? Of course you don’t because none of that is possible in a 2D universe!

Please, please, please… NO 3D IN TREK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

505. MJ - January 17, 2011

@502. Well, at the risk of eating crow later, I would say the chances of him appearing are minuscule.

506. MJ - January 17, 2011

@504. “The world as seen through two eyes is ALREADY in 3D. Remember that scene in the last Trek when Nero jumped up and out of his chair and thrust that spear through the chest of the Kelvin’s captain? Of course you don’t because none of that is possible in a 2D universe!”

That is not really a fair comparison. Actually 3D cameras use two lenses, which is consistent with humans use of two eyes. So if you think about it, standard movies are shot with one camera, which would be equivalent to a person with only one eye.

507. ISS - January 17, 2011

Not sure what Abrams gains by siting not having read the script as his reason for not yet deciding to direct. If he doesn’t direct, doesn’t it lay implicit blame on the script? I suspect that it’s simply a prudent decision not to commit to a script that isn’t yet written, and it will probably be viewed by most insiders as just that. But as a producer, why not assume responsibility for the decision yourself?

508. Phobos - January 17, 2011

Is trekmovie.com going to post another article? We are at 506 posts here and it takes a long time to reload this page.

There has got to be some fresh Trek news out there somewhere.

509. ISS - January 17, 2011

@506. Yes, but I guess my point is that our brains see those projected images from a single-camera and convert them to 3D. We then perceive the action as existing in 3 dimensions.

3D can be cool, I’ll give it that. Avatar was awesome as visual art. However, I think it got in the way of the story and actually hindered my enjoyment of the scenes with real-life actors.

But essentially, 3D in film is a hat on a hat.

510. Vultan - January 17, 2011

2D or 3D—I really don’t care… just as long as we get a fast-motion montage of Kirk and crew running through the Enterprise.
Like so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW9w2KPT7B0&feature=related

511. MJ - January 17, 2011

@509. OK, I will not bring up holographic technology then, as that would really freak you out. :-)

512. ISS - January 17, 2011

@511. We can already see a movie in true 3D. It’s called going to a play. :-)

513. ISS - January 17, 2011

Yes, Star Trek: The Play! (no, not the musical) In fact, let’s name Aaron Sorkin, Neil LaBute and Tracy Letts to the Supreme Court. Chris Pine did LaBute’s Fat Pig a while ago, right?

Star Trek: Osage County.

514. Red Dead Ryan - January 17, 2011

512

Yes, but who wants to sit through something that doesn’t have fancy-schmancy phaser blasts, explosions, latex foreheads, and lens flares?

Though I suppose one flash lights into the eyes of patrons during a play! Or use real explosives on stage! Or use smoke and lasers to simulate phaser fire! Or use flourescent light tubes as lightsabres……….

515. Chang's Gang - January 17, 2011

Two Words:

Jaws 3

Just say no to 3D, JJ.

516. Jack2211 - January 17, 2011

Resurrecting smell-o-vision might be a swell idea. Klingons gotta smell. And if, God forbid, they bring back Khan, the smell of rich Corinthian leather will have audiences swooning. Maybe a whiff of single-malt every time Scotty appears? A little Shatnery man-musk every time Kirk’s on screen?

517. Cervantes - January 17, 2011

@ #515 Chang’s Gang

Using an example like ‘JAWS 3D’ to be negative about the 3D in general is laughable. ‘JAWS 3D’ was crap for many reasons unconnected with the 3D effect at the time. It had dreadfully poor ‘special effects’ in places, and was littered with overly-long, deliberately ‘coming at ya!’ moments that just look ridiculous when you watch the 2D version now. And that’s just a few examples of why it remains absolute crap.

Imagine instead if the ORIGINAL ‘JAWS’ had come out in 3D at the time it was released…would Spielberg’s movie have seemed any less awesome at the time? I seriously doubt it.

518. Jack2211 - January 17, 2011

262. I like the idea of at least a few stories behind them. But how would y’all work it in? Bones — “.. that’s what Edith Keeler said.”

But the question — ‘which ones?’ is a good one. What were formative episodes? Would they have had (a very different) “first” encounter with Romulans? Hmm.

519. Trek Lady - January 17, 2011

489 “For those of you fretting over the prospect of the next Trek film being shot for 3-D, it needs to be pointed out apparently that just because a film is produced that way doesn’t mean it won’t also be released in theaters in traditional 2-D as well”

And for those of you who keep insistig that a 3-D film is always available in local theaters in 2-D, I must once again point out this is NOT the case! My local theaters have converted several screens to 3-D, and that is where they show the 3-D films. They do NOT show the same film in a 2-D version, as those screens are used for 2-D films. Since Avatar, we have not had a single 3-D film come through that was available in 2-D locally. I would have to drive a great distance to find a theater that does.

Not to mention, the film quality is much darker when it is in 3-D. I do not know if that would affect the 2-D version, but I would hate for the overall quality of the film to suffer, just so it can be in 3-D.

Really, what is the point of haviing the film in 3-D? Is it going to make it a “better” movie? No, it would only emphasize the visuals, and I prefer my Trek focus more on character and story than visuals. At the moment, 3-D films seem much more interested in “cool” visual effects that actual story content. I can’t see the Big Wings putting all that money into 3-D and then taking a hands-off approach to the story. No, they will likely put pressure on the writers and directors to “add” eye popping visual content soley to exploit the 3-D genre… perhaps sacrificing story in the process.

I can see Star Wars in a 3-D genre, because Star Wars (at least the prequels) was more about the visuals anyway… and yes, I think the story and characters suffered greatly as a result!

520. Chadwick - January 17, 2011

515. Chang’s Gang

Two words:

Jaws 19

Should be 3D holograms like Back to the Future.

521. John from Cincinnati - January 17, 2011

3D makes my eyes crossed, gives me headaches and I see everything in a green tint for about an hour after the movie ends.

522. John from Cincinnati - January 17, 2011

3D is so 20th century.

Bring on Holograms!

523. P Technobabble - January 17, 2011

Realistically, it’s gonna be hard to swim against the 3D tide, as this is the wave, essentially being pushed upon us by the various companies. Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc. are all heavily promoting their 3D products from the assumed position that the consumer wants it. The conventional flat-screen tvs that were all the rage yesterday are not promoted today. I’d bet it’s only a matter of time before 3D takes over all of our visual entertainment — especially as the “glasses-free” technology is perfected.
This is progress…

524. Trek Lady - January 17, 2011

There was a recent warning out from Japan – I think it was – about some new 3-D gaming systems. Parents were warned NOT to let children play the games bacuse it could actually damage the development of young children’s vision. I wonder if the makers of 3-D films and/or televisons have considered that.

I wonder what would happen if those of us who have suffered migranes and vision problems due to 3-D were to file a few lawsuits…. LOL!

525. boborci - January 17, 2011

i also heard that 3d can cause erectile dysfunction;)

526. Ensign Spud - January 17, 2011

I like 3-D, sorry

527. Polly - January 17, 2011

haha I love the difference between “no” and “yes” in the 3D poll!!!!

528. ensign joe - January 17, 2011

“Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?

None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?”

well boborci if I put my conspiracy hat on I initially see:

none: 0
two: 2
ten: 10

just have to find the 9 to make it 90210 :)

529. ensign joe - January 17, 2011

or perhaps I should not assume “Q:” means question.. perhaps you are referencing the continuum..

I like this game.. its exciting!

530. Author of "The Vulcan Neck PInch for Fathers" - January 17, 2011

It could be a very intriguing story set either before or after what is in my money one of the best 1st season episodes, “Balance of Terror.” This was the first time we see Romulans, with Spock hypothesizing their common ancestry with Vulcans. Now with Vulcan, in the red-matter-universe, destroyed, it could be argued that the Romulans are taking a more aggressive stance toward the Federation with the bulk of their logical, peaceful “brethren” incinerated…

You could make a case for a Trek 2012 movie just before OR just after that episode….it could redefine the Romulans in the red-matter universe. It could serve as the pivot to a broader war between the Romulans and the Federation, as an alternative to the resolution illustrated in “Balance of Terror.” Who knows.

…but, I must say, the one thing about Trek 09 I simply did not like was the destruction of Vulcan. If I could undo one thing about Trek 09 (aside from the Enterprise’s engine room :) ) I’d make sure Vulcan was brought back..

531. Trek Lady - January 17, 2011

525 ” also heard that 3d can cause erectile dysfunction;)”

And halitosis. Defintely halitosis…

532. John from Cincinnati - January 17, 2011

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/3ds-might-permanently-damage-childrens-eyes-922105

Read the link. Nintendo 3DS which is glasses-free 3D, was found it can permanently damage the eyes of children.

I don’t think enough research has been done for the safety of consumers, they just want our money.

533. Lt. Bailey - January 17, 2011

A lens flare in 3D will cause blindness. No ST film needs any 3D effect to bring us fans in. I would rather see it in 2D because some the recent 3D movies are not that great or better in 3D. Plus wearing the polarized glasses makes the film darker. Sop unless the theater brings up the wattage in the projecter bulb, the film looks like night time all the time. The recent Tron film was great but 3D darken your vision with the glasses and I wished we saw in 2D. I would actually wait to avoid a film in 3D at the theater and rent it on Netflix in 2D then spend the extra money for dark film. If I like the film, then I will buy it the DVD or BluRay.

534. somethoughts - January 17, 2011

Would be hilarious to see them reboot Khan in 3D LOL at yall

A Photon Torpedo coming right at your face would be hilarious or being able to reach out and push the warp lever. I know it sounds gimmicky but consider there is a real story behind the movie, wouldn’t that be the complete theatre experience?

Go Big or Go Home

535. MJ - January 17, 2011

@ 530 “…but, I must say, the one thing about Trek 09 I simply did not like was the destruction of Vulcan. If I could undo one thing about Trek 09 (aside from the Enterprise’s engine room :) ) I’d make sure Vulcan was brought back..”

IN RESPONSE, THE PLANET VULCAN HAS JUST RELEASED THIS STATEMENT TO THE PRESS:

“Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.”

536. Gary Neumann, the WRATHFULL SEQUEL OF STAR TREK - January 17, 2011

@531 That explains that movie night!!!! =(

537. rogerachong - January 17, 2011

The answer to Bob’s question is abviously “NONE”. Love it, keep it original with a hint of “La Cage” encounter new crew more problems. I vote for Olivia Wilde as vulcan for real!!

538. Red Dead Ryan - January 17, 2011

525

Eye-popping, but not boner-popping, eh?

539. keachick - January 17, 2011

I hope people here are not “taking the piss” about the objections some people have about 3D because of its health hazards. If it was just one or two people mentioning headaches and migraines, but it is not. As I said in a previous post, the medical authorities need to take serious look at this technology. Erectile dysfunction? Halitosis? Well, I’d be incredibly surprised if that were the case. These comments seemed to me a little dismissive of a real problem that not just a few people seem to have when using the 3D glasses.

It does seem though that the number of youth (mostly teenage boys) suffering various types of epileptic seizures is on the rise…

As far as migraines, been there myself, no effin’ fun at all!

540. MJ - January 17, 2011

@539. The UN should fund a “Center for 3D Health Research” so that as a world, we can come together to address this major health risk. And I call upon Warren Buffet, Oprah, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to kick in a couple of billion dollars to fund the center.

541. MJ - January 17, 2011

@525. Bob, you are correct. Although, interestingly enough, a very small percentage (0.08 %) report Priapism as a side effect from 3D movies as well.

542. TK - January 17, 2011

I’m tired of studios trying to push 3D just to make more money. Star Trek will make money; it doesn’t need the gimmick. For every good 3D movie like Coraline, there are a lot of bad conversions. Green Hornet was bad in 3D (the multiple split-screen scene should have been the first clue not to try it).

And agreed with the article, the style of the previous movie does not lend itself to 3D. It would be aggravating to watch.

543. CanOpener1256 - January 17, 2011

Enterprise in 3d .. ship combat in 3D .. alien world visuals in 3D .. ZOE SALDANA in 3D!!!

Come-on people. The story will be the same .. might as well put some extra icing on the cake.

I would love to be able to see the Enterprise in 3D. That would be worth the price of admission right there. Beer room/engine room included!

544. MJ - January 17, 2011

@542. “I’m tired of studios trying to push 3D just to make more money.”

Agreed. What’s with this “for profit” nonsense in Hollywood. I would like see a return to the good old days in Hollywood where the studios didn’t try to maximize profits all the time.

545. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

525. boborci – January 17, 2011

i also heard that 3d can cause erectile dysfunction;)

***

Kudos to Damon for having the nerve to talk about it.

546. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

;-). I always forget the ;-).

547. MJ - January 17, 2011

@543. Agreed that this whole thing is overblown. It is going to be in 3D whether we like it or not, because all the big sci/fi and fantasy movies are now going to be in 3D because it is the only positive trend in movie business these days driving profits for the studios at a time when attendance is dropping.

So we can bitch and have these constant debates on these boards all we want, but I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IT IS GOING TO BE IN 3D FOLKS, IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT WE SAY HERE.

Remember how Peter Jackson was resisting for quit some time about doing the Hobbit in 3D. Guess what: THE HOBBIT IS BEING SHOT IN 3D NOW! The reason being that their was no way he was going to get $400M in funding for these films without a plan to maximize profits, that included 3D.

So while we can complain all we want, it is really pointless. There is more of a chance of Fat Shat being in Trek 12 than it not being in 3D, and I think we all know that the Fat Shat appearance probability is minuscule at best.

548. captain_neill - January 17, 2011

In regards to the destruction of Vulcan. I hated that decision and will always be angry at that choice.

However fortunately it is a parallel universe so it is still there in the prime universe.

549. captain_neill - January 17, 2011

547

The irony with 3D is that the films will make more money even with less seats.

I wish they could take inflation into account when it comes to chart the biggest films at the box office. It be more fair.

I prefer 3D if it is done right and not as a gimmick. I prefer 2D as the Hollywood are just converting films left, right and centre ever since Avatar was a smash.

I do fear that JJ Abrams will make the 3D a bit gimmicky if his interview is anything to go by.

550. Star trackie - January 17, 2011

#525. “i also heard that 3d can cause erectile dysfunction;)”

….naturally. That’s by design, so the concession stands can start selling viagra, along side the Milk Duds, at three times the retail price!

551. somethoughts - January 17, 2011

#543

I agree, for those that are against 3d, watch the 2d version. Star Trek 3D will be huge

552. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

548. captain_neill – January 17, 2011

In regards to the destruction of Vulcan. I hated that decision and will always be angry at that choice.

However fortunately it is a parallel universe so it is still there in the prime universe.

***

A reliable source tells me the writers are going to destroy the prime universe Vulcan in the next movie.

Sorry.

553. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

I’ve consulted The Oracle about this Star Trek in 3D issue, and this is what she said:

Crude shortages in 2012 due to peak oil will lead to shortages in all plastic products, especially 3D glasses.

So while Star Trek (2012) WILL be released in 3D, we will not be able to WATCH it in 3D.

I’m just the messenger.

554. somethoughts - January 17, 2011

I just hate crying with 3d glasses on like when that old balloon guys wife died in up, that sucked having to cry through that scene with those 3d glasses on

555. Trek Lady - January 17, 2011

539 Keachick

Sorry if my halitosis comment seemed dismissive. I am actually one of the ones who has mentioned migranes, eye strain and the possible damage to young children’s eye development.

Avatar gave me a migraine and I haven’t dared another 3-D film since.

I was just teasing Bob a bit.

556. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

554. somethoughts – January 17, 2011

I just hate crying with 3d glasses on like when that old balloon guys wife died in up, that sucked having to cry through that scene with those 3d glasses on

***

I hate to be seen crying at the movies at all. I’m seriously considering watching emotional movies with a full motorcycle helmet and tinted face shield.

557. gingerly - January 17, 2011

Like I said, Avatar was gorgeous, but I’ve seen Pocahontas/Ferngully/Dances with Wolves redone enough times.

That plot always has an extremely simplistic and condescending view of the native populations it uses for it’s exotic backdrop.

If a storyteller really wants to explore another cultural word, I really wish they would try doing so more without the white guy /everyman to play tourist for the audience… If even just for variety’s sake.

Apocalypto was awesome even without the white guy star destroying/saving the tribe.

That said, How to Train Your Dragon is the closest I’ve seen to a decent story and optimum visuals for the 3D medium.

558. somethoughts - January 17, 2011

#556

LOL

559. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

Hey Bob, ask us for more opinions concerning what we’d like to see in the next movie and we can keep this thread burning until the next story posts.

560. MJ - January 17, 2011

@557. Geez, just maybe they have white guys in Dances with Wolves because the white guys pretty much committed near-genocide on the Indians in the U.S., and most of the American public is not taught that nor generally exposed to it. If you want to take potshots as some movies, please leave out Dances With Wolves — the most positive and teaching movies ever made about some history in America which we all aren’t that proud of. I consider myself extremely well read on this topic, and I do take some offense to people slamming the greatest public education and outreach tool about this topic in modern times, the brilliant movie, Dances With Wolves.

And BTW, Apocolypto, while a fun movie to watch, is a mish-mash of historical periods and tribes to create a completely fictional and not relevant to history — it never could have happened.

If you want to learn about the real interactions between whites and Indians outside of movies, and also about the Indians before the whites,
here is my recommend reading list, which is among the 40 to 50 non-fiction books that I have read on this topic:

Conquistador: Hernan Cortes, King Montezuma, and the Last Stand of the Aztecs, by Buddy Levy

Son of the Morning Star: Custer and The Little Bighorn, by Evan S. Connell (note: Won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction)

Chief Joseph & the Flight of the Nez Perce: The Untold Story of an American Tragedy, by Kent Nerburn

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles C. Mann

Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathaniel Philbrick

561. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

Dances With Wolves was a good movie. The Indians saved the white guy more than the white guy saved the Indians, and it actually cast real American Indians and let Lakota characters speak Lakota.

Into The West is also quite good.

562. VZX - January 17, 2011

I just watched the Golden Globes (on DVR) and Ricky Gervais made a joke on how the characters in The Tourist were not 3-D. It’s funny how Bob Orci made a similar joke right here about having characters be 3-D. Great minds, eh?

BTW: to anwser Orci’s question on where I’d like to see the events in the next movie be in relation to the the original series, I would like to see it sometime in the midst of them, but not in order. So, some things could get mixed like having the Doomsday Machine attack planets while tribbles are infesting the ship and Harry Mudd is drug-dealing.

563. MJ - January 17, 2011

@561. Yea, Into the West was very good — agreed!

564. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

548. captain_neill – January 17, 2011

“In regards to the destruction of Vulcan. I hated that decision and will always be angry at that choice.

“However fortunately it is a parallel universe so it is still there in the prime universe.”

but who’s to say which is the “real” planet Vulcan and which is the “prime” universe. Maybe we’re all in the alternate universe and you’re not “prime” captain_neill and in the original universe you loved the movie, and it’s your very favorite, and Vulcan’s destruction was your ultimate Star Trek experience. Hmmm?

565. sean - January 17, 2011

Keep in mind, in terms of eye strain and talking about a child’s eye development, that it would require extensive exposure to damage the eyes. You’d have to watch 3D movies every single day for hours on end before you’d cause any significant damage. Taking a kid to a 3D movie every 3 months will likely not cause any issues. The concern with the Nintendo 3DS is that kids will be playing it every day for hours.

566. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

I wouldn’t worry too much about the which universe they’re in, since I’m not sure which one I’m in. All I know is Harry is in here somewhere, stuck with the likes of me -as are you.

567. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 17, 2011

MJ — Not being mean-spirited, but a few quibbles:

1. “irregardless” is not a word; it’s “regardless” in all cases. (The ‘-less’ suffix does the work of negating the ‘regard’, resulting in the meaning “without regard to”.)

2. More importantly, while I am sympathetic to your point about “Indians”, you should really refer to them as Native Americans. “Indian” is a holdover from Columbus’ erroneous belief that he was finding a route to India by sailing west from Europe.

568. keachick - January 17, 2011

OMG. Just googled “priapism”. I had never heard of the word and had no idea that there was such a condition. Nasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapism

569. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

567: “2. More importantly, while I am sympathetic to your point about ‘Indians’, you should really refer to them as Native Americans. ‘Indian’ is a holdover from Columbus’ erroneous belief that he was finding a route to India by sailing west from Europe.”

The rez is my second home. I don’t know any Indians who have an issue with being called Indian, since that is how they frequently refer to themselves when speaking English.

I have never heard any of them call themselves Native American that I can recall. If it’s not “Indian,” then it’s usually by their own tribal name.

570. MJ - January 17, 2011

@567.

1. “Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as “incorrect” or “nonstandard”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless”

I consider posting on Trek fan web site as “informal” communication. It I was writing for business or professional purposes, then I would not use it.

2. Depends on who you are talking to. I’ve known quite a few American Indians/ Native Americans, and some prefer one term over the other, but most actually don’t like either term, and preferred to be identified with their tribe. Just like people in Europe really don’t like European — they generally preferred to be called German, French, etc. Additionally,the Cherokee Tribe in 2008 tried unsuccessfully to sue India over the use of the term Indian, which they want to keep for themselves.

571. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

If these Indians don’t have a problem with it, I don’t see how anybody else should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement

572. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

Bottom line, I don’t just know Indians, I live with and interact with them. Currently. As long as they use it, I’ll use it. I’m not going to tell them what I think they should call themselves. They’ve had quite enough of that.

573. Phat Tribble - January 17, 2011

Okay, it has taken me the better part of the evening to catch up on all these posts but it was worth it. You guys are so entertaining! : )
And to MJ re:535 – Thank you! I’ve been waiting for a “Godfather/ Michael Corleone” reference! (I knew one would come up). Besides being a big Trek fan I’m also a “Godfather”/Pacino fan. (some combo, huh?)

In regards to the 3D controversy: Just Say NO!
I couldn’t see Avatar in the theater because I’m VERY prone to migraines. I had to wait until the dvd came out.

To Bob Orci: It’s very cool that you take the time to post here. We (ST fans) appreciate it and look forward to YOUR input as well. Also, I do hope that JJ is directing. I’m also a great fan of ‘Alias’. : )

Mr. Shatner IN ST12? Don’t THINK so! A brief narrative/voice-over spot? Possible…

574. MJ - January 17, 2011

@572. Agreed. I think “4 8 15 16 23 42″, while meaning well, was probably confused and is really referring to the long running controversy of some sport teams using “Indians,” which a lot of Indians oppose, and also the worse offensive in Washington with the “Redskins” — that is a term that understandable garners near unanimous opposition from American Indians.

575. MJ - January 17, 2011

@573. “I couldn’t see Avatar in the theater because I’m VERY prone to migraines. I had to wait until the dvd came out.”

Several folks have made this comment, but I just wonder if you did your due diligence to see if it was available on non-3D screens. When if first opened where I live, it was showing at about 4 theaters within 30 miles of me, and all theaters had in both in 3D and 2D screens?

576. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

REGARDLESS of what they call themselves, they don’t live in India. It’s not about political correctness, just correctness. Bulletin: the world is not flat, the sun is not the center of the universe, there are things called atoms, and there are eight planets, regarless of what people use to think.

577. Phat Tribble - January 17, 2011

@575

Actually, my husband and sons wanted to see it in 3D. Only later (a couple weeks maybe?) it was then available in 2D. But I didn’t mind too much not seeing it in the theaters – my brain was still focused on ST09. THAT movie I saw 3x in the theaters! : ) And have watched it numerous times on dvd too!

578. Phat Tribble - January 17, 2011

By ST09 I guess I also mean ST11 (2009 verses movie #11) – you know what I mean…

579. MJ - January 17, 2011

@576 This from the person who identifies themselves as:

moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney

LOL

Also, New Englanders are not part of England, people in Omaha are not part of a tribe, many South Africans are fairly recently descended from from Holland and Britain, Greenlanders are really Danes, and virtually no French people live in Paris, TX…the list goes on and on.

:-))

580. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

True MJ, but the pilgrims knew where they were, nor were they “mistaken” for someone else. ;0

581. StarFuryG7 - January 17, 2011

519. Trek Lady
“And for those of you who keep insistig that a 3-D film is always available in local theaters in 2-D”

I never said “always” and I never said “locally” either for that matter.

“Not to mention, the film quality is much darker when it is in 3-D. I do not know if that would affect the 2-D version, but I would hate for the overall quality of the film to suffer, just so it can be in 3-D.”

No one is advocating that either, and I believe the DVD and Blu-ray releases of “Avatar” look just fine for home video by the way.

“I can’t see the Big Wings putting all that money into 3-D and then taking a hands-off approach to the story. No, they will likely put pressure on the writers and directors to “add” eye popping visual content soley to exploit the 3-D genre… perhaps sacrificing story in the process.”

You’re speculating, and you might want to direct those concerns to Bob Orci directly, being that he’s been active on this article Page obviously.

582. Charla - January 17, 2011

Bob, you said you like games too~ cool! One of my favs is the Half-Life franchise. Would ya, could ya? That would make an awesome movie, it is a little older than some of the others, but it was one of the first FPS games out and it gave me the creeps. It still does :)

We had 5 computers in our sun room, our whole family would get together for LAN games- I am a bad mom. :P But we had a blast! I would love to see that come out in a movie. I still play with my kids today, only occassion now since I am working more.

Off topic, but I seen the post about Red Dead Redemption. I will have to check it out too. Or have my sons check it out for me. Looks cool.

583. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

576. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – January 17, 2011

REGARDLESS of what they call themselves, they don’t live in India. It’s not about political correctness, just correctness. Bulletin: the world is not flat, the sun is not the center of the universe, there are things called atoms, and there are eight planets, regarless of what people use to think.

***

Language is not some static thing. Meanings change. At one time “Indian” exclusively meant “person of India” and now it does not. You can’t stop the movement. It’s the only thing that stays the same.

584. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

574. MJ – January 17, 2011

True.

585. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

579. MJ – January 17, 2011

Great examples! And white Iowans do not belong to the Ioway tribe!

586. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

Ah,a double negative. Being wrong about being wrong does not make one right. Though I will defend your right to be wrong.

587. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 17, 2011

Great examples, except these are people who were mistakenly labeled…
Aw, never mind.

588. Heath Harper - January 17, 2011

As a film student and the processes I have been learning 3D just does not fit within the Star Trek canon of movies. The cost of movie going is astronomical as it is. Persons like myself just want to relax, strap on a bag of popcorn and enjoy the movie. 3D takes away from the realism of the show trending more towards a Disney ride. The content and drama is what brings people to the movies regardless of the theme. Stick with what works.

589. somethoughts - January 17, 2011

Bob make it year 3, since it would have been 3 yrs since 2009.

The crew is still new and they have a few yrs under their belt.

590. dmduncan - January 17, 2011

588: “Persons like myself just want to relax, strap on a bag of popcorn…”

I’m not even going to ask.

591. Harry Ballz - January 17, 2011

525.

So, Bob, with erectile dysfunction being rampant after 3D becomes popular, the only “erection” people will see is when they pick a new president in Japan?

592. keachick - January 17, 2011

As to what American “Indians” or is it, native Americans, are called – the indigenous people of a continent now referred to as North and South America are neither. The word America comes from the name of an Italian navigator called Amerigo Vespucci. Amerigo was Latinised to be Americanus, and then evolving to the word we know now, America.

The native people of America are more closely related to Eskimos, Tibetans and Nepalese and possibly Mongolians. Tibetans are not Chinese, in spite of what China might want the world to believe. They belong to a different race. These four races mentioned have the capacity to cope with extreme cold better than the rest of us and being able to live at higher altitudes. They also share a specific skin colouring, which is not Asian, Indian, African or Polynesian. It has something to do with living in high altitudes or very close to the Poles. I am starting to wonder if people living in other very northern regions, like those from Finland, Scandanavia, Iceland and Greenland may not have something in common with these people as well…

I’m not sure why the Cherokee sued India over a name, which may or may not be theirs anyway. Duh.

I actually these people may belong to a separate race. I don’t know what that race is called. Does it even have a name?

593. SlipFall - January 17, 2011

@boborci … is one of the characters in the new Trek Gary Seven? I promise that if you post the reply here confirming what I know is correct, nobody will tell :-) :-P (joke obviously). He seems like a slick character that could be both good and bad (kind of like Ben on Lost). Plus the name cannot be beat :-).

I simply cannot wait to see where you guys take Trek this time. I was blown away by that film … you guys had my wife in tears after the first 15 minutes. The last time she cried at a Trek film was mainly due to yawning.

BTW, congrats on Hawaii Five-O … anything with your name attached to it is worth my entertainment dollars :-)!

594. MJ - January 18, 2011

588: “Persons like myself just want to relax, strap on a bag of popcorn…”

Ah, I get it…with your date in the movie theater, like in the 1982 movie, “Diner,” right?

(whoever gets this reference first wins a prize!)

595. MJ - January 18, 2011

@592. “I actually these people may belong to a separate race. I don’t know what that race is called. Does it even have a name?”

“Paleo Indians” is the term used for the peoples that crossed into North America during the 4th Ice Age of the Pleistocene.

There we go — the word Indians again — sorry if this upsets some of you.

596. Vultan - January 18, 2011

Well, here in the Cherokee Nation (Eastern Oklahoma) we simply refer to ourselves as Cherokee. Never heard anything about the Cherokee Nation suing India over anything. Sounds like bull to me. Anyone have a link to the story?

597. keachick - January 18, 2011

I knew there was a more correct word for Eskimos. The word is Inuit and the Inuits do inhabit places like Greenland. As chance would have it, there is a documentary being screened this very minute as I write this about the Inuit people of Greenland on television.

Perhaps the word Indian has been confused with the word Inuit…

598. captain_neill - January 18, 2011

552

Very funny

It was a decision I didn’t like, not a crime to not like that choice.

But then again on this site it seems to be ok to say bad things about the spin offs but everyone gets defensive when someone mentions a point of the new movie they did not agree with.

599. keachick - January 18, 2011

I see the other board has made it to post 2019 and set a record. I see this board will see 600+ posts before long. I wonder – will this thread get to 1,000 posts? Will there enough new to say about whether JJ should direct the new movie and make it in 3D or not?

Although, we are good at digressing and adding to post numbers, so who knows?

600. keachick - January 18, 2011

Can anybody who has not voted in the poll yet still able to vote? I don’t see how they can…seems a bit strange.

601. skyjedi - January 18, 2011

After JJ’s disdain of 3-D i hope it is shot on film and not video.

Still if they want to go that route sounds like they will have to replace him, which is not such a good idea. It would have been like Warner Bros replacing Chris Nolan after Batman Begins.

JJ has brought a fresh take and instilled new blood in the franchise, much like when Harve B. And Nick Meyer came in on star trek II.

The worst thing they could do is have franchise fatigue and burnout because of having the same writers and directors and no new blood, like those horrible star wars prequels.

Speaking of that those clone wars cartoons prove Lucas is better as a executive producer and idea man, the new artists and writers and directors and collaboration is what was missing from those movies. It also happens to be the reason the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles was great, and the 4th Indiana Jones sucked.

602. MJ - January 18, 2011

@597 “The word is Inuit and the Inuits do inhabit places like Greenland”

I KNEW IT

:-)

603. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2011

Why isn’t everybody clamoring for 3D to be used in the one kind of production it would be best suited for? That is to say, the XXX Star Trek TNG parody!

604. Trek Lady - January 18, 2011

575:”Several folks have made this comment, but I just wonder if you did your due diligence to see if it was available on non-3D screens. When if first opened where I live, it was showing at about 4 theaters within 30 miles of me, and all theaters had in both in 3D and 2D screens?’

Yes, it was available in 2-D. but having just spent $14 to see it in a theater that usually costs half that, and not being overly impressed with the story, I saw no reason to go again. I didn’t KNOW it would make me sick till I saw it the first time….

605. Jai - January 18, 2011

Re: The ongoing Indian/Native American debate:

Well, as someone who is a British-born person of Indian ethnicity (as in the Indian subcontinent), let’s just say that Columbus’s blunder is like a hypothetical 15th century Chinese explorer trying to find a shortcut to Egypt, accidentally ending up in Portugal, mistaking Portuguese people for Egyptians even though they were nothing like the descriptions of Egyptians via other groups who had been in contact with them for centuries, and 500 years later various Chinese people living in Portugal still insisting on calling Portuguese people “Egyptians” just because the name stuck.

Not good for Portuguese people, and not good for real Egyptians either. Just because someone historically engaged in a huge case of mistaken identity, resulting in a completely inaccurate name being foisted on people who had little choice about the matter, it doesn’t mean others should perpetuate the error indefinitely.

“If these Indians don’t have a problem with it, I don’t see how anybody else should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement

There are increasing numbers of American citizens of Indian background these days (again, “Indian” in the sense of the Indian subcontinent), coupled with the continuing economic rise of India itself, projected to join China and the US as the world’s top three superpowers during the next few decades, with the associated international presence and increasing contact with the US itself.

So there are currently more than a billion Indians worldwide who are either residents of India or are part of the global Indian diaspora. If people insist on continuing to call Native Americans “Indians”, there are going to be increasing issues of confusion over people’s actual identity (not to mention an increasingly large number of Indians irritated about the matter), although this could end up a moot point anyway as subcontinental Indians will increasingly have a much higher level of global visibility and influence.

606. Jai - January 18, 2011

Re: #592

“I’m not sure why the Cherokee sued India over a name, which may or may not be theirs anyway.”

The origin of the name “India” is from the term “Hind”, a very old historical Persian name for the subcontinental territory east of what is now called the Indus river (originally called the “Sindhu” river by Indians — Persian linguistics meant that the “S” was sometimes dropped). Later, Indians formally referred to the subcontinent as “Hindustan”, originally referring to the northern territory under Mughal control and later colloquially meaning the whole of India. Informally, the name “Hind” was still sometimes used.

European travellers pronounced “Hind” in various slightly different, but very similar, ways (“Inde” being the French pronunciation, for example), resulting in the British calling it “India” and officially referring to the country as such during the colonial era. The senior members of the Indian independence movement, specifically those associated with the Congress party and who would take over the reigns of government immediately after Indian independence, decided to keep the name for the newly-formed Republic of India.

They didn’t want to use the name “Hindustan” – obviously similar to the newly-formed “Pakistan” – because although the term “Hindu” had originally referred to the inhabitants of “Hind” in the solely geographical sense, much later the term took on specifically religious connotations (as is still the case in modern times). This obviously wouldn’t be suitable for post-Partition India as the republic was not founded on a religious basis, and in constitutional, political and demographic aspects it is very much a multi-religious nation.

So, the name “India” is a variation on a theme which has a very long history in that part of the world.

607. chrisfawkes.com - January 18, 2011

I made a photoshop action so that people can convert their own photos to 3D if they have the color glasses.

I got a few emails from people telling me their kids love it. Of course they do and yet how often over their life will they use the 3D option to view photos?

Sure it’s fun but it’s a gimmick that has a short life span. Those kids will still view most images the standard way.

Even trying to push 3D film cameras sent businesses broke. It really is a dead horse before it starts in terms of trying to get the masses to adopt it as a norm.

Anyone with photoshop can get the 3D action for free by clicking on my link (name) then adding /3D.atn to the site address.

608. chrisfawkes.com - January 18, 2011

Sorry, just add 3D.atn

609. P Technobabble - January 18, 2011

If you haven’t already, read this little article: “3d Popularity is affecting how screenplays are written.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/25/entertainment/la-ca-3ddirector-20100425

610. Jai - January 18, 2011

One more quick point: Since people have been recommending some films about “Indian” (actually Native American) experiences in America, let me take this opportunity to very strongly recommend “The Namesake”. It terms of depicting the lives of (South Asian) Indians in the West accurately and with tremendous dignity, especially the experiences of original Indian immigrants and (later) their adult children, it’s by far the best English-language movie on the subject I’ve ever seen in my life.

Dmduncan, however, is advised to watch the film wearing a full motorcycle helmet (including tinted face shield) and with a box of tissues within easy reach ;)

By the way, Moauvian Waoul – your comments about the ongoing India/Indian/Native American nomenclature issue have been brilliant.

611. Hugh Hoyland - January 18, 2011

It was recommended to me by a former girlfriend that I watch more “Bollywood” films to get a better understanding of Indian culture. (She is Indian American). I was particularly interested to see if there was any Sci-Fi type films or shows. So far I havent seen any but Im sure there has to be some.

612. Cervantes - January 18, 2011

Damn, I forgot to mention one of the MOST IMPORTANT things when I wrote my theory in post #438 -

…that the added distinction of looking on the rebooted movie (and it’s sequels) as merely being set in a totally ‘alternate’ UNIVERSE rather than being set in the *same* ‘Prime universe’ with a reset, ‘alternate’ TIMELINE and many changes…means that I can *imagine* that the events seen in the ‘GENERATIONS’ movie DIDN’T occur to the ‘Prime universe’ TOS crew either!

In other words, by thinking of the original series’s ‘Prime universe’ as being a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and seperate universe to what we see in the latest movie…I can also *imagine* that ‘Prime Kirk’ ended up LIVING ON in the ‘Prime universe’ of the TOS series after it’s last episode…perhaps going on to live happily to a very great age, lol! YAY!

It’s easier to read what I wrote previously, but to recap briefly – this notion allows you to look on on the ‘Prime Spock’ seen in the reboot as merely being *another*, *similar* Spock that just belongs to the reboot’s DIFFERENT, ‘alternate’ universe (both in it’s past and in it’s future)…and is NOT the one from the original series’s future.

And as well as getting rid of the events from ‘GENERATIONS’, this notion can ALSO get rid of the whole of all the ‘Next Generation’ series and others too, from occurring in the ‘Prime universe’ seen in the original series…or I can just look at those events as merely occurring in the EXACT SAME ‘alternate’ universe as the rebooted movie, only. Oh, and the fugly ‘alternate’ ENTERPRISE design seen in the reboot, ends up no-where to be seen in my SEPERATE ‘Prime universe’ either, of course…since it’s just part of an ‘alternate’ universe altogether!

Seriously, this all works for me I tell ya. :)

#562 VZX said:
‘BTW: To answer Orci’s question on where I’d like to see the events in the next movie be in relation to the original series. I would like to see it sometime in the midst of them, but not in order. So, some things could get mixed like having the Doomsday Machine attack planets while tribbles are infesting the ship and Harry Mudd is drug-dealing.’

Y’know, I really agree with VZX that this kind of ‘pick-and-mix’ scenario of using various great characters and events from DIFFERENT original series episode adventures…would make sense to be ‘jumbled up’ into any sequel storylines in future…*whichever* ones end up being chosen.

The fact is that things are SO different in the reboot now, what with certain different character interactions…and the destruction of Vulcan…and various other events and designs…that it makes complete sense to continue to differentuate this new franchise from the TOS episode order of things, as much as possible. This would free the writers/director from the restrictions of having to regurgitate a sequence of events EXACTLY as we’ve seen before…and would certainly help with my preferred notion of looking on this latest crew as simply being an ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ crew to the originals in the first place. ;)

And yes, you could open the movie MID-adventure (ala ‘Star Wars:A New Hope’s opening) using some great elements from ANY of the 3 seasons of the original series for an impressive action-packed beginning…before then going onto show a storyline that BEGINS this ‘alternate’ crew’s 5 – year mission. I know a few TOS purists would rather an exact re-tread of the ACTUAL original series ‘timeline’ of events, and end up choking on their popcorn at the thought of this…but I doubt new fan’s of the first movie (my own brats included) will give two hoots, and will just lap up an enthralling combination of characters/events from the ‘alternate’ universe that was seen in the original series.

So bring bring on the Doomsday Machine…bring on the Klingons (whether with bumpy foreheads or not)…bring on Harry Mudd the smuggler…bring on the tribbles…hell, bring on the Gorn…WHATEVER…it’s all good now…and I look forward to what comes next in this particular ‘alternate’ universe to TOS! I just hope it’s in 3D too, as my brats and I love it. :)

# 582 Charla said:
‘Bob, you said you like games too ~ cool! One of my faves is the Half-Life franchise. Would ya, could ya? That would make an awesome movie, it is a little older than some of the others, but it was one of the first FPS games out and it gave me the creeps. It still does :) ‘

I completely agree that the award-winning ‘Half-Life’ game’s storyline would make for a great sci-fi shocker on the big screen. I always wished that it had been developed into a movie, as it had a great overall vibe to it. One of the reasons I really like Frank Darapont’s ‘The Mist’ is that it gives hints of a similar scenario. I’d sure love to see a full-blown ‘Half:Life’ movie done with a decent budget one day, though. :)

My last word on the whole 3D issue before I move on is this – as was previously mentioned by someone, even the mighty Peter Jackson has agreed to embrace it for ‘The Hobbit’ (and the upcoming ‘TinTin’ of course)…and many other excellent directors are either choosing to, or being *made* to, as well. Even the ‘fast-cutting’ Michael Bay, who was a VERY vocal opponent of the process is making his next ‘Transformers’ sequel in 3D now… So one of the main reasons that this latest development in 3D cinema is going to stay the course this time is this – unlike before, there are too many GOOD directors getting involved this time around, and while some of their efforts may end up mediocre (as happens already in 2D), SOME of them are going to hit 3D successes out-of-the-park…which will keep audiences generally interested in this 3D this time around, especially as the process continually improves in certain ways in the years to come. Whether the next ‘Star Trek’ movie gets made in 3D (or eventually ‘converted’), or not…any franchise is going to have to compete with equally big ones that ARE getting the 3D treatment, whether they like it or not. Studios pay the bills at the end of the day, and won’t want to lag behind others, if they feel their competition has an edge. And 3D is that edge at the moment.

Here’s a link to the best overall comprehensive guide relating to the all the current 3D cinema and 3D blu-ray developments that I’ve come across, for any that haven’t read it yet. Embrace the future, and don’t say I’m not good to you – http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/jeffkleist/3d2010primer.html

613. Cervantes - January 18, 2011

Just an addendum to the above – as much as I like the actual ‘depth’ of the 3D effect…I certainly wouldn’t want to watch endless hours of 3D programming at home. I’ve no doubt that myself and others will get a 3D-enabled tv in future, but continue to watch a lot of things on the standard 2D setting only.

Even I would only wish to see a certain amount of 3D every now and then. I would happily sit for a couple of hours or so in a cinema, or watch a 3D blu-ray every now and then, and perhaps the odd 3D program too…but I certainly wouldn’t want to have the glasses on for EVERYTHING, all the time! Hell, no.

614. VZX - January 18, 2011

Cervantes: cool. I’m glad someone agrees with me. I mean, the writers almost HAVE to put up some familiar items on the screen, even in passing. Maybe it could be a quick line of dialogue with one character complaining about dropping off Khan at Ceti Alpha 6 or Uhuru complaining about cleaning her quarters after Elaan of Troyus wrecked them. The central plot to the movie doesn’t have to be about an event that we saw in an old episode, but there should be something to show that the characters are experiencing those same “original series” events, albeit differently.

615. Cervantes - January 18, 2011

I agree VZX, the future plots don’t necessarily need to lift complete original series storylines/characters wholesale…whether you look on the rebooted crew as being in an ‘alternate UNIVERSE’, or not…because even if you continue to look on the reboot as being just the ‘Prime universe’ that’s now ‘reset’…then it doesn’t automatically follow that the writers can’t just come up with COMPLETELY NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN scenarios/planets/characters to deal with, if they wish…considering they’ve effectively WIPED AWAY how most things turned out in the ‘Prime universe’s ‘timeline before!

Which is why I prefer my notion, so that the original series crew and events still seem able to have happened as we initially saw. :)

616. Author of "The Vulcan Neck PInch for Fathers" - January 18, 2011

The incessant push from the studios to wrap their crap in 3D is the ultimate demonstration of absolute, final, apocalyptic creative bankruptcy.

617. P Technobabble - January 18, 2011

I don’t recall if anyone ever discussed it, but is the crew of the “altered” Enterprise the only ones who know an alternate reality has been created (besides Spock Prime, of course)? Would knowing this have any sort of effect on them?
I imagine they would feel that their reality was the only real one. The reality that Spock Prime came from would be a concept to them. Yet, would they ever wonder if their reality was supposed to exist, if THEY were supposed to exist?
Isn’t their reality an “off-shoot” of the Prime universe as a result of Nero’s actions? Would they wonder, “If Nero’s actions never happened, would we still exist? And while we exist, does the other universe still exist? Does “predestination” play into this at all? Since we exist were we meant to exist?”
I don’t know if any of this really matters, but if I were told I was living in an alternate universe, I’d have some questions…

618. Basement Blogger - January 18, 2011

The Logic of a 3D Star Trek Film

I agree with the majority of you who are concerned about a 3D Star Trek film. But let’s look at this logically and see the advantages.

1. Profits- Filmmaking in Hollywood is a mixture of commerce and art. Film studios aren’t going to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a film like “Dogville” (2003) unless they’re confident of a profit. “Inception” (2010) is the exception. And Paramount isn’t worried about Trekkers. Remember the ad for the 2009 movie, “This isn’t your father’s Star Trek.” Today, Hollywood has one audience it can depend on. Teenagers. (NPR story)

There’s one advantage about the profit motive for Trekkers. If the second Star Trek film makes a lot of money and 3D ticket sales help that bottom line, you can expect a third Star Trek movie. And maybe, all that green will push CBS to do something with its share of the franchise besides posting Enterprise on the web. Ha ha. Forget that CBS comment. I think the only way CBS might do anything is if Uhura went over there with a phaser and threaten them like she did to that ensign in Star Trek 3.

2. Less hand -held camera shots- If you are tired of excessive shots with a hand-held camera like the “Bourne Supremecy” (2004) then filmmaking in 3D is for you. The movement and shaking of the camera is not conducive to 3D filmmaking. Count me as one of those who is tired of the excessive use of the hand-held camera. The picture bounces around and is never still. It’s annoying.

3. I predict Star Trek (2012) will be released in 3-D. There’s nothing you or I can do about it. Studios wouldn’t be releasing movies in 3D if there weren’t any profits in it. And look at the list of 3D movies being released in 2011. There are big profits to be made. Plus Star Trek faces competition from Spider-Man which will be shot in 3-D.

The best we can do is demand the film be shot in 3-D. I still believe that quality is still important to Paramount when making Star Trek. You take Star Trek V and see what the lack of quality did for profits. Conversions to 3-D usually stink. And Paramount released the crappy “The Last Airbender” (2010) as a conversion. Absolutely a ripoff. Quality in 3D is for the film to be shot in 3D. It allows the writers and directors to maximize the format. The picture is clearer. And the special effects will be better.

We’ve spent a lot of money making Paramount rich for our love of Star Trek. The least they can do is to increase the budget and allow the filmmakers to shoot the next movie in 3D and not convert it.

1. NPR movies are for teenagers
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130612646

2. 2011 list of movies in 3D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#3-D_re-enters_mainstream_cinema_.282003.E2.80.93present.29

619. Joe - January 18, 2011

Yeah, I hate conversions.

620. Cervantes - January 18, 2011

@ #617 P. Technobabble -

You brought up some excellent points to ponder! See, this is why my head hurt in the first place…

If the makers had just made their redesigned RE-INVENTION of the original series characters and settings…without the convoluted ‘timeline resetting’ storyline they came up with…then things would have been straight-forward! They’d have STILL set-up a nice series of ‘Star Trek’ movies, at the end of the day.

So apart from my aforementioned descriptions which help to do away with any annoying ‘continuity’ issues that would impact the actual original series…I can only offer this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

@ #618 Basement Blogger -

LOL at your ‘NPR movies are for teenagers’ article link! Just as well I remain ‘young-at-heart’ and still love comic-book characters…as it looks like there’s going to be a dearth of adult, cerebral movies on show as we move into the future…

And I absolutely agree that if the sequel indeed goes down the 3D route, that the makers should definately ensure it’s filmed using ‘proper’ 3D cameras from the start…and NOT ‘converted’!

While I’d love to see the likes of previously 2D-filmed movies like ‘Forbidden Planet’ end up ‘converted’ someday…I certainly would expect films that have YET to be filmed to be in ‘proper’ 3D…especially this one.

621. AJ - January 18, 2011

618:

I paid decent money to take my 2 kids to ‘Narnia 3,’ and after some terrific 3D previews, I was let down by a shitty ‘conversion’ of a serviceable film.

My kids and I had gone to “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” in 3D, and were appropriately blown away. We’ve also seen “How to Train Your Dragon” in 2D and left exhilarated.

I will assume, with a great deal of optimism, that Peter Jackson will do something amazing with “the Hobbit,” but 3D is now in a lazy cash-cow milking stage that does not deserve our custom, with “Narnia” and “Crap of the Titans” abusing the format. If JJ uses 3D, he has to out-do James Cameron. Otherwise, there’s no point.

622. Rocker - January 18, 2011

A great Star Trek film doesn’t need 3D. Special effects and hi def feels more realistic to me. Just make it as good as the last one and we will all be lovin it!

623. MJ - January 18, 2011

@606 “The origin of the name “India” is from the term “Hind”, a very old historical Persian name”

Ah, OK,. so India got “India” from the Persians!

So really your whole argument is moot, because you are using a term created by the Persians, and are in turn complaining that American Indians should not be using the term becuase it is “owned” by India.. Since Iran is the major descendant country of Persian, and still speak the Persian language of Farsi, one could argue that Iran probably hold the ultimate right to use the term “India”.

History is fun, because the more you go back, the more you can see the origins of things and peoples.

624. MJ - January 18, 2011

@610. Thanks Jai for the recommendation, I will attempt to obtain “The Namesake” from Netflix soon.

625. Cervantes - January 18, 2011

‘Avatar’ director James Cameron declared:

“After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming. Now you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”

He was referring to ‘conversions’ of CURRENTLY-filmed movies that were made after ‘Avatar’, rather than ‘conversions’ of older 2D movies. There was no excuse for any ‘currently’-filmed movies to be ‘converted’, when ‘proper’ 3D cameras were available. Unfortunately, the ‘conversion’ process gave certain directors and studios the lazy option of just farming it out to various companies as an afterthought…and some of these companies weren’t as good as others at doing it…and sometimes didn’t get given enough time to do it properly. When the likes of the original ‘Lord of the Rings’ films ‘Titanic’ are eventually ‘converted’ using this process, we can and should expect the results to be impressive.

@ 621 AJ -

Apart from the odd dreadful ‘conversion’ that’s been done in the early stages of this latest 3D revival, my other biggest disappointment is the fact that it was used as an excuse to hike up the ticket prices! Things wouldn’t have been so bad if cinema prices had remained the same.

As far as J.J. is concerned though, I won’t expect him to actually out-do Cameron…but I will expect him to deliver something as equally above-average as his first Trek feature was.

626. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 18, 2011

“sorry if this upsets some of you.”
Who?

627. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 18, 2011

“Language is not some static thing. Meanings change..”

true, people often use words inaccurately, even in light of new information.

628. keachick - January 18, 2011

MJ – about the use of the term “Indian”. The reason we have language and different words for different things, peoples, animals… is to allow for better communication, understanding and just as important, to avoid confusion.

As Jai has pointed out, the term India(n) does have a history and it has nothing to do with the indigenous peoples who inhabit the continent now known as North and South America. The fact is that people living near the Arctic Circle have a name, Inuit. I can see how the original discoverers of America may have got the name confused. However, it is still a mistake and there is no need to keep repeating a mistake, especially when there are actually Indians (as originating from the actual Hind, or Indian sub-continent) living in the States.

As I said, I think these people belong to separate distinct races, with a different history and culture. These differences should be embraced and celebrated.

629. keachick - January 18, 2011

On another board, I am taking a poll as to who wants the next Star Trek to be in 3D. One says Yes, why not? 5 say No, just see it as a gimmick.

My preference would be for Star Trek to be done 2D and if they do go with 3D, then it is properly done. People should have a choice. As has already been stated many times, it is really about presenting a good story and good characterisation. The rest is just icing and some people can happily go without the icing.

630. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 18, 2011

I simply refuse to go to 3D movie. It makes my head hurt and its not all that much better then 2D…

631. screaming Khan. - January 18, 2011

A question for boborci if hes still about

Do you listing to any music to get you in the mood when you write/come up with ideas etc?

If so what type of stuff did you/have you been listening to when writing Cowboys & Aliens and Trek 2?

Im writing an eerie style SF short story at the moment which might be something similar to what C&A possibly is – i.e starting off as a certain something then veering off into something else Dusk till Dawn style (almost done now – just got to tidy it up and figure out where to submit it) and frequently listen to various stuff in the background (e.g. the Indy Crystal Skull score, various Trek movie scores, The Thing, Aliens etc) – it sometimes helps

632. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

627: “true, people often use words inaccurately, even in light of new information.”

Your notion of accuracy is giving you trouble. The “picture theory of meaning” was abandoned when Wittgenstein himself — it’s key proponent — realized it was BS. The notion that for each word there is a thing it names with the corresponding notion of accuracy which this theory creates, is false. Period. Language evolves and so does this notion of “accuracy” which is also historically contextual, and not absolute.

As to Jai’s example of Portuguese being called Egyptians, I’m afraid that it simply doesn’t matter. In one case the mistake was corrected and in another it was not, and took hold, and now Indian can also refer to the indigenous American variety. And white folk in Iowa can refer to themselves as Iowans, even though they are not members of the Ioway nation. And all that happens despite how the language police would like some words to be used.

What constituted “accuracy” itself changed, and now Iowan “accurately” means a person from Iowa, where before it did not. If you called an Idahoan an Iowan, you would of course be mistaken in the context of the current meanings of the words. Given current norms of usage, that would NOT be accurate to do.

But you can’t stop the wild nature of the world. It changes whether you like it or not. Words evolve in and by historical contexts so it’s really history you are trying to rewrite and freeze when you say words mean this and only this and nobody should use them to mean anything else.

633. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

628: “As Jai has pointed out, the term India(n) does have a history and it has nothing to do with the indigenous peoples who inhabit the continent now known as North and South America.”

But history doesn’t take any holidays, Keachick. And by that very momentum of history Indian came to be an accepted and used term by the first nations people of America.

Indians have very strong oral traditions, and stories are an important part of these traditions. In Lakota country you will encounter real names like Her Many Horses, Makes Room For Them, First To Come Home, all of which may have historical events attached to them as the reason they were chosen as names.

So while the wasicu get’s all in a huff about this-word-means-that-thing-and-that’s-the-way-it-oughta-be-forever, the Lakota do things differently. For them a name is also a way of remembering events they are associated with, and in that way, whether “Indian” meant “person of India” is irrelevant and it totally misses the point of how they do things.

To a Lakota, for instance, calling himself “Indian” doesn’t mean he thinks he’s from India. It can also be a way of remembering a historical blunder by Columbus. They aren’t operating with Wittgenstein’s bogus picture theory of meaning in mind, which is really what underlies Jai and MW’s position. So if a Lakota thinks about the word he doesn’t think “Indian” means “person of India,” he may instead think something much longer, such as, “this is the name Columbus gave to us because he thought he had found India; what a funny guy that Columbus was. But that is how the name came about.” You see the difference? The Lakota will use the same word to REMEMBER HISTORY, not to point to some OBJECT person x, y, or z thinks it properly ought to name.

Huge difference between how different cultures use words.

634. Basement Blogger - January 18, 2011

@ 625 Cervantes

I hope you’re right when you say that the Lord of the Rings and Tittanic should look impressive. I believe James Cameron will want quality when he converts Titanic but let’s face it. It’s not the same as if they were shot in native 3-D. And what about the special effects say for Lord of the Rings? Those were thought of in 2D. I’m concerned and cynical but I will keep an open mind regarding those two films. And as I have said above, I saw “Green Hornet” in 3D. It was a conversion. And I was surprised, it was not bad. That being said, there was nothing special about seeing “Green Hornet” in 3D.

635. P Technobabble - January 18, 2011

620. Cervantes

Thanks for the feedback.
For me, I didn’t mind any of the alternate time-line/universe stuff at all. I still think what the writers did was a stroke of genius, regardless what the critics say. I think the film offers the message “Things change and you can’t go back.” I know lots of people who thought life was so much simpler in the 50′s, for example, but society has changed and we can’t ever get back to a 50′s mentality.
Star Trek has changed. There has been a drastic shift in the characters’ existence and there’s no going back. Going into the unknown is boldly going were no one has gone before, eh?

636. Basement Blogger - January 18, 2011

Your Favorite Star Wars Character Jar Jar Binks in 3D! : )

Look out! Star Wars I: The Phantom Menance will be converted to 3D and released in late 2012. (Story below.) I know all of you are going to go nuts when you see Jar Jar Binks in 3D. How about Jar Jar Binks in 3D and in IMAX? In IMAX, his head will pop out of the screen, stories high. And imagine the legendary dialogue.

Jarr Jarr Binks: ” Monsters out there, leaking in here. Weesa all sinking and no power. Whena yousa thinking we are in trouble?”

Where does the magic end? Bet you cant’ wait for Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? Yes. 3-D Ewoks! Hey maybe they’ll restore the final Ewok song. “Yupp Yupp.”

And hopefully it won’t stop there. According to StarWars.com, the whole live action saga will be converted. You know where I’m going. THE STAR WARS HOLDIAY SPECIAL IN 3D!

http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/announce3d/index.html

637. gingerly - January 18, 2011

@560 and 561

Regardless of how you personally feel about Dances with Wolves, and believe me I enjoyed it too, it made me cry, my points weren’t about that.

It’s interesting and convenient that a white woman just so happened to be adopted by this tribe for our white hero to fall in love with (and win the Academy Award that year).

My issues aren’t with quality, there are with Hollywood’s tendency to tell the story of “others” from a safely white point of view.

Apocalypto, though inaccurate and not explicitly true to facts, as just about every fictionalized Hollywood movie, (see the Social Network for a recent example) it presented Indigenous people as main characters, (not the backdrop for a white man’s emotional journey) and the struggles to save his family, his feelings, his fears, his and wife’s love without the safe googles of the white gaze, as is far too typical in most Hollywood films dealing with that subject.

…And by Mel Gibson(!) of all people, ironically enough.

I personally would like to see this done more often.

638. gingerly - January 18, 2011

I wanted to add, that I think our attitudes about race are partially influenced by what the media presents…and you would think that these days, in 2011, we’d be a lot further along in that respect, than we are.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1948662,00.html

I think that perhaps around the 80′s we stalled and stopped progressing on that front, in the media.

639. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

637: “It’s interesting and convenient that a white woman just so happened to be adopted by this tribe for our white hero to fall in love with (and win the Academy Award that year).”

Yes. That aspect of the movie is spoof-worthy! I guess he would’ve been SOL for love if the crazy haired white woman didn’t exist.

640. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

638. gingerly – January 18, 2011

Great article. I’m saving that. Evidence that the status quo maintains itself by subtle means and unconscious tides.

641. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

From the article:

“Acknowledging the disconnect may be the first step in bridging the gap between our hearts and minds, says Ambady. Figuring out exactly where and how subtle biases creep into our culture would be a start. To do that, we may have to start watching television more actively, and astutely, instead of passively absorbing everything we see.”

Easier said than done. People click on the TV after a hard day at work to relax, not to think hard, so while I wouldn’t say TV is inherently a passive medium, I think for most viewers it probably is. In their afterwork state of exhaustion viewers just throw open wide the doors of their consciousness and let any creature scurry in from the netherworlds of television. TV too often takes advantage of our vulnerability to immerse us in nonsense and BS.

642. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2011

641

“TV too often takes advantage of our vulnerability to immerse us in nonsense and BS.”

So true. And it reinforces the ingenuity of “Star Trek”.

643. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2011

As for two different races sharing the same name, in both “Star Trek: Voyager” and “Star Wars”, there were two races called “Bothans”. And they weren’t related obviously. A writer for “Voyager” obviously wasn’t aware of the Bothans in “Star Wars” or he simply forgot.

So there you go.

644. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

An excellent book that I highly encourage people to read, or at least to Wiki, is:

Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television, by Jerry Mander.

He also wrote In The Absence of The Sacred, which is a spot on non religious (don’t focus on the title word “sacred” please) critique of modern culture.

If you want to stop dozing through the world you live in, these two books are essential reading.

645. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2011

644

“Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television, by Jerry Mander.”

MTV. FOX NEWS. NBC. TLC. My arguments right there. No need to explain, just watch their “programming”!

646. keachick - January 18, 2011

I agree that language evolves. The word “Indian” is used to represent two different peoples and it does not present much of a problem for most.

I guess I am more curious as to how a mistake, once realised, just kept getting repeated. To me, it shows an ignorance and disrespect for the two peoples – those from the subcontinent known today as India and those indigenous to a different continent, the one now known as the American continent. But then, the name Indian was given to these indigenous Americans by arrogant, ignorant, racist colonising Europeans.

Sometimes I feel so proud of those people that I share my ancestral past with – NOT!

647. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

642: “So true. And it reinforces the ingenuity of “Star Trek”.

Yes, for me at least, and I am sure for many others, Star Trek stimulated activity rather than passivity.

And when we talk about Star Trek returning to TV, I wonder how to do that. What’s the right way?

Personally, I don’t want to indulge the fans desires to return to a canon fantasy world which is escapist. That was all camouflage for what TOS was really doing and if that’s all you get out of Star Trek then you are missing the best parts, my friend.

Certainly it should be fun, but it would be ideal for it to be a launch pad that gets you to explore your own world more deeply.

648. keachick - January 18, 2011

Edit: I meant to say – Those people are also my ancestors ( racially and culturally) – ie the people from Britain, Ireland and Spain who colonised the Americas.

649. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2011

647

“And when we talk about Star Trek returning to TV, I wonder how to do that. What’s the right way?”

All I would suggest is that the writers be familiar with Gene Roddenberry’s original vision and message. It’s not about explosions, technobabble or fancy effects and make-up. Its about the human adventure. It’s about coming together during adventures, overcoming adversity and defying the odds. Its about people working together toward a common goal. The best episodes of all of the series touched upon these things. The worst episodes didn’t, or at least not very well.

The next tv writers need to know that. They don’t necessarily have to be a fan (case in point J.J Abrams), but they need to know what made TOS in particular special. A new series could take place on a ship, planet or space station and feature old familar characters or entirely new ones. Just as long as the ideals and humanity of what made “Star Trek” what it is today isn’t forgotten or pushed aside for ratings.

650. dmduncan - January 18, 2011

645. Red Dead Ryan – January 18, 2011

FOX NEWS is harder to take seriously because what they are doing is more obvious than ABC or NBC, which are much more pretentious. FOX looks like infotainment with the hot NewsBabes, but ABC expects you to believe it is The News.

They’re all just means of downloading daily software updates to viewer consciousness.

651. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2011

650

FOX News ignores its own motto, “Fair And Balanced” in the attempt to become the headquarters for Republican ambition. MSNBC has tried to do the same for Democrats. Neither network understands that to be a news network, they have to cover actual news and not just record soundbites from politicians or become a mouthpiece for nutty blowhards.

Up here in Canada, our news networks actually cover news. Politics is just a small percentage of daily coverage.

652. siphunclekaiju54 - January 18, 2011

I would be for 3D if it was not a JJ Abrams movie. His visual style is very “2D” oriented, and it’s such an integral part of the last movie that I want to see this one done in that same style. So no, even though 3D is a great tool for something like Avatar or Tron, I think Trek should be 2D until at least its next incarnation.

653. MJ - January 18, 2011

@546. Yes, we could avoid confusion today over the Persian-derived term “Indian” if there had not been this mislabeling by Columbus and others early in the new world, but part of the problem is that the indigenous peoples’ themselves did not have a unified for “inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere.” And sorry, while I do realize that in prehistoric times the Iniut descendants and others moved into the Americas, I don’t think it would have gone over very well with the Aztecs, Incas, Massachusetts or other tribes to say, here, you are all Inuits.

A question I am curious about — in New Zealand, are there some Maori who still consider the European-descended whites and not true New Zealanders? I found it remarkable that on my trip to the South Island last year I did not encounter any Maoris. Are they mainly on the North Island?

654. MJ - January 18, 2011

@651. Plus you have Mantracker, my favorite reality tv show of all time (not kidding, I own all the seasons on DVD).

655. MJ - January 18, 2011

@651. CNN in the 80′s and 90′s used to have really solid and balanced news coverage. Then in the 2000′s they gradually became more of an entertainment news channel.

656. Basement Blogger - January 18, 2011

Maybe 3-D isn’t so bad after all. I was blogging about his idea. What if Stanley Kubrick had today’s technology and could shoot 2001: A Space Odyssey in 3D? Just think about the shots from that masterpiece. For example think about the Monolith on earth. Imagine seeing that on the screen and wanting to touch it.

In the story above, J.J. Abrams doesn’t sound like he’s shut the door on 3-D. And as I have said before, I hope more directors stop using the hand-held camera. It’s induces nausea . See “Bourne Suprememcy” (2004) With the profits that can be made, I would bet that Star Trek (2012) will be released in 3D. We have to raise our voices to demand that the film be shot in 3D and not be a conversion.

657. MJ - January 18, 2011

@647. If Star Trek were to return to TV, I would like to see it done on a grander and more professional scale. 10 1-hour episodes with no commercials on HBO or Showtime would be really cool. Look at Rome and Band of Brothers — can you imagine those sort of production qualities being provided to Star Trek!

658. MJ - January 18, 2011

@657. And with the 10-episode season format, you could have an arc story as well for each season.

659. MJ - January 18, 2011

@637 “Apocalypto, though inaccurate and not explicitly true to facts, as just about every fictionalized Hollywood movie, (see the Social Network for a recent example) it presented Indigenous people as main characters, (not the backdrop for a white man’s emotional journey) and the struggles to save his family, his feelings, his fears, his and wife’s love without the safe googles of the white gaze, as is far too typical in most Hollywood films dealing with that subject. …And by Mel Gibson(!) of all people, ironically enough. I personally would like to see this done more often.”

Well I agree with you on wanting to see more Native American movies like Apocalypto without whites needing always be involved…sure!

660. MJ - January 18, 2011

@656 “We have to raise our voices to demand that the film be shot in 3D and not be a conversion.”

This is a danger I worry about — let’s say Orci reports to JJ, and then JJ reports to the studio that the fans overwhelmingly don’t want 3D. So then the film is shot in 2D, but by 2012, Paramount gets cold feet concerning profit from the movie, and pays to covert the movie 2D.

Thus, originating from all of our complaining, we get the worst of all scenarios — a bargain basement 3D conversion instead of a real 3d movie done state-of-the-art-Avatar style.

661. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2011

657

An HBO style mini-series could work. But make it 15 episodes. With maybe a two-hour finale or premier for each season.

655

Yeah, CNN has gone down the tubes, becoming a gossip/sensationalist machine. Plus they try to not take sides in debates, though its pretty obvious where they stand. Plus they don’t seem to do their homework when they hire new anchors. Parker and Spitzer? Come on! Piers Morgan? Total pompous airhead who is a pale imitation of Simon Cowell.
Plus he seems so full of himself.

662. MJ - January 19, 2011

@661. “Come on! Piers Morgan? Total pompous airhead who is a pale imitation of Simon Cowell.”

Agreed. Replacing King with Morgan is akin to replacing Dr. McCoy with Harry Mudd.

663. Basement Blogger - January 19, 2011

@ 660

I do agree with you on a previous post ( @ 547) that Star Trek (2012) will be released in 3D. I just hope that Bob and J.J. Abrams know that knowledgable fans would like to see it shot in 3-D.

And if you read the story above, it seems to me Paramount wanted Abrams to shoot it in 3-D. He said he wanted to make a good 2D movie first. And recently, Abrams seems amenable to shooting in 3-D.

Paramount is not going to listen to Trekkers. Profit rules. I see why they really want to release Trek in 3-D. Spider-Man is being shot in 3-D and will be released in the same summer. And the Avengers film that will be released in May of 2012 is supposed to be shot in 3-D. (link) My hope is that Paramount sees the competition and in an effort to keep up, they will shoot it in native 3-D. And by the way, there’s been a strong backlash against conversions. See “Clash of the Titans” and “The Last Airbender.”

J.J. Abrams is an artist. The making of documentary about Star Trekk 2009 talks about his choice to film in anamorphic widescreen film versus video. He liked the flaws which I interpret as warmth of film. The other hope is that Abrams and Bad Robot flex some muscle and get Paramount to expand the budget to include filming in native 3D. .

http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/08/10/marvel-movie-the-avengers-will-be-in-3d

664. Basement Blogger - January 19, 2011

@ 657 MJ

I totally agree with you on how to bring Star Trek back to tv as a type of mini-series. The way I look at it, this way will alllow CBS to have a limited financial risk. But perhaps I’ve uttered the magic three letters. CBS. Sigh. What happens if the second Star Trek movie does well at the box office? It’s hard for me to see CBS moving on anything. Besides releasing special DVD Best of Episodes, what else did CBS do after Star Trek 2009? Okay, they posted Enterprise on the web. Sigh. Yawn.

665. keachick - January 19, 2011

#653 Most Maori live in the North Island as it is warmer and in places, like Auckland, sub-tropical. Just *loving* the humidity right now. Maori are descended from various Polynesian tribes who live in the Pacific where it is a tropical/sub-tropical climate. There is one South Island tribe called Ngai Tahu who are located near the top of the South Island in the Nelson area. Many will have moved north also in search of work and a better climate.

There are one or two Maori who go on about wanting Maori soveignty, but most just get on with life, like everyone else. Besides, there are very few full-blooded Maori around. Intermarriage between Maori and the European settlers happened fairly early on in our history.

666. The Vulcanista }:-) - January 19, 2011

No. 666! Woohoo!

Peace. Live long and prosper.

667. captain_neill - January 19, 2011

Although I am not a fan of JJ Abrams and admit he did things in the last movie that as a Star Trek fan I was not happy with. I will admit that I am glad that JJ Abrams used film but I seriously hope he chooses no for 3D

668. P Technobabble - January 19, 2011

660. MJ

“…and then JJ reports to the studio that the fans overwhelmingly don’t want 3D…”

I honestly don’t know if there are enough fans to make the studio drop their desire to make the film in 3D… or any film, for that matter. And I’d be willing to bet the actual cost of filming in real 3D would be more than the studio wants to spend, so we’d mostly likely see a conversion.

We should keep in mind the industry, the manufacturers, the media and the retailers tend to ram these sorts of changes down our throats, telling us things like, “This is the latest craze, this is the wave of the present, all things 3D are on fire!” It’s really like vinyl lp replaced by cassette which was replaced by cd which is currently losing sales to mp3, and so forth. Some of us are always against change, it’s human nature to some degree. But the changes always take place and the new thing becomes the norm. Again, I think this is what Trek09 was telling us… My 2 cents.

669. Jai - January 19, 2011

Hugh Hoyland, re: #611

“It was recommended to me by a former girlfriend that I watch more “Bollywood” films to get a better understanding of Indian culture. (She is Indian American). I was particularly interested to see if there was any Sci-Fi type films or shows.”

There have actually been a few Bollywood sci-fi films during the past few years; some have been more successful than others. “Koi Mil Gaya” was a huge hit and was basically an Indianised version of ET, although there were some major story changes here and there, especially with the main hero being a mentally-handicapped adult. It’s very much a “watch with the kids” sort of family movie, so don’t expect any BSG/Bladerunner grittiness, but as India’s first commercially successful sci-fi blockbuster it’s an interesting example of the genre.

There was a sequel called “Krrish” which was also very successful. Basically a mixture of Superman and (to some extent) The Matrix. It was sufficiently popular for a sequel of its own to be in the pipeline. Interestingly, the US film “Superman Returns” was released at around the same time, and “Krrish” got far better reviews.

There have been a few other sci-fi/fantasy movies during the past few years, but they haven’t necessarily been as successful. It’s still a developing genre – the special effects are outstanding and increasingly as good as anything produced in Hollywood, but they still need to iron out the storylines. I’m sure they’ll eventually find a way, assuming that there’s a viable market for Bollywood sci-fi films either in the subcontinent or overseas.

670. Jai - January 19, 2011

MJ, re: #623

“Ah, OK,. so India got “India” from the Persians!”

Well, yes and no. Indirectly, to some extent. Explaining would involve a long history lesson about the past thousand years so I won’t go into too much detail here, apart from the short summary below, but in a nutshell people in the medieval period spoke Farsi well beyond the borders of Iran.

“Since Iran is the major descendant country of Persian, and still speak the Persian language of Farsi, one could argue that Iran probably hold the ultimate right to use the term “India”.”

The “ultimate right to use the term ‘India’” for India itself ? Possibly. The “ultimate right to use the term ‘India’” for Iran ? No, because Persians used the term “Hind” – from which “India” is derived — specifically to refer to the region east of the Indus river, as explained earlier.

Also, due to Persia’s huge cultural and political influence in those times, Farsi wasn’t the monopoly of Persians. Muslims in other parts of Central Asia and Iran’s neighbouring regions who weren’t Persians themselves also spoke the language, and after large numbers of them settled in India it was their influence which resulted in the name “Hind” becoming widely adopted in northern India.

Later, it was the massive influence of the Mughals (who weren’t Persian either) which resulted in Farsi becoming the dominant “national language” in India until the early 19th century. Technically there were far more Farsi-speakers in India than there were in Iran itself, and the more sophisticated, courtly versions of the language are also regarded as having undergone greater “flowering” in historical India than in Iran.

Re: #624

“@610. Thanks Jai for the recommendation, I will attempt to obtain “The Namesake” from Netflix soon.

No problem, I hope you enjoy it. As the main character, Kal Penn is about as far as he can possibly get from his “Harold and Kumar” persona (apart from a brief early sequence showing him in High School), and turns out to be a revelation in his (mostly) deadly serious role. The acting by the people playing his parents is also superb; they’re actually major Bollywood stars – you’ll also recognise his father from “Slumdog Millionaire”. The American actress Jacinda Barrett has a major part in the film too, playing Kal Penn’s girlfriend.

It’s an absolutely fantastic film, and deeply moving too. I can’t recommend it strongly enough.

671. Jai - January 19, 2011

Moauvian Waoul, Keachick, re: #627 & 628

“true, people often use words inaccurately, even in light of new information.”

“However, it is still a mistake and there is no need to keep repeating a mistake, especially when there are actually Indians (as originating from the actual Hind, or Indian sub-continent) living in the States.”

Exactly. Something people need to remember is that there is a whole world outside the United States, including – as I said earlier – more than a billion Indians. Some parochially-minded people in the US may insist on continuing to use the wildly inaccurate and obsolete term “Indian” to mean “Native American”, but that’s not what the name actually means to billions of other people elsewhere on the planet. And the fact that “Indian” actually means “from India” will continue to have increasing global dominance as India itself continues its rise to the top tier of nations during the next few decades.

There seems to be a little ego-driven stubbornness in some quarters. It’s like when some people insist on lazily mispronouncing names of people from other backgrounds (and have the nerve to expect them to amicably respond to the mispronounced names) even when they know perfectly well that their pronunciation is incorrect, they can’t be bothered to make the effort to pronounce it correctly, and they know that the other person finds it offensive and patronising. It’s a form of cultural bullying, in a way.

I’m sure that, in the years to come, the Chinese will have lots of fun imposing their own pronunciations (and possibly different names) on people here in the West and expecting the recipients to just grin and bear it ;) Unless, of course, the Chinese are more polite and considerate about the matter – as everyone should be.

672. Hugh Hoyland - January 19, 2011

#669 Jai

Thanks for that info. Wonder how I could locate those though. Im sure if I google the titles something will pop up. I know that India has a very long tradition of Motion Picture production. In fact I think India produces more movies over all than any nation on Earth.

673. Mark Lynch - January 19, 2011

Not sure where to put this, so I’ll put it here….

The 3D poll should have another option;
“Real 3D, not converted from 2D”

Which funnily enough, would be my choice. But the customer should have the choice at the cinema to watch in 3D or not.

674. Jai - January 19, 2011

Hugh Hoyland, re: #672

“Thanks for that info. Wonder how I could locate those though.”

Those films are available via Amazon to buy, or (especially if you live in/near any sizeable Indian communities) via Blockbuster to rent.

You’re right in saying that India has the largest film industry in the world. The types of movies they produce are a lot more varied these days than they used to be, so there are plenty of very decent, stylish dramas as well as the more stereotypical Bollywood flicks. The industry has gone through some major changes in recent times, especially during the past decade. The fact that popular American films are so easily available in Indian cinemas and via DVDs has also influenced audience tastes, which in turn has influenced the nature of many Indian films.

675. cdp - January 19, 2011

In regards to 3D I would rather see JJ Abrams follow in the footsteps of Christopher Nolan who is shooting the next batman movie movie: The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX rather than 3D. JJ should just shoot the next Star Trek movie in IMAX. They can still make a lot of money putting the movie on all the IMAX screens around the country and not even have to worry about the 3D element of it. Besides the last Star Trek movie that they converted to IMAX looked really good. So I would say they should take the money they would use to film the movie in 3D and use it to film the movie in IMAX.

676. GLD - January 19, 2011

Come on do we have to do this. Is nothing sacred anymore. Why in the world even consider a 3D Star Trek movie. Hard core trekers know its best to leave somethings up to OUR imagination!!!!!!!!!

677. dmduncan - January 19, 2011

651: “Up here in Canada, our news networks actually cover news. Politics is just a small percentage of daily coverage.”

No matter where on the globe you are, if you are watching it on TV or reading it in the papers, every piece of “news” has been filtered for you by the mind of someone else according to what they think is “newsworthy.”

678. dmduncan - January 19, 2011

671: “Exactly. Something people need to remember is that there is a whole world outside the United States, including – as I said earlier – more than a billion Indians. Some parochially-minded people in the US may insist on continuing to use the wildly inaccurate and obsolete term “Indian” to mean “Native American”, but that’s not what the name actually means to billions of other people elsewhere on the planet. And the fact that “Indian” actually means “from India” will continue to have increasing global dominance as India itself continues its rise to the top tier of nations during the next few decades.”

Inexactly. It has nothing to do with ego — at least not on MY end — and even less to do with “accuracy” as I mentioned before and, since the term “Indian” as I have explained it is in fact currently in wide use exactly as I have said it was, then your description of it as “obsolete” is factually incorrect. It is simply what the reality is. Should Iowans call themselves something else because they are not members of the Iowa tribe? Not gonna happen. Should we take back the word “gay” from meaning homosexual? For what?

Trying to insist that a word have a single meaning in all places and at all times and ignoring also that different cultures may actually use words differently, not merely to “name things” as per your own particular conception of “accuracy,” as if the use of language were something you could legislate across the globe — that is parochial minded on an epic scale, and it is also a pretty good imitation of American hubris that India and China seem keen on replicating, unfortunately.

Other nations do not seem as eager to learn from our mistakes as to get their turn at repeating them.

Finally, “Indian” meaning “person of India” has global dominance right now. That hasn’t changed because a relatively small group of people in the United States use the word differently. It’s vernacular, not parochial. It has nothing to do with the “size” of anybody’s world view or mind, and that you would like to stop it seems insecure and petty to me.

679. liv - January 19, 2011

The idea of having STXII in 3D is idiotic. I can not recall a single movie that I was impressed with in 3D. And the jacked prices? Totally not okay. I sincerely hope J.J. signs on to STXII regardless.

680. David P - January 19, 2011

no 3D

681. keachick - January 19, 2011

No Bob Orci here at the moment and I think I know why that is. It’s official – filming of Welcome to People has commenced. As Mr Orci is also one of the producers, as well as having helped write the script, I am guessing he is a very busy man right now.

Best wishes to all the cast and crew of Welcome to People. May it be a good one.

Please, if you get a chance, Bob Orci, just give us a quick update on you know whats.

682. MJ - January 19, 2011

@671. Well one could argue just as well that India came to the game lately here in wanting to use the word “Indian”. The term Indian was applied to the native inhabitants of North and South America by Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, and accepted by those peoples’ over time. However, the term Indian was not applied by people in India to themselves until the 17th Century, as people in India referred to their country/region as “Barat” before the 17th Century.

So while I will agree that the Europeans incorrectly named these peoples’ Indians in the 15th and 16th Century, they were not stealing the term from the peoples’ who referred to their land as Barat.

So while one can understand the desire in people in India today to have full control of the term, “Indian,” well, the Indians in North and South America pre-date the people in India in applying this term to themselves. And we all know that possession in 9/10 of the law.

683. MJ - January 19, 2011

@678. “Finally, “Indian” meaning “person of India” has global dominance right now. That hasn’t changed because a relatively small group of people in the United States use the word differently. It’s vernacular, not parochial. It has nothing to do with the “size” of anybody’s world view or mind, and that you would like to stop it seems insecure and petty to me.”

Agreed DM. I think Jai, while meaning well, came across here unintentionally in his argument as kind of bullying the American Indians due to the major differences in populations size and media coverage that that huge nation gets as compared to American Indians.

684. MJ - January 19, 2011

@677. “No matter where on the globe you are, if you are watching it on TV or reading it in the papers, every piece of “news” has been filtered for you by the mind of someone else according to what they think is “newsworthy.” ”

Agree DM, but this has been this way since the dawn of civilization. The only difference is that today we have much more information and ways to transfer and filter the information. Although, in a positive development, more source material is available now for those with the time to find it and use it.

685. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2011

Didn’t Columbus mistakenly name the native peoples of the Americas “Indians” because he thought his ship reached India? That was in 1492. That seems to indicate that the term “Indian” was already taken by people living in India. Unless the people of India went by another name while their country was called India. So confusing.

On an unrelated topic, the Toronto Maple Leafs just lost to the New York Rangers by a score of 7-0. Marion Gaborik had four goals.

(sings)

“It’s just the way it is. Some things will never change……”

686. Basement Blogger - January 19, 2011

@ 685 RDR

RDR, Why are you complaing about Toronto losing to New York? I just wrote on the record thread that Canada is taking over the United States. Erica Durance and Margot Kidder both played Lois Lane. Canadians. William Shatner. Canadian. A move toward government run health care? Canadian. Justin Bieber. Canadian. Oh thanks a lot for that one Canada. Not.

Even American institutions are not safe. Jazz. Singer and pianist Diana Krall. Canadian. My favorite Cincinnati Red, Joey Votto. Canadian. Favorite Playmate of the Year. Shannon Tweed. Canadian. She’s a beauty, eh?

Oh Canada… we stand on guard for thee….. Hey try finding a Molson here in Cincinnati.

687. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2011

686

I wasn’t complaining. I was happy! See, out here on the West Coast, we can’t stand Toronto! So we take great pleasure in seeing the Leafs lose!

Toronto has always been a poor man’s New York!

PS No offense to Harry Ballz, of course. He’s as Canadian as they come!

688. dmduncan - January 19, 2011

683. MJ – January 19, 2011

Linguistic fundamentalism? Too much literalism creates belligerency.

Look, if one person calls another a name he doesn’t like, or lazily mispronounces someone’s name, I think we can universally understand those things as insulting.

But if someone gets irate because a word like Indian is being used for a people that someone else thinks should apply only to his own people, even when it is in fact non-literal (colloquial), then the emotion in that case seems more related to jealousy than insult, as if someone violated some trademark law or is perceived to be threatening some brand name.

You may not like my use of that word in that context, even though it is colloquial, but “insulting” isn’t the word that comes to my mind to characterize the particular displeasure happening there.

When people say Eye-talian, I don’t get upset. I think it’s funny. Probably because I think an insult is a lot like a UPS package requiring a signature.

Like that package, the insult needs someone to deliver it, and someone to receive it, and if you refuse to accept it, it just goes away. No harm, no foul. Despite what the sender intended.

689. Basement Blogger - January 19, 2011

@ 687 RDR

Got it, RDR. Since you’re on the West Coast, and maybe want an L.A. football team. just say no to the Bengals if they come available.

690. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2011

689

Oops, I forgot to mention that the West Coast I’m from is in Canada. I live in Victoria, British Columbia. But anyway, we don’t need the Bengals. We had the Grizzlies ten years ago and the smell of their rotting carcass still prevades the area!

691. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2011

Grr, it was Vancouver that had the NBA Grizzlies. But still, only a couple of hours away.

692. MJ - January 19, 2011

Love Vancouver and the Island/Victoria!

693. dmduncan - January 19, 2011

684: “Agree DM, but this has been this way since the dawn of civilization. The only difference is that today we have much more information and ways to transfer and filter the information. Although, in a positive development, more source material is available now for those with the time to find it and use it.”

Probably true. What I’ve been wondering about lately though is how some kind of meta-narrative is being indirectly transmitted by the stories we are shown over and over in the news. Almost like in the movies when the kidnapper sends in his ransom note pasted of words cut out from different magazines.

Think of those words as separate news stories and the overall message the news indirectly delivers as the message of ransom, except that all we consciously see are the cut out words/news stories.

How long have we been hearing about the rise of China and its economic might as a troubling development? Then tonight I hear on the news that “in a recent poll 61% of Americans believe China’s economic strength is a threat to the United States.”

I started laughing. After months of hearing how dangerous China is becoming on TV, why is that poll result even a story on the news? It’s absurd, really.

694. dmduncan - January 19, 2011

And who cares what a nice house China is building? How is staring at all of China’s nice stuff gonna help America fix it’s own busted plumbing?

695. MJ - January 19, 2011

@693. The question would be is the meta-narrative a natural function of the way information gets managed, massaged and spun, or are them some deliberate forces behind it? I suspect it is a combination of the two. Which makes it that much more important for the watcher/reader to try to access source in — but most people are too busy or lazy to do that.

696. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2011

China isn’t the country everyone should be worried about. They’re just doing things to get ahead. Hu Jintao is a smart guy. In fact, he’s the most powerful man in the world.

“How is staring at all of China’s nice stuff gonna help America fix it’s own busted plumbing?”

I think America regrets selling its best “China-ware” at below-market value and getting nothing substantial in return. In fact, its kind of like how someone sells his neighbor his home at discount but still has to pay full mortgage even though the value of his former house went down.

697. Harry Ballz - January 19, 2011

687.

Take off, eh???

698. keachick - January 20, 2011

“Agreed DM. I think Jai, while meaning well, came across here unintentionally in his argument as kind of bullying the American Indians due to the major differences in populations size and media coverage that that huge nation gets as compared to American Indians.”

When I noted that native Americans are incorrectly called Indians, it was not to belittle them or for feeling OK about having attached themselves to a name given to them by a foreigner who thought he was some place else. I guess, after all this time, native *Americans* (America, fr. Americanus, fr. Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian navigator) have as much right to call themselves Indians, for want of a better word, as the Indians of India do. It is not all about size and might of a particular country or race.

It would be good if the present indigenous people of your continent could collectively find a name that is meaningful to them and describes who they are as a unique race of people. Perhaps they have one already. It’s just that no body has been listening or paying attention.

Now, what has this got to do with JJ doing the next Trek movie in 3D or not?…Oh well, trekkies love to digress.

699. Basement Blogger - January 20, 2011

@ 698, 691

For Harry Ballz and Red Dead Ryan.

Take off to the Great White North… It’s a beauty way to go.

coo coo coo roo coo coo coo…

Okay let’s hear Geddy Lee and the McKenzie Brothers do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot70G4wSQi0

700. Jai - January 20, 2011

Re: #682

“@671. Well one could argue just as well that India came to the game lately here in wanting to use the word “Indian”. The term Indian was applied to the native inhabitants of North and South America by Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, and accepted by those peoples’ over time. However, the term Indian was not applied by people in India to themselves until the 17th Century, as people in India referred to their country/region as “Barat” before the 17th Century.

So while I will agree that the Europeans incorrectly named these peoples’ Indians in the 15th and 16th Century, they were not stealing the term from the peoples’ who referred to their land as Barat.

So while one can understand the desire in people in India today to have full control of the term, “Indian,” well, the Indians in North and South America pre-date the people in India in applying this term to themselves. And we all know that possession in 9/10 of the law.”

I’m afraid that’s factually completely incorrect. “Bharat” (please do spell it correctly) is indeed the original name of India, stretching back thousands of years, but the name “Hind” was already in use by the 11th century due to the influence of the various Farsi-speaking peoples settled in the subcontinent from that time onwards, as I mentioned earlier. The term “Hindustan” – “Land of the people of Hind” — also became widespread, with its usage increasing during the Mughal era and which has informally continued into the present day.

So the “Indians” in North and South America certainly don’t pre-date the people in India applying this term to themselves. Not by a long shot. In which case:

“And we all know that possession in 9/10 of the law.”

I guess that provides the definitive answer to this particular question ;) According to MJ’s own logic, the people of India have the ultimate right to possess the name “Indians” as a description for them, since they were using it hundreds of years before Columbus ever set foot in America.

Re: #683

“I think Jai, while meaning well, came across here unintentionally in his argument as kind of bullying the American Indians”

My objection to people insisting on using the wildly inaccurate term “Indians” to apply to Native Americans (which was historically imposed on Native Americans by European colonialists) is not directed at the Native Americans themselves, but other people who arrogantly insist on compounding a 500 year old blunder impacting the Native American population across an entire continent and refusing to rectify the original error; even more so when they’re clearly tying themselves into knots in order to justify their own obstinacy. My stance and logic is identical to that of Keachick and Moauvian Waoul.

I’m not going to respond to ridiculous claims being made by certain other people on this thread about my comments allegedly being driven by “jealousy” and whatnot. Especially not on this website, which is meant to be above such behaviour.

701. Jai - January 20, 2011

Red Dead Ryan, re: #685

“Didn’t Columbus mistakenly name the native peoples of the Americas “Indians” because he thought his ship reached India? That was in 1492. That seems to indicate that the term “Indian” was already taken by people living in India. Unless the people of India went by another name while their country was called India. So confusing.”

Correct. I’ve given a brief summary of the historical origin of the term “India” and its background in India itself for a thousand years in #606 and #670.

702. Jai - January 20, 2011

Keachick, re: #698

“It would be good if the present indigenous people of your continent could collectively find a name that is meaningful to them and describes who they are as a unique race of people. Perhaps they have one already. It’s just that no body has been listening or paying attention.”

Very well said.

A little light humour, since Trekmovie is actually supposed to a relatively light-hearted, friendly forum ;) Based on a completely unscientific piece of research involving nearly two historians, the following radical information has come to light. Now, for the first time, in a world exclusive for Trekmovie even before Wikileaks has had the chance to release these explosive revelations, the true story of Columbus’s arrival in America can finally be revealed:

Columbus: Ahhh, smell that exotic Eastern air. The rich land of India. I’d kill for a samosa right about now.
First Officer: Sir, are you sure we’re in the right place ?
Columbus: Of course I am. I bet the Taj Mahal is just over that hill.
First Officer: The Taj Mahal won’t be built for another 160 years, sir.
Columbus: I meant the restaurant, you fool.
First Officer: Well, I’m still not convinced we’re in India. Nobody here looks anything like the previous descriptions of Indians. Nobody speaks Hindi or Farsi. There don’t seem to be any mosques or Hindu temples anywhere. And where the hell are all the elephants ?!
Native American 1: Greetings, travellers. Welcome to our beautiful land.
Columbus: Namaste.
Native American 1: What ?
Columbus: As-salaam aleikum.
Native American 1: I’m sorry, I don’t understand you.
Columbus: What’s this fellow saying ?
First Officer: I think he’s speaking Sanskrit, sir.
Crew member: Some of our scouts have returned. They’re reporting huge pyramids a few thousand miles south of here.
Columbus: Pyramids ?! Are we in Egypt ?!
First Officer: Sir, we can’t tell anyone else we’re in Egypt. The name would be too difficult to spell for dyslexics. Dsyxlecis. Dxcy-
Columbus: You ! With the feathers ! Take us to the Sphinx, my good man.
Native American 1: Is this some kind of practical joke ?
Native American 2: I bet it’s the Cherokees. I did warn you about their sense of humour.
Native American 1: This guy seems to be serious.
Native American 2: Well, if the rest of them are this stupid I guess we’ll have nothing to worry about.
Native American 1: True dat.

703. Cervantes - January 20, 2011

Here’s an interesting development that I didn’t realise was going to happen so quickly -

Glasses-LESS 3D tvs will be on the shelves later THIS year! Now this isn’t going to appease those that dismiss the whole idea of the 3D effect in the first place, but it’s probably going to have a huge bearing on how 3D in the home environment develops in future –

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/01/hands-on-3D-without-the-glasses-comes-into-focus-at-ces.ars

As someone who has seen a demo of Panasonic’s currently exclusive ‘AVATAR’ 3D Blu-ray on one of their excellent ‘Viera’ series tvs, I gotta tell you I was blown away by the quality and amount of ‘depth’ achieved. I didn’t realise the effect would be anywhere near as effective as the cinema release…but it WAS!

First of all, I’d asked for a demo of the tv’s built-in ’2D-3D conversion’ effect, by putting on a standard dvd of ‘AVATAR’ into the 3D Blu-ray player that was hooked-up, to see how it compared to the 3D Blu-ray dvd version overall. This in-built ‘conversion’ effect was something that Panasonic initially resisted incorporating, as they felt the technology wasn’t good enough yet, and would muddy the waters with the far better 3D Blu-ray techology. However, because other tv manufacturers went ahead and incorporated this ‘psuedo-3D’ option, Panasonic decided they better do so too. That’s the background, and here’s my thoughts –

This feature certainly managed to give quite a bit ‘depth’ to the standard ‘AVATAR’ dvd, which was quite interesting…and my brats would certainly have been quite taken with the effect overall, when watching any standard content in this setting. It gives an effect of ’3D layers’ as if ‘looking through a window’ into the screen, but nothing ‘leaps out towards you’ using this process. It’s interesting, but certainly nothing to get too excited about, and this in-built ‘conversion’ technology doesn’t ‘layer’ every element correctly in the right place. So this is merely a ‘novelty’ feature at the moment, although it’s something that will no doubt be improved on by different manufacturers, as time goes on.

But when it came to the ACTUAL 3D Blu-ray demo, things immediately came alive in comparison, and the image suddenly ‘leaped out’ at me far further than I had been expecting, really drawing me into the ‘depth’ of the picture. It looked glorious, and myself and the wife were extremely impressed with the effect.

So to summarise – when it comes to re-watching some of my favourite movies on a 3D-enabled tv in future, I’ve no doubt that the 3D Blu-ray format can do an amazing job…if the movie has been filmed in ‘proper’ 3D in the first place. And this is the quality I’d like to eventually see the ‘Star Trek’ sequel(s) be given, if they end up getting a 3D cinema release.

The type of ‘conversion’ process being added to movies for the big screen will definately improve in future…but you can’t beat something being *filmed* with dedicated 3D cameras from the get go…so I hope ‘Star Trek’s future cinema releases get the best possible 3D in future. And let’s hope for some decent ‘conversion’ of the previous ones, when their inevitable 3D Blu-ray upgrades eventually appear…

704. Cervantes - January 20, 2011

Apologies, I made a typo in that link above. Here’s the correct one -

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/01/hands-on-3d-without-the-glasses-comes-into-focus-at-ces.ars

705. Hugh Hoyland - January 20, 2011

674 Jai

Cool deal, will check those out. I also googled an Indian site that offers free screenplay writting programs for beginers and also English to Hindi tranlation programs as well, pretty cool stuff. :]

706. gingerly - January 20, 2011

I do believe George Carlin (RIP) had a famous monologue which goes into the etymology of the usage of “Indian” for Indigenous people of the Americas and justifies it’s usage, depending on who you’re talking to.

Hint: It doesn’t always refer to India.

Really, it’s best to err on the side of “I call you, what you call yourself.”

707. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

#687

You are just jealous toronto is the center of hockey universe :)

Maybe vancouver will win a cup one day, hey maybe even before the leafs end their 44yr drought.

My wife is from bc so i understand the napoleon complex ;)

Enterprise in 3D, and space boobs in 3D, there, if trekkies dont like that no hope for us

708. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

707

Well, I was just joking about Toronto. I just having fun with the fact that Toronto considers itself center of the (Canadian) universe!

I’m actually not a fan of the Canucks. I like the Avalanche. Though it would be good to see Vancouver win the cup after 40 years of mostly losing. It would be another feather in the cap for B.C, after last years Olympics.

“Space boobs in 3D”? I’d go for that, unless you’re talking about another “Engineer Olsen”!

709. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2011

Toronto ISN’T the center of the Canadian universe????

710. dmduncan - January 20, 2011

698: “It would be good if the present indigenous people of your continent could collectively find a name that is meaningful to them and describes who they are as a unique race of people.”

When Columbus got here there were something like 500 Indian nations. They didn’t have one name for one people because they were and still are a very diverse series of cultures. The invaders collectivized them into One People.

And because they have been universally discriminated against they all now have common experience with regard to how the invaders treat you if you are what they call “an Indian.”

Look at the hub bub over this word on this thread. It has done its job. By being used exactly as it originally was — incorrectly — it also has done a fine job of keeping the memory alive. So its colloquial use is an important mnemonic device for recalling history and not letting us forget.

Because when you forget it, as the politically correct would have it to stop its use in this way, as they would like to rewrite Mark Twain, thereby reducing the occasions we have to think about these things having cleaned the diabolical use of those words from our increasingly simplistic language, then we will probably repeat it.

I think “cleaning up” history is one of the most vile and pernicious things you could do to ensure that the worst of our past mistakes lie in our future.

711. MJ - January 20, 2011

Toronto versus Vancouver.

I have been to Toronto once and Vancouver about 4-5 times in various business trips. I love Vancouver — the people, the scenery, the food the vibe, everything. And you could walk the entire downtown at night without any issue.

However, regarding Toronto, just walking around at night with my associate, he was berated by a homeless guy for not giving him a cigarette, and the next night a street gang hanging out in front of our hotel was making a lot of people feel uncomfortable. The CN Tower and the food were really cool, but the overall impression I had was not favorable.

712. dmduncan - January 20, 2011

700: “people who arrogantly insist on compounding a 500 year old blunder impacting the Native American population across an entire continent and refusing to rectify the original error; even more so when they’re clearly tying themselves into knots in order to justify their own obstinacy.”

1. No arrogance OR obstinacy. Wrong you are on both counts. I use the term because the Indians I know use the term, so if India means to take this issue to the world court, it’s the American Indians themselves you will have to haul in front of it. As soon as they don’t want to be called that, I will not call them that either.

2. The only knot here is the one you’ve got yourself into trying to deny the complexity of language and of other cultures.

“I’m not going to respond to ridiculous claims being made by certain other people on this thread about my comments allegedly being driven by “jealousy” and whatnot. Especially not on this website, which is meant to be above such behaviour.”

Lol! I’m right here, Jai.

Well, saying you are “insulted” is likely to get you more sympathy than saying how insecure you are that the word Indian is used to mean some other people when you think you have sole right in perpetuity to its linguistic evolution and application across the globe and, no doubt, the universe.

Tell me, does that “ownership” you want include its spelling using the Roman alphabet? Does India own that particular combination of Roman letters as well?

713. Capes - January 20, 2011

I have said previously that in addition to being a gimmick there are health concerns to 3D movies and 3DTV. This just came out today…..
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110120/D9KS1FDO1.html

714. MJ - January 20, 2011

@700. Jai, mispellings aside (sorry about that), I think the historical record completely proves my point. Take this selection (from: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/27/hindu-india-and-bharat-word-origins/ );

“Bharat, that is India
India’s official name is Bharat and this is accorded equal primacy as the word India in the Constitution. In fact the First Clause of the Constitution begins with the words, India, that is Bharat.”

“There is a general mis-conception that India (or to be more accurate, “Bharat”) as a nation did not exist until the British brought hundreds of princely states and fiefdoms under central rule. This is false and historically inaccurate for those of you who have read History would be aware that Samrat Ashok’s kingdom probably had the largest expanse of land of any kingdom in ancient times and of course included almost all of the Indian sub-continent i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of neighboring states such as Nepal and Afghanistan.”

“There are also references in ancient literature, including the “Bhagavad-Gita” to large parts of the landmass that we now call India, as “Bharat” or “Bharatavarsha”. ”

SO AS WE SEE ABOVE, BHARAT WAS THIS HISTORICAL NAME OF INDIAN AND IS STILL THE OFFICIAL NAME OF INDIA IN THEIR CONSTITUTION TODAY!

715. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2011

711.

MJ, sorry to hear that happened to you. I’ve lived in Toronto my whole life and it’s a pretty safe town.

716. MJ - January 20, 2011

@712. “Well, saying you are “insulted” is likely to get you more sympathy than saying how insecure you are that the word Indian is used to mean some other people when you think you have sole right in perpetuity to its linguistic evolution and application across the globe and, no doubt, the universe.Tell me, does that “ownership” you want include its spelling using the Roman alphabet? Does India own that particular combination of Roman letters as well?”

Well put DM. In modern times we can trace back countries, words, policies, social habits, and more back in history to where they were borrowed or adapted from other cultures or lands. I don’t see why their is such a need to get so bent out of shape that the word Indian has multiple meanings, especially given that word originates from the Persian language and that the word India has only recently replaced Bharat as the countries name, and is still subservient to Bharat in the Indian Constitution? So why all the negativity and consternation here about letting some native peoples in North and South American call themselves Indians if that is the term they prefer. As Gingerly said above: “Really, it’s best to err on the side of “I call you, what you call yourself.”” (So I finally find myself agreeing with her on something…oh well, I’m not perfect :-) )

717. MJ - January 20, 2011

@715. Probably just unlucky. Hoping to make it back there again someday to give it another chance. Did they ever expand the waterfront and move the freeway — I remember that was being talked about when I was there about 8 or so years ago.

718. MJ - January 20, 2011

@702. Jai, you Columbus thing was funny…thanks.

With my own shot at humor, I bring you a singer who is also ripping off you countries name:

http://www.indiaarie.com/

What are you going to do about this! :-))

719. Mark Lynch - January 20, 2011

In keeping with the original 3D motif, I thought I’d share a link to an article which came out around October last year and references the first 3D television which needs no glasses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11467352

I don’t know whether to be happy or sad as only three weeks ago I bought a 3D 42″ Panasonic plasma TV and 3D blu-ray player!
Must say that the 3D quality when you watch a 3D blu ray disc is amazing. Even 2D blu rays look magnificent, titles such as The Dark Knight and Star Trek (2009)

Have not noticed any eye strain at all. Guess I must be one of the lucky ones.

720. MJ - January 20, 2011

@719. The Panasonic is fracking awesome and is the only 3D TV I would consider buying.

721. MJ - January 20, 2011

@719. I heard that the non-glasses technology that Nintendo and Toshiba are using my have health concerns for children’s eyes, perhaps even bringing on seizures in a small percentage of kids.

722. dmduncan - January 20, 2011

On 3D: I was at BB last night and I checked out the 3D HD display they had going. I started getting a headache in my temples in under two minutes. That doesn’t happen to me with theater 3D but the glasses TV version I tested was awful. Looked great though. But not tempted at all.

723. dmduncan - January 20, 2011

Gingerly’s way of stating it was succinct and smart. It’s exactly what I do. I’m not going to call them what somebody else tells me to call them. That would be arrogant — of them; and cowardly — of me.

724. Mark Lynch - January 20, 2011

@721
I hadn’t thought about that to be honest. But I do remember often being told off by my Mum and Dad for sitting too close to the TV with the comment “You’ll get square eyes!”

But I can see there might be long term effects of watching 3D imagery whether with or without glasses. My take on this is that I would not want my children watching this stuff until they were at least 6 or 7 years of age. At least then their eyes should be developed enough from the real world to cope. Hopefully.

By the way a quick shameless plug for my new forum…. please go and take a look. Not many members or content yet, but maybe you can help make a difference… ;)

http://forum.starplex.co.uk

Hopefully Anthony will not mind this… :)

725. Mark Lynch - January 20, 2011

@720
I have only ever bought Panasonic televisions and since the flat screen revolution, I have only ever considered plasma as I believe they give the best colour reproduction and contrast. As I am an avid Science Fiction fan, a lot of my movies have fairly dark backgrounds, black even, with just a sprinkling of stars…. ;)

Talking of dark backgrounds, does anyone know when/if Star Wars (sorry for swearing!) will be coming out on Blu-Ray?

More importantly, how are we ever going to get Paramount to release ST:TMP DE on Blu-Ray? The extra effects were not rendered in 1080p and to the best of my knowledge there are no plans to do so.

I think we need a petition or a poll at least. How about it Anthony?

726. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

#711

I heard eastings in vancouver is dangerous also, toronto imo is like a cleaner version of nyc. Every city has shady areas, been in toronto most of my life and its a top notch city.

You got baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, toronto film festival and great restaurants and strip clubs :) all we need is a casino, we don’t have the breath takking views of mountains or high end ferries showcasing nature and whales though and that is where vancouver bc rocks.
Space sci fi drama in 3d is no brainer, imax star trek 3D /drool

727. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

#725

Starwars br is sept 2011

728. EFFeX - January 20, 2011

I don’t want a movie written specifically for 3D… If it works it works, otherwise just do 2D. Let’s focus on a good… STORY!

729. dmduncan - January 20, 2011

Lol! Rereading my post earlier I just now caught what Jai seems to think about me:

“people who arrogantly insist on compounding a 500 year old blunder impacting the Native American population across an entire continent and refusing to rectify the original error”

Jai seems to think I am forcing the word Indian on Indians. As if I am telling them that’s what their name is when in fact I am using the term as they use it and used it before I ever knew any of them. I actually STOPPED using “Native American” because those words are not in typical use by Indians themselves. Also, I’m not sure how the American Indian population is being impacted? Does Jai/India mean some retribution? Because honestly, there’s no negative impact unless Jai/India are planning on doing some impacting.

More important however is the insight to Jai’s static, anti evolutionary way of thinking that his language reveals. Since “Indian” now also means “indigenous person of the Americas” the exclusive meaning of that word as “person of India” has changed — it has, like it or not — and so it is no longer an error to call an indigenous American an Indian precisely BECAUSE the word no longer exclusively means “person of India.”

The original error is an old error, and since the word has expanded meaning, there’s now no error to fix — except to those who refuse to accept linguistic evolution — since it appropriately means “indigenous person of the Americas” now as well. At the same time, that old error remains ONLY as a historical memory and object lesson for today.

A simple world is a boring world.

730. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

Up here in Canada, we don’t refer to native peoples as Indians. They prefer to be called “First Nations”, which makes a lot of sense. There are many different cultures (with similiarities of course) that practice their religions in different ways that are reflected by where they live. Plus they were the first people in what is now Canada. Aboriginal is a term that is also used, though many First Nations people don’t like to be called that.

On second thought, there is a “Ministry Of Indian Affairs”, and some First Nations people do refer to themselves as Indians, though they are in the minority. First Nations is the preferred term, since it helps quell the stereotype that all native groups are the same, i.e Haida Gwaii versus Inuit.

731. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2011

717.

Nah, the Expressway is still there along the waterfront. Tell me, do you happen to remember which hotel you stayed at?

732. Basement Blogger - January 20, 2011

It’s hard to figure out what words get censored by the filter. So far don’t write po_n; hea_th insur_nce. (I’m not kidding on that one)

733. MJ - January 20, 2011

@729 “More important however is the insight to Jai’s static, anti evolutionary way of thinking that his language reveals. Since “Indian” now also means “indigenous person of the Americas” the exclusive meaning of that word as “person of India” has changed — it has, like it or not — and so it is no longer an error to call an indigenous American an Indian precisely BECAUSE the word no longer exclusively means “person of India.” ”

EXACTLY !!!

734. MJ - January 20, 2011

@730. RDR, didn’t you get the memo. Mesopotamia is really pissed now that Canada’s indigenous peoples’ are taking their term away, since they believe they represent the First Nations of the world.

(Jai, you see how in my above tongue-in-cheek example that we can take this approach on peoples’ terms for their lands and then go back in history and make an alternate past claim for the same term…this is exactly the issue here.)

735. MJ - January 20, 2011

@731. Metropolitan Hotel.

736. MJ - January 20, 2011

@ 725 “I have only ever bought Panasonic televisions and since the flat screen revolution, I have only ever considered plasma as I believe they give the best colour reproduction and contrast. As I am an avid Science Fiction fan, a lot of my movies have fairly dark backgrounds, black even, with just a sprinkling of stars…. ;)”

Great minds think alike. “My baby” is a Pany 50-inch plasma. Have a Pany LED in the bedroom, and 2 Pany Blu-Rays,and 4 Pany cameras (incl. wife and kids).

Panasonic today is what Sony used to be in the 70′s and 80′s.

737. Kevin - January 20, 2011

The so called “3-D” isn’t even 3-D. It’s great depth perception, but nothing comes out past the screen. If it did, then there might be a call for it. However, like many have stated, I too prefer seeing the colors and image without the darkness of the glasses. Plus, since we “can’t” bring the pair we kept from the first movie without being charged an extra $3 on top of the ticket price, why even bother with it.

738. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

734

Mesopotamia? Nah, should be “Mess’ O’ potamia! Goes by the name Iraq now. Waged a war once with Iran because of the Shiite the Persians gave them over the trademark name infringement!

739. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

#726

Correction, hastings

740. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

And the Iran-Iraq war began on a “Sunni” day!

741. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

All wars should be settled by agreed upon match of soccer, hockey, poker or chess

742. SHC - January 20, 2011

This next Trek movie is by its very nature an EXTREMELY complex endeavor, possibly requiring more critical thinking in all regards than ANY other SciFi movie ever made.

There is ABSOLUTELY no question in my mind that although 3-D has incredible potential within the Star Trek “franchise,” the fact is that the “over-the-top” distribution format for such movies – provided they’re expertly conceived and executed – is IMAX 3-D, HANDS-DOWN.

For this next ST movie to be as successful as it could possibly be it would require a script that contains far greater depth of plot and characters than any ST film made to date. And it would ALSO have to be written in such a way that that it uses 3-D techniques incredibly thoughtfully, taking into consideration the fact that NOT all of its special effects would be best accomplished via computer-generated animation, that *some* shots or scenes might be best shot in 2-D, and that the integration of 2-D filming, 3-D filming, optical effects and cgi effects can be INCREDIBLY complex. It would also require a tremendous team of incredibly talented and educated writers, the use of ST history experts, science and medical consultants, etc.

I can’t really imagine such a project being pulled off as successfully as it could humanly be with the major players behind it being limited to Paramount, Abrams, Spyglass, Bad Robot, etc. John Cameron and his people, ILM, and other optical and cgi fx houses would need to be involved from the get-go, as well as IMAX and possibly a second studio &/or distributor as well. The project would have to be SUCH a massive complex of corporate contracts and cooperative co-productions that the fact that a release date has already apparently been specified that I don’t see it being possible to be done in time for a Summer 2012 release.

Given these complexities I FULLY understand Abram’s reluctance to commit to directing the film, at least at this stage of its development. If the decision is made to make it a 3-D production the RIGHT way, I can’t see him being able to both produce and direct it – no way, just way too much work for one person, even with all of his support personnel behind him. Maybe executive production… that alone would be an almost impossible job if the decision is to make it an absolutely top-notch film and 3-D production. On the positive side, if it were done right it could have the very real possibility of not only recouping its development and distribution costs but also to financially out-gross Avatar by a mile.

So EVERYTHING regarding the production will probably HAVE to be determined by the script, the willingness and ability of a multitude of companies to work out deals with each other, the flexibility that could be agreed upon regarding a final release date, and the adequacy of financing behind the whole thing.

743. Basement Blogger - January 20, 2011

Film critic Roger Ebert is back He will have a new film review show on the evil PBS. : ) He will have a prosethetic jaw and his voice will be synthesized by recordings of his earlier voice.

Roger Ebert hates 3-D; read the portion about IMAX. That’s why 3D IMAX is better.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

744. MJ - January 20, 2011

@742. Dude, I think you are getting a little bit carried away here. In terms of production they are all set — everything is in place. What is missing is a killer story, and hopefully Bob and company are about to deliver that. This movie will be great or suck based on the story, period!

745. MJ - January 20, 2011

@743. That sounds awfully close to Weekend at Bernie’s….

746. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

#742

You gave me a sci fi epic orgasm.

Would be cool to get jj, spielberg, cameron, nolan,meyer and nimoy to colloborate in the ultimate sci fi epic imax 3d

747. dmduncan - January 20, 2011

And who knows? Since things are always changing, “Indian” may pass out of use someday. Who knows? That it is in wide use now is not even controversial. Point is, on the question of what to call them I am following THEIR lead not leading them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5S_044ABAM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjzujo1Qx8&feature=related

748. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

742

Who in the heck is John Cameron? Does James Cameron have a brother we don’t know about? Is he James’ son, nephew or cousin? Or is he someone totally unrelated?

749. somethoughts - January 20, 2011

#744

Yea story is key, wish i can read their ideas/drafts now! Tell em what i like and dont like :)

750. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

743

“He will have a new film review show on the evil PBS.”

Ah. The Public Brainwashing Station. I always knew those bastards were up to know good! Why else would they peddle so much crap for exhorbitant amounts of money? :-)

#746

“You gave me a sci fi epic orgasm.”

Voice of Borg Queen: “Was it good for you?”

751. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2011

750

that should be “no” not “know”!

DAMN WRONG, BUT SAME-SOUNDING WORDS!!!!

752. Basement Blogger - January 20, 2011

Why the new Star Trek film must be in 3D.

I just looked at some of the movies for 2012 and the competition against Star Trek will be tough. There’s the Avengers and Spider-Man, both are going to be shot in 3-D. Those films are going for Hollywood’s target audience; teenagers. Better hope the teens have money left over and that the teens that became new Trekkers come out.

And then there is the bat. “The Dark Knight Rises” is coming out in the same year as Star Trek. At least, Chirs Nolan’s film which will be undoubtably smart will give the new Trek cover should the writers want to go deeper. And the irony? Tom Hardy (Shinzon) plays a villain in the new Batman. Talk about Romulan revenge. It also stars Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle. (Catwoman) (link) Maybe Star Trek should up the babe quotient. What about casting Erica Durance? How about an Erica Durance topless scene? : )

Anway, if Paramount releases Star Trek (2012) in 3D, they’ll make more money. That will help the movie be sucessful. And then there will be a thrid Star Trek movie. I just hope they film it in native 3D.

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/446-searches-surge-on-batman-s-nemesis

753. Basement Blogger - January 21, 2011

Beauty eh, all this talk of Canada always reminds me of the McKenzie Brothers. Remember them? On the comedy show SCTV, the Canadian Broadcasting Company asked SCTV to put material about Canada on the show. Smart alecks Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas created a couple country Canadian characters to make fun of the request.. Take that you hosers. Really, what’s a hoser?

As my harry ballz freeze here in Cinicnnati, it’s time to Take Off to the Great White North. Any connection to Star Trek? SCTV’s Andrea Martin was in Deep Space Nine. Anyway, here’s the classic mouse in bottle of beer piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsgVspgy184

Bonus, I can’t get enough of this song! Yeah, I’ve posted it above but some of you have not heard it. Take Off to the Great White North.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot70G4wSQi0

754. Jai - January 21, 2011

Dmduncan re: #712

“Well, saying you are “insulted” is likely to get you more sympathy than saying how insecure you are that the word Indian is used to mean some other people when you think you have sole right in perpetuity to its linguistic evolution and application across the globe and, no doubt, the universe.”

Please don’t misquote me. I never said I was “insulted”; my point was that such strawman allegations are both inappropriate and unnecessary – especially coming from someone such as yourself who has an extensive track record on this website of being a very decent person and who should therefore really know better. Ditto for the allegation of “insecurity”, which isn’t even remotely the case here. As I said, my motivations are the same as Keachick and Moauvian Waoul – it’s as simple as that.

755. Jai - January 21, 2011

MJ, re: #714

“SO AS WE SEE ABOVE, BHARAT WAS THIS HISTORICAL NAME OF INDIAN AND IS STILL THE OFFICIAL NAME OF INDIA IN THEIR CONSTITUTION TODAY!”

That’s not quite the smoking gun you seem to think it is – the quote you’ve supplied specifically says that the modern republic’s name is “India” as well as “Bharat”, and that both are the official names of the country in the constitution. India has historically had several names, often used interchangeably, and this is still the case. My point was that, despite your previous erroneous claims, to all intents and purposes the country has indeed been called “India” by its inhabitants and other people in the rest of the world for a thousand years.

And the historical process by which the name “India” became commonplace amongst the subcontinent’s inhabitants from the 11th century onwards has very little in common with the reasons that Native Americans were erroneously called “Indians” by generations of European colonialists and their descendents; people in India didn’t have it imposed on them, the territory involved wasn’t part of a foreign empire at the time, the name was a purely geographical term, and it didn’t involve a huge case of mistaken identity.

That website you’ve quoted, by the way, is a viciously anti-Muslim, “nationalist” Hindu supremacist blog. There are right-wing extremists all over the world, and unfortunately India is no exception. It’s really not the sort of website which it would be appropriate to link to on Trekmovie.

Re: #718

“I bring you a singer who is also ripping off you countries name:”

As mentioned earlier, for the record I’m British and my country is therefore Britain. However, being of Indian ethnicity I obviously have ties to both Britain and India.

756. Jai - January 21, 2011

Red Dead Ryan, re: #730

“Up here in Canada, we don’t refer to native peoples as Indians. They prefer to be called “First Nations”, which makes a lot of sense. There are many different cultures (with similiarities of course) that practice their religions in different ways that are reflected by where they live. Plus they were the first people in what is now Canada.”

That’s definitely a far more civilised way to go about things, and obviously a far more accurate (and appropriate) way to refer to them.

I bet the brilliant Canadian-Indian comedian Russell Peters would have a field day with this subject ;)

Since we’ve all made our respective points and it’s clear that nobody on either side of the argument is going to change their stance, I think we should all politely agree to disagree on friendly terms and then just leave it at that. After all, Trekmovie isn’t supposed to be a blog where people engage in protracted arguments about highly sensitive political issues, especially as such things can unnecessarily create animosity between people.

I’m going to finish on a more humorous note. I’m going to channel my fellow Brit Ricky Gervais in order to show how farcical this whole topic looks to those of us on this side of the Atlantic and with an objective viewpoint. As a freebie, I’ll even throw in some Star Trek references ;)

At a glitzy Hollywood party, somewhere in Los Angeles…

Host: Kal Penn, I’d like you to meet Commander Chakotay.
Kal Penn: Hello.
Chakotay: Hi there. Loved you in those ‘Harold and Kumar’ movies.
Kal Penn: Thanks. You should check out ‘The Namesake’ too. It’s a fantastic film about the lives of Indians in modern America.
Chakotay: Hey, that’s great. It’s about time someone made a decent film about our people.
Kal Penn: You’re Indian ?
Chakotay: Of course.
Kal Penn: What part of India ?
Host: Commander Chakotay is an American-Indian.
Kal Penn: Well, so am I.
Host: No, Kal. You’re an Indian-American.
Kal Penn: What the hell’s the difference ?
Host: Indian-Americans are originally from India. American-Indians are from America.
Kal Penn: So why do you call them American-Indians ?
Host: Because Columbus was looking for an alternate sea route to India but ended up in America instead. He called the local people “Indians” because he mistakenly thought he was in India.
Kal Penn: Did they have any choice about the matter ?
Host: No.
Kal Penn: And nobody corrected the error for 500 years ?
Host: Not until recently. The name kinda stuck.
Kal Penn: Do you still call African-Americans “Negroes” ?
Host: Good God, no.
Kal Penn: They why do you still call Native Americans “Indians” ?
Host: [Insert long convoluted apologist explanation]
Chakotay: My head hasn’t hurt this much since I tried to figure out time-travel paradoxes.
Kal Penn: By the way, my real name’s actually Kalpen Modi. I only used “Kal Penn” on my resumé to prove a point a few years ago about Anglicised names securing more auditions in Hollywood.
Host: Whatever you say, Kilpon.
Kal Penn: Kalpen.
Host: That’s what I said, dammit. Frikking Indians.
Chakotay: Hey !
Kal Penn: Hey !

757. MJ - January 21, 2011

@755, “That’s not quite the smoking gun you seem to think it is – the quote you’ve supplied specifically says that the modern republic’s name is “India” as well as “Bharat”, and that both are the official names of the country in the constitution”

Ah, similar to the native inhabitants of the Americas referring to themselves as American Indians and Native Americans. I see.

“That website you’ve quoted, by the way, is a viciously anti-Muslim, “nationalist” Hindu supremacist blog. There are right-wing extremists all over the world, and unfortunately India is no exception. It’s really not the sort of website which it would be appropriate to link to on Trekmovie.”

Thanks Jai for pointing this out, I did not know that and am not familiar at all with this web site. If I could, I would remove the link then. I am sure that you are pointing this out as a courtesy warning to me and others and not in an attempt to gain sympathy for your view, so again, thanks.

758. MJ - January 21, 2011

At a Starbucks in NYC, two young people meet:

D. Crow: Hi
F. Mani: Hi
D. Crow: Are you from India?
F. Mani: Well, my family prefers to call it by its more historically accurate name, Bharat.
D. Crow: Hey that’s cool, so you won’t mind referring to me as an American Indian then?
F. Mani: No problem. We’ve all got multiple names for our peoples’ anyway, so I’m not going to get all bent out of shape over that.
D. Crow: Doesn’t the Columbus think kind of irk you regarding the term “Indian”?
F. Mani: (laughing) Heck, we got the name of our country from the Persian language, and we spell it out with Roman letters.
D. Crow. Yea, we are all using those Roman letters.
F. Mani: History is funny, isn’t it?
D. Crow: It sure is. When you go back in time, you can see that pretty much everything involving sociology and terms is pretty much taken from what went before and then adjusted and adopted by latter peoples’.
F. Mani: Which shows that it is rather pointless for people to be bickering about ownerships of names like “Indian.”
D. Crow. Exactly, that is pointless.

759. dmduncan - January 21, 2011

754: “Please don’t misquote me. I never said I was ‘insulted.’

Actually I didn’t quote you at all, nor did I claim to. I re-presented in my own words what you yourself expressed. What I meant by the word “saying” was that you expressed the same idea which I re-presented, not that you literally said exactly the words I used. So I apologize if I used the word “saying” so loosely that you understood that as meaning I was quoting you; that is no more the case than my saying “I SEE your point,” means I perceive the idea you are expressing with my eyeballs. When I quote, I almost always use quotation marks. For example:

671. Jai – January 19, 2011

“Exactly. Something people need to remember is that there is a whole world outside the United States, including – as I said earlier – more than a billion Indians. Some parochially-minded people in the US may insist on continuing to use the wildly inaccurate and obsolete term ‘Indian’ to mean ‘Native American’, but that’s not what the name actually means to billions of other people elsewhere on the planet…”

“There seems to be a little ego-driven stubbornness in some quarters. It’s like when some people insist on lazily mispronouncing names of people from other backgrounds (and have the nerve to expect them to amicably respond to the mispronounced names) even when they know perfectly well that their pronunciation is incorrect, they can’t be bothered to make the effort to pronounce it correctly, and they know that the other person finds it offensive and patronising.”

So let’s focus instead on the word you did use: “offensive.”

“Offensive,” a sense of which is also “insulted,” as in a thing said which one finds to be offensive, which you brought up in the linguistic context of using “Indian” to mean some person NOT of India. If you didn’t want the idea of Indians being offended associated with the idea of using the word “Indian” to apply to people you don’t approve of it applying to, then you probably should have expressed that post differently, and left out the implications created by all those unpleasant adjectives you used without applying them directly to any specific person.

Given the context and direction the discussion was taking, I’m just the sort of person who would — mistakenly, no doubt — think that was a civilized means for you to deploying ugly generalities against myself specifically.

“As I said, my motivations are the same as Keachick and Moauvian Waoul – it’s as simple as that.”

I do not know about MW, but you spoke as a person of “Indian ethnicity,” and so the feeling that this issue was personal to YOU because of your ethnicity was palpable on my end. If I was wrong, I do apologize. But the comment about there being a billion Indians with growing economic power as an implied reason for using the word differently did sound vaguely ominous to me

I can assure you that your concerns for my American Indian relations with regard to the word “Indian” are unnecessary. They can lead themselves without anybody’s help on this matter, most especially my own. I can also assure you that the man in the video links I posted, John Trudell, is extremely well aware of how the word “Indian” came to mean his own people, and that when he uses it, he is not confused about which continent he is from.

He fought for American Indian rights and was a very vocal, charismatic, and clear thinking leader. That made many in the status quo unhappy. His pregnant wife and children were murdered when their house was set on fire hours after he burned an American flag in DC. He knows history and what happens when you are a threat to the people writing it very well indeed.

So “Indian” isn’t used over here in America from ignorance, lack of sensitivity, OR coercion; you will have to find another explanation, part of which I have tried to provide.

760. dmduncan - January 21, 2011

to deploying = to be deploying

761. The Red Shirt Diaries - January 21, 2011

Longest…thread…ever

762. Basement Blogger - January 21, 2011

@ 161 Red Shirt Diaries

No this is not the longest thread ever. This is the longest thread ever.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/12/17/sci-fi-movies-friday-iron-man-3-the-avengers-gravity-tron-legacy-paul-potc-4-spider-man-musical-more/

763. MJ - January 21, 2011

@762. Yep BB, this thread could not hold that 2000+ posts thread’s jockstrap.

764. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 21, 2011

Damn, I disappear for a bit and I miss all the fun.
Jai, keachick- eloquent as always.
But this is no longer about right and wrong, or facts. There’s more here than meets the eye, some macho test of will, of attrition, and not surrendering the cultural war, and the universe as some know it hangs in the balance. “The line must be drawn here and no further!”
“I’m not going to call them what somebody else tells me to call them. That would be arrogant — of them; and cowardly — of me.”

“on the question of what to call them I am following THEIR lead not leading them.”
-Now that made me laugh;)

I’ll leave you all with this cliche’: You can lead a Horta to culture but you you can’t make him think.

765. dmduncan - January 22, 2011

764: “But this is no longer about right and wrong, or facts. There’s more here than meets the eye, some macho test of will, of attrition, and not surrendering the cultural war, and the universe as some know it hangs in the balance. ‘The line must be drawn here and no further!’”

I don’t know what this means and have no response until you clarify.

“-Now that made me laugh;)”

Well okay, but I’m curious about why you thought that was funny?

“I’ll leave you all with this cliche’: You can lead a Horta to culture but you you can’t make him think.”

What is that supposed to mean, MW? I’m really not sure and don’t want to assume the worst so I have to ask: Are you implying that American Indians are unsophisticated idiots because they don’t follow your way of thinking about how to use the word “Indian”?

Or are you saying I’m not thinking because I’m not agreeing with you?

If that barb was meant for me: Given the length of my posts compared to yours and the absence of rebuttals to the points I made — all of which require thinking, by the way — I’d say the evidence of who is thinking and who is not around here is pretty obvious.

If it was NOT meant for me, you should clarify what you meant.

766. dmduncan - January 22, 2011

I mean suggesting to me that I’m not thinking is like suggesting to a pilot in the air that he doesn’t fly planes.

767. MJ - January 22, 2011

@765 “If that barb was meant for me: Given the length of my posts compared to yours and the absence of rebuttals to the points I made — all of which require thinking, by the way — I’d say the evidence of who is thinking and who is not around here is pretty obvious.”

LOL Well put, DM.

768. Mark Lynch - January 22, 2011

Long thread, will it get to 1000?!?
@dmduncan #766 That is probably one of the best posts I have ever read anywhere…

Enjoying all the posts, but I am going to do one “on topic” as someone might say.

If Paramount are worried about Star Trek 2012 not making enough money due to all the other big movies coming out along with theirs. They will almost certainly have ST 2012 made in 3D to “keep up with the Jonses” and get bums on seats.

I only hope it is done this way.

Shoot it in IMAX 3D so that it at least looks terrific. Don’t do anything which is 3D gimmicky, just shoot it as if the 3D was not there.
Give us the option at the cinema to watch in either 2D or 3D. As some people do not care for 3D or due to a physical condition cannot see the effect anyway. And why should they have to pay more to either get a headache or not see the effect? Best of both worlds ensue, as I would imagine that Paramount will then get the maximum numbers at the cinemas.

That’s not so difficult is it?

769. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 22, 2011

” this thread could not hold that 2000+ posts thread’s jockstrap.”
…if you consider writing one word per entry or spelling out the corrospoding numbers somehow superior.

I’ve learned a lot from this thread. For instance Native Americans named themselves Indians and the people of Paris Texas think they’re in France.

“Given the length of my posts compared to yours and the absence of rebuttals to the points I made — all of which require thinking, by the way — I’d say the evidence of who is thinking and who is not around here is pretty obvious.”

so it’s quantity in proving your unassailable positions even if historically inacurate that makes you right. We must have different score cards, spending a thousands words to justify your stance. Like your position of the virtues and positive effects and lessons of Christianity and a few days later justifying how the poor and the sick have the right to die to preserve your right to choos; though I’m sure verbal yoga has some positive attributes. Having the last or most words ain’t what’s it about.

770. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 22, 2011

PS. Words have meaning and impact. These are not adjectives, preferring “quickly” to “rapidly”. These are “Nouns.”

771. dmduncan - January 22, 2011

769: “I’ve learned a lot from this thread. For instance Native Americans named themselves Indians and the people of Paris Texas think they’re in France.”

How about that language evolves and that there are complex and amoral reasons why language evolves the way it does?

“so it’s quantity in proving your unassailable positions”

1. Flattery will get you nowhere. I don’t think my positions are “unassailable.” Just unassailed.

2. And content. I think some things are so obvious that they don’t all need to be explicitly stated. I mean, all the sentences in my above posts aren’t “all work and no play makes jack a dull boy” written over and over again. I’m saying many different things which means many different but related thoughts.

“Words have meaning and impact.”

Indeed, and I am a fan of using language precisely (not always perfect at it mind you, particularly in these talk backs and when in a hurry, but always striving for that), which is precisely why I use “American Indian” instead of “Native American”; that is now one of the words’ meanings. After all, I am myself — of Scottish-Italian descent and born in America, knowing no other home in the world — literally a native American too, but I am not descended of any Indian tribe. So why is that a superior term again? And how does insisting that clumsy term be applied to a group of people you are not a member of avoid duplicating the historical patronization Indians have been victimized by, from those who always seem to think they know what’s better for other people?

“Like your position of the virtues and positive effects and lessons of Christianity and a few days later justifying how the poor and the sick have the right to die to preserve your right to choos”

But you are casting the argument about the healthcare mandate in the exact same terms that the TV tells you to cast them in. No debate. No exploration or even knowledge of alternatives. No discussion of how the problem arose in the first place. It was 2000 pages long, unread by almost everyone, including those who voted on it, so none of you who supports it even FULLY knows what you are supporting or its consequences. You are just repeating the things the TV has taught you to say, believing blindly what you are told. Nothing but Sean Hannity-like talking points about a corporatist healthcare mandate.

And if you are implying hypocrisy, let me correct you.

Religions counsel YOU to help your neighbors, not the soulless artificial person of the corporate state. Religions advise to those it believes has a soul, not to those things that do not. It is the responsibility of religious or spiritual people as individual members of an authentic society to help each other — as small communities do — but the politics and structure of the society we created by trying to massacre American Indians and steal their land is designed to set each person in a 3D, plugged in world that isolates us from each other so that the only possible help for each other in that alienated world has to come from a massive all powerful corporatist state which has REPLACED community, and which is exactly what we have now (did you think I was joking when I said the ins. corporations themselves were behind the healthcare mandate which Obama pledged he would not pursue while running for office? Take a moment to smell something fishy. The same middleman ins. companies who drive UP the cost of healthcare have suddenly turned angelic overnight to do something good for the people? Really? Wake up dude). That is the world you are creating. Not a world of community where people care for each other, but a world of anti community, filtered through Facebook, a world where you are just a scanned and addressable part, using entertainment as a heat sink to dissipate the friction of modern daily existence so that you can be a longer lasting part, both producer and consumer of energy, a soulless switch, motor, or relay in an enormous machine whose personal objective is to stay alive for as long as possible, which is ironic given that if there really is nothing after death and you can’t stop your own from happening then it sort of STILL makes all the political things you waste your time fighting for rather pointless, ultimately, since those things too will someday disappear so completely it will be as if they never existed, and since the longevity of democracies and empires are both pretty darned short we won’t have to wait for the end of the universe for that to happen.

I do not expect you to adopt my conclusions. I am no authoritarian. All I ask is that you do not compel me, and those like me, to adopt YOURS. If you are an authoritarian, you will think there’s just no room on earth for any form of life but the one the corporate state you support compels.

But do you really think the Star Trek future is a universe where everyone marches to the same tune and in the same direction? Because I thought that was StarshipTroopers.

“These are not adjectives, preferring ‘quickly’ to ‘rapidly’. These are ‘Nouns.’”

Not sure what you mean.

772. dmduncan - January 22, 2011

And actually, I have to correct my use of the word “religions.” Some religions and even factions within a given religion may seek theocratic states. Certainly the religious right as a political entity seems to imply that purpose. And Islamic states clearly do exist. But I do not belong to any religion. I belong to certain religious teachings that seem very true to me, and a theocratic state has no place in what I believe.

773. MJ - January 22, 2011

@ 777 @772

DM, I would suggest you ignore the “Hiney” character. He is just trying to bait us into silly arguments here to mess with us….”as his continued predilection for irrelevancy dictates.”

774. dmduncan - January 23, 2011

Very interesting. After mentioning false community and Facebook in my post @ 771, I found this piece online today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/22/social-networking-cyber-scepticism-twitter

There’s also much to say about the defenders of that form of alienation who think they can argue that we were always that way, who can’t be given much credit either for historical awareness or broad cultural awareness where all the invisible folk not captured by his narrow definition of “we” are, in fact, some other way.

775. dmduncan - January 23, 2011

Certainly things like Twitter and Facebook can be a useful adjunctive means of communication with people you interact with in your real life, but if you read the article carefully, I don’t think that’s the sort of thing they mean.

776. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - January 23, 2011

“But you are casting the argument about the healthcare mandate in the exact same terms that the TV tells you to cast them in. No debate. No exploration or even knowledge of alternatives. No discussion of how the problem arose in the first place. It was 2000 pages long, unread by almost everyone, including those who voted on it, so none of you who supports it even FULLY knows what you are supporting or its consequences. You are just repeating the things the TV has taught you to say, believing blindly what you are told. Nothing but Sean Hannity-like talking points about a corporatist healthcare mandate.”

Nonsense. You make assumptions. Like you, i think about issues a draw conculsions. They just don’t agree with yours. It is posibble.

777. dmduncan - January 23, 2011

So I watched Star Trek tonight (the end credits music is playing upstairs and I can hear it from here; beautiful music!) and I found in-movie confirmation of the dates I had calculated earlier in this thread about the clue Bob left us. I did that in post # 322 (among others).

Delta Vega: Kirk records his complaints about Spock marooning him on Delta Vega using stardate 2258.something.

During the mind meld with Spock, Spock tells him he is from 129 years in the future which, added to 2258, makes 2387.

And when Spock Quinto asks the Jellyfish’s computer for the ship’s date of manufacture, it tells him 2387.

So Bob thought about the math and made all the numbers match.

Now apparently Bob is not going by the incomprehensible stardates used in TOS. Kirk seems to be using the current earth year and tacking on a . # afterward.

Still, that is direct confirmation from the movie that the year is 2258 as I calculated using totally different sources.

So, If 3 years movie time = 3 years real time, then sequel should definitely start in 2261.

Kirk Prime took command in 2264.

Since the sequel starts (2261) 3 years before Kirk Prime takes command (2264), the answer to Bob’s question would be that NO Kirk Prime TOS adventures (televised) are in the new crew’s past, but ONE televised TOS adventure IS: The Cage, which takes place in the prime universe before the date of 2261, in 2254!

That also correlates with the rumored plot of the sequel; it’s the only one of the options that were given that matches.

778. dmduncan - January 23, 2011

However, as it was also noted, Bob explicitly denied that there were Talosians in the sequel. But since Bob established the principle in ST.09 of renaming planets differently from TOS, we cannot be sure that Talos IV in TOS will still be called Talos IV in the new timeline; hence, it is still possible for Bob’s denial to be true (no Talosians), AND for the movie to be about Talosians by some other name.

779. dmduncan - January 23, 2011

And now that we know that Bob is a stickler for accurate dates, we also know that his question was well thought out and not a trick one. He put that question because it had an answer, so he was giving us a real clue!

780. dmduncan - January 23, 2011

The man himself:

262. boborci – January 16, 2011

“257. I can only give you this, but it is significant, and it is in the form of a question –”

“Q: By the time we reunite with the beloved crew of the USS Enterprise in the summer of 2012, what adventures from the original series should already be in their PAST?”

“None? Two seasons worth? Ten Episodes? Which ones?”

781. Red Dead Ryan - January 23, 2011

Nice work, dmduncan! I was guessing “The Cage” myself. And the sequel may have Talosians in it, but they probably won’t be revealed until at least halfway through the movie. Bob could use Klingons, Gorn or Tholians as a ruse to throw us all off.

We might be looking at a mind-bending “Twilight Zone” meets “Inception” sequel.

782. Harry Ballz - January 24, 2011

Or it could be………..And Now For Something Completely Different!

783. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2011

Drops pants……..

784. dmduncan - January 24, 2011

Oh, and by “trick question” I do not mean to suggest that Bob would feed us bum information, but that it’s always possible not to give enough clues to figure out the answer. Bob did give us enough clues in his question to come up with The Cage as an answer.

785. dmduncan - January 24, 2011

“Significant” indeed! Now what we need is for Bob to say something about all this.

786. Harry Ballz - January 25, 2011

Try to think outside the cage.

787. Mark Sullivan - April 17, 2011

Hmmm… 3D. It if comes down to 3D vs. JJ… then lose the 3D! There is too much as stake in the resurection of the series. I want at LEAST 4 more. We have Spock’s child to deal with and we have a completely new timeline to do it in. One of the 10,000 Vulcan’s left HAS to be his kid. Has to. 3D, personally, is ok with new movies because there is no standard set. That is why Avatar did so well. New movie, new tech, new plot. Even though JJ did AN OUTSTANDING JOB with exciting new twists on the characters using young and energetic actors, he still has to deal with a considerable history and her history is well established and more to risk. The audience will compare and expect “new” but “like” the series. 3D might distract. Besides, 3D in space doesn’t work. You need bright colorful backgrounds to make it really work. There is a lot of darkness in space!

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