JJ Abrams Compares His Process For Super 8 & Star Trek + Video Interview of JJ w/ Spielberg | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams Compares His Process For Super 8 & Star Trek + Video Interview of JJ w/ Spielberg May 27, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Celebrity,Star Trek (2009 film),Super 8 , trackback

JJ Abrams Super 8 hits theaters in two weeks, and more promotional interviews with the director are dribbling out. Below we have Abrams comparing his process for Super 8 and Star Trek, plus video of JJ with Steven Spielberg and more.

 

JJ Abrams Super 8 interviews

Here is a roundup from some of the latest interviews with JJ Abrams promoting Super 8.

From DailyAztec: JJ Abram was asked how his creative process is different on an original project like Super 8 and franchise projects like Star Trek:

The truth is that there’s very little difference in terms of how I approach any project, because I just try and approach it from a place of being interested in the character, the premise, the world. I’ve been very lucky to get to work on projects I actually do care about, as opposed to just taking new jobs.


“Star Trek” was very much about a family. And I had never really been a Trek fan growing up, so I didn’t have that kind of baggage when I approached it, but that was for me completely about doing you know telling a story about a family, people coming together, getting to know each other, and being stronger together than they were apart. It just happened to take place in the future and in space.

And “Super 8″ was obviously very much an autobiographical piece sort of in the beginning, even though it goes to crazy places that I never got to go as a kid. But the process was very much the same you know characters I cared about. How do you go through something you know traumatic and come out the other side? And that was sort of my way into this movie. And so everything’s really always about you know trying to serve the characters in the story as best as I possibly can.

And Empire Online has an interesting video interview with Steven Spielberg and Abrams talking about their collaboration on Super 8.

And Heyuguys.co.uk has audio of their interview with Abrams, talking about Super 8 and he also contrasts how keeping the secrets were easier this time around compared to Star Trek.

JJ Abrams chats about Super 8 by tim_dunlop

We will provide more updates as additional interviews are released, especially if there is something new about Star Trek.

 

 

 

Comments

1. Phil - May 27, 2011

I’m guessing someone will take offense to JJ’s “baggage” reference.

2. Michael - May 27, 2011

@1 why would someone take offense?

3. trekker 5 - May 27, 2011

#1,Phil,I’m sure your right,and I don’t take much offense at it,but there is a just a bit.

4. danielh - May 27, 2011

cool guys

5. Boo Yah - May 27, 2011

maybe Trek 2 is being delayed to allow for Spielbergs first directoral foray into space set Sci Fi?

6. VOODOO - May 27, 2011

Isn’t it great that ST is in such good hands? Remember the days when ST films were directed by the likes of Start Baird, Jonathan Frakes and William Shatner on shoestring budgets?

Not that those guys are bad directors, but they are not being asked by a master like Steven Spielberg to direct a film that he is producing for them. I’d much rather wait a few months and have the best/hottest creative team in the industry deliver a great product than go back to the way things were done in the past and have mediocre directors deliever mediocre ST films.

P.S. Imagine how this site would BLOW UP if it were announced that Spielberg has directing and Abrams was producing the next film. I’d love to see Spielberg’s take on Star Trek.

7. Anthony Thompson - May 27, 2011

1.

If anyone was going to take ‘offense’, they would have done so two years ago when he referred to Star Trek’s “baggage”. This time he was referring to his own baggage. Understand the difference?

8. Anthony Thompson - May 27, 2011

6. VOODOO

Abrams producing Speilberg (being his boss)? That’s not going to happen, son.

9. Commodore Mike of the Terram Empire. - May 27, 2011

One thing that can be taken from J.J He does care about Star Trek. He did say in the interview that he was lucky to get projects he cared about and Star Trek is one of them.
I for one am glad we got a Director and Writting teeam that care about Star Trek. Tnak you J.J and Bob Orci and the court.

10. David - May 27, 2011

Super 8 is a prequel to E.T.

11. Commodore Mike of the Terram Empire. - May 27, 2011

Again. If not for J.J Abrams and Bob Orci and the court. We would not have had a Trek 09 and a Trek 12 coming up. Thank you Guys.

12. Dee - lvs moon' surface - May 27, 2011

Offense? … at least for me, definitely not! … I’m not a new fan before someone thinks that … I did not start it with Star Trek … and for that I thank the director JJAbrams for making a good movie … but this issue should have already been overcome … there are people who “need” to always be talking about the same, even if nothing can be changed about it … and do what? … be patient if possible …

:-) :-)

13. trekker 5 - May 27, 2011

#11,Commodore,I agree with you,I’m so glad they did what they did,and are doing!

14. TJ Trek - May 27, 2011

I can see #1’s concern…..there has been a lot of complaints over the last 12 months concerning the team taking over star trek….and how JJ is not a committed fan, not comitted to the project, the writers are taking to long….thanks to you guys who have posted above me for being cool. I think JJ is an awesome story teller. Yes, the first new star trek script had some plot “blehs” in it we shall say…..but so did some of the other star trek movies…..I’m thinking of #5, I’m thinking of #1, and I’m thinking of Generations.

anyways…that’s my speak….love yah guys.

15. Red Dead Ryan - May 27, 2011

J.J Abrams is a genius and legend in the making. There can be no debate about that. We are very lucky to have him as director. Otherwise, there can and won’t be any new “Star Trek”.

16. Dee - lvs moon' surface - May 27, 2011

And still talking about the expectations of fans… about the director and producers… this is old but I just saw yesterday… and “Trek 2″ may have delayed the debut …. so … is interesting and very funny… I hope that is connected with the subject of the article … and not be deleted… CP and ZQ in Sydney, Australia …

here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWvBp7unLZo

17. Mel - May 27, 2011

@ 11

I really like the last movie, but I think there are also other good producers/writers out there, who could have done a good job, too.

18. Horatio - May 27, 2011

I dunno… I kinda think Spielberg has lost his mojo. I don’t know if its because he’s growing older or if making films like Saving Private Ryan and Schindlers List fundamentally changed him, but he seems to have lost the wonderment of his earlier films. Case in point: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He’s still one of the best directors ever but he’s not the same guy he was in the 70’s and 80’s.

I’ll be curious to see if JJ is able to recapture that wonderment.

19. Buzz Cagney - May 27, 2011

#18 i’m gona stick my neck out, just a little, and say no to that.

20. Steven - May 27, 2011

If anyone is interested: Ricky Gervais recently had dinner JJ Abrams. He posted a picture of Abrams on his blog (http://www.rickygervais.com/thissideofthetruth.php). Just scroll down a few entries to see it.

21. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - May 27, 2011

Off topic. I just read that Actor Jeff Conaway. Zack Allan from Babylon 5 has passad away. He was 60. Sad.

22. The Great Bird of the Galaxy - May 27, 2011

It would be cool to see Spielberg, and JJ collaborate on Star Trek.

23. trekker 5 - May 27, 2011

#22,Now that my friend,would be something to see!!

24. MJ - May 27, 2011

@ “If anyone is interested: Ricky Gervais recently had dinner JJ Abrams.”

Wonder why he is spending time that that myopic jerk….err, I mean “cutting edge comedian.”

25. Anthony Thompson - May 27, 2011

Love Ricky Gervais! He apparently had been the first chice for the Scotty role, but turned it down.

26. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 27, 2011

#16 Trust the Aussies to promote their hookers…:)! Chris could be a lot like James Kirk – nice! Chris has got his beard there as well. He obviously shaved it off once he got to Auckland (April 2009).

I suggested more than 18 months ago my desire that maybe the JJ Abrams team up with Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson to do the next Star Trek sequel. I guess it could be a case of what goes around comes around. Been there before…groan.

#8 – If Steven Spielberg was to direct any Star Trek movie, he would obviously also be (executive) producer. The same would apply to Peter Jackson. Although Peter Jackson seems to prefer bringing to life great fantasy fiction works, like the books of Tolkien, I am sure he could bring his talents to directing a movie like Star Trek and do it well, if he had the time or a particular interest. He has neither of these right now.

27. MJ - May 27, 2011

@25

“Love Ricky Gervais!”

Like that it is a shock. :-)

“He apparently had been the first choice for the Scotty role, but turned it down.”

Thank goodness that mean-spirited pr**k was not given a role in Trek.

28. MJ - May 27, 2011

@26. Keachick, agreed….that chic doing the Aussie interview was like trying on purpose to have her shirt fall off down to her boob level….weird, distracting and unprofessional.

29. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 27, 2011

#28 I did not mean quite that. Anyway, it is not the first time that I have seen young female interviewers seeming to flirt with actors/celebrities, while apparently asking oh so serious questions. Anyone would think that the interview was about the interviewer and not the person(s) they are interviewing.

It was the bit at the end of the interview where one of the Aussie interviewers told Chris and Zach to “enjoy the prostitutes”. I also note that everybody liked to interrupt the other, except, for the most part, Chris Pine. That’s how it came across to me at least.

Ricky Gervais is a bit overrated.

30. Ivory - May 27, 2011

Spielberg has lost his touch the last few years. The last Indiana Jones film was terrible. At this point I’d much rather have Abrams direct the next ST film.

31. MJ - May 27, 2011

@30. Hmm, Munich in 2005 was a great film. Hard to say one bad outing, caused primarily by Georg Lucas insisting on an alien-based crystal skulls dumb-ass story, should make believe Spielberg has lost it. You need more than one data point to prove a trend.

32. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

Yeah, Spielberg is pretty much coasting now. He doesn’t have the fire of youth, the drive to prove himself anymore. He’s reached his destination. Probably nothing more deadly to the creative process than that. Abrams is the new Spielberg.

33. Michael Hall - May 27, 2011

““Star Trek” was very much about a family. And I had never really been a Trek fan growing up, so I didn’t have that kind of baggage when I approached it, but that was for me completely about doing you know telling a story about a family, people coming together, getting to know each other, and being stronger together than they were apart. It just happened to take place in the future and in space.”

A perfectly reasonable POV, I guess, except–if your childhood predelication was for STAR WARS, and your writers have handed you a script that’s basically a remake of TOP GUN, why bother to put it in space or call it Star Trek at all?

“Off topic. I just read that Actor Jeff Conaway. Zack Allan from Babylon 5 has passad away. He was 60. Sad.”

Agreed. A talented guy, his performances on Taxi and Babylon 5 were always servicable, and occasionally much better than that. Such a shame, and a waste, that he had demons who ultimately hounded him to death. Hopefully, he’s found some peace.

34. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

Of all the subjects for an Indiana Jones film, the crystal skulls blow chunks. How about King Solomon’s ring of power? How about the actual sealed book referred to in Revelation?

35. MJ - May 27, 2011

@34. Agreed, but Lucas insisted. So I don’t hold Spielberg responsible for the bad Indy outing. And like I said, one data point (i.e. one film that was mediocre) is hardly enough evidence for me to agree with you guys that he has lost it or is costing. Tell you what, if either (or both) “War Horse” and “Tintin #1″ flops next year, then I will consider your arguments on his supposed downfall.

36. MJ - May 27, 2011

@33. Ah Dexter, I was just thinking that it was about the perfect time and place for you predictable anti-JJ post. Well done, as always!

37. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

35. MJ – May 27, 2011

Sure, it was Lucas’ story but Spielberg decided to do it. He’s not off the hook. He directed that piece of junk. I mean, how many times do you have read that Indy survives a nukular blast by being rocketed across the desert in a refrigerator, before that starts to seem like a scene worth directing? How about:

“George, I love ya, you crazy old fart, but that scene stinks. I’m not talking mildly, either, buddy. I’m the director, right? Well I direct that scene to leave the script and hop into the trash, pronto!”

And really, sort of like Ridley Scott, I have been underwhelmed by all of his recent work. It’s mediocrity on a grandiose scale.

38. MJ - May 27, 2011

@37. Again, all you bring up DM is the one data point of Indy. Hardly a trend. But we will have confirmation either way on your opinion when he has those two big movies coming out next year.

Don’t know what you are smoking regarding Ridley Scott. :-) Two of his fairly recent movies, Kingdom of Heaven (Director’s Cut) and American Gangster are among the best work of his career.

39. MJ - May 27, 2011

DM, I do find it kind of funny that folks keep criticizing the scientific accuracy of nuke scene in Indy 4, but when God himself shows up in Indy 1 and 3, well, NO PROBLEM! :-)) LOL

40. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

38. MJ – May 27, 2011

Come on, dude. You bring up ONE movie he made in 2005 and you accuse me of sampling? Get real. I didn’t see either Munich or The Terminal, but I saw everything else and I stand by my comments. There’s far more medicriity in that group than excellence.

And Kingdom of Heaven sucked. Robin Hood and Matchstick Men left me unmoved as well.

41. Ivory - May 27, 2011

MJ number 31

I’m not saying that Spielberg isn’t still a very good director, but he hasn’t made a truly great film since “Saving Private Ryan” back in 1998. He’s also had some real duds of late as well. A few examples would be “The Terminal” “War of the Worlds” , “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”
and “Jurassic Park: The Lost World”

I disagree with you on “Munich” I thought it was a solid film, but not much more than that…Mind you I am a huge Spielberg fan and I do feel that some of his later day films like “A.I.”,” Minority Report” and “Catch me if You Can” are quite underrated. It’s just that he isn’t turning out classics like”Close Encounters”,Jaws and Schindler’s List” these days.

42. MJ - May 27, 2011

@41. Well Ivory, I agree with a lot of your post here except that I really enjoyed War of the Worlds.

43. MJ - May 27, 2011

@40. “Kingdom of Heaven” (again, I am referring to the Directors Cut with the 40 minutes of footage missing from the theatrical version) is in my Top 10 movies of all time. So we will part ways on that opinion.

FYI — your post #40 was the first time you mentioned ANY Spielberg movie other than Indy 4 in your criticism of Spielberg, so your “Johnny come lately” mentioning of other films of his you didn’t like to prove your point is a little stale at this late hour of this discussion.

44. Basement Blogger - May 27, 2011

J.J. Abrams is an excellent director. But this is another one of those quotes that makes some Trekkers question whether he gets it. I’m not talking about the baggage comment. I”m talking about the quote where he says, ” telling a story about a family, people coming together, getting to know each other, and being stronger together than they were apart. It just happened to take place in the future and in space.” So Star Trek is “Lost in Space?” Star Trek is science fiction that worked on multiple levels. As Leonard Nimoy says, it had uplifting stories, was entertaining and was provocative. (Link) Or as I put it, great Star Trek consists of heart, adventure and intelligence.

I mean look at Abrams comments on Star Trek. He thought it was “a little talky.” Entertainment Weekly, 5-8-09, pg. 30. And I guess this comment was to get non-Trek fans into the theaters, “We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.” Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 31. That’s why some of us question whether Abrams understands what Star Trek is about.

Star Trek 2009 is a well made movie. There were times in it, that I thought this movie wasn’t made for me, a Trekker but for the teenage kids that I coach. But whether you liked, loved or hated Star Trek 2009, the team at Bad Robot have all said they want to go deeper. So even Trekkers have something to look forward to.

Check out Nimoy’s comments at 5:30 of the video about what is Star Trek.
http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/05/video-of-the-day-report-from-1973-star-trek-convention/

45. intruder - May 27, 2011

I wish Spielberg could go back to film uplifting movies again, it seems that all these bitter vibes of the late 90’s and post-9/11 affected his work. His movies got muddy with its sense of humor misplaced. he is now directing a movie about a dead horse, another about a robotic apocalypse, and one more movie about a dead US president. he is depressed

Not that I find his “Peter Pan” magic 80’s bearable.

Hope that JJ helps to fix this guy.

btw, fortunately, imo, it will have to be JJ to direct the sequel. I would prefer Alfonso Cuaron to direct Star Trek, but at this point of temperature and pressure, it is better a powercharged director that these powercharged (for now) producers, writers, actors would follow blindly; if mistreated and mishandled Star Trek can be pretty cornball and it happened too many times already.

46. Basement Blogger - May 27, 2011

Since Abrams new movie, Super 8 deals with Area 51, just thought you should know about the popular book “Area 51″ by Annie Jacobsen. In her interviews she debunks the alien stuff.

But she unloads a whopper about the alien crash landing at Roswell. She says it was a Russian hoax. Stalin got Josef Mengle to create alien like humans to be crewmembers of a remote controlled ship! I’m not kidding. (Link) The purpose: Create hysteria ala Orson Welles “War of the Worlds.”

So get this. The government has given four explanations for Roswell. First, alien ship actually crashed. Nope, weather balloon. Then it was a top secret ballon to test for Soviet nuclear tests. Dummies that were dropped in the fifties were the aliens. And now, it’s a Russian hoax.

Maybe Abrams will get it right. Maybe he’ll tell us what we really have at Area 51, :-)

Roswell was a Soviet Hoax
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0525/Area-51-loses-mystique-for-some-after-accusations-of-hoax

Area 51 houses the Soviet ship crashed at Roswell
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110527/us_ac/8526973_area_51_back_in_spotlight_with_new_book_national_geographic_special

47. cd - May 27, 2011

33 – agreed.
JJ appears to be OK as a director. He has only had 2 features so far, right? MI:III and Star Trek 09. I guess he could be a genius and a legend in the making, but I haven’t really seen enough to make that determination. MI:III, was OK and ST09, was, well, there was only so much he could with that script. His movies so far are, let”s say, less than genius. Super 8 may be the greatest thing since ET (which I wasn’t really that impressed with) but we don’t really know yet.
I think JJ did a serviceable job with ST09: we got an action packed summer popcorn movie that was a little better than Lost in Space in terms of remakes of 1960s science fiction shows.
And it is a real shame about Jeff Conaway.

48. Jack - May 27, 2011

Gah. These same quotes, out of context, over and over.

How about…

”I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now,” says Abrams, whose infectiously upbeat energy and disdain for cynicism are among his most marked attributes. (Not for nothing did Abrams give Randy Pausch, the now-late author of The Last Lecture and avowed Trekker, a cameo in the film.) That ethos may seem cornball to an America darkened by a decade’s worth of catastrophe, but after an election season that has seen both presidential nominees run on ”hope” and ”change,” Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light. ”In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast,” Abrams says. ”It was important to me that optimism be cool again.” (EW)

I can’t find the other darned quote, I think it was after “talky” but he elaborates and it’s a lot more thoughtful than just that sound bite.

And, yeah, we’ve probably had this talk before, but , at it’s worst, Star Trek WAS talky. And, heck, to have someone say, we’re going to do this right and make a hell of a movie for movie fans, well, that’s actually a good thing… Trek was notoriously underbudgeted and, often, I think, considered as something only fans would be interested in, and thusly not a priority. The acting was lousy. The effects weren’t always great. People would say things like, “that was pretty good, for a Star Trek movie.”

“…A family, people coming together, getting to know each other, and being stronger together than they were apart. It just happened to take place in the future and in space.”

What the heck is wrong with that? How is that different from say, Star Trek III, which wasn’t about Genesis, really, but about friendship and loyalty? The best Trek WAS universal. A lot of those stories could have happened anywhere, and some were old Western formulas. Wagon Train to the stars. Plus, Horatio Hornblower. Moby Dick. It was about people and storytelling. It was never about hard science fiction, or about a real, workable blueprint for a utopian society, other than having a united Earth and a united federation of planets where rights and fredoms are universal. Where is all this intelligence people point out? It may have been in keen character observations, or examining things like bigotry and imperialism. but it was a show for a general audience. The few social issues that were addressed, were often addressed clumsily and with broad allegories. Not that that wasn’t better than nothing.

The Trek message wasn’t about Kirk giving silly, self-important, patronizing speeches about how man had evolved, even though Kirk did that, but it was just about showing an optimistic future where we were working together, we got along and we were dedicated to exploring and discovery, at a time when races and sexes weren’t working together.

I’m done. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. But the ‘Star Wars not Star Trek’ stuff drives me nuts. It’s an origin story, like Batman Begins, with not much else to it other than, they get together. Yes, they’re young. Yes, there needs to be more there, there.

49. MJ - May 27, 2011

@45. Dead U.S President? Dead Horse? Well of course they are dead because these are historical movies…i.e. in the past. LOL

50. MJ - May 27, 2011

@48. Jack, your best post ever — you nailed it!!!!!

51. Red Dead Ryan - May 27, 2011

“War Of The Worlds” stunk. It was just terrible all around! Tom Cruise showed once again what a talentless “actor” he is! And Dakota Fanning was annoying as hell!

“Minority Report” was an interesting movie. It was good, not great. If another actor had been the lead instead of Tom Cruise, “Minority Report” would’ve been a classic!

I thought “Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull” was pretty good. The monkey scene was dumb, and I thought that the aliens should have been only implied, not revealed. Didn’t mind the fridge scene.
Harrison Ford was great, and it was good to see Marion Ravenwood again. Not as good of course as “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” or “The Last Crusade”, but way better than “The Temple Of Doom”.

“Jaws”, “Jurassic Park”, “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”, “Raiders Of The Lost Ark”, “E.T”, Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List” are some of the best movies of all time.

52. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

43: “FYI — your post #40 was the first time you mentioned ANY Spielberg movie other than Indy 4 in your criticism of Spielberg, so your “Johnny come lately” mentioning of other films of his you didn’t like to prove your point is a little stale at this late hour of this discussion.

I wasn’t in a debate, so I wasn’t trying to “prove” a point, so you are misunderstanding the context of the dialogue. I’m expressing my opinion, which may or may not also be true. You can safely assume that there are many “arguments” I could make and which I am not making in here, even though you are not aware of them or what I would say. As I look at the movies he has directed over his career I find far more that is mediocre than excellent, but I’m not interested in analyzing the man’s career film by film on this blog.

I think Ridley Scott made two great films: Alien and Bladerunner. Blackhawk Down was pretty good, but other than that, most of the work of these guys just seems to be punching out product for consumers of sight and sound.

Even Saving Private Ryan was a story that exemplified the stories that the clueless citizens of the imperium like to tell themselves about themselves. Blackhawk Down had the courage to be more truthful; Apocalypse Now was the most truthful of all.

Which makes me think that Spielberg tried too hard to “grow up” when his real strength as a filmmaker is in depicting the wide eyed wonderment of the child. That works in Jurassic park (I loved it), but not so much in Saving Private Ryan where it comes across as too much immature self admiration, and this from a people who would pass the Patriot Act only a few years later — and who would then KEEP re-passing it!

War of the Worlds was cool — up until they got to the mother’s house. That’s when it fell apart for me.

In any case, I think Spielberg would probably do a great job with a great script, but I don’t think he can elevate the material if the script isn’t great. He’ll just punch out the product and move on.

53. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

46. Basement Blogger – May 27, 2011

I’m not buying it. If it was a Russian hoax it would have been fairly quickly discovered, and the technology of the crashed ship would not have been otherworldy. Why then would it still be covered up by the time of the official report on Roswell which stuck with the Project Mogul balloon story? Unimpeachable sources like the one this journalist woman used are everywhere. That’s how the CIA spreads disinfo.

54. dmduncan - May 27, 2011

39. MJ – May 27, 2011

DM, I do find it kind of funny that folks keep criticizing the scientific accuracy of nuke scene in Indy 4, but when God himself shows up in Indy 1 and 3, well, NO PROBLEM! :-)) LOL

***

Well the supernatural isn’t scientific; it stands outside of science. So there’s no inconsistency in having a supernatural element in a movie about a scientific minded archaeologist who discovers there’s more to the universe than he thought.

But being blasted by a nuke in a refrigerator across the sky and surviving IS bound by the laws of physics, which makes the inconsistency too much of a strain to believe…even for Indy.

55. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 27, 2011

Really? Does JJ deserve such fanfare?

Star Trek 2009 total gross was $385,680,446 (should be double that).
Hell, Even Thor has reched a total so far of $399,000,000+ (already).

IMHO. J.J. went off the tracks by not paying enough attention to the characters true origins. Sorry J.J.. But, you missed an opportunity to put Star Trek on firm footing by respecting the history and feel of the orignal series.

Star Trek is so scattered now. Please put things right. Even if it demands a complete rewrite of what has been recently presented to you. The Box Office will respond if you steer the ship and crew back to the established Star Trek timeline. Although, I admit, it would be nice to have the characters recall their experience in the alternate timline. Just put things right, at least by the third movie. P l e a s e.

56. Trekboi - May 27, 2011

hate being one of “thoes” star trek fans but this is a mess- delayed- rushed- no one can decide if they want to direct.
no confidence in it anymore & i felt such optimism when Star Trek 2009 came out soooo long ago.

57. The 76th Distillation of Blue - May 27, 2011

#6 Voodo
“Not that those guys are bad directors, but they are not being asked by a master like Steven Spielberg to direct a film that he is producing for them”

But then again spielberg asked Michael Bay to direct a film he was producing, and we know how well those turned out, true they made a ton of money but transformers 1 and especially 2 were garbage.

I think some of you place J.J. Abrams on to high a pedistal, dont get me wrong i enjoyed star trek XII but is it the best trek film? Not by a long shot
Star Trek II, Star Trek FC and Star Trek IV are better films as was Star Trek VI.
If J.J. was smart he would ask his old family friend Nicholas meyers to return to the Trek franchise to direct one more time.

58. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 27, 2011

34. dmduncan

Are you referring to these books?

http://frstephensmuts.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/jordan-ancient-sealed-books-found-update/

59. Basement Blogger - May 27, 2011

@ 48 Jack

Jack, that quote about not making Star Trek for Trekkers by Abrams was not taken out of context. Yes, he did acknowledge Star Trek was an optimistic view of the future. But the quote speaks for itself. In the same article, there was this.

“In fact, Abrams can sum up his regard for Trek in two words: Galaxy Quest, the 1999 hit starring Tim allen that satirized Trek with painful precision. “IT’S (GALAXY QUEST) SO RIDICULOUS, SO ACCURATE, SO SOPHISTCATED, IT SPOILS THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE,” he (Abrams) says. Entertainment Weekly 10-24-08, pg. 28. Parenthetical added.

Here is the exact section where Abrams says Star Trek is a little too talky.

“Abrams, a self-described nonfan of Star Trek-“I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE TALKY: -was putting the final touches on Mission: Impossible III, his first big budget production, in 2006 when Paramount knocked on his door dangling the keys to the Enerprise.” Entertainment Weekly, 5-9-09, pg. 30 (Note this article is from 2009.)

Jack, you say,

“It (Star Trek) was never about hard science fiction, or about a real, workable blueprint for a utopian society, other than having a united Earth and a united federation of planets where rights and fredoms are universal. Where is all this intelligence people point out?”

Okay, let’s take on your comment that Star Trek wasn’t about hard science fiction and where you ask about the intelligence. Yeah, I’m one who says Star Trek is not Star Wars. But tet’s cite some episodes, shall we?

Here’s some of the science fiction in Star Trek?

1. “The City on the Edge of Forever” Written by science fiction writer Harlan Ellison. Winner of the Hugo Award.
2. “Mirror, Mirror”. One of the first dramatic depictions of parallel universe. Written by science fiction writer Jerome Bixby. (Fantastic Voyage)
3. “The Doomsday Machine” Written by science fiction writer Norman Spinrad.
4. “Amok Time” and “Shore Leave” Written by science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon
5. “The Best of Both Worlds” ( TNG) Parts one and two.
6. “The Inner Light” (TNG) Winner of the Hugo Award.
7. “The Visitor: (DS9)
and on and on….

How about some intelligent ideas or philosophies?

1. Anti-war. “A Taste of Armageddon”
2. Viet Nam War; Cold War “A Private Little War.” “The Omega Glory”
3. Time travel. “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, etc. .
4. Racism. “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.”
5. The environment. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. TNG “Force of Nature”
6. Population control. “The Mark of Gideon
7. The brotherhood of man. In a lovely metephor, TNG”s “The Chase” has Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians and humans all linked by aliens seeding the same DNA.

How about some scientific ideas or concepts?

1. Warp drive. Probably the only way we’ll get to travel to the stars.
2. Communicator- Inspiration for the cell phone.
3. Medical scanning technology
4. Non-carbon based life forms See recent discovery by NASA scientists. (See, “The Devil in the Dark” which is also a an episode about tolerance.)

Of course, I could go on. Nanites, laser based weapons, energy shields… etc.

I agree that Star Trek, especially the original series could get preachy. It wasn’t a perfect show. Neither was Star Trek (2009). Yeah, Star Trek wasn’t avant garde science fiction. But your comment that it wasn’t hard science fiction or the fact you can’t find intelligence in it are not correct.

Of course, Star Trek was made to entertain. It was made to appeal to a mass audiences. But it was more than that. Roger Ebert in his revieewo of Star Trek (2009) said that Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek was about ideas; philosophical and scientific. I’m not one who wants to turn Star Trek into Star Wars.

At the end of Star Trek 2009, there’s a dedication to Gene Roddenberry. What did Roddenberry want for Star Trek? Yes, he viewed it as an entertainment. But he wanted a show that was ” meaningful drama and something of substance and pride.” Letter from Roddenberry to his agent defending “The Cage.” 2-12-65. TrekMovie link below. So, there you have it. Roddenberry wanted meaningful drama and substance in Star Trek.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

60. MJ - May 27, 2011

@51. RDR, we know you can’t stand Tom Cruise…been there, done that…yea, we get it! :-)

61. Basement Blogger - May 27, 2011

Sorry about the grammatical mistake in this sentence (@ 58),. “Here’s some of the science fiction in Star Trek?”

It should read: “Here’s some of the science fiction in Star Trek” without the question mark.

62. MJ - May 27, 2011

@54. Trek made me wonder with his post what funny stuff he is smoking? :-) Dude, I can appreciate it if you don’t like Trek 09 as being part of the Trek fundamentalist crowd on this site, but you are really straining any semblance of credibility if you think that if JJ had done a more acceptable movie to the fundamentalist crowd that if would have doubled the box office…sorry, but that is just plain laughable.

63. MJ - May 27, 2011

@60. BB, Trek 09 had to be an origin movie about the crew coming together. If Trek 2012 doesn’t have more scifi and/or ST philosophy in it, then I could see myself coming around to your way of thinking. But I am expecting Orci, JJ and company to deliver in Trek 2012 now that they got the necessary (and freaking outstanding!) origin movie out of the way.

64. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 27, 2011

61. MJ

Glad to make you chuckle, MJ. But. I (like many others, ie. Cawley and co.) waited so long to get TOS back. Only to see it miss the target.

65. Basement Blogger - May 27, 2011

@ 62 MJ

It’s been reported on this site a few times. Bob Orci, J..J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof want to go deeper for the next movie, the way “Dark Knight” did. So I am looking forward to Star Trek (2012) assuming the Mayans are wrong about their calender. :-)

66. MJ - May 27, 2011

@63. TrekMadeMeWonder, yea, I do actually get the understanding of you purists and it does make logical sense to me from your POV why you didn’t like the movie. However, your extrapolation that the movie’s box office would have doubled if they essentially made a more TOS-like movie today — well, I just could not find that believable…sorry. So I recommend you ditch the box office increase argument — its makes you all look like you are grasping at straws.

67. Basement Blogger - May 28, 2011

@ 52 dmduncan

I agree with you on how the CIA spreads disinformation. And I’m not trying to turn this into an alien conspiracy debate. Because Abrams movie Super 8 is about a transfer of “something ” from Area 51 to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. From what I can tell of the trailers, the government is not going to be helpful to those town folk.

In fiction, the government wants to keep the UFO-alien stuff secret. That’s likely going to happen in Super 8 and the government wasn’t fortthcoming in “ET.” I can see the government in real life keeping UFO stuff secret.

Again, what’s interesting about Roswell is the multiple versions of stories the government has put out. They were:

1. Alien crash landing… nope.. it’s
2. Weather balloon…. nope.. it’s
3. Top secret balloon to test for Soviet nuclear tests… with
4. dummies dropped from balloons in the fifities for the aliens recovered. (Roswell was 1947)
5. um, forget that. Source tells journalist Jacobsen it was a Soviet hoax. Stalin got Josef Mengle to create alien like humans to pilot a ship. Purpose to send Americans into hysteria. I find the Stalin as a jokester even more farfetched than aliens. Oh, Jacobsen reports the “Soviet: craft was taken to Area 51, …. Hold on…

Hey, you don’t think her book was released to counter Super 8? I keeed. I keeed. But on the other hand….

68. MJ - May 28, 2011

Please BB, don’t get the conspiracy guys here started…i.e. Johnson had JFK killed and an all pervasive government-corporate cabal controls everything today. :-)

69. Harry Ballz - May 28, 2011

Johnson DID have JFK killed, but that’s another story!

70. Aurore - May 28, 2011

48.Jack.

Thank you.

71. Basement Blogger - May 28, 2011

@ 68 MJ

Okay, I won’t get the UFO cover up conspiracy stuff started. But somebody better tell Bob Orci. :-)

Hey, on the radio interview, J.J. Abrams believes in alien life but not necessarily UFOs. I wonder what he thinks about Jacobsen’s book, i.e. the Roswell craft was taken to Area 51. And it was allegedly Soviet and a Cold War gag by Stalin. Wonder what Abrams thinks of the timing of the book.. Sorry, there I go again. :-)

72. Duane - May 28, 2011

Only days ago I saw the pilot episode of ‘LOST’ directed by JJ. I thought he did a great job. I’m looking forward to ‘Super 8.”

73. wowseruk - May 28, 2011

that was a lovely chat there with those boys.. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with them, or people like that.. so creative and living their childhood dreams…

I started off the same way about thirty years ago, making audio shows, super 8 films and later on video. Then lost virtually all of it as my life veered off in another direction! (as it tends to do to us)

Most of my comprehensive education was spent out and about with the school’s camcorder.. everyone in the school wanted to be in my movies (as it was a nice skive from class!)

My life turned from wanting to work in the industry to observing it from afar.. thankfully the internet came a long and helped me keep an eye on them all! :)

74. Zee - May 28, 2011

48. Jack

I like it.

75. dmduncan - May 28, 2011

Cabal? What’s Skull and Bones, MJ? What’s The Group, MJ? What do the most powerful men in the western hemisphere discuss at those extremely secret Bilderberg meetings, MJ? Golf scores? Queen Beatrix’s souffle?

Do you know what Monsanto is up to with GMO crops? Do you know what all the world’s big water companies are up to? Do you care?

Gotta love those coincidence theorists. Ignorance is bliss and knowledge is scary. The more you know the more responsibility you have. And a 24/7 entertain me mentality is not suited for responsibility. The Patriot Act (just repassed for another four years) turned us into a police state, and most Americans don’t know and don’t care. Just leave them eating their illusory steak in the matrix, and they’re perfectly happy being a human battery powering the machinery that’s killing and enslaving them.

76. Red Dead Ryan - May 28, 2011

60.
….

We also get your opinions about “fat Shat”, so I guess we’re even! :-P

77. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 28, 2011

The next movie should please us all. I am sure “They” are keeping notes on us. How’s that for tying it all together?

78. MJ - May 28, 2011

@76. Well, you do have a point there! :-)

@75. OK, sure! :-)

79. Jonboc - May 28, 2011

#55 “Star Trek 2009 total gross was $385,680,446 (should be double that).
Hell, Even Thor has reched a total so far of $399,000,000+ (already).”

…but Thor has the benefit of 3D showings where Trek did not. Can’t really compare the two.

80. MJ - May 28, 2011

@79. And it Thor had been preceded by the “Thor equivalent” of Nemisis, Insurrection, Enterprise and Voyager, then you can bet it would not have done so well…it takes time to re-build the non-hardcore general interest in a franchise when the studios has served up second-rate offerings for the past decade. Now that those softer fans and the general public have seen the movie in DVD, blu-ray, ipods/iphones, airplanes, hotels, etc, you can bet that Trek 12, if its at least as good as Trek 09, will make at least $500M next year. Abrams and company have rebuilt up general interest in the franchise that had been lost for the past decade.

81. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 28, 2011

#48 I think that a little more credit could be given to the intelligence often contained in TOS than you have, Jack, but not as much as others here maintained there was.

Also, I did not ever find the acting in any of the Star Treks lousy.

Other than those points, I agree with your post.

82. skyjedi - May 28, 2011

Someone really needs to ask Spielberg about Indiana Jones IV, and what contributed to that mistake of a film.

83. dmduncan - May 28, 2011

82. skyjedi – May 28, 2011

Someone really needs to ask Spielberg about Indiana Jones IV, and what contributed to that mistake of a film.

***

Pffft! Easy — George Lucas.

84. Marc McKenzie - May 28, 2011

@82: Methinks that’s been already.

But why dwell on that? The man is only human; the film he made did not turn out as well as it did (in the eyes of many viewers). But while we’re at it, why not go after his other “mistakes”–like 1941, THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS, ALWAYS, HOOK….

Me personally, I didn’t think that Indy IV was that bad. But that’s just me. No need to get hung up about the film, I say.

85. dmduncan - May 28, 2011

I’m really excited about Super 8 because it gives me the feel of those early great Spielberg films, the films that date from the most creative time of his career, films like ET and CE3K, which I was watching today. But though Super 8 is strongly reminiscent of early Spielberg, it’s still JJ Abrams, so it has the more recent “feel” of an Abrams movie. Though Abrams likes fast action, there’s more intelligence in what develops within the shots in his films than say for a Bruckheimer/Bay movie where everything is short choppy shots that last 3 seconds each and the only intelligence to that scheme appears to be to hide from the audience how empty their films are without the speed.

86. Jack - May 28, 2011

81. AndI’m a Trek fan. I wasn’t trying to say that it wasn’t intelligent, but, yeah, TOS wasn’t, typically, cerebral hard science fiction — it was about these people, and about us, more than it was about science. The were some great ideas, don’t get me wrong, but it’s intelligence was, I think, in grasping elements of the human condition and not just, here’s what a Quasar is/look how bad pollution is/here’s how computers should work. It could still have all that, but the relationships and the struggles of the characters are what make it Star Trek. Space, time travel, parallel universes and aliens were, although fascinating and wonderful, were all kind of incidental, ultimately. They were a n amazing framework for a story about something human, and specifically, a compelling story about these characters. I’m not saying I don’t want to see those or that I don’t want a smart movie, but there’s a difference between being smart and sounding smart, but not really being about much.

And that’s why I think the 2009 movie worked, and why, even though it wasn’t an allegory, a blueprint for how we should be living in 40 years or a
public service announcement, it still had some Star Trek to it.

87. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 28, 2011

#86 You have no argument from me here, Jack.

88. MJ - May 28, 2011

@83 “Pffft! Easy — George Lucas.”

DM, it took you a day, but glad to see you have come around to my way of thinking that Lucas was largely responsible for Indy 4 note being so great.

Maybe in honor of you agreeing with me, I’ll throw you a bone and watch my DVD’s of “The Star Chamber” and “Brotherhood of the Bell” tomorrow! :-)

89. Jim Nightshade - May 28, 2011

RIP Jeff Conaway-excellent as dannys pal in grease–great in taxi n babylon5 too–i got out my dvd of petes dragon n watched it in his honor yesterday–he was one of the two gogun boys in it–hah another less than perfect disney movie but i luv it anyway–great music in it–Spielberg in his prime was better than any other director–jaws-close encounters-raiders-et-incredible work–in recent interviews he says his naievity n youth were what made ce3k possible n he doesnt think he coulda made it today–Of his more recent work schindlers list was emotionally devasting–a.i. brilliant i agree that movie is way underated–his recent movies just dont have the impact–but if the story was good i think he could make a very human adventure trek movie–jj did perfect in my opinion because trek09 was made for fans n moviegoers n it showed–i dont think a bad trek movie like nemesis makes it harder or easier to make a popular trek movie–so few saw nemesis for instance only fans would react negatively–if a movie isnt popular it doesnt get seen–that simple–Thor is a rousing comic book movie on several levels–action is different from most hero comx movies–it also doesnt take itself too seriously–very entertaining–hemsworth is perfectly cast as thor-we all knew he could be a star of his own movie and now he has–

90. William Kirk - May 29, 2011

@ 33 I agree with you, you are not alone :-)

91. dmduncan - May 29, 2011

88: “DM, it took you a day, but glad to see you have come around to my way of thinking that Lucas was largely responsible for Indy 4 note being so great.”

Don’t flatter yourself. I’ve been saying that for years. Including in HERE. He asked what contributed to that mistake of a film, and yup, George Lucas contributed the story. But the story didn’t direct itself and, also like I said, Spielberg doesn’t elevate the material, he just punches out the product which means that if it’s uninspired on paper its probably going to be the same way on screen, and that’s his bad.

But I’ll never take anything away from Spielberg that he deserves. When he’s inspired, he makes truly great films that do not show their age.

And forget watching the movies. Read. “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones.” Get some real information in your head about what goes on up there at Yale. Read “The World According to Monsanto.” If you have kids, you owe it to them, because this is not theory, this is reality; there are powerful people who have an interest in keeping you distracted and ignorant, because they’ll be far less likely to get away with what they’re doing when you know and get mad about it. And it’s not a left vs. right thing, which is just a means of controlling society by generating artificial conflict. Whether it’s a power grab against our liberties, carbon tax scams, domination of the food and water supply, it’s the same people who fundamentally agree on all the major issues while displaying public pretensions of division.

Don’t get me wrong. I loved Starship Troopers. But like zombies and vampires, I prefer to experience fascism in the safe confines of the movie theater only.

92. JimJ - May 29, 2011

I’m anxious to see Super 8

93. MJ - May 29, 2011

@91. LOL. We’ll I’ll tell you what, I’ll put on my Blu-Ray of “Enemy of the State” then tonight in your honor.

94. dmduncan - May 29, 2011

93. MJ – May 29, 2011

You live in California, don’t you? Watch “Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room,” which may still be a streaming download on Netflix, if you want to learn about the cause of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

Hilarious! Except that the only guys laughing were the folks at Enron. At Californians.

95. MJ - May 29, 2011

I’ve seem both the Enron and Monsanto productions you mentioned. Both kind of disprove your point — this stuff is out in public for anyone to review and develop an opinion on, and in case of Enron, two of the heads of the company did prison time. I.e. if this stuff is suppose to be coming from a top secret club and gov’t and private sector interests above the political fray, well then, they are certainly doing a piss-poor job of keeping the lid on this. :-))

96. MJ - May 29, 2011

Furthermore, any “secret cabal” worth its salt would have “managed” the California energy deregulation system such that the extreme conditions of outrageous short term profits and rolling blackouts (that caught the attention of the media and public) would have not been the results…an even half-decent secret group of political and corporate controllers would have ensured long lasting significant profits over the long term (i.e. but restrained short term windfall profits and rolling blackouts) which would have made them a lot more money in the long term by codifying electrical deregulation in California.

So this actually proves the opposite of what you were trying to say, DM.

97. Basement Blogger - May 29, 2011

There was mention of revenues generated by 3D for Thor. (Jonbec @ 79) The point being that those 3D revenues increased Thor’s bottom line. First, I saw Thor in 3D. I liked the movie but resented the 3D because it was too dark. The battle between Thor and the Frost Giants was visual mud. Thor was a conversion.

Regardless, the revenue increase should support Paramount’s desire to release Star Trek 2012 in 3D. I’m not a fan of 3D. They are too dark. Last good 3D movie I saw was “How to Train Your Dragon.” I’ve always argued that 3D movies are too dark. That being said, I’ve always said that if Paramount wants to release Star Trek in 3D then they should film it in 3D.

J.J. Abrams has not ruled out 3D if he directs the movie. (Link) But it’s not his style. But one advantage, in my opinion, is that there won’t be exessive use of the handheld camera. Makes the audience sick. The other advantage is the increased revenues. Hey, the more money Star Trek makes, the more Star Trek.

But think about Star Trek filmed in 3D. Ships will stand out against the blackness of space. For example when I see pictures of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick’s visual paintings would seem to work well with 3D. Star Trek in 3D could be cool.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/01/14/jj-abrams-star-trek-sequel-still-being-written-paramount-wants-it-in-3-d/

98. dmduncan - May 29, 2011

95. MJ – May 29, 2011

Nice try, MJ.

The Enron manipulation was a real conspiracy. It proves my point that real conspiracies exist. That was one that got busted because the folks running it were so full of themselves that they thought they were invincible.

Hey, looky looky, MJ. What’s in the news today involving movie star Kate Blanchett and Australia? Carbon trading? Is that the same scam pioneered by ENRON? Why yes, yes it is. Alive and well without Enron, and now being operated by a set of different people…still kicking thanks to Al Gore, who was part of that scam almost from the beginning. Like a football being run toward the goal, it doesn’t matter if any individual carrier gets booted from the game. The ball keeps advancing. ;-)

Proves MY point, Mr. coincidence theorist.

Since you apparently haven’t read the books I mentioned and are not familiar with the work of Carol Quigley, a respected historian and one of Bill Clinton’s favorite teachers, then you also do not know that he was the actual historian of the British cabal known as The Group set up after the death of Cecil Rhodes, admirer of Adam Weishaupt, using a fortune he left for that purpose. They included Quigley later on in their history, and he blew their cover. Quigley actually agreed with their goals and wanted them to be known. They weren’t too happy about it and were able for a time to block publishing of the book, which pissed Quigley off, who took action. Remember, I never said they were all powerful. They are a bunch of alienated pricks who think they are gods, and who depend on secrecy to achieve their objectives, and who scatter like roaches when the lights are turned on.

The Bavarian Illuminati, MJ. Fact or fiction? Historical fact. And how was it discovered? Fascinating tale. Go look it up.

The evidence is so abundant that all you really have to do is just start following all the relationships and connections, such as between Enron and Al Gore, who was sweet on the Enron plan. And it’s not ONE cabal, there are multiple groups each in accord with respect to a series of identical goals that are going to accrue more power and control for themselves.

So: Enron gone. But Enron invented carbon tax scam still alive and in today’s news.

Skull and Bones (The Order) is unquestionably ONE of those cabals (the Bushes have been members since Prescott Bush), and many of the top players belong to multiple groups, or to some but not others, like Henry Kissinger, who is Bilderberg and CFR (founded with Cecil Rhodes money) but not Skull and Bones.

Point being, all these top players are “in” on it. They know what the goal is and even though they don’t all belong to all the same circles, they all have the same objectives.

Not so many years go it was said that the Bilderberg group was a fantasy! LOL!!! Nobody says that anymore. But if it wasn’t for the “conspiracy theorists,” you’d still be thinking they didn’t exist.

You are welcome.

;-)

99. Red Dead Ryan - May 29, 2011

Studios know they can continue to convert 2D movies into 3D instead of filming in 3D because a) a lot of theatres are removing the 2D option, b) people still go in droves to 3D converted movies DESPITE the crappy quality.

Its a good chance Paramount will release the “Star Trek” sequel in 3D. The question is, will it be filmed that way or converted? 3D brings in extra revenue. I don’t see Paramount leaving money on the table.

100. MJ - May 29, 2011

DM, the carbon tax is DOA with Obama and the Congress, so again, your Al Gore and your Star Chamber folks are doing another piss-poor job on getting this one by us unsuspecting morons. :-)

Seriously, you are confusing the age old battle between regulations and corporate greed with apriori conspiracy theories. Yea, there are some examples of politicians putting their hands in the corporate pot and doing some conspiring, but that is nothing knew. What I don’t buy is the “grand design” sort of conspiracy that you mention. Hell, things were a lot worse with corporations between 1870 and 1920 then they are today.

And Skull and Bones is a horrible example — they can’t even afford to keep up the rent on their island retreat anymore, and the society is pretty much ridiculed at Yale these days. No offense, but if or cherry-picking the handful of POV conspiracy books that Skull and Bones controls the CIA, well then, I am less then impressed with that old and silly argument.

Wow DM, well the one think I did get from your long post was “Quigly,” and “Australia,” so I can only assume that your post itself may have a hidden agenda of getting readers to buy the DVD of “Quigly Down Under.” :-)

101. MJ - May 29, 2011

“Proponents of Bilderberg conspiracy theories in the United States include individuals and groups such as the John Birch Society, political activist Phyllis Schlafly,] writer Jim Tucker, political activist Lyndon LaRouche, radio host Alex Jones, and politician Jesse Ventura, who made the Bilderberg group a topic of a 2009 episode of his TruTV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.”

Lyndon LaRouce, Phyllis Schlaffly and Jesse Ventura. And this Tucker guy’s background before he starting announcing himself as the guy whose exposed Bilderberg was a frigging SPORTS WRITER. So what we have here are a group of crackpots who like to hear themselves talk and also get paid for it. Need I say more. LOL

102. MJ - May 29, 2011

@99 “a) a lot of theatres are removing the 2D option.”

Is that really the case or are you just assuming that? This is not the case at my theaters here in SoCal, and in fact we have seen both Thor and Pirates 4 in 2D within the last 3 weeks.

I am seeing an contrary trend out here where theaters are pretty much forced to cover both options, since a lot of people are not willing to pay for 3D unless it is something mind-blowing like Avatar.

103. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

MJ, what are you talking about? You didn’t watch either movie, did you?

The decades old revolving door between government and industry utterly and completely refutes the nonsensical “age old battle between regulations and corporate greed” you like to pretend is the reality. Seriously, MJ, turn off the TV. That opinion you expressed right there is the perfect example of a false division crafted for you by the very people we are discussing, and it comes to you out of every TV and radio every day. It’s baloney.

How you could say you watched what Monsanto is doing without seeming to know that they did it with a revolving door policy between government and industry that EVERY single administration practices regardless of party in virtually every sector where government and industry intersect (Gulf oil spill anyone? FDA BPA scandal anyone?), while also saying it’s the old government vs. corporation nonsense indicates you either didn’t watch the movie or that you simply didn’t pay much attention to it. The money runs things, MJ. The money. There is no battle between government and industry. That’s mythical nonsense. There’s money changing hands. The idealistic lone wolves who DO try to fight the good fight more often than not get tossed out on their asses.

“Cherry picking”? What’s your evidence of that? That I quoted the seminal book based on the previously secret membership rolls that exposed who they were? If you had read that book — which you didn’t — you would know that The Order was ridiculed and attacked not long after its founding, so citing that as if it were some recent development means nothing except that Goggling something fast leaves you short on the relevant facts.

If you haven’t read the books, you simply don’t have the facts or the knowledge and aren’t equipped to debate. Google is not a Skull and Bones for Dummies, my friend. And this is not the appropriate venue to bring you up to speed on the over 200 pages of things you need to be aware of, including the connections between the Bilderberg Group, David Rockefeller, and Monsanto. Suffice it to say, these groups and their objectives are not theories, they are facts. They exist, and they have power and influence. All demonstrable facts, not theories.

By the way, carbon tax isn’t dead. LOL! Hence the news today about Kate Blanchett! It’s dead here — FOR NOW — because of people like ME who speak out against such scams, not because of people who remain silent and who do not complain when the scammers test the reaction of people to see if they can pull something like that off.

Carbon tax is alive elsewhere (read the news, buddy). And because people have such a short attention span, it won’t be long before they try it here again too.

Once more, you are welcome. At least until they regroup. You can go back to your steak and coincidence theories now.

;-)

P.S. Just in case you feel like it:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html

104. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

101. MJ – May 29, 2011

That’s your substitute for research, MJ? Calling people “crackpots” so you can dismiss the facts without any further effort?

Tsk tsk tsk. When you respond to demonstrable facts by calling people nuts, you’ve lost the argument.

As I said, the Bilderberg Group was once an alleged fantasy. Their existence is no longer in doubt, nor is much of the membership of the group, which includes a host of eugenicists and New World Order types.

No. They are not discussing their golf scores. We know that too.

105. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

And please, save the try-to-discredit-the-source trick. That is so puerile.

106. MJ - May 30, 2011

I’ll give you Monsanto as a great example of corporate greed run amuk, but Enron and Carbon Tax, as I have mentioned, actually show that if there was any supposed conspiracy here, that those participants are the most inept conspiracy dudes in the history of secret cabals…the Keystone Cops of conspiracy….which leads me to conclude, that no, there was no grand design conspiracies there, just corporate greed and good lobbying So again, thanks for proving my point!

No, I am not going to waste my time reading hundreds of pages of POV/subjective conspiracy books by crackpots and snake oil salesman like Jim Tucker and David Icke.

In case you have a brainfart of objectivity some day, I will recommend the following for you:

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

http://www.amazon.com/Them-Adventures-Extremists-Jon-Ronson/dp/0743233212/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I53JT85C08II6&colid=XUW5VP89TR6P

DM, it has been quite entertaining, but it is back to Trek for me now….enjoy your worldview, and in spite of my ingratitude, I hope you can still somehow save us unappreciative morons from the New World Order! :-)

107. MJ - May 30, 2011

@105 “And please, save the try-to-discredit-the-source trick.”

LOL. How convenient, giving the host of crackpots carrying your fire. OK, let’s pretend they are PhD researchers instead of washed up Sportswriters, Jewish bankers conspiracies, Margaret Thatcher partnering with Drug Lords, and believers in reptilian lineage.. LOL

108. MJ - May 30, 2011

BTW, Engdahl was one of Lyndon Larouche’s cronies, so there you have it.

109. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

106. MJ – May 30, 2011

Hahaha! Well, it’s impossible to show you that it’s much more than corporate greed if you refuse to examine the facts, and instead google and wikipedia for fast facts you can use to dispute more cogent and informed analyses. And pointing my finger doesn’t work if the other guy looks the opposite direction every time I point.

I know this is hard for you and you are not one of those who really wants to know, so I’ll let you go back to your entertainment. Thanks for the Ronson video. I’m a fan of his work AND writing. Up until Ronson proved Tucker right, Tucker was one of the solitary few who even knew about the Bilderbergs. Now they are known and under pressure every time they meet. That’s a good thing.

110. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

108. MJ – May 30, 2011

“BTW, Engdahl was one of Lyndon Larouche’s cronies, so there you have it.”

FYI, you have to stop assuming that you know more about the people I post links to than I do, buddy. And still you persist with this left/right wackiness. You want to discredit him as a “right winger”? Is that why he publishes at a left wing website? Your way of looking at things is false, MJ.

Engdahl corroborates The World According to Monsanto, and does some fine research of his own into details that that film you watched doesn’t touch.

Really, you are a fish caught hard by the left/right lure. That’s the false reality TV puts out to you, man. It conveniently permits you to not have to deal with facts as long as you can NAME somebody this or that and then reject them on the basis of the name you have given them instead of on the basis of the facts they are reporting.

I told you, MJ, none of these tricks work with me. The left/right nonsense, the googling wiki to create the impression of more knowledge than you really have. I KNOW who Ronson is. I KNOW who Engdahl is. I KNOW who Tucker is.

And there’s so much more.

111. MJ - May 30, 2011

Well were back to square one then DM, and as a I said before, I do find your posts solidly entertaining! Keep up the good work!

112. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

107: “LOL. How convenient, giving the host of crackpots carrying your fire. OK, let’s pretend they are PhD researchers instead of washed up Sportswriters, Jewish bankers conspiracies, Margaret Thatcher partnering with Drug Lords, and believers in reptilian lineage.. LOL”

Oh lord. You are off the deep end mixing up different things that have no relationship to what I’m claiming. That’s another trick. Straw man argument.

In any case, who are you, MJ? You attack qualifications without any of your own and without even knowing what the facts are — the FACTS — yet you seem to think you are more qualified to make judgements than those who are far more qualified by knowledge that they have which you do not.

Sorry, but that’s hypocrisy.

113. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

111. MJ – May 30, 2011

If my words move one lurker to consider these things enough to look, I’m happy.

114. MJ - May 30, 2011

BTW, I don’t watch TV for news, but it made for a nice humorous touch to your posts. I get most of my news from the LA Times and Wall Street Journal.

Oh let’s see then, the LA Times gives me the false LEFT POV, while the WSJ gives me the false RIGHT POV, and the puppet-masters that control these papers really agree on everything through their own secret agenda and are feeding my an artificial set of controversies….I am like the body caught in the Matrix, providing juice to the New World Order, fat and happy and oblivious to the real controlling influences around me.

But you chose to swallow The Red Pill, and are unshackled from your controllers, and have realized the folly of it all.

Did I get it right?

115. MJ - May 30, 2011

@111. You don’t need to relay on my qualifications to call Larouche, Tucker and Icke crackpots — many, many people have made this determination long before little ole me here.

116. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

114: “Did I get it right?”

No. You got it wrong, because you don’t follow the money, you apparently don’t seem to know what Chomsky proved with Manufacturing Consent, and you think it’s all a joke that you are above. So you got it wrong. But you did a good parody.

117. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

115. MJ – May 30, 2011

“@111. You don’t need to relay on my qualifications to call Larouche, Tucker and Icke crackpots — many, many people have made this determination long before little ole me here.”

Well, by the little trick you tried to use earlier, if you agree with Larouche and Icke (Tucker is no crackpot, sorry) that the sky is blue (when it is), then I suppose that makes you a crackpot as well, MJ, just for agreeing with either of those men on any factual matter at all.

Either that, or it’s that all men can reasonably agree on some issues that are true no matter how far apart they are on other issues, in which case your attempt to refute Engdahl by way of Larouche is still a deception, and useless for determining the facts of what Engdahl reports which is corroborated by other sources.

That’s why calling people “crack-pots” is meaningless. It’s a horrible debating tactic meant to deceive than to convey real information. But you’re just defending the status quo you believe is the true reality, so I do understand even if I cannot agree.

118. MJ - May 30, 2011

@116. Yes, please forgive me, in order to desperately defend the status quo I called a spade a spade.

119. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

So far I’ve cited Sutton, Quigley, Engdahl, Ronson, and Chomsky. Quite a mix of characters there. And I’ll cite Bugs Bunny too if he speaks the truth.

120. MJ - May 30, 2011

Well Chomsky is a guy I certainly respect. But he is essentially a world class research linguist and philosopher who later in life (largely through his experience protesting the Viet Nam War) decided that political discourse would be a great hobby.

121. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

@120: And Quigley was as respected in his field, which was history. He also blew the cover of the British cabal while actually being a sympathizer with some of its aims, and Quigley offers independent corroboration of the work of Sutton regarding the modus operandi of Skull and Bones AND the baloney false division between left and right, which is mostly a Hegelian mechanism to steer society using managed conflict. Engdahl is no less respectable regardless of FORMER affiliations; he is a sharp geopolitical analyst. Engdahl sources his articles and his sources check out, which is why I link to him. Evidence is evidence. Here’s Engdahl on Bilderberg, for your edification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7vzMOc3lvc

122. MJ - May 30, 2011

@121. Not to mention, the guy knows how to handle himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eT33eT30Uc

123. Cygnus-X1 - May 30, 2011

1. Phil – May 27, 2011

—-I’m guessing someone will take offense to JJ’s “baggage” reference.—-

It is offensive, especially because it came out so naturally — His normal way of thinking of 40+ years of Star Trek is as “baggage” to be shed like some psychological junk from one’s past. The implication is that he doesn’t feel any particular duty to Star Trek, to its ideology, to its collective themes, to its spirit, to its meaning, and that Star Trek is more a vehicle for him to use to make himself rich and famous, a way for him to make his bones, which he has been successful at doing with it.

Fortunately for him, he’s got a bona fide Trekkie in Bob Orci to cover his ass and smooth over all of the P.R. so that gaffes like “baggage” and the others leading up to the first film don’t result in much of a backlash.

I’m probably beating a dead horse here, but I really don’t see why people are so keen to have this guy back directing the sequel. The first one was a fun film that appealed to a wide audience and achieved all of the goals of JJ & Co. But there’s certainly room for improvement. Watch the first film a few years from now and see how well it holds up. My experience has been that it’s holding up less and less well as time goes by, each time I watch it. The reason is that’s it’s not a very deep film. It touches on a handful of compelling themes, but doesn’t go much past the surface of any of them. The result is a product that looks, smells and tastes great when you first consume it, but as the memory of the initial experience fades, you get less and less from the product each subsequent time you partake of it.

Let JJ go off and do his slick poppy stuff. Get someone with a real vision and an understanding of what Trek is all about to direct the sequel.

124. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

122. MJ – May 30, 2011

Ha! They spent the whole movie building that great scene up, and it was worth the wait!

125. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 30, 2011

#123 – “His normal way of thinking of 40+ years of Star Trek is as “baggage” to be shed like some psychological junk from one’s past. The implication is that he doesn’t feel any particular duty to Star Trek, to its ideology, to its collective themes, to its spirit, to its meaning, and that Star Trek is more a vehicle for him to use to make himself rich and famous, a way for him to make his bones, which he has been successful at doing with it.”

What a totally presumptuous statement, Cygnus-XI. How do you know what JJ Abrams’ normal way of thinking is? Baggage is just that, baggage. Just because you decide to let go, put aside some older baggage, does not necessarily that it was/is not any good. It is about the lightening the load a bit as we continue the great Trek journey.

Everyone/everything accumulate stuff over time and sometimes it is good and necessary to have a clean out and say goodbye (sadly even) to what is no longer useful or appropriate. Try having a clean out of the house once in a while and see what I mean.

BTW – the word “baggage” does NOT mean “garbage”. Perhaps you have become confused over words and meanings. It is easy to do when you appear to harbour such animosity for this particular director.

126. Red Dead Ryan - May 30, 2011

I’m guessing that Anthony is sleeping in all day judging by the fact that neither dmduncan nor MJ were warned for politicking or having their posts deleted.

Besides, I’ve forgotten what this thread is about! :-)

102.
……

In my area, in Victoria,B.C, we do HAVE the option. However, I’ve read posts from others on this site who claim to not have any other choice but to see a blockbuster movie in 3D. Most of those folks are from small towns, where there are a very limited number of screens.

127. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

126. Red Dead Ryan – May 30, 2011

I was thinking the same thing.

128. MJ - May 30, 2011

Yea, was waiting for that hammer to fall, but it never happened. :-)

PS: But, alls well that ends well, as we finally agreed one on thing — that Quigley Down Under is an under-appreciated western.

129. MJ - May 30, 2011

@125 “What a totally presumptuous statement, Cygnus-XI. How do you know what JJ Abrams’ normal way of thinking is?”

Agreed Keachick — that statement (from #123) is perhaps the biggest load of BS I have heard on these boards this year so far.

130. Basement Blogger - May 30, 2011

@ 102 MJ
126 RDR

Here in Cincinnati, there are more 2D theaters than 3D. Almost all 3D movies play both ways. Now a movie like “Cave of Forgetton Dreams” a doucmentary by Werner Herzog in 3D played in only one theater and that was 3D. I doubt there was enough interest for it to be shown both ways. It’s been now moved to a 2D theater in this town.

I have not seen a tentpole or big budget movie released in only one way. They have been released both ways, 2D and 3D. It costs more for theaters to have 3D theaters though the popularity of 3D is making it profitable.

131. Basement Blogger - May 30, 2011

@ 123 Cygnus X-1

I can’t agree with your comments infering how J.J. Abrams feels about Star Trek without questioning of him on what he knows about Star Trek. Look, Nicholas Meyer was not a fan of Star Trek but he did get it. And as I wrote before, Abrams makes comments about Star Trek that drives me nuts. “Weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek, ” Star Trek was “a little talky.” Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08 pg. 31; 5-9-09, pg. 30. And by the way, those quotes were not taken out of context. Abrams does understand Star Trek’s optimistic view of the future but there’s more to Star Trek than that. Just read Roddenberry’s letter defending “The Cage.”

Where I do agree with you is where you say that Star Trek (2009) was a “fun film that appealed to a wide audience…. But there’s certainly room for improvement.. [i]t’s not a very deep film.” The reason it’s not a deep film is that it wasn’t made to be a deep film. Here’s what Chris Pine had to say about Star Trek 2009:

“Exploring grand social issues can wait till the next movie. The goal this time was to make a Star Trek that wasn’t alienating to nonfans. We mainly wanted it to be accessible.” Entertainment Weekly, 5-9-09 pg. 32. (Zachery Quinto does point out that there was a metaphor about the crew coming together for adancement of the human race.)

I’ve seen the movie several times. It hold up as a well made space adventure movie. But there’s been better Star Trek made in film and television.

Whether you liked, loved or hated Star Trek (2009), Abrams, Lindelof and Orci want to go deeper. And you are correct that Bob Orci is a bona fide Trekker. So, I think we can all look forward to the next film whenever it comes out.

132. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

I thought Source Code was a brilliant movie that didn’t talk down to you and expected you to keep up. I’d like the Star Trek sequel to be the same way. Brilliant like Source Code, which was for me one of the best movies I’ve seen in a while. I enjoyed it much more than I did Inception.

133. dmduncan - May 30, 2011

That was the second movie from Duncan Jones, who also did Moon, and so far I like what he’s doing. I think the Star Trek franchise would benefit from a creative relationship with Jones at some point in the future.

134. MJ - May 30, 2011

@132 @133

I missed Souce code at the theaters but is is on my blu-ray list for when it comes out. Loved Moon — great movie in the tradition of Silent Running. Duncan Jones is someone to watch. Hopefully they won’t throw comic book crap with big dollar signs at him to produce.

FYI — in this vain, I can’t wait to see Blomkamp’s next scifi movie, Elysium, coming out in 2013 (not sure why it will take so long). It it suppose to be an alien invasion film that tuns out not to be an alien invasion…not a lot more than that known at this point in time.

135. Basement Blogger - May 30, 2011

@ 132

Dmduncan

I also loved Source Code. And get this Star Trek (2009) did help me understand Source Code. Remember when Dr. Rutledge says the source code allows a person to leap into the last minutes of another man’s life through quantum mechanics? Aha. Thanks to researching Trek’s alternate reality and parallel universe theories, Source Code made much more sense.

And without spoiling anything, the movie reminds me of a big budget movie version of an episode of the Twilight Zone. I just wished it did more at the boxoffice.

136. Basement Blogger - May 30, 2011

And speaking of boxoffice, The Hangover Part 2 is killing at the boxoffice. That’s relevant because it’s R rated. See Hollywood, adults can pack ‘em in at the theaters too. Maybe that will allow more daring movies to be made and released during the summer months.

137. MJ - May 30, 2011

When I finally saw the Hangover 1 on DVD, my thought was, yes, this is funny, but its not really all that funny…is wasn’t close to Wedding Crashers or Blades of Glory, for example.

138. Cygnus-X1 - May 30, 2011

132. dmduncan – May 30, 2011

—-I thought Source Code was a brilliant movie that didn’t talk down to you and expected you to keep up. I’d like the Star Trek sequel to be the same way. Brilliant like Source Code, which was for me one of the best movies I’ve seen in a while. I enjoyed it much more than I did Inception.—-

With ridiculous explanations like “It’s because of Quantum Mechanics and Parabolic Calculus…complicated stuff like that” [I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly], Source Code was hardly in a position to talk down to anyone.

Compare Bob Orci’s rigorous delving into the MWI premise of his story, as he’s done at this site, with the above explanation given in Source Code. The latter is so absurd that, had it not come at a serious moment in the film, I’d have assumed it to be an ironic, self-aware movie cliche. But it wasn’t ironic. It was just stupid. Or it assumed the audience to be stupid. Or both.

Parabolic Calculus and Quantum Mechanics are the cause of all of the strange stuff that you see here, kid. And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I enjoyed the acting in the movie, even with the poor explication of its premise, but that deus-ex-machina explanation of “PC & QM” elicited an audible groan from me in the theater, and the movie never fully earned back my respect, though I tried my best to enjoy it for the $14 I paid.

139. Hugh Hoyland - May 30, 2011

I’ll have to check out Source Code, sounds interesting. I like Duncan Jones’s style anyway. He started late as far as writing and directing movies go, but he’s off to a good start.

140. MJ - May 30, 2011

@138. What is with the comment of addressing DM as “kid”? Are you like the Trek version of Humphrey Bogart? If DM is a kid, then if my grandma had wheels, she’d be a wagon.

141. Cygnus-X1 - May 30, 2011

131. Basement Blogger – May 30, 2011

—-Where I do agree with you is where you say that Star Trek (2009) was a “fun film that appealed to a wide audience…. But there’s certainly room for improvement.. [i]t’s not a very deep film.” The reason it’s not a deep film is that it wasn’t made to be a deep film. Here’s what Chris Pine had to say about Star Trek 2009:—-

I don’t really disagree with anything that you said, but there’s more to what bothers me than it just being a sort of survey movie to introduce a new audience to the world of Star Trek. There’s something innately superficial about the way it’s filmed and the way it flows. In places it works really well—like the Beastie Boys song on the cliff and the whole chase scene, which was like a really slick, well-produced music video combined with a great action sequence—and the initial scene with the USS Kelvin and Mrs. Kirk escaping and having her baby was certainly effective at pulling our heartstrings, but there’s just a depth that’s missing in the film generally, notwithstanding it being a survey film. It’s all cut-cut-cut, move on to the next bit, everybody’s running all the time, none of the characters ever seem to think about anything for very long or have a pensive moment. The emotional pay-offs are almost immediate, which feels great the first time, but is less rewarding on subsequent viewings. Like you said, it’s a space-adventure movie. It’s an action movie, really, as opposed to a science fiction movie. Maybe Abrams is capable of being deeper and the superficiality of the first film was purposeful…or maybe not. But my gut tells me that I’d like to see someone else have a go at it.

Spielberg was certainly a populist, but he also wasn’t afraid to challenge and even disturb his audience. Poltergeist still gives me the creeps. So far JJ’s more of a pander-bear. I mean look at his body of work. Do you see anything deep or challenging in there? I’d be pleasantly surprised if he were to deviate from his formula in a Trek sequel.

I mean, he thinks of the body, history and canon of Trek in terms of baggage; how deep do you think he’s going to go…into anything? He doesn’t even feel the need to refrain from belittling a beloved subject about which his most enthusiastic consumers and free-promoters concern themselves. “Baggage” he calls it. What would be his motivation for making a deeper film, when his superficial film made tons of money? We know that his love of Star Trek, its themes and ideology aren’t going to be the reason. And we know from his body of work that he’s not given to making deep films as a means of artistic expression. So, what then would be his motivation for making the sequel a deeper film? I can’t really think of one.

142. MJ - May 30, 2011

@141. Sheesh, can you please stop repeating yourself over an over…we get it, OK?

143. Cygnus-X1 - May 31, 2011

135. Basement Blogger – May 30, 2011

—-I also loved Source Code. And get this Star Trek (2009) did help me understand Source Code. Remember when Dr. Rutledge says the source code allows a person to leap into the last minutes of another man’s life through quantum mechanics? Aha. Thanks to researching Trek’s alternate reality and parallel universe theories, Source Code made much more sense.—-

You probably understand the scientific premise of Source Code better than the writer or the director, which ever of them wrote that dialogue that dismisses the audience as too dumb to understand the premise. My hunch is the writer or director doesn’t actually understand the concept, or else he’d have been able to give a simplified but meaningful explanation like Orci did with “alternate reality” in Star Trek. Though Orci’s explanation bothered me as being intentionally ambiguous (he, of course, disagrees, arguing that it should be recognizable as a patented phrase of the MWI), it wasn’t a deal-breaker like Source Code’s “…parabolic calculus and quantum mechanics….”

I mean, can you imagine if during that scene in Star Trek, Spock had said to Uhura, “It’s all due to Quantum Mechanics…complicated stuff, don’t worry about it?” I suspect I’m not the only one in the audience who’d have groaned.

144. MJ - May 31, 2011

@143. My goodness, now you repeated your source code comments as well.

145. Basement Blogger - May 31, 2011

@ 143 Cygnus-X-1

Damn it Cygnus, I’m a blogger not a physicist. One of the big questions in a movie is how much explanation should be in a screenplay . I believe the more complicated the topic, the more exposition is needed. Star Trek (2009) quickly explained MWI with Uhura uttering, “An alternate reality…” That led to a bunch of Trekkers not getting that the movie had created a parallel universe. (Link, AP reports that many Trekkers didn’t get the parallel universe.) Most of us think, “Mess with the past, change the timeline.” Anyway, the alternate reality point in the movie was not the main thrust of the film, it was merely designed to allow Bad Robot to break away from canon while preserving the old.

Let’s look at two good examples fo explaining parallel universes in TV Star Trek. In TOS, “MIrror, Mirror” Kirk explicitly explains it to the away team within five minutes after transporting to the paralllel universe. Now the audience can grasp it and they’re not saying to themselves, “Huh?”

The best explanation that I’ve seen is Data’s computer chart and explanation in “Parallels.” That explained all the variations that Worf was gong through and the later mind boggling scene of thousands of Enterprises.

“Source Code” could have done a better job explaining the concept of parallel universes. But at times it seemed that the movie was saying the main character could hop into a dead man’s mind like he was watching a movie. Instead, the main character could hop into a dead man’s reality or at least the last ten minutes of his reality. That’s when the line “quantum mechanics” tipped me off that the main character could change the dead man’s reality. And I have Star Trek 2009 to thank because I had to research what Bob Orci was getting at. That’s becuase I thought they had broke canon when they destroyed Vulcan. But thanks to this site, I got it.

One last thing. I don’t think any of us know which view of time travel is correct. If I go back in time and kill my grandfather, would I cease to exist.? Or would I create a new timeline, or a parallel universe?

Some Trekkers don’t get the parallel universe set up by Star Trek 2009.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/08/21/video-trekmovie-star-trek-fan-panel-at-trek-las-vegas-con/

Bob Orci explains Star Trek 2009’s parallel universe
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

146. P Technobabble - May 31, 2011

I don’t think the notion of “baggage” is insulting, or has been taken in the spirit in which it was meant. When you consider all Trek series and movies since ’66, the number of stories, the various characters, the assorted so-called technical bits of either premise, gizmo’s, or babble… well, Trek did have a lot of baggage, in that sense.
Is canon what makes Star Trek what it is? Does it mean anything that all of the series took some liberties with canon? Spock gave us a few huge grins and loud commands in some of the earliest episodes of TOS, then spontaneously burst into his straight-faced, reserved mode. And who will ever forget the sudden, unexplained middle-name change for Kirk? And do we need to get into any of the deviations or modifications of canon from the Berman/Braga era?
It seems to me that Abrams, not being a Trekkie to begin with, would have viewed Star Trek as a single, whole entity with a long history, rather than viewing it as a collection of definitions and trivia. And I think, whether you agree with it or not, the writers came up with a very clever way of getting away from all that baggage in order to open a window that would allow Star Trek to find some new space to function in.
I’ve said before, hanging onto canon is like hanging on to last month’s dinner… it starts to decay after a while, and eventually becomes something useless, something you really don’t want any more. IMO…

147. Phil - May 31, 2011

@146…..ooooooo, I like you!

148. dmduncan - May 31, 2011

138. Cygnus-X1 – May 30, 2011

Oh please give me a break. I’m even asking nicely.

Getting hung up on a couple of phrases that twisted your shorts because they didn’t mean anything, when Star Trek actually built itself on the same kind of nice sounding meaninglessness, when the movie was SO well made AND consistent in portraying it’s premise — the kiss freezing after his life was terminated and then beginning again, making it clear that he now existed in an alternate universe, that was beautiful.

The discussion about sending Rutledge a pizza which Rutledge dismissed by saying that an alternate version of himself would get it, if it were at all possible, actually made the MWI premise more explicit that ST.09 did.

I don’t know what to do with this kind of complaint given that even in literary hard SF you have to put up with devices that require you to suspend disbelief. I mean if you are looking for the movie which never requires that of you, then you probably shouldn’t waste your time going to them because movies are NOT scientific textbooks, they are STORIES which have more crucial concerns than getting all the science and scientific phrases perfect first.

The movie was science fiction. Not science.

To make an issue over “parabolic calculus” or “red matter” or “dilithium crystals” when the science of such dramatic devices is irrelevant, is to be distracted by a non issue. If they had excised “parabolic calculus” entirely it wouldn’t have affected the movie one bit. It was just a dramatic device to try and add verisimilitude to the mystery of a future science able to do what we saw in the movie.

149. TrekMadeMe Wonder - May 31, 2011

141. Cygnus-X1

Wow!

Was that REALLY a Chris Pine quote? I did not think Pine was that opinionated of STAR TREK as well as recent film history.

A link would be helpful in believing that was really a Chris Pine quote.

150. MJ - May 31, 2011

@149. Entertainment Weekly, 5-9-09 pg. 32

151. dmduncan - May 31, 2011

143: “I mean, can you imagine if during that scene in Star Trek, Spock had said to Uhura, “It’s all due to Quantum Mechanics…complicated stuff, don’t worry about it?” I suspect I’m not the only one in the audience who’d have groaned.”

Oh you are so overthinking it. When Rutledge talked about QM to the captain, he WAS talking to someone who was dimly aware of it, and for crying out loud, MWI IS quantum mechanics. He was using THAT term accurately, if vaguely for the captain, which fit Dr. Rutledge’s personality, since he was an arrogant prick who didn’t care much for how other people thought or felt. That he gave any information to the captain at all was so that he could cajole the captain into completing the mission, not because he wanted the captain to have a precise understanding of how it all worked.

152. dmduncan - May 31, 2011

And actually, now that I think about it, “parabolic calculus” is actually quite good, since the captain was making loops through alternate realities, so it seems an entirely plausible name to give to the math used to work that trick.

153. Basement Blogger - May 31, 2011

@ 149 TMMW

Cygnus was referring to a quote I got from my copy of Entertainment Weekly, 5-8-09, pg 32. In my profession, when I wrtie something that is factual in nature, I try to provide the link or the citation. I’m sorry I can’t fax you this article but I would be happy to sign an affidavit that I’m getting it from the magazine. By the way, I did find the link to the article but you may not get it since some of EW’s site is confined to subscibers.

The quotes from that issue that I used are from Chirs Pine and J.J. Abrams. Here they are:

“Exploring grand social issues can wait for the next movie…The goal this time was to make a Star Trek that wasn’t alienating to nonfans. We mainly wanted to make it accessible.” EW, 5-8-09, pg. 32, col. 2.

J.J. Abrams on Star Trek, inner quotation in caps-

“Abrams, a self-described non-fan of Star Trek-“I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE TALKY”- was putting the final touches on Mission Impossible III, his first big budget production, in 2006, when Paramount knocked on his door dangling the keys to the Enterprise. ” pg.. 30. Col. 1.

As said above, to be fair to Abrams, Nicholas Meyer was not a fan of Star Trek either.

Here’s the article from EW’s website, note the pagination is not the same as the actual magazine. Note you may be denied access since it’s for subscribers.

1. Pine’s quote:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20275802_4,00.html

2. Abrams quote:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20275802_3,00.html

154. Basement Blogger - May 31, 2011

Damn it Dmduncan, I’m a blogger not a physicist! (@ 151) Sorry, I never get tired of doing my Bones. And hey, Bob Orci, how about more Dr. McCoy in the next one? Yeah, we know Spock-Uhura really helps with the women and the teenage girls but I got an idea. Maybe you could have McCoy take off his shirt. I keeed. I keeed.

Back to parallel universes in TV and movies. Was Star Trek the first major TV production or movie to use parallel universes as a major plot point? I’m talking about ‘Mirror, Mirror.” Then, there was the TV series Sliders created by “The Big Goodbye” write Tracy Torme. Quantum Leap? By the way there’s a cute nod to that show in Source Code,as Enterprise’s Scott Bakula voices Jake Gyllenhaal’s father.

And of course there’s Orci-Kurtzman-Abrams’ “Fringe.” By the way, Walter (John Noble) in an episode uses the blackboard to explain parallel universes the same way Data did. But since the main mythology of Fringe is parallel universes, the writers freely use the term and have characters explain the concepts. You probably don’t need Walter’s blackboard.

155. dmduncan - May 31, 2011

154: “Back to parallel universes in TV and movies. Was Star Trek the first major TV production or movie to use parallel universes as a major plot point?”

I think Twilight Zone did at least one episode, maybe more. The one where the girl gets lost in another dimension. The Simpson’s then parodied it. Homer ends up in our universe as a CGI cartoon.

156. Basement Blogger - May 31, 2011

@ 155

Yeah, I think I remember that Twilight Zone but was that a different dimension? Or is the concept of different dimensions the same as parallel universes? I’m not a physicist. Hey I found it at wikipedia. It’s called “Little Girl Lost.” Penned by science fiction writer Richard Matheson (Star Trek’s “The Enemy Within”)

The Simpon’s parody is from Treehouse of Horror VI. I’ve got it on dvd collection of Treehouse of Horror episodes. . It’s called Homer 3. Homer tries to get away from visiting sister in-laws and stumbles into the thrid dimension. Get it? The cartoon is two dimensional…. okay, you have to watch the episode. My favorite line is when Homer is about to be sucked in a black hole. “There’s so much I don’t know about astrophysics. I wish I read that book by that wheel chair guy.”

Anyway Homer gets sucked into the black hole. And there’s a lightning flash. Homer falls into our dimension. Hey wait a minute. Lightning storm in space. Ahhh. Star Trek (2009) is right.. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Girl_Lost_(The_Twilight_Zone)

157. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 31, 2011

#149 – “Was that REALLY a Chris Pine quote? I did not think Pine was that opinionated of STAR TREK as well as recent film history.”

When someone uses the word “opinionated”, it is usually meant in a derogatory sense. I am not sure why you see Chris Pine’s comments as being opinionated. Chris Pine is the actor who plays probably the most important character within the entire Star Trek franchise and for him not to have a basic understanding of Star Trek canon up until and including Star Trek 09, the character he plays and therefore some sort of opinion of the film he just played a lead role in, would be worrying. Not to have an opinion could indicate that he has not done any homework re Star Trek, its original premise and ideals and the Kirk character. He would also surely know the intentions of the producers, writers and director as well.

Anyway what he said is not such a big deal. It makes sense, since the plan is to make three films (at least).

From what I have read, researching details of the movie he is working on (as far as he can) is how he works. I suspect he knows now as much about Star Trek canon as anybody here, if not more.

158. Keachick (rose pinenut) - May 31, 2011

#146 Is that not what I already said basically at post #125 and I quote:

“Baggage is just that, baggage. Just because you decide to let go, put aside some older baggage, does not necessarily mean that it was/is not any good. It is about the lightening the load a bit as we continue the great Trek journey.

Everyone/everything accumulate stuff over time and sometimes it is good and necessary to have a clean out and say goodbye (sadly even) to what is no longer useful or appropriate. Try having a clean out of the house once in a while and see what I mean.

BTW – the word “baggage” does NOT mean “garbage”…”

Thanks, people, for paying attention. NOT. Sheesh.

Star Trek, a 45 year old franchise, is no different.

159. Phil - May 31, 2011

You know, this cast and crew has two, maybe three movies left in them before they move on. That does not leave a whole lot of on-screen story telling time, and I’d really rather not see them waste it on explaining the psudoscience, backstories on inconsequential characters, or endless shoutouts that only a Trekkie could love. A couple of well crafted stories isn’t to much to ask for, and for gods sake, no reset button.

160. Cygnus-X1 - May 31, 2011

Well, I’m happy for those of you who weren’t bothered a whit by “Parabolic Calculus” in Source Code.

And I’d like to show you the schematics of a new device I’ve been working on that will allow you to time travel. It runs on Hyperboolic Geolgebranomy.

161. Cygnus-X1 - May 31, 2011

But don’t worry about that complicated stuff.

Just think of it as running on a high-tech gizmo. And a widget.

162. Phil - May 31, 2011

@ 160. Why would I be bothered about it? I’m sitting in a theater watching a movie. It’s fake.

163. MJ - May 31, 2011

160. Yea, no issue. It’s science fiction.

164. Red Dead Ryan - May 31, 2011

Some folks take things way to seriously. Seriously. I’m talking about Keachick’s opposition to the word “opinionated” (which isn’t derogatory at all except in her own mind) and Cygnus-X1 complaints about the depiction of Quantum Mechanics.

165. SoonerDave - May 31, 2011

Anthony (or whomever)

Might I inquire as to why my post in this discussion was deleted? It made no personal attacks, used no profanity of any kind, and brought up another point in the ongoing debate about the value of the dissecting the “strangulating minutiae” of the franchise reboot in the context of Roddenberry’s original notions. Yet, I see it’s been deleted, and I really don’t understand why.

If there was some sort of criteria for posting I broke, I would with all respect ask what it was so I can avoid it in the future.

-SoonerDave

166. Cygnus-X1 - May 31, 2011

Look, you’ve got me all wrong. My words have been twisted and misconstrued.

I think it’s grand for people not to need the world within a movie to make perfect sense or be convincing; the more lax you are on this requirement, the more movies you will enjoy.

And I am not on any kind of mission about the depiction or explication of QM in Star Trek. Rather, I said that I preferred the way it was done in Star Trek to the way it was done in Source Code. But if you thought the way it was done in Source Code was just fine, then good for you.

These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

Move along, move along….

167. Cygnus-X1 - May 31, 2011

(But there is plenty of room for improvement in the sequel over the first film.)

168. MJ - May 31, 2011

@166. “Look, you’ve got me all wrong”

Actually, I think we have a complete understanding of what you are saying, and therein lies the problem. :-)

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

169. dmduncan - May 31, 2011

When I mean movies that are stupid, I have a very specific type of film in mind, one that is often made by Roland Emmerich.

I just got done with 2012 (or as much of it as I could stand), because I needed something to lift my mood and that film is just so LOL funny. But they got the title all wrong. It should have been called Killer Neutrinos From Outer Space.

Source Code, in contrast, was smart, and I hope the pattern of making pretty decent SF movies continues for Duncan Jones.

Would love to see him get involved with ST at some point.

170. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 1, 2011

#164 – “Seriously. I’m talking about Keachick’s opposition to the word “opinionated” (which isn’t derogatory at all except in her own mind)”

It is possible I misunderstood the poster #149’s use of the word “opinionated”. I have to admit that I have never heard the word used in other than a derogatory way so I guess that is what I thought the poster was being. I apologise if I misunderstood and took your comments the wrong way.

171. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 1, 2011

BTW, Super 8 hits NZ cinemas on 9 June, 24 hours ahead of the US. Also given that we are already ahead of California by about 20-21 hours, that gives us a good head start. I am hoping to be able to see the movie, come 9 June.

172. P Technobabble - June 1, 2011

158. Keachick

“#146 Is that not what I already said basically at post #125…”

It seems to me there are many, many posts which basically repeat the same ideas. I think it’s probably because we just want to speak our minds.

“Thanks, people, for paying attention. NOT. Sheesh…”

You’re not taking anything too personally, are you? We certainly don’t respond to every single post, and I don’t take it personally when I’ve written what I think will be the post to end all posts but it doesn’t generate a single response.
Such is the life of one voice amongst the many…

173. MJ - June 1, 2011

@172 “It seems to me there are many, many posts which basically repeat the same ideas”

MEMO TO: Cygnus X-1 ???

LOL :-))

174. Hugh Hoyland - June 1, 2011

169 dmduncan

You know Ive tried to get into that movie about three times now. I simply cannot get interested in it. I’m not really even sure why, it just comes off flat for me, weird.

I may make another go sometime if I psych myself up for it.

175. dmduncan - June 1, 2011

174. Hugh Hoyland – June 1, 2011

I went in NOT expecting much and wasn’t even much interested in seeing it, but then I was completely absorbed by it. Everyone is an individual. YMMV.

176. VulcanFilmCritic - June 1, 2011

@123 Cygnus-X1, and other posts. I agree that there is something fundamental missing from this movie. I enjoyed it immensely in the theater. I saw it eight times, but when the DVD came out, I watched it only once. And the reason is that “Star Trek (2009)” is not science fiction. It’s not about the future or our best guess about or hopes for the future, it’s a film about a TV SHOW. That’s all it is.
The original series had industrial designers and guys who had worked in aviation coming up with really futuristic devices that would change the world. Every detail, including the tiniest artifact was well thought out, for example all of Dr. McCoys medical equipment.
In the new Star Trek movie, there has been NO THOUGHT given to what the future will look like. A trite example: When Lt. Uhura takes off her uniform what is she wearing? A late 20th century brassier with little plastic S-hooks. How lazy is their costume designer! Although we never saw women’s underwear on the original show, the costume designer, Mr. Theiss, at least THOUGHT about what the men would wear. Tight black T-shirts. How different from the costume of the day. Multiply all the little gaffes and anachronisms and you get a movie that looks sleek and cool but fails to amaze or inspire.
On the acting front, TOS had seasoned pros in the major roles. And it is their personalities that MADE that show. Think of what the show would have looked like with Jeffrey Hunter as Kirk and Martin Landau as Spock. Interesting but not the stuff of legend. William Shatner basically carried most of the show because the dialogue could be somewhat leaden at times. And Nimoy’s performance as Spock was so convincing as an alien, even his co-workers were unnerved. IMHO, only Karl Urban lived up to and maybe even exceeded what the original TOS actors did. He really added something NEW to the concept of Dr. McCoy.
The movie has good actors, but somewhat youngish ones, who have to do as they are told. In all fairness to them, this is a movie, not a TV show. Many millions of dollars are at stake; therefore, the actors have no room to grow or develop their characters or even play with them. Zachary Quinto can’t exactly go up to the director and say, “Look, JJ, this is bull***t! Spock would never do this.”
Lastly, this film lacks dreamers. Gene Roddenberry for all his faults truly loved the show. He was the biggest Trekker of them all. The show may have been talky, it may have been kitschy, it may have been overly stagey at times, and God knows it had it’s clunkers. But it had heart. As others have mentioned you do see heart in the beginning sequences (George Kirk) but then that evaporates.
On TOS even the villains had heart. Almost all of them were flawed but sympathetic. Khan was arrogant and ruthless, but basically noble. Commodore Decker was crazy but he had integrity and was devastated by what had just happened to his crew. Charlie X was a tyrant but wanted love and acceptance. In “Star Trek,” Nero is merely a monster. I couldn’t stand to look at him, especially with snot dripping out of his nose. Yuck!
I hope that the next movie goes way beyond the first, and I will certainly go see it. Heart or no heart.

P.S.-I read in the Sunday New York Times Magazine that JJ Abrams MAY NOT DIRECT THE NEXT MOVIE!!! He will certainly produce it but to those who felt he was a little facile or spreading himself a little thin:
Well, you just might not have JJ to kick around anymore.

177. Hugh Hoyland - June 1, 2011

175 dmduncan

You mean 2012? I havent seen Source Code yet, now that sounds interesting and I like Jones as a director.

Yeah its individual tast, I just couldnt get into 2012. But sometimes it takes me a few times for me to warm up to something.

178. dmduncan - June 1, 2011

177. Hugh Hoyland – June 1, 2011

Ha! I thought you were talking about Source Code. 2012 sucks, except as comedy. For me it becomes enjoyable as a really expensive really bad movie.

179. Hugh Hoyland - June 1, 2011

178 dmduncan

Yeah 2012 is what I was talking about lol. Same for me, its just falls flat as a pancake.

I have heard that Source Code is good and Im a big fan of what Duncan Jones has done so far. I’m def going to check it out as soon as its released. I guess its not out yet?

180. Cygnus-X1 - June 1, 2011

@ 176. VulcanFilmCritic – June 1, 2011

You make valid points.

Thought it’s more a matter of taste, I mostly enjoyed the acting in the new movie, except for Urban’s performance which puts me largely at odds with the tastes of most people here, but his performance has grown on me a bit since the first viewing. Though it still bugs me when he says “all I got left is my bones,” but that’s not really Urban’s fault. Kirk actually referred to McCoy as “Sawbones” in…I think it was A Piece of the Action…but it’s not a huge oversight…not as bad as saying that an exploding star could destroy the entire galaxy.

181. VulcanFilmCritic - June 1, 2011

@180. Cygnus-X1 Why does that line “all I got left is my bones” bug you?

182. Phil - June 1, 2011

@ 176. Well, those are some unusual nits to pick, I have to say. What, pray tell, should 23rd century look like, anyway?

183. Phil - June 1, 2011

Excuse me, 23rd century underware….

184. MJ - June 1, 2011

@180 “You make valid points.”

Thanks! Yea, I’ve had times in the past when I have been a bit repetitive myself, and people have let me know about it. Good to see you are realizing this — cool!

185. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 2, 2011

#176 – “A late 20th century brassier with little plastic S-hooks. How lazy is their costume designer! Although we never saw women’s underwear on the original show, the costume designer, Mr. Theiss, at least THOUGHT about what the men would wear. Tight black T-shirts. How different from the costume of the day.”

Truly? You honed in on her brassier hooks? I wonder how many fast forwards and rewinds did you make in order to determine that they were plastic s-hooks to hold everything in place.The reason why we never saw women’s underwear in TOS is because, in Gene R’s vision, women quite likely never wore any, or were not meant to…:)

The reality is that there are only so many ways you can clothe the human body. We all look pretty much the way our ancestors looked several hundred years ago and I doubt that we will look much different 200-300 years from now. Maybe a bit taller, a bit shorter, leaner, stouter, whatever (all these variations exist now) – but the basic human body shape blueprint will remain what it has always been. In terms of colour and fabric – well, yet more variations on already existing themes. There are only certain types of fabrics that can be close to human skin, without causing the person (great) discomfort and/or triggering various allergic reactions, some perhaps even life threatening.

“therefore, the actors have no room to grow or develop their characters or even play with them. Zachary Quinto can’t exactly go up to the director and say, “Look, JJ, this is bull***t! Spock would never do this.””

You don’t know that, for sure. I find it odd that you should pick Zachary Quinto as an example. No, Quinto probably wouldn’t talk to the writers/director like that, but, in this particular case, he did not need to because his own mentor, who played the TOS series Spock, Leonard Nimoy, was on hand to do just that, if he felt it was called for.

The other issue with your statement is to do with the actors’ job descriptions and guidelines for on-set behaviour of the various parties involved in the making of any movie. Otherwise, things could start to get very confused and cause unnecessary delays in production.

“Every detail, including the tiniest artifact was well thought out, for example all of Dr. McCoys medical equipment.”

LOL!!! Really? Possibly. However, what did happen was that the props guys went scouring the neighbourhood’s retail sections to seek out things/stuff that, in the right hands eg DeForest Kelley’s, could convince viewers that they could be genuine futuristic medical equipment. The result was ANTIQUE bizarre looking salt shakers! The retail section included bizarres, fairs, garage sales, second hand shops, antique shops, charity shops…

Nero merely a “monster”. Obviously, you were not paying attention to the movie. Nero was crazy with grief and loss. You did not pick that up. Lots of people did, including me, on first viewing.

186. MJ - June 2, 2011

@176 / VulcanFilmCritic:

“A late 20th century brassier with little plastic S-hooks.”

“The movie has good actors, but somewhat youngish ones”

My goodness, I am embarrassed for you if this is your film criticism — you didn’t like Uhura’s bra and were disappointed the actors playing Starfeelt Cadets were too young (Hey Einstein, mos of the actors are already several years older than Starfleet cadets).

What goofball comments — LOL !!!

187. Cygnus-X1 - June 2, 2011

181. VulcanFilmCritic – June 1, 2011

—-@180. Cygnus-X1 Why does that line “all I got left is my bones” bug you?—-

The way he says it bugs me, but more than that, it bugs me because it’s an attempt to peg McCoy with the nickname that Kirk will later call him by, “Bones,” as we all know, and it happens to be a deviation from the reason that he was called bones in TOS—namely that he’s a surgeon or “sawbones,” as Kirk refers to him in A Piece of the Action (I think it was that episode).

So, if you’re going to make a substantial alteration from the TOS history in the Alternate Universe, you should have a good reason for doing so. But the “bones” change that the writers made wasn’t done for a good reason and it’s not a good change. “Sawbones” is a much more convincing way for a doctor to get the nickname “bones” than him uttering a flippant line once that wasn’t even a particularly good bit of dialogue.

188. MJ - June 2, 2011

@187. No real inconsistency here. For example. some people might call you by the term “idiot savant”, whereas others who know you better could leave out the “savant” portion of this term. :-))

189. Red Dead Ryan - June 2, 2011

188.
……

Ha! Ha! You so funny, MJ! :-D

190. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 5, 2011

As far as I know, there was no canon that defined how McCoy got the nickname “Bones”. Perhaps there was a reference to “sawbones” but I think that now that archaic term would have gone over the heads of most people. It was actually Karl Urban who came up with that line – “all I got left is my bones”. The director/producers liked that line because it worked and was more relevant to what was happening to McCoy at that point in his life. I don’t see that line as particularly flippant. It is similar to the expression – “took everything, even the shirt off my back”.

The explanation of how McCoy got the nickname “Bones” is officially canon now, derived from McCoy’s own words to Kirk in Star Trek 09. That’s more than fine by me!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.