Watch: Nicholas Meyer Talks About His Gene Roddenberry Regret | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: Nicholas Meyer Talks About His Gene Roddenberry Regret June 11, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),Interview,Viral Video/Mashup/Images , trackback

Last night at a screening of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in Hollywood, director Nicholas Meyer spoke about his time with Trek. One of the more poignant moments was when he spoke of his regret over a specific meeting with Gene Roddenberry shortly before his death. Watch video clip below.

 

VIDEO: Meyer on final Roddenberry meeting "not my finest hour"

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry passed away a few weeks before the release of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Following Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Roddenberry continued to consult on the Star Trek films, but was not directly involved as a producer. At the Star Trek night for the LA Times Hero Complex Film Festival on Friday June 10th, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country director and co-writer spoke about tensions between himself and Roddenberry regarding elements of the film, especially the anti-Klingon racism displayed by Star Trek’s heroic crew who Roddenberry felt should be more evolved.

Meyer expressed regret on how he interacted with Roddenberry, especially at his their meeting. Watch the video clip below.

For a refresher, here is one of the scenes in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country which showed some of the Star Trek heroes being less than enlightened.

More to come from Hero Complex Film Fest Star Trek Night

Also appearing last night were the Star Trek writing team of Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof who spoke about the 2009 Star Trek film and a bit about the sequel. Look for a TrekMovie report with highlights and a clip soon.

Plus The LA Times will be posting (better) video for both full panel discussions between Geoff Boucher and Nick Meyer in a few days. Look for an update on that here.

Comments

1. rm10019 - June 11, 2011

Thanks for the video, great stuff.

2. JohnChicago - June 11, 2011

I must say that I felt the overt-racism felt a littel contrived and overblown in that film. The question on my mind was, What do we have to learn about these people from the way they’re reacting? What I did like was, Let them die! That seemed like an honest reaction from a man who’d spent more than half his life fighting these people and who’d lost his son to them. Maybe comments about how they smell, et al, are just other forms of that? Perhaps.

But I agree with Roddenberry to a point. The cool thing about Star Trek is that the people ARE more evolved in their views, and I was hoping for a more refined way of expressing their dislike and distrust than what we got in the transporter room after dinner.

3. rm10019 - June 11, 2011

It was forced and could have done with a subtler touch. Doesn’t sound like subtle was in Nick Meyer’s repertoire then.

4. Michael Hall - June 11, 2011

I don’t think that Nick Meyer–a man I greatly respect–ever really got where Gene Roddenberry was coming from, in that Roddenberry didn’t believe so much in Mankind’s “perfectability” as our “improvability”–a concept Meyer resists, I think, as much for its incompatibility with the Western literary canon he treasures as for the lack of historical evidence of its possibility that he cites.

No doubt, THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY is in many ways very much at odds with Roddenberry’s take on Trek’s optimistic future, so it’s certainly no mystery why he was displeased with it. Nevertheless, in a strictly movie-movie sense I consider it to be the best of the TOS-era films.

We all have moments in our lives when our treatment of someone was, in retrospect, less than exemplary. I’m sure that Gene Roddenberry had more than a few of his own. Kudos to Nick Meyer, so praised for his work on the Trek franchise, for being willing to publicly discuss his own regrets.

5. dep1701 - June 11, 2011

I on the other hand did not have much of a probllem with the Enterprise crew’s somewhat prejudiced reactions to the Klingons in that movie. I thought that it fit in fairly well with the expressions of distaste for the Klingons shown in the series. Go back and listen to Kirk’s description of the Klingon dictatorship in “Errand Of Mercy”. He does not paint a dispassionate picture. Rewatch the scene near the end of “Friday’s Child” when he tells Spock that one of them must “Get” the Klingon. Spock asks if it’s revenge he’s seeking…his answer, “Why not”.

While “Day Of The Dove” might not be the finest example, since an alien being is seen to be manipulating the whole situation, Spock notes that there are ‘basic hostilities’ between humans and Klingons. While those prejudices may have been exaggerated, they had some basis in existing feelings.

I thought the cast’s reactions in VI were fairly consistent with people that have grown older and become set in their ways. Kirk in particular has to learn the lesson of letting go of years of preconceived notions, built up anger and hatred, which is an admirable message for an audience.

I felt that Roddenberry’s objections, while heartfelt, were a bit wrong. I think that as the years went on, he really began to believe too much that “Star Trek” was being viewed by people ( and fans in particular ) as some sort of example of what humans should strive to be… a template for the future, and that he was a kind of oracle showing the way ( I don’t mean this in any disrespectful way ). While it’s true that lots of people rightly point to Trek for it’s positive and hopeful message for mankind, Gene seemed to lose sight of the fact that in the original series, no one – especially Kirk – was perfect, and what made them interesting and admirable was their ability to realize when they were behaving badly and rise above their baser instincts ( see “Arena” ).

I feel that Gene began to be influenced by the fan’s unerring devotion to his ‘vision’ of the future, and felt that he was responsible for showing us the way, so much so that he sometimes lost sight of what made the original series characters so compelling and indentifiable.

6. Vultan - June 11, 2011

The flawed humans presented in TUC seems to me the first baby steps towards what would become Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise’s finer episodes, i.e. challenging Trek’s more “evolved humanity” by presenting them with certain people and situations where there is no easy answer, no quick fix in the last ten minutes before warping off to the next star system, all while having a good, evolved laugh at the pointy-earred science officer’s expense.

Drama without conflict is not drama.
It’s a speech.

7. Gerry Alanguilan - June 11, 2011

What felt weird about Undiscovered Country was when Kirk said “We’ve never been this close”, and the crew acted as if they’ve never seen or talked to Klingons before, when we all know they’ve interacted with Klingons lots of times. Just in the previous movies the even travelled INSIDE Klingon ships and dealt with Klingons directly.

8. Fletch Gannon - June 11, 2011

The way I viewed ‘The Undiscovered Country’ was that this was a group of people who inspite of their enlighted view of other species and worlds have been doing battle with the Klingons for 30 years. They’ve had so many confrontations with the Klingons some we have seen and many I’m sure we have not that of course their views of them would be sullied; paramount among them who would feel the most hatred and prejudice would be Kirk who had lost his son. It makes sense to me (always has) that they would lose themselves to reason when it came to the Klingons who up to the point of ‘The Undiscovered Country’, had been their continual and most deadly enemy.

To show them any other way would be to acknowledge that they weren’t really human feeling characters, but just cardboard cut-out heroes. Like ‘The Wrath of Khan’, Meyers strips away the gloss from Kirk and makes him a flawed human being; weighting him down with anger, hatred, and even prejudice…things that he comes to realize are there and must overcome. Does he completely? I don’t know…all I know is that when he his standing in front of Azetbur and speaks of his son you can see a peace come over him.

There is a reason ‘Khan’ and ‘Country’ are the best Star Trek movies made thus far…flawed, human characters who must confront their own weaknesses in the face of incredible odds. They’re not cardboard cut-out heroes in space jumpsuits. Meyers deserves a ton of credit for his contribution to Trek…his movies are outstanding!

9. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 11, 2011

I’ll be waiting …

OMG … a “bit” about the sequel …

:-) :-)

10. Kev-1 - June 11, 2011

I think Meyer did a fine job adding color and pacing to Star Trek; they were missing form the very blue (colored) and very “metallic” TMP. But, and it’s a very big “but”, the anti-Klingon feelings were overblown, especially in Scotty’s case, and one can argue Kirk had never been so petty. Nichelle Nichols rightly refused the “guess who’s coming to dinner” line — her saying that would have obliterated everything her character stood for — but I think it went to Chekov. I totally respect Meyer and his talent, although I felt, listening to his STII DVD commentary, that he made contradictory statements several times concerning his views of Star Trek (can’t give specifics, that was my general impression). While I like STII, I always believed ess of a “reboot” might have been done — without 18th century uniforms, no smoking signs, etc., and the metamorphosis of the starship Enterprise from state of the art jewel to a cadet training ship. No new five year mission. I did enjoy “Khan”; wish more of the thoughtful stuff in the script had been left in (you have to read the script). As for Meyer’s regrets, we all have those.

11. Will_H - June 11, 2011

It should have been somewhere in the middle I think. Some of the bits were over done, but at the same time I think if Star Trek had been done according to Roddenberry’s pure vision, it would never of lasted. I think as it is having to follow the rules he set forth hurt the newer Star Trek shows.

12. Mike Thompson UK - June 11, 2011

Don’t think Roddenberry was happy after he got dropped post TMP and think there were battles on every movie, however:

Nimoy, got something from Roddenberry in one of the last meetings, but it was too late to put it in:

“What made the Klingons so angry” to begin with.

So pleased 6 was made, it put the original crew back on the map and they all should have returned in Generations (what a missed opportunity)

I must buy Meyers book.

13. Jonboc - June 11, 2011

Nick was really off base just a tad. Gene embraced the idea the perfect human for TNG. His original Star Trek was chock full of imperfect crew members, racisim and all…only in TNG did the writers feel trapped, unable to craft good drama….that’s one of the reasons TOS veterans DC Fontana and David Gerrold abandoned ship in the first season.

14. Nathan - June 11, 2011

There were always two versions of Star Trek; there was Star Trek as it actually existed in TOS and was initially conceived of by Roddenberry, a story about brave, heroic characters with recognizable humanity and human flaws out there dealing with the unknown, a “Wagon Train to the Stars,” “Horatio Hornblower in space”: a story of real human heroes, and real human villains, a universal story concerned with the basic human nature common to all times and places, both in its goodness and strength and in its weakness, ignorance, and even outright villainy.

And then there was the idea of Star Trek Roddenberry came up with in the ’70s, an idea of Star Trek as some kind of visionary tool for the propagation of progressive ideas to the masses, with Roddenberry as the head Prophet showing the way forward to benighted humanity by depicting a future where human flaws had been overcome totally by technological and social advances, and where a group of these logical, perfect Future People traveled around demonstrating how much superior they were to people in the past and other benighted alien races and god-substitutes. This vision of Star Trek, while it showed up a few places in TOS, really was only ever depicted in the first few seasons of TNG, which are rightly derided for their unrelatability and their pompousness. Meyer, in his own way, was far more in tune with Roddenberry’s original vision of Star Trek at this point than Roddenberry himself.

Though Roddenberry is not really the villain here; he was in many ways a pitiable figure, especially at this point, fighting with righteous fury to his last breath for what he considered the true Star Trek vision. Certainly, Meyer acted towards him less than respectfully, and he should not have done that. He is right to regret and feel sorry for treating an old, dying man with such little regard.

But Meyer was certainly right there; while some of the concrete expressions might have been over the top, the basic idea of the crew of the Enterprise, and especially Kirk, who have fought the Klingons and everything they stood for constantly for years and years and suffered losses at their hands, possessing prejudical feelings towards them and then over the course of the movie having to confront these prejudices, overcome them, and even work to defend their former enemies is a great, classic Star Trek story true in every aspect to the original vision of the show. It is certainly not just wanton prejudice for prejudice’s sake.

15. Planet Pandro - June 11, 2011

#14…Agreed! There seemed to be alot of revisionist history at work there.

16. vanedge - June 11, 2011

by far, some of the most intelligent responses i’ve ever read on this site. i am loving the discussion, and agree that Roddenberry was too much in the TNG “perfect” mode, a mode that was inconsistent with TOS and made for bland, pompous storytelling without any real humanity. TUC was an excellent film, and the “racism” the human characters felt was equaled by the racism the klingon characters displayed – and always had for years and years since TOS. it made for a better story to have BOTH sides overcome their prejudice to defeat the true enemies who remained cloaked through much of the story.

17. Anthony Pascale - June 11, 2011

13. Jonboc
that is true, but this conversation with Roddenberry happened in 1991 and I think it is possible that Roddenberry was applying his new TNG type philosophy to all of Star Trek

18. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 11, 2011

Gee. I feel so much better now after arguing for so long about maintaining Star Trek’s consistency. Apparently Gene was arguing about the same thing until his last days.

19. Spock - June 11, 2011

This is his new story, he shared this last month at Egyptian theater I dont see why he should feel so bad, Gene was a jerk about his creation often, Meyer was a Jerk about his creation (movie era trek). Nothing wrong with it. And Roddenberry threatened a lawsuit over VI I would get pissed too!

20. Red Dead Ryan - June 11, 2011

If Gene Roddenberry had been still alive when “Deep Space Nine” went on the air, it would have been a very different show. It probably would have ended up as “TNG on a space station”.

Not glad that he died, it’s just something to think about.

21. Red Dead Ryan - June 11, 2011

I think Gene Roddenberry meant well, but he seemed to become naive in his final years. And the writers, during the early seasons at least, seemed afraid of disappointing and/or defying his rules. Not to say he was a bad guy (quite the contrary, people loved the man) but by the time of TNG, he was an intimidating, larger-than-life figure.

I think the same thing can be said of George Lucas, who hasn’t seen the need to step back even though it’s quite obvious that fresh blood was needed, especially in light of “The Phantom Menace”.

Though apparently Lucas doesn’t play as big a role with “The Clone Wars” cartoon.

22. Andy Patterson - June 11, 2011

Brave and big of Meyer to admit this story. The masses have such a way of turning on you for admitting such things.

23. Michael Hall - June 11, 2011

@14–

“And then there was the idea of Star Trek Roddenberry came up with in the ’70s, an idea of Star Trek as some kind of visionary tool for the propagation of progressive ideas to the masses, with Roddenberry as the head Prophet showing the way forward to benighted humanity by depicting a future where human flaws had been overcome totally by technological and social advances, and where a group of these logical, perfect Future People traveled around demonstrating how much superior they were to people in the past and other benighted alien races and god-substitutes.”

Interesting that during the college lectures I attended back in the ’70s Roddenberry was often given to state that he never took Star Trek very seriously as a vision of the future, believing that it would resemble the real thing only in that humanity would ultimately overcome many of its problems. Since I tend to agree with you that he unfortunately wound up exchanging the role of artist/producer for that of a guru or even cult leader (however well-intentioned), I wonder when that began to change.

As orginally conceived, I would also have to agree that Trek was merely Roddenberry’s attempt to do what had never been done before on television previously: produce a weekly, adult-level space opera with enough production value to suggest something of the drama and thematic sweep of the pulp SF he had cherished during his boyhood. Visionary it was, for the time, but optimism about the human condition didn’t much figure into things, initially. The original outline for “The Cage” had a scene where Captain April unceremoniously tosses a crewman off the ship following a deadly incident caused by the man’s panicking after contact with “insect-like” aliens. The show’s reputation for depicting a positive future developed over three seasons for a couple of reasons: for one thing, all American TV shows presented largely heroic characters back then, and as Americans we saw ourselves reflected in the Enterprise crew–not so much who we would be in three centuries, but the best part of what we already were. And the show was produced during a singular time in our history that turned out to be all too brief, when just about any change in our lives for the better seemed possible if only we could believe in it fervently enough.

This all started to look pretty naive after Altamont, Challenger, and the wars, scandals, and disillusion that have followed. To someone growing up in today’s United States, I think it would be almost unimaginable. But I’ll die a happy man if as a society we could experience it again in my lifetime.

24. Buzz Cagney - June 11, 2011

Ive never bought into this rascism garbage levelled at TUC. Its not as if Kirk and crew didn’t have reason to mistrust them. How often were they supposed to turn the other cheek?

I would also like to believe we will be more evolved by then- but not to the point of stupidity and naivety!

Kirk said going in that he didn’t want the job of escorting the Chancellor. He meant it too!

25. Buzz Cagney - June 11, 2011

#7 I always took that to mean ‘we have never been this close (to peace with the Klingons)’. That moment was perhaps the moment that the seed of what they were trying to achieve germinated in Kirk’s mind. Which is why he kept the shields down and surrendered. He knew what was at stake by that point.

26. matthias - June 11, 2011

i think it was a good movie and the racism had to be “a little bit too much”, so the end – getting aware of how wrong they all were! – could function. so it was a story for the people of the 20th century. Otherwise it would have been a story for the people of … who knows… maybe never.

27. Cygnus-X1 - June 11, 2011

A show of good character from Nick Meyer.

28. Rblaine - June 11, 2011

#25. Good point. Kirk said “we will not be the instigators of full scale war on the eve of universal peace” just before beaming over to the klingon ship.

29. Chasco - June 12, 2011

#14 Well put!

I’ve never seen the dinner scene as the “Star Trek heroes being less than enlightened.” I’ve always viewed it as the Star Trek heroes trying very hard to overcome the prejudices they know they have – and not being met even half way by most of their guests.
The remarks Nick Meyer mentions are made by the technicians who carry out the assassination.

30. Greenberg - June 12, 2011

Roddenberry was chugging too much happy juice if he thought the Enterprise crew could instantly get over 25 years of armed conflict and tension like that. Come on, Gene. Besides which, how boring would ST6 have been if the characters had started out perfect, and ended up with this perfect alliance? Where is the growth, the story arc? It’s a far better film for showing people overcoming their attitudes.

Although, the movie never did focus enough on Klingon culture. I definitely agree with Nimoy on that point – too much predictable political thriller stuff, not enough insight.

31. Buzz Cagney - June 12, 2011

I do have to admire the way these guys are quite brazen about ‘borrowing’ other peoples idea’s and are open to ‘suggestions’!
It certainly take’s nerve!

32. Buzz Cagney - June 12, 2011

#30 sorry- that should have gone in the other story about Orci and co.
I had a late night! lol
The comments stand though! lol

33. David C. Roberson - June 12, 2011

#7 – When Kirk said, “Never been this close…” I believe he was saying, “We’ve never been this close to peace with these people.”
The inherent trepidation (pulled off perfectly by Shatner) being an indication of at least subconscious fear of the future (echoed numerous times in the movie, “Are you afraid of the future?”)… And of course, Kirk admits that he -was- afraid at the end. The fear of change, of losing your identity because of it, finding yourself not only out of context with the times, but retired to boot. It’s a scary thing.

I love the racism in TUC. I think it’s perfect. A group of old soldiers who suddenly find that their enemy is suddenly a friend. Those old prejudices and fears don’t just go away. I think Roddenberry bought into his own myth a bit too much there in the end. If you look back at TOS, many of the humans were VERY racist against Spock and other Vulcans. TNG should have kept with the trend of flawed human beings over-coming their foibles, because perfect humans made for some rather, ahem, dry entertainment.

That’s one of the reasons I loved DS9 so much… haha… my friends and I say that when the word came down from the head office that human beings in Star Trek were supposed to be too evolved to get drunk, act homophobic, racist, or chauvinistic, Miles O’ Brien and Julian Bashir simply didn’t get the memo! X-D

34. Doug L. - June 12, 2011

I actually always thought TUC was a flawed movie, though it looked the best. My biggest problem was the scooby doo ending, and Spock’s mental rape essentially of Kim Catrall’s character. I also actually love the darker side of Trek, esp. DS9, but this to me was way out of character.

Regarding Kirk’s prejudice, I can accept that he was programmed over years of experience to have disdain for klingons, and it wasn’t out of character for him. He recognizes as much in the movie that he may be more of a hindrance to peace than a help in this case.

35. Ivory - June 12, 2011

How many episodes in the original ST did Kirk shoot first and ask questions later? That “vision” of ST is somewhat overstated.

36. Chris - June 12, 2011

@ 34 – Yes Kirk was a cowboy, but in the series Kirk et al were also enlightened, often citing the equality of races and individuals as the central theme to many episodes.

Aside from the action scenes and acting (Christopher Plummer!) ST VI was not a great film. Nick Meyer wanted to put his stamp on it and in doing so erased a lot of established precedents:
- no food replicators (why was such a rookie mistake allowed?!?)
- uncomfortable quarters (light shining from ceiling into your face when you’re lying in bed – really!)
- unfinished ship details (exposed ductwork in corridors – this ship is supposed to be comfortable for five-year missions!)

And of course characters we have known and loved suddenly turning racist (Scotty: “I bet that Klingon Bitch never shed a tear) – actually cringe inducing dialogue.

Finally, lifting a plot directly from current events (Berlin wall coming down) – not exactly original.

37. Spock - June 12, 2011

@35 Trek VI was a great movie, it was better than V, IV, III and I and frankly beside the great Ricardo Montalban in II it was better than the much lauded II. It was also better than anything TNG pulled and Trek 11. I recently saw it on the big screen with Nick Meyer at the Egyptian Theater during their Star Trek weekend (dont know why it was not covered? Takei, Koenig, Meyer were all there) and it is a lot different to see this and TMP on the big screen, the other films fall flat. Trek VI was a great sendoff, the story was poignant and the music was fantastic. The ‘racism’ was fine and would have been a natural reaction especially since Kirk’s son was killed by them. The mid rape scene was great, and Spock only did it when he was left with no other options. As for ‘lifting’ a plot, have not all Trek films done this in one way or another? This film has aged well, where many of the other Trek films especially IV have aged poorly. If I were to rate the films:

VI
I
II
IX
VIII
Trek 11
III
IV
VII
V
X

38. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 12, 2011

“I bet that Klingon Bitch never shed a tear. “I could be wrong but I don’t think that line was in the original release, and it probably should have stayed that way.
Have to agree with those who point out what Trek truly was versus what some, including Roddenberry, remember it was. As SW episodes I, II, and III showed, characters that not are relatable tend to make for less interesting storytelling – something critics of TNG often cite, with its often interchangable dialogue. The human condition is often best illustrated when we are forced to overcome our own failings. Even in religious texts the figures are not portrayed as being perfect.

39. SSmyth - June 12, 2011

The scene was heavy handed and out of step with what we already know about these characters. I just watched “Metamorphosis” (Google it) again and I think of the scene dealing with Cochrane’s sudden disgust at learning that The Companion is a female lifeform that is in love with the human. The reaction of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, space explorers who have dealt with several species in their careers, just pass The Companion off as “another life form, you get used to that.”

Also, I have a problem with Kirk having a deep seated hatred of Klingons as a whole. Yes, David Marcus was killed by Klingons, no doubt about it, but he wasn’t killed by every Klingon. I think Kirk is “evolved” enough to get this. This is different than the Kirk who once said, “I’m not going to kill, today.”

40. sci-fiddy - June 12, 2011

“Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge.”

– Kirk to Stiles, after he implies that Spock could be a Romulan spy

James T. Kirk‎: Captain’s Log, Stardate 9522.6: I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy.

i think rodderberry has a point about meyer and trek 6 altering the TOS crew on the tolerance issue.

41. Dep1701 - June 12, 2011

@39
““Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge.”

– Kirk to Stiles, after he implies that Spock could be a Romulan spy ”

Ah, but that was in defense of his friend, and a trusted colleague… not necessarily the Romulans. Also, this is a younger, more idealistic Kirk, who has yet to experience various angers and frustrations, such as the death of his son ( whom he had just begun to reconnect with ).

“James T. Kirk‎: Captain’s Log, Stardate 9522.6: I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy.

i think rodderberry has a point about meyer and trek 6 altering the TOS crew on the tolerance issue.”

- Perhaps, but I still think that Kirk would feel that wound deeply, and added to other perceived injustices at the hands of the Klingons ( such as their interference on the planet of Kirk’s friend Tyree ), would make an older, less idealistic man less tolerant.

Yes, it may have been a bit over the top and arguably a bit out of character, but so was Kirk’s overwhelming guilt and passion to catch and destroy the vampire cloud in “Obsession”. TUC is not the only entry in Star Trek’s canon to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into characterization for the sake of a story.

42. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 12, 2011

I did not like TUC as much as the other films. There were too many aspects that seemed out of sync with what we had seen before. From the cramped living quarters, no food replicators, the rude comments made after the meal about how the Klingons ate – at least Kirk realised that none of their behaviour was exactly exemplary “go down in the annals of diplomacy” (I think were the words), and Spock’s behaviour – not once but TWICE speaking for Kirk – good God, what was that about? Then you had Dr McCoy knowing nothing about Klingon physiology – you’ve got to be kidding. At times they had been in hand to hand combat, they had killed Klingons and it didn’t occur to McCoy to study Klingon biology? And Uhura – she never knew anything about Klingon language? Seriously? What about the notion of knowing your enemy? I’m certain that many Soviets spies, and others in positions of power knew English and vice versa.

The other aspect was that their encounter with Klingons in Star Trek V did go in some small way to soften harsh attitudes between the two parties. That was totally ignored in TUC. It’s like everything had gone backwards in time – behaviours, technology, medical and linguistic knowledge. Seriously, it was a WTF moment.

43. VZX - June 12, 2011

The scene with Uhura not understanding the Klingon language really killed the movie for me. I love the movie except for that scene. I’m glad that the Abrams movie fixed it by having his Uhura be a human translator.

It’s funny how one scene can ruin an entire movie.

44. Wanker! - June 12, 2011

STAR TREK 6 WAS SHIT !!!

45. Starbase Britain - June 12, 2011

A very honest and heart felt reflection by Nicholas Meyer.

Greg
UK

46. Christopher Roberts - June 12, 2011

I vary depending what time of day it is, which Star Trek film was the best.

Nick Meyer will be very pleased to know those two are The Undiscovered Country and The Wrath of Khan.

VI because it was the first one I saw in cinema, so there’s probably a sentimental attachment there. I was fortunate enough not to have seen V, although I queued up on the day of release to buy the video. VI went down brilliantly in every house I saw it in. Everytime… mates of mine stunned by the opening Praxis explosion, gasping at Gorkon’s murder, laughing at Kirk v Marta and whooping with joy when Chang got his comeuppance.

Maybe it was a backwards step for the Enterprise crew to be seen as prejudice… especially after V. But it worked in terms of TNG being on TV and most of the characters being largely self-righteous and moralising. The film was a backwards step from that, to a Federation not in a cosy relationship with the Klingons but an on/off conflict during which Kirk’s son had been brutally killed and a crew largely resisting the future TNG will take for granted.

47. Ironhyde - June 12, 2011

No need to defend the racism. It was a creative choice, it made for an interesting and damaged crew that needed to overcome it. But it was certainly out of character for the Trek ideal. There was no uncertainty in my mind that Trek was against racism and heightism and classism. So maybe more important than that they were acting like bigots in TUC was that they recognized it, and overcame it.

Meanwhile, I wonder what Roddenberry’s take would be on the dumb hicks that only have sex with farm animals… hmm… from Uhura’s mouth… Probably would have liked it, no? I know I ate that stuff up! hahaha… Please note the sarcasm. :)

Could a line like that even be justified for drama’s sake? No, it’s just a throw-away, low-ball, supposed-to-make-us-laugh line with no purpose or context or value. But what’s shocking, is it also sets a precident in the new Trek. Youch. People are going to refer back to it as justification for more and worse racist remarks.. as we see happening here, people justifying comments on Klingon smell and all looking the same with obscure spots of poor writing in the original series. Maybe next time in Trek we’ll see strange, racist robots with overbites and familiar accents acting like dullards for laughs … Data?? Is that you? hahaha..

Star Trek can be better than this. Don’t be lazy.

48. N - June 12, 2011

humanity can evolve but will never be perfect, a perfect human is a robot. I don’t like TOS or the TOS-era films (they seem like a Star Trek spoof to me) maybe because I grew up with DS9 and Voyager, better graphics, acting, storytelling and action. I do love the darker themes, Trek does gritty character drama so well at times.

49. davidfuchs - June 12, 2011

@36, 42

Uh, you guys do realize there’s a TNG-style replicator right smack in Kirk’s quarters? Just because you have a galley doesn’t mean they don’t have the tech too–maybe they just want some good cookin’ on a trip too!

50. PEB - June 12, 2011

i think he got away with it because it because of a few different reasons. all through tos, the klingons were the “indians” to their the fed’s “cowboys” (as much as i hate that comparison). they were never “friends” and after the events of trek 3 especially, it made sense that kirk would harbor a hatred for them. i dont care how evolved humanity would be, to learn he had a son after all those years only to have him ripped away by the most infamous villains in trek, would cause that reaction from that specific character. was picard out of line for his dark character turn in first contact? it was along the same lines.

51. CmdrR - June 12, 2011

I feel that ST VI is about tied with TWOK as far as being my favs.
I understand Kirk’s feelings, and the crew’s nasty comments about Klingons. I also feel the film is well-balanced by Gorkon and Azetbur, as well as the revelations Kirk and Spock go through later in the film (“dining on ashes”.)
Roddenberry earned his praise, but… he wasn’t perfect. And Nicholas Meyer is absolutely right: no conflict, no flaws, no mistake = no story.
Deeply sorry Roddenberry had problems with those who couldn’t stick to his blueprint to the letter. I just hope he appreciated how loved his “child” truly is, even with some re-interpretations.

52. The Weary Professor - June 12, 2011

“In space all warriors are cold warriors” rates as one of the best Trek villain lines ever, but it also rather dates the film.

53. Michael Hall - June 12, 2011

According to biographer David Alexander, when asked how he felt about THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY shortly after having seen it Roddenberry just shrugged and made a “so-so” wave of resignation. So while he was far from enthusiastic, it doesn’t seem like he hated the film, whatever his reservations about its fidelity to his original concept. In any case I’ll bet he vastly preferred it to THE FINAL FRONTIER, whose “Enterprise crew meets God” storyline he fought as a terrible idea right to the bitter end.

54. Red Dead Ryan - June 12, 2011

I find “The Undiscovered Country” to be more dated than “The Wrath Of Khan”, which is a far better movie. Not saying TUC is bad, it’s just that it doesn’t hold up as well the farther we get from 1991. The set designers could have done a better job redressing the sets (come on, the starfield in the dining hall, which was in the interior of the ship below the registry number and not along the rim of the saucer), toning down on the Shakespeare quotes (it was fun, but got to be to too much at times during the movie), Uhura not understanding ONE iota of Klingonese, despite countless previous encounters with them and the fact that she is communications officer, William Shatner looking like he was tired of playing Kirk and ready to move on, some rude behaviour from the crew which was out of place because they were supposed to be Starfleet officers who respected other cultures.

I do respect the reason for Kirk’s attitude towards the Klingons, since Kruge was the one who killed his son David. At least Kirk had a reason which I can at least identify with, unlike Chekov and Uhura’s comments, which I don’t understand. Totally uncalled for.

Gorkon was a well-written and well played character. So was General Chang, with wonderful acting from Christopher Plummer. The battle sequences were fun, but the flat white paint job of the Enterprise-A made the model look like a model instead of a bona fide starship.

At the end of the day, it was the late Chancellor Gorkon who displayed the class, elegance and respect that we have come to expect from our heroes.

Fortunately, as the movie progresses, the crew as well as Kirk, regain their moral balance and Kirk ends up seeing the error of his ways by the end of the movie and risks his own life and those of his ship by stopping General Chang and by diving to save the Federation President.

All said, it was a highly entertaining movie, albeit with many flaws. Better than “The Motion Picture”, “The Voyage Home”, “The Final Frontier”, “Generations”, Insurrection” and “Nemesis”. But I’d put it behind “The Wrath Of Khan”, “First Contact”, “The Search For Spock” and “Star Trek”.

55. Red Dead Ryan - June 12, 2011

By the way, the music for TUC, especially the theme, were awesome!

56. Anthony Thompson - June 12, 2011

I think that Gene Roddenberry expressed his attitude toward racism in the very first episode of TOS which was filmed when Kirk told Bailey forcefully that he would not tolerate bigotry aboard the Enterprise. Case closed. Meyers was off-base on that issue.

57. Michael Hall - June 12, 2011

“Meanwhile, I wonder what Roddenberry’s take would be on the dumb hicks that only have sex with farm animals… hmm… from Uhura’s mouth… Probably would have liked it, no?”

I doubt that very, very much. Roddenberry was anything but a prude (as am I)–but the line, as with so much of Trek 2009′s dialogue, is a tin-eared, flatfooted appeal for yuks from the same yahoo demographic who were assured by those Superbowl ads that “This isn’t your father’s Star Trek!” to a max-metal beat. Right, whatever.

I can certainly buy that in addition to being ultra-competent at her job as well as beautiful and a singing virtuoso, Uhura could be high-spirited and even a little cutting in her sense of humor when the situation called for it. We got a hint of that in the series, and Nichelle Nichols would certainly agree that more opportunities to explore other sides of the character would have been welcome. But such coarseness robs Uhura of her dignity and mystery. Instead of a Swahili-speaking native African who opts to dedicate her life to traveling the stars, she looked and sounded like a snob from Beverly Hills High dissing someone from the Valley. Just lazy-ass writing, much like the line which suggested that Vulcan has streetwalkers.

58. mike Thompson (uk) - June 13, 2011

Star Trek 6, we are very lucky it was ever made. There were many battles won for it to reach the big screen.

It served its purpose, bought some respect back to the original crew and they went out on a high. For this I’m very grateful.

59. Christopher Roberts - June 13, 2011

57. Michael Hall – “Just lazy-ass writing, much like the line which suggested that Vulcan has streetwalkers.”

My reaction to that ‘farm animals’ line was not good. After all the years of watching Star Trek, I can’t think of ever hearing such an more Earthy crude remark – Not even from ENT or DS9 where humanity was less enlightened at times. The fact it came from Uhura shocked me even more. But then right from the get-go, Beastie Boys playing on the radio and Robocop pulling young Kirk over, I knew this was something a little different…

BTW – what exactly was that line about hookers? During young Spock’s bullying? If so, that was more likely implying Earth has them and they were saying that about his Mom, to rile him up.

60. Alec - June 13, 2011

I thought that Meyer’s films were closer to TOS than was Roddenberry’s attempt (TMP). TMP has none of the classic action, quick(ish) pace, and character interaction that TWOK, TVH, and TUC have.

61. Dom - June 13, 2011

I loved the earthiness of the dialogue in ST09. I never bought into that drawing room, speechifying bollocks in TNG. Real people talk like that, so it was a relief to hear normal speech after years of Berman’s nonsense!

As for STVI: across the movies, we’d seen an escalation in hostilities between humans and Klingons across the years and a fragmentation in control in the Klingon empire, hence Kruge in STIII and that funny bunch in STV.

Kirk and his team will clearly have become increasingly cynical about the Klingons, especially since Kirk, in particular, is high on the Klingons’ wanted list after STIII.

In a sense, STVI sees Kirk and his team reclaim their youthful idealism from middle-aged cynicism. A pity Berman and his bunch of incompetents ruined that a couple of years later.

62. GraniteTrek - June 13, 2011

If Kirk & Co could shrug off all the years of fighting Klingons, seeing what they did to people, seeing a close friend or being a parent losing a son to them, and still acted enlightened, then they would not have seemed human, and the average person – me included – would not be able to relate to them. And, there would have been no dramatic tension to the story. The right choices were made for that film.

The idea that we as humans in only 2-300 years from now will suddenly shed our inner lizard brains and react to what they’ve been through with the Klingons with love and a bygones-be-bygones attitude is ridiculous unless we’re all on some kind of drugs by that time period.

63. sean - June 13, 2011

There’s nothing racist about the hicks line, unless hicks are a race of people, which I’m fairly certain they are not. It is prejudiced, and possibly elitist and classist. But not racist.

64. C.S. Lewis - June 13, 2011

Dwight Schultz, an American Christian of German heritage, is a blatant victim of Hollywood’s neo-Bolshevik blacklisting.

Nicholas Meyer is himself a bigot.

Both are irrefutably documented by Ben Shapiro in his newly released — and surprisingly candid “Primetime Propaganda” book and supporting video interviews of Hollywood movers-and-shakers. Meyers is recorded on film saying he hopes conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood.

They are. They are discriminated against on this site. Everyone knows this.

Does anyone dispute that, using the “conservative” label, Meyer actually means straight, white, Protestant Christians, once known by their ethnic name, Americans?

(This ethnic label has long since been highjacked and reduced to a term of simplistic geographical locality, the better to dehumanize an entire kinship/tribe/nationality that is, effectively, an “enemy of the [leftist] state”.)

This is all the more fascinating given the blatant, truly stereotypical demographic of today’s Star Trek fan community. A common thread of social exclusion and subsequent retreat into fantasy is present from Gene Roddenberry’s own boyhood stories of sickness and isolation through to the latest “Star Trek Phase II” storylines, not to mention the talk back section of this site.

So a few pointed questions to the Roddenberry Utopians:

1. How is diversity possible absent defined boundaries that separate the diverse elements from each other? Or is diversity merely an intermediate state immediately prior to the puree of homogenization, of reductio ad mediocratum to the “lowest common denominator”?

2. “Racism” is a term of propaganda favored and popularized, if not created, by Soviet apologists in service of International Socialism. (International is the literal term for elimination of nations or ethnic groupings which presupposes forced intermarriage or extermination of reluctant ethnics, e.g., the Baltic States. and its brutally enforced policy of Sovietization/Siberian forced relocation of resistant peoples).

3. On the Utopia itself: How can this fantasy be seriously considered by a community vehemently opposed to the Christian God and creation story, which alternately embraces Darwinian evolution, ex nihilio, and “survival of the fittest”, while it is comprised of a self-identified population of outsiders and misfits?

One might assume a rational, disadvantaged individual would favor a civilization that preserves individual dignity against collectivism; that counts each life worthy and abhors notions of imposed conformity and homogeneity. Yet these comment pages are veritable clarions in favor of an aggressive, militant purification of the human mind-soul into a state of self-defined “perfection” lacking all historical or biological precedent. It is a fantasy without basis in science, religion, or history except in the negative.

Perhaps Trekmovie.com will review “Return of the Archons” for an apt dramatic depiction of my essential proposition. Star Trek fandom, insofar as it is represented online, is become Landru’s “Lawgivers”.

Integrity demands an admission by the malefactors of history, such that their agenda be made public.

I await reasoned reply, but do not expect it.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
An Enemy of the Roddenberry State Organs

65. RetroWarbird - June 13, 2011

While the racial overtones were pretty heavy in Undiscovered Country, it did make Kirk’s reversal-of-opinion more poignant at the end. And I always did like how later on, in the TNG/DS9 era, the same aspects about Klingons that humans found unappealing in Kirk’s day and age became celebrated (IE: Worf’s scent, people actually trying to stomach Gagh on a regular basis, and basically just acceptance of cultural idiosyncrasies rather than war-time racial xenophobic comments).

You’ll notice the Cardassians, for how bloodthirsty and vicious they can be, never engaged in racial stereotyping toward the Klingons.

66. Michael Hall - June 13, 2011

@ “C.S. Lewis”–

“I await reasoned reply, but do not expect it.”

Well, that’s mighty, ahem, white of you, sir. Going back the fair time I’ve lurked and posted on these boards I have, in fact, taken several opportunities to respond to your latest, covering every concern from homosexuality to the ever-present threat from Soviet-inspired Marxist-Islamist Socialism, with nary the sort of spirited rejoinder I’d been hoping for. Instead, you seemingly just disappear into the aether until your next hit-and-run. Well, I suppose one’s definition of what constitutes a “reasonable” reply may vary, but still. Nevertheless, in the interests of Roddenberrian universal harmony and goodwill, I’ll give it a shot.

To begin with, I have to admit that assertions of victimhood from society’s owners, or those who most faithfully carry their water, tickle my fancy to a degree only second to those (always the same folks, of course) who maintain that outlets owned by the most powerful transnational conglomerates on earth constitute the “liberal media,” ever-ready to stoke the fires of the People’s Revolution on a moment’s notice. In this capacity, Mr. “Lewis,” let it be known that my fellow tribalist Ben Shapiro is an aspiring water carrier, and most likely has been since Daddy wallpapered his nursery with pages excised from his collection of moldering copies of Commentary. I’ll grant that he is one to keep his nose to the grindstone, so to speak, but as Lot’s wife would say, I’d tend to take his views on everything from the glories of chastity and virginity to who really runs the entertainment business with a grain of salt.

In light of your dismissive comments about any notions of racism in this society (we’ll be getting to that shortly), I find your complaint regarding alleged institutional bigotry towards conservatives in Hollywood to be especially fascinating. A link to a clip of Nicholas Meyer (white and straight, so far as I know; apparently two out of three is not enough to term him an American) condoning the lack of employment opportunities for those on the right would be welcome—but even if true, what of it? If gifted conservative filmmakers, solely on the basis of their ideology, are truly being stymied by a lack of funding and other cooperation from their liberal peers to the detriment of the industry as a whole—well, I see nothing in Adam Smith or free market theory which disallows poor decision-making by non-rational actors, let alone an abrogation to one’s right to freely associate, or not, with one’s peers. The idea is that the makers of better mousetraps will eventually put the slackers out of business. If Bruce Willis, Kelsey Grammar and Lionel Chetwynd truly have hit the wall in SoCalSodom, let them peddle their talents and expertise to those with the resources and vision to exploit them. Let Freedom Ring, and a thousand independent production companies bloom! Anything beats quotas; that we can be sure of.

(This also applies, incidentally, to the question of academia.)

Onward, ho, to your questions:

“1. How is diversity possible absent defined boundaries that separate the diverse elements from each other? Or is diversity merely an intermediate state immediately prior to the puree of homogenization, of reductio ad mediocratum to the “lowest common denominator”?

If I get your gist correctly, Roddenberry’s hope was for an eventual celebration of human differences—genetic, ethnic, cultural, even philosophical—rather than, as you would have it, a mere papering-over of them. Of course, that would require a considerable maturation of us as a species, a fact of which Roddenberry was more than well-aware. It would be a continuing project, full of what George Bush was given to call “hard work.” But absent rightist fantasies of complete domination of one group by another, or endless (albeit profitable) conflict in an increasingly unstable world, there seems to be little alternative.

“2. “Racism” is a term of propaganda favored and popularized, if not created, by Soviet apologists in service of International Socialism. (International is the literal term for elimination of nations or ethnic groupings which presupposes forced intermarriage or extermination of reluctant ethnics, e.g., the Baltic States. and its brutally enforced policy of Sovietization/Siberian forced relocation of resistant peoples).”

This really isn’t a question but rather an assertion. Since you’re obviously fairly literate that’s either a mistake on your part or blatant dishonesty; I’ll choose to regard it as the former. And what you’re trying to assert is in any case a little unclear. Are you seriously claiming that there has never been, as opposed to all other human societies, large-scale, institutional discrimination in the United States based solely on genetic or ethnic heritage, and that any claim to the contrary is a Soviet plot? That the stories about everything from chattel slavery, to native dispossession, to animus against Italian and Irish and Chinese immigrants were just made up out of whole cloth and white liberal guilt? If so, I think you could give the Holocaust Revisionists a run for their money.

“3. On the Utopia itself: How can this fantasy be seriously considered by a community vehemently opposed to the Christian God and creation story, which alternately embraces Darwinian evolution, ex nihilio, and “survival of the fittest”, while it is comprised of a self-identified population of outsiders and misfits?”

Now, that is an interesting question, and speaking solely for myself I’ll attempt to answer as honestly as I can: I don’t oppose (vehemently or otherwise) the notion of the Christian God or the biblical account of creation so much as I find them absurd. And while I believe (as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, plus Anne Mulhall and countless other scientists in the history of the Trek franchise believed) that, with some necessary revisions over time, Darwin’s theory brilliantly explains the diversity of life on this planet as well as the fossil record, I vehemently do not regard it, or “survival of the fittest,” as an appropriate model for human social or economic organization and progress. Unlike, say, Christian conservatives or their libertarian and Objectivist allies. Incidentally, Ayn Rand was notoriously “pro-market” and vehemently anti-Christian. What say you, prisoner?

No disrespect intended—but I’ll tend to be more mindful of lectures about conformity and the death of freedom from those who are more concerned about warantless wiretapping and indefinite detention than gay marriage and flow meters on flush toilets. In the meantime, “C.S. Lewis,” in the interest of the free exchange of ideas and interstellar harmony, I have a question for you, sir: while I don’t see any evidence to support your claim that conservatives are in any way, shape or form “discriminated against” on this website (aside from the usual burden of having to occasionally defend their ideas), I do wonder in your case about the devotion to an entertainment franchise created by someone who in your book was little more than a pot-smoking, unbelieving, libertine quasi-Socialist. In the parlance of the free market, what’s in it for you?

67. Red Dead Ryan - June 13, 2011

64.
….

You really outdid yourself this time, Mr. Lewis. That is saying something. I wonder if you’ve actually met Nick Meyer in person? If not, I suggest you stop with the Glenn Beck-style rants and consider for a moment the material you have read. It is quite possible, contrary to your beliefs, that what this “Ben Shapiro” fellow has written is complete bullsh*t that has fed your paranoid delusions of so-called political persecution. From all accounts of what has been said of Mr.Meyer, he does NOT appear to be a bigot in any fashion.

And for you to attack other fans and this site makes you a hypocrite. This site allows for you and everyone else to talk Trek, which is why you’re here, am I right?

68. dion1701 - June 13, 2011

#66 Mr. Hall – You sir are my Hero of the day. Never have I seen someone so clearly answer and rebut a post like you have done for #64 cs lewis.
Believe me when I tell you I pushed away from my desk stood up and clapped.

Because say what you will about anyone here and their politics – I love we have this forum to express our opinions even if some are “nuts”. This forum is for all of us and I for one am very greatful for it. This is the one place I check dailey for Trek News and Inormation. Thanks Anthony!

As fo Nicholas Meyer, for me personally he directed my two favorite orginal cast movies, Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country. In my humble opinion these two films have emothion, they have texture, they have depth and color. These statemets may not make sense to some but go back and watch again and you will see what I mean. None of the other films do a better job with the characters of Kirk and Spock. Although IV had a great sense of humor close to original episonds like The Trouble with Tribbles. So thank you to Nicholas Meyer for two wonderful films.

69. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 13, 2011

Well played Mr. Hall. Yes, very well played.
And good job to you, Mr. Red Dead.

70. I'm Cherokee Jack - June 13, 2011

This will be superfluous next to Michael Hall’s definitive takedown of “C.S.Lewis”,but ol’ “C.S.” must really miss the old USSR.Now that the main target of his bile is on the trashheap of history,he’s reduced to trolling on Star Trek sites.

71. Magic_Al - June 13, 2011

Star Trek VI tries too hard to make everyone forget Star Trek V. The Klingons were invited aboard the Enterprise for drinks at the end of V. VI plays as though that couldn’t possibly have happened.

72. Red Dead Ryan - June 13, 2011

69.
….

Thanks, MW-Seymour Hiney!

Though Michael Hall did an even better and more precise smackdown of “C.S Lewis”.

73. sean - June 13, 2011

#71

That was for the best, methinks. V seems to forget III-IV, which supposedly happened mere months before.

74. Jim Nightshade - June 14, 2011

Interesting read…I kinda think that original tos kirk did have many of those rascist feelings and tendencies but has to rise above it all to be a good example to ship and crew and aliens as an ambassodor/explorer–
Gene rs rather lofty reasoning that man would be more advanced in the future helped to make trek MORE than JUST a tv show….and yes even closer to being a cult….as we admire the best of humanity….

its part of why Trek appeals to us deeper than other scifi shows and movies cuz it means more to us in suble ways like that…

75. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 14, 2011

#64 Huh?

“Meyer actually means straight, white, Protestant Christians, once known by their ethnic name, Americans?”

Who says these people are not also Americans? It is just that they are not the only people who inhabit the North American country known as the USA and if you include Alaska and Hawaii, then you have at least two more races and cultures that are also identified as Americans by virtue of their citizenship of the USA. I am not talking any kind of “liberal twaddle”, just talking facts.

As for the term “racism” – I don’t know when or how that actual term came about, but guys like William Wilberforce knew of it and how barbaric it could be. He was the man largely responsible for getting Britain to stop slavery and the slave trade in the late 1700s, long before (Soviet-style) communism. Check out the film called “Amazing Grace” with Ioan Gruffudd as William Wilberforce. You’ll also find out the origin of that well known hymn, Amazing Grace at the same time…Always loved that song, now more than ever. Such beautiful, poignant words.

76. Hugh Hoyland - June 14, 2011

Im not sure about Meyers political leaning. But from his commentary on the TWOK DVD he sounded far from being a political left wing hack when speaking about American society at large.

BTW the only wings I like are chicken, good stuff! :)

77. chrisfawkes.com - June 14, 2011

That was a well written scene.

I always thought Next Gen was too bland in the conflict department. At least TOS had the Spock/McCoy tension to keep things entertaining.

78. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - June 14, 2011

one of my favorites was Star trek VI

79. Shannon Nutt - June 14, 2011

William Shatner didn’t like the “let them die!” line either, and convinced Nick to shoot that scene with a follow up line where he said “I didn’t mean that.” to Spock. However, Meyer cut that bit out in the editing room. Shatner didn’t even know about the edit until he went on a talk show (I believe it was Leno) and they screened that scene.

80. Michael Hall - June 16, 2011

Just wanted to note, before this thread drops off the front page, my regrets that “C.S. Lewis” has apparently stayed true to form and once again will not be honoring my reply to his post with a response of his own. In his defense I’ll guess that the work on NARNIA III must be heavily ramping-up by now, and leave it at that.

To those who did take the time to give some feedback on what I wrote, my sincere and humble thanks. :-)

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