JJ Abrams: Star Trek 2009 Was “Dream Project” + Plus Talks Alternate v Prime Timelines | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Star Trek 2009 Was “Dream Project” + Plus Talks Alternate v Prime Timelines December 22, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek (2009 film),Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

In a new podcast interview, Star Trek producer/director JJ Abrams talks about why he took on the Trek project and how his views on the franchise changed during the process. JJ also dove into the thorny issue of the alternative timeline and what it means for the original "prime" timeline of Star Trek lore. See excerpts below.

 

JJ Abrams on Star Trek becoming ‘dream project’

Star Trek producer/director JJ Abrams was the guest on this Nerdist podcast. Abrams and host Chris Hardwick covered a lot of topics from Lost to Abrams love of The Twilight Zone. There was also some talk about Star Trek. JJ didn’t get into the sequel, but did talk about his experiences with the first film.  

Abrams on taking on Star Trek and growing to appreciate the original series:

I was never really a fan. I never really got it. Most of my friends who loved it were, without question, smarter than I was. I couldn’t get it. It felt stilted. It is ironic because a lot tone and techniques and some of the writers were from the Twilight Zone. When you watch it there is that same kind of melodramatic vibe. You think that someone who loved the Twilight Zone as much as I did would find a kinship to [Star Trek], but I couldn’t do it. I enjoyed the movies and the early films, but I never really looked forward to them. So when I was mixing Mission: Impossible: III…I was asked if I was interested in producing a Star Trek movie. When I said yes – I had never thought of it – but what occurred to me was that there was a version of it that I could see getting interested in. I couldn’t tell you what it was, but I knew that if Star Trek were done in a certain way – with an approach that let me in more. I was being given the opportunity to attempt what I wished had existed as a kid trying to get into it, which is an emotional way in. It wasn’t about the Enterprise or Starfleet or the Prime Directive or any of that stuff, but was completely emotional. If that had existed, I would have probably found a way in. Maybe I had seen the wrong episodes, maybe I wasn’t in the right frame of mind as a kid. I have since watched them and actually have come to really appreciate the show.

…on why he directed Star Trek.

The reason I wanted to direct [Star Trek], was because I thought "when in the world ever am I going to get a chance to do a space movie…that’s cool." And I loved the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote. I thought "there is a version of this movie that is surprising intimate and emotional and about these two men who are displaced and kind of orphans in a way and they find a family." And I thought that is kind of a cool story. It happens to be called "Star Trek" and it happens to be Kirk and Spock, but it’s cool. The whole experience was kind of bizarre – working on something that I never thought in a million years I would be working on and doing it with people I would love to work with in any capacity. Getting to things that as a kid filmmaker cliché you want to do – spaceships and planets exploding. Stuff you could only dream of doing. It became a dream project.


JJ Abrams directing the 2009 "Star Trek" movie – says it became a "dream project"

Abrams on his connection to Star Trek II/Star Trek VI director Nicolas Meyer:

The weirdest thing was that as a kid my parents knew Nick Meyer, who directed the best one – Wrath of Khan. And at my bar mitzvah, Nick Meyer came and I remember he came over for dinner. I used to make radio shows as a kid and Nick came to my room and did the show with me and he was the sweetest guy and I still have the annotated Sherlock Holmes book he gave me as a kid. Years later he directed a Star Trek movie and so did I. It is strange to see that movie and have this kind of sense "oh god, that was that guy." The connection to me for Star Trek was always through appreciating that my friends loved it and knowing someone who had been involved in it, but never thinking of being involved in it.

Abrams on the alternate timeline.

The notion that when this one character arrived – Nero – that basically the timeline is altered at that moment. So everything forward is essentially an alternative timeline. That is not to say that everything that happened in the original series doesn’t exist. I think as a fan the movies and shows, if someone told me that as a beloved thing for me was gone, I would be upset. But we didn’t do that.  We are not saying that what happened in that original series wasn’t good, true, valid, righteous and real. We are not rejecting that. That to me would have been a big mistake. We are simply saying that from this moment in the opening scene of the movie, that everything people knew of Star Trek splits off into another timeline.


Abrams says that Narada only split Star Trek’s timelines – didn’t erase anything

You can listen to the full podcast at nerdist.com.

 

Comments

1. MikeTen - December 22, 2011

Now if only Mr. Abrams will give us a real engine room I will be happy.

2. J_randomuser - December 22, 2011

Truth be told, JJ probably has the best mindset towards this Trek. I know there are fans out there who scream bloody murder (…still) over this new take on the Trek franchise, but in the end this was a needed step to keep Start Trek from becoming an obsolete relic (see “Lost in Space” ).

I for one am totally stoked for anything these guys do at this point. Speaking as a fan for the last 24 years, nothing makes me happier then to have Kirk and Spock back on the screen instead of another half-baked, tepid TNG movie.

As the Shat said in STIII: “Young minds, fresh ideas”.

And no, my grandmother does NOT have wheels… nor is she a wagon.

3. Tony Todd's Tears - December 22, 2011

J.J. didn’t like star trek? I’m going to cry… My dishonor as a Klingon is Complete.

4. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2011

J.J. Abram says, ” We are simply saying that from this moment in the opening scene of the movie, that everything people knew of Star Trek splits off into another timeline.”

Um, J.J. not another timeline but another universe, a parallel universe or as Uhura would say, “alternate reality.” Yeah, I had to read Bob Orci’s interview in December of 2008 to get that time travel was being treated differently from “The City on the Edge of Forever.”

5. Anthony Pascale - December 22, 2011

let’s not get pedantic here. Timeline, universe and reality are all interchangeable in this context. The movie universe/reality/timeline is “parallel” to the original prime timeline, and therefore all those who feel they were actively erasing what came before have nothing to worry about.

That being said, I think they could have made that clearer in the film.

6. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2011

J.J. Abrams says above that he may not have seen the right episodes. Okay, J..J. Since Bob Orci lurks around here, please show J.J. the following TOS episodes.

10. The Enterprise Incident.

9. The Menagerie.

8. Mirror, Mirror.

7. Arena.

6. Balance of Terror.

5. Amok Time.

4. The Doomsday Machine.

3. Journey to Babel.

2. The Trouble with Tribbles.

1. The City on the Edge of Forever.

There are more, so if J.J. wants to talk to me, I’m happy to suggest more. :-) :-) . And I haven’t included TNG shows. By the way, this fall I finished seasons three and four of Enterprise. It was great. So even Trekkers don’t see all of Trek. And J.J. and Bob, Fringe is smart science fiction. Love John Noble.

7. John from Cincinnati - December 22, 2011

5.

They will have opportunities going forward to make it crystal clear if they choose so.

8. jrandomuser - December 22, 2011

6.

No “Space Seed”?

9. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2011

@ 8

Forgive me but Space Seed was not one of my favorites. I’m not saying it’s bad. Though Wrath of Khan was fantastic.

10. dmduncan - December 22, 2011

5. “That being said, I think they could have made that clearer in the film.”

Well, if they had made it clearer, much of the frenzied debate about it on your site would not have occurred, and fans would not have had the same occasion to think it through on their own.

I actually like it that they weren’t clearer. I liked the surprise of having to exercise to “get” it.

11. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2011

@ 5

Not doing a better job of exposition is not confined to Star Trek 2009. I loved “Source Code” but I can see how a person can get confused while watching that film. If it weren’t for Star Trek 2009, and my research into parallel universes, i might have accused that movie of not making any sense. But once a character said the source code was about quantum mechanics, I got it. Unfortunately, that’s all they did to explain how the source code worked.

12. J.C. England - December 22, 2011

I did not think (upon hearing that Abrams was
going to direct Trek ’09) it was going to be any good
at all. Upon seeing it – it became somewhat
obvious that it was it was just what Paramount
and CBS needed to keep Trek alive…IMHO… and
my favorite of them all.

13. Anthony Pascale - December 22, 2011

I agree that movies dont need to explain everything. Nick Meyer is a big fan of not doing too much exposition as well. He would say “why does Khan wear one glove?…you figure it out” And lets face it, the Onion parody of Trek fans was right in how we wanted more long boring scenes sitting around a conference table. Past Trek has kind of tought us that everything has to be explained. When you look at other franchises, that is not the case. How do ships move in Star Wars? Again, who cares? In fact, one of worst things in the Star Wars prequels was the introduction of midichlorians (sp?). Going into that kind of detail actually made The Force seem less cool.

So I am not saying that putting “parallel” into the movie was critical by any means, just that I can understand how some fans came away thinking that the new timeline used the Back the the Future rules of time travel and wrote over the original timeline.

That being said, the Star Trek comics adaptation actually did throw in a mention of quantum physics and multiple universes during Kid Spock’s school scene. So perhaps the extended universe is the best place for these kinds of things

14. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2011

It has never bothered me that the “alternate timeline” idea wasn’t absolutely specific. I understood what it meant the first time I saw the movie.

As for J.J Abrams, I get the sense that he’s still not a fan of the actual TOS series as a whole, just more a fan of the characters. And as a director, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. He can see the strengths (and flaws) of the characters with more objectivity than most hardcore fans. He has also brought some new ideas to the franchise without worrying about whether the new sets should match the TOS sets.

Bob and Alex are the resident Trekkies, so J.J Abrams doesn’t need to be an expert, and so his “outsider” status as a director comes in handy without clashing with the writers. Its a perfect situation, I think.

15. Ivory - December 22, 2011

#6

In my humble opinion “The Trouble with Tribbles” is the most overrated episode in the history of ST. I would substitute Space Seed.

16. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2011

@ 14

RDR, it’s great you got it when Uhura said “altenate reality” once. You obviously have knowledge of parallel universes. But if I may do my McCoy, here, ” I’m a blogger not a physicist”, there were many Trekkers who used the old time travel theories that came out of “The City on the Edge of Forever.” See TrekMovie story where Anthony asked Trekkers if the got the parallel universe aspect and he found that a number of them did not get it.

Some Trekkers did not get the parallel universe aspect of Star Trek 2009.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/08/21/video-trekmovie-star-trek-fan-panel-at-trek-las-vegas-con/

17. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 22, 2011

Perhaps JJ can recapture a bit of that Twilight Zone vibe in this next installment. I miss that.

18. Basement Blogger - December 22, 2011

@ 15

What we like is obviously subjective. You may say “The Trouble With Tribbles’ is overrated. Okay. But it’s considered a classic. So much so, that DS9 did a whole show based upon that episode. “Trials and Tribble-ations.” (1996) By the way, when CBS put out the DVD with best of TOS, “The Trouble with Tribbles” was on it.

19. Red Dead Ryan - December 22, 2011

The trouble with “The Trouble With Tribbles” is that some people find tribbles very troublesome, and thus, develop quibbles with tribbles!

20. CoolPT - December 22, 2011

Just put the time line back together and lets see how things play out as they did here now. Star Wars is 33 years old now, imagine if they remade those first 3 movies how great they would be now. Just set things right and tell the tales that all fans want.

21. Daoud - December 22, 2011

Well, then just put the whole kit and kaboodle in the Klingon engine room, where they’ll be no tribble at all!

22. OtterVomit - December 22, 2011

“Most of my friends who loved it were, without question, smarter than I was.”

“I was asked if I was interested in producing a Star Trek movie. When I said yes – I had never thought of it – but what occurred to me was that there was a version of it that I could see getting interested in.”

“Getting to things that as a kid filmmaker cliché you want to do – spaceships and planets exploding.”

What a narrative. Speaks volumes.

23. Odkin - December 22, 2011

Space Seed was honestly not a great episode. For the propsed Abrams viewing list I’d add “Miri” or maybe “Charlie X”.

24. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 22, 2011

“Most of my friends who loved it were, without question, smarter than I was.”

Could this be JJ Abrams complementing not only his friends but long time Star Trek fans in general as well?

25. Vultan - December 22, 2011

#5

Let’s not get pedantic here?
Yeah, that’s like going to Vegas and saying “let’s not gamble here!”

:D

26. DeShonn Steinblatt - December 22, 2011

Star Trek should be about people standing around talking about bits of canon, which in turn, are based on previous bits of canon.

Only then can we truly lay Star Trek to rest.

27. Phil - December 22, 2011

Every single Trek engine room is fake. The current version is fine.

Now that would be interesting – create a “Twilight Zone” type story in the Trek universe. That has possibilities….

28. Adam Cohen - December 22, 2011

A couple of years after its release, I find myself thinking less and less about the 2009 film. I loved it when it came out but my enthusiasm has waned. Part of this shift is because it is an alternate version– disposable, inconsequential in terms of continuity. If anything, it plays like the old Marvel Comics “What If?” series. I’m happy to see Abrams is back for the sequel but if they could find a way to make this series more vital in relation to the established Trek universe then this timeline would become more engaging.

29. Phil - December 22, 2011

@ 6. Someone show JJ Spocks Brain and space hippies….please…

30. BeatleJWOL - December 22, 2011

“The notion that when this one character arrived – Nero – that basically the timeline is altered at that moment. So everything forward is essentially an alternative timeline.”

Great precedent for this in Trek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KFUdU1jaQ&t=0m19s until about 22 seconds or so.
Enterprise C arrives, reality changes.

In Trek ’09; Narada arrives, reality changes. The whole film (and the upcoming sequel, etc) can then be placed in that bubble. They just changed the execution slightly.

31. Buzz Cagney - December 23, 2011

I also find it strange that JJ never got the emotional aspect of Trek. Its very clearly there. Never mind, he get’s it now.

32. Bart - December 23, 2011

@13

Now you’re making a big mistake here Anthony!

“I agree that movies dont need to explain everything. Nick Meyer is a big fan of not doing too much exposition as well. He would say “why does Khan wear one glove?…you figure it out” And lets face it, the Onion parody of Trek fans was right in how we wanted more long boring scenes sitting around a conference table. Past Trek has kind of tought us that everything has to be explained. When you look at other franchises, that is not the case. How do ships move in Star Wars? Again, who cares?”

This is exactly one big difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is that people DO care about these things. There have been Technical Manuals, Blueprints, science of star trek, Stephen Hawking gueststarring… Many people became scientist because of this. We want to know how warp drive works.

If Star Trek loses this, it loses a big deal of what makes Star Trek unique!

33. I'm Dead Jim! - December 23, 2011

I have no problem with this alternate Trek timeline, just would like to see more of it more often!

34. Admiral Grand - December 23, 2011

You guys make me proud to be a Trekkie. Who else would have a detailed discussion over what constitutes an alternate/parallel/universe/timeline, all while ranking each episode of TOS for its emotional and philosophical weight with intelligent facts to back up ones point and still have cajones enough to point and laugh at the Twilight fans for being nerds :) Live Long and Prosper folks!

35. Jason S. - December 23, 2011

Part of me wants to just let this rest. I hate JJ’s “Trek Wars” and feel that REAL “Star Trek” is dead. But how many times can you rehash the same argument before it’s time to move on? Live keep going after all and we do have 40ish years worth of the real thing to enjoy forever. On the other hand, I love a good debate.

So I’ll share a few specific things I wish Paramount had done and that they might yet do (but know they won’t!). Going really far back, I wish the studio had let DS9 go it alone after TNG had gone off the air and not “milked the money cow” as much as they did. The studio killed “Star Trek” and they just keep doing it.

But regardless of that, I wish they had let “Enterprise” go one more year and been told from the start that this was it instead of finding out just about at the last minute, that season four was it so they had no real time to end it right. I wish that Brent Spiner had be allowed to do his “Justice League of Star Trek” film before someone like JJ came in to do a 2009 style film.

One of the big complaints I’ve heard folks say about “Nemesis” and the death of Data was that the fans didn’t have time to grieve. But you know what? The studio never gave original “Trek” timeline fans time to grieve over the death of Prime Time Line stories before they rushed into this, whatever it was that JJ gave us. The just pulled the cord out of no where. I really do feel how the studio handled the end and the re-start has a lot to do with the hard feelings many fans like myself have over this JJ series.

So far as the film itself, I have a really hard time with the idea that visitors from the future changed the past and created a new time line. BS that the Kelvin was ever part of the Prime Timeline, or at least what we saw on film. Nothing about that ship or it’s crew felt like the Prime Universe for the time period they were in. I also reject the notion that they can change the rules of the universe so far as time travel goes or that the current powers that be give a damn about what has come before. It would have shown more respect to just flat out re-boot it then this kind of/ sort of crap.

I can accept that Spock and Nero went back in time to an alternate universe instead, kind of like what happened to the USS Defiant in TOS that was later followed up in Enterprise. But I can not accept the story JJ and his crew have been giving us over and over and over again. I don’t buy it.

What I wish the studio would do is let the Prime Universe continue on tv either as a live action show, or more likely, an animated show or a few live action mini-series to properly wrap things up this time.

Either way, I’m not a fan of this new Trek and it’s lack of “morality tale” style story telling. That is what Roddenberry gave us and I guess based on what JJ is telling us here, he never “got it.” And yet fans that have been fans for longer then three years will accept this? Kind of tells me JJ is not the only one who never “got” Trek. Live Long and Prosper.

36. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 23, 2011

@#33 I’m dead Jim

I agree. :-)

37. Harry Ballz - December 23, 2011

34.

I consider that to be a grand statement!

38. Bart - December 23, 2011

@ 13 Therefore it is do useless to compare Star Trek to Star Wars because it is something DIFFERENT. In a tv series it is possible to explsin all those details.

Star Trek is science fiction (think 2001), Star Wars is a modern fairytale set in space. And yes, in a fairytale you don’t have to explain everything.

We want Star TREK, not Star WARS!

39. BeatleJWOL - December 23, 2011

@35
“So far as the film itself, I have a really hard time with the idea that visitors from the future changed the past and created a new time line. BS that the Kelvin was ever part of the Prime Timeline, or at least what we saw on film. Nothing about that ship or it’s crew felt like the Prime Universe for the time period they were in.”

As I posted earlier, but you were probably too busy typing (j/k!):
“The notion that when this one character arrived – Nero – that basically the timeline is altered at that moment. So everything forward is essentially an alternative timeline.”

Great precedent for this in Trek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KFUdU1jaQ&t=0m19s until about 22 seconds or so.
Enterprise C arrives, reality changes.

In Trek ‘09; Narada arrives, reality changes. The whole film (and the upcoming sequel, etc) can then be placed in that bubble. They just changed the execution slightly.

40. MJ - December 23, 2011

If it was such a dream project, then why is the guy so aloof with the fans? It’s like JJ is George Bush, and Orci is Dick Cheney down in the White House bunker doing all the real stuff, and taking all the flak as well.

Peter Jackson — now there is a guy who knows how to run a franchise!

41. Captain_Irving - December 23, 2011

I feel there are plenty of references to different parallel times in trek(Beatlejwol ref, and what about episode when Worf visited several various parallel timelines) which makes it plausible for the new trek timeline. Basically I’ll take a tree diagram to show the way it works. There is one main time line that runs straight through. Then a different choice or idea or circumstance creates a new branch just like in Worf’s episode. Also a Voyager episode shows what happens when a ship comes into the past speeding and changing our present thus creating a new branch at that point in time. One more example is the Enterprise series changing the prime timeline by having xindi attack that wasn’t supposed to happen. So now we have a new time line where this happened. The end result is we have so many timelines in forms of branches tiny or long depending on what cause and effect happened. Heck in some timeline I the titanic didn’t sink(supernatural series ref).

I could go on and on but it shows that there can be many timelines we can explore in the trek universe without destroying the prime timeline. It’s a win win scenario. Our main prime timeline is safe and Data is alive according to the comics using the prime timeline yet we can explore jj’s timeline and have fun and enjoy the ride. Hopefully down the road the powers that be will reopen the prime timeline and have new adventures in it too. If not we can always revisit the series and movies forever from the prime timeline.

Going forward I enjoy jj’s timeline more and more I watch the 2009 movie and pick up new pieces each time I watch. I actually like the new enterprise. It has the tos feel but modernized. Plus if you remember engineering in the tos had pipes and the warp core and had long tubes which jj modernized. I love the fact he used the tos sounds when hailing or pressing buttons and the whirr of the warp engines when engaged. As well the characters and who they are still there deeply engrained in their souls as jj showed. No matter what Nero did the destinies of the characters never changed. Just the way and the path was different.

I know someone said something about the Kelvin not looking correct for star trek prime timeline. I for one don’t know what they wore before Kirk was born as the prime timeline never showed that period so all jj did what create new canon for prime timeline. If you look at enterprise show they all wore same uniform with different rank pieces and different color thread pinstripes. JJ and crew are clearly tying up continuity loose ends with showing progress from enterprise to the moment kelvin was attacked.

Finally I for one enjoy all the technobabble as I’m a trekkie but for the causal viewer or non die hard fan they want to see the story not the details of how everything works. That’s what are imaginations are for so we can blog and chat on those tidbits not spoken like we’re doing now. Plus I for one am just a guy who loves to be entertained by a good story with a good plot and developed characters who we can relate with and feel like were along for the ride. JJ and crew hit the nail on the head with the 2009 movie and I hope the same for the sequel.

42. CmdrR - December 23, 2011

Make it clearer about parrallel universeseses??

Kirk whines about a daddy he wishes loved him.
Spock drones on about timelines.

It was clear. Just because the old guard (including me) wishes JJ hadn’t gone this route doesn’t mean it’s not clear.

Of course, JJ, you realize that by stressing this now… you open the door to the possibility of some Pine-on-Shat Kirking in the sequel.

Hmmmmmmm????

43. NCC-73515 - December 23, 2011

Those who don’t get it should simply watch TNG’s “Parallels” ;)
Concerning top TOS episodes, “Devil in the Dark” is one of the most important ones!

44. captain_neill - December 23, 2011

No matter what happens the prime universe will always remain the true Trek universe as it is the one I grew up loving.

42

Agreed, Abrams and Orci need to be clearer that the new movie was a parallel universe as the dialogue conflicted on this intention, no wonder some fans felt otherwise. I accepted it as a parallel universe simply because I refused to accept Abrams taking away the universe I grew up loving to make his more mainstreamed vision.

Stil a cool movie and I look forward to Star Trek XII but I stil feel sad that the Trek I loved has gone.

45. Rob - December 23, 2011

@35 Jason S-

Where can I find information about Brent Spiner’s proposed “Justice League of Star Trek” project? This is the first I’ve heard of it. Does the premise mean that it would feature the “heavy hitters” of the 24th century, or would it feature characters from all eras?

(Additionally, I’m curious just who Brent Spiner would have picked to be in his “heavy hitters” movie. I suspect Tim “Safe Negro” Russ would have been pretty high on the list?)

Personally, I’d rather see a “Godfather II”of Star Trek”, split across three generations (Archer, Sulu, Picard) and starring Whoppi Goldberg as Guinan, but that’s just me…

Sounds as interesting as any of the other films that starred Data (i.e. Generations-Nemesis)…

46. Anthony Thompson - December 23, 2011

40. MJ

I’m sure Bob will be *thrilled* to be compared to Cheney! ; )

47. abc - December 23, 2011

Personally, I would have preferred if they had started over with a true reboot that allowed them to break with established canon and get over the idiosyncrasies that trying to sticky tape the continuity together brings. A Battlestar Galactica approach to reimagining TOS could probably work on TV or in film, more Star Trek in the 90s style would just be tired. The new film was solidly entertaining, but it really felt a lot like a generic hero’s arc that could come from any of the big franchises these days.

Also, wasn’t the original vision of Star Trek meant to be a vision of a future for our world? That doesn’t really make sense when it is parallel to an existing canon that was meant to be a vision of our future rather than being a new vision in the same spirit which stands on its own.

48. Rob - December 23, 2011

Okay, a little research reveals that Spiner and John Logan (!) had come up with an idea for a film that would utilize “All the great villains of Star Trek, from Khan to Shinzon (!)” and would have Picard traveling back in time (cough-three months back in time…) to pick up Data before he is destroyed, and then further back to pick up Spock and Archer, possibly others…

I suppose the obvious appeal to this concept is that it suggests some killer Data/B-4/Arik Soong splitscreen comedy!

49. newman - December 23, 2011

The interview explains a lot.

Escpecially why JJ created such an INSIGNIFICANT movie with sooo many cliches. He never really got Star Trek. That’s why.
And ST2009 never was THAT emotional. Never made me cry.

ST2009 was very short-living. It was great in the movie, but the more time passed the less impact did it have. Good movies get better the more time passes, bad movies just have impact during the realease.
2013 non-Trekkies (which were the target-audience) will not even remember that there was a ST2009. It was a summer-blockbuster among many. Didn’t create new long-time fans. Because it was trivial. Not SMART enough!

50. Cervantes - December 23, 2011

@ #16 Basement Blogger – thanks for linking to that ‘conference’ article, as it was one I’d missed for some reason at the time.

…anyway, here’s a very relevant answer that I came across in the comments on it…

#7. Holo J – August 21, 2010 said “Surely all parallel universes are just realities where the timeline has been altered somehow from the Prime timeline? So this alternative timeline the movie has created is indeed now a parallel universe, no?”

…which then got this response…

#22 boborci – 21, 2010 replied “Yes.”

Here’s my own take on this – Depending on your point of view, the ‘parallel universe’ seen in the movie (that only comes into being at the point that NERO gets involved) is either an EQUALLY relevant TREK ‘universe’ to the ‘Prime’ TREK ‘universe’ which it’s ‘splintered off’ from at this point…or it’s NOT as relevant to you as a viewer – just as #28 Adam Cohen suggests in his post.

It’s pretty obvious these days that J.J. Abrams didn’t ‘get’ a lot of what made the TOS series such a hit with a lot of us, and was more of a fan of the NEXT GEN series sensibilities, which were very different in a lot of ways. Also, he wanted to do something more akin to STAR WARS – style dynamics for his movie, when it came to a lot of his designs and effects. Therefore an ‘alternate timeline’/or ‘parallel universe’ construct devised by the writers suited him fine, as he could do a complete re-design of the ‘TOS-era’ we’d known from the tv series…and just make the characters act and designs look VERY DIFFERENT in any way he chose – some woefully worse than others, as it turned out, in my opinion.

Having said that, since this new ‘parallel universe’ setting means that there there are no ties to ANY of the so-called ‘Prime Universe’ TREK series to adhere to anymore…then there are many, many possibilities for some unexpected storylines, and characters to be introduced. I just hope the sequel can give us something entertaining and reasonable fresh in that regards.

Personally, I’d have preferred a big screen ‘reboot’ that had CONTINUED the ‘TOS-era’s ‘unseen’ 5-year mission…where equally ‘unexpected’ storylines were possible, but where the production design of the ‘Enterprise’/Bridge/Engine Room/Handphasers were closer to the original series look. A litte re-designed for todays audiences yes, but not as radically over-redesigned as J.J.’s ‘alternate’ version is.

At the end of the day, we are where we are with this franchise, and even if I think the new ‘parallel universe’ take on things is a shallow substitute for how things panned out in the ‘Prime Universe’ of the original TOS tv series…I can still get a kick out of the fact that ‘TREK’ is back in some kind of big budget form on the big screen again.

I’d certainly like to see a storyline that more clearly defines the fact that the ‘Prime Universe’ STILL ‘exists somewhere’ in relation to this ‘Nu Universe’ though…and ideally I’d love some original TOS series footage of ‘KIRK, SPOCK, and BONES (and perhaps others too) to be ‘referenced’ in some kind of plot device, possibly as an ‘image’ that the ‘Nu Crew’ are shown/or see at some point in this franchise ‘reboot’. And this would have the effect of showing the original actors looking in their ‘prime’ too.

Anyway, 2 last thoughts on this whole ‘ALTERNATE TIMELINE’/’PARALLEL UNIVERSE’ thing -

Here’s a great little moment where a certain ‘Prime Universe’ TREK character interacts with his non ‘Prime Universe’ alter-ego, lol – http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-D-CowBL-s

…and for any of you that may have missed how I hope to show you how you can watch an ‘alternate’ take on STAR TREK:GENERATIONS next year with a ‘Prime’ Kirk that survives the movie alive and well…just refer to my post #70 near the bottom of this recent article here – http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/report-no-original-star-trek-actors-in-sequel/

51. N00 - December 23, 2011

There is so much going on in the moment. Financial Crises, Climate Change, Revolutions in the Arabic world.

But Star Trek doesn’t even comment on any of this?

Star Trek might describe the development of the USA and its movie machinery quite well. Breakthrough with global dominance in the 60s, high point in the 90s and in the 00er huge downfall going straight to hell

52. Cervantes - December 23, 2011

Oops- that Youtube link in post #49 should have been this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-D-CowBL-s

53. Cervantes - December 23, 2011

@ #51 N00

…as TREK is set far in the future, it’s safe to assume things have moved on. And I’d like a little ‘escapism’ from all that when I go to the cinema, to be honest. There’s CNN or Sky News for all that if I want…

54. Cervantes - December 23, 2011

…or @ #50, preferably… ;)

55. Andy - Birmingham UK - December 23, 2011

Re: Adam Cohen’s post # 28

Adam, I completely agree. I enjoyed the movie, despite some reservation beforehand. Overtime however I find I actually hanker for the trek ‘universe’ I know and have loved over the last 40 years and don’t really care for another timeline/alternate universe beyond that already established in trek lore.

Now I know the franchise needs a boost but I can’t help but feel that the ‘maturity’ that trek developed was sacificed on the alter of action and adventure. Lets face it, how did the movie actually differ from anyone of dozens of other action movies other than using characters we all know?

I am however a realist, I know that the studio needs to make a film that brings in the bucks and appeals to all, not just those of us on this site. I just hope that somewhere along the line we a sense of the principles, ideals and original ideas that drew many of us to Star Trek in the first place, seperated Trek from its contempories and influenced the development of tv and film sci-fi thereafter.

I suppose some trek is better than no trek but……….

56. N00 - December 23, 2011

@52

TOS commented on Cold War and its end …. even in cineam (ST VI).

Star Trek often was like a fable.
In a fable the lion was a citicism to their tyrant King etc.
In ST the Alien (Ferengi e.g.) was a criticism to our sometimes tyrannic capitalistic thinking.

You easily could bring in some comment on the Financial Crises by describing the “utopian” future economy of the Federation.

Star Trek was sold as waggon train to the stars, but Roddenberries intentions went far beyond it. Sell a good message in an entertaining body.

57. VZX - December 23, 2011

13: Anthony: I disagree with you to a point. I think that a movie can explain things and still make it exciting. I like to use Batman Begins as a perfect example. In that movie, the evolution of all of Batman’s accouterments are explained from the cape, cowl, grapple, even the pointy things on his gauntlets. Nick Meyer’s old statement of why Khan wore only one glove is a cop-out in my mind, lazy writing.

That said, Trek 09 did a decent job of explaining the “alternate timeline.” I got it. The exposition of the crew discussing this point on the bridge is one my favorites in the movie.

Going into elaborate detail in a movie, if done right, doesn’t slow a movie down, it enriches it. The audience fully understands and appreciates the characters/plot/action more.

I just the scene with Kirk and Spock’s laser-tag battle on the Narada had some dialogue about Kirk switching his phaser to stun when it went from red to blue. But, whatevs..

58. JP Saylor - December 23, 2011

Ugg. I hate the JJ-verse. It’s like a bunch of Star Wars fans made a Trek movie. Oh wait! That’s exactly what happened.

59. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - December 23, 2011

I would like to see Abrams and Orci make the next film a combanation of Twilight Zone and Wagon Train to the Stars. If they can pull that off they would have everyone on board and a truly fantastic movie. So far only Treks 2 and 4 and 6 and 8 have done that. Those of course were the best movies. Trek 2009 came close.

60. Andy - Birmingham UK - December 23, 2011

Folks, the sad reality is that Trek 09 wasn’t made for us. It was a money spinner, I suppose it had to be. It certainly wasn’t made for a 50 year old fart like me, it was made for the 17 year old kid next door who couldn’t give a toss where Kirk was supposed to have been born and would probably have forgotten the start before the film ended. It was Mission Impossible in space, a no character development, big noise, big effect no brainer. A sort of ‘Star Trek Lite’. It looked similar and was a easy enjoyable watch but just didn’t taste the same. The fact that JJ didn’t ‘get it’ is all too evident.

I don’t think we should get too tied down discussing in detail the effects of the timeline on events etc, what’s done is done and it just makes us look like the geeks that everyone, including the studios thinks we are. They obviously feel that the fans can be ignored and tinkering with established story lines is ok in the interests of what looks better on screen for the masses. Now I’m a fan but I’m not that anal and certainly not wound up enough to stop me watching the next one but just messing with established stories just to suit his vision irritates me.

I can’t of many other genres where you’d get away with it and i can’t help but feel its down to the lack of recognition for quality given to tv Trek and the automatic tag of geek given to its fans in popular culture. Millions are glued to mindnumbing soaps every day but that’s acceptable. Little old ladies sent wedding presents to soap characters and thats just quaint, but say you’re a trekkie and my god you’re a freak! I just hope that all that made Trek great isn’t going to be lost just to suit JJ’s warped ‘vision’ of thinking it should really be a star wars movie.

Perhaps Kirk could wake up, find spock in the shower and realise it was all a dream ala Dallas. Although no, that’s just too weird.

61. VZX - December 23, 2011

57: I don’t get why people get so upset over this. Roddenberry’s Star Trek was not original as well, it borrowed a lot from other sources. And Star Wars was basically a Lord of the Rings/Wizard of Oz/Flash Gordon mash-up. So Abrams made Trek more like Wars because it had more flashy action and a Joseph Campbell-like hero’s arc in Kirk. Hey, why not? I think it worked like gangbusters. The proof is in the box-office pudding. (and on Rotten Tomatoes).

I also think that Abrams’ Trek still has a lot of the old school Trek feel as well, and I don’t just mean the catch-phrases. The Navy-like Starfleet, the importance of the captain’s chair, the best crew as a family, that is more Trek than Wars.

It’s true that having a director of a movie not familiar with a franchise can cause problems, such as Nemesis. But, Nemesis didn’t work because Baird had no repsect for Trek. Nick Meyer did not know Trek before he directed his first one, but he had loads of respect. Abrams also has that respect, even if he wasn’t a fan before.

62. Mel - December 23, 2011

Personally I would have preferred it, if they didn’t have included the alternative reality storyline. They should have simply rebooted Star Trek. Introduce the characters and the Enterprise, show how they get their jobs on the Enterprise and have an adventure with them. Just a straightforward story with no time travel and reality hopping.

63. Andy - Birmingham UK - December 23, 2011

P.S.

MJ, yes – Peter Jackson!

64. Dom - December 23, 2011

The great thing with the reset to the five year mission era is that we can keep Trek in that era forever now. There are plenty of stories to tell and when the current gang calls it a day, they can simply bring in a new production team and a new cast and carry on telling adventures in that era with a bit of redesigning to reflect the technology of the era the film is being made in.

We’ve had our Trek meditations on getting older, so now we can just stick to what Trek was always supposed to be about: a bunch of naval officers on a spaceship having adventures, with a bit of philosophy chucked in for good measure.

Effectively, the original Star Trek has been made immortal and immune to the ageing of its castmembers!

65. chrisfawkes.net - December 23, 2011

I love trek but lets be honest Abrams version took things to an entire new level. It was by far the best film and was so due to better resources across the board.

Sometimes when a discussion of this nature comes up opinions are pulled out of the air in the hope that our words have a power to make lesser stuff better, they do not. Wishing earlier stuff were in the same league comes from such a juvenile way of thinking.

I like how the joker in Nolan’s batman just appears, no need to explain how he got there. Compared to the burton films where every on screen villain had a story of how they got to be the villain that they are. Hardly any time left for a story after that.

I think having Abrams outlook working with a small team of fans has actually brought balance to the force as it were.

66. rm10019 - December 23, 2011

I am of the opinion that it was really perfectly 100% clear in the movie that this was an alternate reality/different timeline now. Those lines on the bridge could NOT have made it clearer without talking down to the audience and looking directly into the camera breaking the 4th wall and addressing the 5 people in each theater who didn’t get it.

The casual viewer didn’t care, and the 1% of Trek fans with some Anxiety Disorder or mild Aspergers who can’t hear a sentence and understanding its clear meaning on face value don’t need to be pandered too. Actually, my nephew WITH Aspergers got it, so not sure how there is any confusion.

Trek 09 did exactly what it needed to do. I’m sure the next film will deliver, and I can’t wait to see how they carry on the Trek legacy. JJ, BobOrci and crew have it well under control.

67. Weerd1 - December 23, 2011

I think the more “Star Wars” aesthetic is much more in line with Gene L. Coon’s original series than where Roddenberry would later take TMP or TNG. There was always a swashbuckling vibe to the original which Trek 2009 emulates very well. I think the Trek Universe (universes?) is big enough for both, because it always has been.

68. jeanniespock - December 23, 2011

Well he didn’t get it ‘then’ ……and if you ask me, he still doesn’t get it ‘now’.
Hope he will realise for the next film those three important rules…
Script, script and SCRIPT!.

69. denny cranium - December 23, 2011

I wonder if BobOrci reads some of this stuff and just screams out:
“TrekkkkkMoooovieeeee!” in total frustration at some of the stuff thats written here.
First of all an alternate reality was/is the ONLY way to go forward.
If we left our crew in the Prime universe and drop them in at a certain stardate- we know what’s already happened and whats going to happen based on where we are in the timeline/stardate.
We know that Spock will die or that Vger is lumbering its way towards earth. It takes any dramatic wind out of the story’s sails staying in the prime universe.

As far as JJ being the right guy? It seems that history is repeating itself here. Think back to 1982- Harve Bennett rescued Trek from the GRAVE. He hadn’t watched Star Trek either. He knew how to film a shootable script on budget and on time.
Abrams has a similar background.
There are shows I didnt get either when they first came out I discovered later on.

Trek 2009 saved the franchise from being the next “bonanza”
If they had of just catered to the “true” trek fan I think Anthony would probably have devoted this website to “Hot in Cleveland” coverage
I can’t wait for the next one

70. Cousin Itt - December 23, 2011

Drew McWeeny at HitFix wrote a really good article recently which addressed the number of movies coming out now as being not original, but fully produced versions of ‘Fan Fiction.’ The idea that now, many franchise movies are being written by folks who grew up as fans. The result is that they are filled with fan-type wish fulfillment. Certainly Trek 2009 fits this. What if Kirk wasn’t a ‘stack of books with legs,’ but instead a troublemaker who rides a motorcycle? What if Spock and Uhura were a romantic pair? What if Bones and Kirk attended the Academy at the same time? (Okay, that’s nitpicking, but it bugged me.) The list for Trek 2009 is endless, and that’s the problem with the film. It’s cool, the actors do a good job, the effects are great – but it only feels like real Star Trek during Leonard Nimoy’s brief appearance.

71. Adam Cohen - December 23, 2011

@54 Andy – Birmingham UK:

I agree with you- one of the biggest side effects of the 2009 film is that it’s caused me to re-watch all TOS episodes and films (some numerous times). Heck, I’ve even gone into reading the 1980s comic runs at Marvel and DC to get more time with the original crew.

TOS was never going to last forever- for those of us who grew up with it, we will always regard it as something different from (if not better than) subsequent iterations. We shouldn’t really expect Abrams to recapture what Roddenberry, Coon, Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly and others collaborated on 40-plus years ago.

However, my one main problem with this new film series is that it’s built on villain-driven plotting. There was no mystery or cosmic adventure in the 2009 film. There was a military tempo to things, which was an interesting vibe. But the whole “to boldly go where no man has gone before” idea is largely left to the side.

Well, I doubt this will change as these are $100 million-plus investments that are meant to make profits at the box office. Only in television could Star Trek explore those intellectual, esoteric concepts from the old shows. We would also get to see these beloved characters talking to each other more, instead of becoming friends by fire. Andy, thanks for your post.

72. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 23, 2011

In another universe JJ never rebooted Star Trek and the franchise is dead. How cool is that?

73. NoSeth - December 23, 2011

The problem is, no matter what Abrams SAYS, we can only go by what he DID, and there is NO LINE in the movie that says the original timeline still exists. In fact, the choice to NOT include such a line is proof positive that it does NOT exist.

Abrams has a tendency to say what people want to hear, and do whatever he wants to do. The latter is fine, but the former doesn’t change his actions.

The Uhura line meant absolutely nothing. Whether the prime universe exists or not, any time travel change is an alternate reality. Nothing Uhura said even remotely implies that the original timeline still exists.

And no, reality, universe, and timeline are NOT synonyms. There is a difference between time travel and universal travel in Star Trek, and when there is inter universal travel, it is flat out stated clearly.

Nothing in the movie indicates that it took place in another universe. Nero traveled back in time, changed history, and history goes forward from there.

If Abrams wants to show that the prime timeline exists, he should put a one liner in his next movie saying so. Without that, it’s gone.

74. Dom - December 23, 2011

71. NoSeth

‘The problem is, no matter what Abrams SAYS, we can only go by what he DID, and there is NO LINE in the movie that says the original timeline still exists. In fact, the choice to NOT include such a line is proof positive that it does NOT exist.’

But, really, who cares? Outside of the hardcore fans posting in places like this, no one does. Some guy in a greasy vest in a garage in Nashville who’s spent the last two years fixing cars since he took his wife to see the film isn’t losing sleep over it! Indeed, the two tickets he bought to see the film are arguably more important than the regular fans’, since their attendance is pretty much a given, and the average Joe on the street is the one Paramount needs to rope in to make the film a success!

If you want the original timeline still to exist, it does. If you don’t, it doesn’t! The era of everything having to be explained ad nauseum bores the Hell out of me and most people. Abrams credits the audience with enough intelligence to make up their own minds. And the licencees seem happy enough to continue running novels based on the original Trek!

75. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - December 23, 2011

Bob Orci has stated on here many times that the Prime Timeline Still Exist. If fact on the Comic Prequel the back story of Spock and Nero. SPOILER ALERT!.
As Spock and Nero went through the Black hole we see Capt Data and Picard talking on the Enterprise E about Spock. So yes. The Prime Timeline is still there.

76. BitterTrekkie - December 23, 2011

35. I agree. Real Star Trek is dead.

77. Jason P Hunt - SciFi4Me.com - December 23, 2011

I haven’t gone through and read every comment, so this may be here already, but in point of fact, they DO get specific that this is an alternate timeline. Spock and Uhura both comment on that on the iBridge at one point in the story.

I can’t remember the exact point, because I only saw it once. And only because I wrote a review. I’m glad I didn’t spend money on it.

78. NoSeth - December 23, 2011

72–A lot of people care. If it wasn’t an issue, why even bother to try to address it? Abrams made a choice to have his movie be part of the vast Trek canon. He could have simply started the movie without Spock Prime and brought Nero into the fray without time travel.

The movie wouldn’t have been that different.

So yes, canon and the original timeline are important. 45 years of a vast history that created a billion dollar franchise. That isn’t something you just throw away, and Abrams didn’t.

Ironically, his failure to understand how time travel is treated within Star Trek canon created a big mess where he (intentionally or not) wiped out the original timeline.

Comic books and writers’ interviews/message board comments are not canon.

It’s actually easy to deal with this issue with a throwaway line.

But until they do, the prime universe is gone.

79. Damian - December 23, 2011

I think the team from Star Trek (2009) had a nice mix of fans and non-fans and in between, which is why it worked. You had guys like Bob Orci, a self-described Trekkie who says he has watched it all from “The Cage” to Enterprise “These are the Voyages.” Then you have JJ Abrams, who really didn’t follow Star Trek closely. That allowed them to take Star Trek in a new direction while still being Star Trek.

I’ve always accepted this as an alternate timeline. I agree with others (including Bob Orci) citing TNG “Parallels” as a good example. Maybe one of those Enterprises out there was from the Abrams universe:). There is plenty of Star Trek precedent all across the Star Trek universe that it is easy for me to accept.

I also agree with others, Star Trek is not Star Wars. Star Trek has always worked hard to put some science in the fiction. Some derogatorily call it “technobabble,” but part of the allure of Star Trek is trying to at least portray the future in a way that maybe some of that technology may be possible someday. Guys like Jeffries, Zimmerman, Sternbach, Eaves and I’d like to think Chambliss, always tried to put thought in the design and technology. They tried to think about what they were designing and make sure there is a purpose to it. There is a clear design behind the warp drive and how it works, unlike Star Wars where it is not clear at all how hyperdrive is created.

80. Anthony Pascale - December 23, 2011

Don’t get me wrong. I like some technobabble and exposition as much as the next Trekkie, but everything needs a balance. I do believe that past Trek could go too far. I am saying that I am ok with EVERYTHING not being explained in DETAIL.

81. rm10019 - December 23, 2011

78- Believe what you want, but why would characters in their own reality reaffirm the continued existence of another? The Prime universe/timeline isn’t any more real or genuine to THEM.

That is just stupid. Believe what you want, sorry Nimoy Spock didn’t say ‘my timeline continues, that much I am certain of’ if that’s what you needed…

82. Damian - December 23, 2011

76–I’ve always felt if the guys that made the movie say it’s an alternate timeline, then it is. I never got to hung up on what is “official canon” and what isn’t. I’ve read hundreds of novels, including the continuing stories that take place in the prime timeline that are still being released. I accept those as the continuing story of Star Trek, even if it’s not “canon.” unless and until contradicted on screen. Since it’s unlikely we will ever see TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise on screen, I think those stories are safe.

I figure other avid Star Trek novel readers probably feel the same way. I’m not reading thousands of pages to simply dismiss it as not canon. I just don’t get too hung about canon. Afterall, there are things that occurred on screen and are considered canon, that outright contradicts other events in canon.

83. Damian - December 23, 2011

80–I agree with balance. Sometimes the technobabble is implied. I know Rich Sternbach has noted in the past that he tried to think about the things he designed and how it works, even if not expicitly noted on screen (of course he wasn’t responsible for writing anyway). That’s all I want, when Chambliss designs something, just think about how he thinks it should all tie together. It may not be described on screen, but at least it will follow a reasonable pattern or function.

I always thought for movies, technobabble needed to be toned down a bit. For a week to week TV series, you are dealing with more hardcore fans and can be a bit more expository, but for movies, you want more action and story. In a way, I wish TNG movies had toned it down a bit while I wish Star Trek (2009) had just a bit more.

84. VZX - December 23, 2011

80: Yeah, I suppose you’re right. Balance is important. Someone made mention above how Joker in The Dark Knight had no explanation, and that in itself is cool. That was in contrast to how Batman was very thouroughly explained in Batman Begins.

Also, I think of the non-explanation of “Rosebud” from Citizen Kane. Great movie, but stupid gimmick. It was never explained and that bothers me.

85. Anthony Thompson - December 23, 2011

84. VZX

You don’t understand what “Rosebud” meant? Seriously?

86. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - December 23, 2011

84 Huh? Non explination, it was plain as day what Roebud meant/was if you watched the movie.

87. rm10019 - December 23, 2011

84 – wow. Shaka, when the Walls fell…. really….

88. rm10019 - December 23, 2011

From Citizen Kane Wiki…. SPOILERS! [facepalm]

In the ending of the film, it is revealed to the audience that Rosebud was the name of the sled from Kane’s childhood – an allusion to the only time in his life when he was truly happy. The sled, thought to be junk, is burned and destroyed in a basement furnace by Xanadu’s departing staff.

89. Vultan - December 23, 2011

#84

For me, “Rosebud” symbolized what Kane wanted most on his deathbed and what he ultimately lost over the course of his decadent, soulless life—youth and innocence. I suppose it could have different meanings to different people, but it was far from a “stupid gimmick.”

90. Vultan - December 23, 2011

Oops, rm10019 beat me to it at #88.
Well, it’s good to see I got the meaning, anyway.

91. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - December 23, 2011

78 the fact that spock traveled back from a point in the future well after Nemesis and voyager ended its run means the prime timeline still took place/exsisted.

Are you honesty trying to say all those experiences and memories spock prime had never happend?

92. chrisfawkes.net - December 23, 2011

If Nick Meyer is a family friend why not get him in to consult on story development for the next one.

93. Borgminister - December 23, 2011

VZX — he was referring to a marijuana strain similar to Acapulco gold…

94. rm10019 - December 23, 2011

90 – I got your back Vultan! Hope everyone here has a great holiday weekend, and by that, I mean Happy Holidays, in case that was too vague :) I won’t say which holidays, just to keep it open ended enough!

95. Planet Pandro - December 23, 2011

82. Damian

And to go 1 step further, I tend to accept some of the novels even after they are overruled by canon. I loved Judy/Gar Reeves-Stevens “Federation”, and still accept it over the Zephram Cochrane of “First Contct” and on.

96. Damian - December 23, 2011

95–I liked that book too. They could probably still reconcile the two together by changing the dates in the book. There would still be some inconcistencies between the two stories, but a change in the dates could probably bring the book closer in line with canon.

97. VZX - December 23, 2011

Yeah, I saw Citizen Kane several times since I was a kid, and I of course knew of the sled, but it is implied that was something else. I guess I think too much into it.

98. NuFan - December 23, 2011

93.

Hah!

99. Dr. Image - December 23, 2011

#79 Damian- Not much time for response so I’ll just agree!
(I just wish they’d have spent a little more time on logical industrial design- bridge and engineering, for instance.)

And as for the SW vs. ST debate- yes ST is science fiction, not, in the words of George Lucas, “a fairy tale for children,” as he commented SW is.

100. VZX - December 23, 2011

Actually Welles said it was a gimmick. I apologize for the “stupid” adjective.

101. Weerd1 - December 23, 2011

@78: Just got back from my DVD shelf; good news! The Prime Universe is still there!

102. VZX - December 23, 2011

101: Perfect explanation.

103. Vultan - December 23, 2011

#101

That would make a interesting fantasy/satirical movie—some unscrupulous Hollywood mogul remakes a beloved classic film and suddenly every copy of the original disappears from the face of the Earth!

Clarence the Angel makes a cameo appearance, of course. ;)

104. Vultan - December 23, 2011

Correction: “make AN interesting…”

105. Dee - lvs moon' surface - December 23, 2011

Explain everything in detail … and certainly a lot of kids not as “smart” as their friends will still think Star Trek is a bit boring… a balance is good…

I’m definitely a fan of the film that JJ Abrams directed… I love Star Trek…

:-) :-)

106. AJ - December 23, 2011

80:

Anthony:

ST:FC

Data: “They’re creating a temporal vortex”

Riker: “Time Travel.”

I think ‘Star Trek’ still goes for the over-explanation, i.e. techno-babble, not to alienate viewers, but to bring those in who may get lost without it.

I suppose, using that film again, instead of an “interplexing beacon,” they could have said an “intergalactic signal.” But the Trek-talk gives it a futuristic bent.

In “All Good Things,” techno-babble plays a key role in the explanation and resolution of what, for some, could be the tricky concept of a phenomenon which develops and grows in the opposite direction of what we perceive as the space-time continuum.

I think we have over-exaggerated the role played by techno-babble in Trek, and I agree that ‘less is more’ when they’re telling stories about humanoids exploring the mysteries of space.

However, when you look at the legacy of the show, Star Trek has predicted the advent of the cell-phone, the smartphone, the iPad, etc., and has defined what we see as potentially desirable advances in technology: Faster-than-light travel, transporters, talking computer interfaces, etc.

Not a bad legacy. I’ll take the technobabble.

107. Jack - December 23, 2011

I’m glad it wasn’t over-explained in the movie. Why would these characters be talking about a future they don’t know and will never have, unless old Spock had a crew snapshot with him and noticed that, heck, Sulu and a random-redshirt guy have vanished!

And Spock not trying to reset the timeline is another indication.

Hasn’t Meyer said that he wasn’t a Trek fan at all (and I remember rumblings that a version of the Trek VI script started with our heroes in dead-end jobs, their glory days long over).

You know, in other hands, Trek ’09 could have been this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djRAiiFlCy8

108. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 23, 2011

94, 101. :)

71. “TOS was never going to last forever- for those of us who grew up with it, we will always regard it as something different from (if not better than) subsequent iterations. We shouldn’t really expect Abrams to recapture what Roddenberry, Coon, Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly and others collaborated on 40-plus years ago.”
-Even Roddenberry could capture it again.

There was a time when every Star Trek movie was seen as potentially it’s last. Glad we have these “alternate” Treks to look forward to.

109. Sebastian S. - December 23, 2011

I feel bad for Abrams that he has to continually defend his vision of Trek as an alternate reality that doesn’t somehow negate Star Trek prime.

First, I thought it was made abundantly clear in the dialogue. Spock, Kirk and Uhura literally say as much in scenes on the bridge and later on in the ice cave. I thought everybody got that as well, but I still read online reviewers and nitpickers who still get their panties in a twist because they think that Star Trek prime is somehow ‘gone.’ As if someone broke into their home and blanked all of their dvds and blu rays…

Second, I think what Abrams, Burk, Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman did for the franchise was absolutely necessary if it were to continue to be a viable entertainment franchise going forward. ST (as much as I love it) needed ‘sexing up’ a bit. And I don’t mean literal sex, but a revamping of it’s image. It’s used to be the homely math nerd; now it’s Danica MacKellar…

And I know personally (even in my own circle of friends) that this new vision of Trek brought many new ST viewers into the fold; my own sister, a former ST hater, was one of the converted; as well as a my old boss and good friend). I really hope they can make at least a couple more good movies out of this. After that? Who knows. But one thing is certain; Star Trek no longer has to be a ‘secret handshake’ franchise anymore. Anyone can like it…

Making it more ‘emotional’ was the right thing to do, IMO. Not only to reinvigorate ST, but to bring newbies into the fold as well (that obviously could not and did not happen with “Insurrection” and “Nemesis”).

110. Jamesb3 - December 23, 2011

@ 5

This should be the one audience for which directors and screenwriters should not have to jump through expository hoops.

I personally had no problem with the level of explanation given. Fans could reasonably be expected to get any extra detail from the net. Non-fans went into the movie not needing or caring for an explanation, just a good time.

111. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 23, 2011

Roddenberry couldn’t capture it again.

112. VZX - December 23, 2011

As a science-geek I like technobabble, but I understand that it bogs down the story for a general audience. But I would like a few lines to explain some things that otherwise do not make sense.

BUT, I do not agree that Abrams should have included a line or two about how the “prime” universe still exists just to make the fans happy. He should respect the fans but not give in to them. As Weerd1 stated, the “prime” universe still exists in almost 750 hours of produced Trek that you can still enjoy.

113. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 23, 2011

The “alternate” explanation was there, stated or inferred. This is not TNG and there was no Data, thankfully.

114. VZX - December 23, 2011

By the way, the very existence of Nimoy’s “Prime” Spock within the Trek 09 movie is evident the prime universe is still intact. Otherwise, Prime Spock would not be there.

Heh. I guess Prime Spock is only divisible by one and himself….

115. Bad Eye - December 23, 2011

Spock Prime tells Kirk in the cave that his (Kirk’s) father saw him graduate from the academy. That’s proof enough for me that the Prime universe still exists. Come on, people, this is science fiction, not science fact.

116. soonerdew - December 23, 2011

I think its pretty obvious JJ doesn’t really like Trek very much, but he’s more our less “deigning” to do it do he can make it a way he would have liked….not exactly a rousing endorsement. And also explains why his Trek seems do Star Warsy. Oh, well. Guess we should be thankful we have any semblance of Trek in production at all.

117. boborci - December 23, 2011

78. NoSeth – December 23, 2011

“…Prime Universe is gone.”

If that were true, Spock Prime would not remember it.

118. Dom - December 23, 2011

He wouldn’t exist in order to remember it! ;)

119. Jason P Hunt - SciFi4Me.com - December 23, 2011

I think “gone” in this sense means that for the foreseeable future, there aren’t going to be any film or TV offerings in the prime universe. JJTrek has supplanted 40+ years of history with a poor man’s ripoff.

While JJTrek was a fun romp through an eye-candy feast of popping FX, the story was thin, predictable, terrible, illogical, full of holes, and completely unnecessary. There was none of the “thinking story” that you would expect of TREK, especially TOS. How many episodes actually made a point about something? What did JJTrek say? “Boom” “Pow” “Whizz Bang”

No thanks. My two cents.

120. lostrod - December 23, 2011

#117 – boborci

Mr. Orci – if you ever feel like doing a character driven film about time travel, alternate universes (and even a dash of the Kennedy assasination), consider optioning the rights to David Gerrold’s “The Man Who Folded Himself”.

The novel has one of the best explanations of time travel I’ve read (and I’ve read a LOT of time travel stories) without a need for a big budget for special effects.

Just a suggestion …

Regards.

121. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 23, 2011

I am giving JJ Abrams the benefit of the doubt. I have no reason not to.

I think that JJ Abrams is being both honest and shrewd here. He is plainly stating that he did not start out being a Star Trek fan and even when asked if he would like to do a new Trek movie, he did not get into it with a fan like fervour – probably just as well.

However, what he is saying now is that by doing the movie and having to do some watching of TOS episodes and research, he has come to really appreciate and respect the original series. This is a way of encouraging non-Trekkers to give the franchise a go, or at least, this new set of movies being made now.

I believe that similar has happened for others, like Chris Pine, who were not into Star Trek initially. By playing Kirk, am I correct in believing that Chris has come to realise just how good Star Trek and the characters really are?

JJ Abrams, his writing and production team, the actors are all professionals and it is worth their while to give a 100% to everything they do. Actually liking and appreciating the characters and story surely helps in this regard.

Am I on track here with my impressions, Bob Orci?

122. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 23, 2011

Because of the (subtle) changes that have occurred, will occur in this alternate universe, will Captain Kirk in this timeline get his own Captain’s Yacht in the same way that Captain Picard had one (in Insurrection)? I hope so.

Bob – you have surely worked out why having such a vessel is important to this Kirk. Something about a Menosia world and a girl…

123. VZX - December 23, 2011

I think time travel/alternate realities has been done enough. Source Code killed it.

124. VZX - December 23, 2011

121: That sounds plausible, but would you be crushed if Pine does not like Star Trek? I’m sure he respects it, to some degree, but he might not be a fan or watch it for his own enjoyment.

For me, while I think it’s cool if the writers/director/actors are Trek fans, I don’t think they have to be. As long as they respect the franchise and deliver a quality product, it’s all good in the hood.

I really doubt we will get another Stuart Baird.

125. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 23, 2011

No, I would not be crushed if I found that Chris Pine still does not like Star Trek, although I find it hard to imagine why he wouldn’t. I guess it may not be his first choice of film entertainment, but that’s OK.

It is the current team’s understanding of TOS and their professionalism that matters most here. I thought Chris played the Kirk I know beautifully, especially towards the end of the movie and that is what really matters to me.

BTW, Merry Christmas everybody!

126. sisko - December 23, 2011

Anthony, just wondering… Since you’ve done so much for these new Star Trek movies… Is JJ and crew giving you a cameo/walk-on/background character appearance? Just wondering.

127. VZX - December 23, 2011

125: I see your point. Sorry for being a jerk. Yeah, Chris Pine did a great job.

128. Red Dead Ryan - December 23, 2011

I think Chris Pine once said he’s more of a “Star Wars” guy and modeled his Kirk on Han Solo as opposed to William Shatner.

129. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 23, 2011

Yes, I read that as well. I was mortified that Chris Pine guy, an actor I had never heard of before Star Trek, would do that. When I saw the movie, I realised that he played Kirk, not Hans Solo, except possibly at the beginning of the film.

I do wonder if JJ Abrams and Chris Pine were both mentioning Star Wars in order to get people who were more familiar and/or liked Star Wars more to give the new Star Trek movie a go by alluding to some aspects of Star Wars. Unfortunately, some people, even Trekkers, seem a little too suggestible and haven’t been able past these original comments and continue to believe Star Trek 09 is more Star Warsy than it really is…oh dear.

130. Brett Campbell - December 23, 2011

128 – Then why did he come across as a pipsqueak Luke Skywalker?

131. mike - December 23, 2011

Show him Where no man has gone before, one of the best episodes

132. Commodore Adams - December 23, 2011

To boborci

Best wishes with this wonderful, exciting endeavour! Nothing but pavlovian salivations for me at the thoughts of opening night at the IMAX.

133. Cygnus-X1 - December 23, 2011

13. Anthony Pascale – December 22, 2011

—-When you look at other franchises, that is not the case. How do ships move in Star Wars? Again, who cares?—-

The answer is: Hardly anyone, because no one expected much science or tech-talk out of Star Wars, because Star Wars never tried to be Science-fiction. Star Wars was always a mythological fantasy action-adventure series that happened to be set in space. Lucas even told us from the very first words of the crawl that the story would not be futuresque science-fiction, “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…” In other words, what you are about to see is total fantasy, so forget your expectations and don’t even bother comparing it to real life.

Star Trek, on the other hand, was a Science-fiction morality play with a healthy dose of technology and problem-solving from the get-go. Trek was set in the speculative real-life of the future, premised upon comparisons to the relevant social issues of the present day. There were characters in Star Trek who were Scientists and Engineers. Characters whose roles revolved around science and technology and problem-solving. And of course, the foregoing was all taken even further in TNG, which regularly comprised cutting edge science and technology — from the Dyson Sphere, to Gravity Waves, to the Heisenberg compensator. We’ve come to expect a good dose of science and technology from Star Trek, because they were main ingredients from day one. And when Star Trek gets the science wrong, or doesn’t bother to explain how a drop of red ink creates a black hole, it’s different than when Star Wars doesn’t bother explaining how a light saber works. And that’s why it didn’t quite work when Lucas offered up the Midichlorians as the mechanics of how the Force works; because we had already suspended our disbelief from day one, and trying to explain a mythological concept in functional terms relating to a creature that is just a meaningless fiction fails as a scientific explanation and only serves to remind us that the original concept was also fictitious. What is the Force? Oh, it’s this fake thing that’s made up of other fake things. And what are the other fake things made of? Uhh…I dunno, it doesn’t matter. So, why does it matter what the Force is made of? Like you said, Anthony, it doesn’t…

…in Star Wars.

134. Weerd1 - December 23, 2011

Really, didn’t First Contact change the timeline? There had been no recorded attack during the first warp flight, and Braga once said if I recall that Enterprise took place in that altered timeline. Trek 2009 may be the THIRD version of the Trek verse.

135. Sebastian S. - December 23, 2011

# 114
VZX
“Heh. I guess Prime Spock is only divisible by one and himself….”

Oh that was good! The funniest thing I’ve read in this thread…. ;-D

136. Vulcan_mind - December 23, 2011

The new movie was the best thing that could have happened to the franchise. Let’s face it after Nemesis and its dreadful performance in the box office it’s a miracle paramount even wanted to do another movie. The new movie by being such a hit in the box office put Star Trek back on the map. And the alternative universe was probably the only way to do it. If hey had made another movie in the prime universe in TNG era – no matter how great or epic that movie would be – it would have failed. The franchise was tired, the general audience didn’t care and it wouldn’t have attracted new viewers and the trekkies apparently aren’t enough by the today’s movie standards. Whether we liked the movie or not we all must admit that it saved the franchise by showing to paramount that Star Trek can be profitable again. Also the movie could not have made it clear that the prime universe is in fact intact and for those that didn’t realize that the creators have said it million times over, so “our” Star Trek isn’t destroyed.
So just sit back and enjoy the sequel – or don’t, it is a matter of personal taste and every person’s right to like or not something– but let’s not complain or whine all the time. Now at least we have some hope that the prime universe can be revisited in the future. If the movie was a failure do you really think paramount would give Star Trek another chance?

137. chrisfawkes.net - December 24, 2011

Spot on Vulcan Mind.

Another thing some trekkies may need to be reminded of is non of this is real you know, it’s all make believe.

Sorry to drop that little clanger right before christmas.

138. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - December 24, 2011

133 you are right, in fact in the enterprise “BORG” episode Regeneration It stated that durring a commencement speech in 2064 he talked in detail about the events that took place durring first contact including the group of Cybernetic Aliens from the future and the group of humans also from the future who helped defeat them.

Not only that but Trek Timeline also altered once the enterprise c entered the riff causing the return of Tasha Yar and then taking her back in time and her giving birth to SELA.

139. VulcanFilmCritic - December 24, 2011

@60 @ 69. I beg to differ. Although ST09 does not cater to the Onion-world-view-of-Star-Trek, it most definitely is for the old fans.

Most of the “in” jokes are those that only old fans could understand. For example, Dr. McCoy’s startling entrance. In the theater, we laughed our heads off and misted up periodically. After the film was over, a man in his 30′s sitting in front of us, said “Gee, you were really getting something we didn’t.” I apologized for being so loud, and he said that we weren’t bothering him, but he felt that there were definitely things he didn’t know about.

Also, I think that the basic relationships between the characters are true. They may seem like a bunch of little pr$%ks right now, but hopefully they will morph into some kind of heroism in the next film. I think we see the beginning of that process at the end of the film.

In fact, the compare-and-contrast factor is what makes this interesting for an old fan. If the filmmakers had simply picked up where STVI or TOS left off, it might feel more like historical re-enactment than a lively film. They need SOME room to breathe otherwise, the whole thing becomes as dead as Wynton Marsalis’s ideas about jazz (i.e. Louis Armstrong is the alpha and omega…)

And lastly, I think it’s best to remember that Star Trek is now a movie franchise, not a TV series. The potential for subtleties of character development inherent in a TV series are not there. That is why “Star Wars” feels a little hollow to some of us old Trekkies. And so it will be as we go froward with “Star Trek.”

I can only hope that someone out there in Paramountland will someday see the value in mounting a Star Trek TV series, even a string of interlocking mini-series. I just hope that I’m not in a nursing home somewhere when this happens.

140. Christopher Roberts - December 24, 2011

137. He’s not you know. It’s pre-destination paradox. Voyager references the events of First Contact. “Year of Hell”, when Seven, Torres and Kim are trapped in a lift… playing a game to pass the time.

141. BitterTrekkie - December 24, 2011

136.
“Now at least we have some hope that the prime universe can be revisited in the future.”

No, we don’t. Now that they know they can get away with it CBS/Paramount will just remake TOS with a new cast every few years.
The original canon is dead.

142. captain_neill - December 24, 2011

Well no matter what these guys do I will always prefer the prime universe.

143. captain_neill - December 24, 2011

I know everyone on here treats JJ Abrams as a God, a Visionary but that’s not forget that STAR TREK is not his vision, it is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. THe new movie was just a new take on that vision.

JJ Abrams is a guy who seems to know what the mainstream wants and unfortunately they win out over the Trekkies, which I am proud to be one. I liked the movie and gave it 4 out 5 but I still think there is a lot of better Trek that was out before it.

Also the fact they are not denying Khan has got me worried that they are going to be lazy and redo Khan. I am sorry but no matter what they do for Khan it will be inferior to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. Khan is a great villain, why try to redo perfection?

144. Weerd1 - December 24, 2011

@143 I am sorry captain_neill, but TOS as we received it really was not Roddenberry’s vision. Yes, he created the characters and wrote a few episodes; but the tone, the feel, and MANY of the little details we call “Star Trek” came from Gene Coon. More than that, the most popular of the films–The Wrath of Khan–had almost NO involvement from Gene Roddenberry. The first season of TNG was almost exclusively controlled by GR until he got sick; no one points to the first season of TNG as a high point in the history of Trek.

My love for Star Trek goes back to childhood, watching TOS. I love the vast majority of what has come since (ok, not a real Voyager fan at all)… but the only piece of Trek I’ve seen that emotionally connected me to TOS is 2009. The same sense of adventure, the same quirky relationships, the same sense of wonder at the universe. Was it all logical? Nope. Did it all strictly follow continuity? Nope. Just like TOS.

Did I enjoy the hell out of it? Yes. Just like TOS.

145. Larry - December 24, 2011

Amen to that

146. Vultan - December 24, 2011

Gene Coon made Star Trek, to borrow a phrase, “snap, crackle, and pop.” It was exciting, dynamic, but more importantly—interesting. He introduced the Federation, the Klingons, Khan, the Prime Directive, and many more important elements. It was idea-driven science fiction for a mass audience, much like the Twilight Zone, and it worked.

Now, if Abrams can do that with the sequel, then… everything will be okay. But if it’s just more whiz-bang action and swelled up hands and crazy trips through water pipes, then… no thanks. It’s just not for me.

147. Charla - December 24, 2011

Love the information in this article.

It’s admirable that JJ was honest in the interviews, admitting essentially that he didn’t really get into it like other kids/people did when he was a kid, but now he understands what it (Trek) meant and still means to others today.

I also enjoyed reading about his meeting a Trek director Nick Meyer at his bar mitzvah- then JJ also directing a Trek movie years later. Funny how fate works. While I don’t think he is a God, (captain_neill) I am certainly happy he’s directing this one too!

148. Basement Blogger - December 24, 2011

@ 143 On Star Trek 2009 and Gene Roddenberry’s Vision

I too liked Star Trek 2009 but thought it was shallow. I saw it three times at the theater and many times on DVD. The Supreme Court has vowed to go deeper for the next movie. So we all have something to look forward to.

First, let me concede that Gene Coon had a lot to do with shaping Star Trek. But you can’t diminish what the creator Gene Roddenberry did in shaping Star Trek. In fact the 2009 movie is dedicated to him. Let’s ask some people involved in Star Trek about Gene’s vision.

Brent Spiner (Data) on Rick Berman and Gene’s vision:

“Rick more than anybody else protected Gene Roddenberry’s vision. There were times we wanted to do things in an episode, and Rick would be, ‘No, no, no. Gene wouldn’t want that and that’s not what Star Trek is about.’ Link.

On the PBS, documentary, “Pioneers of Television” Nichelle Nichols describes Gene Roddenberry writing morality plays and the show describes Star Trek as the show with something important to say. Video Link.

From Gene himself. In a letter to his agent, Roddenberry fought for his show, one that would be an entertainment and have substance. TrekMovie. Link.

Gene Roddenberry wasn’t perfect. But I’m grateful for his vision. And maybe we won’t blow ourselves up and we can take our place among a Federation of Planets to peacefully explore the galaxy. (DS9 “Little Green Men.”)

1.) Link. Spiner defends Berman and Abrams
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/10/spiner-comes-to-the-defense-of-rick-berman-and-jj-abrams/

2. Video link. Pioneers of Television.
http://vimeo.com/18926725

3. Gene Roddenberry fights for his show, one that would have substance.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

149. Dom - December 24, 2011

143. captain_neill – December 24, 2011

‘I know everyone on here treats JJ Abrams as a God,’

No they don’t.

‘ a Visionary’

Nope!

‘but that’s not forget that STAR TREK is not his vision, it is Gene Roddenberry’s vision.’

It’s not Roddenberry’s vision: it’s the work of a TV producer in collaboration with a bunch of other producers and managers in order to have an income an put food on his family’s table!

“THe new movie was just a new take on that vision.’

The movie was simply a new Star Trek story which was forced to be a deck chair rearranging film to shut up a bunch of whiny obsessives who can’t take a leap of imagination and are in love with continuity guides. As the new cast proved (and lovely though it was to see Leonard Nimoy) they more than had a handle on the characters!

‘JJ Abrams is a guy who seems to know what the mainstream wants’

yep!

‘and unfortunately they win out over the Trekkies, which I am proud to be one.’

Trekkie and proud here! But pragmatic as well.

‘I liked the movie and gave it 4 out 5 but I still think there is a lot of better Trek that was out before it.’

Of course there has been. This was a set-up movie. Star Trek 2 is where the real test comes in!

‘Also the fact they are not denying Khan has got me worried that they are going to be lazy and redo Khan.’

Brew brew brew!!! The more they don’t deny it, the more it gets discussed! Basic marketing!

‘I am sorry but no matter what they do for Khan it will be inferior to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. Khan is a great villain, why try to redo perfection?’

Depends on whether they do something new or better. Wait and see!

Merry Christmas, btw! :)

150. dmduncan - December 24, 2011

143. captain_neill – December 24, 2011

You should have somebody review and edit your posts before you click “say it!”

151. DeShonn Steinblatt - December 24, 2011

146. Vultan – December 24, 2011
Gene Coon made Star Trek, to borrow a phrase, “snap, crackle, and pop.”

Yeah, you’re under 30 alright. Look at your screen name, for god’s sake.

152. Dom - December 24, 2011

148. Basement Blogger – December 24, 2011

Brent Spiner (Data) on Rick Berman and Gene’s vision:

“Rick more than anybody else protected Gene Roddenberry’s vision. There were times we wanted to do things in an episode, and Rick would be, ‘No, no, no. Gene wouldn’t want that and that’s not what Star Trek is about.’

I don’t believe in ‘Gene’s Vision.’ Berman made it up as a way of preventing writers doing anything innovative with the show and used ‘Gene’s Vision’ as an excuse to keep control ofthe franchise. His illustrious career post-Trek says all we need to know about his actual talents!

‘On the PBS, documentary, “Pioneers of Television” Nichelle Nichols describes Gene Roddenberry writing morality plays and the show describes Star Trek as the show with something important to say.’

Shagged him!

‘From Gene himself. In a letter to his agent, Roddenberry fought for his show, one that would be an entertainment and have substance.’

Producer trying to keep control of his show: nothing unusual.

‘Gene Roddenberry wasn’t perfect.’

No, he was the kind of human being TOS celebrated and TNG despised!

‘But I’m grateful for his vision.’

Love the show, but he was no visionary!

‘And maybe we won’t blow ourselves up and we can take our place among a Federation of Planets to peacefully explore the galaxy.’

And may we do so with humility and not look down on aliens as inferior the way TNG always did! ;)

153. Dom - December 24, 2011

Okay that was rude. Too much eggnog! Please delete or feel free to flame! Sorry!

154. Vultan - December 24, 2011

#151

Not sure what you mean by that. Yes, I am under 30 (28), but Vultan is a character from Flash Gordon, which I believe is well over 30—and much older than Star Trek. Anyway, I decided to use it shortly after seeing the super cheesy 1980 movie on television (with the great Brian Blessed as Vultan), and decided to stick with it for whatever reason.

C’mon, screen names are meant to be fun and silly.

Merry Christmas.

155. Basement Blogger - December 24, 2011

@ 152

Dom,

I can’t agree with your assessment. But Merry Christmas.

156. Phil - December 24, 2011

@137. Been saying that for a while….

157. Baroner - December 24, 2011

Boborci – I’m late to the comment party here. Just please consider ending the next film with some glimmer of hope that Spock Prime comes to his senses, realizing that he has to restore the prime timeline for the good of the universe (which, essentially, is what happened in Tomorrow is Yesterday, City on the Edge of Forever, and many others).

Is there really anyone who wouldn’t think it completely cool to see this cast setting off on the original 5-year mission??? There’s plenty of “new” stories to tell in the prime timeline…

158. Vulcan_mind - December 24, 2011

@ 141 : ” The original canon is dead. ”

No it’s not. Maybe in a few years when Abrams is done with his films and step aside a new director – who this time is a fan of the original timeline – will be interested in a Star Trek project and create a movie that takes place in the prime universe. Like for instance 10-20 years after Nemesis or further in the future with new crew, ship, etc.
Off course the possibility for the actors from TNG era to return is minimum but if they were to make another film with the TNG cast they would have done it already. The fault of that is not Abrams but Paramount’s and Berman’s.

Ps. I’m not fan of Abrams – I believe he is a good director but not an inspiring creator and way overrated – but in the case of the new Star Trek movie he did the best he could under the circumstances.

159. Adolescent Nightmare - December 24, 2011

Merry Khanmas everyone!

And a Happy nuKhan to all!

160. Falkan - December 25, 2011

J.J. has always been about mystery, and that is where Star Trek 2009 came up short. There was nothing for the audience to figure out. They succeeded in making a brainless action movie that made lots of money. But they could have easily called it “Star Wars” if that was their goal.

161. P Technobabble - December 25, 2011

Since numerous members of the Supreme Court said so, I believe the goal of Trek09 was to show the crew of the Enterprise coming together for the first time.

I think it was also designed to give us greater insight into Kirk and Spock. The story was a good, sci-fi romp, as “Star Trek-ish” as any episode.

Abrams said he wasn’t a fan of Star Trek. He never said he despised it — which is how some people want to portray it. I’m sure as he became more and more involved with Trek he was bitten by the Trek-bug. Perhaps he will one day write his own Star Trek Memories and let us into his head a bit more.

If there are more Star Trek fans in the world today because of Trek09, is that a bad thing?

162. Hugh Hoyland - December 25, 2011

I’ve said it from the first time I seen it and it still holds true for me. JJ Abrams and the rest of the SC was exactly what was needed to shoot life back in the arm of what had become a dead in the water franchise.

I’m glad they did what they did with ST 09 and I cant wait for the sequel. My only beaf with the guys is four years is to long a gap between movies IMO. But hey thats the way it worked out and theres not much can be done about it. (Two years max is the limit, and a year couldnt have hurt ;)

And besides what other director/producer/writer could have done a more successful job of it? Not many in my mind.

163. Trek is dead? - December 25, 2011

It seems to me that JJ is just out to distory logic. Alternate timeline aside, Spock would never have a ” love ” interest . JJ states he wants to make it more ” EMOTIONAL ” . Great, just what we needed. He even destroys the only logical planet in the universe along with most of its’ inhabitance. He has Vulcan children fighting and an older Spock telling younger to do what FEELS RIGHT. It would seem that what he couldn’t grasp of the TOS is it’s logic! And the biggest thing I can say about the new Spock is he was not very logical at all. It seem to me he is going to be going to the TNG emotional sap fest even faster . ST 2009 was IMO was lack luster at best, showing that apparently the younger generation is uninterested in story telling and can only be entertained by incoherent action. However I will wait to see what he does with the sequel.
If I’m right however it will be the last Star Trek film I see!!!

164. boborci - December 25, 2011

157. Would love to be able to accomadate you, but as we have discussed at lenghth on this very site, we used the multiverse theory of quantume mechanics, so there is no such thing as restoring the timeline. Spock Prime’s Universe is doing fine without him.

165. Anthony Pascale - December 25, 2011

Again I agree that Treknology and Technobabble are celebrated parts of Star Trek, as is exposition. However, I just dont think everything needs to be spelled out in detail. In fact, leaving some things open allow for the exciting activity of “fanon”

In this case where some fans felt like the *intent* of the film makers was to overwrite all past Trek and essentially “erase” the original timeline/universe, we have clear proof that this isn’t the case. And of course there is precedent in Trek past (Parallels). So it seems to me that it just isn’t an issue.

166. Ahmed Abdo - December 25, 2011

Maybe the best way is to have the movies focus on the alternate timeline while a new TV series return to the original timeline.

I don’t know about the rest of the fans, but I know that I miss having Star Trek on TV, specially now with the lack of any space based series, not to mention lack of decent science fiction series in the past few years, after the end of Lost & Battlestar Galactica.

167. There is no Spock - December 25, 2011

164. Spocks prime universe might be ok, but Spock is no longer himself. He is more emotional and less logical than Bones!!!!! In JJ’s universe is not very logical…. Ahhh .. That ok Spock was never that big of a character anyway!!!!!

The problem is timelines don’t change anyones character, except Spock’s of course… Him having a girlfriend is the stupidest f***ing story line I have ever witnessed on Star Trek!!!!!!

168. There is no Spock - December 25, 2011

You need to balance it out more…. Maybe Bones is a cross dresser, or how about Sulu feeling he is a women trapped in a Sulu body and gets sex reassignment surgery!!! And we need so kind of animal character.

They could stop by the Wookie home planet and pick up Chubaka!!

169. There is no Spock - December 25, 2011

Oh yah I forgot they should all be avid pot smokers!!!

Certainly the ones who wrote and directed it are!!!!!

170. Basement Blogger - December 25, 2011

In the story above, J.J. Abrams talks about not seeing the right Star Trek episodes. Let’s help J.J. with some shows he should see. I went over TOS shows (@ 6) , so how about some TNG shows for J.J.?

10.. “The Chase” (Season 6) Roddenberryesque. Cool metaphor as the Kurlan naiskos is like a Russian Matryoshka doll and represents the various alien races coming from one race. On top of that the alien races are like races of man.

9. “The Nth Degree” (Season 4) More Reginald Barclay. Super intelligence. Space exploration.

8. “Q Who” (Season 2) Introduces the Borg.

7. “Parallels” (Season 7) This is how exposition should be handled. Check out Data’s explanation of parallel universes. And what about those thousands and thousands of Enterprises? Mind blowing.

6. “Tapestry” (Season 6) It’s a Wonderful Life, Star Trek style.Love the scene where Picard challenges Q masquerading as God.

5. “I Borg” (Season 5) Must be seen after the Best of Both Worlds. Show with no action. Didn’t need it. Thought provoking.

4. “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (Season 3) Look at all of those writers. They put together a great episode.

3 “The Big Goodbye” (Season 1) Picard has a film noir adventure on the holodeck. Very existential. Won a Peabody Award. .

2. “The Inner Light” (Season 5) Hey, no bad guy. Fan favorite.

1. “The Best of Both Worlds, part one and two” (Season 3, 4) The Borg kidnap Picard. Commander Riker becomes Captain. The pinnacle of the Next Generation.

There are more. “Arsenal of Freedom” (Season 1); “Hollow Pursuits” (Season 3); “Future Imperfect” (Season 4) “Unification”, parts one and two (Season 5); “Time’s Arrow” (Season 5 and 6)

171. No Spock - December 25, 2011

Good one 170. That’s just what he needs to do because the TNG movies were sooo successful !!!!!

172. Basement Blogger - December 25, 2011

@ 171

I’m detecting some sarcasm there. :-) There were some very good TNG shows. And as I have already listed TOS ( @ 6) thought some TNG shows would be a nice addition. By the way Harve Bennett watched all TOS episodes to get a better understanding of Star Trek before he produced Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

173. No Spock - December 25, 2011

@ 172

You are correct sir! There were some singularly great TNG shows but they ultimately led to movie disaster. The less TNG the better. I did like and agree with your TOS list ( @ 6 ), though. My biggest problem remains with what they did to Spock, Vulcan and logic in general in ST 09.

174. No Spock - December 25, 2011

Or mam. Sorry!! Don’t mean to jump to conclusions. ;-)

175. Spacerguy - December 25, 2011

#137 Star Trek is real. Real Star Trek encompasses my whole universe….OMG and my worlds are disappearing…

176. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 25, 2011

164. boborci – December 25, 2011
“157. Would love to be able to accomadate you, but as we have discussed at lenghth on this very site, we used the multiverse theory of quantume mechanics, so there is no such thing as restoring the timeline. Spock Prime’s Universe is doing fine without him.”

I take issue with that. What about the Romulans? You destroyed their homeworld!
Not OK if you like the Romulans, IMO.

177. ilker - December 26, 2011

#35, my sentiments exactly!
In my mind the abrams trek is like joel schumacher’s batman.

178. Aurore - December 26, 2011

“… we used the multiverse theory of quantume mechanics, so there is no such thing as restoring the timeline. Spock Prime’s Universe is doing fine without him.”
__________

:)

( Belated )Merry Christmas , and , Happy New Year, Mr. Orci!

179. P Technobabble - December 26, 2011

I don’t see any reason why the timeline/alternate reality/alternate universe (or use your own term) needs to be restored, and I strongly disagree with those who think Star Trek has, somehow, been damaged because of it. By now it should be blatantly obvious that the original timeline still exists and the only thing missing from it is Spock Prime. Whether he shoulda-woulda-coulda gone back to it is irrelevant. The new timeline essentially has nothing to do with the Prime. It is a universe unto itself.
Why isn’t that a cool idea?
The Court decided to do a “what if something happens in the Prime universe that creates an alternate universe?”- story, and they’re going to tell us what goes on in the alternate universe. The Prime universe is still there, but the Court wants to tell us about the alternate universe.
Exactly how does this damage the whole legacy of Star Trek?
Since every conceivable and inconceivable universe exists simultaneously, the Prime universe is still there — except that it was cancelled by the network…

180. BitterTrekkie - December 26, 2011

158.
I wish I was optimistic as you are, but TIIC at CBS decided what will happen next with Trek after Abrams is done. It’s going to be into another Batman or James Bond-like franchise from now on.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the original canon to return.
No thanks to Abrams and co.

181. chrisfawkes.net - December 26, 2011

177, but who cares about how your mind sees things. What ever happened to the good of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

Clearly the film was popular with the many including most fans. It was so much better than all the next gen films too.

All the Burton Era batman movies were crap though. No comparison.

182. dmduncan - December 26, 2011

172. Basement Blogger – December 25, 2011

@ 171

I’m detecting some sarcasm there. :-)

***

I agree. Tricorder readings indicate that post radiating 4.7 gigasarcs.

183. Aurore - December 26, 2011

…The prime universe was recently seen in my living room, next to several seasons of another series I *love* .

Mr. Orci, perhaps you are not a fan, however, were you to reboot THAT show, I’d be interested to know how you would choose to handle the “invisible quasi omni-presence” of my beloved character ‘spouse….Mmmmm….

Not that it need to be re-imagined or anything (at least, not as far as I’m concerned), but, you never know…

184. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

179. P Technobabble – December 26, 2011
“I don’t see any reason why the timeline/alternate reality/alternate universe (or use your own term) needs to be restored, … Exactly how does this damage the whole legacy of Star Trek?”

The death of 5 billion Romulans does not affect your prime Star Trek sense of right and wrong? Yeah we can on without the Romlans. They’ve been a pain in the ass for 40 years. Who needs ‘em anyhow?

185. dmduncan - December 26, 2011

183: “Mr. Orci, perhaps you are not a fan, however, were you to reboot THAT show, I’d be interested to know how you would choose to handle the “invisible quasi omni-presence” of my beloved character ’spouse….Mmmmm….”

Okay, you stumped me Aurore. What other show are you talking about???

186. Aurore - December 26, 2011

“Okay, you stumped me Aurore. What other show are you talking about???”
__________

Click on my name ( You Tube link ).

187. dmduncan - December 26, 2011

186. Aurore – December 26, 2011

Aah! LOVE Columbo!

188. Aurore - December 26, 2011

183.Not that it need = Not that it needs.
________________________________

“Aah! LOVE Columbo!”

:)

189. Phil - December 26, 2011

@184. No,, it doesn’t. As described, it was a naturally occuring event, that Spock attempted to resolve and failed. Star Trek has implied that man has mastered his environment, but I suspect that stopping Novas is still a bit of a stretch that no amount of technobabble can overcome.

Out of curiousity, I wonder how the black hole device got past the environmental impact report at the Vulcan Science Academy?

190. P Technobabble - December 26, 2011

184. Trek

“The death of 5 billion Romulans does not affect your prime Star Trek sense of right and wrong?”

I suppose this depends on how you choose to look at it. In terms of the entire Star Trek fictional universe, the destruction of any planet is certainly a possibility, caused by any number of potential reasons. If some superior race comes along and intentionally blows up the planet, it could be said such a thing is wrong, of course. However, if some “act of God,” or some accident causes the death of 5 billion Romulans, such a thing would be neither right or wrong.
If you choose to blame Bob Orci for the destruction of Romulus, then I think you’re being too attached to your own idea of Star Trek, IMO. The destruction of Romulus was, I believe, a plot point designed to set off the story, using a character race we could relate to (ie. the Romulans). If the planet destroyed was some other planet we weren’t familiar with, no one would have minded about the destruction of that planet because no one would be relating to a race we knew nothing about.
In the end, 5 billion Romulans never existed to begin with, so they’re not really dead. And they do live on in other Trek novels and all the other Trek tv shows. I, for one, am not all that upset about it. I still think Trek09 is a terrific movie.

191. dmduncan - December 26, 2011

189: “Out of curiousity, I wonder how the black hole device got past the environmental impact report at the Vulcan Science Academy?”

Got PAST them? They signed off on it enthusiastically, since its use was supposed to save the entire Romulan ENVIRONMENT from being IMPACTED by a supernova!

192. DeShonn Steinblatt - December 26, 2011

I do wish that certain cranky persons would put a little more effort into their multiple identities. It’s been really half-assed for a couple of weeks now.

193. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 26, 2011

“Got PAST them? They signed off on it enthusiastically…”

Signed off on it? They damn near created it. Or at least their favorite son did.

194. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

Sorry, I just would not have made a plot point like that which included the killing off of an entire race. It was there just to give an overbloated reason for a new timeline/alternate reality/ or what ever it is now.

I wrote my own story synopsis long before the 09 movie came out and (IMO) iit did not create all the havoc and death that Bob and team Abrams created.

If you have not had the chance to read my two page synopsis, just Google TrekMadeMeWonder.

http://megomuseum.com/community/showthread.php?t=15013

My treatment created quite a stir in the Star Trek continuom a few years back. And it got me banned here for a few months as well. I thought i covered the meeting of the original cast in a better and more logical manner than what we all saw on the silver screen. And it HONESTLY ended with both timelines intact. Just my two credits worth.

192. I hope you were not referring to ‘lil ‘ol me?

195. Phil - December 26, 2011

@191, 193…okay, I’m having a little fun with this….consider:

. McCoy was really wringing his hands about the Genisis device. Well, 200 years later we have build a black hole device. No one, anywhere along the process ever bothered to ask “hey, what could go wrong?”.
. The TNG era was fairly bureaucratic. Recall that there was a TNG episode where they were trying to establish that warp propulsion was doing nasty things to the fabric of space, so they established speed limits. Would this same mentality allow for the construction of a device that would allow the Federation to plant a black hole pretty much anywhere it wanted?
. The Klingons were really upset about the weapon potential of Genesis. I’m guessing they would have been really pissed off about the Federation possesing a black hole device.
. Building a device that could contain the power released in a nova would have been no small feat. Even a covert operation would have required tremendous resources for it to be successful. The creation and use of the technology, even once, lets the genie out of the bottle. Again, no one, anywhere along the way bothered to ask what the implications were?

So, what’s my point? Okay, it’s a plot device, I understand. But events rarely occur in a vacuum, now or in a fictional future. That someone could construct a device with no ethical imput, and that the knowledge of such a device exists in this parallel universe, creates a situation where a substantial shift of the balance of power has occured. It should make for some good storytelling, assuming the producers don’t ignore these chain of events.

196. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

it’s taken three years for you to come up with those considerable implications, Phil. Good points. 10 quatloos for you!

I really doubt the new ST Supreme’s have as well.

If its one thing Trek does well, it’s moving on to a new storyline with out much regard to last week’s adventure.

197. Spacerguy - December 26, 2011

Real Star Trek deserves to live on. For instance, being a Vulcan means to adopt a philosophy, a way of life which is logical and beneficial. We cannot disregard that philosophy merely for personal gain, no matter how important that gain might be.
– Spock, “Journey to Babel”, stardate 3842.4

and look at whats happened to Vulcan…. Its gone.

198. dmduncan - December 26, 2011

194. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 26, 201l

Sorry man, I do not intend to be cruel, but if you mean THIS:

“Spock, now fully distraught and agonized, uses his remaining strength and mental abilities to transport himself through time (a function of Spock’s own MASTERY of Vulcan power and will.)”

Then I am assuming you didn’t also mean for me to start chuckling.

So in your treatment you gave Spock the ability to travel through time like HIro Nakamura? Does he make the same constipated expression too?

No offense to you or your efforts, but I think it deserves to be pointed out that cutting down Bob Orci’s work while posting a link to THAT is more than a little ironic.

I’ll take Bob’s creative choices over yours ANY day.

199. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

Re: Spock isn’t Spock because he has a life and emotions…

Oh my, how can anyone here say that they know what Spock was like in his mid-late twenties??? When we saw Nimoy’s Spock, the man (actor) was about 40, and who know’s exactly how old his Vulcan character was since they live longer than humans (likely older than 40, though).

If any of you are 40+ (even late thirties), can you honestly say that you are *exactly* the same way you were in your twenties?? Just about everyone, if not everyone, I’ve come across would say no.

Even with their regard for logic, Vulcans, in their natural state, are very emotional beings that have to be taught to suppress those emotions. That doesn’t mean that those emotions aren’t there. They started to imploy ‘living by logic’ to preserve their race iirc because of just how emotional they are in their base nature.

Spock always had emotions, and I doubt that he was never attracted to women. And once again, Spock is half human, so there is nothing wrong with him exploring that side of himself more in depth and finding a balance between that and his Vulcan half.

I can’t wait to see more Spock/Uhura in the next film. There is nothing wrong with it, and it makes perfect sense. While I greatly respect TOS, for those that want to see TOS as it was, the series is available on DVD. I mean no disrespect by that, but really…

200. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

typo – imploy should be employ.

201. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

Spock/Uhura Fan

Leonard Nimoy was 35 when the first Star Trek episode aired in September 1966. He was even younger when they filmed “The Cage” with Jeffrey Hunter.

Quinto was playing Spock in his, what, late 20′s? Ooooooh, big stretch there!

202. Red Dead Ryan - December 26, 2011

I think Zachary Quinto was 32 when he first donned the pointed ears. Only a couple of years younger than when Leonard Nimoy filmed “The Cage”.

203. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

Zachary Quinto was born on June 2 1977, so you do the math!

204. Red Dead Ryan - December 26, 2011

He’s 34 and a half years old! But I guess he was more likely 31 when he filmed as Spock for the first time. He was 32 when the film was released.

205. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 26, 2011

195. Yeah, the Klingons would probably sh*t themselves, then sh*t all over the Federation with a single massive strike. Glorious.

206. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

Hey, get this…..the first day of filming on “The Cage” was November 27, 1964!!!

That means Leonard Nimoy was 33 when he first donned the pointy ears!

Quinto was likely 31!!

How much would someone change when within spitting distance of the same age?

207. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

205. “the Klingons would probably sh*t themselves, then sh*t all over the Federation”

And if they were sloppy in doing that, and didn’t wipe properly, no wonder they’re called KLINGONS!

208. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

@201 Harry & 202 Ryan

I thought I had read that Nimoy was 39 when he did TOS. I just checked and he was born in 1931 so that puts him in his mid-thirties when it started. U must have been reading about when it ended.

Still, Harry, the point is that not only was Quinto younger, but his Spock was meant to be significantly younger than Nimoy’s Spock. Four to five years for the actors could be 10-20 years for the characters seeing as they are Vulcan. And that is a stretch.

209. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

“198. dmduncan – December 26, 2011
194. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 26, 201l

Sorry man, I do not intend to be cruel, but if you mean THIS:

“Spock, now fully distraught and agonized, uses his remaining strength and mental abilities to transport himself through time (a function of Spock’s own MASTERY of Vulcan power and will.)”

Then I am assuming you didn’t also mean for me to start chuckling.

So in your treatment you gave Spock the ability to travel through time like HIro Nakamura? Does he make the same constipated expression too?

No offense to you or your efforts, but I think it deserves to be pointed out that cutting down Bob Orci’s work while posting a link to THAT is more than a little ironic.

I’ll take Bob’s creative choices over yours ANY day.”

Thanks. I needed that. : 0

210. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 26, 2011

Harry, you never disappoint. But you left out Uranus.

211. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

210.

My bad!

Sulu: “Captain, the Klingons are circling Uranus!”

Kirk: “You’re telling me! Now where did I put those damn handiwipes??”

212. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 26, 2011

194. TrekMadeMeWonder. It was a worthy effort.

213. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 26, 2011

Ahh Harry, much better.

214. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

But dmduncan.
I would not entirely dismiss the idea.

Unless you laugh at Star Trekk II & III.

I think it did have many other advantages too. I could provide a list of them if you like.

215. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 26, 2011

…with a single massive… well you get the picture.

216. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

@#206

Okay, Harry, since you asked, I decided to try to find exactly how much earlier than tos does ST09 happen, and it looks like it’s 7 years. Supposedly, the starting stardate for TOS is 2265, and ST09 is 2258. The writer/producer that comments here can confirm or deny for clarification if he chooses.

Seven years is a good bit of time. That, and again we are dealing with a slightly different version of Spock. Orci mentioned something about them using the “multiuniverse theory of quantum mechanics” as a basis for their storyline, and I think that points to the fact that both Spocks are variations of each other. So, you’ve got the original that chose a more Vulcan way of life to a certain degree, which is fine, and you’ve got a different version that chooses more of a balance between his 2 halves. And balance is logical. :-)

217. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

So, Spock/Uhura Fan, you’re saying a lot can happen to a Vulcan in 7 years?

Now you’ve gone too (Pon) Farr! :>)

218. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

Okay, I didn’t provide the actual *stardates*, but you know what I mean.

219. Spock/Uhura Fan - December 26, 2011

@#217

:-D

220. VZX - December 26, 2011

Just for kicks and giggles: I just read this article by Steane on quantum computers:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0003084v3

I like this quote about the Many World Interpretation (multiverse theory in QM): “It is no use to say that the [Schrodinger] cat is ‘really’ both alive and dead when every experimental test yields unambiguously the result that the cat is either alive or dead.”

But, then, the MWI does explain a lot of experimenal results.

221. dmduncan - December 26, 2011

214. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 26, 2011

All is fair in fan fiction, so that’s not the issue. You compared your idea favorably to what Bob & Co. did in ST.09, so you left the safe confines of fan fiction to make the comparison, and once you did that I took it seriously to make a serious comparison. So my reaction wasn’t malicious, it was the honest result of imagining your idea seriously. And seeing SPOCK strain like Hiro Nakamura to sail through time is…is…

Well, even when Hiro did it it made me laugh.

I think it’s a little harder making the shift from fan fiction ideas to ideas that represent well on the big screen than you think, so when you compare your idea favorably to what Bob did, that is what I think you are missing.

Again, no offense, and I am not trying to discourage your idea-having, but be careful about how you state those types of comparisons.

222. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

Yes, comparing a PRO to a FAN leads to PROFANITY, which rhymes with VANITY and thus leads to INSANITY!

223. Harry Ballz - December 26, 2011

Or…

Comparing PRO to FAN requires VANITY, a sure way to INSANITY!

(m’yeah, that’s better)

224. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

Thanks dmduncan.

Granted at the time I was playing with a few cards that were already exposed by the ’09 production. But it was a fun write-up and it only took me a few hours very late at night.

It was written at a time when there was not much ST news happening. I wrote it for all you guyz here whom were also wondering what the new Star Trek would bring.

Hey, I am even honored that you considered in the realm of fan fiction!

225. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 26, 2011

Very funny, Harry.

We can always count on our Harry Ballz to lighten things up.

: 0 : )

Thank you too, @212. moauvian waoul – aka: seymour hiney!
I appreciate it!

226. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 26, 2011

All this stuff about how Spock would not have had a relationship with Uhura or any other woman for that matter because he had chosen the Vulcan way is nonsense. As we know Spock is also half-human, so Spock engaging in a relationship with a human woman is totally feasible. It was an original and bold move on the Trek writers’ part. Congrats to Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman et al.

What all those who object to the current interpretation and rendering of the Spock character fail to see is that his own father, Sarek, is a full-blooded Vulcan completely living the Vulcan way, you might say, and yet he chose to pursue a relationship with a human woman, not just once but twice, and go as far as to have a child with the first wife. Yet Sarek was still a respected member of Vulcan society, for the most part.

I just do not understand the dismay and anger at how Spock was shown in the Star Trek 09 film. It is not logical!

227. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 26, 2011

“it’s taken three years for you to come up with those considerable implications, Phil. Good points. 10 quatloos for you!”

It was probably all the weighing of all those considerable implications that delayed prime Spock from getting hold of the Jellyfish and the red matter in order to make haste to the supernova, dump the red matter into the nova’s core, go tell the red matter what to do with itself and get the hell out of there, before the damned thing got to destroy more planets in its path.

Talk to the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima about longterm environmental implications… When those two bombs were dropped, everyone knew that there would be loss of life (something like 250,000 people, I think), but the US Government claimed that doing that it would save about a million American lives and end the Pacific war sooner rather than later, which it did…

What Spock attempted to do was prevent the loss of life caused by a powerful natural force, while destroying none in the process. There wasn’t even meant to be “collateral damage”.

The universe is full of such powerful forces and even much smaller forces at work which can cause considerable damage and loss of life if you are ones who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I bet many of the Cantabrians in Christchurch feel that way. Apparently these earthquakes are thought to happen once every 10,000 years or so. “Lucky” people of Christchurch. In the same way, on a much larger scale, a huge asteroid or nova could pass through a populated part of space, eg Romulus. Get it?!

My better half says that you are all behaving a bit like Nero…

228. Vultan - December 27, 2011

I’ve never quite understood why the Romulans wouldn’t just move their home world to another planet. They have a whole “star empire” for crying out loud, and have shown to be (while a bit crazy at times) more pragmatic than anything else.

And supernovas don’t exactly sneak up on you.
Stars ain’t firecrackers.

229. Vultan - December 27, 2011

Or earthquakes.

230. ilker - December 27, 2011

#181 I am merely sharing my opinion like everyone else does here, why are you full of hatred like that? there are ppl who may think like you or myself and those opinions will be written over and over and they will coexist in spite of your totalitarian attitude.

231. Keachick - rose pinenut - December 27, 2011

#228 I have a feeling that there are probably Romulans living on other worlds in the prime universe, even though their homeworld is now gone.

232. AJ - December 27, 2011

The destruction of the Romulan race by the supernova is like the time two inches of snow shut down Heathrow Airport for 5 days. You’d think they’d have been prepared and evacuated. They were not.

Or maybe Nero’s wife was too pregnant to fly, and she and all the other pregnant Rollies were left to perish.

One would be daft to think that a society of billions on two planets said “Spock will save us, so no one needs to go anywhere.” Or maybe it was collective denial in a dictatorship like the iconic “Planet Krypton” excuse.

We officially don’t know, but I’d assume the Romulans had already mostly evacuated in the Prime 24th Century. It’s quite clear in the film that Nero is not the brightest bulb on the tree. So it was “I’m not gonna kill him! I gonna make him watch!” and all the ensuing hilarity.

Also, if shooting the cord holding up the drill saved Earth, why didn’t they just do it on Vulcan as well?

233. dmduncan - December 27, 2011

@232: Maybe they didn’t need to drill anything. They certainly didn’t need to drill to create the black hole that sucked in the Narada. I thought the drilling was a symptom of Nero’s derangement, like some of the wicked things Dr. Mengele did to people. Not necessary. Psychotic.

Thus, shooting the drill on earth didn’t do as much to stop earth’s destruction as leading the Narada away from earth where Spock collided the Red Matter containing Jellyfish into the Narada, creating the black hole that got rid of the threat.

On earth, Nero was also drilling into the OCEAN. A hole in water doesn’t exactly stay open. That’s consistent with Nero just being nuts. Which I think you’d have to be to sustain the sort of hatred that would make you try to destroy two entire worlds after 25 years in a Klingon hooskow.

It’s like one of those bizarre things that happens in the world which you may not understand, and yet there it is, happening. And you have to respond, if you can, whether what you see makes sense or not.

234. Vultan - December 27, 2011

#232

Good points, AJ. I just wish a bit more exposition had been used in the Romulan part of the story. Then again, it probably would’ve ended up being a three hour movie!

235. Phil - December 27, 2011

So, seeing how we are picking the nit here…..

.The movie shows a tiny amount of Red Matter sucking up the prime universe supernova, so just why did Spock prime need a ball of this stuff that was 1.5 meters in diameter in the Prime universe? Remember, Spock prime getting sucked into the black hole was an accident?

.The cadets come running out of SF Academy and seem suprised to see this drill. Why? Nero just blasted the Earth defense network to pieces, they knew he was coming.

.When the entire supply of Red Matter ignited, why wasn’t the new black hole proportionally larger? If there was no size/weight equation, why create so much to begin with, unless the Prime universe Federation was ACTUALLY planning on using it to deal with it’s enemies?

.The jellyfish was acting on Ambassador Spock’s voice recognition software. How much does he actually know?

.Agreed with the point on supernovas. They don’t just happen, The Romulan homeworlds had time to prepare. Why didn’t they?

@234. Yeah, a little more exposition would be helpful. Prime Spock was part of an underground movement on Romulus, how did he go from living in caves to being the point guy on saving the planet?

236. dmduncan - December 27, 2011

235:

“.The movie shows a tiny amount of Red Matter sucking up the prime universe supernova, so just why did Spock prime need a ball of this stuff that was 1.5 meters in diameter in the Prime universe? Remember, Spock prime getting sucked into the black hole was an accident?”

He didn’t “need” it all, but for some unexplained reason it had to go along for the ride. Maybe he was also transporting the supply from a to b. You really have to ask Spock Prime that question.

“.The cadets come running out of SF Academy and seem suprised to see this drill. Why? Nero just blasted the Earth defense network to pieces, they knew he was coming.”

They were surprised because Nero did NOT blast earth’s defenses. He got the security codes from Pike (remember the torture scene with the nasty little bugger?) which you would expect any Starfleet vessel to have in order to safely approach earth.

IFF. Only here it was a code the captain possessed similar to self destruct codes.

“.When the entire supply of Red Matter ignited, why wasn’t the new black hole proportionally larger? If there was no size/weight equation, why create so much to begin with, unless the Prime universe Federation was ACTUALLY planning on using it to deal with it’s enemies?”

I could answer that question, but then I’d have to dematerialize you.

“.The jellyfish was acting on Ambassador Spock’s voice recognition software. How much does he actually know?”

Please see end of answer to first question.

237. Frank - December 27, 2011

Now all we need are better stories; better characterisation; more originality – and less loud explosions; gratuitous violence; etc.

Remember how 1960s “Star Trek” relied heavily on good ideas and scripts? And much less of “Gee-Gosh-Bang!” SFX?

Wouldn’t it be cool to have a movie that treated the audience as intelligent adults and not as 12 year olds?

Pass the popcorn, dad.

238. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - December 27, 2011

235. So Spock was to blame after all? That pointed ear bastard!
And Nero was right! There is one person who might be able to answer these questions and more. Bob?

239. NuFan - December 28, 2011

237
Pass your own popcorn, Gramps.

240. Donald - December 30, 2011

The interior of the Enterprise and the Kelvin looks like they were filmed inside the NUMMI (er, Tesla now) plant in Fremont, CA. They used to manufacture Toyota Corolla’s, Toyota Tacoma’s, and the Pontiac Vibe there until GM pulled out and 8 months later Toyota shuttered the plant. (It recently reopened as a joint venture of sorts between Tesla Motors and Toyota, with 1/4 the employees.

Anyhow the communication room that Uhura was in looks like it was filmed inside the Budwiser plant.

Hey JJ, why is the new-original Enterprise BIGGER than the Enterprise D and E? That’s just HUGE! Changing things a bit I can deal with, being totally out of scale is a NO NO. Thanks!

241. Gary S. Hatrick - January 7, 2012

I don’t spend a lot of time reading Star Trek blogs but every now and then I find one and read. So I am throwing this out to see if I get eaten alive in a feeding frenzy.

I have been a Star Trek fan for more than 30 years and I must admit I freaked out (perhaps more than I should have) when I saw an entire 40+ years of a lifelong interest get sucked into a black hole. It was a brilliant move in many ways, but I believe a lazy move. To me it is lazy when you do not want to research enough to try to stay in keeping with what has already been established. Still, even if they had, some of the same people complaining now would be complaining that the movies somehow missed some insignificant date that was mentioned in TOS. The writers could not win, but I still think it was lazy and would like to see the prime timeline returned to the screens.

Here is my proposal to get back on track and still be able to be a little lazy: We left Benjamin Sisko with the prophets in a place that exists outside of linear time. He said he would return. What if the new timeline left Bajor still in a mess with the Cardassians and Sisko returns to go back and return the timeline to its original course for Bajor’s sake.

You could give Shatner a place in this movie by Sisko’s going to the Nexus to get whatever is left of him there to get him and return to the place where things really started going wrong and that is where Kirk’s father was killed. (My guess is that Kirk was not shy and retiring and bookish in the alternate universe because he was raised without a disciplined Starfleet dad and so was a bit rebellious as evidenced in the car incident.)

Granted Kirk already came out of the Nexus and died, but since part of them apparently stays there who says they can’t come out again. (Maybe one can come out in the past but not in a time past one’s death.) For that matter they could pick up Picard if they wanted since he was there as well.

(He could stay in the past where he lands in a wheelchair and starts a school for mutants – OK, sorry).

If Nimoy would give it one more shot, he would be there as well. In stopping all the stuff that happened, the timeline could be restored, but here is where the freedom for the writers comes in.

Remember when Sisko became that guy Bell in the past and later the picture in the history books was him? My guess is that future history books showed that Zefram Cochrane had some help from people in the future since in the original timeline Borg had not come back and damaged the ship. Remember the timeship guy in Voyager who was looking for something like a 97 percent restoration so he could be back with his wife?

Someone has said somewhere that any little change can change everything to come even if in a minor way. So here it is. Sisko, Spock and Kirk do change things back but there are minor changes because since Nemo did come back and try to change time some people got killed that originally didn’t etc. and that caused the change of some of the minor historical events from the original time line. So if the writers miss one or ignore one– so what? It is attributable to a minor changes that resulted when the restoration took place.

We have the old timeline and a relatively free future, we have a passing of the torch from Shatner and Nimoy to a new cast for wonderful future movies and happy trekkies old and new.

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