Star Trek Sequel Begins Shooting + Exclusive Production Details [UPDATE: Engineering Gets An Upgrade] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek Sequel Begins Shooting + Exclusive Production Details [UPDATE: Engineering Gets An Upgrade] January 12, 2012

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

It’s the big day! TrekMovie has confirmed that production on JJ Abrams Star Trek sequel began to today. We have also learned some things about the production, including a surprise on where much of the film will be shot. See details below. [UPDATE: Production day one comments from Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof]
(possible minor spoilers).

 

Star Trek sequel begins production

It has been quite a wait, but today director JJ Abrams has once again called "action!" on a Star Trek movie. Abrams’ last Star Trek film wrapped in March 2008. Like that shoot, the sequel is expected to last for four months, or until May of this year. This new Star Trek film is due in theaters May 17, 2013, giving the team plenty of time for post-production. And as TrekMovie reported previously, some of the effects work for the film has already started at ILM, notably space shots that don’t need any live-action elements.   

One change for this production is that shooting will be done on stages at Sony Studios in Culver City in addition to Paramount in Hollywood. While this is the first time a Star Trek production has used non-Paramount stages, these days it is not an uncommon practice for studios to use each other’s lots. One factor for using Sony Studios could be due to space on the Paramount lot. For example, Paramount Stages 8 & 9, which have been used for many Trek productions (including the Enterprise sets for Star Trek 2009), are now being used for the permanent sets for NCIS: Los Angeles. This is also not Sony’s first connection to the new Trek team, as Michael Giacchino recorded the score for the 2009 Star Trek film at Sony.


2013 Star Trek sequel production underway – to utilize stages at both Sony and Paramount

Sources tell TrekMovie that the new Star Trek film has called for more sets than the previous movie. These sets will include sections of the USS Enterprise, not seen in the 2009′s Star Trek. Also following up on our November pre-production report, it appears that Hawaii will not be used for location shooting of "alien jungle" scenes. While JJ Abrams did travel to the state for scouting, a location in southern California was chosen instead.

Stay tuned to TrekMovie.com for all the latest on the Star Trek sequel.


Director JJ Abrams shooting the 2009 "Star Trek" movie

UPDATE: Lindelof marks the occasion with a Tweet

Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof marked today’s production start with a special Trek tweet…

UPDATE 2: Orci hints at engineering upgrade

One of the more talked about elements of the 2009 Star Trek movie was the look of the engineering section of the ship, which were shot at a Budweiser plant. Today Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Roberto Orci jumped into the comment (below), confirming the start of shooting and offering this tantalizing tidbit.

boborci

I’ll tell you this. There are some cool improvements to engine room!


Budgineering getting an update?

POLL: What do you want in the Star Trek sequel?

Should Spock & Uhura Break Up For Star Trek 2016?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments

1. Sybok's Secret Brother - January 12, 2012

Yes! My son and I were just talking about the 15th… this is good news!!

2. Sybok's Secret Brother - January 12, 2012

Daughter too… We are so stoked!!

3. Stephan - January 12, 2012

And so it begins…

I’m excited!

4. DeBeckster - January 12, 2012

Let’s rock and roll!! Can’t wait to see how this turns out! Count me excited! First!

5. Sybok's Secret Brother - January 12, 2012

Thank you Anthony!!

6. boborci - January 12, 2012

Not true — we haven’t started shooting yet.

7. boborci - January 12, 2012

Oh wait. Yes we have;)

8. bgdrewsif - January 12, 2012

Please let the part of the Enterprise not before seen be the properly finished engineering room… we can all just pretend that since the Enterprise was rushed out of space dock on the emergency mission toVulcan that the finishing work crews had not completed installing panels, ceilings, and flooring in engineering… i’m willing to mentally accept that…

9. Alice - January 12, 2012

Great! I can’t wait for this film, I loved the last one and I’m so excited about this one.

10. Vultan - January 12, 2012

Sony! Can we expect a Spiderman cameo then? ;)

11. Ms. Spock - January 12, 2012

Great! I can’t wait for this film, I loved the last one and I’m so excited about this one.

12. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

Bob Orci. Please let us know if you are going to use Del Trame. Aka BND British Naval Dude in the new film. You don’t have to give us any details. Just a simple Yes or No. Please.

13. Spoctor McKirk - January 12, 2012

I think boborci is excited, too.

14. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

Hopefuly there will be a new Engine Room Set. The Last one Scotty Drank all of the Beer. Lol.

15. Anthony Pascale - January 12, 2012

Don’t scare me like that Bob. I almost pulled the article down in shame after reading your first comment.

16. Craiger - January 12, 2012

Bob, can’t wait for the sequel but also learned about the new NCIS LA and Hawaii 5-0 crossover event in May. I wonder how Hetty will deal with McGarett and Danny. :)

17. Peter Loader - January 12, 2012

Ahead warp factor seven!

18. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

Bob Orci. I will bother you at every turn till you give us an answer on our Deceased Trekmovie Friend BND. Del Trame. I Promise.

Now. I sure hope that we get some new things.
1. A New Engine Room that looks liike it is from the 23rd century.
2. A Great Flyby of the Enterprise like we got in TMP.
3. The Best Trek Movie of all TIME!!!!.
So. Bob. What do you think.

19. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

Anthony. Bob Scaring you again. Lol. Ok now Bob. Play nice.

20. Pensive's Wetness - January 12, 2012

That ‘Jungle’ location will probably fine in Southern Cally… until the local retards from Burn-It-All-Down, local 123 actually cause yet another wild fire… :/

21. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

So can’t wait for the Hawaii Five O and N.C.I.S Crossover. That will be fun.

22. Craiger - January 12, 2012

Commodore its actually NCIS LA.

23. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

I would love to see a crossover of N.C.I.S and L.A and C.S.I New York in a big Season ending cliffhanger for all shows.

24. John from Cincinnati - January 12, 2012

Ok Bob tell us about……Cumberbatch

No big revelations, just something like what role is he playing?

25. Hat Rick - January 12, 2012

In these days of economic doldrums and dreary political in-fighting, let us all unite behind the United Federation of Planets.

Star Trek is the best entertainment franchise to have sprung from the mind of mankind, for so many reasons.

The main reason, however, is that it is so pervasive, and so philosophically endearing.

Star Trek is meaningful. And so damn fun!

Can’t wait until the next movie. :-)

26. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

Yes Craiger. i just caught that i did not put in L.A
(Applies the Agoniser).

27. boborci - January 12, 2012

15. Ain’t I a stinker?

28. Pensive's Wetness - January 12, 2012

@8 depends… depends mostly on if yu can actually place removeable plates (office style cubical buildings?) in the beer plant without affecting the ability of the plant to work still…

29. Hat Rick - January 12, 2012

Note to ILM: Put lots of starship battles in the SFX scenes. Lots of starships. Lots of battles.

Make us so excited, we literally poop our pants. (Okay, not literally. That would be gross.)

We need the young ‘uns in the theaters.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to our resident Young Trek Reporter, who gave us such great articles a year or so ago?

30. rm10019 - January 12, 2012

Lol great news, and good luck to the production team!

31. Hugh Hoyland - January 12, 2012

Good deal, Its set in motion now!

Do we know the name yet?

32. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

Yes. Lot’s of action with the Federation and the Klingon Fleets.

33. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 12, 2012

@BOBORCI

My heart sank when i saw your first post then i started laughing when i saw your second. :)

34. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

It is going to be called.
Star Trek. CaliGornification. Oops.

35. jesustrek - January 12, 2012

Hey Bob…you will have a cameo in the movie? mabye andorian,vulcan or Klingon ;)

36. NCM - January 12, 2012

Yea!

Good one, Bob. It must take all kinds of restraint to sound so ho-hum:)

I actually liked engineering (despite being from the nation’s binge-drinking capitol, I didn’t make the brewery connection on my own), but I’d say tweak the bridge: be gone the hard, blood-red floor and metal base trip chairs – where are the 5-point restraints? This bridge doesn’t look designed with respect to protecting precious grey matter and white matter against turbulence from red matter, ion storms, Klingons, etc. Is there no OSHA in the future?!

37. jesustrek - January 12, 2012

Maybe sorry je

38. Craiger - January 12, 2012

Exclusive first footage already shot for the sequel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQeMknVWuU0

39. Anthony Thompson - January 12, 2012

The bad dreams involving hotel bars, outlines, planking and soft prep, etc. are fading away. This is happening!!!

40. CaptainDonovin - January 12, 2012

@ 27 boborci:

That’s okay Bob we forgive you, we’re not going to go se the movie anyway. We’re going to all wait for the blu ray.

[Tell me when he leaves so we can start laughing!!!]

41. NCM - January 12, 2012

20. Pensive’s Wetness – January 12, 2012:

“That ‘Jungle’ location will probably fine in Southern Cally… until the local retards from Burn-It-All-Down, local 123 actually cause yet another wild fire… :/”

Cry PC if you must, but someone should tell you that you use a term as offensive as the ‘N’ word.

42. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 12, 2012

OMG! … boborci is so funny these days!!!!!

:-) :-)

43. jas_montreal - January 12, 2012

What the hell boborci ! Tell us something or give us SOMETHING ! Who’s the villain ?!?!

44. SoonerDave - January 12, 2012

Movie? Heck, I’m waiting for the ARG! :)

Was the bridge set moved to Sony studios?? That’d be a huge effort in and of itself

45. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 12, 2012

And… I want… More character moments… More action… More romance… More effects… More aliens… OK I want………. :-) :-)

Mr. Bob Orci can I ask one more thing ?…. Please say to Mr. JJAbram that we need to see one photo of the cast … only one … but if he want to give us more than one we accept, too …. PLEASE!!!…. ;-)

46. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 12, 2012

Anthony,

Will you be updating the website to focus more on the new film Trek 2013 instead of the backround of the 2009 movie?

47. Odkin - January 12, 2012

Please ignore everyone bitching about the Engine Room. It shouldn’t matter if the entire production is a puppet show using cardboard sets.

What’s important is that the script passes the “wife” test, has no giant holes and/or coincidences, and that the Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty remain true to their beloved characters. The other characters are essentially extras.

(and try to keep Uhura’s part be restricted to “Hailing Frequencies open, Sir” and/or “I’m scared, Captain”.)

48. VulcanFilmCritic - January 12, 2012

@27 boborci: Not a stinker, just a wascally wabbit.

So is he is or is he ain’t [Khaaaaaaaaan] ?

49. Hermioni - January 12, 2012

Καλή αρχή να έχετε, und Hals- und Beinbruch, ;-) !!
[ = Have a good start, and break a leg]

To everyone involved, my best wishes for a resounding success…

50. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 12, 2012

“JJ Abrams” … if I did not write his name right he will not give anything …LOL

:-) ;-)

51. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

I bet Bob is working hard getting the Script tightened up a bit.
BND.

52. Anthony Pascale - January 12, 2012

Yes

I am working on the Star Trek 2013 info page. I am trying to confirm some details on people working on the movie

53. Chris Doohan - January 12, 2012

It’s been a long time coming. Very exciting. Have a great time, Bob.

54. CaptainSMAW - January 12, 2012

Now that Scotty is formally on board the Enterprise in this reality, I hope that means a better Engine Room, one that looks more in line with the bridge and what little was seen of Sickbay, as well as the Transporter room, complete with blinking lights, panels, and special blinking, pulsating, glowing tubes with no discernible function.

55. Lt. BAILEY - January 12, 2012

Its about time!

I would like to think they may even get done early and release early too. But I am an optimist, because there are always…possibilities.

56. porthos's bitch - January 12, 2012

Go baby go

57. somethoughts - January 12, 2012

God speed boborci and crew, I cant wait!

This cast will pull in some academy awards.

Throw us a fricken bone bob!

58. boborci - January 12, 2012

35. no way. Never again. JJ stuck us in MI3 and I vowed never to put my ugly mug on screen again!

59. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 12, 2012

Looks like Bob and the court will be burning the midnight Oil. So will Anthony as well. Also. We crazy Bloggers here at Trekmovie will also.
BND.

60. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 12, 2012

Oh come on Bob. You know you loved it on MI3.

61. boborci - January 12, 2012

I’ll tell you this. There are some cool improvements to engine room!

62. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 12, 2012

Hey Bob. You can play a Gorn on Trek 13. Lol.
BND.

63. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 12, 2012

Really Bob. Thank you for that. We love Engine Room Improvement’s.
BND.

64. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 12, 2012

Well. We got the first tidbit from Bob Orci on Trek 13. Some Cool Improvements to the Engine Room.
BND. Arrrr

65. dmduncan - January 12, 2012

Fantastico!

66. dmduncan - January 12, 2012

Just exciting that the ship is setting sail again!

67. somethoughts - January 12, 2012

#61

/wags tail and chews on bone

Thanks bob!

68. Duncan MacLeod - January 12, 2012

And so… It begins.

69. Basement Blogger - January 12, 2012

Damon, for that Trek tweet I will forget about about Lost , season 6 for right now.

70. Eye - January 12, 2012

So when do we get a trailer, huh?

…kidding, but you know someone will say it soon enough.

71. Phil - January 12, 2012

Pleased to be wrong….

72. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 12, 2012

Yeah Bob Orci. How soon till the first trailor. Lol.
BND. Arrrrr

73. Phil - January 12, 2012

Come on, AP, the poll could not give propers to an engaging story?

74. Basement Blogger - January 12, 2012

Again, my fellow Trekkers, Star Trek is back.

Space, the final frontier….

75. Nony - January 12, 2012

It’s party time, excellent!! Hope the shoot goes smoothly. I voted for ‘more character moments’, but ‘more cowbell’ was a very close second.

76. Tom - January 12, 2012

Bob
Hate to bring this up but did you try again to get Kirk Prime in? Did you write another scene? I am truly sorry that this has not happened. It was a great opportunity and you wrote such a touching scene last time. Window for this is not forever…

77. Greg - January 12, 2012

Anthony, I miss the countdown clock! Now that shooting has begun, will that be coming back to the site?

78. Oddness - January 12, 2012

Cool Nuz on the shoot and the new sets. Will we be getting a smooth new brew from Engineering called “Impulse!” perhaps? :) or a fine scotch called Warped…

79. Tanner Waterbury - January 12, 2012

Oh yaaaay! Next up: paparazzi photos of some characters. By the way: any chance that the enterprise will have Reddish Buzzard Collectors, as opposed to the white- bluish ones? Lastly: WHQT ABOUT DEL TRAME’ S MENTION?! Anything to honor our lovable and fallen comrade would be awesome to hear.

80. Trekker5 - January 12, 2012

#61. Bob,thank God!! :) This story makes me so happy I think I’ll burst!! :D But wait,I’ve waited like,3 years for this,so I’d better not! God I hope the world don’t end this year! After I’ve seen the film 5 times,yeah,it can end then,but not before!! :) Oh and Bob,I really would like to see you in Trek,I think it’d be awesome!! :)

81. schnotty - January 12, 2012

#61 rock ON.

82. Adam E - January 12, 2012

8. bgdrewsif – January 12, 2012

Good explination!

83. Ma00145 - January 12, 2012

@ 61. Sweet does this mean you guys are using the jelly belly factory instead of the Budweiser plant lol ;) can’t wait

84. RoobyDoo - January 12, 2012

I guess DVD special features kind of serve the same purpose these days, but it’d be really cool to have a behind-the-scenes production diary published for these new Trek films, similar to Koenig’s TMP book.

85. Gracian - January 12, 2012

I bet it’s the dillitium chamber!!!

86. Clinton - January 12, 2012

Can’t wait! Oh, I guess I have to. Well, still excited. :-)

87. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 12, 2012

I bet the new Engine Room will look exactly like it did on the TOS Series.
BND. Arrrrrr

88. Red Dead Ryan - January 12, 2012

Well, the proverbial ship has left spacedock!

And Phil, you are going to sleep well tonight, my friend!

89. Michael Hall - January 12, 2012

“Just exciting that the ship is setting sail again!”

My own, sincere best wishes to all involved in the production. No one sets out to make a bad film, and I hope this turns out to be a great one.

90. USS Enterprise C - January 12, 2012

This is great news – lets hope for some pictures from set soon! So they have started production on the movie and they still haven’t announced the official Title of the movie yet (I assume it will be something more original than Star Trek 2)? I was hoping this announcement would have come by now.. Lets hope it won’t be much longer….

91. pizza - January 12, 2012

@61 boborci – January 12, 2012
I’ll tell you this. There are some cool improvements to engine room!

Great news, I guess with all that beer in engineering, you must have figured out that toilets were needed.

92. Bruce Banner - January 12, 2012

The next trek tv show should be a 23rd century CSI.

93. Nony - January 12, 2012

I actually kind of liked the factory-engineering. It made me think about all the mechanical processes and coolants and things involved in running the systems of a gigantic super-powered machine (compared to a sanitized room with consoles, blinky lights and a big shiny warp core displayed in the middle). It was a neat contrast to the bright white bridge and I didn’t have a problem thinking of it as the real deep bowels of the ship, as opposed to a control room of some sort.

94. RaymondS - January 12, 2012

I’ve been buying the IDW comics, set in the new timeline. There are allegedly clues in them regarding the new film. While I don’t like the different endings to the classic stories we all know and love (mainly because the changed endings have issues), I do enjoy seeing how the characters interact with each other. I also enjoy looking for little tidbits we might see come movie time.

95. Matthew M - January 12, 2012

Just finished watching ’09 and you people are really ignorant. The Budweiser plant scenes weren’t ‘engineering’, it was the water turbine section of engineering not the main part of the engineering plant. Geez, trekkies know it all and yet know nothing!

96. xTheCanadianx - January 12, 2012

new improvements to engineering??

do we actually have a dilithium crystal chamber and a chair for keenser??

97. xTheCanadianx - January 12, 2012

forgot to add, does this upgrade include a beer fridge and a case of budwesier?

98. Hat Rick - January 12, 2012

Woohoo! New Engineering sex!

I mean, sets!

Freudian slip

99. Phil - January 12, 2012

93. thank you! Someone understands…..nothing wrong with this engineering section.

100. Phil - January 12, 2012

All this talk about engineering makes me thirsty. Corona’s, anyone?

101. VZX - January 12, 2012

Wait, Bob and Alex were in MI3? I’ve seen that movie 100 times (I show parts in my class a lot) and I never noticed them. Where were they?

102. VZX - January 12, 2012

I’m happy about the engineering improvement news. Please have it look like a spaceship and not like a factory! I worked in a factory (foundry, actually) for several years as an engineer and that’s what it looks like on screen in Trek 09.

103. Karen Brown - January 12, 2012

Can I say about time? So excited to see this movie finally in the works, and with so many fascinating casting choices, too. Don’t let JJ get distracted…

104. VZX - January 12, 2012

100. Phil: my buddy just left and we split a six pack. So, I’m good. But thanks…

105. Geodesic - January 12, 2012

As for the poll, I could go for more trippy, thought-provoking themes.

106. Marvin the Martian - January 12, 2012

I just want some full-frontal nudity.

107. crazydaystrom - January 12, 2012

Excellent news! I agree with Odkin, what’s most important is that the characters stay true to themselves. And I really hope the humor quotient isn’t upped. In fact a tad less than ’09 would be just right for me.

My prediction for… HEY! when are we gonna find out what this one’s gonna be called???….anyway, my prediction for this sequel is-

The most spectacular space battles in Trek history….with some SAUCER SEPARATION action!!!

Don’t know why, but I’ve got a feelin’ in m’bones! Ya heard it here first, folks.

108. Anthony Thompson - January 12, 2012

95. Matthew M

Would you mind explaining to us ignorant folks why a 23rd century warp-driven starship requires a water turbine?

109. NCM - January 12, 2012

“More character moments” means more Spock, Kirk, McCoy, right!?! Yeesssss!

110. Vultan - January 12, 2012

Do big, thought-provoking science fiction ideas and timely social commentary fall under “more cowbell”? Eh?

Though it’s not exactly something you can put on a lobby poster….

111. Thorny - January 12, 2012

I’ll settle for just getting the movie’s title.

112. Phil - January 12, 2012

@108….well, considering it’s all fake, perhaps the coolant system requires water. Regardless, components of life support are probably in engineering, and the ships water system would require something like a turbine to keep it pressurized…..

113. Bucky - January 12, 2012

Yes, please, more cowbell!

114. Phil - January 12, 2012

@108…Matthew does seem to get snotty at the drop of the hat, though.

115. dmduncan - January 12, 2012

I was barely a visitor to Trekmovie during the production of ST.09, checking in every now and then to see what was happening. So it feels cool to be such a chatty member now.

With the impression of Nemesis left in my mind, I had no idea if I was going to like what I got with the new movie, so I wasn’t quite attached to it, and didn’t even know if I WANTED to be attached to the franchise again as a fan. So I experienced the news of a TOS reboot with some interest AND trepidation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

Now I can say it’s good to be back!

Thanks to you Bob, and Alex and JJ, I’m happy to be back, and excited for more!

116. Star Trek Nemesis blows, is the point. - January 12, 2012

@boborci

Your thoughts on Star Trek Nemesis? Clearly my name establishes what I think of the movie.

117. Dave1119 - January 12, 2012

#108 and #95. I remember Bob Orci made a comment a long time ago that it wasn’t water in those pipes. If he ever explained what was in the pipes I missed it.

Anyone else remember that?

Regardless I am glad to see that there will be some improvements to Engineering as well. I am willing to accept that what we saw in ST 09 was some part of engineering deep in the bowels of the ship as others have suggested, and that we never saw the control room and the warp core. Hopefully that is what has been added.

118. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - January 12, 2012

Now if we can just get a title.

119. sean - January 12, 2012

#47

Yikes Odkin, sexist much?

120. Phil - January 12, 2012

@117….Gin.

121. Norbert - January 12, 2012

Where is the button for “More logic”?

122. Peter Loader - January 12, 2012

Seems like some of the action will take place in the revamped engine room, maybe a Day of The Dove type situation?…will Kirk lose control of his beloved Enterprise for a short while?

123. Will - January 12, 2012

What if I want *less* shiny white plastic looking things? Where’s THAT option on this poll?

124. D.J. Ammons - January 12, 2012

I have one plea for JJ – please,oh please,please, please give the lens flares a rest!!! I love every single thing JJ did with the new Star Trek 2009 (story, casting, direction, sfx, etc) EXCEPT the obsession with lens flares.

I watched Star Trek 2009 a few weeks ago to enjoy the movie again thinking that maybe after not seeing it for awhile the over abundence of lens flares would not bother me but it was even more obnoxious.

However if over the top lens flares is the price for JJ being at the helm it is a price I am reluctantly willing to pay.

125. jesustrek - January 12, 2012

Hey Bob and when would be the first ‘treaser’ or Trailer ???

126. Jack - January 12, 2012

If more character moments means Trek III/IV/V/TNG-style… well, moments (Sulu karate-flips a guard! Uhura dances naked! Scotty talks into a mouse! Riker shaves his beard! Data is a life preserver!) then no. Good writing, which includes good characters and a story that gives ‘em something to do that makes sense, then yes.

127. r0bt3k - January 12, 2012

AS LONG as the engine room doesnt look like they filmed it in a brewer or a chemical plant ill be happy,

128. r0bt3k - January 12, 2012

and people need to stop bitching about it not being EXACTLY THE SAME

sorry people couldnt accept the fact that in transformers soundwave didnt be 30 ft tall and not turn into a ghetto blaster it should be all good

CHANGE IS CONSTANT PEOPLE STOP COMPLAINING

129. Harry Ballz - January 12, 2012

Anyone else see that Benedict Cumberbatch is a dead ringer for the older brother of the kid who played the Metron in “Arena”?

130. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - January 12, 2012

#108. Quite simple. What we saw was likely a water recycling/treatment facility, something that would be needed aboard a starship. Even with replicator technology in the 24th century, they still require matter of some kind. Since the 23rd century only has food processors, having water and other assorted matter aboard is essential.

131. r0bt3k - January 12, 2012

i think seeing the tholians or Gorn would be bad ass in the new movie, they could do them pretty cool

132. Doohan!! - January 12, 2012

I want to see Chris Doohan back aboard the Enterprise! Make it so!!

133. Chasco - January 13, 2012

Improvements to engineering? Thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy for that!

Now, if we could just lose Keenser, bring Chris Doohan aboard, and have someone tweak the exterior of the Uglyprise so that it doesn’t look so clunky, we’ll be getting somewhere.

134. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#47 odkin

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or just trolling. The movie shouldn’t be a boys’ club. Uhura deserves just as much time and development as the next moan character. Yes, I said ‘main character’ because that’s what she is.

135. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

I guess I didn’t initially type ‘main character’, but you know what I’m saying…

136. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

What is “cowbell”? All I hear is mooing and the clanging of a bell.

Uhura dancing naked? Really? When? Where? “Data is a life preserver” – that was a good scene and it is conceivable that an android as sophisticated as Data would also be water proof and be able to prevent a drowning (Insurrection?). “Scotty talks into a mouse” – why not? Another good scene (STIV).

“but I’d say tweak the bridge: be gone the hard, blood-red floor and metal base trip chairs – where are the 5-point restraints?”

Yes. Chris Pine (not his character) took a tumble when the “captain’s chair” tipped over – seen in one of the deleted scenes. Whoa! Even though it is a set on a stage, I still wonder why the chair wasn’t properly secured to the floor. Have a care now…

Bob Orci – How are all the cast looking? Is everyone there yet, like Karl Urban?

Anyway, I wish everyone involved in the production of the Star Trek every success!

137. Harry Ballz - January 13, 2012

Bob Orci

I assume you were in the room when Benedict Cumberbatch auditioned for his part.

Tell us, just how good are his acting chops?

138. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#84 RoobyDoo

I agree. I’ve been saying that for awhile. And please add in main cast and some supporting cast interviews.

@#109 NCM

I started to pick “more character moments” because that’s what I’d like to see the most: A movie about the whole team and not just 3 people, but I chose ‘romance’ in a slight act of defiance (somebody’s gotta vote for the uber-under-dog :-)) . Besides, character moments between a romantically involved couple don’t have to be romantic. Frankly, none of the S/U scenes in the last movie were romantic. I’m not a real fan of romance, per se, but a little bit of love would be nice.

Again, Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu are not chopped liver, and I’m not saying that you think that, but they deserve some focus too. I especially think Uhura deserves some focus.

139. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

I voted for ‘more character moments’ but did think about voting for ‘more romance’. I agree that even hints of romance gets pilloried. I guess what I want to see is more affection and love expressed, which does not necessarily need to be sexual in nature. What we saw happen between Spock and Uhura was not romantic – it was about two people sharing grief, loss, understanding and compassion for each other in a more intimate way than two people who are merely companions or work colleagues might feel comfortable about sharing in a similar way with each other.

What I can’t understand is why so many people are so uncomfortable, even angry, about those two short scenes showing a couple expressing their humanity (and vulcanese as well) towards each other…Some of the comments about this since coming on the internet just over two years ago have puzzled me and have really upset and shocked me. Why so much cynicism and hatred?

140. MJ - January 13, 2012

“Also following up on our November pre-production report, it appears that Hawaii will not be used for location shooting of “alien jungle” scenes. While JJ Abrams did travel to the state for scouting, a location in southern California was chosen instead.”

Encino?

141. Jason - January 13, 2012

139. I can only answer for myself — but I think the love-interest-as-motivator gets forced into a lot of movies. The world is ending but the hero is more interested in someone he just met (or somebody established as an old flame by a couple of lines of dialogue) as if saving the world wouldn’t be done for its own sake.

Yes, Uhura wasn’t there as the damsel in distress in Trek 09, but the love did seem a little gooey and over-the-top – I bought it all except the making out on the transporter pad. And it felt like what it was — wouldn’t it be awesome if the Vulcan got the object-of-desire/hot girl instead of Kirk. And the movie itself didn’t really establish her as much more than an aurally sensitive, Romulan-speaking, really hot girl. And, yes, they’re in the academy and all, in their mid-to-late 20s — but the skirt-chasing and getting the prize was kind of over-emphasized. Still, I think the actors pulled it off, and it became more than just a one-off joke (and made Spock sexy and, arguably, more interesting) And, yeah, all that”s just my opinion.

Are all the comments against S and U cynicism and hatred? I’m sure some were. But heck, author Ann Crispin was fully against it as she thought it was out of character for both. Would professionals be making out in the elevators? I don’t know.

Like I said, I’m not a fan of romance when it’s lazy and squeezed in and the girl character in question isn’t well drawn out and could be anybody (especially in series where they change the love interest in every sequel). In some flicks — the Bourne series, say, and the Dark Knight (but not Batman Begins, that was awful) it works great and adds a bit of depth. But sometimes it’s just here to give someone an easy motivation (Nero’s wife was killed so now he’s destroying everything, fair enough) or to provide plot complications (how can he save the girl AND the universe? / their love is forbidden because of his/her past or her allegiance to: her people, her husband, the bad guy (or her husband the bad guy), the other side: you name it).

Yes, human beings are complex and deserve rich emotional lives, but, how often is getting the girl ever really about that. I”m all for love and a big softy when it comes to bad romcoms (hell, I even go to Garry Marshall movies) — but nobody”s ever convinced me that Trek needs a love story to be excellent. Incidentally the best movie Trek hasn’t had a love story. The worst movie Trek has (Decker and Illia, Riker and Troi, Picard and Anij). Yes, you could say it’s time for it to be done well — but, I fear that would turn Trek into every other action movie (all of which need a love interest).

142. NCC-73515 - January 13, 2012

More action?! More aliens?!
…how about more cerebral, more meaningful, more social comment… ;D

143. Shamelord - January 13, 2012

Godspeed, everyone. Can’t wait for this new silver screen adventure. And good luck Anthony for the Star Trek 2013 info page and for the upcoming exciting 2012 Trekmovie year .

144. PaulB. - January 13, 2012

The human adventure begins again…again.

145. WillH85 - January 13, 2012

Less brewgineering and the whole forced love thing between Spock/Uhura.

146. John - January 13, 2012

Pleas make a good movie, no weak writing this time!!!

147. Christopher Roberts - January 13, 2012

Don’t forget that Admiral Archer cameo guys! :p ;)

148. banned - January 13, 2012

Deleted by admin

149. Christopher Roberts - January 13, 2012

Bob, I also like the sound of this as the title…

http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv330/Christopher_Pike/ENTERPRISESyndicated.jpg

OH WAIT!

Sorry…

Not that.

THIS:

http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv330/Christopher_Pike/STARTREK2.jpg

:))

150. Aurore - January 13, 2012

Belated Happy Birthday to you, Christopher Roberts!

:)

151. Christopher Roberts - January 13, 2012

150. Aurore: Thanks!

If anybody wants to know… Yes, I am still 29. ;)

152. Aurore - January 13, 2012

I wish all the best to each and every individual involved in the making of my Star Trek sequel.

Thanks in anticipation for an outstanding movie.

(Toto, the film had BETTER be very GOOD!!!)

:)

153. Jim Nightshade - January 13, 2012

why there was bd in those bud tanks of course…i also vote to see chris d. n rod roddenberry n james t kirk uhhh i man james cawley in slightly bigger roles than last time..maybe jc could be an alien elvis impersonater n instead of tyler perry how bout madea egheh…so bob orci e-wheere were u guys in mission imp 3…
maybe sulu would have to use the bnd arrrrr drive to manuver n get them outta trouble…heh

154. ripleyaeryn - January 13, 2012

What I want for Star Trek XII is :
-more Spock/Kirk/McCoy
-more trekverse (federation, Starfleet, shuttles, spacesuits, tricorders…)
-Scott Bakula as admiral Archer (cameo)
-Star Trek sounds
-nods to other movies and tv shows

155. James - January 13, 2012

When I saw all the water pipes, I imagined the awesome power generated by the mutual annihilation of the matter/anti-matter chamber funneled through dilithium crystals ran a steam engine. ;-]

Also, Add Adele to the guest cast. She is awesome.

156. duke nukem - January 13, 2012

improvements to the engine room i have two possible changes

1. engineering room now looks more like the one from the original series
2. it looks more like the engineering room from the enterprise refit complete with the giant warp core in the centre

157. DaddlerTheDalek - January 13, 2012

Finally! It starts…
Now I wonder what’s the Title of Star Trek XII…

158. Schweinebacke - January 13, 2012

I want to see Admiral Archer :)

159. Paul Fitz - January 13, 2012

I’d love to see more aliens, and more starfleet ships. Also a better tricorder design. The news of the improved Engineering set id hopeful.

On a personal note, I would love to ask Mr Bob Orci if its possible for a reference (through an intercom announcement, or passing reference, or screen readout) to Denis Ryan, who was a huge Star Trek fan and loved JJ’s other work also.
He passed away in 2010 at the age of 29 from Cystic Fibrosis.
He was an avid trekmovie reader, and I’d do anything to have him memorialized in some way.

160. Schweinebacke - January 13, 2012

Star Trek XII – the monster that changed our engineering-room

will be the title of course. ;)

161. Tails - January 13, 2012

Yeah! it starts!
But please a little less lens flares…

162. DaddlerTheDalek - January 13, 2012

I want to know the Name of the new Star Trek Movie…
I want to know a liitle hint of the Plot. a small Sypnosis would be Great!
2013 will be a hell of a Cinematic Year! :)

163. I hAte TReK mOvIE - January 13, 2012

These are the worst movies ever made… We need more like travelers guide to the galaxy

164. Hugh Hoyland - January 13, 2012

It seems we wont know the name until later in the process? Why so hush hush?
Or would the title give away to much of the plot?

My official guess is something along the lines of StarTrek: Rise of Khan.
Could be way off though and Khan may not be in it at all (covering all bases). ;)

165. Gordon Ramsey's knife - January 13, 2012

163…Does your head whistle in a crosswind?

166. daniel head - January 13, 2012

i dont mind what involvment the klingons have

167. Cheats At Fizzbin - January 13, 2012

My guess for “cool improvements to the engine room”:

Shooting will take place in the Stella Artois Brewery. That’s a DEFINITE upgrade from Budweiser. Hell, I’d even settle for the Michelob Brewery.

168. Deflector Dish Guy - January 13, 2012

So happy to hear that engineering will be upgraded! Maybe a more traditional warp core?! One can only hope

169. Jas_montreal - January 13, 2012

Thank god the engine room is “improved”. It really needed improvements. But it depends on what those improvements are…. Just no Budweiser please…

170. VZX - January 13, 2012

Bob, in MI3, were you in the scene in the hospital when Ethan Hunt is looking for his wife? I know Abrams was seen in that scene, so I wonder if you were as well.

171. RaveOnEd - January 13, 2012

@170: He may be. But I was thinking that he is in the house party in the beginning of the movie. I do see Damon in that scene, on the sofa.

172. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 13, 2012

I would love to see Bruce Greenwood as Capt Pike.
Would love to see the new Engine Room. With out the Beer.
Would love to see Bob Orci as a Red Shirt. Lol.

173. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 13, 2012

I want to see Bob Orci as a Red Shirt.

174. Pensive's Wetness - January 13, 2012

@41 *mumbles quietly* ‘Must be nice to responder’

From my experiances with said folk, The Mentally Challenged usually don’t feel insult themselves, just the Care Givers that provide for their welfare. I grew up as a ‘LD kid’ and im certainly not insulted. so if you had hoped to shame me into a different POV, good luck. I’m Chaotic Good, i say it how i see it.

that outta the way…

does Orci’s teasers mean we will see the Warp Core in its full glory? There was nothing wrong with the whole plant idea, the hugeness… just if they shown the core itself the first time. and that begs a question: is the Core Horizontally mounted (as the ejection of the pieces of it can dead aft from the upper junction of the Secondary hull and the Dorsal hull)?

meh, what ever. I’m still a fan of your labor of love…

175. EJD1984 - January 13, 2012

boborci
“I’ll tell you this. There are some cool improvements to engine room!”

Woo Hoo!!!!!!

To me this translates that there is a REAL Engineering set on the Paramount lot that he as seen in-person.

176. Phil - January 13, 2012

@140. San Bernardino?

177. Chris Doohan - January 13, 2012

132 & 133

Very kind of you. Thanks

178. Jerry Modene - January 13, 2012

This may not be ST’s first encounter with the Culver City studio; IIRC, they shot “Where No Man Has Gone Before” there rather than at Desilu’s Gower Street studios.

179. VZX - January 13, 2012

171: Oh yeah, the house party. I’ll check that out later and see if I can find him.

180. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 13, 2012

Hey Chris Doohan. Get Bob Orci to play a red shirt in the new movie. Lol.

181. DaiMonRon - January 13, 2012

@167 – Cheats at Fizzbin

They only shoot at the Stella Artois brewery on Tuesday……..

182. Cygnus-X1 - January 13, 2012

Let me guess: They’ve moved Engineering to the Miller brewery this time, and in the film Uhura will order a Miller Classic at a bar.

Am I right, boborci? I will take your silence as an affirmation of my guess.

183. Silvereyes - January 13, 2012

boborci

“I’ll tell you this. There are some cool improvements to engine room!”

You mean, you’ve added more water tanks, right? ;)

184. TrekkerChick - January 13, 2012

Re; production “The parking brake is released..”Punch it!”

@140. Walteria

185. Sebastian S. - January 13, 2012

To quote Admiral Forrest in “Broken Bow”,
“We’ve waited nearly a century… now seems as good a time as any.”

(I’m kidding, of course; it just FELT like a century….) ;-P

My sincerest best wishes to the cast and production team!
Make it a good one.

186. Claude - January 13, 2012

I detested the monumental gathering of offal that was JarJar Abrams first Star Trek movie. My only wish is that this jetsam be relegated to the five dollar bin at Wal Mart where people can purchase it as a drinks coaster. There was nothing remarkable about his ‘version’ of Star Trek and anything he does from here on will most certainly be a watered down story with amped up special effects. But as long as you depend on bedwetters with no good taste or loyalty to the wellspring you will make a fortune selling this particular drinks coaster.

187. TrekkerChick - January 13, 2012

@my 184. With ocean scenes filmed at RAT Beach

188. kinooruen - January 13, 2012

“Want” Poll: add option #8… “More Dignity”

189. Jim Williams - January 13, 2012

Maybe someone has said this already, but the poll is missing an option for “Better story”. All the action and effects in the world can’t make up for a nonsensical mess of a story like we got in 2009.

190. Silvereyes - January 13, 2012

186 Claude

Then I suggest you stay home on May 17, 2013 and spare us all your self-righteous insulting arrogance.

191. duke nukem - January 13, 2012

guess what famous star trek location is in southern California Vasquez rocks

192. Johnson 12 - January 13, 2012

Mr. Ocri, which of the newly cast men will be the new strong gay character? You did write one didn’t you? Or will you be rebooting Chekov?

193. Bill Coleman - January 13, 2012

I guess since everyone else is asking for things, why should I not. Just one great beauty pass that I can use as a desktop background. I appreciated the coming out of the clouds in st:09. One fantastic one this time would be much appreciated. See, one fan who is easy to please.

194. Buzz Cagney - January 13, 2012

Some cool improvements to the engine room eh? You just know its gona be a fridge for all that beer.

195. William Kirk - January 13, 2012

POLL: Most want for Star Trek sequel
I want more lens flares :-D

196. bgdrewsif - January 13, 2012

#186… where is your bed so I can go and wet it for you? LOL Didn’t your parents teach you that if you have noting nice to post online don’t post online at all?

197. CarlG - January 13, 2012

It begins! So hyped for this movie already… by the time I see a trailer, I’ll probably end up a puddle on the ground.

Question: Do we know what the code name for the movie is yet? Last one was called “Corporate Headquarters”, when do we find out what they’re calling this one?

@174: Agreed. One thing I did like about the Brewery was the sense of scale — it really seemed like the warp drives were these massive things that needed all sorts of machinery to support them. I wouldn’t be averse to another on-location Engineering set, just with more set dressing to make it look properly futuristic.

Oh, and maybe CGI in a big blue glowy thing that goes *rumble*, please? ;)

198. rm10019 - January 13, 2012

I will vote for Star Trek: Boldly Go

199. Ensign Ricky - January 13, 2012

How much beer does it take to get the Enterprise up to warp 5?

200. CarlG - January 13, 2012

@186: You must be an absolute gas at parties.

@196: Read his post in the voice of Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, it’s surprising how much it helps sometimes… :)

201. CarlG - January 13, 2012

@199: Roughly 2.947 teraPilsners. A major improvement from Cochrane’s Phoenix, which barely made it to Warp 1 on 5 shots of tequila.

202. VZX - January 13, 2012

198: How about Star Trek: Corporate Headquarters.

203. Orb of the Emissary - January 13, 2012

Thank the Prophets this day has finally come!

204. Norbert - January 13, 2012

Why are people complain about lens flares? They should put searchlights into the theatre to blind the audience to give them a feeling of beeing part of the movie. ;-))))

That’s entertainment!

hehe

205. vulken - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob…Any chance that someone will be doing a few video blogs during filming (like Peter Jackson is doing throughout the filming of “The Hobbit” movies)? They’re very cool and certainly boost the visibility online in the media and helps build anticipation amongst the fans of the film who enjoy following along.

I know you all want to keep a lot of things secret (as I’m sure Peter Jackson is doing), but his are awfully fun to watch and they really give some cool behind-the-scenes details on the overall production of the film to those who want to follow along.

Something to ponder….

206. John from Cincinnati - January 13, 2012

I just cracked open a Budweiser in celebration of the Engineering Upgrade!

Woo hoo!

207. Basement Blogger - January 13, 2012

What bothered me about the engine room was that it looked like a factory. Yeah, I know it was a real brewery but it didn’t make me think twenty third century. I get J.J.’s idea to make it seem real but it is the future. And of course it might saved money to film it in a beer plant. Still, it’s good to hear that the Enterprise’s engine room will look like something from the future.

208. David - January 13, 2012

Make it so…

209. flake - January 13, 2012

Scotty will be devastated if the beer pipes have gone :(

210. Chris Doohan - January 13, 2012

209

Scotty will be fine, as long as he has his scotch barrels in his cabin.

211. TrekkerChick - January 13, 2012

@200

“Biggest. Offal. Ev-er.” /C.B.G.
;)

@209

Remember. The pipes were in a different area (and scene) than the aluminum tanks.The water in the pipes was for the distillery – for “Wee Bairns” intersteller single malt whisky. “Like the kick of a matter-antimatter reaction, …without the mutual annihilation” TM

212. Ensign Ricky - January 13, 2012

How much Scotch does is take to get the Enterprise up to warp 5?

213. Alice - January 13, 2012

I don’t care about the engine room. Like it matters?

Will they finally say this is an alternate universe or not? Because as it stands they went back in time and erased everything (TOS,TNG,DS9,VOY)

Will they at least try and explain why Spock would allow the death of billions of people? He has the knowledge of time travel to fix everything.

If not then the character of Spock is not the true character we know and some people who claim to be “fans” are not.

214. boborci - January 13, 2012

70 — I’m in my trailer right now!;)

215. boborci - January 13, 2012

101. There’s a 2 second shot of us in the party scene.

216. boborci - January 13, 2012

137. BC could read the telephone book and make it sound elegant and compelling.

217. boborci - January 13, 2012

186. Three cheers for the bedwetters!!!

218. boborci - January 13, 2012

193. You’ll get the mother of all beauty shots this time around.

219. Plum - January 13, 2012

I liked how engineering looked. Ya wanna know why? ‘Cause it didn’t look like a set.

Break a leg guys and gals! :)

220. Basement Blogger - January 13, 2012

218

Hooray for a great beauty shot of the Enterprise. And make sure J.J. gets the United Federation of Planets logo in the picture. I get goose bumps when I see that logo on the Enterprise.

221. Eye - January 13, 2012

@214 Pity there’s no Like button here. ‘Cause I’d have used it, obviously. :)

222. I am not Herbert - January 13, 2012

Greetings boborci! Please do us proud this time!

Now, please stop calling it the engine room. This is NOT the Titanic.

It is ENGINEERING. Or engineering room, or engineering deck, or engineering section, or engineering whatever…

223. TrekkerChick - January 13, 2012

@212 Depends upon the Captain’s and Scotty’s opinion of the quality of the crew doing the rebuilding after the damage shown in the ’09 film.

Likely to go up in a huge explosion – or break apart scattering the entire crew into the vacuum of space? A couple more shots of whisky to calm the nerves before engaging the warp drive to attain Warp 5.

224. I am not Herbert - January 13, 2012

…speaking of beauty shots…

Please also fix the shuttle bay so that it fits without screwing up the ships structural design or size. thanks!

225. MC1 Doug - January 13, 2012

I miss Rick Berman (I’m not kidding).

He, at least, gave out some plot details, enough for us to salivate over. As is, we don’t have a clue of what the upcoming movie’s tale is about.

226. siral - January 13, 2012

I hope Bones gets his NURSE!

227. MONGO - January 13, 2012

Mongo not read anything but article. Mongo see Orci mans comment “cool improvements”.

That mean if mountain are blue then engine room cool? If all bars blue then engine room super cool?

Mongo say Happy Luck film Star Trek movie!

228. AJ - January 13, 2012

It is certainly great news that ‘our’ flick is now in production, and I wish JJ Abrams, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk + cast and crew all the very best. Please make one for the ages.

Page 98:

Gorn sidles down the mountain with rock in hand

Gorn: “I shall be merciful! And quick!”

229. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

.@#139 – Keachick ” I voted for ‘more character moments’ but did think about voting for ‘more romance’. I agree that even hints of romance gets pilloried. I guess what I want to see is more affection and love expressed, which does not necessarily need to be sexual in nature. What we saw happen between Spock and Uhura was not romantic – it was about two people sharing grief, loss, understanding and compassion for each other in a more intimate way than two people who are merely companions or work colleagues might feel comfortable about sharing in a similar way with each other.

What I can’t understand is why so many people are so uncomfortable, even angry, about those two short scenes showing a couple expressing their humanity (and vulcanese as well) towards each other…Some of the comments about this since coming on the internet just over two years ago have puzzled me and have really upset and shocked me. Why so much cynicism and hatred?”

Reminds me of a great saying: All we need is love. :-)

@#141 Jason

139. I can only answer for myself — but I think the love-interest-as-motivator gets forced into a lot of movies. The world is ending but the hero is more interested in someone he just met (or somebody established as an old flame by a couple of lines of dialogue) as if saving the world wouldn’t be done for its own sake.

Well, I’m glad that is wasn’t the case in ST09. Both characters had known each other for quite some time, and they were not together just because Spock’s world was ending. So, already this movie was ahead of the curve by your standards.

Spock wasn’t ‘more interested’ in Uhura than he was in doing his job, which is very in-character. She also wasn’t more interested in him than she was in doing her part. All of their scenes worked very well to me.

Yes, Uhura wasn’t there as the damsel in distress in Trek 09, but the love did seem a little gooey and over-the-top – I bought it all except the making out on the transporter pad. And it felt like what it was — wouldn’t it be awesome if the Vulcan got the object-of-desire/hot girl instead of Kirk. And the movie itself didn’t really establish her as much more than an aurally sensitive, Romulan-speaking, really hot girl. And, yes, they’re in the academy and all, in their mid-to-late 20s — but the skirt-chasing and getting the prize was kind of over-emphasized. Still, I think the actors pulled it off, and it became more than just a one-off joke (and made Spock sexy and, arguably, more interesting) And, yeah, all that”s just my opinion.

Yes, the actors DID pull it off. They did a mighty fine job, if I do say so myself. :-) The making out in the Transporter pad made sense to me because they didn’t know if they’d see each other again, so it was a kind of ‘farewell just in case’. Now of course we know that Spock and Kirk are going to make it, but still, that didn’t take away from what that moment was supposed to mean for me. I thought it was nice. And, I know I wasn’t the only one that liked the Kirk/Spock interaction about Uhura’s first name. It’s nice little personal touches like that between characters that gives a movie (especially and action/sci-fi movie) a little more definition to me.

I agree that Uhura wasn’t all that developed beyond the bare minimum, but I also think that this had to be the case for the first film. They had a lot to do. It was more important to delve into the main 2 main characters (Kirk and Spock) than everyone else, and even McCoy got a pretty good bit of backstory in there with the whole ‘my wife and the divorce and starting anew’ talk with Kirk. Scotty too, with the whole ‘beagle-gone-missing-I’m-stuck-here-where’s-the-food-oh-you-solved-my-theory’ story. The only main cast members that I think didn’t get a good bit of backstory in there were Uhura, Sulu (other than the fun-fact that he learned how to fence), and Chekov. Again, they are not chopped liver, and they should get a little bit of exposition in this next film, especially Uhura so she doesn’t become a caricature because her development hasn’t been balanced (i.e. ONLY hailling frequencies and being the supportive girlfriend), or wallpaper because her development doesn’t exist. That would be sad.

I saw Columbiana. I know what Zoe can do. I hope she’s given a chance. Cho and Yelchin as well. I saw Yelchin in the last Terminator movie, and he is a great actor. If they give him something of substance to do, I’m sure he’ll make it work. My point is that none of these main actors should be put in a corner where their talent is wasted. They didn’t get these roles just so they could stand in the background saying “Wictor, Wictor” or “Hailing frequencies now, Captain.” Again, that would be sad.

With all of the supporting cast announcements, I’m a little afraid that the main cast might get left behind. Say it ain’t so. :-/ I hope I am wrong and that the film won’t be overrun by additionals.

I want the team. There’s something special about seeing them all on the bridge together, and everyone contributing to solving the next problem and saving the day. I still love the last film, and I am still hopeful about this next one. :-)

Moving on…

Are all the comments against S and U cynicism and hatred? I’m sure some were. But heck, author Ann Crispin was fully against it as she thought it was out of character for both. Would professionals be making out in the elevators? I don’t know.

I think they would. It’s a private place where they can spend a few moments together during a very hectic time. It doesn’t take away from them getting on with their jobs (as they did) when those few moments are up. No biggie.

Just because Ann Crispin is an author doesn’t mean she can’t be wrong. I think that it was very in-character for THESE characters. Again, we’re not watching TOS or a story that is set in that timeline with THOSE characters. Perhaps she’s confused. (And I mean no disrespect.)

Like I said, I’m not a fan of romance when it’s lazy and squeezed in and the girl character in question isn’t well drawn out and could be anybody (especially in series where they change the love interest in every sequel). In some flicks — the Bourne series, say, and the Dark Knight (but not Batman Begins, that was awful) it works great and adds a bit of depth. But sometimes it’s just here to give someone an easy motivation (Nero’s wife was killed so now he’s destroying everything, fair enough) or to provide plot complications (how can he save the girl AND the universe? / their love is forbidden because of his/her past or her allegiance to: her people, her husband, the bad guy (or her husband the bad guy), the other side: you name it).

Well now, I think that the romance in Batman Begins worked. Katie Holmes was a little weak in the end, but I’m not sure if that was the acting or something else. Still, I would have preferred her over Gyllenhaal in DK. She had absolutely NO chemistry with Christian Bale. At least Katie had some. Sorry to say it, but if she was going to be his love interest going foward, (—>SPOILER–>) then I’m glad she died. The Bourne movies worked very well, all the way around. So, I agree with you about them.

And once again, you point to why I think Uhura needs a bit more exposition in this next film. To any and all that can make that happen, please make it so. The actress, fans, and the character all deserve it.

What I liked about Spock/Uhura was that their love wasn’t “just there.” It had meaning, and I hope that meaning is built upon. Please don’t waste it. The first movie provided a good foundation, and I hope to see where things go from there. I don’t want anything that’s lazy or squeezed in either, but these writers seem to be up to task, so we’ll see – I hope. ;-)

Yes, human beings are complex and deserve rich emotional lives, but, how often is getting the girl ever really about that. I”m all for love and a big softy when it comes to bad romcoms (hell, I even go to Garry Marshall movies) — but nobody”s ever convinced me that Trek needs a love story to be excellent. Incidentally the best movie Trek hasn’t had a love story. The worst movie Trek has (Decker and Illia, Riker and Troi, Picard and Anij). Yes, you could say it’s time for it to be done well — but, I fear that would turn Trek into every other action movie (all of which need a love interest).

And nobody’s ever convinced me that the only way that Trek can be excellent is to not have a love story in it. My favorite series had more than one (Deep Space Nine), and they were all done very well, so it is possible for it to work. The actors have the talent, so it’s up to the writers to give them the lines and the stories that will give us the depth and meaning that we are looking for in terms of substantive character moments, and yes, even some involving love (*cough* Spock and Uhura *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* ;-)).

The fact that this is Star Trek, set in its own sci-fi universe, already keeps it from being just like any other action movie to me. All they need to do is maintain that. And this can be done whilst including a bit of love.

Thanks for your thoughts, Jason. :-)

230. Xai (decloaking for Round 2...Ding!) - January 13, 2012

Happy first day! Yay!

Ok, I’ll beg. I really…REALLY need a title. Please.

And, I already know that “Star Trek : The Pursuit of the Wasscally Wabbit” is not it.
BobO… don’t even try…LOL

231. Xai , “Star Trek : The Pursuit of the Wasscally Wabbit” - January 13, 2012

“Star Trek : The Pursuit of the Wasscally Wabbit”… however, the pointed ears work and Elmer gets to wear a wed shirt.

232. Johnson 12 - January 13, 2012

Nice. Ignored yet again. Thanks Bob.

233. AJ - January 13, 2012

S/U Fan:

My only complaint is that a silly third-tier subplot has become fodder for so much discussion by a small amount of people on this website. It occupies almost one minute of a 2 hour film, and is utterly disposable.

Spock to me is Spock. Inaccessible to human women who all want him, yet indispensable and available to his Captain, who needs, and counts on him.

That is the Spock character. He is an alien in the sheer level of loyalty he gives to Kirk, and is tempered by McCoy, and all three together make up what is the thing most of us love about old-school ‘Star Trek.’

234. Christopher Doll - January 13, 2012

Well Scotty’s had some time with the Engine Room, so obviously it’s going to look more like a Scotch Distillery this time. More wooden barrel :)

235. Brett Campbell - January 13, 2012

As to the poll: more philosophic, and humanitarian content through plot and character interaction.

Congratulations to being back to work on the actual shooting of the Trek film to Mr. Orci et al.

236. Dunsel Report - January 13, 2012

Uhura worked well in the story as a counter-balance to Sarek. The two of them helped to dramatize Spock’s inner conflict. She’s pulling Spock towards having a human heart. He’s pulling him towards being Vulcan and logical — at least until he has a change of heart, seeing how much Spock hurts over his mom, and tells him to do what feels right.

237. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

I’m betting that the engine room in the sequel will still be the Budweiser brewery but with cgi enhancements to make it look less like a brewery.

#’s 95, 163, and 186.

You jackasses might as well just stay home…..no one here has the patience for your arrogant, obnoxious, condescending remarks and insults!

238. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. I know I keep onto you about this and i am sorry if i seem a litle crazy at times. But is there any chance of you getting Del Trames name into the new movie. Thanks.

239. Buzz Cagney - January 13, 2012

#233 spot on. What surprises me is some fans don’t get it. Neither do some writers and directors for that matter!

240. CJS - January 13, 2012

Improved engine room = steam-punk warp drive?
improved engine room = filmed at a different brewery?

After all, in the new universe the Enterprise’s 5 year mission is to deliver delicious beer to all of the Federation colonies and outposts suffering under Kzinti prohibition. Cumberbatch plays the Kzinti equivalent of Elliot Ness.

241. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

Seeing as how the romance is still continuing in the comics, I have to guess that we’ll still be seeing Spock and Uhura make out during the sequel sometime.

And yes, it is a romance. Let’s just call it as it is. I find it amazing how both Keachick and Spock/Uhura fan, who are staunch defenders of the relationship, don’t see it for what it is. Yes, Uhura was comforting Spock after the loss of Vulcan, but clearly romance was there. It was there before Vulcan was destroyed. It was the reason why Spock initially left Uhura off of the Enterprise crew rosters.

I’d prefer there be no romance in the sequel, and that Spock be more like, you know, Spock.

242. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

#141 – “But sometimes it’s just here to give someone an easy motivation (Nero’s wife was killed so now he’s destroying everything, fair enough) or to provide plot complications (how can he save the girl AND the universe? / their love is forbidden because of his/her past or her allegiance to: her people, her husband, the bad guy (or her husband the bad guy), the other side: you name it).”

What is it, though, that motivates most people into action? How is this a more ‘lazy’, an ‘easy motivation’, compared with the motivations of someone who has no one who is particularly special/close to them?

Gosh, one of the biggest beefs some people have with how prime Kirk died in ST:Generations was his (and Picard’s) lack of ‘real motivation’ for stopping Soran and saving that planetary system. The objections made were that nothing was known about the Veridian system and of the 230 million inhabitants on one of the planets. The main motivation for stopping Soran was in order to protect/save these totally unknown alien inhabitants and other lifeforms. There are some people who thought that did not make sense because neither the audience, nor the two captains, knew anything about those they were attempting to save. For this reason, among others, Kirk did not really die “a hero’s death”, “a *proper* death” befitting his status. For many people, it was not enough that Kirk ended up sacrificing his own life for the sake of millions of strangers. For me, it did make sense, in that Kirk’s (and Picard’s) actions were true altruism, making him the ultimate, consummate HERO.

It was what Picard did after, or more didn’t do, that did not make any sense and has stuck in my craw to this day. It sucked!

243. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

Hello, AJ. :-)

” S/U Fan:

My only complaint is that a silly third-tier subplot has become fodder for so much discussion by a small amount of people on this website. It occupies almost one minute of a 2 hour film, and is utterly disposable.

Spock to me is Spock. Inaccessible to human women who all want him, yet indispensable and available to his Captain, who needs, and counts on him.

That is the Spock character. He is an alien in the sheer level of loyalty he gives to Kirk, and is tempered by McCoy, and all three together make up what is the thing most of us love about old-school ‘Star Trek.’

I want to focus on your last sentence there. That’s the problem. That’s why a few scenes that were perfectly fine and take up about 2 minutes of the film have been such a discussion on these boards. This is not, and I repeat, this is not “old-school ‘Star Trek.’

The fact that “This is not your father’s Star Trek” is what made the last film a success to me. They kept the essence of TOS without it being TOS. However, there are some that seem to want them to make TOS and think that this is what they are ‘supposed’ to do. I disagree. I like the fact that they are building on things that were hinted at in the original, but they are taking those things and making them their own for this timeline and this universe.

I could chop to pieces the whole ‘trinity boy-bond’ that some find so titillating and want between Kirk/Spock/McCoy, but I wouldn’t do that. That could be seen as a sort of love-story in and of itself, and yet there are some that think it’s okay when it’s men expressing love, devotion, and ‘availability’ to one another, but add a woman in there and – “Oh, no, no!! Heaven’s no!! The sky is falling!!! Soap Opera!!!” I don’t buy it, and you’re right: That is something that is really only meant for fodder because discounting a love that is very real and very human (and even very Vulcan too, if you think about it) is little more than a sad joke.

Thanks, AJ. :-)

244. VZX - January 13, 2012

215. Got it. Party scene on the couch. Yeah, I do work sometimes…

232: Chill out, dude. He’s a busy man.

I’d rather watch Alice Eve read the phone book….

245. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#241 Ryan

Hey, Ryan. If you want to call it a romance, then that works for me. I don’t care what you call it. Whatever floats your boat. :-)

Just so we’re all on the same page here, let’s jog over to the definition of romance:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/romance

“Definition of ROMANCE
intransitive verb
1
: to exaggerate or invent detail or incident
2
: to entertain romantic thoughts or ideas
transitive verb
1
: to try to influence or curry favor with especially by lavishing personal attention, gifts, or flattery
2
: to carry on a love affair with ”

Well, the only one that kind of applies is “to carry on a love affair with,” but I don’t see Spock and Uhura as an affair, but as a relationship.

Let’s see what they have to say about the term “love affair” to see if it applies properly:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love%20affair

“Definition of LOVE AFFAIR
1
: a romantic attachment or episode between lovers
2
: a lively enthusiasm ”

Things like “romanitc attachment” and “episode between lovers” doesn’t quite sound like love to me, but like a a fling, i.e. “an affair.”

So, no, for me the term “romance” doesn’t apply because I think of Spock and Uhura as being more than that. I think of them as being in love, i.e. in a loving relationship. It’s a love story to me, not a romance.

But again, Ryan, call it what you want. I won’t be offended, or at least not too offended. :-)

246. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

Look, the writers have said that the idea of bringing back the TOS characters was to see how they evolved into the crew we know from TOS. That the sequel will have the characters be more like their counterparts from the old show. Which means we SHOULDN’T be having to put up with a romance between Spock and Uhura. What we need is more of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy moments, and if they want of elevate Uhura to be a main character, I’m all for that. I just hope we get to see her doing things no one else can do, like how Spock does things Kirk can’t do, and vice versa. I want to see Uhura use her talents and skills.

The tagline “This is not your father’s Star Trek” to me meant that the new movies would have a faster pace with more emphasis on action and visual effects.

247. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

#233, #241 – So you want to see a total rehash of prime Spock, with nothing changed, altered or developed, in this film series, because that younger prime Spock is the only “real” Spock. Never mind that the TOS series hinted at Spock’s potential (but not fulfilled) and that the older prime Spock advises his younger alt-self to temper the pursuit of “pure logic” by “doing what feels right”.

You know, neither Spock nor the movie, is just about or for you guys. And yes, just as Star Trek does not NEED a love story in order to be good, there is also nothing to say that a good love story in Star Trek would prevent the movie from being just as good.

248. bmar - January 13, 2012

boborci – Frankly, we don’t believe that it’s actually in production. As they say on the internets, pics or it didn’t happen. Come on bob, give us one snap from your phone that proves to us that ST is really and truly in production. Come on. JJ will never know. It’s just between us.

249. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - January 13, 2012

Cool improvements?

Engineering scenes filmed in a meat locker?

250. Phil - January 13, 2012

Still don’t have an issue with Spock/Uhura. Creative liberties being what they are, I can understand why the writers wanted a female humanizing influence in Spocks life. However, extending that relationship back into Uhura’s cadet days, was clearly fraternization, something spock should have been brought up on charges for….assuming the relationship was not a secret, of course.

251. MONGO - January 13, 2012

Mongo think maybe it better if Uhura womans just be assigned to Farragut after all. Then peoples not argue why she kissy Spock mans.

Mongo have to admit not much interested in Spock mans and Uhura womans be in love. It OK by Mongo if other peoples like romance angle. For Mongo it not further plot. Movie same for Mongo if Uhura just do job. Like Chekov mans. Or Sulu mans.

252. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire. - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. How Would you say the first day of Shooting was.

253. Jose Kuhn - January 13, 2012

Bob Orci,

There you go……Never Trust a man with a cuban mom……. Wait a minute I have a cuban mother….. Come to think of it I have a cuban wife …… I guess my children are screwed too….

Speaking of cuban mothers. There is that scene early in Voyager where Belana Torres shatters a coffee table. She apologizes stating it is her klingon half. I looked at my wife and said “no, it must be her cuban half !!!”

Jose

254. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

Spock was created as an “outsider” character who struggled with both his human and Vulcan halves. He was caught between two worlds. That is why he couldn’t fall in love. It really wasn’t until “Unification”, an episode that takes place ONE HUNDRED YEARS after TOS that Spock was able to reconcile his two halves.

With the destruction of Vulcan, I have to think that Spock feels even more of an outsider, since Vulcans number only at about 10,000 and he isn’t pure Vulcan, and so he really can’t help his people in perpetuating the species.

To make Spock a lover would be to rob him of the qualities that make him so enduring to this day.

Yeah, one can change the character of Spock on the basis that we’re now dealing with an alternate timeline version of the character, but that doesn’t mean its a good idea.

255. Hugh Hoyland - January 13, 2012

Lord I hope they didnt take money that could have been used on something important in order to doll up ENG!

Instead of an epic Space Battle scene we get a low budget chess match between Kirk and “INSERT VILLAIN”. Dangit.

BTW I’m watching “Shes out of my League” with Alice Eve. What a knock out! Cant wait to find out who shes playing.

256. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#246 Ryan

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/30/interview-roberto-orci-alex-kurtzman/

Kurtzman – “… It was always about going back to The Original Series, but the problem becomes that we know the fate of the characters from The Original Series. So if you are going to breathe new life into Trek, how do you do it while making it unpredictable? If you know how they die, you can never put them into real jeopardy. That led us to where if we altered the timeline we can tell a whole new set of stories with our characters.”

A new timeline arguably changes the characters, at least to a certain extent, because we are not only who we innately are, but also the sum of our experiences. This crew, together and as individuals, have had and will have new and different experiences. So, the love-story (and in your mind, romance) makes perfect sense. You want more Kirk/Spock/McCoy moments, but they are absolutely not needed. A different mix could work or just pairings like in the last film (Kirk/McCoy, Spock/Kirk, Kirk/Sulu, etc.). There’s nothing set in stone. If you read what the writers have said about starting this new timeline, that was kind of the point.

Now, they do go on to say:

Alex Kurtzman: The characters have not changed as characters. They still have all the personality traits that we know of the original bridge crew. I think the gravest mistake would have been to try and reinvent the characters. That would have made everybody, including ourselves, very unhappy. It would have felt like violating sacred ground. This was a way to stay true to canon, and to take the stories in a new direction

Orci: Their souls are intact. And we would argue that we would have settled on some of the same character introductions, with or without the incursion from the future. In our minds some of the events overlap completely in both timelines.

Even though things are different in this timeline, like Kirk coming aboard the Enterprise first as a cadet, by the end of the movie every one of the original bridge crew end up where they are supposed to be. Is there some kind of notion that it is their destiny to be on that bridge, regardless of what timeline you are on?

Kurtzman: Yes. In fact there was one version of the script where Kirk points out that it is incredibly odd that they all sort of turned as they would have. Nimoy Spock tells Kirk ‘I knew this character as this person and that character as that person’ and Kirk says ‘wow, those characters are exactly the same ones that I know’ and Spock says something like ‘Fascinating, that must be the timestream’s way of trying to mend itself.’

Orci: It is a nod to destiny. And there is still something like that in the film.

So, again, they kept the essence of who these characters are, so in that sense they are the same. This way, old-school trekkers can stay calm (hopefully), and people new to TOS or who weren’t all that into it before can get into it, like myself, because new circumstances, slightly different histories and experiences, DO slightly change the characters, but they are still essentially the same people. Spock and Uhura were attracted to each other in the original, but they didn’t act on it. In this timeline, things happened in such a way where they did act on it, and I’m glad that they did. That doesn’t make them different people. It just means that in this timeline they made a different choice, and a darn good one if I do say so myself. ;-)

257. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#250

Thank you, Phil. :-)

258. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#251 MONGO

If she were assigned to the Farragut, she’d be dead. You wish Uhura were dead? Oh, MONGO, say it ain’t so… :-(

259. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

#256.

Look, the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad is as important as say, the Batman/Bruce Wayne-Alfred relationship from the Batman comics. No one in their right mind would replace Alfred with, let’s say, Vicky Vale as the butler/assistant/mentor/father figure.

Why would you want to replace McCoy with Uhura? Obviously you’re a woman, and as such, have natural feminist motives, which are fine, but you got to look at what works. The Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio worked magic in the original series. We got to enjoy some great philosophical debates and bantering between the characters.

I’m sorry, but a Sulu/Uhura/Kirk trio would be just ridiculous. No one cares about Sulu. Or Chekov. I’m sorry but they’re secondary characters. Spock represents the logical, strategic part of Kirk, while McCoy represents the emotional, passionate, humanistic side.

As for the romance, you’re right, there was no evidence they did not have a relationship prior to TOS. But there is also no evidence they had one either. But they were NOT attracted to each other in TOS. They seemed more like good, close friends.

260. MONGO - January 13, 2012

OK Mongo not wish Uhura womans dead.

Mongo wish movie not in AU. But that not matter. Mongo like all Star Trek. DS9, TNG, TOS, VOY, ENT, ANI, and NuTrek movie. Mongo see problem in all. Or just stuff Mongo not like as much. Mongo also see stuff Mongo like in all.

Spock and Uhura kissy not Mongo cup of Plomeek soup. But Spock walk around without brain not Mongo cup of Plomeek soup either.

Mongo think Spock mans and Uhura womans kissy not matter enough to argue about.

Mongo want know what happen when JJ mans done make Star Trek movies? Where that leave us? Never go back to Original universe? AU get fix? Never Star Trek on TV? Mongo think this fun and all but when Mongo get back to watch what happen in universe that Mongo spend all his life watch?

261. Vultan - January 13, 2012

#233

Well put, AJ.

But apparently this “isn’t your father’s Star Trek” any more.
It’s your mother’s.

“Like sand through the hourglass, these are the voyages of our lives… oh, and the starship Enterprise.”

;)

262. Christopher Mulrooney - January 13, 2012

Meesage to Bob Orci,

A friend an I were casted as extras in Star Trek (2009) movie but we never got to come on to shoot in a scene though in 2009 we were the Third and Fourth in line at Coperate Casting, We did go in for a fitting and were supposed to go for filming a scene, but it rained out and we were called back and said they would recall us when they shoot that scene, but never recieved the call :( wishing we could get a shot in this film, this time around

263. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

What I don’t want to see is a politically correct version of Trek, where Sulu and Uhura are elevated (at the expense of McCoy) merely to appease minorities.

264. Enterprise1965 - January 13, 2012

@Bob. Talking about beauty shots, how about beauty shots similiar to ST:TMP and STIV: The Voyage Home flyby into warp. Any chance of havimg ILM give us those kind of beauty shots?

265. boborci - January 13, 2012

better.

266. rm10019 - January 13, 2012

What a weird post/worry. Were you upset that Uhura and Sulu got scenes to play in ST III, IV, V, VI, or was that balance ok with your non-pc sensibilities…. sheesh.

267. rm10019 - January 13, 2012

265 – Looking forward to it! Thanks for all the hard work that goes into this.

268. trekprincess - January 13, 2012

can’t wait to see the cast back :)

269. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

Ryan,

@#259

I never asked for anyone to REPLACE anyone. What I asked for was THE TEAM, which INCLUDES all main cast members and not just 3. Different pairings and triads can work, which if course includes Kirk/Spock/McCoy, but it does NOT have to have that particular triad front-and-center for the film or films to work. The last movie proves this quite well. I am not against some scenes with that triad, but I would not miss anything if they were not there.

I like the whole cast, so what I’m about is inclusion, and not the exclusion of anyone. Your comparisons to other movies don’t really apply here because no one is asking for the TEAM to be changed. You seem to only want Spock/Kirk/McCoy. I don’t, and I hope that the next film isn’t just about 3 people, excluding everyone else.

@#263

Wow. You really haven’t been reading what I’ve been saying. Funny how I rooted for Chekov (a white male), and that gets skipped. I won’t bother to signify this particular post with a response. Sad.

270. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#260 MONGO

You dear sweetheart. I think it’s not big enough for the constant debate either, but I will speak up for what I believe in ance enjoy. I’ve also seen something I liked and something I didn’t like in all Treks. Everybody can’t like everything all the time.

I wonder about some of the same things too. Let’s hope JJ and crew end up doing these movies for a while so we don’t have to worry too soon. :-)

271. VZX - January 13, 2012

Argument for more character moments:

I know these are the first scenes to be cut from a film to save running time and since they do not help move the story. BUT: these are the things that people remember most of the movie, they help flesh out a character and make them more “human,” and they can lighten the mood in an otherwise overwhelming dark feeling in that part of the film.

My favorite character moment from Trek 09 was when Spock and Bones had a minor discussion on the bridge with Bones uttering his famous “are you out of your Vulcan mind?” line. It did nothing for the story, but it was badly needed for more humor and appreciated by the fans.

So, yeah, I voted for more character moments…..

272. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#261 Vultan

I’m only half joking here, but I hope what you call “Mama’s Star Trek” has them laughing all the way to the bank. Unlike ancient times, women have a lot of money these days. ;-).

273. Vultan - January 13, 2012

#272

No, I don’t think the filmmaker’s see this new Trek as “Mama’s Trek.”
Just some… of its fans seem to be pushing for more soap opera in the… space opera.

By the way, if there’s a way to work the surviving cast of “Mama’s Family” into the new movie, then you’ll really have something. ;)

274. Rick Carthew - January 13, 2012

To: Bob Oric… First, Congratulations to you, JJ and the rest of the ST Team on your first day of shooting! — I have faith the sequel may even surpass your all your efforts archived in the landmark reboot of the franchise in 2009.

Now at 57 years old, I am easily one of the oldest readers of TrekMovie (and btw the only site I read for all things Trek) I was 11 years old in 1966 and was hooked on the Star Trek from day one of its première and have been a loyal fan of the franchise, through all the films and series that followed.

And, as I am sure this following comment will incur the “Wrath” of some of my fellow readers here…. ST09 is my favorite Star Trek movie! And, it has also become my favorite Star Trek movie score. Also love the lens flares, and the new BigE, inside & out, including your Engineering decks; as I believe they were meant to represent the E’s lower decks, of the secondary hull – And Not “Main Engineering”

http://trekazoid.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/constitution-cutaway.jpg
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/constitution-class-starship.php

And, I look forward to seeing the all the new sets both, physical and or CGI, that I hope will include “Main Engineering”

Perhaps along the lines of Ryan Church’s Main Engineering Concepts 1 2 3
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091119181802/memoryalpha/en/images/f/fd/USS_Enterprise_engineering_concept_3.jpg

Good Luck to you and the entire team of ST2!
Rick

PS Thank you Anthony for all you do!

275. Dilithium doublebock - January 13, 2012

@Bob
Any beauty shots of Alice Eve?

276. captain_neill - January 13, 2012

I am looking forward to the next movie.

I am glad the will it be Khan can be put to bed with Cumberbathc’s casting as I was not keen on a redo f something that does not need to be redone. Khan is and always wil be a classic.

Yes Star Trek is a tad different now with a bit more Star Wars injected now but as long as Bob and Alex and JJ Abrams honour the original vision of Roddenberry then perhaps my faith will be restored.

I look forward to Trek XII.

277. NTH - January 13, 2012

Traversing anew in a sea of space,
Will providence smile on a course not set,
For a crew that is known against hostile intent,
Destinies revealed in the darkened shadows of a mystery,
Heroes arise as your destiny calls for your journey continues.

Looking forward to 2013!
Best wishes to all involved in the new movie.

278. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. How would you say the fist day of Shooting went.

279. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Star Trek in 2013. Hey. isn’t the world supposed to end this year. Just Saying.

280. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. On the first day of Shooting. How would you say the Shooting went and how would you say the general mood was on the set. Also. Was J.J on his Game.

281. Starbase Britain - January 13, 2012

Dear Mr Orci

Best Wishes from Great Britain on the first day of shooting.

Only a gentle reminder as posted a long time ago…… Its ‘The Landing Party’ rather than ‘the Away Team’ .

All the best

Greg
UK

282. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 13, 2012

@#273

I don’t think they do either, and neither do I. I said that’s what you seem to be calling it. ;-)

The cast of Mama’s Family in Star Trek would be a sight to see. Not too pretty, I’d imagine, but a sight nonetheless. :-D

283. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

The thing about Dr McCoy’s role is that he only seemed to be there on the bridge because he was Kirk’s friend and counsellor. Most of the time McCoy had little to do, except when it came to emergencies like the Enterprise being fired upon and incurring damage (Scotty’s job) and crew incurring injuries. The bridge was not the place for Dr McCoy to do what he was there on the Enterprise to do – ie being the Chief Medical Officer and healing.

We know why the five of the seven main cast/crew are on the bridge – Kirk, well he’s the captain; Spock – first officer/science officer; Uhura – communications (universal translator)/xenolinguistics; Sulu – navigation/weapons and Chekov – astrophysics/sensor reader and backup for Spock and Sulu (wunderkind). Neither Scotty’s nor McCoy’s positions involved them having to be on the Enterprise bridge all the time.

So how do you naturally have the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trio together working in a consistent way a lot of the time? Well, the fact is – you can’t! Hence, what is more likely, realistic and feasible is pairings – Kirk/Spock, Kirk/McCoy, Spock/McCoy. The normal trio would be a Kirk/Spock/Uhura; Kirk/Uhura/Chekov; Kirk/Spock/Chekov and/or Sulu; Spock/Chekov/Sulu and/or Uhura. Not that often would you necessarily get a Kirk/Spock/McCoy or a Kirk/Spock/Scotty trio, except in very specific circumstances.

These were the roles given to the characters from the beginning of the 1960′s TOS TV series. It seems that the only relationships that can be taken seriously or garner any respect from most viewers then and now are the relationships (everything is about relationship) had between males and any other kind is deemed unimportant, irrelevant, unnecessary, improper. Sad.

Fiction film is about relationship and, by its very nature, gratuitous!
It all depends on how well the production team (esp. writers) and cast make use of these elements.

284. Vultan - January 13, 2012

#281

Ah yes, of course.

Actually, I really didn’t have a problem with the Spock/Uhura thing, but I’d rather not see it go beyond what we saw in the last movie—at least not putting an increased emphasis on their relationship, as some are calling for.

Exploring strange new worlds sounds more interesting… to me anyway.

285. Decker - January 13, 2012

Instead of the engine room being shot in a brewery, this one will be shot at a winery.

Warp Factor Zin!

286. captain nick - January 13, 2012

This blog is incredible, love to see so many people excited about Trek and especially this movie. All the best to all involved, I wait with bated breath for this to come out. :)

287. Paul - January 13, 2012

@264
@265

Better I hope means that yes ILM will top the magnificient motion control work from the earlier movies they worked on & be allowed to pull the camera back a little from the hull but also show some extreme closeups/pullbacks like the ST8 exterior bridge scenes were awesome at the cinema!!

STMP final beauty shot is still the very best though!!!

288. MONGO - January 13, 2012

Spock Uhura Fan persons and captain nick mans:

It hard for Mongo get too excited for New Star Trek Movie. Mongo have two birthday before it come out. 5 year mission almost be over when movie hit screen. 3rd movie have Kirk as Admiral and V’Ger on way.

Mongo more excited for Little Hobbit movie.

289. captain_neill - January 13, 2012

The important thing is that JJ Abrams remembers that he is making a Star Trek film, not a Star Wars film.

290. Bob the evil Klingon call center supervisor - January 13, 2012

So boborci, what changes are on tap for Engineering? Care to share a hint or two with us?

291. Johnson 12 - January 13, 2012

@192

Bob,
I wonder if you realize how depressing it is that you won’t address this? Maybe you really don’t care.

292. Eric - January 13, 2012

Engine room improvements? What? A beer tap perhaps? lol

293. Basqyacht - January 13, 2012

boborci – lawrence krauss, guy who wrote those physics of star trek books, was on npr science friday today and gave a shoutout to “multiverse” theories as increasingly likely judging from what we’re learning in cosmology & particle fizzicks.

294. Basqyacht - January 13, 2012

boborci –

lawrence krauss, guy who wrote those physics of star trek books, was on npr science friday today and gave a shoutout to “multiverse” theories as increasingly likely judging from what we’re learning in cosmology & particle fizzicks.

295. boborci - January 13, 2012

First day was terrible. We forgot to take the lens cap off.

296. boborci - January 13, 2012

291. I havent addressed ANY plot or character points.

297. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 13, 2012

#295

: – )

Remember: you also have to load the film too!

298. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

Cheese is good for you and so is soap good for you.

Eating some cheese every day keeps bones healthy and strong. Cheese has (or should have) loads of essential fat-soluble vitamins as well.

Soap keeps you clean and feeling and smelling fresh and nice.

Just saying…

Never a day goes by that I don’t engage in being a little cheesy and soapy…:)

299. USS Enterprise C - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob, I am so excited to start hearing more news about the sequel now that it’s finally shooting! When can we expect to hear about the announcement of the official Title???

300. MJ - January 13, 2012

Hey all, the LA Times just reported the following:

“After months of production delays caused by script problems, the sequel to the 2009 hit science fiction film is slated to begin filming next week, a person familiar with the project said.”

So the LA Times has confirmed that the script was the problem for the delays all along over the past 18 months…so, as reported by the LA Times, the delay is not due to Abrams work on Super 8 as Orci and other would seem to have inferred in past posts/articles on this web site.

301. somethoughts - January 13, 2012

#300

To my understanding there was no script, hence script problem.

302. Cervantes - January 13, 2012

Good news indeed. Now if they can just ditch ‘Keenser’ from the ‘Engineering’ section, then it might just be perfect this time around….

and Long live ‘Prime Kirk!’

303. lemrick - January 13, 2012

263. Red Dead Ryan – January 13, 2012

“What I don’t want to see is a politically correct version of Trek, where Sulu and Uhura are elevated (at the expense of McCoy) merely to appease minorities.”

WTH????? Who is the moderator on this site? This statement is totally uncalled for. So it’s alright for everyone else to get elevated screen time expect Uhura and Sulu? One comment like this is too many.

304. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

#295 – The camera guys didn’t, did they? OMG! Seriously?

#284 – “Exploring strange new worlds sounds more interesting… to me anyway.”

My little story had that, but fortunately, especially for those here who didn’t like the little I told, I am not the one doing the film. All I can say is – be careful what we wish; we just might get it!

From now on, it really is a case of everyone keeping an open mind about what the next film might contain. What is writ is writ. At this point the only things possible are tweaking of dialogue and scenes here and there.

305. Christopher Roberts - January 13, 2012

295. boborci – “First day was terrible. We forgot to take the lens cap off.”

If you’re still filming in Easter, watch out for hares in the gate.

306. AJ - January 13, 2012

S/U Fan:

It’s nice to debate with you on these threads.

The “classic” Spock character, you have to admit, is an aspirational one for women, as well as men. I always considered his inaccessibility to women as part of his character. He never had a fancy for anyone (except mom, of course), and allowed himself to focus only on loyalty to his Captain with an acuity that was only available from his Vulcan side.

McCoy would come by and viciously disassemble him every once and a while, like melting butter over fire, and get him to admit his feelings.

Much of what made the ‘old-school’ triad tick was the actors themselves. I think you would admit that. The fact that the newbies (Orci, Abrams, etc.) want to re-invent them is fine, but we need the chemistry. It seemed as if they tried to force the issue in the last film. I’ll hope that Pine/Quinto/Urban can get within even 100 kilometers of what Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley achieved in this next one.

307. Davexbit - January 13, 2012

Totally dug the “brewgineering” from the last Trek movie. It felt real. Maybe a combination with some new futuristic engine features. Keep the realism future effect though and not the “set” effect of the previous Trek movies and series. Sometimes “trekkers” don’t have an imagination but want a slightly new version of the same old thing. They frustrate me and keep the Trekieverse from developing.
Romance and character development of characters not that developed would be nice. What if we met Chekov’s parents or Sulu’s sister? Why are these characters who they are? You can learn a lot about characters by the people they associate with.
Keep the action, keep the commaradery and continue to respect canon while adding the “Y” in the road. Good luck and Godspeed! I’m sure this will be as fun a ride as the last one!

308. Anthony Pascale - January 13, 2012

Guys it is a privilege that Bob Orci drops by and interacts with the fans. It is great that he shares things with us, but that doesn’t mean he can be berated for not answering every question and revealing every detail.

309. Bucky - January 13, 2012

Bah. Enough with minor spoilers! I demand a copy & paste of an official plot summary!! From Hell’s heart I stab at lack of spoilers!

310. Bucky - January 13, 2012

Seriously, Bob or Anthony, there’s 20 bucks in it for ya if you do. 20!

311. boborci - January 13, 2012

300 silly

312. boborci - January 13, 2012

Does anyone know what the typical prep time for a movie is?

313. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

295. boborci – January 13, 2012
First day was terrible. We forgot to take the lens cap off.

Hey Bob. Does that mean no lens flares for the fist day of the Movie. Lol.

314. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob. let me guess. 2.234 months. Am I close.

315. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 13, 2012

218. boborci

“193. You’ll get the mother of all beauty shots this time around.”

Oh my… that made me thrilled ……………

and boborci in his trailler still funny……. :-) ;-)

I need a picture of the cast, Mr. Bob Orci…. PLEASE!!!

316. somethoughts - January 13, 2012

1-10yrs :)

317. boborci - January 13, 2012

314 ha! No, it takes at least six months.

318. Rick Carthew - January 13, 2012

312. boborci – Does anyone know what the typical prep time for a movie is?

12 to 14 months… ? …am I close?

319. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

317. boborci – January 13, 2012
314 ha! No, it takes at least six months.

D’oh! I meant to say. 5.897 months.

320. boborci - January 13, 2012

318 but yes, a big movie can take a year

321. Friz - January 13, 2012

Depends on the movie?

322. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 13, 2012

trailer………:-) :-)

323. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

So Bob. You said 6 months for a Typical Movie. So what about Trek. What was the Pred Time.

324. boborci - January 13, 2012

It took about 8 months, but we only had our director for six

325. MJ - January 13, 2012

Well, if the Supreme Court didn’t treat information release with a “Dick Cheney in his bunker” mentality, then the LA Times wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in this story.

326. AJ - January 13, 2012

THE MAKING OF STAR TREK
by
JJ ABRAMS

(with BOB ORCI)

“We forgot to take the lens cap off”

Please make it that funny. NOT the film, but all the associated crap.

327. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

8 months!. Not bad. Do you think in scope that Trek 13 will be bigger then Trek 09

328. MJ - January 13, 2012

So Bob, who do you think “Deep Throat” is on this story about the script problems being the primary cause of delay on this movie?

329. boborci - January 13, 2012

Bigger? Yup.

330. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. In total overall Scope. Do you think that Trek 2013 is bigger then Trek 2009.

331. boborci - January 13, 2012

328 someone who doesnt know much about anything. Likely a lazy guess on reporters part.

332. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Thanks Bob. Nice to know that Trek 13 is Bigger and Bigger is always better and then throw in a great Story. Well. Can you say. BOX Office Smash.

333. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob. We here at Trekmovie know you have been busy. A few months back Anthony had a thred where you were hard at work on the Story. Others might belive the times. But we here DON’T

334. somethoughts - January 13, 2012

I always thought bob and crew updated us fans with any updates, yes there was delays with missing the 2012 release date but at least it will be out in 2013 with quality in mind over a rush job.

335. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Bob. We all here really Apreaciate the Hard Work you have put into Star Trek. From the Majority of us here at Trek Movie.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!

336. MONGO - January 13, 2012

Anthony mans:

Mongo want know what be good subject we berate Orci mans about?

Mongo wait for spy pics from today film. Then berate Orci mans about wardrobe and sets. Because he writer mans. That make sense.

Is Little Hobbit in Star Trek movie?

337. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 13, 2012

Hey Mongo. Me thought you were Villian in Trek.

338. AJ - January 13, 2012

boborci,

I think one ‘real big’ thing we all want is a title.

It can be something secret and non-revealing, like:

STAR TREK 12: Surak Statue from “09″ on eBay for $2995
STAR TREK 2: Now We’ll Blow up Kronos (You Bastards!)
STAR TREK 12: The Wrath of Khan II
STAR TREK 12: Sir Patrick Sold, so Here’s Six New Brits! Yeah, Baby!
STAR TREK: Klingon War

Dare ya to use the last one!

I wish you all the best of luck, and hope for a great film when it’s released!

339. Mike;_B - January 13, 2012

would be nice if the engineering set was the only problem with the first movie!!!!

340. Anthony Pascale - January 13, 2012

RE: LA Times article
The Times has actually changed their story and removed the comment about “script problems” to note that the delay was due to the availability of JJ Abrams who was busy on Super 8 and MI4.

This is how TrekMovie has been reporting on the delay, so the LAT was wrong and they admitted it. They are still wrong on the shooting start, but oh well.

Bottom line is that back in 2010 when JJ Abrams/Bad Robot/Paramount all agreed that Bad Robot could produce Super 8 for summer 2011, MI4 for Holiday 2011 and Star Trek sequel for Summer 2012 (all while JJ also produced multiple TV pilots for WB) they were all smoking the happy optimistic pipe. And w/o JJ, the writers were essentially left hanging until the summer of 2011. But by that time they only had less than a year and so the movie was delayed. In Hollywood, S##t happens

341. dmduncan - January 13, 2012

295. boborci – January 13, 2012

First day was terrible. We forgot to take the lens cap off.

***

LOL!

342. NuFan - January 13, 2012

I must remain calm. Still a year and a half to go.

343. dom.b - January 13, 2012

@boborci

Thank you for all your hard work.
I’m introducing my kids to trek, They are ages 2 and 4.
Star Trek 2009 was a huge hit in my home. Even with my wife who doesn’t care for any sort of Scifi loved it. She thought it was a great movie. Didn’t even think of it as a Scifi film.

It’s nice to know that Star Trek is in good hands, alive again and better than ever.
Can’t wait to go see trek 2013 a few times with family!

Thanks

344. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 13, 2012

I do not understand how a site like latimes.com is so misinformed about it… and they say it has “a person familiar with the project” said to them… they do not do research before making a story like that and look so foolish… JJ Abrams said that filming would begin Thursday for the Collider, in the article posted on January 8, 2012 … Hellooo!

:-) :-)

345. boborci - January 13, 2012

Thing about scripts. If you finish it and it sits around too long, people get too much time to second guess it. So we always planned on not turning in a script until we knew what was what for sure.

346. Lostrod - January 13, 2012

#274

“Now at 57 years old, I am easily one of the oldest readers of TrekMovie … ”

Hey, Rick, I got ya beat by a couple of years, but we share the excitement of fans who were there from day one.!

I’m frankly amazed at the longevity of Star Trek. When I watched that first episode on the family RCA TV, I never dreamed I would be reading anything about ST so many years later.

Anthony – how about a poll of how many here watched “The Man Trap” when it originally aired?

Bob – all I can say is give us something that I can take my grand kids to and they can be amazed to find themselves discussing Star Trek when they’re my age.

Regards,

347. Ted C - January 13, 2012

I’m so happy they moved some of the production to Sony, That’s awesome! I cant wait to see the differences between the scenes done at one studio vs the other studio.

Um…ok, anyway…

The engine room comment is encouraging.

348. Valenti - January 13, 2012

Good to read that everything’s a go.

Wonder if we’ll get a 20% cooler joke…

:P (Sorry, too much My Little Pony lately.)

349. Basement Blogger - January 13, 2012

336

We have a Mongo sighting. Three questions for Mongo.

1. You told Jim that you were straight, how come you didn’t get an Oscar for playing a gay man in Victor/Victoria?

2. How come Lili Von Shtupp is tired?

3. What is dark matter?

350. MJ - January 13, 2012

@340. Thanks Anthony for mentioning the LA Times correction!

351. Hugh Hoyland - January 13, 2012

Bob, were those lens cap’s attached to IMAX cameras by any chance? ;)

352. Cheats At Fizzbin - January 13, 2012

Wondering if there will be a Kirk fist fight, and a chance for Michael to incorporate any of the TOS classic fight scene music…or, any opportunities for him to get some TOS classic music cues in the film at all. It would be nice, if possible.

353. VZX - January 13, 2012

349:
Many people think that dark matter is anti-matter that is not detectable. I’m leaning towards neutrinos, maybe they do have mass. Of course it could be WIMPs or MACHOs. Heh.

OR maybe Hubble had it all wrong and there is no dark matter and we are headed towards a Big Crunch.

354. VZX - January 13, 2012

BTW: My tongue is in my cheek….

355. Jack - January 13, 2012

No candygram for Mongo here. We need you, man.

347. Why would there be visible differences between things shot on soundstages on the two different lots? Or am I missing the joke? Is the joke: of course, there would be no differences? Or are they bigger on one than the others? Is this a dig at film geeks or nitpickers? Wouldn’t the same people be involved on both shoots? What would the differences be? Just curious. Not trying to be a jerk.

Minimal-to-no TOS (or other TOS movie) music cues please (none preferred). We’ve already heard them — on TOS. Same with winks, nods, in-jokes, homages, references, cameos and Easter Eggs. Show respect to Trek by making a great movie, period.

No need to force-feed us nostalgia. Heck, after STIV or so, those little TOS musical references became pretty stale, and kind of moments of forced emotion (da da da-aaah… da da da da daaaaaah… is like Pavlov’s bell signalling “hey guys, it’s really Star Trek!”).

Plus, those fight themes have become associated with campiness and used in everything from the Cable Guy to… okay, the Cable Guy. Heck, I’m a fan and I still think it’s ridiculous in TMP when, just after V’Ger destroys Epsilon IX, we get that “Dah-daaaahhhhhh!” something-bad-has-just-happened theme from TOS.

Still, if anybody can do it well, MG can. I still love the score for the last one, but wouldn’t want to hear the exact same thing again…

I’m still stuck on MI:4 as a movie that did most of this pretty well (and the MI theme has been part of that film series from the beginning). It got the character moments right as well — they weren’t *moments*… everybody had something to do that made sense but there were no Benji Scenes etc. like some of the later Trek pics had (Chekov Scene: “If shoe feets…”). Breaking the story up into disconnected scenes and bits doesn’t usually work too well in the finished product — you can always picture the white board where they tried to figure all this out.

Like I said. Why can’t we have new and fresh? Every element of TOS (video clips, music, the episodes themselves, photos, scripts, plots, minutia, reminiscences of the actors, encyclopedic write-ups, commentaries, blueprints, close-ups of props) is instantly available to all of us, all the time, by just opening up another browser tab or two. Why do we need to see a carbon copy of all that up on the screen? Why do we need to see the darned doomsday machine when we know exactly what it will do? Why do we need to know the origins of these things when origins are ultimately, usually anyway, disappointing (see: midichlorians).

356. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 13, 2012

Bob Orci had told us that they were doing “soft-prep” some time in April 2011 or thereabouts, after I read that Paramount had given their script/story outline the go-ahead in February 2011. So I guess that would be about 8 months now since the first pre-preparation work begun on this movie. Makes sense.

I have to say that the waiting has been frustrating but I also found it difficult reading the disbelief and bitchiness of some posters on what Bob Orci had told people here of what was going on, to the extent that he was able, legally and otherwise. My better half reminds me that Bob is a big boy, can look after himself and when looking at the very healthy state of his bank account, quite likely feels vindicated when considering how rude and insulting some people can be.

I have been asking for a cast photo since early December last year. Any chance of one now that presumably all, or most, of the cast are now assembled? They can be in their own clothes, if wearing costumes might give away something about the film that JJ doesn’t want people to know at this point. PLEASE?! Be a good man now, Bob, won’t you, in getting us a good cast photo or two. Be ever so grateful.

357. Phil - January 13, 2012

It’s not too often the LA Times admits it’s wrong. Hell, I admitted I was wrong yesterday. Feels good, maybe a few of the perpetural complainers ought to give it a try….

358. Phil - January 13, 2012

@356. Keep asking. The PR department will get to it…eventually.

359. Shawn - January 13, 2012

Bob Orci,

How many pages is the script and will we have more space battles in this one than in the last one?

Thanks for the updates.

360. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

I’d like to offer an apology to those who were offended by a couple of comments I made upthread. In particular, my post at #263 which I admit came close being to racist, though not intended to be. I got so wound up in arguing with others that I acted on emotion, and wrote things I now regret.

I am truly sorry.

361. Lum - January 13, 2012

First day of shooting and people are already wondering where the teaser or trailer is… Gotta get some footage in the can before you can release a trailer. Give ‘em time, they’ll eventually get enough filmed so they -can- put a teaser together. I’m looking forward to it too, but you have to be realistic about the amount of time it takes.

362. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2012

#360.

That should read: “….which I admit came close to being racist…”

Another thing, I just happen to like the character of Dr.McCoy and Karl Urban so much I fear both might not get the screen time they deserve. McCoy has always been an underrated character, and Karl Urban has proven to be a worthy successor to the late, great DeForrest Kelley. Urban is a great actor, and I think he deserves a substantial amount of screen time.

Of course, I support having Uhura get more screen time as well. If they want to make it the big four instead of the big three, I’m okay with that.

But I think this is one of the problems in rebooting TOS as a movie series. Some characters are going to get less screen time than others.

I probably should stop worrying about these things, though. :-)

363. Chasing Atlantis - January 13, 2012

Was hoping for an open extras casting call this time around like last. The featurette on extras from the Blu-Ray really got me jonesin to be in the shoot. Had a plan for a leave of absence from the job just in case ;). Didn’t hear of a casting call this time around.

364. Scott Nelson - January 13, 2012

Wonder if there will be any horses in it! Here is an alien – check out this video of our little foal as an Alien:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po016V6mSrE

365. Phil - January 13, 2012

Okay, I’m sure there is a name for these people, you know, the ones who have never missed an American Idol audition who will never, ever be chosen for the show?

Seems like there are a few of them popping up here now, under the illusion that their talents are vital for the productions success. Filming has started folks, it’s too late!

366. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - January 13, 2012

@136:

Uhura danced naked in STV. Yes, it happened.

I am happy, happy, happy as can be. boborci, please please please with a cherry on top have Uhura sing in the next movie. With Spock playing the Vulcan lyre. Pleez.

Yeah, my inner fangirl has been pent up for a few days. Don’t judge me for taking her out for an airing. :/

367. James - January 13, 2012

Yeoman Adele should sing in the rec room!! Jack needs more time with his therapist, he seems to have missed satire, humor and subtlty in previous posts. Not feeling the Trek Love in his post. Tho I do agree partly with his origin stance, does anyone remember “Reed Alert” from Enterprise? ‘shutters at the horror’

368. Daoud - January 13, 2012

Bob:

So, unlike last time with a Writers’ Strike underway… this time you can make ‘adjustments’. How do you feel that’s going to make the experience much better for you and Alex and Damon? How helpful is it that you can be on set and write changes as needed, and as the players get into character?

369. ShowitLikeItIs - January 13, 2012

Ditch Spock and Uhura and have the guts to give us what we ALL know to be true: Spock and Kirk are T’hy’la. Always were, always are, and always will be.

No, it doesn’t have to be explicit for the less….enlightened, but this IS the 21st Century. Just sayin’.

Keep the great action, balanced with well-done special effects ’cause yeah, we want to be shocked and awed, but if you don’t get with character development, you probably shouldn’t bother.

370. Harry Ballz - January 13, 2012

369.

It’s called character development, not arrested development!

I would recommend that the next time you have a thought……let it go.

371. NCM - January 13, 2012

306. AJ – January 13, 2012:

“I’ll hope that Pine/Quinto/Urban can get within even 100 kilometers of what Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley achieved in this next one.”

I think these three actors can do so brilliantly, if given the chance. I think many of us feel that the TOS triad formed Trek’s legs. It was a unique, 3-way bromance so resounding it gave birth to fan-aticism of a new kind, spawning fan fiction, conventions, and so on. Those things didn’t come about as a result of Trek’s homage to the engineering deck, or romantic forays, or sci-fi technobabble. I don’t even think it was the stories that inspired all that followed and kept us all engaged for so many decades.

Nothing wrong with being a romantic, but there’s no shortage of romance on the big screen. To reassemble this crew into something less unique than that long withstanding pyramid foundation would risk letting the ship lose her way.

372. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2012

Nicely put, NCM!

With Star Trek being the modern day mythology for so many, it only makes sense to protect it’s invaluable triumvirate.

Uh, for all you knuckle-draggers, we’ll wait while you look the word up!

373. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2012

The triumvirate is important. It was one of the best parts of all of Trek. I don’t know why some people want to get rid of it in favor of a Spock/Uhura romance.

374. Daoud - January 14, 2012

Et tu, Ballz?

375. MJ - January 14, 2012

@365 “Filming has started folks.”

I told you so, Phil. :-)

376. MJ - January 14, 2012

@89 “My own, sincere best wishes to all involved in the production. No one sets out to make a bad film, and I hope this turns out to be a great one.”

Likewise, I hope you make a final outstanding season of Dexter.

377. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2012

May the wind be at our backs!

378. VulcanFilmCritic - January 14, 2012

@61 boborci. I’m still mulling over the improvements to the engine room. What could those be? I mean visually. The Enterprise doesn’t really have engines, does it? It’s warp drive is fueled by matter/anti-matter implosion.
Generally we couldn’t see the power of these reactions or the machinery used to control it on TOS, but I do remember that the engineering section was upgraded with a forced-perspective set behind a grill that made it look enormous.
I wonder if we will be treated to something awe-inspiring like looking at the machines left by the Krell in “Forbidden Planet.”

379. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 14, 2012

boborci

What is the budget for this film? Is it the same as the last or are they giving you more?

380. BrotherofShran01 - January 14, 2012

I am interested in seeing if Frank Weller is Gary Seven or not. Also, whether we will see Nurse Chapel or not. I know that she is in sickbay. Dr. McCoy called her by name. She is the final member of the crew that has not been shown yet. So make her a hot babe! :)

With that said, I’m glad to hear that the Engine room will be upgraded, and hope the Bussard collectors will be RED this time.

381. Mark Lynch - January 14, 2012

Any chance of some long takes or tracking shots in the sequel? These always look so fantastic and give a grand feel to the scene.

For example, Children of Men when Theo enters the building while the army are shelling it or the car chase scene from Fright Night (2011)

I definitely add my vote for at least one TMP style beauty shot of the Enterprise…

Cone on JJ, what about it? Bob, have a word will ya? :)

382. Mark Lynch - January 14, 2012

@380
I hope the condoms come off of the nacelles this time! ;)

383. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2012

374.

Ya got that right, muchacho!! :>)

384. conscienceoftheking - January 14, 2012

I never had a problem with 2009′s version of Engineering. It was certainly different, but I liked the look (Scotty getting beamed into the tank, a bit less so, I must admit).

I think this “re-imagining-reboot-sequel” is good- a different interpretation by different creative minds. As longs as they do it well, that is what really counts.

I do hope that, this time, JJ and company put in some “big ideas” that were the basis of TOS and TNG. I don’t want another action romp (that was good for 2009′s “re-intro”). It’s time to step up the game.

http://cornersofchaos.blogspot.com/

385. Stephan - January 14, 2012

@boborci

Hey Bob,

good luck with the production. And I have a request as well: Please do not tell us anything about the sequel. I don’t want to know anything. I don’t want to get spoiled. I really want to be surprised by your movie when I sit in the cinema. Every information I get before the release leads to the reaction, ” oh, I have known this long before” when sitting in the cinema. And because I am curious I will read every information which I can get from the internet.

So please, tell us nothing! ;-)

Stephan

PS: Ok, maybe you can give us a title two days before the release date.

386. Greenberg - January 14, 2012

Cool updates = it’s not a brewery anymore?

387. Phil - January 14, 2012

@375….Yep, and I’ve confessed the error of my ways….

388. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

Look at the production art for engineering from ST.09 if you want too see potential scenarios for an engineering upgrade. It’s the same production team so thinking might be along the same lines.

389. boborci - January 14, 2012

379. More

390. boborci - January 14, 2012

378. Youll see more of it.

391. Aurore - January 14, 2012

389. boborci – January 14, 2012
379. More
________________

Yes.
Don’t waste my money, by the way.

392. Wastedbeerz - January 14, 2012

Now guys, why would you put “more cowbell” as an option in the poll… because that’s the only option I ever see when it’s available! Here’s hoping for more…

393. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 14, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. Any Chance we will see you play a red shirt. Lol.
Ok. Any ideas on a working title to Star Trek.

394. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 14, 2012

Around Trekmovie when Bob Orci speaks. Everyone listens. Even Pascale. lol.

395. Phil - January 14, 2012

Come on, does no one want an engaging story? Saw “Game of Shadows” a couple of weeks ago – great story, and plenty of action, too. Bob is tossing these tidbits around and I can’t get over the image of someone feeding the pidgons. Oooh, space battles!, Ooooo, remodeled engineering. Ooooh, Alice Eve.

I know, the story is written – make it a solid, engaging movie. Please.

396. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 14, 2012

OK, it looks like I have to google “cowbell” in relation to film making/story writing, because no one here has the knowledge or generosity to write a couple of lines explaining it. What is “cowbell”?

Please – Bob Orci?

397. Vultan - January 14, 2012

#396

Look up “cowbell,” “Christopher Walken,” “Blue Oyster Cult,” and “Saturday Night Live.”

That should explain, but in short, the phrase comes from a funny little skit they did years ago.

398. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

Do they work on weekends in Hollywood? Are they shooting today?

399. Basement Blogger - January 14, 2012

295

Bob Orci,

On the lens cap, as Homer Simpson would say, “Doh.” It happens. But we’re looking forward to some cool footage you guys are going to bring to Comic Con in 2012 and release it to the web for us guys stuck in the midwest. ;-)

Hey is there going to be an original teaser trailer like you did in 2009? And if so, who’s filming it. By the way, speaking of teaser trailers, remember Alien’s egg from 1979?

400. Sean1701 - January 14, 2012

@boborci
Any hopes that a crew member named Cleary will be in the engine room? :-)

401. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

@# 362 Ryan

“That should read: “….which I admit came close to being racist…”

Another thing, I just happen to like the character of Dr.McCoy and Karl Urban so much I fear both might not get the screen time they deserve. McCoy has always been an underrated character, and Karl Urban has proven to be a worthy successor to the late, great DeForrest Kelley. Urban is a great actor, and I think he deserves a substantial amount of screen time.

Of course, I support having Uhura get more screen time as well. If they want to make it the big four instead of the big three, I’m okay with that.

But I think this is one of the problems in rebooting TOS as a movie series. Some characters are going to get less screen time than others.

I probably should stop worrying about these things, though. :-)”

Thank you for your support of Uhura, but I also still support the team. To me, the main team is Sulu, Scotty, Kirk, Uhura, Bones, Scotty, and of course my dear Spock. None of them are supporting characters in my eyes even though they all have different functions within the swing of things. Of course the captain and first officer are going to get a bit more screen time, then probably the rest of the bridge (within a working capacity), the engine room, and the medical area.

On a personal level, I’d hope that they all get a little something throughout these films. Kirk and Spock took most of the personal time in the first new set of ST movies (and rightly so), with Scotty and Bones coming in afterwards. So, in my mind, this next film can focus on them less to make room for Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu’s personal stories (or at least the beginnings of their personal stories and how they tie into the film/mission). Why did they join Starfleet? We know (from this first movie) why Kirk and Spock, and even Bones and Scotty, are there, but not the rest. It would be good to know and could provide for some nice character moments with other members of the crew, or their reasons could even tie into the main story of the film.

Back in the 60′s when women professionals were more likely (than now) to mainly be operators, and secretaries, and assistants, and such, there probably wasn’t much question as to why Uhura was hailing frequencies. That probably just seemed like a women’s job. But now? Why did Uhura *choose* to go into communications when there were/are clearly other options available to her? And how does that play into things, or how could it? I’m not saying that all of this has to be answered within any one film, but the movies hopefully will flow together, so I think that some of this can be answered over time without taking away from anything or anyone.

And just so you know, I consider myself to be somebody, and I care about Sulu and Chekov being given a little bit of ‘meat’ from the writers as well as the rest of the team.

I never doubted for a second that they would give Bones his fair share of screen time in this next movie, and so I have not advocated that, much like I haven’t advocated that Kirk get his close-ups. It’s just gonna happen. :-)

@# 371 NCM
“Nothing wrong with being a romantic, but there’s no shortage of romance on the big screen. To reassemble this crew into something less unique than that long withstanding pyramid foundation would risk letting the ship lose her way.”

Boy can I send that right back!

Nothing wrong with being a bromantic, but there’s no shortage of bromance on the big screen. To create these movies only for the trekkers that are fond of their “trinity” to the exclusion of anyone else would cause the great potential that the first movie tapped into to ebb away.

@#372 Harry

“With Star Trek being the modern day mythology for so many, it only makes sense to protect it’s invaluable triumvirate.

Uh, for all you knuckle-draggers, we’ll wait while you look the word up!”

I don’t know who you’re calling a “knuckle-dragger,” but the words I looked up were for the benefit of others who still choose to misuse the word “romance”.

But I do think I’ve figured something out about exactly why some people hear seem to have a distinctly strong disliking of Spock/Uhura. Some people keep talking about Kirk/Spock/McCoy like they are some kind of holy trinity of The Captain, The First Officer, and the Healing Doctor.

I’ve litterally read where a some people have said that they basically “complete” each other. What’s next? They had each other at “hello”?? To me, that’s a little creepy when they are to each other (to some) things that they should be to themselves. That might be why some people want each one of them to be so one-diminsional. Together, all three of them make one one diminsional being going off of some of what I’ve read on these boards. It makes sense, though now, because I can see that for those people (which may or may not include you, I don’t know) it’s a like a three-way-marriage. That’s why they’re not allowed to have personal lives, because they are supposed to be each other’s lives. Mmm, I’m not for that. I don’t mind them being friends and co-workers, but no one should be that kind of close and that kind of dependent to me (not even Spock/Uhura). It’s not healthy or normal.

No wonder why Uhura’s treated (by some) like the man-stealing heffer that diminishes the “triumvirate-boy-club-bromance” of the Enterprise. Is Spock cheating on his other halves (or thirds?) when he’s with her? I guess that to some, he is. Of course it’s never going to be worded that way, but that’s pretty much what has been said, again, by some.

Frankly, I’m tired of the argument. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about what they like, and no one is going to change mine. I just find it interesting that all of the man-love is okay, but give one of these guys a serious girlfriend and all hell breaks loose.

And will the personal attacks start in 3…2…???

402. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

This –> “That might be why some people want each one of them to be so one-diminsional. Together, all three of them make one one diminsional being going off of some of what I’ve read on these boards.”

Should read:

That might be why some people want each one of them to be so one-dimensional. Together, all three of them make one three-dimensional being going off of some of what I’ve read on these boards.

403. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

Oh, dear grief. Writing on the run is not on my side. :-/

The main team to me is:

Sulu, Scotty, Kirk, Uhura, Bones, Chekov, and of course my dear Spock.

404. ToMaHaKeR - January 14, 2012

Engineering upgrade? My prophecies are coming to life!

405. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

@#288 MONGO

” Spock Uhura Fan persons and captain nick mans:

It hard for Mongo get too excited for New Star Trek Movie. Mongo have two birthday before it come out. 5 year mission almost be over when movie hit screen. 3rd movie have Kirk as Admiral and V’Ger on way.

Mongo more excited for Little Hobbit movie.

I hear ya, MONGO. I hear you. And I’ll add to the amount of time that’s passing the constant fighting and personal attacks over what should be non-issues to me… Name calling, attacking people over what they do for hobbies (like writing fan-fiction), even borderline hatred… Mmmh.

I think it might be time for me to check out the Hobbit trailer too. :-(

406. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2012

The simple reason the triumvirate of Star Trek has worked so well all these many years is a question of balance.

Spock (logic) and McCoy (emotion) would provide input to Kirk (action). Logic and emotion would be weighed and balanced against each other, with the final decision being implemented by the action figure. Pure, simple and it works.

Any of the supporting cast can have some screen time, only as long as not even one second of the triumvirate’s screen time is sacrificed to do so.

It seems that in the last movie Uhura got way too much screen time, which effectively undercut valuable Dr. McCoy time. Most people posting here have pointed out that Dr. McCoy was given short shrift for screen time, and how he could have contributed to the fabric of the all-important triumvirate. The movie suffered for it and it is absurd that the writers would make such a fundamental mistake. Hopefully, they will restore the proper balance in the next movie.

407. boborci - January 14, 2012

396. What Vultan said.

408. boborci - January 14, 2012

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/80a71ef8cb/more-cowbell

409. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

And that’s the problem, Harry. This is not a Sophoclean play. These characters (at least in this updated Trek) should not be ‘larger than life’ figures that represent ideals as a way to preach to the audience. Maybe that worked before, but it surely does not have to be the case now for these new films to work. That’s pure and simple as well.

I truly hope they stay on the trajectory that they are on with these new films and do not sacrifice that, not even for a second, to uphold some (potentially outdated) ‘triumvirate.’

Uhura did not, absolutely did not, get too much screen time, especially not in favor of McCoy. That’s just a joke. We got information on his backstory, and none on hers. We saw him helping Kirk get on the ship, showing up for Kirk’s hearing (when he had other ‘doctor’ things to do and complained about it, but he still went), taking over as chief medical officer when the main one died, talking about his divorce/ex-wife, chatting with Spock about “prized ponies”. etc. And you are seriously saying that wasn’t enough??? The little bit that Uhura got took away from him??? No, that’s just not true at all, not in the least.

Your ‘triumvirate’ is not ‘all-important’, and the balance of the last movie was just fine. Again, I hope they continue writing in an inclusive manner, and add more in for Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov in this next film.

410. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

And about balance, the reason why the last Star Trek movie worked was because of the inclusive balance that it had.

My guess is that the majority of film-goers do not want to see a movie that is supposed to be about THE CREW and their travels, only to see a 3-way bromance dominate the film. It would be a mistake for the current people in charge to cater to that exclusively.

And there’s more than one kind of Trek. DS9 had a lot of balance, especially in terms of the characters being real people, and it worked very well. That’s also pure and simple too. This is a new take on an old Trek that is going in a new direction. I hope (again) that they build on the inclusive balance that they used as a foundation for the first film (ST09).

411. Aurore - January 14, 2012

@409.

Perfectly stated Spock/Uhura Fan.

Thank you.

412. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

This is “Wagon train to the stars” not shaggin train to the stars. At least not with Spock doing the shaggin.

413. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

Man I would LOVE to go to ComicCon this year!

414. Aurore - January 14, 2012

@409 & 410.

I do not know whether my link will be allowed ,here, but, I very much liked this interview of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, about our beloved characters, etc.

It’s relatively long (30 minutes or so):

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/paramount_scores_orci_and_kurtzman_project

415. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

Thank you, Aurore. :-)

@dmduncan

Well, no one is asking for the movie to be about “shaggin’”. I want a story that is first and foremost about the team and their travels (much can be included in that – exploration, discovery, conflict, villains, saving the day/action, etc.). Then, I’d like moments between characters to give the story more meaning and definition. This is where their personal lives come in, and I think Spock having a girlfriend in his personal life is fine. That’s not a ‘shaggin’ train’, that’s just life.

I think most people want to go to these movies to have a good time and see something they can relate to. I can relate to the personal moments (i.e. the Spock/Uhura love story, team moments, moments between other pairings and triads), and I’d like to enjoy whatever the story is and the actions that carries it. That’s just me.

416. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

@# 414

Thanks, Aurore. I’ll check it out.

417. VZX - January 14, 2012

Wow. You people need to watch more Saturday Night Live. It is still funny and relevant. In fact, I’m getting tickets to go this year. Can’t wait! NYC is my favorite city!

418. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2012

409+410

I’m talking about the essence of what has made Star Trek timeless in it’s mythological appeal, not whether one character gets more screen time than another. Providing each of the bridge crew the same amount of screen time may appeal to those looking for a sense of equality, but I don’t see how it will establish any impact for philosophical musings in the long term. Once you get rid of the “logic/emotion/action” heart of the piece, it’s just another action/popcorn movie for the masses.

419. Aurore - January 14, 2012

“It is still funny and relevant.”
_________

Absolutely!!!

:))

420. VZX - January 14, 2012

414: Aurore, wow, thanks for that link! It’s very insightful.

It seems like they get it. And I can’t help but be so envious of that sandbox they get to play in!

421. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 14, 2012

Is Bob Orci being funny again. Film at 11.

422. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

@#418

And I was talking about what makes for a great movie in this day and age.

Thanks, Harry.

423. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 14, 2012

boborci

Can you tell us what the budget is for the movie? If so what is the budget?

424. Michael Hall - January 14, 2012

“Even with my wife who doesn’t care for any sort of Scifi loved it. She thought it was a great movie. Didn’t even think of it as a Scifi film.”

Aye, there’s the rub. She’s right; it wasn’t.

@ 406: To paraphrase the “Prime Universe” Kirk, this is a Trekmovie first: Mr. Ballz and myself finding ourselves in complete agreement. Not that there is anything sacrosanct about the original “triumvirate,” which like many TOS legends was something conceptualized long after the fact (most likely when those 79 shows were stripped and airing in syndication heaven). And I always thought the notion of Kirk, McCoy and Spock filling the roles of separate aspects of the human psyche (leadership, compassion, and rationality) was reductive at best and a little creepy at worst. In truth, the McCoy/Spock conflict, with Kirk playing the bemused and occasionally exasperated referee, had its antecedents in any number of ’50s and ’60s TV shows, most notably Gunsmoke, with two second bannanas of very different temperment vying for the attention and respect of the Top Dog. (In the original concept, the conflict was supposed to be between the ship’s doctor, Boyce, and the navigator Jose Tyler–which always struck me as something of a potential mismatch, Boyce being much older and worldly-wise, as well as the Captain’s closest confidante.)

In essence, the Kirk-McCoy-Spock relationship was merely a variation of standard ’60s-TV schlock. That said, it worked, largely due to the skill of the actors who made it entertaining, and the writers who made the philisophical concepts under discussion intriguiging. And if you drop a concept that works, you’d better have something at least as good to replace it. My problem with Kirk-Uhura-Spock is not with the gender of any of the people involved, but that it replaces the second-bannana-catfight of the original with an even hoarier standby: the love triangle. Far from adding anything to the basic Trek concept, in my view it degrades Spock’s function as an outside-yet-not-impartial observer of human foibles (hard thing to manage when you’re smitten with one of them), not to mention being a complete reset of Uhura’s character, who might more honestly be called “Mary Sue” for all the motivation the original would have to wind up in such a relationship. And in terms of screen time it demotes Trek’s most relatable character–a cantankerous, cynical humanist–in favor of one who, to date at least, is far less interesting. What’s to like?

425. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2012

I don’t think that every character can be given equal screen time without taking away from the story. We have to remember as well that there are going to be guest characters. Somebody is inevitably going to get short shrift when it comes to screen time.

The Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic is still important. Doesn’t mean the whole movie has to revolve around them, but that we should have at least a couple of scenes between those three. For me at least, it has nothing to do with a “bromance”, which I think is too simplistic and a cheap description, but more of an exchange of ideas and philosphies between Spock and McCoy, from which Kirk would base his decisions on. Also, Kirk embodies the personalities of both characters.

The truth is, and no disrespect to Spock/Uhura Fan, but two hours is not a lot of time to be able to devote equal time to all of the characters. If this was television we were talking about, sure, we’d be able to see stories revolve more around Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu as well as Kirk, Spock, McCoy. Because you’d have twenty hours or so a season to allow each character to develop.

A movie, however, requires that screenwriters use the story devices and characters that a story can be built around. And that is Kirk-Spock-McCoy.
Obviously Uhura would need a bigger role, because “Star Trek” has tried to depict a future of equality between the sexes. Unfortunately, “Star Trek: The Original Series” was unable to do that in the sixties because of studio sexism towards women, and racism towards minorities. That is a wrong that must be corrected. It doesn’t mean, though, that we need to throw out the best parts of TOS.

The idea of the reboot was to update Trek (specifically TOS) for the twenty-first century. That means fixing some of the flaws while keeping the things that worked.

426. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

Timeless in this instance means not restricted in importance to any particular day or age, including this one. Things that are called timeless have importance beyond the trends of any given age. They are relevant in all ages, which fact underlies the reason not to lose what is timeless about Star Trek now.

The relationship between logic and emotion which Spock and McCoy represent separately and Kirk represents combined are ideas the Greeks discussed over two thousand years ago. They are no less relevant today.

The reason why Kirk is the captain and the best man for the job is because he is not too emotional (McCoy) and not too logical (Spock). Kirk IS emotional, to be sure. Just think of all he did to rescue Spock in TSFS. And he’s wickedly logical. Think of how he fried Nomad’s brain.

Other times he decides between the counsel of the emotional and the logical and as the balance between, chooses the right path. Think of what it did to him to stop McCoy from saving Edith Keeler.

That is the Kirk I’ve always known, but without Spock and McCoy there to demonstrate in contrast what they are missing beside him, then Kirk is just another hero man of action, and Star Trek loses a measurable layer of depth.

427. NCM - January 14, 2012

403. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 14, 2012:

“The main team to me is: Sulu, Scotty, Kirk, Uhura, Bones, Chekov, and of course my dear Spock.”

Your team isn’t the draw for most fans, though, and couldn’t be expected to bring in a oodles of new converts. What is it you think made Trek endure (sorry if I missed it)?

There are lots of good screen romances, no doubt; but, like Casablanca, none has ever given rise to a franchise like Trek–that’s because there are lots of good screen romances. Also, as enduring as they can be (West Side Story, Gone With the Wind–okay, maybe I haven’t seen any in a while:); romances don’t support ongoing adventures well.

Trek is unique, and, there’s a key element that has made TOS endure over its incarnations. Many of us believe that success is based on the unique interplay between three particular male characters (call it formulaic, but any writer can appreciate the enduring power of a good formula). I can’t think of another dramatic franchise that’s attempted this formula – perhaps b/c It would be hard to pull off well, under most circumstances.

What got Trek this far and will keep it going for generations is adherence to something that hasn’t been replicated in other franchises and isn’t ubiquitous in Hollywood. I suspect the writers at least consider this widely touted argument to be at least partially accurate. I think I read that JJ insisted on S/U, but as someone who wasn’t a Trek fan, what would he have known of what made Trek lasting?–not intended as a slight… It would be interesting to know what Abrams thinks accounts for Trek’s longevity and particularly TOS’ legs.

Since so few writers, producers, directors have given rise to anything as lasting and as expansive as Star Trek, I wouldn’t hold out hope that JJ will keep this ship sailing unless he identifies with what’s kept it sailing. Rodenberry’s legacy was a great template; it would be a shame to shatter it, and I think that’s why many fans are desperately passionate about the triumvirate.

428. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2012

“The Tholian Web” is an example of how the absence of Kirk affects both Spock and McCoy. When Kirk was trapped in interspace, the Enterprise was also trapped, not only physically, but by Spock’s strict logic, which under normal circumstances, is fine, but in an emergency wasn’t enough to rescue to Captain Kirk. McCoy, who was acting as first officer, was unable to co-operate with Spock because of his strong emotional impulses which clashed with Spock’s cold sense of logic and strategy. The qualities of both men are ingrained in Kirk, who was able to balance it out thus making him the ideal commander. Neither Spock nor McCoy were easily able to bridge their differences because they were too set in their ways of thinking. They had too much of one trait and not enough of the other.

It was only until they watched a recording of Kirk’s orders, made in case of an emergency such as what the Enterprise found itself in, that the two of them were able to overcome their differences to not only rescue Kirk, but to get the Enterprise out of the web. On the recording, Kirk asked Spock to not be reluctant to rely on McCoy, and for McCoy to put aside his differences with Spock. It wasn’t until that point, when Spock and McCoy made peace with each other, did the captain get rescued and the Enterprise free from the Tholian web.

It was ironic that even in the physical absence of Kirk, that the captain still influenced the command decisions made by Spock. Kirk understood that Spock was better at coming up with strategies, and solving problems than McCoy was, but that McCoy had the type of intuition that Spock didn’t have, and that sometimes intuition works better.

429. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

428. Red Dead Ryan – January 14, 2012

Tholian Web another good example of what I mean.

430. Fleet Admiral Braxton - January 14, 2012

It’s About Time! How much more casting do you need to do? Bringing in “Robocop” [Peter Weller] was a nice touch,though.

431. FarStrider - January 14, 2012

424. 425. 426. All of these words to basically say that you don’t really want anything to change, (if that is true, go watch TOS). . . Michael Hall almost has it right when he said: ‘there is anything sacrosanct about the original “triumvirate,” which like many TOS legends was something conceptualized long after the fact. ” Where he falls down is this: “My problem with Kirk-Uhura-Spock is not with the gender of any of the people involved, but that it replaces the second-bannana-catfight of the original with an even hoarier standby: the love triangle. Far from adding anything to the basic Trek concept, in my view it degrades Spock’s function as an outside-yet-not-impartial observer of human foibles (hard thing to manage when you’re smitten with one of them), not to mention being a complete reset of Uhura’s character, who might more honestly be called “Mary Sue” for all the motivation the original would have to wind up in such a relationship.”

No where in ST09 is it said that Kirk-Spock-Uhura is replacing Kirk-Spock-McCoy. . .There IS NO love triangle, unless it is Kirk and Uhura fighting over spock (which we did NOT see happen). . .what happened in ST09 that you all seemed to have missed is that Kirk and Spock became co-protagonists. . . We got to see a scene from both of their childhoods, we got to see why both joined Star Fleet, they basically became equals (which is what happened over time in the TOS movies, leaving McCoy as a third wheel as time went on – but I digress). . . When you have 2 protagonists in a story, you can not have a “triumvirate”. . .that is inherently unbalanced. . .so what the writers did is make Mccoy and Uhura mirror characters. . .they serve the same function in the story. . . McCoy supports Kirk and questions Spock, while Uhura supports Spock and questions Kirk. . . As long as Kirk and Spock are co-protagonists, which was the original intent of the TOS (notice that DeForest Kelly didn’t become a co-star until the second season), than structure-wise, the one true foursome (Kirk-Spock, McCoy-Uhura) works.

Also, if Uhura DID replace McCoy in the triumvirate, how is she a Mary Sue, when McCoy isn’t?

~FS

432. NCM - January 14, 2012

@424: Wow! Very well said–Red and dm, too! I hope Bob’s reading, and that it isn’t too late, but I have some faith that he would agree and wouldn’t plan to forge ahead without re-establishing that classic dynamic.

433. AJ - January 14, 2012

Has anyone stopped to marvel at this debate? God! This is like 1977 all over again! The “Triumvirate” and its meaning in Trek.

I would REALLY love to hear the new guys chime in on this. Karl Urban is a true fan, and ZQ is someone who knelt before Leonard Nimoy to understand Spock done-and-dusted. Pine is the one whose character is seemingly “supposed” to bond with Spock, but duplicating Shatner/Nimoy chemistry as a bi-annual job is going to be impossible.

Urban’s McCoy, on the other hand, seems ready to bond, if Bob and the boys just give him a chance in the script. Karl has made it a point that he is playing De Kelley as Doctor McCoy, and he devours the screen when he does it.

Let’s just hope for a home run in 2013, boys and girls. Kirk, Spock, McCoy front and center!

434. FarStrider - January 14, 2012

@433. . . sorry, AJ, but it is going to be Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Uhura front and center. . . young minds, fresh ideas. . .

~FS

435. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

#431 FarStrider

Thank you. Perfect post. :-)

@Aurore

I finally watched the interview you linked to. It was nice, but I disagree with one thing the writers said: Kirk and Spock “complete” each other.

I agree with them becoming like brothers, and I couldn’t have put the Lennon/McCartney comparison together better myself. I think that Lennon and McCartney were like brothers, but I don’t think that they completed each other as musicians or human beings. What I think they DID do was that hey enhanced each other’s abilities and enriched each other’s lives.

In Star Trek 09, I got the impression that if both Spock and Kirk never met or just went their separate ways without Spock Prime bringing them together that they would just be two people that went on and lived their lives. They didn’t need to be joined at the hip in order to stand on both feet, which is the kind of co-dependency that them “completing” each other suggests to me. Maybe it’s just semantics. Maybe Bob (I think it was Bob) didn’t mean it that way, but if he did, then I disagree.

Again, I don’t mind a brother-like bond that allows for both of them to live out their lives, much like both John and Paul had separate lives and families (I can welcome and enjoy that), but if this is going to turn into the creepy-sounding Jerry McGuire ‘you complete me’ triumvirate bromance where Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are basically each other’s religion, mmm, then no. I think I’m gonna pass on that one. :-/

What I loved about the interview was hearing about Nimoy and JJ. I LOVE that JJ had the same reaction to S/U in the script that I had when I first saw the film. I also greatly appreciate the great job that the writers did.

@ Ryan

I didn’t say that I think all of the characters should have equal screentime in the next film. Please re-read what I said.

436. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 14, 2012

@ NCM

What I do know about ‘my team’ is that that IS the star trek crew/team, and it has been from TOS to this new set of films, so it must be a draw for quite a few people. ;-)

We all have our favorites, but the fact that the (to me) weird bromance where three characters basically make up one person is yours doesn’t mean that that’s the main draw for ‘most fans’ or everyone else, especially when the last movie did just fine without it.

437. Vultan - January 14, 2012

#424

Well put, sir!

And I’m sure the Matt/Festus/Doc triumvirate would agree.

438. Red Dead Ryan - January 14, 2012

Spock/Uhura Fan:

Look, the Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio was NEVER a bromance. They are close friends, almost brothers, if you will. Using the term “bromance” dismisses the importance of the relationship as something frivolous, silly, lacking depth, and done for comedic purposes. No, its much more than that. The relationship adds gravitas to an otherwise light and often silly show. Nobody here treats it as a bromance. We treat it seriously because it was at the heart of the show. It made the show work in many ways, defined it in other ways.

Go back and watch TOS again. McCoy went on a lot of the away missions that Kirk and Spock went on. He was part of the decision making process many times. He bickered with Spock. He gave advice to Kirk.

Believe me, I am not overstating the relationship between the three. If anybody thinks its overrated, and overstated, than clearly you haven’t bothered watching TOS, or if you did, you weren’t paying attention.

#431.

Who said anything about Uhura being a “Mary Sue”?

439. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 14, 2012

What we saw in the last movie were pairings – Kirk/Spock, McCoy/Spock, Kirk/McCoy and they all worked well. There was only one scene where the three were together interacting and that was when Kirk was arguing with Spock about joining the fleet in the Laurentian system and McCoy was yelling at Kirk, “Jim, Spock is the captain! He is the captain!” However, I doubt that either of them heard the doctor as Kirk and Spock were extremely emotional/angry with each other. Curiously, it was Dr McCoy who was seeking some rationality by pointing out the chain of command.

I do not think that it is possible to give every character equal screen time, nor is it necessarily good story writing or movie making.

“When you have 2 protagonists in a story, you can not have a “triumvirate”. . .that is inherently unbalanced. . .so what the writers did is make Mccoy and Uhura mirror characters. . .they serve the same function in the story. . . McCoy supports Kirk and questions Spock, while Uhura supports Spock and questions Kirk. . . As long as Kirk and Spock are co-protagonists, which was the original intent of the TOS (notice that DeForest Kelly didn’t become a co-star until the second season), than structure-wise, the one true foursome (Kirk-Spock, McCoy-Uhura) works.”

I agree. Also there is nothing to suggest that Kirk won’t be challenged his friend McCoy on occasion or that Uhura may not challenge Spock’s motivations/actions on occasion. Neither McCoy or Uhura are push-overs. It also does not negate the possibility of a firm friendship developing between all four, and three males in particular.

Oh look…there’s that disgusting, offensive word/name that stereotypes characters, especially females, “Mary Sue”! UGH!

440. FarStrider - January 14, 2012

@Red Dead Ryan (438) Micheal Hall (in #424) said: ” Far from adding anything to the basic Trek concept, in my view it degrades Spock’s function as an outside-yet-not-impartial observer of human foibles (hard thing to manage when you’re smitten with one of them), not to mention being a complete reset of Uhura’s character, who might more honestly be called “Mary Sue” for all the motivation the original would have to wind up in such a relationship.”

441. NCM - January 14, 2012

So sorry, Spock/Uhura fan, I somehow missed both Kirk and Bones’ names in your designated ‘team.’

442. Michael Hall - January 14, 2012

@ 431 Far Strider:

“All of these words to basically say that you don’t really want anything to change, (if that is true, go watch TOS).”

Hmm. Exactly which part of “. . . if you drop a concept that works, you’d better have something at least as good to replace it” did you not get?

I have no problem with new generations of actors, writers, and producers fiddling with just about anything regarding the original TOS formula you can name, save the central conceits of “To Boldly Go” and its underlying assertions about IDIC and the potential for humanity to have a decent, rewarding future if we so choose. Those concepts are so central to the Trek mythos that any production which discarded them would truly be a travesty, Star Trek in name only. (Much as I disliked the 2009 film, even I would not go so far as to call it that.) Much as I love TOS, no one besides James Cawley really thinks it was anything like perfect, even by the standards of a ’60s action-adventure TV production–and if that’s the fix you’re looking for, those original shows will always be there, as well as Cawley’s admirable efforts. With respect to any production of Trek designed to appeal to modern audiences, though, change is not only good, but essential. The question for anyone fortunate enough to be handed the keys to the kingdom must always be, what do we keep, and what sorts of changes are both necessary and productive?

“We got to see a scene from both of their childhoods, we got to see why both joined Star Fleet, they basically became equals (which is what happened over time in the TOS movies, leaving McCoy as a third wheel as time went on – but I digress).”

Well. . . not really. Even in the films where they were of equal rank, or when Spock was nominally in command of the Enterprise with Kirk ostensibly just along for the ride, Spock continues to defer to his authority, for the simple reason that Kirk is the leader and decision-maker, as well as his friend. In The Voyage Home, with all of the characters temporarily renegades from Starfleet without rank, the relationship between the three is essentially unchanged, even with Spock mentally off his feed. And in any case, I was talking about TOS, not the movies that were derived from it.

“No where in ST09 is it said that Kirk-Spock-Uhura is replacing Kirk-Spock-McCoy. . “

Of course it doesn’t–where, in the events that make up a film’s story, would the opportunity arise to state such a thing? (And of course, the way the characters are handled may be very different in 2013. If so, all to the good.) All I know for sure is that the debates that typically took place between these three leads were dropped in the 2009 film in favor of what was, to me, a very conventional love story. But I may indeed be overthinking this: it could very well be that the debates were dropped not due to the presence of a “love interest,” but simply because, in the end, the film had no ideas of consequence worth debating. In that case, my bad for giving the filmmakers both too much and too little credit.

(And, Far Strider? Whatever our disagreements, I love your handle. :-) )

443. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

431: “424. 425. 426. All of these words to basically say that you don’t really want anything to change, (if that is true, go watch TOS).”

I’m 426. Tell ya what. You can say what you like and why, and I get to do the same thing AND watch TOS too. And that’s how it’s gonna be. Not EITHER me watching TOS OR commenting in here about what I think should stay the same. Both.

And to say that I “don’t really want anything to change” when I am such a huge fan of ST.09, a movie in which so much had changed, is pure silliness, plain and simple.

But if you are going to reboot TOS then I think you should keep what made it unnique. I’m not backing down from that and I’ll use a lot more words to keep saying it if I feel a need to. It makes no sense to reboot Superman and make him unable to fly, unable to bend steel, and who can get killed by bullets, unless you are doing some ironical art piece.

And the evidence abounds that GR knew what he had with the logic / emotion dichotomy and worked with it, and to this day it remains a special aspect of Star Trek and unique to Gene Roddenberry’s work, whether you look at Star Trek, The Questor Tapes or TNG. So while I respect Michael Hall I rarely agree with his interpretation of the known historical facts, and this is a case where I don’t think he, or you in agreeing with him, have much evidential room to argue otherwise.

The conceptualized-long-after-the-fact argument works once, but Star Trek is not alone among GR’s work in that regard. The theme kept appearing in Roddenberry’s work, and with Roddenberry even stating that he created Spock because he wanted a logical character because he’d had so much trouble with emotion in his life, I think the only thing getting conceptualized here long after the fact is the notion that the logic / emotion dichotomy in Star Trek was just coincidental.

An what happens when Star Trek finaly gets to the big screen in TMP? GR chooses to do a story that shows what? Spock learning through the mind meld with V’ger (a machine who it turns out is having the same spiritual crisis as Spock!) the emptiness of his life long path toward pure logic to learn what Kirk knew all along???

All these coinkydinks are making my head hurt!

Happy accidents my ass. Gene Roddenberry was actually smart enough to think like that, believe it or not!

And to top it all off Bob DID get it right, because ST.09 was very clear about who should be in charge of the Enterprise and why. Spock’s unintuitive reliance on logic would have doomed the earth to destruction, so the team writing this movie DID portray excellent younger versions of the same characters I recognized from TOS.

“As long as Kirk and Spock are co-protagonists, which was the original intent of the TOS”

Says where?

Even to this day watching TOS I never get the feeling that the show has anything more than one captain. Spock is a great supporting role, but a supporting role is what he is. I understand there was a lot of controversy in the 60′s about that because Leonard Nimoy got so much press attention and fan mail from the ladies, but I caught the show in reruns and my view, totally unexposed to such reportage skewing my views, is that Kirk captained that show as he did the Enterprise. With support, but sitting in that center seat all alone.

Finally, when I talk about the logic / emotion dichotomy and the balance between them that Kirk represents, I don’t call it a “triad” a “triumvirate” and I certainly don’t reductively disparage it as a “bromance.”

I use the less convenient non-reductive terminology so that the meaning is less likely to be lost as it gets with those other terms, particularly the silly last one.

444. NCM - January 14, 2012

Bromance?!

The term isn’t meant to describe something trite, silly, or even sexual. It refers to an ‘extremely close, non-sexual relationship between two men.’ It implies something unusual, intense, and therefore alluring, perhaps, but I think the ‘romantic’ part of the word is intended to summon the sense of romance brought on by quest, adventure, an open plain.

445. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

I mean you think about that. 10 years after TOS is off the air, Star Trek gets made into a movie and the story that GR wants to do showcases the logic emotion dichotomy not once, but TWICE in the same movie — in the character of Spock pointlessly trying to find peace in pure logic AND the entity of V’ger, who needs to MERGE with a human to go on to the next level of evolution! So we get a story that is itself another iteration of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy symbolism, except that in the story Decker represents the human aspect, the emotion that the logical machine must merge with to evolve, whereas in TOS Kirk himself represented that synthesis on a continuing basis.

This was a major theme of Gene Roddenberry’s thinking, and probably of his life from the facts we know about it. Something he obviously felt personally about and not something he accidentally stumbled over, looked down at, and then decided to make fortuitous use of without any clue of what he was doing.

446. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

The characters of Kirk/Spock/McCoy work on two levels.

1. They work as fictional characters of a universe you might wish to exist in and whose adventures you identify with and possibly might like to have.

2. And they also work as symbolic characters that are not part of any fictional universe and who exist to reflect ideas about ourselves back to ourselves that we might see ourselves more clearly. THAT is the mythic level that transcends specific times and places.

“Bromance” might be a cute way for some to refer to the first level, but it totally misses the second. That’s why it’s reductive.

447. Harry Ballz - January 14, 2012

446.

Flawless reductive reasoning my dear Holmes!

448. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

How about this: What if Vulcans can now bite humans on the neck and turn them into Vulcans?

Is everyone okay with that change?

449. dmduncan - January 14, 2012

447. Harry Ballz – January 14, 2012

Thank you, Watson. My formaldehyde, please!

450. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

#442 – “it could very well be that the debates were dropped not due to the presence of a “love interest,” but simply because, in the end, the film had no ideas of consequence worth debating. In that case, my bad for giving the filmmakers both too much and too little credit.”

This was a coming together movie. Why would Dr McCoy be on the bridge to debate stuff? The fact is that McCoy did challenge Spock’s decision to send Kirk off the Enterprise and got an interesting response when McCoy likened Kirk to a prized stallion… Kirk and Spock debated over the best course of action with Dr McCoy present. Anyway, must there always be a need, a reason for debate? What pearls of wisdon would the triumvirate impart to us plebes that most of us could not work out for ourselves? The Enterprise bridge is not a pulpit or debating chamber.

Perhaps in the next movie, there may be more reason/need to debate the ethics of certain actions and their consequences.

451. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

444. NCM – January 14, 2012

BTW, NCM, I have no innate objection to the term “bromance,” but some are I think starting to use the term negatively, to disparage what Star Trek has been, and that’s easier to do when the relationships get simplified to that level alone.

452. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

443 and 445 and 446. And who declared Gene Roddenberry infallible. . .even he thought that someone else would take over Star Trek and make it relevant to the viewers of that time. And I personally think that most people would agree that TMP was not a good movie, nor story, for that matter –I mean, it is basically a rehash of The Changeling and had nothing new to say (and nothing that recommended it as a motion picture other than the fact that Star Trek had been off the air for 10 years and Trekkies wanted more — I know that it has its fans — but really those are few and far between). What I’m reading here is that Star Trek was always about “the triumvirate”, so it should always be about that. . . which is totally against what Star Trek should be about. . .Trek should be about pushing boundaries, trying new things. . . not being conservative and staying the same. . . that totally misses the real point. . . There is not only one myth, there are hundreds, thousands. . .but if you don’t let the writers explore other myths, if you only stay in the “Triumvirate,” you miss out on what these other things have to say and can teach you. . .

@442 . . . “Hmm. Exactly which part of “. . . if you drop a concept that works, you’d better have something at least as good to replace it” did you not get?” You DID say that, and you pay lip service to it when you say this “I have no problem with new generations of actors, writers, and producers fiddling with just about anything regarding the original TOS formula you can name, save the central conceits of “To Boldly Go” and its underlying assertions about IDIC and the potential for humanity to have a decent, rewarding future if we so choose. Those concepts are so central to the Trek mythos that any production which discarded them would truly be a travesty, Star Trek in name only. (Much as I disliked the 2009 film, even I would not go so far as to call it that.) …With respect to any production of Trek designed to appeal to modern audiences, though, change is not only good, but essential. The question for anyone fortunate enough to be handed the keys to the kingdom must always be, what do we keep, and what sorts of changes are both necessary and productive?” but you haven’t even given the writers a chance to come up with something new. . .and quite frankly, it seems that you don’t even want them to try something new, because it’s replacing something old. . .(that’s the way I’m reading you)

And when I talk about co-protagonists, I’m not talking about “leadership” or characters deferring to another. . .I’m talking the fact that Spock’s character was SO important to the conception of Star Trek at that time they couldn’t leave him DEAD. . STIII was about bringing him back to life and STIV was ultimately about him reintegrating himself as full person. . . Spock’s character became just as important as Kirk’s, no matter what rank they were. . . McCoy’s character, on the other hand, didn’t.

~FS

453. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@# 438 Ryan

It sounds like you’re catching on to how it feels when people misuse words. I told you I wouldn’t get too offended, but it sure does sound like you and a few others are.

Respect mine and I’ll respect yours.

Otherwise, we can continue to throw around ‘silly names’ until we’re all blue in the face.

I still have my unchanged views on the creepiness of the ‘trinity’ from how I’ve seen some describe it. And I’m not asking anyone who isn’t in love with Spock and Uhura to join the fan club. It already has plenty of members. As an adult, I don’t mind different people having their preferences. I can respect that so long as my preferences get the same respect back.

So, if you all (and I’m not just talking to Ryan) want to continue to call the Spock and Uhura love story a ‘twilight romance’, then I’ll continue to call the trinity a ‘Creepy Jerry McGuire Bromance’.

Respect and courtesy are two-way streets where I come from. If you give it, you’ll get it.

Thank you.

454. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@450 Why the hell would Dr.McCoy be on the bridge, period. . . unless there is a medical emergency there, shouldn’t he have been in Sick Bay? With all of the hurt people? The ones that got hurt in Nero’s intitial salvos. . .the Vulcans rescued from their crumbling planet. . . etc. This is actually one of those things that I hope Bob and Damon actually deal with. . . reasonable ways to include McCoy without him just happening to wonder up to the bridge for no discernible reason. . .

~FS

455. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#448 dmduncan

It can’t be worse than three grown men co-dependently acting as one person because none of them are developed enough to function alone. ;-)

Everyone okay with that?

456. lemrick - January 15, 2012

@ 454. FarStrider

“This is actually one of those things that I hope Bob and Damon actually deal with. . . reasonable ways to include McCoy without him just happening to wonder up to the bridge for no discernible reason. . . ”

I agree with this. McCoy being there just to be there is just silly.

457. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

My idea for a Star Trek reboot: The Enterprise is a spinning dish where the floors follow the circumference parallel to the axis, like the space station in 2001, radically altering the appearance of the Enterprise, which now looks like a KitchenAid pizza cutter:

http://www.amazon.com/KitchenAid-Pizza-Wheel-Cutter-Black/dp/B00005KICD

And it takes 6 months to get to warp factor 1.

Also, Spock is all sparkly and glistens in the starlight.

Young minds, fresh ideas!

458. lemrick - January 15, 2012

I thought this Spock/Uhura debate had died down? Aren’t they like flourishing in the comics? #4 is especially telling.

459. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#441 NCM

That’s quite understandable, NCM. The first time I typed the list I listed Scotty twice and missed Chekov. :-).

460. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@458 As long as people keep saying things like: “The triumvirate is important. It was one of the best parts of all of Trek. I don’t know why some people want to get rid of it in favor of a Spock/Uhura romance.” Which is NOT AT ALL what people who defend Spock/Uhura are saying. . . then this debate will NOT die. . .

I know, it’s ridiculous, but unfortunately true.

~FS

461. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#458 lemrick

Sigh, you would think…

I don’t read comics, so I wouldn’t know, but I’m glad to hear that. :-)

462. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#460

Thank you.

463. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#457

And so a choice is made… :-(

‘Silly name-calling’ it is then. Sad.

464. lemrick - January 15, 2012

@460. FarStrider

I hear you. I think the “triumvirate” people need to brace themselves because I think that ship has sailed. It may get its moments but I think Orci & company are going to stick with a cast driven script, and I like it. Also, I like Spock and Uhura, and I’m intrigued by their relationship.

465. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

452. FarStrider – January 15, 2012

Who declared GR infallible? Good question. When you find the answer, or more importantly why the answer matters, let me know.

It seems hardly necessary to point out that if you are doing Star Trek then some things are NOT going to change and the question then becomes what do you change and what do you not?

I know what value I found in Star Trek and that’s what I argue for, and I have yet to hear a good argument why that is one of the things that should get changed versus one of the things that should not.

If you are doing a reboot of TOS then yup, TOS is what I want to see — not Starship Troopers. Same with Batman, or Superman, or a whole long list of other things. You want to do something new? Really? Great! I’m all for it! Then REALLY do something new, that’s not even called Star Trek at all!!!

But if you are going to call it Star Trek, then you can bet your britches I expect more than a passing resemblance.

And that means that if you are going to change it, make it better. Give me more to think about, not less. So far I have not been disappointed and I expect Bob & Co. to do even more the next time around, so my confidence in them is fully charged, and that does not necessarily mean I think they will do what I would do.

466. lemrick - January 15, 2012

@ 461. Spock/Uhura Fan

Those comics are tying into the movie, and they are quite interesting. My first time reading comics really. But you will especially like the S/U moments.

467. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

463. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 15, 2012

@#457

And so a choice is made… :-(

‘Silly name-calling’ it is then. Sad.

***

I wrote post 457 (457. dmduncan – January 15, 2012) and I didn’t call anybody any names in it.

468. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@465 dmduncan, you are the one who brought up Gene Roddenberry, saying this: “I mean you think about that. 10 years after TOS is off the air, Star Trek gets made into a movie and the story that GR wants to do showcases the logic emotion dichotomy not once, but TWICE in the same movie — in the character of Spock pointlessly trying to find peace in pure logic AND the entity of V’ger, who needs to MERGE with a human to go on to the next level of evolution! So we get a story that is itself another iteration of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy symbolism, except that in the story Decker represents the human aspect, the emotion that the logical machine must merge with to evolve, whereas in TOS Kirk himself represented that synthesis on a continuing basis.

This was a major theme of Gene Roddenberry’s thinking, and probably of his life from the facts we know about it. Something he obviously felt personally about and not something he accidentally stumbled over, looked down at, and then decided to make fortuitous use of without any clue of what he was doing.”

Basically YOU made him infallible. . . but considering how badly TMP turned out as a movie and story-wise, maybe you shouldn’t have brought it up as an example to support your ongoing fight against change.

~FS

469. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

455. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 15, 2012

@#448 dmduncan

It can’t be worse than three grown men co-dependently acting as one person because none of them are developed enough to function alone. ;-)

***

Straw man argument. You totally misunderstood everything I said, and now you are knocking down a creature of your own making. There is no “co-dependency” anywhere in TOS, and nobody is claiming there is.

470. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

The strong implication looks like you’re calling the ST09 film a poorly written twilight (essentially calling Spock ‘Edward Cullen’) cheesefest with bad design. If that’s not what you were calling it and Spock, then I apologize.

471. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#469

Ah, read some of those many posts about the triumvirate and how they all “complete” each other. If you don’t see co-dependency in how that all gets described, then I don’t know what to tell you. :-/

472. Aurore - January 15, 2012

435.

:)

I suspected, after reading one of your earlier comments that, you would not like the “complete each other” part.

I, personally, always interpreted those words ( when coming from the writers, anyway) as another way of saying that Kirk and Spock were like brothers, very close.
Around me, there are people who share that kind of beautiful bond.

By the way, on a slightly unrelated note, did you notice how often in interviews Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman tended to finish each other’s sentences?

They strike *me* as being very close friends, a little bit like brothers, if you will.

They seem to…”complete” each other…

473. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

468: “Basically YOU made him infallible. . . but considering how badly TMP turned out as a movie and story-wise, maybe you shouldn’t have brought it up as an example to support your ongoing fight against change.”

Uh, nope. Sorry FS, but given how imperfect a man the evidence seems to indicate GR really was, and whose fallibility I have often commented on here, I’m afraid you are projecting views on to me which I do not have.

I mentioned GR to dispute MIchael Hall’s notion that the logic/emotion/balance idea was something GR sort of manufactured after the fact when all of the evidence indicates this is not true. GR certainly did like to take credit where it was not due him, but this does not seem to be an instance of that.

Sorry, but it’s best not to impart views to me which you only suspect I might have.

And I am happy to argue against changes that do not better the franchise. No apologies necessary for that and I am surprised by the implication in the accusatory tone of your words that one is due.

Fortunately, I do not have to worry. The franchise is in good hands. I trust Bob’s judgement, and that will remain true no matter how the sequel plays out, and whether I have influenced the result — OR NOT!!! What’s more, I’m not just saying that. I mean it.

I’m afraid you just don’t know me very well.

Perhaps I need some straw sticking out of my shirt and a few crows perched on my arms to complete the illusion for you.

474. Mel - January 15, 2012

McCoy is definitely a much more entertaining character than Uhura, Sulu and Chekov. So I hope he gets more screen time than them. I think Kirk, Spock and McCoy should be the main characters in the next movie. They are the most interesting characters.

Personally I think it is a bad idea to give tons of stuff to the supporting characters. It is just not possible in a short movie. They should have some scenes to shine, but giving everyone equal screen time would be ludicrous.

475. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#466 lemrick

Really? :-D. I’ve never been much for comics, but I’ve also never given the ST comics a try. I’ll see what they look like. :-)

476. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@473 “And I am happy to argue against changes that do not better the franchise. ”

And the question then becomes who are you to say what does and what doesn’t better the franchise?

I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. . .I can only go by what you write and what I read here. If I’m imparting views that you don’t have, then it is only because of what you, yourself have said in these posts.

You can pretend to be a strawman all you want if that paints your wagon red. It really doesn’t matter what WE have to say about what Star trek is or is not. We are not writing and producing it. . . BTW, I trust Bob’s judgement too. . .i trust him not to fall back on tired 1960s cliches and to tell a good story that deals with ALL of the characters as people instead of archetypes. . . YMMV.

~FS

477. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2012

Enough with the petty arguments!

The heart of the story in Star Trek is with Spock/Kirk/McCoy.

Their interaction explores the human condition. The rest of the cast is simply window dressing.

This is not gender bias….the simple truth is……most fans don’t give a shit about Uhura.

If you want to see Zoe Saldana in action, watch that last flick where she played an action hero. I think it made about $10 at the box office.

Stop bleating about things that don’t matter! Christ almighty!

478. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#472. Aurore

I suspected that might be what Bob meant seeing as he went on to describe a brother-bond and not some ‘trinity’ weirdness where the characters don’t have lives outside of the boy circle, excuse me, ‘triangle’. :-/ But I can hardly speak for someone I don’t know, so that’s why I said maybe it’s semantics and he meant something other than what some here have said about their ‘trinity’.

Mm, I didn’t really notice them finishing each other’s sentences. I maybe missed that focusing on what they were saying, but I did notice that they would finish each other’s thoughts. I still could not say that they complete each other. That’s like saying that neither one of them can write alone. Lennon didn’t need McCartney to write Imagine, and he didn’t help McCartney write Yesterday. They influenced each other. They enriched each other’s lives and enhanced what the other did, creating works together that they would not have managed alone. But even still, with all of that, they did not complete each other. Neither one of them needed the other to take a step, but together they were able to leap forward and accomplish something special (and let’s not forget George and Ringing too :-)).

As for Bob and Alex? Only they can say if they truly complete each other ad writers. All four lads made the complete package called The Nestled, just like I think that we need all 7 (Uhura, Kirk, Sulu, Spock, Chekov, Bones, and Scotty) main cast members in order to truly tell the story about the travels and adventures of the starship Enterprise. :-)

479. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@477 Why is there only one way to explore “the human condition”? Why can’t Spock/Uhura be part of exploring “the human condition”? What’s more human than to love and be in love? I really don’t believe that anyone is suggesting to replace Kirk-Spock-McCoy interactions. . .but there are other ways to tell stories, and other characters to explore. . . stop trying to limit Star Trek. . .

~FS

480. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

470. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 15, 2012

The strong implication looks like you’re calling the ST09 film a poorly written twilight (essentially calling Spock ‘Edward Cullen’) cheesefest with bad design. If that’s not what you were calling it and Spock, then I apologize.

***

You mean me at 457? Boy that’s a lot of words you put in my mouth! Look, if you say I called somebody a name, then that should be true. It wasn’t. I don’t know how you thought I was talking about ST.09, a movie I loved, in a post that starts off:

“My idea for a Star Trek reboot:”

The sparkles-Spock is for an imaginary new Trek I am concocting under the rubric of “young minds fresh ideas.” If you thought I was talking about ST.09, you are thinking too hard.

481. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2012

479.

Limit Star Trek?

I’m trying to stop it from being hijacked by people with delusional fantasies.

Uhura isn’t worth a featured role. Period!

482. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

Mel & Harry,

Bones is not more interesting than Uhura. Each character is interesting in his or her own ways.

Harry,

You don’t know for sure what ‘most fans’ give a shit about, so stop trying to strong-arm your wishes upon whomever the collective audience will be.

I know you want to see your three boys hanging out on the bridge ‘hugging it out’ while they complete each other (of course Spock won’t feel anything while he’s doing it), but that is really not necessary for the next film to be a success.

Zoe’s movie did fine. It wasn’t a blockbuster, but it did alright. I’d guess that all of these actors have been in something that wasn’t a smashing financial success. Still, what does that have to do with Star Trek or Uhura?

483. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#480

So sparkly Spock was just a coincidence. Oh, I see…

I really don’t care enough about your fanfiction reboot to argue it with you about it. I said if I was mistaken then I apologized for that. End of discussion.

Thanks.

484. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

479: “. . stop trying to limit Star Trek. . . ”

You are not arguing to de-limit Star Trek, and the battle is not between those who want to cage Star Trek and those who want to set it free.

You are arguing to change the limits to those you prefer. But I don’t care for your limits because they lack a symbolic layer of meaning that could inspire a new generation as I was inspired. Old people are dying. They don’t live forever. So the idea may be old to you, but it’s always going to be new to someone else who’s never heard it before, and those people are being born every day, which makes continuously propagating worthy ideas necessary.

485. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#481 Harry

And that’s a lie. Period.

486. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2012

482.

I’ve been part of the Trek community since September 1966 and on these boards for many years. It’s not just my subjective opinion. MOST FANS do not give a shit about Uhura and never will. She just doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. Sure, it’s nice to have her kicking around in the background, but don’t try to have her supplant someone of more importance. Stop pushing a flavour-of-the-month pro-feminist agenda.

487. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#484

Hot air. You don’t know for sure that what other people like or prefer lacks symbolism. That is just total bs. I can understand that it lacks symbolism for YOU, but then speak for yourself.

Love stories are about as old as time, and every generation awakens to love stories that are hundreds, even thousands, of years old with the same awe and gratitude that those that fans before them had for those same stories.

You are trying to limit love in Star Trek, at least for the characters that you think shouldn’t have it. At least I’m honest about the reasons why I want or don’t want something instead of hiding behind words like ‘mythology’ and ‘symbolism’ like some people here.

488. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#486 Harry

No flavor of the month here, bud. You wanna know something? My observation is that the characters that get the most focus, development, and care, just happen to be – well what do you know – the characters that people connect with and relate to the most. So don’t give me that tripe about how she doesn’t matter and never will. If the writers decide to give her content that matters, then guess what Sherlock – she will too.

489. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@486 “MOST FANS do not give a shit about Uhura and never will. She just doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. Sure, it’s nice to have her kicking around in the background, but don’t try to have her supplant someone of more importance. Stop pushing a flavour-of-the-month pro-feminist agenda.”

Wait, so you mean that all of that BS about Uhura being a civil rights icon and inspiring women and minorities to go into NASA, and Whoopi Goldberg etc. was just BS???? Say it ain’t so!

~FS

490. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

487. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 15, 2012

No, not hot air. That’s what you call what you don’t understand, confirming, oddly, the need to keep propagating the ideas Star Trek uniquely contains.

Love stories are as old as time? Yes, that’s right, and they are all over the place too. So Star Trek should give up what it does uniquely to do what everything else does the same? Aah yes, Star Trek will be assimilated into the romance category.

Goodnight. You are now in the “At least I’m honest about” phase. I can’t be persuaded to stay up for that.

491. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

I think that some of the rhetoric here is getting a little heated, and people need to calm down and stop posting for a while before they say something that they will regret later. . . EVERYONE here is a passionate Star Trek fan. . . Star Trek means different things to different people. . . let’s just take a breather and step away from the computer for a little bit, because when you show your butt on the internet, it’s going to be hanging out for all to see for a LONG time. . .

~FS

492. FarStrider - January 15, 2012

@490 dmduncan. . .How condescending of you. . .because Spock/Uhura fan doesn’t agree with you, she doesn’t understand your argument? And before you claim that you didn’t say that :”No, not hot air. That’s what you call what you don’t understand” What a load of crap.

And now I’m going to take my own advice and step away from the computer. . .

~FS

493. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#490 dmduncan

No, it’s not when you don’t understand what you’re saying (although that’s been happening lately too), but since we have people here that seem to object to posting definitions, I’ll move on.

So, are you saying that this version of Star Trek can’t uniquely do love? I think it can. I think that every story has something to say in its own way and for its own time. And of course the best stories that do this are timeless. That includes love stories too.

Right now, I don’t have the energy to say more.

FS, while I stand behind everything I’ve said so far, thanks for the reminder to go to bed. Time flies while you’re arguing with people that simply want to repeat the past… :-/

494. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

Oh, and I’ll add a post script: My honesty isn’t a phase. Interesting that some people think honesty is a phase to just pass through, though. Hmmm. ;-)

Goodnight all.

495. Mel - January 15, 2012

482. Spock/Uhura

“Bones is not more interesting than Uhura. Each character is interesting in his or her own ways.”

I think he is more interesting than Uhura and I think most Star Trek fans agree and have the same opinion. I have read tons of pleas for more screen time for McCoy since the movie came out. Rarely is someone pleading for more screen time for Uhura.

Some characters are just more entertaining than others. No one thinks that all characters are interesting to the same degree, you included! You obviously think that Uhura and McCoy are more interesting than Sulu and Chekov. I wrote that McCoy is more entertaining than Uhura, Sulu and Chekov and you only felt the need to disagree with the comparison of McCoy and Uhura in particular. It seems it didn’t irk your feelings, that I find McCoy more interesting than Sulu and Chekov.

By the way your user name alone indicates, that you don’t find every character interesting to the same degree. Otherwise you would have chosen a more neutral one.

All in all your “Each character is interesting in his or her own ways.” came of as hypocritical, because you obviously have also personal biases towards specific characters. So don’t act, like you are morally superior to me!

496. Aurore - January 15, 2012

478.

Regarding Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, my “complete each other” comment was made tongue in cheek.

:)

I happen to believe that they are very close friends , in all likelihood, able to work well together. I like that.

PS: I read and saw interviews where our writers seemed to finish each other’s sentences, thoughts, frequently. I found it amusing since I noticed the same thing occurring with people who had known each other for years.

497. Andreas -horn- Hornig - January 15, 2012

+more lense flares ;)

looking forward to this trek :)

498. V V - January 15, 2012

I’m in the minority and voted for more romance. I’m one of the new fans thanks to XI. Star Trek was never my thing and I’ve long stopped seeing movies (usually bad), just because I liked the cast. There was no draw to this movie for me until I saw the romance. I doubt I’d bother with the next movie if it were taken out.

499. Phil - January 15, 2012

All this chatter about bromance and pairings seems to be ingnoring one little point that is a consideration for Kirk, and possibly Spock – this Starfleet vessel has a command structure. When Sulu, Scotty, Uhura, Checkov, or any other lower ranked individual gets ordered into the warp core to save the ship, it will always be duty first, guys. I’ve no issue with the movie building on chemistry between the characters, but hopefully it will be done without turning Starfleet into Carnival Cruise Lines……

500. Aurore - January 15, 2012

“I’ve no issue with the movie building on chemistry between the characters, but hopefully it will be done without turning Starfleet into Carnival Cruise Lines……”
_________

Yes.
I concur.

501. Aurore - January 15, 2012

…In fact, I see no risk of that happening.
But, of course, we’ll know for sure in 2013.

502. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#495 Mel

Oh, please, mel. I’ve been VERY honest about my preferences from the star, as you have noted, even putting th in my username. Personally, who I like the most doesn’t take away from the fact that each character DOES have something intetesting about them.

If the development is there, Sulu snd Chekov may end up more intetesting yhan McCoy for some as main cast members. The fact that you have visited boards that say one thing is almost a moot point because if any of us looks around, we can find different things to support our arguments. That is why I said earlier that i didn’t mind other people having their preferences because we all do. You may prefer McCoy, but really he’s no better than amyone else.

Oh, and if you want to look through the posts above, you will see where i have stood up for both Chekov amd Sulu. I don’t think I’m better than anyone, but I also don’t think anyone else is better than me either.

Thanks.

@Phil

I don’t want it to be a Carnival cruise line either, and people can still have decent development within the chain of command (on duty) and in their personal lives (off duty). That is what I have been saying.

503. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

Oh, and Mel, I’ve read tons of pleas for more being done with Uhura, both from regular movie goers/fans and from some critics. Just goes to show that we can all find evidence that supports what we like. That doesn’t make your views and opinions superior.

504. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

494: “Oh, and I’ll add a post script: My honesty isn’t a phase. Interesting that some people think honesty is a phase to just pass through, though. Hmmm.”

It’s a phase of degenerating discourse when people get to impugning other people’s honesty by comparing theirs to yours in phrases like “At least I’m honest about,” in posts where you accuse the person of insincerity through phrases like “hot air.”

I believe what I say at least as if not more strongly than you do what you say.

“@490 dmduncan. . .How condescending of you. . .because Spock/Uhura fan doesn’t agree with you, she doesn’t understand your argument?”

Nope. She doesn’t understand my argument because she reduced my argument to something simpler and easily mocked.

As in for example:

455: “It can’t be worse than three grown men co-dependently acting as one person because none of them are developed enough to function alone. ;-)”

That’s a gross reduction of everything I’ve said on the issue here to something unrelated, and that I did not ever say once in the history of this site.

I suppose I could be less generous and more cynical and say it was intentional, which would remove the redemptive quality of innocence, but I prefer not to do that.

476: “And the question then becomes who are you to say what does and what doesn’t better the franchise?”

My name is at the heading of all my posts. Thanks for asking!

“I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. . .I can only go by what you write and what I read here. If I’m imparting views that you don’t have, then it is only because of what you, yourself have said in these posts.”

Oh no, you got that fabulously wrong. You can actually make incorrect inferences from the things that I say which the things that I say do not support, and then falsely attribute your incorrect inferences to me as positions I hold, when I do not, and that’s what you did. You are projecting. Blaming your mistakes on me. Probably because you are unaware of how many times I have skewered GR on this site. I love GR, and I’m happy he made Star Trek, but the man was a paradigm of fallibility.

So I’m not pretending to be a straw man — you’ve actually attacked an argument there that I did not and never did make. My pro emotion/logic/balance symbolism argument is not and never will be based on the “infallibility” of GR.

“. . YMMV.”

Yes, and it will continue to vary. That’s the joy of being an independent mind.

Finally, let me say this about Spock/Uhura Fan.

She likes the S/U relationship and wants it to continue. That’s fine! Everyone tends to advocate for the positions they strongly hold, and that’s what I do too.

But I’m not a Spock/Uhura Fan.

I’m a STAR TREK FAN.

505. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#453.

Please explain to me the “creepiness” you found in the Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio. Because that seems to border on homophobia. I think you can’t stand a friendship that doesn’t involve a woman.

Not accusing you of homophobia, but a lot of people automatically get disgusted when a couple of (or in this case, three) guys on screen have a close friendship which is brotherlike in many regards. People have referred to the Batman and Robin relationship as “creepy” as well, simply because they are two male superheroes working together. And happen to wear tight costumes. But both characters saw each other as family, either as older brother-younger brother, or father-son like. If people who thought of the Batman/Robin relationship as “creepy” had actually read some of the comics, they’d be shocked at how stupid and bloody ignorant their judgements were.

It is quite clear to me, that you are a political correctness junkie that preaches tolerance for the characters you prefer (Uhura, Sulu, Chekov), but are all to happy to reduce other characters you don’t care as much for (McCoy) to being just another guy on set. It is hypocritical, because on the one hand, you cry foul over the idea of the “Kirk-Spock-McCoy” trio being suggested for the sequel, but on the other, you seem to suggest that anybody who doesn’t agree with the idea of a love story between Spock and Uhura is intolerant of new ideas. That the rest of us should embrace something just because you did.

I’m sorry, but Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have always been the more popular characters in “Star Trek”. Uhura is tied with Scotty in the middle tier, and Sulu and Chekov are on the bottom of the totem pole. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

The Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship is the most enduring quality of TOS. It leant gravitas to an otherwise fantastical show. It depicted the characters in a truly relatable and realistic fashion.

Captain Kirk might still be able to function without Spock and McCoy, but it would be a lonely and depressing place for him. Sure, he’d have Scotty, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu there too, but his relationships with those people aren’t the same, and aren’t as close. You just wouldn’t have the same dynamic because you’d be dealing with different personalities.

Doing Trek with Kirk and Spock, but without McCoy is like doing X-Men without Wolverine, Superman without Lois Lane, Batman without Alfred, etc. Sure it could be done, of course, and done well in some cases, but it wouldn’t be the same, and people would realize that a certain ingredient was missing.

Go back and watch TOS again, or in your case, watch it for the first time. You’ll realize that I’m right.

506. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

leant=lent

DAMN TYPOS!!

507. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@ Ryan

Without even looking up okay#453, I’m gonna guess you are talking to me.

Ryan, I can answer you pretty quickly on the homophobia thing: Re-read my posts. I don’t have a problem with two men, whole men, being in a loving relationship. Not trying to sound like a cliche here, but Brokeback Mountain is one of my favorite love stories in film. It is, and I didn’t expect it to be when I saw it.

And speaking of homophobia, weren’t YOU the one who flipped over what you called “homo-erotic” when someone here innocently desired to see Spock, Kirk, and Bones sitting in a sauna together after work? So, you questioning me is interesting….

What I find creepy, and I won’t elaborate because I’ve already gone into detail about it, is how the whole triumvirate trinity boy-bond is described. That is creepy.

I’ll finish responding in a bit, and I agree that these typos (and autocorrect) are a post killer. :-D

508. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

Look, I never said anything remotely homophobic. I voiced my concerns about the idea of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy sitting in a hot tub together. It would smack of (however unintentional) homoeroticism. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, its just something I wouldn’t want to see in a Trek movie. Neither would I want to see Uhura sitting in a hot tub with Nurse Chapel and Nurse Rand. Nor would I want Uhura in a tub with Spock.

The whole idea of a hot tub scene is really cheesy.

Anyway, I find your condescending remarks of “the whole triumvirate trinity boy-bond” a total slap in the face to the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy as well as to the actors William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForrest Kelley. You’ve also insulted the rest of us with your continued use of juvinile descriptions of something that means a lot to us.

You’ve demanded the rest of us show respect for the Spock/Uhura lovefest, while you feel entitled to condemn the rest of us for preferring the Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio. You are a hypocrite.

You have absolutely no clue, no respect for TOS. You just don’t get it. Maybe you never cared for TOS, I don’t know. I don’t care. You are just plain dead wrong.

509. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

And i don’t have the time to type right now, but dmduncan, I’ll respond to you too.

Until then. ;-)

510. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

No, I’m not a hypocrite. You are just showing that you don’t like the taste of your own medicine. I can be polite about my thoughts, or I can be rude snd insensitive as you and a handful of others havd been about Spock/Uhura. If anything, I’m not the one who has shown hypocrisy and intolerance here, but you and others have.

I’ll be back…

511. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

509. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 15, 2012

Oh no worries. The more you write the more ammunition you give me.

512. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

Same here, dmduncan. Same here. ;-)

513. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#510.

Look, I’ve tried to play nice with you. But you keep insulting my preferences. All the while justifying your own choices. I’ve never been insensitive about the Spock/Uhura relationship. All I (and others) have said is it is something I/ we DON’T like. I understand why the writers did it last time, but I hope it doesn’t continue. I just think it goes against the character of Spock.

Remember, these movies are based on source material. The source material is TOS. Yes, some things can be different, such as set design, make-up, visual effects, etc. But the characters have to stay true to themselves, otherwise why bother revisiting them in the first place?

Just because its a new timeline doesn’t mean the writers should be given carte blanche to do whatever they like. The new timeline was created to free the writers from canon, meaning that they can choose any theme, villain, or plot they wish without contradicting anything that came before. However, changing the characters deviates too far. Yeah, they can kill off McCoy, make Sulu first officer, but why?

The idea of the reboot was to have the characters we’ve known and loved from TOS experience new adventures in a new timeline while keeping the characters consistent. Some things change, others don’t.

That is why I’d like to see Spock as the struggling, stoic, sometimes cold but always fair and logical character for the sequel.

I’d rather see Uhura get more screen time too….doing her job. Let’s see her role as communications officer displayed. Let’s see her talents and skills as a xenoliinguist help diffuse a conflict, or get the ship out of trouble.

I want to see Spock the scientist, the logician, the voice of reason.

I want to see McCoy as the voice of humanity, the voice of passion and compassion. I want to see him save lives, or even make difficult life and death decisions.

In short, I want something consistent with TOS. Not contradictory.

514. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

xenoliinguist=xenolinguist

MORE DAMN TYPOS!!

515. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

512. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 15, 2012

Well just try to keep it clean, next time. I don’t care that you advocate S/U. Just don’t expect me to. And don’t simplify what I say to something that no longer has the same meaning. You will get called on it.

516. NCM - January 15, 2012

Uhura and Spock’s romantic liason resonates with some female fans, but if fan fiction is any indication (there are lots of sites), it seems clear that female fans in much greater number still prefer exploring dynamics between Kirk and Spock over Uhura/Spock dynamics.

New Trek gained some new fans, maybe even b/c of the conventional romance; but will it be the benign hook that keeps ‘em on the reel—decades from now? Clearly, it won’t be so for many of us.

We never talk about fans lost, but I know one who exited the theater, shaking his head, laughing ruefully. I hope he’ll give the next one a try, but I’m doubtful. Though he’d seen all the TOS films, even after disparaging TMP, he definitely would agree with the S/U enthusiast here who said, ‘that ship has sailed.’ His loss, I suppose, assuming he doesn’t represent any significant numbers of fans.

517. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

Lordy. Step away from the computer for just a few hours, and what happens? Return to find much blood spilled on the virtual floor. Well, if our number of breaths is fixed upon birth I have little desire to waste any more of mine than necessary addressing everthing that’s been said (or flung, as the case may be), but will attend to one of the highlights:

@470 Spock/Uhura fan:

“The strong implication looks like you’re calling the ST09 film a poorly written twilight (essentially calling Spock ‘Edward Cullen’) cheesefest with bad design. If that’s not what you were calling it and Spock, then I apologize.”

Of course I would certainly call it that (with the exception of my point-of-comparison being the Tom Cruise cheesefest TOP GUN), and with no apologies at all. After two years of looking forward to a film that I was convinced would be a spectacular, classy rebirth of a franchise that had meant so much to me since childhood, I found the finished product to be positively dreadful in almost every particular save its production gloss and an attractive, obviously talented cast. But dmduncan, really?? Were I the Trek Supreme Court with their millions in gross receipts I could not hope for a more passionate, articulate defender of Trek 2009 from the distillers of sour grapes like myself. That you could attribute such sentiments to him over a mere disagreement about emphasis calls into question either your comprehension or your willingness to honestly represent the opinions of those you disagree with.

Tell you what, though: if we can lay off the ad hominem attacks and putting words in other peoples’ mouths for just a moment, can either you or Far Strider explain exactly what of value, either dramatically or thematically, a Spock/Uhura romance brings to the table, as opposed to a Spock/Chapel romance or a Spock/Rand romance? Again, I have no problems tampering with the essentials of the Trek format if it results in a better product. Roddenberry famously said himself that his greatest hope was that one day some brilliant producer would come along and reinvent the Star Trek franchise, leaving people to marvel at how much better better the results were than anything he ever did. (Was he really sincere in saying that? We’ll never know.) Personally, I have no problem with the notion of the TOS-reboot cast being a true ensemble, rather than two or three stars being supported by bit players whose characters are only on rare occasion given a chance to take on lives of their own. At the same time, I want young Spock to act like Spock–aloof, ostensibly without emotion, insecure about his mixed heritage to the point the he goes out of his way to act more Vulcan than the Vulcans. It’s difficult to square that with a love affair, particularly with a human subordinate. And what does he see in Zoe Saldana’s Uhura anyway, apart from her keen aural sensitivities? As depicted in the 2009 film she’s deft at ordering drinks and deflecting obnoxious come-ons, but for my money she entirely lacks the original’s aura of dignity and foreign, sensual mystery. Why do you consider all of this an improvement on what went down before?

dmduncan, a little busy today but I hope to address your criticism of my assertions regarding “the triumvirate” and Roddenberry’s original intent later. Peace.

518. Daoud - January 15, 2012

I don’t need to see any more of Spock/Uhura as a relationship on screen. It can be in the background, fine.
.
I’d like to see the film have the triad of Kirk/Spock and McCoy on a mission of exploration challenged by some special task assigned to them by Starfleet, with action, logic and compassion… all involved an in play.
.
That is Star Trek.
.
Even Roddenberry once said you don’t expect your Ship’s Captain to hug a pretty yeoman in a time of great jeopardy… (even though he did!). What Star Trek non-fiction book was it that had a vignette… imagine Admiral Frank Fletcher stopping in the middle of Coral Sea aboard the Yorktown to hug a pretty ensign?? Let’s leave the ‘shipping’ details back to the pro novels and fan fiction where it belongs. Hint at it all you want (Riker/Troi), but leave it alone.

519. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

It is not how the original characters Kirk, Spock and McCoy got to be played out in the TOS TV series, it is how these relationships have been interpreted since by many fans that seems to me, as well, as a little weird, even delusional (to use what is becoming a favourite phrase by another poster here). I certainly never saw these characters as representing some sort of mythical archetypes or whatever. To me, they were people working together towards achieving a common goal, one of them being, by virtue of being work colleagues, developing and maintaining an understanding, even friendship. Most of the time Dr McCoy was not needed on the bridge and probably should not have been there. I think his presence irritated Spock somewhat, given that there was no logical reason for his presence. The reason being there in McCoy’s mind – sickbay was quiet and Jim was his friend!

However, since the destruction of Vulcan in Trek 2009, sickbay would have been run off its feet, so why was Dr McCoy there on the bridge at all? If anyone was neglecting his duties and post, it was Dr McCoy, not Lt Uhura. Once again, McCoy was there on the bridge because a young friend and cadet suspended from the Academy, Jim Kirk, was there. Whether it was Kirk who needed McCoy to be there more than McCoy’s care and protective instincts towards his younger friend, Jim, were coming into play – who knows.

The impression I am getting from this discussion/debate is that some people prefer to see these three characters representing certain archetypes rather than the flesh and blood beings that they really are. Also, what many want to see shown is that these people are or should be incapable of experiencing firsthand anything akin to real intimate love and not being able or be given a real opportunity to give and receive any love, other than some quasi-platonic kind. How does that inspire humanity to evolve? It is more like devolvement, as in an important aspect of our humanity is either completely negated or trivialised.

520. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

” Also, what many want to see shown is that these people are or should be incapable of experiencing firsthand anything akin to real intimate love and not being able or be given a real opportunity to give and receive any love, other than some quasi-platonic kind.”

Keachick, if you haven’t already heard of them I would suggest checking out a couple of hours of quaint, ’60s-era television called “This Side of Paradise” and “City on the Edge of Forever.” Each of them features a love story for Spock and Kirk, respectively, allowing the audience a glimpse of facets of their personalities never previously seen while portraying adult, human relationships that are heartfelt and wholly believable–and they conclude with two of the most powerful moments ever recorded in the history of Star Trek. (Due to the strictures of the era there’s no boob-grabbing or quips about sex with farm animals, but then, you can’t have everything.)

Again, I’ll throw out the question: what does the inclusion of a love affair between Spock and Uhura signify for you that makes it worth doing? See, I can understand Jim Kirk’s falling for a woman like Edith Keeler, and can totally grok Spock’s uninhibited joy at experiencing real love after a lifetime of rigid emotional self-repression. But Spock/Uhura, really? What does he see in her, or vice-versa, that I should care, much less find it believably consistent with what we know about their characters?

521. Vultan - January 15, 2012

Pretty much all the arguments presented here could be solved with one simple thing—a new Star Trek TV series!

All the stuff we’re begging to see in the next film simply can’t fit into a two hour story every three or four years. A series CAN do that. Hopefully someone at CBS will get the message… some day.

522. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

While we are talking about this Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate “bond”, it seems that there was not much of it at all at the beginning of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Kirk sought out Dr Bones McCoy to come aboard the Enterprise even though there was already a qualified Medical Officer on board. In fact, Kirk had to have McCoy brought aboard by using a rarely used “reserve reactivation” clause, because Dr McCoy had retired from Starfleet. Kirk did not seek out Spock in the same way.

It was Spock who eventually came to them, not because of any familial identification with Kirk or anybody else, but because of his “psychic” perception of there being this very powerful entity seeking what he sought out there and heading for their part of the galaxy…

What bond, what triumvirate was operating here? Next to nothing. The only thing operating was the Kirk/McCoy relationship. Any kind of triumvirate had to be re-established and not without difficulty.

Maybe, this is what the producers and writers have also seen by watching many of the TOS television and movie offerings. They are looking at these shows through fresh eyes, especially those who have been necessarily fans of Star Trek.

Having said this, I like it when the three characters are doing their thing together and I would like to see this three-way Kirk/Spock/McCoy discussion, debate, banter played out in the next movie. I have always said this here and on other sites.

523. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#519.

The “archetypes” you insist on calling the three main characters are full-fledged (fictional) people. That is why so many of us want the triad intact for the sequel. They feel real to us, because each of Kirk, Spock and McCoy have their flaws, and their strengths, both of which allow for being able to co-operate for a common goal, yet be able to disagree philisophically at the same time.

I don’t have a problem with love being explored, but why does it have to be Spock? One of the reasons he’s so popular is that he isolates himself, because he knows he’s an outsider. He is unable (emotionally) able to sustain long term romance because he is constantly conflicted by his Vulcan and human halves. To totally remove this from him robs us of his appeal, and he becomes just another character.

The fact that we are in a new timeline is irrelevant. Because ultimately its about what is best for the characters, and making drastic changes to them pretty much results in them being strangers with familiar names.

I mean, technically, the next time the James Bond movies are rebooted, the producers have the right to make him gay, or a woman, but that would result in a different character only with the same name.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

524. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

I am well aware of such episodes. You missed another episode – The Paradise Syndrome. They are CANON. So therefore, there is no reason why these characters cannot be shown behaving in similar ways as they did in the ’60′s series, except that there could now be a greater maturity shown when it comes to presenting these kinds of relationships. After all, a lot of people want to see Andorians, Klingons, Tholians, Talosians, birds of prey, big time space ship battles, Kirk-fu, villainy and political intrigue etc etc – all these things were done in TOS TV and movies. What makes Kirk and Spock respectively having an intimate relationship with someone different from all the rest of what Star Trek was and could be?

The thing is that what Spock/Uhura Fan and myself are asking for is INCLUSION because people do have lives – emotional lives where finding someone who they can love and have it returned is also as much a part of life as anything and always has been. What many others here want is EXCLUSION of the above. Not very IDIC and not necessarily all that healthy or realistic…

525. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

And by the way, when I say I want more of the triad in the sequel, it doesn’t mean the three have to take up the whole movie. Ten or fifteen total minutes of philisophical debating and/or bantering would suffice. Spread throughout the movie, of course, during several scenes, like on the bridge, in the briefing room, Kirk’s quarters, etc.

526. Trek Lady - January 15, 2012

519 “I certainly never saw these characters as representing some sort of mythical archetypes or whatever. ”

So people who do are “delusional”? Chances are you do not have a background in the Greek literature, or know much about classic archtypes. If you did, you would likely HAVE seen the relationship among Kirk,Spock and McCoy in terms of those archtypes. GR even spoke about how he very deliberately developed those three characters as a sort of balance, with Kirk as the pivot point. You may not “see” it, but it was planned – and it worked. Most of the movie goers who were thrilled by Star Wars probably were totally unaware of the whole “Hero’s Journey” aspect as well – but some themes are universal and timeless. TOS has endured partially because of these universal themes. Count me as someone who is concerned that the richness of such depth may be sacrificed in favor of marketing.

527. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#521.

Vultan,

I agree with you, except that Paramount is unlikely to allow CBS to use the TOS characters in a television series. For Paramount, Kirk, Spock and the others are its money maker at the box office. Once J.J Abrams is done, the movie series will be recast with new actors, and new writers will be hired.

From now on, the TOS characters will be sticking strictly to the big screen.

A television show would most likely be about an entirely new crew.

528. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

Whew! Keeping up with this comments section is a full-time job. Still don’t have a lot of time, but I’ll get in what I can and address the rest later.

@#525 Ryan

That’s what I and other people have been asking for with Spock/Uhura and other elements of the film that we find just as meaningful.

@Michael Hall

I’ll answer your question about Spock/Uhura when I have the time. Getting it to you in a few minutes just won’t cut it.

And about dmduncan:

@ you both:

I did not put words in anyone’s mouth, but I have had to deal with words being put in my mouth for months. And you calling Spock and Uhura a mere “love affair” but then trying to tell me what not to say incorrectly is laughable…

“Well just try to keep it clean, next time. I don’t care that you advocate S/U. Just don’t expect me to…”

I haven’t gotten dirty, dm, and I hope this discussion does not get there because I have seen it come close a few time. I never asked you to or expected you to advocate S/U, just as I assume you never expected that I would advocate your trinity.

… And don’t simplify what I say to something that no longer has the same meaning. You will get called on it.

And you will you and anyone else that does that. I just – just started giving back some of what I’ve been (and others have been) putting up with for months. If you don’t like jokes, funny nasty little parodies, and attacks when it comes to your favorites or having words put in your mouth (which I didn’t do), then don’t do it to anyone else. I can be kind if you can be kind.

I’ll be back later…

P.S.

@ Keachick

“However, since the destruction of Vulcan in Trek 2009, sickbay would have been run off its feet, so why was Dr McCoy there on the bridge at all? If anyone was neglecting his duties and post, it was Dr McCoy, not Lt Uhura.”

*High-fives* :-)

I like the entire crew, and different pairings and triads too. I don’t mind and could even enjoy Spock-Kirk-McCoy so long as it is done in a way of friends working together, but the ‘triumvirate’ is something I can’t take. :-/

529. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@ 523:

Gay James Bond. Smashing!

@ 524:

“I am well aware of such episodes. You missed another episode – The Paradise Syndrome.”

LOL. Compared to the two shows I cited, TPS is pure piffle (though it is something of a guilty pleasure, and probably one of the better third seasons offerings–at least it had scope, and a genuinely tragic conclusion). But, still. . .

” They are CANON. So therefore, there is no reason why these characters cannot be shown behaving in similar ways as they did in the ’60’s series, except that there could now be a greater maturity shown when it comes to presenting these kinds of relationships.

So you’re saying that Spock/Uhura was more “mature” than the relationship depicted in “City”? By what criteria?

530. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#528.

“I don’t mind and could even enjoy Spock-Kirk-McCoy so long as it is done in a way of friends working together, but the ‘triumvirate’ is something I can’t take. :-/ ”

Huh? You do realize that Kirk, Spock and McCoy were always friends working together during TOS and the TOS movies, right?

You’re either for or against the triumvirate. Can’t have it both ways.

531. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

#523 – Comparing what the writers did with Spock with making James Bond gay or a woman is being facetious.

“One of the reasons he’s so popular is that he isolates himself, because he knows he’s an outsider. He is unable (emotionally) able to sustain long term romance because he is constantly conflicted by his Vulcan and human halves. To totally remove this from him robs us of his appeal…”

So this is really more about fangirl/fanboy (and many Trekkers’) expectations and fantasies, rather than actually exploring just what the potential this human/vulcan character called Spock might actually have in terms of not just his intellectual, logical abilities, which are obvious, but also as regards his emotional capabilities, not so obvious.

Perhaps longterm, the relationship between Spock and Uhura might not work, but that would not be the first time intimate relationships between men and women don’t continue past a certain point, for whatever reason. It doesn’t have to be because of unfaithfulness or crap like that either.

532. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 15, 2012

@#530

Uh, yes I can. “Friends” working together is NOT how I’ve seen thev ‘triumvirate’ described.

Okay, popping out again.

533. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

So Kirk having the opportunity to actually get to know someone for a bit more than a week (City on the Edge of Forever), fall in love with her and time enough to find out that she was pregnant, was “piffle”? Seriously? Whaaat?!

I don’t care what circumstances brought Miramanee and Kirk together. The fact is that time allowed them both to create a loving bond between them. Sadly Kirk’s heart got broken yet again…Now that aspect (her dying) has become such a cruel cliche for James Kirk.

That is something I hope this alternate universe will put right.

534. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#531.

“Comparing what the writers did with Spock with making James Bond gay or a woman is facetious.”

No its not. I was making a point that making drastic changes to a character makes him a different character, albeit with the same name.

#532.

Too bad. What we saw during TOS is how it is, no matter how you slice it, or dispute it.

#533.

“I don’t care what circumstances brought Miramanee and Kirk together. The fact is that time allowed them to both create a loving bond between them. Sadly Kirk’s heart got broken yet again…Now that aspect (her dying) has become such a cruel cliche for James Kirk.”

Except that Captain Kirk was originally going to stay out of Miramanee’s life because of the Prime Directive barring him from interfering and making contact. It was only after he got injured, and taken in by the tribe, that Kirk fell in love with her. But even then Kirk wasn’t himself. He was suffering from amnesia, and didn’t know who he was, and obviously forgot about the Prime Directive. At that point, Miramanee was actually in love with Kirok, not Kirk. Once Kirk regained his memory, he realized what happened, though it was too late, since Miramanee suffered a fatal injury.

I would argue that it was Kirk’s accidental interference that got Miramanee killed, and Kirk was more broken hearted about her losing her life as opposed to him losing a lover.

If Kirk hadn’t gotten amnesia, or discovered in the first place, he and Miramanee wouldn’t have “fallen in love”.

535. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

“So you’re saying that Spock/Uhura was more “mature” than the relationship depicted in “City”? By what criteria?”

It was no less mature. Kirk barely knew Edith Keeler. There wasn’t enough time. He developed a crush on her. He was smitten, pure and simple. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, per se, but you can’t say it was any more “mature” than the Spock/Uhura relationship.

For a start, Spock and Uhura had more time to develop a genuine understanding about each and what I perceive would have been a purely platonic friendship. Frankly, I cannot see either of them, at that point, leaping between the bedsheets, especially while Spock was Uhura’s actual tutor. Any intimate (sexual) relationship came later (if indeed there even is one now), once Spock’s tutorial duties were no longer required by Uhura. The other thing is that even though they were student and tutor, they were both consenting adults. It was not like she was 15 and he was 25.

The best criteria for describing both the Spock/Uhura and the Kirk/Miramanee relationships as being potentially more mature than the Kirk/Edith Keeler relationship – TIME.

536. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

“So Kirk having the opportunity to actually get to know someone for a bit more than a week (City on the Edge of Forever), fall in love with her and time enough to find out that she was pregnant, was “piffle”? Seriously? Whaaat?!”

Yeah, seriously. Kirk and Edith Keeler were drawn together across the centuries, with her literally pulling this odd, out-of-place interloper and his “Chinese” sidekick off the street during one of the greatest times of crisis America ever faced. He eventually fell in love with her kindness and essential decency in what was to him a barbaric era; she with him because, subconsciously, he represented the hopeful future she wants so desperately to believe in. It was as classic a love story as has been told on American television during the last half-century, with the plaudits from viewers and critics alike to prove it.

Kirk and Miramanee’s relationship, by comparson, was a schlocky retelling of a cliche: Great White Hunter falls in with native tribe and hooks up with Beautiful Princess. It’s her duty to love him as the “god” who will save her people, and so she does. Whether her feelings would have been the same for him had he been marketed as a regular paleface none can say, because their relationship isn’t one of equals. That Sabrina Scharf (who, interestingly enough, went on to become a California Assemblywoman) is lovely to look at and becomes pregnant with Kirk’s child doesn’t change this; neither does the fine musical score and better-than-average production values. (As I said, it’s a guilty pleasure.) I mean, sheesh! If this is the feminist defense of Spock/Uhura then I think feminism may be in a passel of trouble–and I say this as someone, a straight Caucasian guy, who considers himself a feminist.

537. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

Yes, that is how the Paradise Syndrome went. However, what the episode did explore was another side to Kirk’s (not Kirok) nature – that is, his ability to be a lover and friend. Amnesia did not change his basic nature. In fact, it allowed his real nature to shine through because he was not restricted by rules and regulations. And yes, had he not had the accident, and had Spock and the others been able to find him, then the whole discussion over this relationship between Kirk and Miramanee would be moot.

“I would argue that it was Kirk’s accidental interference that got Miramanee killed, and Kirk was more broken hearted about her losing her life as opposed to him losing a lover.”

Why couldn’t his broken heart be for both reasons? Not only did he lose her but his unborn child. Why does it have to be one or the other? That doesn’t make sense.

538. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

“It was no less mature. Kirk barely knew Edith Keeler. There wasn’t enough time. He developed a crush on her. He was smitten, pure and simple. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, per se, but you can’t say it was any more “mature” than the Spock/Uhura relationship.”

Oh, yes I can! Kirk was “smitten” with Edith Keeler because he admired her kindness and compassion in such dire circumstances, and wondered in awe at her prescience regarding the times to come that she would never live to see. (Something the televised version of the episode frankly overplayed, in my opinion. Even at its best, TOS wasn’t perfect.) By Kirk’s galactic horndog standards, Keeler isn’t even particularly glamorous. He loved her for who she was, not because she filled out a miniskirt well or offered him a smooch on the transporter pad when he most needed a little consolation.

Jesus, but I’m having a difficult time believing this conversation.

539. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

Question: How come Kirk fell in love in Edith Keeler? He was not suffering from amnesia and was there on a specific mission – to find Dr McCoy and prevent McCoy from doing whatever it was that changed all of history.

How come Kirk fell in love with Rayna in Requiem for Methusalah? He was not suffering from amnesia then either and was there on a specific mission – to get ritalin (or whatever it was), medicine, that was to save millions of people on another world.

Kirk barely knew either of these women. He had a lot more time to get to know Miramanee than either Rayna or Edith. So why is his relationship with Miramanee considered “piffle” by some, but presumably not the other two love-interests? Are you also trying to tell that once Kirk got all his memory back, that he would suddenly stop loving Miramanee, that suddenly she would mean very little to him? Are you saying that because Kirk remembers that he is a captain of a starship and a member of Starfleet, that he somehow forgets/develops amnesia about the last three months and that he was intimately connected, emotionally and physically, with a woman?

Think about your answers here…

Frankly, what with this triumvirate stuff and how some see both Kirk and Spock, it is hard not to believe that the two individuals are two of the most emotionally retarded ones about and should not be left in charge of an ablutions block, let alone a starship… Sheesh!

540. boborci - January 15, 2012

538. Your Quixotic opinions amuse me.

541. boborci - January 15, 2012

538. Actually, not really.

542. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@ 540, 541

Well, Mr. Orci, as we’ve long since established your script for Trek 2009 didn’t much amuse me, either. (Though I hope you’ll note that I did sincerely wish you and the rest of the Trek ’13 company well upthread; I repeat that here.) So I guess we’re even–the difference being, at pennies per pixel, my opinions cost a heck of a lot less to produce. :-)

543. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2012

Those who want Uhura featured more prominently in the next movie. Based on that logic, why not contact the producers of the Sherlock Holmes movies and ask that Mrs. Hudson (their landlady) get more screen time in the third film of the franchise?

Yeah, I thought not!

544. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@ 543,

Actually, from the look of the previews Sherlock appeared to have gotten the same dumbing-down approach as Trek, so I never bothered. Probably most unfair, but then I wasn’t the one who put together that trailer. :-(

545. boborci - January 15, 2012

542. As i may have said before, your comments are the best evidence for why i get to write these movies and you don’t.

546. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 15, 2012

Way to go Bob Orci. You tell them how it is. Because you are the Greatest Writer in all of Hollywood.

547. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@545:

Actually, you hadn’t. And, may I say, ouch. So does this mean you won’t consider my spec script for Hawaii Five-O, or sign my autograph book at Comic-Con?

548. Vultan - January 15, 2012

#527

Yes, actually I meant “new” in the purest form of the word, as in a new ship and crew. Whether it’s in the prime universe or the alternate universe or the evil goatee universe or an animated series, I couldn’t care less. But there’s no reason to give up on a great TV format—a starship visiting strange new worlds each week—to just stay with the “classic” characters and their movies once in a blue moon.

A new Trek series, with the right sort of creative team behind it, of course, would be the best thing to keep “the brand” alive for the foreseeable future (no pun intended).

549. boborci - January 15, 2012

547. I will sign your book!

550. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 15, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. Compared to the Start of the filing of Trek 09 to this one. Would you rate this movies filming better or worse.

551. Vultan - January 15, 2012

#546

Hear that? Paddy Chayefsky just turned in his grave.

:-o

552. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 15, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. How would you say the Filming of Trek is going so far. Oh. BND. Del Trame. Maybe.

553. Jinn-Jinn - January 15, 2012

I loved the previous movie, because not only was it so open enough to let new fans like myself in, but because that was where I became a big fan of Uhura. She had such strength, tenderness and intelligence. Uhura was the reason I started watching TOS and I appreciated the humor, friendships and philosophies in Star Trek. Nichelle Nichols and Zoe Saldana are fantastic women.

I can’t wait for the next film! Production could not have started soon enough for me.

554. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 15, 2012

Hey Vultan. He Writes Star Trek. Had to give Bob some Props.

555. Vultan - January 15, 2012

Props are for airplanes, chief.

;)

556. Phil - January 15, 2012

Wow, step away from the computer for the day and look what happens. Well, if we get a movie made to offend none, it will be of the good ship Enterprise sailing through space taking sensor readings. That’s all.

Or, as Chancellor Gorkon said, “Well… I see we have a long way to go.”

557. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 15, 2012

Lol. Funny.

558. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@549:

“To my greatest fan,” I hope.

559. NCM - January 15, 2012

Jinn-Jinn any relation to V V? I don’t really care to know, but it’ll take a lot of “new” posters here to balance the scales in favor of S/U.

560. boborci - January 15, 2012

558. Why thank you!

561. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

517: “But dmduncan, really?? Were I the Trek Supreme Court with their millions in gross receipts I could not hope for a more passionate, articulate defender of Trek 2009 from the distillers of sour grapes like myself. That you could attribute such sentiments to him over a mere disagreement about emphasis calls into question either your comprehension or your willingness to honestly represent the opinions of those you disagree with.”

Well thanks for that. It’s a strange experience to read posts in which someone attributes opinions to me so distant from the ones I have tirelessly expressed here. It makes me turn around to make sure Rod Serling isn’t narrating behind me somewhere.

562. Vultan - January 15, 2012

#561

“Submitted for your approval, a man with an opinion in the age of opinion. Mister dmduncan. But little does he know… that as he logs on tonight, as he checks the views of others in a certain quadrant of the information net, his opinions will be checking on him.”

This… is the Twilight Zone.

563. Vultan - January 15, 2012

Can you tell I’ve watched a few of those?

564. Vultan - January 15, 2012

I’ve heard JJ Abrams is a big TZ fan.
Would love to see him bring it back to TV.

It certainly couldn’t be any worse than the last TZ incarnation in the early 2000s. [shudder]

565. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

#538 – “He loved her for who she was, not because she filled out a miniskirt well or offered him a smooch on the transporter pad when he most needed a little consolation.”

Kirk had a crush on her and that made it harder for him when he knew she had to die, in order to make his world right again. Supposing he had not developed a crush on Edith, do you think that Kirk would not have cared that this woman who found him and Spock a “flop” for the night and gave them paid work would have to die? Personally, I believe that Kirk would still have been upset, but would not have taken it quite so hard.

“By Kirk’s galactic horndog standards, Keeler isn’t even particularly glamorous.”
Seriously? Edith Keeler (Joan Collins) was absolutely stunning! The scene with her standing at the top of the stairs with Kirk looking up at her, glancing at her for the first time while they make introductions, is one of the most gorgeous scenes (beautiful photography) to be seen anywhere on television before or since. You actually missed that!
It is really just as well Edith Keeler didn’t live in the 1960s when every other woman was wearing the mini-skirt. And yes, she would have filled a mini-skirt out nicely as well. Honestly, what the f*ck has what either Uhura or Edith was wearing have to do with anything? Such skanky reasoning, Michael Hall.

Also, why would Spock only be enamoured by how Uhura filled out her mini-skirt any more than he would be by any number of other women wearing the same length of skirt and having similar figure to that of Uhura? Could it just be, however remote the possibility, Spock may have also liked other qualities that Uhura had, eg good intellect, similar interest in alien languages, a liking for warm/hot climates?…

Also, what kind of specialness was it that Rayna had in Requiem for Methusalah that caused Kirk to, once again, become totally besotted? Please, *enlighten* us…

“Jesus, but I’m having a difficult time believing this conversation.”
No kidding. LOL!

566. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

562. Vultan – January 15, 2012

LOL! Love that show. Some of the best TV ever.

567. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@560:

Haven’t seen MISERY then, have you? Written by that other Greatest Writer in Hollywood, William Goldman, who famously doesn’t know anything but would nonetheless no doubt do wonders with Spock/Uhura.

@561:

Pas problem; the truth is the truth. In the meantime, I leave you with Bob Orci who, despite our differences, I’m hoping will be gracious enough to read a Transformers sequel treatment I’m working on that features a gay Decepticon and a caged tribble that everyone only thinks has been properly neutered. I think it rocks! Peace.

568. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

TZ in color sans Rod Serling’s influence was not the same. He was that show. His touch made it magical. So many great stories in that show that make you think.

569. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

Bob is the kind of person GR had in mind when he said Star Trek would someday be done better than it ever had been before. I think GR would be blown away by what Bob&Co. did. At least as much as Leonard Nimoy.

BTW, did Bob hear Sofia Vergara’s speech (in spanish) mentioning screenwriters during tonight’s GG awards?

Funny, funny.

570. Michael Hall - January 15, 2012

@ 565:

“Could it just be, however remote the possibility, Spock may have also liked other qualities that Uhura had, eg good intellect, similar interest in alien languages, a liking for warm/hot climates?…”

Yep, I definitely hand’t considered the cosmic theme of meeting a soulmate who also likes warm climates. (But what if they’re only stranded together in the desert for a week? That definitely complicates things. . .) Thanks for correcting my stanky thinking, and good night!

571. Vultan - January 15, 2012

#568

Amen!

Though, I think it could be possible to make a successful TZ series without Serling. The ’80s series had a few gems, and the movie had at least one good remake (the one with John Lithgow). And you could say Field of Dreams and The Sixth Sense are TZ movies. It all depends on the writing and execution.

But yeah, Rod Serling was that show. I think I heard he wrote something like a third (or more) of the scripts. A different era for sure.

572. Red Dead Ryan - January 15, 2012

#537.

Kirk wasn’t himself when he fell in love with Miramanee. If Kirk was himself, he would not have allowed himself to even be near her.

After he regained his memory, Kirk realizes that he didn’t have the feelings he did before. But he knows Miramanee loved him, believing him to be some sort of deity, which Kirk most certainly wasn’t. She was in love with Kirok, not Kirk, and it was Kirok, not Kirk who was in love with her.

573. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

571. Vultan – January 15, 2012

I love short stories and I think I got the love of them from watching TZ, which did brief, powerful stories so damn well! The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street is a classic TZ story. You realize when you watch that episode that it’s still relevant because not much has changed between the time that episode was aired and today.

574. Vultan - January 15, 2012

#573

You got that right. “Monsters…” is one of my favorites, right up there with “It’s a Good Life” and “Walking Distance” and, of course, “Time Enough at Last.”

You’d think, what with the fractured, watch-on-the-go mobile nature of television these days, there would be more anthology series like TZ and Outer Limits on the air. If attentions spans are so short, then short stories should be thriving!

575. Vultan - January 15, 2012

Correction: attention spans

576. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

574. Vultan – January 15, 2012

I think it’s due for a return!

577. dmduncan - January 15, 2012

Nobody could reproduce Rod Serling’s severe presence, but would be nice to have a host who is as unsettling in his own way as Serling was. Drawing a blank. Not an actor. You need a writer or a director to do it, like Hitchcock hosted his own show.

578. Vultan - January 15, 2012

#577

True. I can’t think of one either. There really aren’t any more “angry young man” writer/creators that are willing to battle with networks and sponsors like Serling did—at least none of which I’m aware.

Like I said, a different era. But the anthology format is definitely due for a comeback.

Nice chatting with you, dmduncan. By the way, if you’re interested, there’s a free TZ podcast on iTunes by a Brit named Tom Elliot. He’s going over each episode of the series, plus interviews, insights, etc. It’s well produced and recommended for any TZ fan.

Cheers!

579. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 15, 2012

#572 – What? but according to so many people, Kirk was the galactic horndog which meant he always allowed himself to be near beautiful women like Miramanee…Are you saying now that these people are wrong?

He only called himself Kirok because he couldn’t quite remember the name Kirk. He still loved her. Why wouldn’t he? The writers had Miramanee die in order to avoid the complications that Miramanee and her pregnancy would bring, not only for Kirk and Miramanee and her people, but more importantly, to the audiences of the 1960′s, who look for simple solutions. Apparently little has changed. Now we have people stating that Kirk somehow forgot the love shared all those weeks/months spent with her and didn’t really love her after all. You are turning Kirk into some emotionally retarded turncoat, an a**hole, except that he wasn’t.

What about Kirk falling in love with Rayna? What – are you saying he wasn’t himself then either? Kirk wanted to take Rayna away with him, was insisting on it and both he and Methusalah forced her to choose…you know what the result was. Once again, she dies, thus providing a simple solution for audiences. UGH!

Kirk only just met Rayna, but there you see Spock and McCoy hovering over the grief-stricken Kirk and Spock giving him a mind-meld to help him forget.

On the other hand, you have Kirk (Kirok) come to know a woman, she and he fall in love, become connected both physically and emotionally, she falls pregnant and enough time passes in order for her to realise that she is indeed pregnant, tells him her news and Kirk is elated by the news. Kirk is seen as some sort of deity, but of course isn’t, however he is a fully contributing member of that little community. Shit happens and Kirk’s full memory returns. Miramanee is killed. Kirk is devastated. Yet no mind-meld is offered to help him to forget in this episode.

It is this inconsistency about how Kirk is treated as a character and more over how many viewers see all of this that really bugs me. The Kirk/Miramanee love story has been obviously dismissed by both audience and writers, it seems, as being not real, “piffle”, yet the real nonsense of the so-called Rayna/Kirk relationship appears to have been taken seriously by writers and audiences alike. WTF? SERIOUSLY?!

580. Daoud - January 16, 2012

Keachick, don’t neglect that the then 51-minute, now 42-minute episode length doesn’t equate to the actual time the events portrayed cover….
.
In _City_, it seems Kirk and Spock were there for some WEEKS before McCoy arrives, based on the scripts. That might explain some of Kirk’s building admiration for Edith.
.
Same thing goes for Miramanee. The Enterprise blew out its engines warping back to the asteroid, remember? The script says “two months at sublight”. So, Kir(o)k had two months with Miramanee.
.
Rayna is a weird situation. I always wrote it off to Kirk being sick with Rigellian Fever, which clearly causes intense attraction to scantily clothed blondes. Hmmmm, Alice Eve in the sequel. Rigellian Fever. Ahaha! Title… “Star Trek: Rigellian Fever.” Sure!

581. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2012

#579.

People with amnesia tend to act differently from how they normally act. This would be no different with Kirk. I mean, Kirk forgot so much about himself, and could barely even remember his name. The situation that Kirk found himself in allowed him to fall in love because the “real” Kirk was absent, replaced briefly by “Kirok”, a different enough personality.

When Kirk got better, he obviously retained Kirok’s memories, but would have felt differently about Miramanee because he knows she fell in love with Kirok, not Kirk.

Just like if I fell in love with a woman after she had amnesia, I’d probably be dumped the second she got better. Arguably, I’d be dating her without her (true) consent, and once her condition improved, she’d finally realize what was going on and throw me out. Because when she had amnesia, she was experiencing feelings towards me that she wouldn’t normally harbour, because she was in a vulnerable and weakened state of mind and I would obviously be taking advantage of that, whether I was aware of her condition or not.

Some people with amnesia steal things by accident, do activities they would normally not be interested in doing, and befriending folks they’d normally stay away from.

582. Red Dead Ryan - January 16, 2012

Kirk obviously felt deep remorse for the death of Miramanee, and their unborn child, and he knew he was responsible, even if by freak circumstance. And I’m sure he remembers how he, as Kirok, felt towards her, but since he got better those feelings would have went away since his love for Miramanee was amnesia-induced.

583. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 16, 2012

Perhaps the amnesia did affect Kirk, but there is no denying that most of Kirok was still very much the James Kirk we all knew, so I am inclined to believe that he still had some genuine love for her, even when his full memory returned to him.

However, the whole debate is about whether Kirk and/or Spock can have any kind of intimate relationship, while still being captain and first officer/science officer. I say they can and should. These women don’t have to be central focus of the film but that side of their natures should not be ignored or dismissed as somehow cheesy, soap opera-ish, trivial, trite nor should be the women EVER be referred to as a Mary Sue.

584. Daoud - January 16, 2012

Well, there’s plenty of fan fiction dating back to the 60′s and 70′s that answers any debate about whether Kirk and Spock can have any kind of intimate relationship… and let me say the first time I saw some of that at a convention in the late 70′s and didn’t expect it….

Then again, Pocket actually published “Killing Time”, about as close to a K/S novel any of the pro novel Star Trek books ever got!

(BTW, why is it always a Mary Sue, when we never know: it could be a Larry Drew.)

585. Bob - January 16, 2012

@BobOrci – Hey there Bob, I was lucky enough to have my childhood dream of being a crew member of Captain Kirk’s Enterprise when I was cast as ensign #4 in “Trials And Tribble-ations”. Any chance you guys need more people to flesh out the crew?? =)

586. Penny - January 16, 2012

I love the Spock/Uhura romance AND I am a long time ST fan AND long time lurker of this site.

587. Phil - January 16, 2012

@583. The issue isn’t whether Kirk or Spock should have relationships, it’s about whether or not that is a focus of Star Trek, or even if it’s appropiate in a fictonal command structure. People in command positions in real life have relationships, however it’s important to note that they are seperate from their command responsibilities, or in any situation where the relationship could be view as being a souce of influence. It would be innappropiate for a college professor to date his student, or a Starfleet instructor to date a cadet.
I don’t see anyone in the current cast as a Mary Sue – some character trains in the supporting cast (McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Sulu, Checkov) were not well thought out, though. Thankfully, there were no Wesley Crushers on board, a Mary Sue if there ever was one. Sorry you have an issue with literary criticisms, but they are what they are.

588. Michael Hall - January 16, 2012

@569:

“Bob is the kind of person GR had in mind when he said Star Trek would someday be done better than it ever had been before. I think GR would be blown away by what Bob&Co. did.”

Well. . . obviously, I could argue the point, but at this late date I won’t. Perhaps you’re right; as Kirk once pointed out, there’s no accounting for taste. At the very least he probably would have been amused by the scene where young Kirk gets buzzed by the flying highway patrolman, especially if the cop had been given a license plate like “RODRULZ”. He famously was as human and fallible as any of us, after all.

589. Aurore - January 16, 2012

@545. Roberto Orci.

(posts 496, 509 & 513)

http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/28/harve-bennett-criticizes-star-trek-2009-talks-starfleet-academy-movie-more/

590. Michael Hall - January 16, 2012

To be fair, I think Bennett’s specific criticisms of Trek 2009 are mostly pretty off-base. The large trench in Iowa is clearly a rock quarry (while I can’t say with certainty that Orci or Kurtzman actually know where the Grand Canyon is located, with a budget of $150 million J.J. Abrams obviously had the resources to hire someone to research such things), and while a reverence for “tradition” is fine it will dramatically only take you so far. In any case, as a producer Bennett clearly had no problem breaking with Trek tradition (and flouting Roddenberry’s wishes) whenever he saw fit. There are plenty of things to criticize about the Abrams film–even if, on balance, you really like it–but the only thing that really resonates with Bennett’s critique is his subtle assertion that the current filmmakers were willing to pander to audiences in ways that he wasn’t, and that they wound up profiting handsomely for it. I guess there’s a reason that Bob Orci gets to write these things and Harve Bennett doesn’t.

591. Aurore - January 16, 2012

C’mon everybody…….Group hug???

:)

592. Aurore - January 16, 2012

“C’mon everybody…….Group hug???”
_________

Shut the phoque up , Aurore.
The adults are talking!!!!!!!!!!!!!

593. NCM - January 16, 2012

Aurore, thanks for the providing relevant, interesting links. They’re all new to me. Keep ‘em coming!

594. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 16, 2012

Wow, what a thread!

It’s interesting that the Twilight Zone should come up. (I’m a big fan also)

It might be fun to filter this discussion through that lens.

Let’s see if this works:

A key element woven throughout many episodes of TZ was irony.

In TOS, Spock was the alien on board. Yet, ironically, he was (as Kirk so accurately stated in Spock’s eulogy), the “most human”.

Think about it. Spock, the “alien”, was not really all that alien at all.

He was everyman. He embodied the struggle we all share – the ongoing tug-of-war between head and heart.

But in Spock’s particular circumstance, this took the form of a uniqueness that made him a misfit.

He solved this dilemma by taking the approach adopted by many of us who have been hurt and rejected. He chose to play it safe by not playing at all. You can’t be hurt if you don’t feel, right?

Conveniently, his father’s culture espoused a somewhat similar philosophy. He could lock into that and use it as both an excuse and method for sublimating his feelings.

OK, time now for a little more irony:

In his later years, (through an inadvertent chain-of-events that he himself set in motion) Spock nearly destroys that very culture!

And, in the process, he is given a second chance. We don’t know what happened exactly, but this time he is seemingly able to openly express his feelings – no spores required.

But the question now becomes one of balance.

In the TOS Universe there was another, larger tug-of-war going on between head-and-heart.

This particular balancing act took the form of the decision-making process utilized by the ship’s captain.

Kirk was a born risk taker. But he didn’t always act on gut instinct. He tempered his decisions through the advice of his two closest friends, Spock and Bones. Spock was the coldly logical left brain to McCoy’s emotional right brain. Kirk filtered the information he received from these two sides (as corpus callosum) and then acted.

This raises some concerns – will Kirk be thrown off balance if he, as a man of action, is solely basing his decisions on emotion? etc. etc….

But wait a second, perhaps the biggest threat to Spock’s newly-found happiness with a mate won’t come from the concerned members of the fanverse.

Spock may very well already be betrothed to another in this Alternate U as well.

If so, how does this affect Uhrura?

T’Pring may have survived the destruction of Vulcan.

And this time Stonn may be out of the picture.

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned…”

595. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 16, 2012

Harve Bennett – ” We had a script called The Academy Years – it was a prequel. It was Kirk and Spock aged seventeen entering Starfleet Academy. Kirk falls in love for the only time in his life. The cadets save the world. The premise of the film was racial tension. Spock becomes the first green-blood to enter the Academy, which is a red-blooded organization, and he is discriminated against. And there was a planetary cabal against green-bloods and the cadets at the Academy are the ones that save the day. Kirk’s love is killed heroically saving the planet from the ship. We had a great script and we had a location.”

This is Harve Bennett’s notion of a great story/script. Good grief. This was a prequel to the TOS series in the prime universe.

He has a 17 year old Kirk falling in love for the only time in his life. Well, we know that Kirk does fall in love later on with Carol Marcus, Edith Keeler… Not consistent with TOS canon

Kirk and Spock both being 17 year old cadets saving the day? really? At least the young Kirk in Abrams movie was at least 25 years old and others, like Spock, were older. Spock is a fair bit older than Kirk – being part vulcan just means he does not age as fast as a human. Once again not consistent with TOS canon.

A cabal of red bloods discriminating against green-bloods? Why? It was the green-bloods (Vulcans) who were the ones to make contact with red-bloods (humans). Vulcans, while being rather patronizing at times (TOS and Enterprise) also helped humans make the leap forward to being able to do genuine space travel and exploration and no doubt helped with other technological advances. That part of the story made no sense and talk about simplistic. Once again, not consistent with canon.

It’s no wonder that the studio wouldn’t touch this a long barge pole. I really think that Harve Bennett must have been having a “senior” moment when he came up with this story.

Yes, thank goodness, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman and co are at the writing helm!

596. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 16, 2012

“We had a great script…”

@ Phil, Odkin, Red Dead Ryan –
If Harve Bennett could say that about his story contribution, then I have every right to declare that my own little story outline is good also, in fact, better than good…:)

LOL

597. Phil - January 16, 2012

@596. You may declare it all you want….

598. dmduncan - January 16, 2012

590: “the only thing that really resonates with Bennett’s critique is his subtle assertion that the current filmmakers were willing to pander to audiences in ways that he wasn’t, and that they wound up profiting handsomely for it.”

I wish I knew what you were talking about, but I don’t. What distasteful desire of the audience did they indulge?

Certainly not Kirk’s hand swelling. I don’t know how you would call that sort of visual comedy pandering when Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton became respected and acknowledged masters of the genre, and whose work to this day remains brilliantly funny and fascinating to watch. That sort of thing, as one of many other elements broadening the field of emotions which the film calls on us to experience, is no more out of place in Star Trek than the laughter which we experience while watching it is out of place in our lives.

When I think “pandering” I think of material like Jackass, which is as far as you can get from what I saw in ST.09.

If Bennett felt that way, I think it may have come naturally as the divide between a mind that is aging and incapable of seeing things the way they appeared in youth.

There’s a wisdom in youth that age tends naturally to forget, and ST.09 had it. It’s the bounce of life. It had the energy of that one lucky sperm cell that wants to get in that egg more than any other sperm cell, and then does it. Star Trek blazed across the screen like something that wanted to LIVE again.

599. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2012

598. “that one lucky sperm cell that wants to get in that egg”

So THAT’S why Spock’s time ship looked like a sperm cell! Thanks, dmduncan!

600. dmduncan - January 16, 2012

I think Star Trek died because it got stuck. It was in a rut, dug completely by the minds of the people who were in charge of it. Now I love TWOK, TSFS, and TUC, but ST.09 was the first example of Star Trek that made me feel the people who made it had rediscovered the source of energy that had led to the creation of TOS in the first place. Everything that came afterward seemed to me powered by the inertia of that first blast of light and energy that happened in the 60′s. And watching ST.09 I feel like it happened again because it successfully recreated the Star Trek universe to make new stories possible with the best set of characters ever to come out of the franchise, while leaving the original timeline alone. I did not expect a rebirth of all those possibilities. That surprise alone was worth the price of admission.

601. dmduncan - January 16, 2012

578. Vultan – January 15, 2012

Thanks, I’ll check it out!

Yeah, the further back in the history of TV I go the more fascinating it becomes to me. The black and white Mike Wallace interviews were fascinating. The Honeymooners. Teleplays broadcast live?! Great stuff.

Here’s the Wallace stuff.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/film/holdings/wallace/

There’s a famous one with Donald Keyhoe about UFOs on that list.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/keyhoe_donald.html

It is a HOOT watching Mike Wallace hock cigarettes at the start of each interview.

602. Amy - January 17, 2012

I’d rather see a poll for what we want LESS of, like lens flare and Star Wars elements.

603. James - January 18, 2012

Please, for the love of all that is Star Trek, DO NOT FILM ENGINEERING IN A STINKING DRIPPING FACTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just hanging a few LCD panels in a stupid factory does not make it engineering!!

Look at TOS, look at the movies, and look at TNG. Model your engineering after that, and give it the aesthetic of your version of Trek. That does not mean that engineering should look like a stupid factory or manufacturing plant.

And please do not ever show me another stinking lens flare in this sequel. You far exceeded your lens flare quota for the next 10 years in the last one. It is artistic when you do it once or twice in a movie. Maybe thrice. But nearly EVERY STINKING SCENE HAD A LENS FLARE. STOP IT.

If you can adjust those two things, I would actually enjoy the movie more. And no Spock/Uhura.

604. Phil - January 18, 2012

@603. Plumbing has been established in Trek. And because a starship is an enclosed environment, just about anything that can be recycled will. Engineering is where all that work will be done, so why the aversion to seeing pipes, machines and such? Even if we fall back on the tired, improbable arguement that replicators make everything, we know that you cannot create something from nothing, so engineering would still have tanks to store the base matter the replicators would use to make Kirks breakfast burrito in the morning.

605. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 18, 2012

# 603

Lens flares are kind of like “floaters” in your eyes. The trick is not to become distracted by them, but to focus on what is going on beyond them.

If I recall correctly, I believe director Nimoy was questioned by the-powers-that-were about why his effects team had “smoke” on the bridge of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. (Same reason – to create an atmosphere).

If you focus on the smoke, you destroy the illusion for yourself.

Another example would be the soft focus filters used in TOS. Whenever a “beautiful” woman was in close-up on screen, suddenly the focus became all soft and dreamy. Cut to male actor, and everything is in sharp focus. It will drive you crazy if you fixate on it.

Gee, I hope I’m not going to cause anyone to enjoy these films any less by calling attention to these other examples.

Better quit.

Anyway, i find that if I approach the lens flares as light that is refracting and bouncing around in the given situation, it makes the story more “real”, and pulls me in further.

(Maybe this should be in the thread on tolerance?)

606. Fubamushu - January 18, 2012

A year for post-production? A whole damn year for post-productino?

607. N - January 18, 2012

Decent dialogue, please.

608. Michael Hall - January 18, 2012

To me, lens the lens flares were just part and parcel of the film’s industrial atmosphere, a big chunk of what constituted the director’s ‘vision’ for this particular project. To my taste they were a little overdone, but no big deal either way. And that’s my first and last comment on that subject.

dmduncan, you asked a perfectly valid question in #598; I hope to respond sometime today.

609. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

Okay, finally I have some time. I’m not going to respond to everything, but I’ll get to enough.

@# 504 dmduncan

494: “Oh, and I’ll add a post script: My honesty isn’t a phase. Interesting that some people think honesty is a phase to just pass through, though. Hmmm.”

It’s a phase of degenerating discourse when people get to impugning other people’s honesty by comparing theirs to yours in phrases like “At least I’m honest about,” in posts where you accuse the person of insincerity through phrases like “hot air.”

I believe what I say at least as if not more strongly than you do what you say.

You get upset that I start out a statement saying “at least,” and then oh look, this is what you have to say??? You just did what you accused me of doing. You don’t know how strongly I believe things or if you believe what you believe more than I do. Let’s just get away from this, shall we?

“@490 dmduncan. . .How condescending of you. . .because Spock/Uhura fan doesn’t agree with you, she doesn’t understand your argument?”

Nope. She doesn’t understand my argument because she reduced my argument to something simpler and easily mocked.

As in for example:

455: “It can’t be worse than three grown men co-dependently acting as one person because none of them are developed enough to function alone. ;-)”

That’s a gross reduction of everything I’ve said on the issue here to something unrelated, and that I did not ever say once in the history of this site.

I suppose I could be less generous and more cynical and say it was intentional, which would remove the redemptive quality of innocence, but I prefer not to do that.

I understood you just fine.

You can call it a gross reduction, but that’s what it is in a nutshell, especially when I look at how the people that support it and have described it describe it.

And then, don’t get mad or offended at what I say when that was a response to you saying:

448: “How about this: What if Vulcans can now bite humans on the neck and turn them into Vulcans?”

Now, dm, I’m going to give you some credit. You can’t have read through this comments section (or even discussions about Spock/Uhura on other comments sections in the past few months) and not have known that your statement would be seen as a Twilight reference.

I have had to deal with people rudely and incorrectly comparing Spock/Uhura to Twilight for months, and I have put up with it, but no more. Like I told Ryan, if you want to say things like this (and please don’t say that you didn’t know how it would be taken – I give you more credit than that and I hope you will claim it), then you are more than free to. But, then, don’t get mad or offended when I respond rudely and insensitively about what you like in turn. That’s the point.

And everything that I have said that you all are complaining about has been said in response to some initial statement that was either rude, insensitive, or some kind of nasty joke or attack on something that someone else likes. You are hardly victims.

Finally, let me say this about Spock/Uhura Fan.

She likes the S/U relationship and wants it to continue. That’s fine! Everyone tends to advocate for the positions they strongly hold, and that’s what I do too.

But I’m not a Spock/Uhura Fan.

I’m a STAR TREK FAN.

And let me say this, just because “Spock/Uhura Fan” is my username, that does not mean that I am not a Star Trek fan as well. This website features articles and postings about all forms of Star Trek, not just one.

I started commenting on this website because of the ST09 movie, and so I picked a username that fit what I liked most about the pairings/relationships in that film, but how dare you imply that a “Spock/Uhura Fan” is all I am–and don’t say that you weren’t implying that because you were, and you did it in such a way as to say that you are somehow better because of it. Once again, I’ve been putting up with this kind of attitude for months. You say that you are a STAR TREK FAN, but what makes you think that you know that I am not? That’s what you implied, and don’t say that you didn’t – you did.

This is the sort of attitude that I have politely put up with for months until a few days ago when I decided (on this thread/comments section) to be just as callous about stating my opinions back.

You can call that what you want, but I find it interesting that you accuse me of things like “degenerating discourse when people get to impugning other people’s honesty by comparing theirs to yours” when frankly you do the same thing, and you and others have been doing this (for months without my giving it back in turn) by saying things like your statement above. My point to Ryan, and you, is that it’s the same thing and when you give it, it seems to be okay, but oh Lordy if you have to deal with the same lack of decency coming back– now that’s just not okay.

There are all kinds of double standards and hypocrisy going on here, and my point in finally stating exactly why I don’t want to see a movie about 3 people without a care for the feelings of some of the people that like their trinity is to illustrate (and apparently I did that well enough considering the lamenting going on) that it’s not right, but that I can also participate in that if that’s how people want to do things here. I hope not, but again, I’m not going to put up with having words put in my mouth, or some of the jokes and what I think are unfair comparisons (like Twilight), etc., for another year and a half waiting for the new movie whilst politely staying silent about why I don’t like what some of the people who are the main ones doing that like.

Now, dm, we can try to be nice going forward or not. I prefer being nice and respectful and the whole ‘if you don’t have something nice to say (or at least if you can’t be decent about what you do have to say) then don’t say anything at all’ way of doing things. Again, that’s why UNTIL THIS THREAD/ARTICLE, you can’t find one comment from me about the “trinity” aside from me saying that I don’t want to see a movie about 3 people and that I prefer the team in lieu of that. I’m not so sure that you and some other people here can honestly say the same.

Again, if you don’t like it, then don’t do it. I’ve been very tolerant and mindful about other people’s feelings up until this thread, but I can give the jokes and the callousness back, and I will if people want to continue on that way.

I’d like it if we could all just be thoughtful about what we say. That to me would be better, and I’m willing to go back to being polite if you and others will do the same.

Thanks.

Geez, time is running out. There are a couple/few of more people that I’d like to get to, but that might have to wait until later. I’ll get in as much as I can, though.

@#541

*High fives.* :-)

@#545 boborci

542. As i may have said before, your comments are the best evidence for why i get to write these movies and you don’t.

THANK GOD FOR THAT!!! REALLY. *Double fives* ;-)

@#589 Aurore

What is the significance of citing these posts? (posts 496, 509 & 513).

Also, I didn’t get to go all the way through the Bennet videos, but from what I saw, I’m glad that he didn’t get to succeed in what he was trying to do. :-/ I’m not trying to be rude; I respect his opinions, views, and contributions to film an television, but I just don’t agree.

What I think is interesting is that his “Academy” script has the same main elements that ST09 had, only I think ST09 did it much better.

ST Academy script according to Bennet:

Younger versions of the TOS team at the academy, a member of the triumvirate is in love (Kirk), that member loses someone he loves (Kirk), the team saves the day, and from what I could tell – there’s a good bit of “bang, bang” in there.

ST 2009

Younger versions of the TOS (alternate timeline) team at the academy (I’m glad it’s in SF), members of the main team are in love (Spock/Uhura), one of the main team loses someone he loves (Spock’s mother), and there’s a good bit of “bang, bang” in there.

Personally, I like the ST 2009 version better, but that’s just me. The real differences are in the details, and I think that we got an updated and (for me) more interesting version with JJ and crew in tow.

With all of this talk about when the ST09 came out, it made me think of this SNL skit. It features Zacharty Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, and Chris Pine (how lovely :-)). Besides, a bit of funny would be nice right about now:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek

I think the best part is the Vulcan “I’m looking at you” sign given to Zachary.

And you’ve gotta love Chris Pine:

“You’re scratching my glass!” :-)

610. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

Oh, @ dmduncan

To be clear about comment #455, no where in that comment does it say you said that, so you saying that you never said that “in the history of this site” doesn’t apply. If you thought that was what I was saying (and by saying that, putting words in your mouth), then you are thinking too hard.

611. Michael Hall - January 18, 2012

@ 609:

““542. As i may have said before, your comments are the best evidence for why i get to write these movies and you don’t.”

THANK GOD FOR THAT!!! REALLY. *Double fives* ;-)”

LOL! Another nip at the ankle! (Though a little underdone, really–why not triple, or quadruple fives? If there’s anything the 2009 movie conclusively proved it’s that bigger is better, and more is more good.) But since Mr. Orci was a little shy about giving the details of that “evidence” (judging by Trek 2009, this sort of ambuguity is his approach to sophisticated writing), I can only speculate it’s (a) his undeniably superior grasp of the Quantum-Multiverse (QM) theory, or (b) the fact that if my producer ever came to me asking for a “Kirk with Mickey Mouse hands” scene or a “Scotty in the water-pipes” scene, I’d politely tell him/her that I’d sooner chew my f**cking writing arm off at the elbow first. Which would be a neat trick, though one that (as Daffy Duck once pointed out in a different context) can only be pulled off once.

612. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

609: “You get upset that I start out a statement saying “at least,” and then oh look, this is what you have to say??? You just did what you accused me of doing. You don’t know how strongly I believe things or if you believe what you believe more than I do. Let’s just get away from this, shall we?”

I think what we should get away from is this pretending that just because your brain is not in my skull, that I therefore cannot make any judgements about you based on what you are saying in here.

The rest of your quote makes no sense to me, so I cannot address it. I literally do not know what you are talking about.

But I was not upset either when I addressed you previously, and I am not upset now.

True story.

“I understood you just fine…You can call it a gross reduction, but that’s what it is in a nutshell, especially when I look at how the people that support it and have described it describe it.”

Nope. You said you understood it and then go on to repeat the error that proves you still do not. That is not what it is in a nutshell.

You need to respond to me specifically based on my arguments, not what reason someone else argues for what you all call the “triad.” We are actually separate people making distinct arguments.

“Now, dm, I’m going to give you some credit. You can’t have read through this comments section (or even discussions about Spock/Uhura on other comments sections in the past few months) and not have known that your statement would be seen as a Twilight reference.”

Therefore what? When I asked the question would it be okay if Spock could bite humans on the neck and turn them into Vulcans, yes It was a Twilight reference, and it was also a serious question, which I just repeated in this very sentence. Either that is or it is not an acceptable change to make to the franchise. Is it a change you are okay with or not? Explain to me also why you are either okay with it, or not okay with it. Serious question, not a joke. Okay or not? If okay, why? If not okay, why?

Tell ya what. After reading the rest of your post I find there isn’t much I really feel like responding to, except this:

“Again, if you don’t like it, then don’t do it. I’ve been very tolerant and mindful about other people’s feelings up until this thread, but I can give the jokes and the callousness back, and I will if people want to continue on that way.”

Sorry that’s the way you see things, but no deal. Say whatever you want, make all the jokes you want. If it seems to me that somebody wants to Twilight Star Trek, then I’ll comment on it if I want to. I’m not going to let the fear that you may read something I said and decide it was meant for you deter me from saying what I want.

I don’t like what you like.

So you go ahead and make jokes about what I say, if that’s what you want to do, and I’ll correct your errors when you misrepresent me. I can handle people attacking my ideas, no problem. Just try to keep it clean. Do not, for example, say I called someone names when I did no such thing.

And know what? Still not upset.

613. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

610. Spock/Uhura Fan – January 18, 2012

Oh, @ dmduncan

To be clear about comment #455, no where in that comment does it say you said that, so you saying that you never said that “in the history of this site” doesn’t apply. If you thought that was what I was saying (and by saying that, putting words in your mouth), then you are thinking too hard.

***

Are you in high school?

614. Michael Hall - January 18, 2012

Oh, and Spock/Uhura Fan? When you’ve gotten tired of double high-fiving Roberto Orci I’m still looking forward to reading your thoughts about exactly what it is that S/U brings to the table. Hopefully with a minimum a name-calling vituperation and such. You promised. :-)

615. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

613 continued…

More directly, are you a High School student?

616. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

BTW, S/U Fan, you ARE intellligent, but it also sounds to me like you’ve got a bad case of the Juvenile Nanna-Nanna Boo-Boos.

617. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

@#611 Michael

Wow, somebody’s a little touchy. No need for me to respond. :-)

618. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

@#614 Michael. “You promised. :-)”

Oh, now Michael, settle down now, settle down. I did promise and it will come. I said thete were still a couple/few people that I’ll get to and you are one of them. You just have to be patient. :-)

619. Michael Hall - January 18, 2012

“Wow, somebody’s a little touchy. No need for me to respond.”

*L* Well, if you think I’m touchy, do a little digging on this very site regarding Mr. Orci feeling’s about film critic Roger Ebert.

620. VZX - January 18, 2012

615: Impossible. High School students don’t watch Star Trek.

621. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

Hello again dmduncan,

@# 612, 613, 615, 616

Mmmh, all of that to essentially get back to you pretty much confirming a conclusion I made based off of your responses days ago:

#463: “And so a choice is made…”

Thanks for the long excecise in confirming, though.

And those darn Nanna-Nanna-Boo-Boos! I knew that if I hung around these comments sections for too long I would catch something. :-)

And no, I’m not in High School. That’s just the legel I have to stoop to in dealing with some posters. No offense, but you asked…

Have a good day. :-)

622. Aurore - January 18, 2012

“What is the significance of citing these posts? (posts 496, 509 & 513).”
_________

My post (@ 589) was meant for Roberto Orci (@ 545).

The posts I’m mentioning are in relation to the article I linked to.

623. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

legel should be —> level.

624. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

@#619 Michael

Well, since you already seem to know where that info is, can you provide a link?

@#622 Aurore

I figured that, but the question was how. I can guess, and if you don’t want to say that’s perfectly fine, but since one of mine (and not a very detailed one) was listed, I was just curious. No biggie. :-)

625. Aurore - January 18, 2012

Spock/Uhura Fan,

I did not refer to one of your comments.

The posts I listed are from the comments section of the article I linked to.

626. Phil - January 18, 2012

@605. Another of the lighting effects in TOS that was a bit …odd…was when they would light the eyes buring a close up. If the person being highlighted was female, it was also time to cue the harp music, as well…..

627. Michael Hall - January 18, 2012

“Well, since you already seem to know where that info is, can you provide a link?”

Nope. Back in 2009 somewhere, I think.

628. Aurore - January 18, 2012

Good night, everyone.

:)

629. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

621: “And no, I’m not in High School. That’s just the legel I have to stoop to in dealing with some posters. No offense, but you asked…”

Believe me, none was given. I’m not that sensitive.

“Mmmh, all of that to essentially get back to you pretty much confirming a conclusion I made based off of your responses days ago:”

Don’t sweat it. I get a great deal buying bulk electronic ink at Sam’s Club, so writing long posts in here is easy on my wallet.

More importantly, no, no, no. You are still wrong about all that now, just as you are were then, with the bonus wrong you have just earned for falsely thinking your previous mistaken opinion had been confirmed. But you are very consistent in misreading people.

And not in HS? Thank you. Since I’m not dealing with a young adult, I needn’t be concerned that I’ll be savaging some young person’s likes.

And good news! I think I understand post #613. Don’t ask me how:

“To be clear about comment #455, no where in that comment does it say you said that, so you saying that you never said that “in the history of this site” doesn’t apply. If you thought that was what I was saying (and by saying that, putting words in your mouth), then you are thinking too hard.”

See now, here’s the thing. Either you don’t have the common sense NOT to address someone else’s beliefs in a post that you argumentatively address to ME (and why again would you be throwing something back in my face, repeating my own words back to me sarcastically, if you didn’t think you were also encapsulating a point of view which I held with that “codependency” distortion?), OR you addressed that codependency distortion to me thinking it was something I believed as part of your childish habit of trying to fling stuff back into the faces of people whose words you took offense by and, in my particular case, as revenge for the question I asked about vulcans biting humans on the neck. So either you lack common sense, or you lack understanding. Which in the final analysis really amount to the same thing.

And in either case, I don’t care which, it’s your bad, not mine.

It wasn’t a rhetorical question, it was a serious one. And I notice you STILL haven’t answered it.

Want me to ask it again?

630. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

Good night Aurore!!!

631. dmduncan - January 18, 2012

Here it is again, between quotation marks, for anyone to answer:

“Therefore what? When I asked the question would it be okay if Spock could bite humans on the neck and turn them into Vulcans, yes It was a Twilight reference, and it was also a serious question, which I just repeated in this very sentence. Either that is or it is not an acceptable change to make to the franchise. Is it a change you are okay with or not? Explain to me also why you are either okay with it, or not okay with it. Serious question, not a joke. Okay or not? If okay, why? If not okay, why?”

632. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

@#627 Michael

Alright then, I guess I’ll dig when I have time, but you’ll come first because I like to keep my promises. :-)

@ Aurore

Thanks, and goodnight as well. :-)

633. spockenspiel - January 18, 2012

Nerds……….Just live long and prosper will ya?
Can’t wait to see what’s next.

634. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 18, 2012

@#633

Thank you for the compliment. :-)

635. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 19, 2012

@#629

dm, no, it was confirmed. You can try to twist it all you want, but you won’t succeed Sorry I didn’t respond sooner, but I honestly didn’t notice your post. I guess I’ve moved on…

Have a good night.

636. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 19, 2012

#626

Yes – the heart-strings music!!

: – )

They had that nicely lighted, glowing color behind the character’s “beauty” shots too.

Lighting was such a key part of TOS.

It’s hard to believe, but they were just beginning to do color back then. (And they really went for it!)

I still get a kick out of how they would light “evil” Kirk, in those episodes when he wasn’t himself. Scary!

637. Michael Hall - January 19, 2012

“I still get a kick out of how they would light “evil” Kirk, in those episodes when he wasn’t himself. Scary!”

Just one episode, guy. “The Enemy Within,” written by Richard Matheson and directed by Leo Penn, Sean’s father. Great show, in spite of Shatner’s histrionics and an AWOL shuttlecraft.

638. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - January 19, 2012

#637

Yes – that’s the episode that was sticking out most in my mind too.

My wording was a little misleading. –

I was also thinking about “Turnabout Intruder”.

In particular that scene where Evil Kirk (“not himself”) is doing his nails.

Well, that is, Janice Lester is doing his nails, err, Kirk’s body’s nails….now her nails….

: – O

639. Samuel Kirk - January 22, 2012

I’m a 1st generation Trekker, so there a few things that I would like to say. If there are going to be improvements to Engineering, here’s an idea for a big improvement…DON’T FILM IT IN BREWERY!!!! Build a damn set. Can we please not have any of the flashlight flares hitting the camera anymore? They weren’t dramatic, artistic or add anything what so ever to the film, the flares were plain and simply annoying, and actually took away from the film. I know, JJ loves them and thinks they are cool, but really??? Most Importantly Gene Roddenberry said it numerous times, Harve Bennett has said it frequently, and Rick Berman before he dropped the ball said it, One major star of Star Trek is the ENTERPRISE herself. The flyby’s in the 2009 film sucked, the warp effect sucked. Using some of the same effects from earlier film does not ruin the new projects. Learn from ST-TMP, STII -WOK, and STIII-TSFS. Give the ENTERPRISE her deserved on screen time. She is an Integral member of the cast. Oh yea, the phaser and photon topedo sound effects need work……This the era of ST-TOS, those era sound effects were great, Effects and sounds were changed thru-out theOriginal Series and the Original cast films, it can be done here, and I believe these things would be well received.

P.S. If you all feel you must eventually do something with the episode Space Seed and Star Trek II what the Coen Bros attempted and failed with TRUE GRIT, consider the only actor that I believe would make KHAN credible…..Dwayne Johnson, Just put him in his Scorpion King Costume with the hair extensions, and you have KHAN. LOL However, in my humble opinion, you don’t make remakes of Films such as TRUE GRIT, or ST-II, John Wayne Turned over in his grave. Don’t make Ricardo Montalban do the same thing.

640. russell ullom - January 23, 2012

adding more people to complete the crew if only for a few members make the ships weapons more believable shake the crew up when the phazers work or slow the photon torpiedos more gauges amount of energy the lighting is great but theres too much of it

641. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 23, 2012

@Michael Hall

I answered your questions about what I think Spock/Uhura brings to the table here: http://trekmovie.com/2012/01/18/orci-talks-star-trek-sequel-budget-scale-of-the-film-engine-room/#comment-4455180

It’s post #192

Let me know if you have any other questions about it.

- Spock/Uhura Fan

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