Watch: JJ Abrams Talks Into Darkness Villain + Says Movie Not Made Just For Trek Fans | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: JJ Abrams Talks Into Darkness Villain + Says Movie Not Made Just For Trek Fans December 11, 2012

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Star Trek Into Darkness director JJ Abrams isn’t spilling all the beans but he did a video interview where he talked a bit about the villain in his new film and his motivation. He also talked about how (like with his 2009 movie) his focus was to make Star Trek Into Darkness work with all movie fans and not just Trek fans. Excerpts and video below (minor spoilers).

 

JJ Abrams talks Star Trek Into Darkness

Talking to MTV about Star Trek Into Darkness, director JJ Abrams says that the film is being made for movie fans, but if you are a Star Trek fan there "definately nods to prior Trek lore in the film." While some fans may bristle at his comments, this is exactly the same kind of description Abrams gave to his 2009 Star Trek film.

Abrams was also asked about the character of John Harrison (Bendict Cumberbatch) but he wouldn’t respond to whether it was related to the TOS background character Harrison. Abrams did say…

"The whole thing, not just his backstory, but his agenda, his plan, his secret, all that is what, for me at least, makes him such a frightening and cool villain," Abrams said. "Also, the real villains — when they’re not just two-dimensional, angry vengeful types — don’t see themselves as the bad guy. They are the good guy and have complete rationale and motivation. So true to form, the character that Benedict plays has an absolute sense of right and wrong, and he’s on the right side."

Here is the video…

Get More:
Movie Trailers, Movies Blog

 

Comments

1. Bird Of Clay - December 12, 2012

“frightening and cool.”

let’s just hope we don’t get disappointed, Mr Abrams.

2. LOFC_Ed - December 12, 2012

@ 1

I doubt we will be!!

3. Steve Johnson - December 12, 2012

“when they’re not just two-dimensional, angry vengeful types”

You mean like Nero, JJ?

Hey, i’m all for a movie that is a good movie for all audiences, as long as the core of Star Trek remains.

See: Wrath of Khan.

I’m actually quite interested to see Cumbie’s character is up to specifically. I liked Eric Bana, but I wasn’t big on Nero. The editing basically botched his character for me.

Someone needs to get in touch with JJ though and get him to talk to the legal department. Let the fans start making fan films and such in this rebooted universe. It’s really a shame that a couple of fan productions had to shut down or rework themselves because of the obstruction that is in place. Not to sound childish, but “it’s not fair.” :)

4. David C. Roberson - December 12, 2012

I’m honestly kinda tired of the concept of one guy being the villain in Star Trek movies. Then again, I liked the architect scene in the Matrix Reloaded, and one of my favorite things about the prime universe Trek were the scenes where people sat around long tables and discussed politics and diplomacy. Not that I’m complaining about Abrams’ Trek, just wish that we could have some vegetables with our candy.

5. crazydaystrom - December 12, 2012

“…his agenda, his plan, his SECRET…” I wonder if that secret can be kept until the film’s release. THAT will be a feat!

“I am your FATHER Luke!”

“I am your BROTHER Spock!”

!!!!!

6. David C. Roberson - December 12, 2012

#5
Ya know, despite how awful TFF supposedly was, Sybok was a character with a lot of potential. I don’t see it being him, really, but it might be interesting.

7. Commander K - December 12, 2012

Anyone see the similarities of this movie/trailer to Star Trek Nemesis? The fun scene at the start which all the crew have a part to play (aka nemesis scene on the buggy). Evil villain with an English accent back for revenge..someone from (clearly) Kirks past?

8. Aix - December 12, 2012

LOL! This is like JJ interviewing himself. They look alike, JJ and Josh. Hehe. Just like the interview with Lindelof and Frosty way back when he was promoting Prometheus.

9. Kroll - December 12, 2012

Sybok did have a hell of a lot of potential, and the best things about TFF were the character moments between the crew. Just the overall story was poorly fleshed out and badly executed.

10. Douglas - December 12, 2012

If the movie is NOT made for Star Trek fans then why put Star Trek in the title? Ahh, I get it, you like the money of Star Trek fans. Bait & Switch.

11. Mark Lynch - December 12, 2012

This is exactly what he said when he directed the last one. The rhetoric is getting boring now.

12. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

Hope I am wrong but i a begining to think these new movies instead of having the ODD movie curse, will have an even movie curse..

And what was up with JJ getting annoyed by the interviewer when he asked him about Harrison?

13. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

I hope this is not an instance of a great opening with the Red Planet scene, and crappy jjverse retread of great classic stories.

JJ is no Nick Meyer (even though they are family friends) really JJ you should have offered the directors chair to Nick I am sure he would have taken it. or even have offered him the chance to mold the story.

I just cant get over how annoyed he comes across, when he is asked about the connections to TWOK, and then harrison in space seed.

14. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

And I am sorry but to flat out say “This is not a movie for TREK FANS” is BS. If he had answered by saying something to the effect of “This is a movie for Movie fans, whether you have seen star trek before or not” It wouldnt be as aggravating.

Orci, you or Kurtzman should push to direct the next one,

15. mark paine - December 12, 2012

my theories : harrison is khan – scenario – a starfleet science ship discovers the botanay bay crew wakes up khan and his people – conflict ensures both groups are almost wiped out only khan and a few starfleet remain. Using either the ship’s transporters or a form of eugenics tech, khan gene splices himself with a starfleet officer – john harrison – to alter his appearance – khan still has still all his abilities but a new body and face. Khan then kills the remaining crew destroys both ships and escapes in a shuttle and sends a distress signal to any nearby ships and eventually makes it back to Earth. He takes on john harrison’s life and career forming alliances with Federation enemies and building a sleeper terrorist cell on Earth wating for the right time to strike. Remember Khan in the 23rd century is reviled as much as hitler or stalin or any other despot in history it would only take one person with a good understanding of history to realize who he was – hence the face and identity change.

16. Classy M - December 12, 2012

Any chance those of us outside the US could get access to the video, Anthony? Much obliged.

17. Optimistic Doodle - December 12, 2012

Where’s the fun in seeing a movie when you already know all it’s secrets? Better to keep us guessing until the release.

18. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

So John Harrison has a backstory that’s not revealed in the opening 9 minutes?

Hmmmm…..

19. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

So you never see a movie a second time, #17?

20. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

some of these fan suggested Khan possibilties are just as bad as the rumored Khan returns as a Hologram idea back durring TNG’s time

21. Nurse Gabble - December 12, 2012

That interview was lousy!

Not revealing anything – ok, I wouldn’t have expected otherwise.
But at least promote it!
Just saying WE have a three-dimensional villain (due to IMAX lol) is so lame. Oh and besides our villain is placed in Star Trek universe, but that is just a minor point what counts is he is frightening and cool……

oh my….

22. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

actually some of these khan possibilties you have been posting are WORSE than the rumored Khan hologram for TNG

23. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

Sucks that JJ doesnt bring back Col Worf, would be awesome to have Dorn be the TNG connection to the JJVerse

24. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

21 you left off, JJ in serious face saying”This movie isnt for Trek Fans”

25. madtrekfanuk - December 12, 2012

Hmmmm, disappointed in JJ – fair enough in the current climate making a film that appeals to a broad audience is a wise idea but neither can you just ignore the true Trek fans who have had a vested interest in the characters, the story in fact the whole Trek universe for nearly fifty years now!

We want Trek and all that goes with it… Appeal to the fans! Oh and I’m still hoping (although I’m probably going to be disappointed) that there will be musical cues that nod to both Goldsmith and Horner – to be honest I just want the TMP/TNG overture back!

26. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

@14.

Seriously, he basically did say that. Stop looking to take offense.

27. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#24. Rocketeer – December 12, 2012

He even went out of his way to say he didn’t make it for the fans of his first effort too.

28. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

@25 Actually he could ignor past trek fans, it’s a business but in context that was not what he was saying.

It’s a wonder anyone would want to make a Trek movie the way some trekkies carry on.

29. Veil - December 12, 2012

Wow this is getting so BORING.

The more they deny talking about stuff and insist on SECRETZZZ the more obvious it all gets.

Also what a waste of time that previous article with bob and kurtzman.

As I said, they’ll keep denying until some incontestable proof leaks and their effors will have been in vain.

30. Bart - December 12, 2012

Another villain… Is that all they can come up with? Is the universe full of villains who are waiting in line to attack the federation/Earth?

- Generations: Soran
- First Contact: Borg Queen (no, the Borg were not enough, they had to create a villain in the form of the queen)
- Insurrection: Ra’fu
- Nemesis: Shinzon
- Trek ’09: Nero
- Into Darkness: Harrisson

At least in the movies with the original crew they put some variety, and not always one villain:

- Motion picture: V’ger
- Wrath of Khan: Khan
- Search for Spock: Genesis/Kruge
- Voyage Home: Probe
- Final Frontier: Sybok/God
- Undiscoverd Country: high ranking officers within Starfleet

Ever since Generations (1994!) it has been one villain after the other. So much for explore strange new worlds and seek out new life and new civilizations…

31. Captain Hackett - December 12, 2012

Dammit, the video will not show here in Canada! @!&*?#$@&

32. Zad - December 12, 2012

Are there people that seriously still have doubts on who’s the villain? jfc

33. Zad - December 12, 2012

@21 I can’t stop laughing at the 3D villain due to IMAX3D. It’s so sad but it’s basically it.

34. captain_neill - December 12, 2012

Well JJ and his team did create one of the worst villains ever with Nero in the last film, and I hope that they redeem themselves with Cumberbatch’s villain.

This is different from the Star Trek I grew up loving but despite that I am hoping for a good film and am looking forward to it. It won’t be the best ever Trek in my eyes but it will still be a great film.

I just hope that with this team that Trek doesn’t degrade to the level of a Transformers film. With the mainstream of today this has been my greatest fear.

35. Picard_Jean-Luc - December 12, 2012

Nero was a means to an end, a way of bringing our heroes together again. He wasn’t so much a villain as he was a plot device to do what Abrams did and it worked very well indeed for that movie. With this movie it’s clear that the Villain will be the star of the show as is traditional for sequels.

This isnt just yet another villain, certainly from that minute clip, John Harrison seems to have more weight and dimension behind him than many of the villains gone by, this doesnt seem to be just yet another one name villain, not just Khan (although this may be this universes khan without actually doing Khan), not just Kruge, Sybok, Chang, Soran, Borg Queen, Ruafo, Shinzon or Nero but a relatively normal sounding name which to me makes the villain more real and relatable.

Plus Cumberbach is an incredible screen presence, he has chops to demolish everything and everyone in his path and that may be the most frightening thing, I simply cannot wait for him to go toe to toe with Chris Pine who is just as good an actor but completely different and as Kirk a young gun, shooting from the hip and somewhat inexperienced at command. It’s going to be an incredible ride.

36. Clinton - December 12, 2012

Trust me. I am far from alone in thinking the 2009 movie did a great job of incorporating Trek lore and being open to all movie fans. I think JJ and team can do it again. Let’s get this party started!

37. Gracian - December 12, 2012

@30:

My thoughts exactly.

/sarcasm on. Maybe movies for Trek fans would be too “boring” for new audiences if they come up with an intelligent story like the ones in TOS or TOS movies. /sarcasm off.

I do like action movies but TOS was always character/story driven. That what makes it different from merely action movies (the fact 1960′s technology couldn’t do it plus low budget were the reason that pushed the focus on it really, but gave Trek its identity).

If Cumberbatch’s villain were that good, he wouldn’t be saying those silly lines about having his vengeance. He would be doing something he believes in for the sake of his beliefs, not revenging on Kirk or anyone else.

I really hope to watch a good Star Trek movie in May, JJ. And that you stop saying things done for Star Trek fans have this negative quality on it, as if it’s a Star Trek movie made for fans it would suck.

38. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

31. Captain Hackett – December 12, 2012

Try clicking on the underlined MTV in the article. You probably still won’t get the vid but at least you can read more about it.

39. BulletInTheFace - December 12, 2012

I can’t believe there are still people who think he’s playing Khan.

Unreal.

40. captain_neill - December 12, 2012

I would love the Trek I love to come back but unfortunately it has to be tweaked and changed in this manner to keep it alive. So much money has been spent on the movie that it has to reach beyond the hardcoore fanbase to get a hit, but we do live in an age where films like Transformers 3 is the 5th highest grossing film of all time, so that says something about the audience of today that a major Trek movie has to appeal to.

But it is still new Trek and despite the sacrifices made to the characters and vision to market it to a more dumbed down audience I think it will still be a good fun film.

Orci said that Trek was classical music and Star Wars was rock n roll and that he wanted more rock n roll in Star Trek. But I am a person who loves classical music. I like rock n roll but I still love my classical music.

41. George Zip - December 12, 2012

I guess a major nemesis/villain is required for movies; I mean, I’m all for a 2-hour roller coaster ride — and I’ll be in that movie seat first week of the release — but I do miss the stories where they had to figure it out rather than fight it out. I guess that’s the expectation many of us have when we think Trek-to-Screen.

Y’know, I can’t recall which Pixar movie disc it’s on, but (in the extras/bonus) one of the writers has a great little bit about story and progression for a film; kind of “person + comfort zone, add conflict by removing comfort, etc.” and it makes most of what you see make sense if in no other way than for box office.

We’re going to get a fun, great film (with a killer score; get crackin’ Michael) that I will take my kids to see and they’ll remember the same way I remember going to the big s/f & genre stuff with my Dad in the 70s (Star Wars (opening night!), Close Encounters, Star Trek, etc).

And as has been said above, a movie “made for Trek fans” would likely stink.

No worries. Looking forward to it.

(And I think I’ll go back and watch a “Close Encounters”/”Super 8″ double feature again this weekend; feeling nostalgic. And JJ, geez, you couldn’t get Richard Dreyfuss for the role of the electric co-op repair guy in “Super 8″ at the junkyard? What a hell of a cameo *that* would have been, eh?)

42. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#36. Clinton – December 12, 2012

You might think it. But apparently JJ disagrees.

“The thing about the movie that I love also is that we didn’t even make it for fans of the first movie we did.” – JJ Abrams

43. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

People are misunderstanding JJ’s comments about not making it for the fans – he said specifically the word “only.” He said there are things in it for the fans and not just the ordinary movie-goer.

Now, I’m not fond of what JJ did in Trek2009, because it just didn’t work, but now that the prologue is done, I still say give him a chance here. And thus, when he said it is not just for fans of the 2009 movie he is talking to someone like me, who wants something better. I am not saying it will be, but… here’s hope.. there is more potential so far with this one than the last, which was all about a plot-device for the reset switch.

44. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

He is trying to make a movie that will increase the viewers so that they can keep on making Star trek movies.

What do you expect him to say? That you need to have seen the last film to get this one? That you need to be a trekkie to appreciate these.

Just the opposite and he would need to do as well as say that.

And yet the film is still designed to appeal to trekkies as he said.

A summery of what he said would be “This movie is for everyone”.

There is a bigger picture where everyone wins.

Some think it’s all about them.

45. Nurse Gabble - December 12, 2012

What I do belief is that this villain will be complex.
His motifs are right, but his actions are wrong.

The first thing that came to my mind after seeing the poster for STID with BC (still have problems calling him Harrison) standing to face a destroyed London skyline was a painting of Caspar David Friedrich.
It is called “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog”. The person in the painting is placed in the centre and we see him from behind.
Actually most of his paintings show the person in it from behind. It is said this is a way to identify with this person, to see the world the way he sees it, to get his point of view.

To make a long story short, I think they are putting an effort in making the audience able to relate to the villain up to a certain point when his actions go to far.

46. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

Not sure how you figure Nero was a bad villain.

Here are the bad villains.

Shinzon

Sybok

god

Soran

Whoever the villain was in Insurrection.

Nero was fine and the greater movie going public seems to have agreed.

47. Chris - December 12, 2012

Personally I hope they never start letting themselves get bogged down with what Trek fans do on a daily basis (me included on fair occasion) and instead stick with making a good movie that can e enjoyed unless your looking for reasons to hate it.

Cant wait to see the next trailer and the film! Trying to maintain being ‘unspoiled’ apart from the trailers and other media that you cant get away from seeing.

Just over 5 months to go!

48. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

One thing I’ve thought about the possible motivation: Klingon infiltration into Starfleet (ala Trouble with Tribbles).

What if it is a somewhat-insane Garth who finds out that the Federation is being over-run by Klingon spies, and the one who sent him away into the asylum was a Klingon agent? So his good is to save the Federation from the Klingons, but his insanity leads him to think it means he should take control, to be Lord Garth.

49. Herschel - December 12, 2012

I can’t wait until someone gets this conceited knob away from Trek for good. He is poisoning this well.

50. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#43. Garth Faction – December 12, 2012

His first movie had the exact same target, movie fans. If they reached that target with the first movie, who is he trying to reach with the second movie if excludes all “movie fans” who liked the first?

51. Bird Of Clay - December 12, 2012

I somehow got confused as to whom this movie was made for. the new fans? the old fans? the good ol’ trekkies like myself?

anyway, what matters now is to keep an open mind to everything we read and listen, and hope the movie will be what we -all, in some relative basis- expect it to be.

#47 Chris, i totally agree with you that they should instead focus on making a good movie whatsoever.

greetings to all.

52. Steve Johnson - December 12, 2012

@45 chrisfawkes

I haven’t heard much of anything from the general movie going public about villains, with one exception “KHANNN!!!!1111!!!”

No, that’s not a reference to Khan being in this movie. But the “general movie going public” doesn’t give two targs about this kind of thing unless it’s really really good, or really really bad.

Nero was very much a substandard villain. Mostly because of editing, and that is it. If they had kept his imprisonment in place, and the alternate line about his motivation from Spock Prime he would have come off much better. He wouldn’t seem like a bumbling fool who spends 20+ years just sitting in space being angsty. As someone else said, he was a means to an end. I can understand why JJ cut him down as he did, but it hurt the quality of the antagonist.

53. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

#50
The point he is saying is that not everyone saw the first. He wants this one to be a movie anyone can watch without having seen others. That’s all.

He is not saying “Those who liked TOS or the first shouldn’t feel this movie is for them,” but rather, “they should know it isn’t only for them.” It’s simple. Easy to figure out.

54. captain_neill - December 12, 2012

Despite my gripes I am trying to keep an open mind

55. olly - December 12, 2012

JJ is doing a great job and the negativity from uber trek fans is depressing. You dont deserve such wonderful films.

56. BitterTrekkie - December 12, 2012

55.
I didn’t ask for these so called “wonderful” films.

57. James - December 12, 2012

Sure, the movie has to have mass appeal. What is it about Star Trek that makes it special though, and how can the movies make sure that the ‘special ingredients’ as it were are retained?

For me, its at least in part about the characters – and in this regard especially, I felt that the 2009 movie succeeded in remaining ‘true’ to Star Trek. More thoughts here:

http://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/why-do-i-like-star-trek/

58. Maxie - December 12, 2012

THAT’S IT! I’m coming to each one of your houses Jay & Silent Bob style and slapping you all upside the head and yelling IT’S NOT KHAN IT’S NOT GARY MITCHELL IT’S NOT GARTH IT’S NOT SYBOK IT’S NOT THE BLOODY TOOTH FAIRY!!! ITS SOME BLOKE CALLED JOHN HARRISON! JUST DEAL WITH IT!

59. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

Herschel

Poisoning the well? By making good, action filled, thought provoking (Dare you to do better), emotional (I’m not going to be there” is only second to “Ship…out of danger, et al”), movies that not only a fan like me can appreciate, but my wife loved it and didn’t fall asleep within the first ten minutes of like TWOK?

JJ, just keep that poison coming!

60. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

Maxie

Did you do this with Talia and DKR?

61. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#53. Garth Faction – December 12, 2012

And all I am saying is that it is a refreshing point of view to hear that JJ’s first Trek film left something more to be desired in failing to fully reach its potential market.

62. mark paine - December 12, 2012

Regarding my scenario ive posted earlier which is a bit of fanboy fun and is probably 100 percent WRONG , theres been a lot of criticism aimed at J J and his team on this site for supposedly dumbing down Trek to appeal to the mass market. The best Trek is allergorical in nature many of the best episodes dealt with issues happening today. Yes Trek 2009 was a rollercoaster adventure, but READ the plot synopsis for Into Darkness its clearly a allergory for The War on Terror. It starts with a 9/11 style attack ( the fleet detonated ” a world in crisis “- we see a starship go out of control and crash into San franciso in the teaser- imagine the death toll) ” a one man weapon of mass destruction” – Harrison – Bin Laden and ” Kirk and his crew lead a manhunt to a wartorn planet ” – US and allied forces enter Afghanistan to hunt Bin laden and his associates. The parallels are so blindingly obvious: the original series did this all the time – so clearly JJ and Co are not going ” the transformers mindless route” some fans would like to think.

63. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

Maxie

But if you take John Harrison, which is the first name and the last name of two Beatles, and consider the fact that there were FOUR Beatles total, and the fact that there are FOUR LETTERS in Khan just like there were FOUR LIGHTS
in that TNG episode, you’ll clearly see that JJ is attempting to tell us its Khan, despite the misdirection.

I mean, its pretty obvious….

64. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

62 Mark

And after the last movie, I really don’t see how anyone can accuse them of ever becoming mindless. I think the last movie was very smart.

65. Mad Man - December 12, 2012

Aren’t ALL movies made for movie fans? I really don’t get why he’s been saying this for the last four years. I mean, to purposely make a Star Trek movie that only hardcore Star Trek fans would go see would be stupid (Nemesis). So, there is no reason for Abrams to continually say the above.

It’s like he’s embarrassed of Star Trek.

66. Trekzilla - December 12, 2012

#30 — I could not agree more!!

People who say Trek movies can’t be without a “villain” don’t understand Star Trek.

Was the Doomsday Machine a “villain”?
Was there a “villain” The Best of Both Worlds?
The “bugs” in Conspiracy?

No.

And yet, these were classic episodes of Trek and my point is — you don’t have to have villain — you can have a “threat” or a situation or an alien race that creates drama and character conflict.

You just have to have a little imagination, creativity and writing talent. I’m not saying remake those episode or bring back those things…

Villains are just lazy writing and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

67. Maxie - December 12, 2012

You’re a funny guy LogicalLeopard. That’s why I’ll slap you last.

68. Adam C - December 12, 2012

Here are my fears and my hopes for this new star trek

I accept its an action movie with chase scenes, gun scenes, blown up buildings etc etc but for the love of god have a decent space battle maybe, dont ignore space.

Hope Klingons are the generic bad guys, but i accept them being the b villeins.

Limit the backstory whilst i like it, im horrified there might be another young kirk/spock spoof advert for nokia. That was the worst point in the previous film, oh and the Budweiser brewery.

About it :)

69. Khannn - December 12, 2012

@39 BulletInTheFace

If you’re so sure of yourself, answer me this, champ:

1- Why would they still keep the name of his character and not confirm it in the 9min preview if they were going to announce his name in the same week?

2- If they were going to put a post credits scene with Botany Bay, Khan’s sleeping ship, it means Khan will definitely be in the new movie.
So, how could they use a character that comes with Khan’s speech of return, vengeance and destruction and his superstrength and ~look at my superior genes~ vibes in the trailer, but is NOT Khan?

70. Adam C - December 12, 2012

By “dont ignore space” I mean dont trivialise it, and make it feel like a way to speed up the plot

71. crazydaystrom - December 12, 2012

6&9-
Yeah I do think Sybok has great potential, for sure. Great potential to surprise the hell out of so many of the fans. I’m not a particular fan of the character and TFF was a huge disappointment for me as it was for so many of us. I’m just sorta fixated on idea that curve ball coming from out left field. Though the resulting casualties from Trek fan exploding heads would not be pretty and I couldn’t be as smugly satisfied as I might otherwise be, but it would be so cool!

Again, not predicting Sybok. Just hoping. The performance no doubt will be outstanding. If the story is great, then why not ?

72. noleknight - December 12, 2012

Some of you guys are acting like a bunch of babies. Of course JJ has to make this movie for “movie fans”. Profit drives the ship, so it needs to be developed in a way that everyone can relate to. You guys completely misintrerpret his words. Thanks to JJs reboot, Star Trek has life again.

Jesus…you some of you guys complain about every little thing. I guarantee you that all you people bitching will probably see the the movie like 9 times. And as far as “exploring strange new worlds”, that will happen in a new series in a future. You can’t have that same philosophy creating 2 hour movie.

73. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

@ 69 “if you’re so sure of yourself, answer me this, champ:”

Because they have already given out the villains name lol.

74. chrisfawkes.com - December 12, 2012

And he is played with a british accent.

75. Khannn - December 12, 2012

@73 that’s not an answer but anyway, answer the second, go on

76. Steve Johnson - December 12, 2012

59. LogicalLeopard

Your wife fell asleep during TWOK? Maybe she’s narcoleptic? Maybe she just fainted upon seeing Khan’s amazing chest.

I mean, I can see taking a jab at The Motion Picture, Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis, Large sums of Voyager, and Enterprise…. Because the writing in those cases was very much sub-par and sometimes even outright insulting/stupid… But Wrath of Khan? The movie that is probably the most popular and beloved beyond the Star Trek audience?

How about this. Maybe Star Trek, for the most part, just wasn’t for your wife? Why does everything in all of popular media have to be for everybody? I know, I know… I’m just an old geezer at the ripe age of 24 and I have no right to think Star Trek should maintain it’s core when there’s money to be made. I get it. As far as the producers are concerned, Trek’s formula wore out, and they had to change it to make money, and they’ve convinced you of that. Fine, fair enough. However I don’t think it really was the formula that wore out. I think it was the creative team handling Trek that was worn out. They had no imagination left, no focus. (Indeed, Enterprise started to show signs of quality when new blood came on in the middle of Season 3. Too little, too late.)

For some of us, we grew up loving Star Trek, we took the abuse at school from other kids for being Star Trek fans. We listened to people tell us how nerdy and goofy we were for liking “Star Track” … And now those same people are shouting “Star Trek is awesome” as the majority of the real substance of the stories has been, well, muted somewhat in favor of fast paced action stories.

Now… I keep hearing people say you just couldn’t do other Trek type stories in the movie format… and I keep shaking my head, because there are many examples outside of Star Trek of non-action films (Or films that deal with something more profound then “We shoot each other for two hours.”) that do just fine. Star Trek IV, the highest grossing film of the original series is a strict adventure-comedy and it did so well it convinced the powers that be, that Star Trek could make a triumphant return to TV. So much so that they demanded Gene’s pilot episode by a two hour world premiere “movie” event.

So what’s my point? Well, my point is, i’m tired of people constantly referring to the Trek of the past as if it were nothing but a crank controlled machine of boring hour after boring hour.

As far as Trek 09 being thought-provoking… Nnn… It comes close, but the problem is that’s not even what it was trying to do. It was about emotions of the moment. That’s what JJ does. It’s not really intelligent, but it’s not trying to be either. It’s trying to restart the heart of a dead series with high amounts of energy and inspiration.

Is the opening emotional? You bet. Is the “I dare you to do better” scene well acted and written? You bet… But in terms of intelligence, the film has some MAJOR logical flaws that it purposely ignores to continue driving the story forward. That is, by definition, style over substance. That’s fine, too, because it had an aim in mind.

The only real theme in 09 is basically that of past and future, and the only story is Spock’s story. (Past and future. Kirk’s father saves ‘the future’ Kirk. Future Spock saves the past version of his friends.)

See, I don’t even take offense at JJ Abram’s or his team’s attempt to restart Trek. What I take offense to is the new members of the Trek fan base, or seemingly long time fans of Trek basically taking the entire 50+ year run of the series and painting it with one long broad stroke, and then wondering why a large sum of the old guard feels all the more militant. It’s a nasty cycle.

77. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

#76 Steve

I myself didn’t like the first movie that much. I fit the “old” guard style of fan. But I also think there is room for this new Trek, and room for it to improve. I’m not giving up on it, especially since this one does look like it could have a better story since it doesn’t have to try to restart everything. But I could be wrong, and if I am, I will be disappointed and I think those who like New Trek should at least accept there are other ways Trek could be done, and done well (and still be popular).

78. Jake Sisko's Hot Bajoran Wife - December 12, 2012

I have been saying that JJ is not making these fimsfor the Trek base and I am sooooo glad he is doing that.

Ask Rick Berman how that worke out. I have been yelling that for years. The origina series had fans from all walks of life who were not the biggest sci fi fans.

This is what I am talking about. The Prime Universe is dead and I say good riddance. It had its day. It had its moments and I am glad for this new take on Trek.

Trek always suffered from being beholden to its rabid fan base. Happy someone decided to go in another direction. After Nemisis I told someone its time to blow this thing up and scrap the contiunity. This makes no sense.

Trek was out of touch in the same way George Lucas was out of touch.
The greatest Star Wars movie wasthe one Lucas did not direct. Not saying the others were bad and I even have love for the prequels sometimes you need to allow others to take your vision higher.

Trek would be dead right now if not for JJ and those boys. Hats off to them. I plan on seeing it twice.

79. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 12, 2012

I think we may have a surprise villain and Cumberbatch may not be the real one..

80. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

The whole “Trek would be dead if it were not for JJ” I don’t agree with. That’s a fallacious argument, because if it were not JJ, it might have been someone else. There were many ways one could have gone on with Trek, keep the established universe, and yet make it new. Look how Doctor Who did this. It can be done. Yet, we have JJ Trek now. That also has to be acknowledged. Does this mean Trek is not dead? Not necessarily — it could be “death throes” or it could be new life. I think it is too early to tell. It really is too early –the question is whether or not it will stand the test of time, and provide a wider, continued audience. We don’t know that. Doctor Who did it, but that took time. Star Trek, I think, needs to see how DW did it.

81. Schultz - December 12, 2012

Actually like what he’s saying about the character work… that they’re investing into them as if it were a standalone film.

82. Bird Of Clay - December 12, 2012

#79 I am almost certain of that, Emperor Mike.

83. Jeyl - December 12, 2012

@46: Nero was fine and the greater movie going public seems to have agreed.

Agreed how? By making the movie a success? With that logic, Megatron in Dark of the Moon is one of the greatest villains of all time.

84. SoonerDave - December 12, 2012

@71

Sybok was a ridiculoulsly contrived character IMHO. I’m confident Abrams and crew chose not to resurrect him for this movie. TFF was a movie that was doomed from the outset by a horrendous story that couldn’t possibly be resolved satisfactorily, animated rock monsters and budget cuts notwithstanding. Trek had built up a lot of goodwill and momentum over the 2-3-4 trilogy/arc, and TFF pretty much killed it. Heck, that’s more or less why TUC was the “saynoara” for the original cast…the studio was at least willing to not let TFF be their final effort.

TFF had its moments; the fight scenes were pretty decent, and some of the character interaction was strong, but there was so much else that was bad – Ferren’s effects, the duct-tape ending, the story concept, that I just can’t fathom someone would want to borrow anything from it in a new/rebootiverse environment.

85. Khannn - December 12, 2012

@79, 82 Explain the trailer, then. What’s with you people?

I dare you two to answer my questions at #69.

86. Yanks - December 12, 2012

For those that say Nero was a good Villian (face palm). He held a grudge for 25 years? He just had to wait for Spock to show up? Come on.

But I didn’t even really care how bad he was written, didn’t phase me. We got our heros back together, that’s all that mattered.

It’s also smart to make this movie for those that aren’t trek fans and for for that might not have seen the first JJ movie. You know, like Joss did with Serenity. You didn’t have to see the series to fully enjoy the movie.

Here’s hoping this movie has a well thought out story and plot. That’s all it needs to be welcomed by all these nit-picky trekkers.

87. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

81. Schultz – December 12, 2012

An interesting thought, STAR TREK as an anthology series.

88. crazydaystrom - December 12, 2012

37. Gracian
“If Cumberbatch’s villain were that good, he wouldn’t be saying those silly lines about having his vengeance. He would be doing something he believes in for the sake of his beliefs, not revenging on Kirk or anyone else.”

Just because we hear him saying ” those silly things” in the trailer does not preclude him doing EXACTLY the things you suggested he should be doing. Come on, you know we’ve only seen, really, only SECONDS of a two hour film. And let’s face it, what he said and “revenging on Kirk” sounds a lot like Khan. And we all love that guy.

“Maybe movies for Trek fans would be too “boring” for new audiences if they come up with an intelligent story like the ones in TOS or TOS movies.”

Maybe? Probably! It’s about boxoffice. So Bad Robot NEEDS to bring in the bucks for Paramount. That means blasts and booms. What I hope is we get something tasty to wrap our minds around as well. And don’t get me wrong. I LOVE TMG! Possibly more than most Trekkers. And 2001 is my favorite science fiction film of all time. But those types of movies will not put the butts in the seats and the cash in the tills that will justify the kind of investment the studios make to give us Star Trek on the silver screen. Even the TOS type of movies will only give us what the TOS type of movies gave us. And the result of that was a lull with franchise that a lot of people thought was the death of it.

That was then and this is now. I think we’ve got one hell of a great Trek film coming up and I for one am even more excited now than I was leading up to ST’09. JJ, Bob and the rest of you guys – mission accomplished…so far. ;-)

89. SoonerDave - December 12, 2012

Would Trek be dead w/o JJ? I dunno. That’s a pretty broad indictment of all the creative types in Hollywood, IMHO.

I would never have thought someone would have rebooted James Bond in quite the way they have, which I think is a very intelligent, very contemporary treatment that migrates away (at least some) from some of the perpetually suave silliness of the 80′s Bond. That same kind of treatment could have been applied to Trek – not saying I don’t think the Trek reboot is “intelligent,” but Bond represents another way of reimagining a franchise, and that way differs from how JJ chose to do it with Trek.

Obviously, when it comes to other possible avenues, we’ll never know how things might have turned out. Heck, had Paramount gone through with its fourth network idea back in 1978, we probably wouldn’t even be having a movie discussion right now, and this site likely wouldn’t even exist.

90. Steve Johnson - December 12, 2012

@88 Crazydaystrom

“Maybe? Probably! It’s about box office. So Bad Robot NEEDS to bring in the bucks for Paramount. That means blasts and booms.”

Again, that’s an opinion which I just don’t understand. It’s not borne out by history. Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home did the BEST of the original six movies. Not one boom to be found in that movie.

91. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#86. Yanks – December 12, 2012

I think you may indeed be right. One thing I’ve been missing is the patented Orci hook that gets my butt in the seat for his other works. I figure there’s plenty of time but I can’t help wondering what it will be…..

92. Gary - December 12, 2012

I’m still sticking to the Robert April theory. The evidence is just to compelling to ignore. Orci is know to be a fan of the novels as well and there are two novels that feature April.

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

93. AnonymousWasAWoman - December 12, 2012

I’ve got it.

Janice Lester found her way into another man’s body, and she will have. Her. Vengeance. The man’s body in question? Johnny from the first movie, the non-Sam brother who never got explained or referred back to.

An awful idea, I admit, but I’m still liking it better than Khan.

94. SoonerDave - December 12, 2012

@90 And STIV was 27 years ago, too. Tastes have changed. TNG Trek movies became so cerebral they practically floated off the screen with characters no one really cared about.

Yeah, I could probably do without quite so much “vengeful bad guy goes after heroes, and heroes inevitably win so they can make a sequel,” but we know so little about *this* villain and *this* movie that I think its entirely premature to indict the entire production on the basis of a trailer that has the word “vengeance” in it. We know nothing, *nothing* of the nature of Cumberbatch’s character. Assassinating it out-of-hand is silly.

95. Bird Of Clay - December 12, 2012

i do not share the opinion that, because of the hit of one or two past ST movies, we have to stick to that generation. it’s not the same audience. it’s not the same society. everything evolves.

it’s one thing respecting and keeping a legacy and it’s another thing forcing it to apply, anywhere, anytime.

96. Steve Johnson - December 12, 2012

@94 Sooner Dave

Ah… The TNG Trek movies were most definitely not cerebral. Even Frakes has admitted to that point that they were trying to make Star Trek “an action movie” on many occasions. That was if anything, their -major- problem. They were all, every single one of them, trying to be big action movies. Which the TNG cast was never set up to do. Picard in particular was never an action hero kind of guy. That’s not his character. Oh, sure, they had some lip service to intelligent ideas, but they never really explored them in a coherent fashion, so it became dull filler surrounded by action set pieces.

The new kids on the block? They’ve been built around a more action-centric base. They can do that kind of thing with a little better polish.

I’m not even among those who’s deriding the film for being another villain story, but the argument saying “Well, what do you want? It’s not like they could do a story without a villain” is so far off base. It’s just not true. You absolutely could do it.

In fact, i’d say i’m pretty excited to see what Cumbie does with it.

97. AnonymousWasAWoman - December 12, 2012

As for the hands touching through the glass, there have been enough hints in interviews that this is Kirk’s coming of age film that I’ll be honestly disappointed if it isn’t a reverse on the Kirk/Spock moment from Wrath of Khan. This time it’s Kirk sacrificing himself to save the situation and his crew, though of course it wouldn’t be much of a movie if he didn’t survive to beat up Not-Khan the Not-Villain afterward.

98. mirrork - December 12, 2012

Gary Mitchell, in TOS, lets Kirk know he aimed “that little blonde lab tech” at Kirk in Academy days (I think he said “blonde” must check). Kirk says he almost married her… so Harrison is Mitchell, having sneaked back into Star Fleet (plastic surgery or – he is a god so shape shifting), and that’s how Carol Marcus gets into the new film. She was the lab technician. It’s a different timeline than TOS so it all happens in a more condensed timeframe.

Of course I could be wrong.

99. crazydaystrom - December 12, 2012

84. SoonerDave
“Sybok was a ridiculoulsly contrived character ”
Yes he was. But Nu Sybok would not have to be if well written. The original Battlestar Galactica was a ridiculously contrived show. But Ronald Moore gave us GREAT science fiction from the premise. Let’s face it all science fiction, all fiction, is by definition contrived. And all Trek “villains” are contrived, about half of them ridiculously so. That is a matter of fact.

Look, I don’t think we’ll be seeing Sybok ever again. In fact either for this movie or the next it’s a build up to Khan.

“Would Trek be dead w/o JJ? I dunno. That’s a pretty broad indictment of all the creative types in Hollywood, IMHO.”

I don’t know if that was directed at me but if it was, I neither said that nor implied it. I’ve been a fan from the beginning, over four decades now. I KNOW Star Trek Lives.

100. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

Maxie: *LOL* Thanks!

Steve Johnson:

Yup, she fell asleep during the Kobiyashi Maru sequence. Didn’t even make it to Khan’s chest. Now, I will admit, it was night time, but I don’t think it caught her attention at all. As I was watching it, I remember being upset that she fell asleep, but then I realized that there wasn’t anything much to grab a person casually acquainted with Star Trek, so I couldn’t be all that mad at her. The Kobiyashi Maru scene is a classic Trek scene, but if you look at it, there’s nothing that really jumps out and grabs you. Techie talk, Kristie Alley sitting in the captain’s chair, oh, there’s Spock dead on the floor, but he can’t be dead because the movie just started, and then after all of that stuff, Kirk walks out. Compare that to ST2009. Yes, there’s a lot of flash bang action, but there’s also a gut kicking emotional storyline to it. We saw it earlier in the evening, but my wife was RIVETED to her seat. Well, that’s not correct, she was almost jumping out of it.

Is Trek for my wife? Probably not for the most part. She says that she used to watch it as a kid, but the way SHE watched it was by no means the way I watched it *LOL* I know the yield of a quantum torpedo. She knows Kirk, Spock, and maybe McCoy. But the thing is, Trek is for everyone who’s willing to appreciate it. No television series, movie, or book is created for a group of fans. It’s created for the general audience, and accumulates a group of hard core fans, then casual fans, all the way out to people who just use pop culture references. And all of those people are valid.

As for Trek’s formula wearing out, I’m not sure what you mean by that. What formula has worn out?

As far as the film having major logical flaws that it purposely ignores to drive the story forward…uhm, I’m sorry, but the same could be said of a LOT of TOS episodes and movies. Like I’ve said before, how does Kirk take it upon himself to strand Khan on a planet, willing or not? No trial, no referral to the Federation prosecutor, if not for his former crimes, for attempted piracy. And then he also maroons a member of his crew instead of a court martial! At least when Spock did it to Kirk, he sent him to a Federation installation and Kirk even mentioned that it was a possible violation of the penal code. Then, when you roll around to TWOK, a planet explodes. How? How do planets just explode? And how long does it take for a planet to explode? Wouldn’t they have detected the instability growing all the way back in Space Seed? And how does one planet exploding alter the orbit of another planet? If Mars exploded, there probably wouldn’t be a shockwave that would knock Earth out of it’s orbit, but if by some weirdness it did, EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. Now, did I ponder this much before or after watching TWOK? No, I simply suspended disbelief and enjoyed what is a pretty excellent movie.
Now, I have to admit, I’ve always been bothered by the shockwave of Praxis (what produces a shockwave so fast that the Excelsior can’t see it on sensors approaching in enough time to avoid it, not to mention the fact that I think it was a “ring” like shockwave that just HAPPENED to be directly aligned with the Excelsior’s path), but TUC is a wonderful movie as well, so I suspended disbelief and rolled with it. I even had to grit my teeth on the Hobus explosion with JJ. Unless Romulus is in the Hobus system, how does a supernova destroy them?

As far as themes in ST2009, here’s what I picked up:

How pain, if allowed, can fester and grow and eventually be misdirected at innocent parties (Nero)

How pain can derail your life, if it’s not put into perspective. Pike’s “dare you to do better” speech is excellent. Deanna Troi has NOTHING on him. “So your dad died, so what? Suck it up kid. Can you do more with your life than your father did in the last 12 minutes of his life?” In a world where we frequently use the pain of our past as excuses for the failure of our present, it’s refreshing to hear a message like this. And speaking as someone whose father died young (and mother, with the same name as Spock’s mom, died a couple years before the movie), I can say that without insult.

The destiny theme – specifically that there’s a place in which you must be found when needed. To go biblical, it’s the “called for such a time as this” philosophy. Pike may have more experience, Spock may be (slightly) smarter, but Kirk needs to be in the chair. And all the other pieces have to fall exactly as well. The guy with lungworms may not have been able to pilot through the debris. The regular comm officer can’t speak Romulan. The transporter operator can’t isolate falling targets. But the right people can.

All of those concepts to me are thought provoking, and I even shared the movie with another friend (who to my knowledge, could care less about Trek) and she drew amazing parrallels with her own life. It’s a powerful movie.

101. Captain JohnCBaron - December 12, 2012

Sorry, don’t really get people’s anger on here. I think maybe JJ could have phrased it a bit better, but what he’s saying for me is that it’s a film everyone will enjoy, not just fans.
And that makes ultimate sense. Paramount’s doing a $150million plus summer tentpole mocie – it has to appeal to widespread audiences, not just to fans. And he has to dispel concerns from general movie goers that this movie is inaccessible to your average Joe Bloggs.
As a fan of some 40 years, I don’t take offence at that. I’m sure there’s more than enough in this film for fans – we’ll se come next May!!!

102. virgin vulcan basement nerd - December 12, 2012

FRAK YEAH!!

103. SoonerDave - December 12, 2012

@96 “The TNG movies…were not cerebral.”

Just have to respectfully disagree. Insurrection comes to mind – planet of quiet folks, so quiet that nobody cared about them, thus making the secondary conflict of Picard vs the Federation irrelevant. We’re supposed to gain empathy for the displaced locals because, I guess, they can slow down time, or can gaze wistfully into the camera…but the ongoing criticism of Insurrection was *nobody cared about them*. The movie did nothing to elicit sympathy.

Now try and convince me a plot device like the Nexus in Generations isn’t cerebral. An energy ribbon that delves into your soul and extracts your fondest wishes and manufactures a perpetual reality where time, itself, is a non-existent abstraction? I don’t see how that’s anything but cerebral.

Now I’ll grant that FC was the least cerebral of the bunch, well directed (Frakes did a super job).

Nemesis gets a bad rap because everyone was tired of TNG with four thousand other incarnations of Trek on seven nights a week, and it made a ho-hum movie seem a lot worse than it really was. Music was awesome. Plot was, at times, very VERY dark for a Trek film (uncomfortably so IMHO).

The point in all this was that TNG going to the movies was a horrendous mistake, because it had found its stride on TV, and tried to shoehorn that into movies that just didn’t always work very well. To an extent, that’s the indictment of Trek on the big screen in general – its storytelling home is probably always best suited on TV, where movies *have* to be a “big deal” with important and real things happening to credible characters. A movie based solely on the Enterprise going exploring and signing Federation treaties with four-eyed aliens on the planet Zarmat just isn’t a good sell in this era, right or wrong.

And that’s precisely what Abrams and crew have recognized and worked to overcome.

104. Nurse Gabble - December 12, 2012

What made TOS special?
It dealed with concerns and struggles from the period it was produced. The 60′s. It was placed into space to give it an adventurous feel but it was sociocritical in its base. Philosophical, sometimes to a point it was peculiar.

While I don’t think we will get all of that in STID I hope there is a plot that refers to fears and struggles we are facing nowadays.

That is why my money is on a 9/11-conspiracy-terrorism plot line.

105. cpelc - December 12, 2012

Does something look familiar here?

Enterprise-J (From ENT) – http://drexfiles.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/untitled1b1.jpg

Ship crashing into water in trailer -
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xii/teaser/startrekintodarkness_hd_47.jpg

106. SoonerDave - December 12, 2012

@99 “…ridiculously contrived…”

There’s a point to the adverb there. If you want to get technical about it, EVERY fictional character is “contrived” by definition. Sybok was, IMHO, a *bad* contrivance into Spock’s past.

I don’t know who posted the “Trek would be dead without Abrams” comment, but whomever said it was generally the target of my reply.

107. Jeyl - December 12, 2012

What’s a movie fan? Do movie fans like all movies? If that’s the case, why wouldn’t they like a movie made for Star Trek fans? Or do they just like movies that are original? That can’t be the case because this movie is a sequel to a movie based off of a TV series. Is it because movie fans don’t want to be hindered by anything that requires previous viewing? If that’s the case, why do a lot of sequels that continue the events of the last movie manage to gross more than the previous one did? Are movie fans the type of fans who prefer to be entertained? Why can’t a trek movie made for the fans be entertaining?

Why couldn’t JJ just say “I want to make a good movie set in the Star Trek universe” rather than being so upfront about not giving a crap about Star Trek fans? Does JJ think that Star Trek fans prefer their movies to be bad? If that’s the case, why did Star Trek V and Nemesis bomb? Nemesis was practically built with the intention of making it more mainstream and that still didn’t help. Those movies weren’t good even by Star Trek fan’s standards.

…………What if a movie fan is a Star Trek fan?

108. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

SoonerDave:

I’d say that the cerebral part of ST:G was not the ribbon itself (that seems sort of like a magical plot device) but the questions that the ribbon produced. If you had a choice of living out your fantasies forever, when they aren’t real, or living your real life, what do you choose? If you choose living out your fantasies forever, what are you willing to give up or sacrifice to get it? Very thought provoking, especially when you trade it from a magic ribbon to, say, your own personal dream. What are you willing to give up and sacrifice for living out your dreams?

I think the failings of the TNG films is that the crew didn’t have the same emotional connection and relatability as the TOS crew. The parts where they tried to make them seem humorous and relatable were absolutely painful. Picard doing the mambo, Troi asking Crusher about her firmness, the dune buggy scene. And it seemed wrong for the characters. What ever in 7 seasons of Trek made you think that Picard would become a grinning maniac in a dunebuggy? But the “grumpy old men” feel of the TOS movies with Spock, Kirk, and McCoy just cannot be replicated. They were true to character, funny, and relatable.

109. Disinvited - December 12, 2012

#106. SoonerDave – December 12, 2012

I believe that was: 78. Jake Sisko’s Hot Bajoran Wife

110. GMitchell - December 12, 2012

Can we have a new TV series for the hard core ST fan?

Something in the JJ-verse but run by Ronald Moore

111. TrekkerChick - December 12, 2012

“Again, that’s an opinion which I just don’t understand. It’s not borne out by history. Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home did the BEST of the original six movies. Not one boom to be found in that movie.”

But there was that minor plot element of Earth’s oceans being vaporized by the Probe.

112. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

110. GMitchell – December 12, 2012
Can we have a new TV series for the hard core ST fan?

Books are made for hard core fans. TV shows are not. TV shows need viewers, so unless you have millions of hard core fans, you’re not going to profit from it. And bottom line, shows are made for profit. Roddenberry didn’t make Star Trek without any compensation in mind, and CBS didn’t pick it up because they thought they could make hard core fans. The best that you can hope for is a series that appeals to everyone, yet contains a lot of great stuff for hard core fans. I think the last film did a good job of balancing that. It’s like the Kobiyashi Maru scene in ST2009. That’s put there for the fans, and although the public might have enjoyed it, they probably didnt’ understand why half the theater was just cracking up. Or why they were cracking up when Olsen got sucked into the drill.

113. JimJ - December 12, 2012

Honestly, I really think J.J. & Co. know exactly what they are doing and the entire advertising campaign is brilliant, right down to the name of the villain. Here’s my theories/thoughts:

1. Cumby’s character will be called by this “Harrison” name through much of the movie until the BIG REVEAL of who he really is.

2. Carol Marcus being involved does not make it “Khan” necessarily. Remember that Mitchell “outlined the whole campaign” for “that little blonde lab technician” that Kirk almost married. I can see it being Mitchell, Garth, or BEN FINNEY! Think about that one, people!!!! lol I’ll be shocked if it’s Khan.

3. Using the scene from Wrath of Khan and supposedly music cues from it is a brilliant way to stir up Trekkies who will see the 9 minutes of footage or trailers. There will be happiness, anger, disgust, but most of all there will be HYPE. That is what they want to put butts into the seats. Plus, I think they are teasing stuff from TWOK to “test” the waters for a possible future movie.

4. Look at all the teases they are putting out there. There are scenes that remind a person of Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, Dark Knight, The Wrath of Khan, and the poster even screams of Transformers. No one can argue with the success of these movies & franchises. This definitely is placed there to appeal to the “non-Trekkies” to put their butts into the seats. Heck, J.J. is even bringing back Keenser (a la Jar Jar Binks) just to follow in George Lucas’ footsteps and stir people up!!!! lol

5. J.J. likes to keep the Star Trek fans blood pumping. Something like building the Enterprise in Iowa and using a brewery for engineering in his first movie stirred the fans up but brought them into the theaters. He is doing the same thing with the Enterprise under water thing, the Klingons (changing them up a bit), the villain secrecy, etc.

In closing, I’d just like to say that I like where they are taking Star Trek. Honestly, I loved what was done before J.J., but any REAL Star Trek fan has to admit that the franchise was becoming stale and stagnant. Fire up the fans (with coolness and controversy), bring in average Joe movie goer and what do you have? Big time budget, big time money, big time movie stuff. This is what fans screamed for and wanted for many years. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get a lens flare right in the eye!!!!

114. drumvan - December 12, 2012

@100

well said.

the scene where george kirk dies brought me literally to tears the first several times i watched the movie. the only other time i may have done this during a trek movie was the spock death scene in twok and maybe kirk’s death. and this is after only knowing the george kirk character for what, 12 minutes on screen? pretty impressive.

the 2009 film certainly had a few flaws but as a 49 yr old who grew up on t.o.s. it still has the essence of trek that i have known and loved.

i think what j.j. is trying to do is make a great movie that happens to have the concept of star trek at it’s core. that’s much different than making a good star trek movie. much the same as skyfall was a great movie, not just a great bond movie.

i personally hope it’s not kahn, gary mitchell, sybok, gary 7 or garth etc. i hope it’s something so fresh and cool that i come out of the movie with something to add to the trek legacy.

but i have to admitt that the robert april or section 31 theory would be interesting. it’s just far enough outside the trek mainstream so as to not feel like a rehash but still be “of the trek lineage”.

115. Yanks - December 12, 2012

@ 100. LogicalLeopard – December 12, 2012

Nice post, lots of good points. One should remember that any Trek movie can be ripped apart. (and has been). ST09 was no diferent. STID will also fall prey.

I think we all need to remember that trek is in it’s element on TV, not on the big screen.

We also all better pray that this installation is another block-buster. Then and only then will we have a chance of getting another trek series. (I’m confident it will be)

Even then, it will have to be written for “not only trek fans” to sustain a big enough audience to keep it on.

116. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

“Again, that’s an opinion which I just don’t understand. It’s not borne out by history. Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home did the BEST of the original six movies. Not one boom to be found in that movie.”

**************

Maybe it did well because the general audience found it more relatable, because it was mostly featured around Earth in this current timeline. And really, todays audiences do love an explosion or two, more so than in the past. Huge displays of special effects are the standard in action movies. And there’s nothing wrong with that, if it occurs within the context of the plot.

117. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

“So true to form, the character that Benedict plays has an absolute sense of right and wrong, and he’s on the right side.”

Anyone catch that? Why not:

“So true to form, Harrison has an absolute sense of right and wrong, and he’s on the right side.”

Because Harrison is not really just some guy named Harrison.

118. Spiked Canon - December 12, 2012

#114 we are the same age and you nailed my sentiments exactly. They did what they did and saved the movie franchise.

119. JimJ - December 12, 2012

#100- I like the way you think. Very well said!

120. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

#117

I have caught it. I think it still fits in my position that he is Garth. The question is what drives Garth in this film, if it is him? What if it is something like a Klingon takeover of the Federation through human-like Klingon spies? He is on the “right” side, but it leads him to go overboard, and think the solution is to takeover the Federation as Lord Garth. Savior-tyrant figure.

121. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

@Garth Faction (81), you make a very good point. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that if it wasn’t for Abrams, someone else would have brought Trek back to life.

But I’m not entirely sure I would sign on to that conclusion without a host of provisos, and here’s why:

Look at the Superman franchise. “Superman Returns” was a terrific homage to the original series of Superman films (1970′s) forward, which were well-respected for the most part — especially the first one. But even though it brought in the bucks, it wasn’t seen as good enough.

Why?

It didn’t fit the zeitgeist. I was TOO reverential. Too much like the vision of Richard Donner, et al. And the actor playing the central character was too much like the late, great Christopher Reeve. That’s my take on it.

Now look at “Man of Steel,” whose trailer came out earlier this week. It’s directed by Chris Nolan of “Dark Knight” fame. The colors are subdued. It’s hard to identify this new Superman with the “Big Blue” moniker at all; more like “Big Off-Grey.”

Because these are not the brightest of times, and because things are a lot greyer than they were in the late 1970′s, from at least one standpoint. (Although you could argue that back then, unlike now, there were two superpowers, the U.S. and the USSR, ready to annihlate each other.)

When, in RT, they deleted “the American Way” from the “justice” legend parroted by Perry White, there was at least a ripple of controversy. Now, perhaps not so much.

And in movie-making terms, maybe that’s not so bad. We all want a nuanced movie, but most of us also want whiz-bang action. We need to square the circle.

Would anyone except JJ Abrams have been able to do so?

Why did they need Chris Nolan to reboot Superman?

122. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

^^ I meant to say, “SR,” not “RT.”

123. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

Hat

No, I don’t think anyone could have brought ST back to life, an some could have done far, far worse with the franchise. The point is, however, I agree that JJ Trek has at least given it the possibility of life (to me, it’s still too early to tell), and that can be acknowledged, but we should not make it as if only he could have done it. I know many had ideas for ST, some might have ended up better, some worse (this is also how I address RTD in Doctor Who; many say he brought it back to life, and yet, the BBC was ready for it to come back and chose him, but the show is such that, another frontrunner could have brought it back, too). So with Star Trek, I think it would have returned, whether or not JJ was involved, and I think it likely a good story would have been produced for it, since ST allows it.

Anyway my main point is ST is more than the current JJ Abrams version and a big reason why it came back is because of the essence of ST itself. When done right, it can be strong…

124. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

Oh, and Nolan is not the director for Man of Steel. But that’s a side point. And I am not saying one should deny JJ Abram some credit…just that there is more it than him alone…

125. Rick Johnson - December 12, 2012

I was a bit shaken by Alice Eve not being Dehner, but “Gary Mitchell” is still up there, as one of the few possibilities (or if “Harrison” is “Harrison,” at least inspiration or some kind.) If it’s really “John Harrison,” where in God’s name did he get superpowers from? Going through the galactic barrier? Genetic modification?

Ignoring other evidence:

1)He doing some kind of superjump while barely moving his legs, from a stationary position (?-debatable), at :19 in the trailer. So the guy 1A)was once some normal dude, presumably Starfleet, 2A)has virtual superpowers now (he’s a one-man WMD?)

Can Khan do this? I’m sure Khan-hopefuls will argue that he can. If it’s a running jump, maybe.

Khan’s physical prowess was somewhere around Spock’s, or a Klingon’s. Kirk still beat him by using a baseball bat, basically.

126. Mad Man - December 12, 2012

121. Hat Rick – December 12, 2012

I partly agree with you. But I disagree on your take about why Superman Returns was not wholly accepted. I think the homage of the Donner’s films was mostly done well, but a little too well: Lex Luthor was wrong. Spacey did ok, but Luthor the villain was done too over-the-top campy. It was not believable.

Anyway, the real reason for the “sorta” failure of SR was the whole son story. That’s what killed it.

I’m worried for Man of Steel with Jonathan Kent’s “maybe” to young Clark’s question “should I have left them to die?” question. The Kents were supposed to give Clark a strict moral code. I don’t know, I;ve got a bad feeling about it.

127. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

As for Harrison, it might be that he isn’t so super after all: perhaps there is some technology being used, and it’s hidden in the trailer we have seen?

128. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

April, April, April, April.

And I don’t mean Showers That Bring May Flowers.

:)

129. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

^^ Great responses to my thoughts, Garth Faction and Mad Man, about the ST / Superman comparison. I appreciate them.

I just have time right now to say that I do think that ST is more than just what JJ has made it; Gene R. and many others created this universe in general, and Abrams is only the latest to expand upon it. I just wanted to give credit to Abrams for bringing his sensibility to Trek in such a desirable way. And I say desirable mainly because it’s stayed more or less true to the Trek franchise and particularly because it’s made it very au courant again. I enjoyed Abrams’ take on monster movies in the form of “Cloverfield,” for example. (Although I must say that I have always associated the name “Cloverfield” with that freeway sign on the 10 headed toward Santa Monica. But that’s just me.)

Constructive criticism is always helpful by definition, but for now, I personally have nothing negative to say about Abram’s vision of Star Trek. I’m very happy that I’m happy with it (and no, that’s not a typo).

Thanks for the info on “Man of Steel,” Mad Man. I’ll add to that that the powers that be also reported that while SR brought in bales of bucks, the bales were just a bit less than what they had hoped for. I sincerely hope that that’s not the fate of STID, and so far, all signs are positive that it will not be.

130. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

Still think Harrison IS just John Harrison.

No code name, etc. Just Harrison. But because he is an augment created by Peter Weller’s company, there are ‘nods’ to the Eugenics Wars mentioned in TOS. Nothing more.

They could even show or mention Khan somewhere in the movie; that way, Khan IS still in the movie, and yet Cumberbatch is not playing him…

Movie fans get a new villain (yay!!). TOS fans get their precious Khan shoehorned in there somehow…

Win-win.

131. Jenna - December 12, 2012

Anyone seen this? (If link is okay) BC says some interesting things about JH.. mental powers and sowing ideas and all…

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1698760/benedict-cumberbatch-star-trek.jhtml

132. Nadeshiko - December 12, 2012

http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/864658/benedict-cumberbatch-says-star-trek-into-darkness-villain-is-a-terrorist.jhtml#id=1698755

New info!
Now fight!

133. JimJ - December 12, 2012

Sebastian S.-I see your point, but I still think that is not full of enough drama for JJ and Co. Maybe I’ll be totally wrong, but that’s my gut feeling.

134. Nadeshiko - December 12, 2012

131.
Ah! You beat me to it!

135. JimJ - December 12, 2012

#131 & 132: Just my luck, links are blocked at my workplace, probably because of MTV. Any way you can say what they generally tell us?

136. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

114. drumvan – December 12, 2012

the scene where george kirk dies brought me literally to tears the first several times i watched the movie. the only other time i may have done this during a trek movie was the spock death scene in twok and maybe kirk’s death. and this is after only knowing the george kirk character for what, 12 minutes on screen? pretty impressive.

*****************

Me- Yeah, that’s what I thought too! After I saw that opening, I was like…..”wha….what was that?” It totally took me by suprise and was like nothing I’d ever seen in Trek before. And that’s the first twelve minutes!!!! It also made me do the unthinkable – I was okay with the fact that I missed the previews and the first….minute maybe? That ALWAYS ticks me off, but it brought me right out of it.
***********************

115. Yanks – December 12, 2012

I think we all need to remember that trek is in it’s element on TV, not on the big screen.

We also all better pray that this installation is another block-buster. Then and only then will we have a chance of getting another trek series. (I’m confident it will be)

*********

You’re very right. The pacing and stories that we’re used to watching on TV cannot take place in a movie, because when you have a movie of a TV show, you want it to be “bigger and better” so people don’t walk away feeling like, “Well man, I could have watched that on TV instead of paying 10 bucks for it!”

And you’re right again, the (near) future of Trek rests in JJ’s hands right now. The better it does, the faster we’ll get a new series.

And I think it’s important that the new series reflects the energy and pacing of the last, with engaging characters. I think where some Trek series have fallen short with casual audiences is that the characters aren’t balanced well with each other. Look at TOS. Spock’s neutrality is contrasted perfectly with McCoy’s frequent hysteria, and balalanced by Kirk middle ground – sly as a fox but fierce as a tiger when necessary. Compare that with Picard, Data, Riker. Boring, Boring and occasionally funny, and Boring with a sly smile and a trumpet. And don’t get me wrong, I grew up with TNG and love it, but I don’t exactly expect most people to love it.

137. Jenna - December 12, 2012

Well I can go back through it and try to get more detailed quotes in a minute, but he says he’s a terrorist, who definitely has his own motivation. Has not only “extra-ordinary physical powers, but mental powers as well” saying he can sow ideas (which could just be normal manipulation but the mental powers does imply something more. He said something about him being a mirror image of Kirk in some ways.

138. Jenna - December 12, 2012

Sorry that was for @135 JimJ

139. JimJ - December 12, 2012

Thanks Jenna, so what do you think this implies? Mitchell or an all new character??

140. Nadeshiko - December 12, 2012

135.
There is an existing article for Cumberbatch’s interview in MTV. Just search for it.

141. Jenna - December 12, 2012

@139 Really don’t know what to think. Other signs in the trailer don’t seem to point to Mitchell for me. I’m betting on “new”(ish) character that is somehow peripherally at least related to canon, as per JJ’s comments in his interview.

142. Chris Doohan - December 12, 2012

J.J. Rules!!!! Great Director, writer and all around nice /generous guy. Love watching him being interviewed…he’s the master of his domain.

143. Fascinoma - December 12, 2012

I like the “what if” scenarios that are possible with this alternate universe, and personally, I’d rather see Khan succeed in sowing his “space seed” – without the neighboring planet blowing up, without needing revenge against Kirk. And I’d love to see the problem that his descendants may pose for the Federation in a few generations.

144. Rob - December 12, 2012

Is it at all POSSIBLE that Cumby is David Marcus/Kirk Prime somehow remade by genesis? The dialogue “…to save your family” takes an omnious tone given both his parents are in the film. Also, given that he was killed by klingons, that would help to explain why he might be attempting to kick tail there as well as hitting star fleet which he clearly (and douchily) hated as well. Finally if indeed he was somehow remade by genesis, that could well explain his possible healing ability. “life from lifelessness”

Sure there would have to be a ton of exposition and storytelling to explain how he crossed into the new timeline, but given the nature of the SC …. Why not?

145. Rick Johnson - December 12, 2012

@132 Re: Cumberbatch interview, sounds much less like Mitchell, and I’ve been team Mitchell.

A “political” “cause,” “terrorism,” a “leader,” proficiency in “hand to hand” combat? “Extraordinary physical and mental powers”–it’s almost Khan or, er, Harrison, I guess. “Sowing an idea.”

So where did Harrison get super jumping powers, if he’s not Khan? One of the dozens of floaty-super beings of pure light floating around the universe? No? Then it’s got to be genetic? Or technological?

How does Khan detonate the fleet? Khan wouldn’t want the world to end, he’d want to rule it. Why would he involve Klingons? This movie DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8

146. JohnRambo - December 12, 2012

Star Trek(2009) was also not made just for the Fans and it has been the best Star Trek Movie ever! So i trust JJ and his Team 100%!!

147. razzo - December 12, 2012

Khan will be in this movie, why can’t people simply admit the obvious truth?

The post-credits scene that would appear in the previous movie showed Botany Bay. The music has TWOK influence. They searched for “Latino” actors to play their villain until they found a different and strong approach and presence. (Mind you, show-wise they had to beat Loki, who became a sensation on media.) Carol Marcus is in the movie, a character present in similar chronology with Khan. (No matter if it’s no directly linked, but it adds up.) Internal sources saying the villain is Khan. The TWOK mirrored scene shown at the trailer. The annoying Batman paralels. (I hate them but they’re there.) A new villain rumor rising every time someone confirms Khan or dismisses another candidate. The whole trailer monologue about returning, having his vengeance and destroying stuff + the super strength.

If you say that the combination of all these don’t prove that Khan will be in this movie, then you’re in deep denial.

Now, how could they put a character John Harrison with the EXACT SAME speech and general abilities than Khan as the big villain in the movie, as evidenced by his narrating and presence/assumed importance?
It is simply not possible.
They want a show, they want it big, they’ll get a big villain, aim to box office records. Their choice is obviously Khan.

So why waste this big villain as something that “will just be there somewhere in the movie”? No. He is the character BC is playing.

Because as I said before, they couldn’t put two characters with the EXACT SAME essence in the same movie, it would make one of them obsolete, and if Harrison was JUST Harrison, this would waste Khan, which is impossible, considering Khan has a heavier name and would never be wasted once introduced.

Which can ONLY mean BC’s character is Khan, and goes by John Harrison for a while, or plays ALSO a John Harrison, whose identity gets stolen, impersonated, wronged or however the hell they invent.

But he is Khan. There is simply no other explanation for him narrating the revenge monologue of the trailer, unless he is the actual big bad guy of the movie.
And there is no room for two identically constructed villains in this movie, since they seem to be SO concerned about their bad guy being three dimensional and richly build.

148. sean - December 12, 2012

Ya know what? If they’d had these types of interviews at the time TWOK was released, Nick Meyer probably would have been saying something very similar. He wasn’t even interested in Star Trek before he took the directing job on TWOK. He’s also a fairly blunt guy, so I could imagine him being far less delicate than JJ.

149. Masshuu il Thulcandra - December 12, 2012

After viewing the video and hearing the discussion about ‘John Harrison’, I immediately went and viewed “SPACE SEED” once again from beginning to end. I found no reference to a john Harrison or a Harrison. Maybe AMAZON has an edited version.

150. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

@razzo (147), Okay, so maybe it’s Khan. So what would be Harrison’s motivation if he’s both Khan and Starfleet? I mean, did Kirk run over his dog at the Academy or something? Or is Harrison really just an image projected by Khan?

Extraordinary mental powers and ideas that are as powerful as a phaser or close-in combat suggests someone more powerful than Khan, though maybe not quite as powerful as Mitchell.

I’m almost ready to give up guessing and say that this character is really a mashup of Khan and Mitchell. Khitchell. Mitchan. Hell, why not?

151. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

How does Khan detonate the fleet?

*********
Me – Prefix codes? That would be a funny homage to TWOK, using the same thing that was used against him to cause ships to self destruct. Maybe the ship that crashes into SF bay finds out what is happening, and shuts down it’s main power for a while, falling into orbit.
*********************************
Khan wouldn’t want the world to end, he’d want to rule it.
***********************
Me – Well, I don’t think he’s trying to destroy the world literally, but destroy the “world” that people live in, the safe, clean, secure world. It’s what terrorists do. 9/11 destroyed a lot of people’s concept of safety and security.
*********************************
Why would he involve Klingons? This movie DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
***********************
Me – Who knows? Maybe he was trying to get something from the Klingons, like a cloaking device. Maybe he identifies with Klingons. Maybe he’s trying to cripple them so he can take over the Federation and then the Quadrant with little opposition.

The movie CANT make no sense, because it’s not out yet. Speculation is fun, but we can’t judge the movie yet based on OUR speculation of what it will be.

152. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

I still don’t see him as Khan or related to Khan. I think there is Klingon-Federation intrigue, where the Federation has sold out to the Klingons (possibly through spies) and John Harrison (whoever he is) got hurt in the process. He at first just blames the Klingons, but when at their home world, learns it is a vast conspiracy. Kirk and crew were chosen to pick him up, and while aboard the Enterprise, he starts getting into the mind of the crew. He convinces some to join with him in his cause, taking over the ship. He head to the Federation to show everyone the illusion of the Federation itself and who really is in control. His motivation is to free the Federation. But I still think he is Garth, and so he thinks (like many) that means he must take over the Federation as Lord Garth, in order to make sure it is not taken over again. And there you have good motivation for terrorist acts while all a bad guy.

153. razzo - December 12, 2012

@150 Hat Rick: Harrison’s motivations would be Khan’s motivations if he is Khan. Simple as that. Being Starfleet is part of the story or his plan somehow. That we’ll only see with the movie, or maybe sooner with more trailers.

Harrison could be
1- An alias used by Khan in “disguise” or any equivalent.
2- Another character, played by the same actor.
3- Both, in case he impersonates an existing person.

Not really, extraordinary mental power etc, as it was said, can simply mean a super intelligent master villain, whose silver tongue and sharp mind can make things happen and are as lethal as phasers.
You should see what he says about Sherlock Holmes, and then you’ll get what I mean. If you isolate his comments on SH without context, you’ll think he’s talking about an alien or superhuman.

Yessss you may be more right than you think.
I’d bet they mixed the most interesting things available as possible and incorporated into this villain’s story and the movie plot in general.

That’s what they’re all about, right? Making a show, no matter where the hell is Delta Vega, as long as we get Kirk and Prime Spock watching Vulcan being destroyed because IMPACT SCEEEEENE.
So yeah, I’d say you may be proven very right.

154. K-7 - December 12, 2012

So the public gets their Trek and we get The Supreme Court’s lies and misdirection.

Nice!

155. Johnnyb807 - December 12, 2012

You know we’re all waiting to see @BobOrci pop up on this forum so that we can all ask him about Starships being able to be both space worthy AND sea worthy all at the same time.

156. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

I think that JJ & Co are indicating that John Harrison is a canon character going by that name, and will be revealed as another.

But although the character appears to match Khan, I’m not ready to say it’s definately Khan, although he’s the most likely option in my opinion.

As silly as I initially though Garth of Izar was, it’s an interesting option.

I think Kodos the Executioner is a good option too. Maybe in addition to genocide, he did some modifications on himself.

Another good option that hasn’t picked up steam….maybe he’s a Klingon. Sure, that’s a bit out there, because he’d have to fake his way through required medical assessments, but that would account for his strength and motivations. It would also account for the fact that he sees himself as good.

Another interesting option is that it’s a disgruntled canon character that was seldom noticed. The lungworms took over Lt McKenna’s brain and he’s back for vengeance! Richard Daystrom, driven insane by racism, has gotten plastic surgery and genetic enhancements and is back for vengeance! Yes, those are absurd, but there are probably many characters who would fit.

And of course, there’s always reliable Joachim.

Personally, I don’t like the Mitchell angle, because I think it’s kind of silly to go back and explain his backstory and ressurect him from his comic book death, but I’m not going to complain much if it is Mitchell.

157. Russ Hannagan - December 12, 2012

Yea, just keep pissing off the fan base…good move. Suck it JJ

158. Jdog - December 12, 2012

I love how a majority of the so called “true fans” are never happy with anything anyone does. Why not just be happy that we are once again going to be able to go on an adventure with characters we have come to know and love. Does it matter if its Khan? Does it matter if its Gary Mitchell? No it really doesn’t. Fact is all our questions will be answered on the day the movie comes out. Star Trek 2009 turned out just fine. All the “true fans” who were throwing temper tantrums then looked like real dopes after the movie came out. Fact is your never going to make everyone happy. If people choose not to be happy about any of this, because its not “cannony” enough or whatever reason thats fine. They are allowed to. But i think they do themselves a disservice and are missing the larger point. We get to go on another adventure with the crew of the Enterprise. Other people no matter how negative are gonna rain on my parade!

159. Gary - December 12, 2012

More new info…

http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/864659/will-someone-die-in-star-trek-into-darkness.jhtml#id=1698755

http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/864660/does-captain-kirk-have-a-love-interest-in-star-trek-into-darkness.jhtml#id=1698755

160. Johnnyb807 - December 12, 2012

@142. Chris Doohan “he’s the master of his domain.” – I’m sure you didn’t mean that in the Seinfeld sense. Ha ha.

161. Trekzilla - December 12, 2012

#121 — What hurt Superman Returns was the poor casting of Lois Lane, the kid, turning Supes into a deadbeat Dad, and the retread plot of Lex wanting more land.

If it had been a fun movie like the first two Reeve films, it would have been a huge hit.

The problem with the execution wasnt the Donner-like elements…the problem was it wasn’t Donner ENOUGH.

162. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

Gawd, if I read one more Harrison is secretly Khan post I’m gonna puke up my breakfast. And since it was huevos rancheros with a pico de gallo that could melt through the 1701′s shields, you don’t wanna be anywhere around that.

Harrison is April. All the evidence that anyone would ever want to consider is there. He reverse aged and had to take over Harrison’s identity as everyone in Starfleet knows he’s an octogenarian. Why try to keep denying visual evidence presented by a credible eyewitness at Hitfix? The blogger’s not insane. He saw it and reported it. So continuing to consider the Khan parade is as pointless as insisting that Harrison is an alias for Dr. Freakin’ Who. The plot point of the fast aging is established with the Indian girl and Harrison isn’t going to cure her with a nice Punjabi pakora fer cryin’ out loud! He has the secret to reverse aging and is going to use it on the girl. AND the girl isn’t Indian because JJ loved Bruce Banner traipsing through the slums of Kolkata. She’s Indian because it ties into Khan who is present in the movie and is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT played by Cumby. I dunno if it’s Weller, Clarke, Kaye, Frakes, Spiner, Takei, or even freakin’ Shatner playing Khan, but it’s not Benedict. Continue to insist that the earth is flat, CumbyIsKhanites, as you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him THINK! :P

163. Gary - December 12, 2012

Harrison seems to have a political agenda. I can’t help but wonder if it has to do with violations of the prime directive.

164. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

159 Gary – Yelchin is toast. He became crispy as soon as he donned that red shirt.

165. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

@Garth Faction (152), you have some complex ideas and it goes to show you the inherent ambiguity in what we’ve seen, particularly as this is science fiction we’re talking about.

By the way, in my poll at http://www.stidvillain.blogspot.com, no one has yet voted for Garth, as of a few hours ago, for what it’s worth.

One thing that came to mind (so to speak) while contemplating the “ideas” comment by BC were the Organians. They were also involved in the Federation-Klingon contretemps (“Errand of Mercy”, TOS).

166. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 12, 2012

After reading the posts from many a Star Trek fan over the last three years, I am glad that JJ Abrams is making a Star Trek movie for everyone, just as Gene Roddenberry meant his TV series called Star Trek made in the 1960′s to be.

Too many self-absorbed Star Trek fans who need fundamentals explained to them umpteen times over and still not get it and then claim JJ “dumbed down” Star Trek. Pathetic and intellectually insulting.

I see people are still clinging to the notion that John Harrison can’t just be John Harrison, but must be one of the villains from the prime universe, because, I mean, how big are the universes and how many billions of human beings inhabit some of the worlds and because the writers could not possibly imagine an original character…Duh

Sorry – but I am largely pissed off at what I read here… just saying

167. Gary - December 12, 2012

164. Very possible, but don’t forget that Scotty has a red shirt as well. Possibly Chekov will appear to get killed because of something Kirk did, only to find out later that he is very much alive.

168. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

163. Gary – My theory is that April originates from TOS/TNG timeline (bringing across with him that VERY TNG ship that crashes into SF Bay) and he sees the JJ Federation as the enemy because it’s engaging in something (whether on purpose or not) that goes against everything that the TOS/TNG Federation stands for. Maybe it’s the war on Qo’noS, their interference in (the horrifically named Niburu) or the JJ timeline’s preference for dining on sauteed tribbles, but whatever it is, it allows him to be the good and bad dichotomous character so clearly defined by Cumby in interviews. He says as much in the latest MTV interview!

169. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 12, 2012

#157 – JJ does not need to do anything. You guys do that all by yourself.

170. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

155. Johnnyb807

You know we’re all waiting to see @BobOrci pop up on this forum so that we can all ask him about Starships being able to be both space worthy AND sea worthy all at the same time.

**************

I don’t really understand why that’s even a question. The hull is built with duranium right? And duranium is stronger than steel, right? So it should be stronger than a submarine’s hull, and probably thicker. The hull doesn’t have to hold out water, but it is designed to take a bit of weapons fire and natural space disasters, right? And structurally, it’s built to hold up under 1g at least, because they built the thing on Earth. It’s a starship – it can take a little pressure. It’s not Marty’s hoverboard *LOL*

Oh, and I also find it funny that people are questioning how the Enterprise can go underwater, but NOBODY is questioning how Spock can go into a VOLCANO wearing an EVA suit *LOL* So the Federation makes EVA suits stronger than their actual vessels? *LOL*

171. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

167. Gary – Yeah, but I’m betting it’s a JJ tribute to redshirtness. Chekov is on his way to the big Borscht deli in the sky! :)

172. BJ (TheFreshMaker) - December 12, 2012

@56. BitterTrekkie – December 12, 2012
“I didn’t ask for these so called “wonderful” films.”

Then move on in life. This is the Trek that is being made now, if you don’t like it, no one is making you see it.

173. Gary - December 12, 2012

171. Could be. As to your suggestion that the new movie involves time travel, I am doubtful that they would revisit that well again. Too many Trek movies with time travel. More like if it involves April, its the NuTrek universe version of him.

174. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

162. The Last Vulcan – December 12, 2012

*LOL* You’re joking, right? I would personally love to see it turn out to be April, because we haven’t really seen him onscreen. But I must confess, he’s got ZERO reason to be a villain, as far as we know. And if he’s reverse aged himself, he’s not going to reverse age the girl, because she’s not really aging, she just has a condition that mimics it, right? It’s a much better prospect to have it be Khan, who is able to use genetic engineering to cure the girl. Bonus points if she’s a descendant.

*holds up his Gallagher plastic to avoid the huevos rancheros*

175. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

Oops. #113. My bad. Carry on.

176. sean - December 12, 2012

#121

Zack Snyder is directing Man of Steel, not Chris Nolan. Nolan is producing.

177. JimJ - December 12, 2012

I am not convinced that is HAS to be someone we know from the prime universe, but I just have a gut instinct that in the end, it will be. I’d be just fine with a brand new villain, but we had that in the last movie. OMG, what if it’s a resurrected NERO???? lol! Just sayin’ (tongue in check).

178. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

173. Gary – Nope, I never stated time travel has anything to do with this movie. April probably comes across into this timeline in the TNG era ship as a senior observer in his final mission to look for Prime Spock because he has experience with transdimensional whatchamacallits, then encounters Khan, gets some eugenics reverse aging secret sauce, and finds out that the JJ Federation is (from his perspective) a bunch of nasties.

179. Garth Faction - December 12, 2012

Jim

You are onto something.

It’s not a resurrected Nero.

It is Nero from the future of the alt-universe coming back in time with alt-universe Spock, creating a new time-shift. It is an event which happens in every universe, so that there is an infinite series of new Trek universes, each one seeding the next…

180. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

A bit on that new MOS trailer — I know, you know, and the American people know (quoth Bob Dole), that the guys in full tactical who were arrayed against Supes had no chance against him if he were (1) fully powered and (2) prepared to fight. So either (1) or (2) is absent, and I’m voting for (2).

MOS, in light of the poster of him led in handcuffs and all the lead-in scenes of him, the childhood accident, and his conversation with his adoptive father, is about what happens when he restrains himself from acting, or somehow fails in spite of what he does or tries to do. We see this theme in the original Superman film, as well. (Why did Supes turn back time to save Lois?) So I think we can approach MOS with a mindset that Nolan will remain very true to at least some aspects of the overarching ideas of Donner’s Superman.

By the way, we can also see similar parallels in ST2009 — the connection between reality and ideals (e.g., Spock’s failure to achieve Kohlinahr compared with Spock’s refusal to join the Vulcan Academy; the homespun Iowan farmboy versus the two versions of the Kirks we are grown to expect); the need to forge friendships, the importance of the past to the shaping of the present (Kirk’s loss of his father makes him different in this timeline) and the future (V’Gr seeks his creator, who doesn’t exist, and must create a new synthesis). We can see these parallels, real or imagined, intentional or not, because ST2009 was and is a sophisticated movie ripe with meaning.

Good movies can spark good discussions and a contemplation of What It All Means. STID is already looking good measured by that score.

181. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

Hmm… where my huge treatise on Trek budgets go? I worked hard on that! Oh well. My other comment makes no sense now.

*shrug*

182. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

174. LogicalLeopard – It’s gonna take more than Gallagher plastic (which BTW, I am proud to say I donned in one of his Vegas shows 20 years ago) to keep the corrosive ranchero off ya. :) Cumby is not Khan. The only thing that could convince me that Cumby is Khan is at the very end of the premiere full screening. I’m not going to believe in any way shape or form that Cumby is Khan, but I’m also completely convinced that Cumby runs INTO Khan. If Cumby turns out to be Khan I will change my forum name to Green Orion Slave Girl and invite every male participant in this forum to have their way with me. :)

183. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

Wait, there it is. Must have been a glitch in the Matrix. Carry on.

LLAP

Your pal,
Phil

184. Driver - December 12, 2012

I think I’ll first watch the new film in 2D and then again in 3D. Then wait for the 3D Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy to buy and watch it on my 55″ 3D LCD Wonder what sort of fancy non clamshell case they’ll put out for that. I have model Enterprise for the 2009 film. Then I’ll wait for the next film.

185. The Last Vulcan - December 12, 2012

179. Garth Faction – I love it. Can we get to an alternate timeline where JJ Abrams is really Manny Coto? Please, please, pretty please? :)

Signed,

The president of the Manny Coto Is The Best Thing To Ever Happen To Trek Club.

186. MJ - December 12, 2012

Rose, thank you for your nice comments on the other thread. You are good people!!!

MJ

187. Gary - December 12, 2012

178. Coming across into this timeline from TNG era is IMHO another form of time travel. I just don’t belive that they would use that as a plot element. But I do have a strong suspicion that the plot involves a violation of the Prime Directive most likely caused by one of Aprils orders.

188. Josh C. - December 12, 2012

People do realize that making Star Trek movies and series that became increasingly trek-centric is what nearly killed the franchise in the first place, right?

189. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

#188 – Josh C.

Opening Nemesis against Lord of the Rings didn’t help either.

190. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

182. The Last Vulcan

*LOL* Well, here’s hoping it’s not Khan then! *screams as the Gallagher plastic melts*

191. Josh C. - December 12, 2012

189 – well, no, it didn’t, but I think reviews independent of that weren’t exactly top notch either. *I* didn’t think Nemesis was all that bad, but I seem to be in the minority in that view

192. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

Oh, and I think Orci heard the April speculation here, scribbled it down in a book next to a picture of Harrison’s gun, and waited for all of us to melt down *LOL* He knew that Mitchell, Garth, and Khan were gaining too much momentum, so went with a dark horse to mess with us.

I LOVE those guys *LOL*

193. razzo - December 12, 2012

@162 You have to start accepting that this is not a movie made for the fans. No one out of trekkie world knows who the hell April is.

If they want to bet on a huge-ass billionary movie, they will bet on a character that at LEAST is seen as a big villain within the series.

They want GUARANTEE that it’ll work. They chose BC for his presence, his voice, his striking audition. Also the dude is acing performances with every single mainstream contemporary director. That’s smart, and they need to top Loki, that’s Hollywood play.

They want a show and they couldn’t care less what fans think, as long as they’re using original series’ elements to make their movie become a Happening.

They may take April’s weapon and make the villain use it, take one character’s hair and put it in another, take Kirk’s underwear from episode x and put it glued to the outside of enterprise.

They do not care.

Also you admit Khan is in the movie, WHAT ON EARTH would Khan be doing in a movie where the big villain is EXACTLY THE SAME as him?
Unless he WAS the same character?

Can you see how it doesn’t make sense?

194. BJ (TheFreshMaker) - December 12, 2012

Whats funny to me reading all these post from bitter Trek fans is they complain about how JJ and Co are not fans and shouldnt be near Trek. Almost always that sentiment comes alongside stating how great ST2 and ST6 were and how the JJ Trek sucks. I am old enough to remember when ST2 came out and fans hated Meyer because he ‘ruined’ Trek by making it more militaristic, killed Spock and *gasp* he wasnt a fan to begin with, so “how dare he!” Then fast forward to ST6, hell even Gene just before he died, publicly stated he hated the movie and felt that Starfleet officers would never conspire to kill some one and that it was too military like of a movie. When the movie came out and was dedicated to him, there was an outcry that the dedication be taken off because he didnt like the movie. It went as far as some fans trying to get ST6 declared non-canon on the argument that Gene hated it. Now here we are twenty years later and these two movies are the bar that JJ is constantly held up to. This is why most Trek fans are so laughable.

195. BJ (TheFreshMaker) - December 12, 2012

@188. Josh C.
“People do realize that making Star Trek movies and series that became increasingly trek-centric is what nearly killed the franchise in the first place, right?”

They will never understand that.

196. BJ (TheFreshMaker) - December 12, 2012

@189. Star Sick: the Original Generation

“Opening Nemesis against Lord of the Rings didn’t help either.”

Writing a horrible movie and having an editor that thought he could direct is what truly didnt help.

197. DeflectorDishGuy - December 12, 2012

Benedict Cumberbatch is as much John Harrison as Liam Neeson was Henri Ducard.

198. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

I am going to make prediction right here and now.
Into darkness will mark the first film in the EVEN Movie Trek Curse.

199. Gary - December 12, 2012

Read this old interview with Orci…it may give you a better insight into what this movie may be about.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/04/interview-roberto-orci-on-why-he-is-a-trekkie/

200. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

I’m think John Harrison is not only a starfleet-made black-ops augment, but that he is fighting for the rights of augments everywhere….

Hence the terrorism angle.

201. razzo - December 12, 2012

@188 They don’t, and that’s why they’ll stay puzzled while the movie does more than well in the box office and will only get more and more pissed at JJ.
Because he won’t do that. He understands Star trek’s essence better than these “hardcore” fans, who are too deep into their canon bubble.
They’ll keep some healthy references to previous work, but they’ll grow apart from it and start assuming their own new lore soon. Focusing on the main message of the original series.

And eventually these fans will get even more pissed because a new series is absolutely possible, as long as they figure out the rights issue. It’s pure profit and it will happen. Not so soon, I’d say, but it will.

202. Yanks - December 12, 2012

@136. LogicalLeopard – December 12, 2012
—————————————————————————————————————–
And I think it’s important that the new series reflects the energy and pacing of the last, with engaging characters. I think where some Trek series have fallen short with casual audiences is that the characters aren’t balanced well with each other. Look at TOS. Spock’s neutrality is contrasted perfectly with McCoy’s frequent hysteria, and balalanced by Kirk middle ground – sly as a fox but fierce as a tiger when necessary. Compare that with Picard, Data, Riker. Boring, Boring and occasionally funny, and Boring with a sly smile and a trumpet. And don’t get me wrong, I grew up with TNG and love it, but I don’t exactly expect most people to love it.
—————————————————————————————————————–
That kind of “balance” will be hard to capture in these movies. They don’t have 3 years of TV and a 5-year misison to build off of. The TOS movies were good because those relationships were already developed. For new fans, they are just getting to know our heros.

Trek on TV doesn’t need to be the wisbang visual specitcal were are getting in JJ’s movies, it needs good writing. If it has that, trekkers will swarm and we’ll bring all the newbees along for the ride. The hard part is, it’s giong to have to draw and sustain a good number because SCI-FI effects are so expensive.

Think about it, if a non-trekker were to see TNG’s “Inner Light” as their first episode, they would crave for more TNG. If it was “Code of Honor” or any one of a number of other turds, you lost them right there.

It’s all about the writing….and with trek, an optomistic vision for the future.

203. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

200. Sebastian S. – December 12, 2012
I’m think John Harrison is not only a starfleet-made black-ops augment, but that he is fighting for the rights of augments everywhere….

Hence the terrorism angle.

****************

Me Likey!!!!! When you think about it, if a Romulan ship vastly unlike anything you’ve ever seen before shows up and takes out a SF vessel, the gauntlet is thrown. Starfleet/Section 31/Federation Security probably started working on all sorts of stuff after Nero’s ship appeared, especially since they didn’t know it was time displaced.

204. LogicalLeopard - December 12, 2012

202. Yanks – December 12, 2012

That kind of “balance” will be hard to capture in these movies. They don’t have 3 years of TV and a 5-year misison to build off of. The TOS movies were good because those relationships were already developed. For new fans, they are just getting to know our heros.

******************
I dunno. I think it’s easily doable because you’re working with the same characters as the 1960′s. You can go back to the same relationships. I loved how they set up and developed McCoy and Spock’s relationship, with McCoy saying, “I like him!” Of course all of us fans were thinking “Not for looonnng…” and just like that, it was Spock and McCoy all over again. Maybe Spock was a bit more sarcastic (the roaming the halls weeping comment *LOL*) but to be fair, he was under a LOT of pressure at the time.

As far as a new series, you’re right with the TNG comparisons. Has to be good writing. And, like I said, relatable characters. Not to be all sacreligious, but this is why the Star Wars prequels were panned so much. We got behind the characters in the original trilogy. The prequel characters were mostly wooden and laconic, or extremely annoying.

205. JimJ - December 12, 2012

#199-Thank you for that. The only mistake I made was reading some of the comments and being reminded of “hitch”. WOW<-I had forgotten about that lovable dude-lol. (Anyone that doesn't know what I am talking about, look at the comments after that article he sent the link do…and find hitch-lol)

206. ManicTribble. - December 12, 2012

#189
Star Trek Nemesis was a crappy trek movie. When actors right the script to put them selves before other cast members. Then use other main cast members as nothing more than supporting cast. The movie is going to flop, because too many big egos got involved. Brent Spiner started believing his own press and got too big of an ego. The same went for Patrick Stewart. Throwing a fit when the movie flopped and swearing to never do Trek again. Fine by me, I don’t like arrogance.

Now all you cry babies a complaining about what is being done to trek to make it appeal to a broader audience. I’m just happy that people feel trek is still worth investing in. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that has been done. I do love certain thing JJ and company have done. I wished he would give a great space battle scene. I wished he would treat the Enterprise as a charactor and a part of the cast, not just as a mode of transportation. But we all have our hang ups and no one can have everything. I’m just happy their not letting trek die.

207. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

Josh C. – I’m sort of in the minority view on Nemesis too. I liked it when it saw it. I’ve only seen it the one time, though. Same with the last J.J. movie.

For the record, I have not complained once about any of this. I was just giving rationale and crunching numbers. I was 3 or 4 when TWOK came out, so there you go. I saw it on VHS as a kid.

I see the logic in what Paramount is doing. While I don’t think it’s the best of Trek, it’s not the worst either.

I don’t remember hearing anything about Gene hating VI (but hey, I wasn’t exactly “in the know” then), but I do remember reading years later about him saying something about how V should not be canon. I agree with that. V would be the nadir for me. YMMV, natch.

But hey, we’re all free to like what we like and dislike what we dislike. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but maybe I am unwittingly. My apologies.

LLAP

Your pal,
Phil

208. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2012

It’s a Star Trek movie that’s good enough for other people to like it. Get over yourselves.

209. steve - December 12, 2012

JJ not making Trek just for Trek fans: as a Trek fan since 1969, all I can say to that is, “Thank GOD!!!”. The most inexplicable thing to me, since the early days of the internet, is seeing how Trek fans just want to see the SAME thing over and over. They never seem to want anything NEW.

If JJ can keep making it new, while keeping with the spirit of the original series, he will finally have saved Trek from collapsing over its own inertia.

210. Steve Johnson - December 12, 2012

103. SoonerDave

You’re free to disagree, but i’d have to say that talking about the PREMISE of the movies is not the same thing as the execution. Yes, they had cerebral ideas, as I said they paid lip service to intelligent concepts. The problem is, they didn’t support those concepts with truly thought out, fleshed out scripts. A screw up here and there is fine. (The Praxis wave, not having seat belts, etc…) But when it goes to the core of a theme not making any damn sense, it’s not actually being smart. It’s being nonsensical.

I think as we approach the release of the second film, for people who find themselves polarized on either side of the fence about the JJ films, they should take a look at SF Debris review of the 11th film. It actually made me rethink my initial semi hostile feelings. I have a bit more respect for the new movies. Just… A few reservations.

http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/film11.asp

211. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

First of all, thanks to Anthony Pascale and the TrekMovie staff for keeping us up to date the last several weeks. The site has been very active with new content and messages and please don’t think for a moment this hasn’t been appreciated by many fans.

Second of all, I think it’s sometimes a good idea to realize that Trek movies aren’t art films, and aren’t supposed to be. Yes, I agree that TMP was a great film and had some substantial philosophical elements, but in the end, there would be no official Trek productions if commercial considerations did not over-ride most others.

What JJ Abrams is saying is that he is making a movie that will appeal to a broader audience while not forgetting hard-core Trek fans. This is simply a way of saying that he wants to bring in more people to see the film and make more money for company and people he works for, as well as possibly for himself. The average movie-goer does not want to see an art film. They hardly want to see a slow-paced movie anymore, because it’s not the 1960′s. It’s half a century later. Maybe the pacing in the Transformers movies ruined slower movies; maybe the car chases in The French Connection. But this frenetic pace has been a long time coming, and it’s not really going away in this media-frenzied world.

It’s a pace that sometimes shortchanges storytelling, depth, and profundity. That’s an unfortuate truth, but, I think, a truth nevertheless.

So the bottom-line is that the producers want to make movies that make good money. What could be wrong with that? Nothing, I would say, as long as there is integrity to the film, which the film does have.

We can comment on how faithful the film has to be in order to be considered “Star Trek,” but that must be balanced with the paramount (pun intended) concern for financial health and the long-term prosperity of the franchise.

Star Trek in the broad and pervasive format we have known it may be, and is, amazing and sometimes truly profound science fiction, but it is also a commercial enterprise, and it is probably fultile to believe it could be just the former and not the latter.

212. dean-o - December 12, 2012

“… making a movie for movie fans…” Exactly! I’m a trekkie too, but J.J. is right. Paramount did a great thing when they booted the other production team and brought fresh talent, who aren’t geeks, into the mix.

This movie is looking super cool so far.

213. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

#114 hits the nail on the head, which is an unfortunate side of the movie bizness. (if anybody else elucidated on this, my apologies — my comment here is a product of TLDR syndrome)

To get the budget we want to make a top-notch Trek film with regards to effects and other such things, there has to be a certain level of pandering to the mass moviegoing audience. Notice I said “a certain level”. We can all debate whether or not he went past that, and arguments on both sides are valid.

One of the defining characteristics of Trek over the years (particularly in the early days and in the movies) has been lack of $$. As much as we love TOS, you know that it suffered from money problems, and when it did, sometimes it really hurt it. Most of the movies have had that same problem, to varying degrees.

Much as we love Trek movies, they just aren’t quite the moneymakers. At least not always. STV didn’t even get to twice its budget, which, by the way, was the HIGHEST budget since STTMP (and higher than VI as well). In an era when $100mil+ is what gets high-level effects movies done, Trek films were being made for $30-$60mil. In the early 80′s it was like $18-$19 mil (admittedly, part of that was due to the relatively gargantuan budget of TMP – $46mil in 1979 dollars). Not that any of them truly tanked — $100-$130mil was about the usual take — many of them barely made enough for a corporation to see it as a success. Making twice your budget is not considered a success (at least not these days). It’s considered Not a Failure. Nemesis fared the worst, scarcely going over it’s budget — the highest of any pre-JJ Trek. No wonder they cut the series off at that point.

That said, great Trek (and great shows/movies period) have been made on shoestring budgets. And big budget does not guarantee a good flick. But good visual effects aren’t cheap, and this genre of film just lends itself to the need for more cash, and the suits need a justification to spend it. They wouldn’t want another Nemesis situation, or the Trek equivalent of Ishtar. Hence, get popular / hip director, give him a bunch of money, and permission to “remix”, as it were, and that’s worked, as far as the corporations go.

Granted, this analysis has come from just looking at the numbers, and my generalizations have not done justice to the situations (especially given the relative success of lower budget Trek films — the money coming is was fairly consistent for most of the 80′s, despite varying budgets).

So, here we are, finally, at Big Budget Trek Films. Are we happy? Was the price paid (in terms of the director / writers and compromises / pandering made) worth it? Some say yes; some say no. I’m offering nothing but a number-crunch here.

It’s just the nature of the Hollywood game that to make it well, you need the money, and very few niche audiences can justify it on their own, with no need to try and reach a large number of people outside that group.

“But why should anyone listen to me, or should I speak, since I know nothing?” — Head (1968 film)

LLAP

Your pal,
Phil

214. Johnnyb807 - December 12, 2012

#170. LogicalLeopard As a Navy Vet myself, I’m a little skeptical. Going underwater creates large volumes of pressure whereas going into space creates the opposite effect. I know the structural integrity field solves a lot of problems in that regard, so maybe I could give it a pass, but I’m still a little skeptical. I’m curious about the properties of the hull material and it’s ability to withstand the ductile stresses and/or brittle fracture rates cause by the push/pull stresses of going from space to the pressures of being deep in the ocean. Here’s a recent article from Blastr which basically covers my thoughts in better detail that I could —> “Real-life Scotty says Trek 2 trailer’s underwater scene is impossible” http://blastr.com/2012/12/real-life-scotty-says-tre.php

215. Star Sick: the Original Generation - December 12, 2012

I’ll chime in and thank Anthony et al. for this news resource. Forgive my inexperience with online Trek debating. Maybe I made the wrong choice by starting, IDK. I have more of a “whatever” attitude than is probably evident from my choice of words. I am not a great communicator.

On a technical note, my numbers diatribe seems to have moved down to the bottom. Hoping it’s just a bug in the blog plugin or whatever. Not complaining, just don’t want people to get the wrong idea, that I posted it again, or it came in out of order or whatever. I’m a Web developer, so I know these things happen.

Anyways, I may stick to in-head rants or the occasional Tweet. Sorry I didn’t get to know any of you. I think I may have jumped in the deep end at the wrong time. Internet discussions aren’t good for me, lol.

Not leaving in a huff, just… thinking it might be prudent for me to shut up!

Check out my blog if you like. And please, have a Great Day!

LLAP

your pal,
Phil

216. Hat Rick - December 12, 2012

It’s odd that my post at 211 appeared so late in this thread, as I posted it much earlier than that. It must have been deleted or erased and reposted somehow. I wrote and posted it a lot earlier than the comments I made about MOS.

217. Red Dead Ryan - December 12, 2012

A couple of thoughts:

Robert April? Really? Why would an obscure character creation by Gene Roddenberry be the villain in the sequel? And with mental powers?

Ooookkkkkaaayyy…………………….right. LOL!

Secondly, I am glad J.J Abrams is not making these movies strictly for the fans. Otherwise, we’ll have another “The Final Frontier” on our hands, and we already know how that one went down.

Now, I don’t think he should totally ignore/snub the fans either. We are his recruitment tool, if you will. We are the ones who spread the word, so that the mainstream audience sees the movie. Abrams needs the mainstream to keep the money rolling in so that we get more “Star Trek” in the future. The film has to appeal to the mainstream so that they keep coming back not just for repeat viewings of said film, but for the future films, and tv series as well.

218. No Khan - December 12, 2012

Who does JJ consider ST fans the ones that want Khan or the ones that are have no clue who he is?

Clue, Khan never cared if he was right or wrong.

219. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2012

Khan knew that he was right.

220. No Khan - December 12, 2012

15. mark paine , I hope not. This goes to extremes to have Khan in it. Just create another character for god sake!

221. raffie - December 12, 2012

Oh god, this crap again…

222. Jay - December 12, 2012

This movie clearly has something to do with Khan. While I don’t think BC is Khan, he is obviously someone other than a guy named John Harrison. There will be a reveal about his true identity at some point in the movie.

There is just no denying that there are too many links to either TWOK or Space Seed for this movie not to have something to do with Khan.

223. Tarkov2008 - December 12, 2012

When does something stop being what it is and simply becomes a brand or label?

Star Trek, in this new incarnation, is a brand — a familiar name tacked onto a generic sci-fi blockbuster.

It seems to me that the creators’ main priority is for this film to attract huge audiences and make a ton of money. They’ll do the PR rounds saying things like “it respects the fans & canon” and “the core ideals of Trek are found it it’s characters” but they aren’t starting from that premise, nor are they beholden to it. As JJ says, this isn’t a film made for Star Trek fans.

I think I would respect them more if they just stopped trying to have it both ways.

At the core of (most) of TOS and all of the Star Trek films were big, bold, humanistic ideas. No matter how they ended up being executed, or to what degree of success they had…

“can a machine consciousness evolve beyond a human one”
“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”
“how much will someone sacrifice to save a friend”
“when man was killing these creatures he was destroying his own future”
“maybe God’s not out there, maybe he’s in here”
“can mortal enemies become allies”

I didn’t see any big idea present in the 2009 film and while I’m sure this new one will have allusions to bigger themes, these filmmakers seem to be operating more from a “what would be cool to see” starting point and “what did we love about Dark Knight or Star Wars that was never in Trek” point of view as opposed to what is the best story we could tell. That’s why the premise and exposition of the 2009 universe was so convoluted that it went over my head in the theater.

What made Trek different from comic books (which have a million variations of one character and different realities showing basically the same thing) was that for 40 years every incarnation was built on a basic story foundation of what came before and stayed true to what the concept is and could do, without sacrificing story for eye candy. And yes, after a while it got old… but that doesn’t mean that you throw everything else out and keep just the label.

Why is it that Bennett, then Meyer, then Nimoy, then Berman all felt compelled to stay true to what Trek was while at the same time successfully updated it for a modern audience? Is what they achieved not possible anymore?

Trek caught on initially because it broke the mold of other sci-fi shows of the time. This new Trek is pretty much just like every other blockbuster out there. It is the mold.

Trek VI only made 60ish million and I’m still moved by in 25 years later. When I try to watch the 2009 Trek, I get bored before it’s half through.

224. Basement Blogger - December 12, 2012

I hate it when Abrams says the film was not made for Star Trek fans. It seems he’s afraid of just Star Trek fans showing up. I understand that. But the problem becomes is Abrams catering to the lowest common denominator? Will this movie be Star Trek?

One thing I wish Abrams would realize . It was Trek fans who saved the franchise. It’s his base of Star Trek fans, new, old, casual and hardcore that will make his movie a success. Have you heard George Lucas ever say, “We didn’t make this movie for Star Wars fans?” At the end of Into Darkness, I hope I can say that Bad Robot made Star Trek.

225. Jay - December 12, 2012

#223 Ugh…. i don’t get this mentality. This si just as much Star Trek as any tv show or movie that came before it called Star Trek.

Of course they want to make money. It is a buisness, and if you want to tell stories the way you want to tell them in the movies, you need alot of money. You won’t get alot of money if the movie doesn’t make alot of money for the investors.

Star Trek was desperately in need of being udpated. Being retold from the point of view of the 21st century, and not the 1960′s. I’ve been dreaming of the day that someone would take my beloved Star Trek and make a “REAL” movie with it. Something with a REAL budget and a story and characters on a large scale. Something epic.

That’s exactly what JJ and company have done and I’m thrilled. I had grown so tired of the glorified TV show on the movie screen that Star Trek movies had become. The plots were thin, characters thinner and the scale was tiny. I kept saying to myself everytime, “How was that any different or better than what they did on TV?” Like most people, when I’m going to spend good money going to the theater, I want something better than what I’ve already seen on TV.

226. Jay - December 12, 2012

#224 will all due respect, far more “Star Wars” fans turned out to see those moives. They were much bigger than Star Trek movies. That’s why you never heard George Lucas say that, because pretty much everyone liked Star Wars.

Star Trek is completely different and the audiences were shrinking along with the budgets for those movies.

It is not an insult for JJ to say that. He is basically saying he made this movie for fans of great movies, not just Star Trek fans. I am both. I love Star Trek, but I also love great movies, especially Sci-fi movies. So I for one am glad he made this movie to appeal to a wider audience… it’s something i have wanted as a Star Trek fan for years.

227. SoonerDave - December 12, 2012

One thing everyone needs to understand is that there is *no* such thing as a “pure” Trek incarnation. Its an artistic enterprise (pun not intended) to which varying kinds of talents and skills are applied, and the public judges the results.

Think about the writing squabbles on TOS, esp. w/Harlan Ellison in “COTEOF.” Think about how *stupid* “Spock’s Brain” was. The point is that holding to some “purist” notion of what Trek is “supposed” to be is a strawman to rationalize a predisposition to failure, eg “it isn’t *pure* Trek, so it must suck.”

Trek isn’t a religion, it isn’t some mystical force, its an artistic and business endeavor. Paramount thinks it can make money with it, and has handed Abrams and crew the reigns to accompilsh *precisely that*.

Why is it seemingly so hard for some to accept the intersection of art and finance, that we’re getting what looks to be a great adventure movie, and just sit back, relax, and contemplate the fact that we’re still talking about fresh, multimillion dollar productions of a nearly 50-year-old TV show?? I mean, at some point, the arguments of strangulating minutiae rapidly course into the absurd.

Too many folks seem to want to ascribe their “dislike” for AbramsTrek as some sort of moral high ground, and in all honesty that’s pretty ludicrous. Griping because Abrams Trek doesn’t reach the dramatic heights of a series that gave us “The Apple” and “Spock’s Brain?” Really?

Its a wonderful franchise that we’re getting a chance to continue enjoying. Let’s actually enjoy it.

228. Greg Stamper - December 12, 2012

Great STAR TREK is STAR TREK for All. It is that simple.

229. Jay - December 12, 2012

#227 Here here…. I completely agree.

To me, as a Star Trek fan, the fanchise just deserved so much more than what it was being given in the years before JJ Abrams took over. It was a shame what was happening to it. Bad stories and B-rate budgets. It was becoming a joke to all but the most hard-core fans.

I’m so glad that it now has what I have long thought it deserved. Serious money and focus as a franchise.

230. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

JJ Trek is mindless popcorn fun, which has its place.
But it will NEVER inspire a whole generation of kids and teens to enter into the science field as a career, Like Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, and Pillers iterations of Trek did.

It will never be a bellweatherer of what cool things we will see in the future.

But hey as long as some ADD riddeled video game obbssesed Caffine addicted teen gets his mom to go see things blow up on screen ala Bayformers, then JJ will believe he did a good job.

Sad that your so Condesending to the fan base that has made the only truly proffitable film in your short feature directing career.

Youll never convince me that Super 8 was only a 50 million dollar budget, it wasnt it was a lot higher but reported low to save face.

231. Jay - December 12, 2012

#230 lol… ok if you say so.

232. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2012

#230: “It will never be a bellweatherer of what cool things we will see in the future.”

When people have no good arguments to advance concerning the success, popularity or value of a thing they resort to this kind of pompous declaration about the unknowable future.

That’s the only reason it’s done, though the speaker may deceive themselves otherwise.

233. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

231 LOL what?

234. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

You honestly think JJ trek will inspire scientists , astronomers, Dr’s, Chemists, physicians, astronaughts etc the way Trek did for an entire generation.

Or are you just making a Smart Alex remark that has no bearing JAY,

235. thomas vinelli - December 12, 2012

@37 The problem is we live in different times. Most movies today there’s no thinking that has to be done , just watch it and let it think for you.
There’s a few every year where your have to think.
Buy this is the knew Trek , the thinking days are over. Also the trek you love were all tv shows, most 7 seasons, you just can’t get the old trek in a hour to 2 hour movie.

236. Jay - December 12, 2012

#233 I just don’t agree with anything you said. JJ is not being condescending. You have no idea if this Star Trek will inspire people into science careers,and I think alot of what Berman did was crap, so I find it amusing you think he was better than JJ.

#237 Again. I completely disagree. But to each his own.

237. Pegasus - December 12, 2012

There were so many great and exciting ideas people have been posting for months now. Lots of different twists on canon characters and how they can fit into the new universe and ways they can be adapted and enhanced and even merged…

And voila! The villain is John Harrison. Cough, cough.. I think the creativity of fans’ debates were far more exciting. The whole secrecy thing has back-fired for me. The big reveal is a total dud.

Hope the 9 min preview on Friday will revive my interest in this whole thing. I’m not too thrilled about a movie that’s just a new villain wreaking havoc. To be honest, TFF was the most exciting idea for me of all the movies, because it was framed as a story of “going out in search of God”. How exciting is THAT?? But new bad guy cause danger and trouble. Yah. Okay. Fingers crossed.

238. Peter Loader - December 12, 2012

Seriously… everything is about the dollar… Paramount is not going to invest money in a film just to satisfy a particular group of people… the bean counters are only interested in a viable product that will turn them a profit… that’s it in a nutshell… and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

For Star Trek to survive on the big screen it simply has to be entertaining to a wider audience. The people at Paramount, JJ and the writers understand this.

239. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

234 I dont agree with that statement, now some people might be willing to think that way, but it doesnt mean ALL movies have to dumb themselves down to the audience.

You dont see Peter Jackson Dumbing down the Hobbit do you?
Or see Steven Spielberg dumbing down The Adventures of Tin TIn
Or see Tarentino dumbing down his movies, or Scorsese his films, or Mendes dumbing down Bond do you?

And just because a movie brings in a lot of money doesnt mean its popular does it (Transformers revenge of the Fallen)

240. Sebastian S. - December 12, 2012

# 162 TheLastVulcan~

Took the words right out of my keyboard… ;-)

Even when the movie is on DVD/bluray the “Khannabes” will be still-framing it for shots where Cumberbatch looks vaguely like Ricardo Montalban in certain scenes (when the light hitting his face is juuuuuust right and the shadows are at a certain angle). For them? THAT will be the definitive proof, no matter how many times the character is called by the name “John Harrison.”

I think for the Khannabes here on this site it’s more about them being right and the rest of us being wrong than it is about what would fit, make sense or make for a good movie….

As long as they’re right. Logic be damned…. ;-)

241. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

I work in Theatrical distribution-research and collecting data on how the audience responds to films, for one and one of the biggest headaches is convincing the studio executives that most people dont think like you do Peter Loader. But because there are a few of those like you out there, they wrongly think the general public prefers dumbing down.

242. Pegasus - December 12, 2012

#240… you know what? maybe it’s about people putting a ton of effort into a complete and total haox/joke and just not wanting to feel like they wasted their time. I’d say the lie that was told, that the villain was canon, was mean-spirited. So we’re human.. we don’t like to feel like garbage, waste, when we put effort and thought and time into a giant falsehood. So sue us.

243. Tarkov2008 - December 12, 2012

#233 & 238 Totally on the mark… this debate is about the Hollywood need to dumb something of substance down to eye-candy and spectacle in order to appeal to a mass audience.

I get that the studio wants to make money. Don’t you think the studio needed to make money when they made the past Trek movies? Sure they could never achieve Star Wars box office… and if that’s the really reason — that JJ and friends feel that they can’t make 300 million and retain the foundation of what a good Trek story has been and is… then the audience — and especially Trek fans should be demanding more.

For those that are happy and fine with new Trek being little popcorn movie, that’s fine… it’s entertainment after all and if it does just that, then its succeeded.

But… in this case, it is not living up to it’s potential or it’s legacy.

244. Peter Loader - December 12, 2012

241 Rocketeer

Who said anything about dumbing down Trek? I don’t want a dumbed down version of Trek and we haven’t had one yet. The last movie was epic on a grand scale and delivered on more levels than any previous Trek movies.

245. MJ - December 12, 2012

@243 Jesus Christ, what and elitist bunch of snobbery. Must be great being you to be able to mock all of us little peons who like JJ-Trek?

I hope you skip the movie – I don’t want any snobs in my theater.

246. Tarkov2008 - December 12, 2012

@244 Transformers, Battleship, and Clash of the Titans were movies of a grand and epic scale and were still pretty dumb.

247. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

241 parking the enterprise underwater because it looks cool is dumbing down. if the villian is Khan and they do even in part what some of you suggest, that is dumbing down.

And I am sorry but the last movie didnt deliver anywhere near to what TWOK, VOYH,UDC, deliverd

hopefully thats not the case and its more than what it currently appears but, not expecting much anymore.

248. MJ - December 12, 2012

@247. Are you responding to yourself?????

249. Peter Loader - December 12, 2012

246
Agreed. So what’s you point? There will always be “dumb” movies.

250. Tarkov2008 - December 12, 2012

@245 Add to the debate, don’t hurl easy insults.

In past decades Hollywood made big budget movies that appealed to the masses — The Godfather, Jaws, The Exorcist — all were well made, story driven blockbusters and one can argue whether they bastardized their source material or not, but what they didn’t do is use style over substance.

These days it’s the reverse. What I’m saying is that we need a little more balance… and while I can agree that Trek needed revitalization, it’s how it’s being done that I question.

251. MJ - December 12, 2012

@246. None of those movies were grand at all.

Grand: “stately, majestic, or dignified; highly ambitious or idealistic: magnificent or splendid; noble or revered.

Trek 2009 was Grand, however,

Given your posts, and that “grand” requires “noble or revered,” I can state unequivocally that you sir are not grand.

252. K-7 - December 12, 2012

Tarkov2008:

The Exorcist??? Really???

You just lost all credibility for me here with that comment.

253. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

250 but that is his MO he doesnt know how to do anything else, except insult and bait people. and it works :(

254. Peter Loader - December 12, 2012

247

In my opinion I would think that a starship would be able to stand the stresses underwater. Were given no indication of how deep she has been, probably just a few meters below the surface. The Enterprise withstood the stress of a black hole for a while in the last film. A dunking in the water would be nothing compared to that.

Visually it would look cool I agree.

255. K-7 - December 12, 2012

So Rocketeer, of course you are not baiting people at all by showing up on Trekmovie.com and saying how dumb Trek 2009 is. No, of course YOU are not baiting anyone. ;-)

BTW, are you and Tarkov 2008 the same person? It looks like you meant to be Tarkov2008 in post #247, in responding to Rocketeer. Are you pretending to be two people agreeing with each other?

256. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

Dare I ask whats wrong with The Exorcist K-7
this i am going to love fromm mr film Auteur himself

257. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

K-7 why not ask Anthony to check the IP addresses. If you really think i am sock puppeting geesh you sure do love to accuse people of that who dont agree with you.
No iam not the same person and other posts on this thread have since
been deleted hence why my post appears to be responding to myself.

258. Tarkov2008 - December 12, 2012

@255 — Rocketeer is not the same person as me… sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theories. I just happened to agree with his comment about other directors not dumbing down properties.

The tone of this place makes me pine for the days where it was all face to face and the debate was “human-fusion Klingons” vs Imperial Klingons.

Damn.

259. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

I am biting my tounge not say how i really feel, I honestly think i am done with this site, Congrats MJ, (you live up to what shatner said that stands for) and K-7 you guys won go pat yourself on the back.
Iam done and wont be returning here again again. blocking the page in my internet settings.

So sad that you just can’t respect other peoples opinons, and think its only yours that count.

very sad, i would hate to know you in the real world.

260. Rocketeer - December 12, 2012

One more thing that got cut off, I just want to say that little abortion joke you made yesterday MJ was the most classless disqusting vile thing, i have ever read, I prey you and your family never have to go through that or make that decision in real life.

I am done and gone forever

261. WicketSC - December 12, 2012

@ 259. Rocketeer

“Iam done and wont be returning here again again. blocking the page in my internet settings.”

Promise?

Somehow I think the blocking will only last for a few hours.

262. MJ - December 12, 2012

@260. Hey “Einstein,” that “abortion joke” you referenced, that Rose legitimately got so upset about, was from another poster, NOT ME!

You accusations are as off-base as your mean-spirited comments on JJ-Trek. See ya, and please keep your promise to never come back. Good riddance!

263. Bob Tompkins - December 12, 2012

Couldn’t have said it better myself…
http://io9.com/5967942/dear-jj-abrams-just-ing-tell-us-who-benedict-cumberbatch-is-playing-in-star-trek-2-already

264. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 12, 2012

The comment about pregnancy, abortion and superficiality was made by Phil, not MJ.

“parking the enterprise underwater because it looks cool is dumbing down.”

Are you kidding? How is having the Enterprise able to go underwater “dumbing down”? Dumbing down what exactly? OK – there are some who argue that the Enterprise could not withstand the pressures of being underwater, especially in a deep ocean and others who say “Yes, it could”.

However, the concept is fantastic and really imaginative. As I wrote somewhere here, the idea that the starship Enterprise could actually be able to explore an alien sea is really great. There is nothing dumb about that at all. Think of the possibilities. Ye of small minds and zero imagination!

265. Face The Face - December 12, 2012

@Gracian: Who said that you and everybody else that hated the last movie have to see the new movie? Wouldn’t it be better for you to stick to the DVD sets of the older shows and the fan productions instead of bitching like big babies about the current official productions?

266. Romulus - December 12, 2012

The only trek Flick for the fans was TMP

267. Face The Face - December 12, 2012

@K-7: Where did you get that idea?

268. Basement Blogger - December 13, 2012

@ 264

Hey Keachick,

J.J. Abrams just explained why it’s important for a villain to have motivation.

269. Rose (as in Keachick) - December 13, 2012

Of course, we all need some form of motivation to get stuff done.

270. Jack - December 13, 2012

The worst of Trek was the stuff made for the fans, or by fans (Nemesis).

The best of it didn’t use a ‘Trek must be’ formula, either existed before ‘fans ‘ (as opposed to viewers) or simply didn’t consider them, and told damn good stories.

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