Shatner: JJ Abrams Gave Audience What Early Star Trek Movies Couldn’t + UPDATE: Also Jokes Abrams is ‘Pig’ For Taking Star Wars Too | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner: JJ Abrams Gave Audience What Early Star Trek Movies Couldn’t + UPDATE: Also Jokes Abrams is ‘Pig’ For Taking Star Wars Too February 10, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Celebrity,Shatner,ST09 Cast , trackback

On Friday William Shatner’s voice will be heard in the animated feature Escape From Planet Earth. While doing publicity for the movie, Bill again weighed in on the new Star Trek, this time heaping praise on director JJ Abrams and the new Kirk, Chris Pine. More details (and video) below.   [UPDATE: Another video interview added with Shatner joking Abrams is a 'pig']

 

 

Shatner Talks JJ Trek Tech & Pine’s Blue Eyes

During the Escape from Planet Earth press junket Bill spoke to to Clevver Movies about JJ Abrams taking on Star Wars (Bill noted "how much money he making!?”). Bill also answered a question on what he thought of JJ Abrams take on Star Trek, saying:

He’s a wonderful director. He’s discovered the way of giving the audience a ride in Star Trek which is what the early Star Trek movies didn’t have–we didn’t have the technology and the people–even the primitive technology of doing that. But now that the computers have taken over in epic films, he knows how to do that. So he is on the right level.

Shatner also opined on Chris Pine’s portrayal of Kirk, saying:

He’s wonderful. He is a wonderful young man and wonderful actor. Great blue eyes…he’s got the star thing. It’s the blue eyes.

 video

Shatner plays General Shanker, head of Area 51 and the bad guy in Escape from Planet Earth. Here is a trailer for the movie.

UPDATE: Shatner jokes Abrams is ‘pig’ for taking on Star Wars and Star Trek

From the same exact junket, Shatner took a tongue-in-cheek dig at Abrams.  Here is what Shatner had to say to MovieFanatic about JJ Abrams taking on Star Wars in addition to Star Trek…

He’s being a a pig. He is collecting the two franchises and holding them close to his vest. He is probably the most talented director of that ilk we have. But he’s gone too far this time. I think of him as a buddy of mine. I have taken him out for sushi. I think it is time for JJ and I to have another sushi and let me put him straight about two of the largest franchises and not employing me in either one of them is just foolhardy.

Watch the video below:

Soon after this video hit the web, Shatner followed up with a tweet making light of it and again offering sushi to Abrams:

 

Comments

1. Historian_Levi - February 10, 2013

Very Classy Bill!
Thanks for all your years of entertaining

2. pilotfred - February 10, 2013

cool,nice words for shatner,still if the patern hold he will now bitch and the new film or ask why he is not in it

3. The Observer - February 10, 2013

He sure keeps himself busy.

4. MJ - February 10, 2013

Finally, it seems like he’s ready to move on and make peace with not being “the man” in Star Trek anymore. I am close to to respecting him again. If this good behavior from him continues, I will once again come to love the guy…all will be forgiven.

5. Historian_Levi - February 10, 2013

Observer,
he does indeed. We hosted the premiere for Escape from Planet Earth 3D at the Chinese6 last saturday. Its a pretty good animated film.
I enjoyed his role as well. He is definately one of the hardest working people in the biz.

Wish I could attend his charity horse show again this year, but have an event at work preventing it.

6. Trekker5 - February 10, 2013

Love the Shat! And he’s right,love Chris’ blue eyes! :)

7. Dee - lvs moon' surface - February 10, 2013

Oh yes the awesome blue eyes, even with glasses… CP is gorgeous with those glasses, definitely!!!

Mr. Shatner always rocks! MBB ;-) :-)

8. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 10, 2013

Two Kirks – a win-win scenario!

9. Spock - February 10, 2013

Good for Shatner! Now if only he and George Takei could make peace w/ each other. :(

10. Phil - February 10, 2013

Shat seems a little bi-polar about Trek. Embracing it one minute, bewildered about it the next. Hopefully he’s at peace that the ship has sailed…..

11. Marcelo - February 10, 2013

His praise of JJ is somewhat of a backhanded compliment, that the new movie gave fans “a ride” – as opposed to the thoughtful, meaningful, symbolic, groundbreaking Trek he did. I guess that’s the best we’ll get out of him on that. I’m glad he’s found something he can say that’s diplomatic in a situation where he clearly felt slighted.

On the other hand, I love that he’s so nice about Chris Pine. You can also see this in The Captains. He truly respects Pine and vice versa. Pine deserves it to, IMO he’s the best thing about the reboot, him and Urban.

12. Jack - February 10, 2013

11. “His praise of JJ is somewhat of a backhanded compliment, that the new movie gave fans “a ride” – as opposed to the thoughtful, meaningful, symbolic, groundbreaking Trek he did”

Yep.

13. CAPT KRUNCH - February 10, 2013

I remember when TREK 5 came out and all you heard was the theaters
Why Are They Putting Seatbelts In Theaters This Summer???? I believe he was implying it was going to be a ride…I rather think it would keep people from walking out half way through the movie!… I was watching SHAT on Twilight Zone episode Nick of Time…he was so awesome and looked so good playing the paranoid supersticious DonCarter shoving pennies on the fortune telling machine “mystic seer”…classic!… Also watched his comedy roast on youtube and wow he has done some crazy stuff as well as classics!….Rocketman???!!!

14. GarySeven - February 10, 2013

#11 :
“His praise of JJ is somewhat of a backhanded compliment, that the new movie gave fans “a ride” – as opposed to the thoughtful, meaningful, symbolic, groundbreaking Trek he did. I guess that’s the best we’ll get out of him on that.”
That is correct. Shatner has Abrams’ Star Trek spot on, and always has. It’s the best we’ll get out of him because it is the best statement that can possibly be made. Shatner has it spot on. Abrams’ Trek is Star Wars (not Trek) at its best- an exciting ride, but not particularly thoughtful or meaningful.

15. Driver - February 10, 2013

Maybe JJ will give Shatner role in the new Star Wars film.

16. Red Dead Ryan - February 10, 2013

#14.

I gotta disagree with you. “Star Trek” 09 I thought was meaningful, and very thoughtful. Kirk’s birth, and the meeting between him and Spock Prime best exemplify this.

Shatner may have offered a somewhat positive review, but I still get the sense he’s a little bitter towards J.J Abrams.

17. chrisfawkes.com - February 10, 2013

Shatner has not bitched about not appearing in the new Trek movie but that doesn’t stop dim wits thinking that he has.

If he gets asked questions by the media re Trek he has to respond or appear rude. And given who he is he will be constantly asked for his opinion on Trek.

The fool brigade interprete that to mean he can’t stop talking about Trek himself.

18. Devon - February 10, 2013

” Abrams’ Trek is Star Wars (not Trek) at its best- an exciting ride, but not particularly thoughtful or meaningful.”

No matter what you say, no matter how hard you say it, no matter with what insults you put it in it, it is a Star Trek film. You are absolutely powerless to declare otherwise. Sorry kid.

19. Dunsel Report - February 10, 2013

Can’t remember much that was markedly more thoughtful or cerebral about “First Contact.”

20. WillH85 - February 10, 2013

JJ’s Trek is epic, that’s something the first 10 really couldn’t be. It’s the tradeoff, though. We lose what made them feel really like “Trek” but the franchise lives on and gets a wider audience.

21. Red Dead Ryan - February 10, 2013

I think the new Trek movies do feel “Trekky”, just in a more modern fashion. There is a more epic feel to them, and much more visual and visceral.

For the most part, the first ten movies were talky, slower paced, somewhat cheesy at times, and were operating on a small budget with little in the way of ground-breaking effects (aside from the Genesis Project video). And most of those movies are dated.

22. MJ - February 10, 2013

@21. Agreed, but the funny thing is that TMP itself holds up the best over time. It seems the least dated, yet is the oldest movie.

23. Red Dead Ryan - February 10, 2013

And I do enjoy watching the previous movies, especially TWOK, TSFS, and FC.

Its just that kind of filmmaking wouldn’t cut it today. As much as like Nick Meyer, he would be out of place directing a Trek movie after what J.J Abrams has managed to pull off. I believe even he admitted that today’s CGI would be beyond his grasp.

Meyer is a terrific writer, and I wouldn’t have a problem at all with him coming back as such, but not as a director.

He’s old school, and Abrams is new school. Nothing wrong with that, its just the way it is. “Star Trek” needs new school directing, and Abrams provides that in spades, just like how Christopher Nolan provided that with his “Dark Knight” trilogy.

24. Red Dead Ryan - February 10, 2013

#22.

Except for those “pyjama-style” uniforms. The visual effects do hold up reasonably well, too. Some terrific model work, and shots of the newly re-fit Enterprise. The story is still a bit too slow for my tastes, but the movie remains enjoyable to watch.

25. Anthony Thompson - February 10, 2013

I’m bored to death with Shatner’s back and forth pronouncements.

26. MJ - February 10, 2013

Yea, the story is still a bit boring, but the look is what I was referring to. It looks and feels more futuristic than the latter Trek movies, which seems odd when you think about it.

27. Harry Ballz - February 10, 2013

Shatner, in his old age, and with millions in the bank, has finally decided to be generous with his praise.

The man can still act.

You almost believe that he cares about another human being.

Well, what do you know, if you wait long enough, you WILL actually see pigs fly!

28. Jeffrey S. Nelson - February 10, 2013

I’m skeptical that Shatner has even seen the 2009 Star Trek film. He’s playing nice in my opinion.

29. GarySeven - February 11, 2013

#11- “with little in the way of ground-breaking effects (aside from the Genesis Project video). And most of those movies are dated.”
I always find it kind of amusing when people refer to current movies as “modern” and older movies as “dated,” and they point out how current movies have better special effects. Of course older movies are dated.
As time advances, EVERY movie that is now “current” will become “dated” and the effects will become much poorer. It has always been that way and always will be that way. In twenty years, Abram’s Star Trek will be “dated” and the effects will seem primitive. This is a function of all technology. The Iphone 5 will be laughable, for example.
But this really doesn’t prove anything. Star Trek (until Abrams) was always about ideas, about commenting on the human condition, about philosophy (and I don’t think that Kirk’s birth and the two Spocks were particularly rich in thought. They were moving personal stories, yes, but they were no larger comment on the human condition or society). The deeper part of Star Trek, the philosophy of the human condition, istimeless and will outlive special effects technological advancements. These are the things that last. But they can’t last in a movie like Abrams’, which is about being current with special effects and little else. Shatner was right. He said Abrams made Trek fun, but Shatner also hoped that in the future Abrams will discover that there is a great story in Star Trek to be told.

30. Jim Nightshade - February 11, 2013

when u guys mentioned the captains doc n chris pine with shat…remember the macho attempt at arm wrestling? that was soo funny…..also shat seemed a little uneasy meeting capt dave in the wheelchair backstage but dave was happy..sad to hear of his passing after shat met him again in the get a life doc that makes a good pairing with rod roddenberries great titled trek nation…

31. C. Pine - February 11, 2013

Shat’s wonderful. He is a wonderful old man and wonderful jester. Great jowls…he’s got the clown thing going. It’s those huge jowls.

32. captain_neill - February 11, 2013

I think JJ Abrams does deliver what a mainstream audience expects in a movie. he made a good film but it was more an adrenaline event movie, than a Trek movie.

I agree with some opinions of producers like Burnett, I think 40 years of knowledge was thrown out the window to give the audience a cool visual image. I mean before the film hit we all knew the Enterprise was built in space at the San Franscisco Fleet yards but in the last movie they made it be buiilt on Earth soley for that one shot of Kirk riding his motorcycle up to it to symbolise his future.

Now if Abrams gave back a bit of the thought provoking SF side of Star Trek rather than al action, bang, bang then we would have an even stronger Trek film that evoked the Trek spirit.

What Abrams has done is to give Trek a new audience and to keep it alive, as a result we are getting TNG on blu ray looking better than ever.

28

Oh with JJ Abrams crap decison for an engine room, the new movie will date even faster.

33. MJ - February 11, 2013

@32 You and I don’t change much, Captain Neill. We disagree on a lot of things, but we are consistent and true to our beliefs over time and don’t let the pressures of others move up from our positions one iota.

Yes, I am complementing you.

34. MJ - February 11, 2013

“move us”

35. starship Enterprise - February 11, 2013

SHE IS SO HOT

36. Hahaha, it's so Star Wars - February 11, 2013

#18,
Keep telling yourself that.

It’s not like the young hero wants to grow up and be just like the father he never met, it’s not like any planets get blown up by a superweapon – I also can’t remember any scenes where he meets the wise old shaman from the old days in the wilderness, only to part company with the wise guy when he says “sorry, can’t come with you – it’s not my destiny” –

Did you watch the same movie as everyone else?

37. rogerachong - February 11, 2013

As Shatner was making this statement the JJ robot Sentinels just off-camera nodded their approval. All hail JJ, all hail JJ ruler of all that is SciFi. Hey a man’s gotta eat to maintain that sexy waisteline.

38. captain_neill - February 11, 2013

Yea, I hate to be penalised just because I don’t like Abrams film as the best ever Star Trek film.

He has done it in a way that people who don’t care about Trek are talking now with great excitement and that is great. Rumour mill is going to overload and this is the kind of publicity I have always wanted Star Trek to have.

In the end I am happy for the attention and fun Abrams has given Trek, just want it to continue being Trek and not just Trek in name only.

Either I will be there on opening day and also I wish the message boards on this group were more civil. I find myself preferring trekcore these days.

39. CAPT KRUNCH - February 11, 2013

I agree..it may have not been th ebest TREK, but everybody is talking about it and at least that keeps its alive for the future. It ain’t your grandfather’s STAR TREK!….We will all complain and moan, and I very was saying some of these things in 08-09, but in the end just hearing the names Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, on the big screen, brought a tear to me eye….Wherever TREK is going, I’m on for the “ride”. Let’s just see where it takes us………..

40. Nuallain - February 11, 2013

It’d be kind of neat if Abrams cast Shatner… in Star Wars.

41. captain_neill - February 11, 2013

33

If I come out of Into Darkness and say great film, that is a Star Trek film. I will be extremely happy and proud to say it.

I am not as big a fan of Abrams version but as a movie it is fun. I have high hopes for the next one as I have heard he has addressed the issues I had problems with.

42. Dom - February 11, 2013

Yawn! Here come the whingers! It’s a remake, folks! Deal with it! Maybe it’s years of talky Berman Treks confusing some people, but while the original Star Trek had plenty of ideas, many of them were designed, ultimately, to get Kirk into a fistfight with a baddie and get him a snog with the soft-focus female guest star of the week!

The Trek snobs, as usual, think Star Trek is more important than any other franchise, when in fact it isn’t: it’s the same, but a portion of Trek fans suffer from ‘fan entitlement/nerd rage’ disorder. Star Trek’s important to the Trek snobs, but most of them have swallowed the Cult of Roddenberry nonsense that it’s anything deeper than a fun action adventure series with a dash of romance and philosophy thrown in.

The reason the older Trek movies had more jaw and less war? Budgets. If Star Trek: Generations had had an ST09 budget, you can guarantee there would have been a lot less of a grown adult captain blubbing in his quarters and a lot more action!

Abrams’ Trek is essentially the original Star Trek series on steroids. If you imagine it as a chart, the original series with its six movies and the cartoon series sit in the middle. In one direction spinning off from it you have the Berman/older Roddenberry Treks: TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and in the other we have JJ Trek. As a new version of the original Star Trek JJ’s version is terrific. The Berman Treks are their own entity and, stripped of their usage of the Trek name and Trek terminology reveal little of Star Trek in them; they’re merely a new, completely different scifi series Roddenberry sold by using the Star Trek name.

So JJ hasn’t thrown out ’40 years of Star Trek:’ he’s made a new film series based on the 79 episodes of the original show and their companion pieces, the six films and 22 cartoons. Forget the other live action shows and you’ll see ST09 shows itself to be utterly faithful to the feel of the original show.

43. Jonboc - February 11, 2013

We’ll said Dom. These JJ haters must have never laid eyes on TOS. lol Star Trek 2009 doesn’t resemble the talky-pretentious TNG or it’s spinoffs in the least. Thank God. But as far as delivering the rip-roaring, fun, action-adventure sci-fi feeling of Star Trek…in this case, “Star Trek” being THE “Star Trek”…you know, the one that started it all…it delivered in spades.

The haters just aren’t accustomed to all that excitement…I suggest they trade in their Hatorade for a hot cup of Earl Grey and settle in with a comfortable TNG episode centering on Worf and Alexander, or perhaps the trials of O’brien, his wife and little Molly.

44. captain_neill - February 11, 2013

To be honest I am warming to Abrams vision more than I did 4 years ago.

Yes JJ Abrams captures the spirit of TOS but at the same time TNG and DS9 delivered great SF. And I hate these shows being sullied because they are considered dull and pretentious just because Abrams comes with a shiny toy

Alright I will never like Abrams take as much but I am still looking forward to into darkness but I am also a fan of all the shows and I hate the TNG hate on this group.

At least the boards on trekcore are more civil.

And for the record I am not a hater, I just am not a fan of some of Abrams creative decisions. ANd I wont let my gripes with changes affect my opinion on the new film. But I do love what came before and that will never change.

45. captain_neill - February 11, 2013

And for the record I love TOS.

46. crazydaystrom - February 11, 2013

#42. Dom
Haha! ” ‘fan entitlement/nerd rage’ disorder” now added to my lexicon. TY!

47. bmar - February 11, 2013

36 – It’s not that JJ’s Trek is star wars or not. All of the story points you mentioned are basic tropes of story telling…

The son following/not following in the footsteps of his lost/estranged father… (I’m not the man I should be…)

– Michael Corleone in The Godfather…not wanting to follow his Father.
– Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams…estranged from his father.

The threatened home… (But my home/way of life is under attack…)

– The Godfather…the family is under attack and crumbling. Michael must step up and fulfill a destiny he didn’t want.
– Field of Dreams…the farm is under attack. Kevin Costner must act to save his way of life.

The wise man, who opens the protagonist’s eyes, but leaves in order for the protagonist to stand on his own… (And here is someone who can show me how to be the man I want to be, but eventually I will have to be a man on my own terms without his support…)

– The Godfather…Michael follows the Don’s wisdom but the Don dies (sorry, SPOILER) leaving Michael to defend the family on his own.
– Field of Dreams…Costner has three wise men – Ray Liotta, James Earl Jones and Burt Lancaster who help show him the way, but all of whom leave him at the end to stand on his own…

I must reconcile my feelings about my father and be at peace with myself…

– The Godfather…Michael steps into the role of Don, and becomes a powerful man.
– Field of Dreams…Kevin Costner and his father (sorry SPOILER) are reunited through their love of the game and Kevin saving his family farm and the baseball field.

Don’t fault JJ for using those ideas (nor George Lucas). If you do, you condem story telling, and probably hundreds of movies and books – the examples I gave are only two of many.

And by the way, I realize that you could quibble with my examples – yes, Michael Corleone is an anti-hero. Yes, Kevin Costner is pushed around by forces unknown to him. But in a general sense, all of those tropes are well known, well used in story telling.

48. James - February 11, 2013

I think that for their time, the original Trek movies were big, action packed spectacles. They certainly weren’t cheap movies to make and in real terms, TMP is still the film that made the most money (not profit – but in terms of ticket sales). I loved the new movie by JJ Abrams, although I concede that the asthetic was different to the previous films.

I am reviewing all the old Trek movies in the buildup to the release of Star Trek Into Darkness and have just finished my review for Star Trek IV:

http://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/

49. bmar - February 11, 2013

Oh – and apologies to Kevin Costner, James Earl Jones and Burt Lancaster for not remembering their character’s names in Field of Dreams. Of course, I’m reasonably sure that they are not reading this site. Burt Lancaster for sure.

50. Desstruxion - February 11, 2013

I vote for “Darth Shatner” in the upcoming SW films. Do not underestimate the Shat side of the force.

51. Disinvited - February 11, 2013

#16., 21. Red Dead Ryan

I’ve heard of birth on/off screen described as many things, but “thoughtful” is a new one for me. I found the scenes, you chose as epitomes of thought, to be moving. Maybe better described as poignant in every meaning of the word, but I am at a loss as to what new ideas or perspective about the universe you got from them?

When you say dated, you mean as the techniques they used in the award winning THE ARTIST?

#22. Mj

I credit Wise’s eye for how things should look on screen to evoke such a sense in the viewer.

52. Disinvited - February 11, 2013

#50. Desstruxion

I think he’d put in a good turn as the new Emperor/Head of the Sith.

But his genius would really shine in Brooks/MacFarlane’s SPACEBALLS II

53. Horatio - February 11, 2013

I think if JJ gave Shat a role in the SW movie it would be a hoot.

54. Jack - February 11, 2013

“but I am at a loss as to what new ideas or perspective about the universe you got from them?”

And what new ideas or perspectives did the TOS ‘idea’ episodes ever really give — it used age-old tropes, and the Enterprise basically brought in true (American) civilization everywhere it went. Did people in the 60s really not know that Nazis, mind control and the subjugation of the less
powerful by (computers/god-like beings/dictators) were all not cool until Trek told them so?

55. msn1701 - February 11, 2013

LOL finally :)

Thank you Mr. Shatner for the vote of confidence in nuKirk!

And I agree with Horatio – a Shatner cameo in the new SW movie would be absolutely hilarious, especially for us hardcore sci-fi fans!

56. Jack - February 11, 2013

I wish lazy reporters would stop asking him this bloody question over and over again.

57. Darmok - February 11, 2013

Regardless of wherever Star Trek goes in the future and regardless of however many incarnations of Capt Kirk there will be, Shatner will always be “the man” in Star Trek.

58. Lostrod - February 11, 2013

#56

Amen to that.

Regards.

59. Captain Ransom - February 11, 2013

Star Trek 5 was on tv this weekend….man those were the days of trek. The bond between the characters, the stories….the campfire scene at the beginning and the row your boat song – you can’t replace that stuff with special effects. JJ Abrams just doesn’t get it. Sybok was a great antagonist. The story was original. This year we are getting yet another villain out for revenge who wants to destroy the earth, making this the third film in a row. Star Trek 4 didn’t even have a villain at all and some say it is the greatest trek movie ever.

60. Tom - February 11, 2013

Get this man in the next movie!!

61. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

#59.

I hate to break it you, but “The Final Frontier” stinks. Sure it had some great Kirk-Spock-McCoy scenes, but that’s about it. And Sybok was pretty boring. I think J.J Abrams got it right with his first movie.

So now, without further ado, I’m sending you a pair of “They Live” sunglasses! Enjoy!

#44.

Yeah, yeah, yeah….blah,blah,blah……TrekCore is more civilized…if that’s the case, go there and stay there. No one will miss your constant whining. Be gone!

And don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!

(Though some of us wouldn’t mind watching that happen).

62. Lurker - February 11, 2013

@59 I watched STV this weekend too – and agree with most of what you said.

But we have to remember these new movies are the beginning of the crew we came to know and love. They don’t have the years or experiences of working with each other – and should not be compared yet to what we have seen before.

In TOS, Kirk came off as a pretty smarmy, arrogant know-it-all in some of those episodes, which didn’t change until the movies. And Abram’s Kirk is pretty much in line with the younger TV Kirk – as he should be.

63. MJ - February 11, 2013

@Sheesh, dude, are you serious? Am I reading this correctly — you are suing Star Trek 5, the worst TOS Trek movie, to point out problems with nuTrek. And the Row, Row the Boar song is your specific exampe? wtf? ;-)

Hilarious! I almost choked on my coffee here. Thanks for the unintended humor and putting a big smile on my face!

64. MJ - February 11, 2013

@62. Wow! Talk about a shitty weekend. lol

65. MJ - February 11, 2013

@59. Wow, DEJA VU. I could swear I just read this same post from you in another article here today. :-))

66. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

#29.

Let’s be honest here, most of the previous Trek movies are dated, especially in comparison to other sci-fi movies that came out around the same time.

I was watching “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” a couple of nights ago, and it really holds up quite well after twenty years. It stands the test of time. “Star Trek VI”, on the other hand, was re-dressing TNG sets, and basing its storyline on the collapse of the Soviet Union. The movie dated itself very quickly.

“Nemisis” and “Insurrection” look like low-budget basement productions in comparison to the “Star Wars” prequels and “The Matrix”, and “Independence Day”.

Also, I watched “2001: A Space Odyssey” in the theatres about nine days ago, and it was amazing. It really holds up better than most of the Trek movies, and it came out in 1968. The only thing dated is the pacing, which would be too slow for today’s audiences.

Heck, the original “Star Wars” movies are less dated than TVH, TFF, TVI, GEN, INS, and NEM. Even TMP, TWOK, TSFS, and FC are smaller-scaled movies in comparison.

Maybe that’s because the non-Trek sci-fi movies I mentioned pushed the boundaries of visual effects and storytelling, whereas Trek merely copied itself at times on the big screen.

67. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

#62.

In which episodes was Kirk ever “smarmy and arrogant”? Apart from the episode where he was split in two, of course?

I would argue that the TOS Kirk was mature and wise beyond his years. I saw no arrogance or smarminess coming from him. Chris Pine’s Kirk isn’t at that point yet, as the J.J films take place a few years after that academy and a few years prior to TOS.

Sheesh! Did you even bother watching the show? WTF?? LOL!

68. Lurker - February 11, 2013

@62. I watched Razor too – so hopefully i made up for STV a little.

69. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

Some of you people who don’t like the new movie sure do amuse me with your reasoning, and the fact that you chose TFF over it and claim it as the “better” movie!

Fascinating.

:-)

70. Captain Ransom - February 11, 2013

@62: pine’s kirk and shatner’s kirk are nothing alike. TOS kirk was a good leader, he ran a ship of discipline, and he commanded respect. pine’s kirk is reckless and not very convincing as a person that others would want to follow.

71. Lurker - February 11, 2013

#67 – Recently watched A Taste of Armageddon. And I thought Kirk came across very arrogant and presumptuous – and took a lot for granted as he did in several TOS episodes.

And before I get accused of having never watched TOS again – I will tell you that Kirk is still my favorite character – but I guess we all romanticize TOS in different ways.

72. MJ - February 11, 2013

@70. Picture TOS series Kirk, with his fatter taken away and you get nuKirk. It makes complete sense to me. Just look at most kids who become adults and see which ones had good fathers around, and which did not, and you can completely verify this.

Duh!

73. MJ - February 11, 2013

SW though looks pretty dated — looks like it took place many, many years ago in a part of space extremely far from here.

;-)

74. Captain Ransom - February 11, 2013

@63: um yeah, STV is thought the worst of all trek movies and that’s the reason i brought it up – it’s still better than Trek 09. that’s the whole point. and as far as sybok being boring – like nero wasn’t? at least sybok had a motive and a mission other than destroying earth! what was nero all about? about as boring and one-dimensional as villains get.

75. Gilberto - February 11, 2013

BatlethInTheGroin and fellow trekkers…
.
I’l explain the origin of Cumberbatch’s character’s name. Harrison means “Harold’s son”. Harry is a nickname for Harold. The origin of the name “Harold” is the word “herald”, which means “messenger”, or “the one who announces the coming of a god.”
.
Thus, Harrison is the one who preceeds Khan, announcing his arrival in the sequel: “Star Trek Into Light.”

76. Disinvited - February 11, 2013

#54. Jack

I was alive in the 1950s as well as the 1960s. You are darn tootin’ that the majority of US citizens in the 60s thought oppressing and segregating (as Hitler did non-Germans) based on skin color was just peachy keen.

King asked Nichols to stick with Trek expressly because people didn’t get these concepts you dismiss as tropes.

And yes, the Nazis were being whitewashed in the 1960s by capitalists who thought their aid was vital in spying, missiles and space to defeat the supposedly worse threat of communism. And I’m sure as Jews, Shatner and Nimoy were more than happy to remind everyone that Nazis weren’t the buffoons of HOGAN’S HEROES.

Archie Bunker came later but the ideas Lear and his writers had Bunker expose via humor to the cold hard light of reason are closer to the operating tropes of the 1960s than these fantasies you keep espousing.

77. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

#74.

I’m sorry, but calling TFF better than the last film is silly. Maybe Nero isn’t the best villain, but it doesn’t make Sybok any better.

At least Nero had reason to be angry. For a long time, Romulans were the enemy of both humans and Vulcans. The Federation made peace with the Romulans after the events of “Nemesis”, leading Nero to believe humans and Vulcans can be trusted. Therefore, when the Hobus star was going to explode, Nero sought out Spock because Spock promised he could save Romulus. Except he was too late, the star exploded, and Nero lost his home planet and family. Nero, emotionally unhinged from the experience, came to believe that Spock’s attempts to save Romulus were not genuine, and that the Federation was wanting to see the capital of its former enemy destroyed. Nero thought Spock had deliberately mislead him, and thus, made Vulcan his first target and forced him to witness its destruction before heading to Earth.

In short, Nero became vengeful after seeing the destruction of his homeworld in the light of a peace treaty with the Federation. He believed Spock deliberately failed in his mission to allow for the destruction of Romulus as a means for the Federation to achieve its “true” peace with a long-time enemy.

So yeah, once you scratch the surface, Nero’s motivations become clearer, and understandable. Does it necessarily make him the best villain? Nope. But it doesn’t make him the worst either.

78. Captain Ransom - February 11, 2013

@74 – maybe you should watch STV again. sybok was anything but angry. he wasn’t pissed at anyone or out to right some wrong – he was searching for god. that’s what made him a compelling antagonist – he wasn’t really a villain at all. he was motivated by something other than the obvious typical anger/revenge dichotomy.

79. MJ - February 11, 2013

Sorry, but while I will admit that the Nero character wasn’t as fully developed as it could have been, the Sybock character was laughable…a real groaner.

80. Buzz Cagney - February 11, 2013

#23 i’m sure Nick Meyer could quickly pick up the intricacies of shining a torch down the lens. ;)

I still think TMP is the more visually impressive movie out of all the series. None have looked so incredible on the big screen. That may just because it was the first, the standard setter, of course, or it could be because it actually did look the best.

81. tom - February 11, 2013

If not for Mr. Shatners Kirk we wouldn’t have Star Trek 47 years later. Chris Pine has the look, walk and talk. Luckily he has the respect for the shoes he is filling. Abrams never offered anything to Mr. Shatner and that is a slight as 60% of ST09 was about that Kirk. Mr. Shatner has never bashed either of the new movies nor anyone involved.

82. MJ - February 11, 2013

@80. “I still think TMP is the more visually impressive movie out of all the series. None have looked so incredible on the big screen. That may just because it was the first, the standard setter, of course, or it could be because it actually did look the best.”

Hey, we finally agree on something, Buzz. Paradoxically, since it is the oldest movie, TMP has actually aged less than the Trek movies that came after it.

83. William Kirk - February 11, 2013

I 100% prefer TFF to ST09.

84. MJ - February 11, 2013

@81 “Mr. Shatner has never bashed either of the new movies nor anyone involved.”

“It doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had”
— William Shatner

You were saying, tom?

85. MJ - February 11, 2013

@83. Never seen you post here before. Interesting.

86. Ted C - February 11, 2013

When did this ridiculous trend start calling William Shatner “Shat” or worse “The Shat”? Can we please stop for god’s sake. Enough already.

87. BeatleJWOL - February 11, 2013

@86

Whyever would you want that, The Ted?

88. MJ - February 11, 2013

@86. Enough with the ridiculous use of “Ted C.” Come one, we should be using your full name how…this is just freaking ridiculous…for Christ’s sake, please get with the program!!!

89. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 11, 2013

Of course, the other big controversy on this site has to do with 3D. This was posted about 10 hours ago and some may find interesting –

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a449669/jj-abrams-i-was-forced-to-make-star-trek-into-darkness-in-3d.html

90. lostrod - February 11, 2013

#84 – MJ

““It doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had”
— William Shatner”

Really? You consider that bashing?

If so, how should some of your comments about Mr. Shatner be classified?

As far as I can recall, the actor’s observations on ST09 have been complimentary and diplomatic (in response to some baited questions about his involvement).

If you can find a quote where he actually “bashed” the movie, then by all means share it.

Regards.

91. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

#89.

That was already reported by this site several months ago.

#86.

Hey, Einstein, William Shatner is okay being called “the Shat”.

92. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

I think J.J Abrams should have offered the hologram scene role to Shatner.

If Shatner had turned it down because it wasn’t a long enough scene, or he was asking for too much money, it would have been all on him.

But he might have accepted the role had he been offered it.

For some reason, J.J Abrams and William Shatner don’t seem to like each other. Perhaps Shatner took Abrams’ non-offer as a snub.

93. DiscoSpock - February 11, 2013

#90 / Lostrod

If that comment by Shat is complementary, then that is perhaps the most piss-poor example of a complement that I have ever heard.

He basically said that Trek 09 was shallow and had no heart.

Is that bashing. Hell, yes!

94. Disinvited - February 11, 2013

#89. Rose (as in Keachick)

That’s an old (for me) SFX article that I recall noting after reading:

He equivocates “The opposite can be true.” He doesn’t say “Well, what Paramount did to my 2D movie proves the opposite is true.”

If Shatner had said “The 2009 movie didn’t take away from all the Trek before it.”, people in thi thread would be all over him for the backhanded compliment, and that’s the way Abrams’ statement reads to me.

It’s kind of like when a film artist grits his teeth and tries to sell that the way the studio cut and censored his baby for network television and comercials, hasn’t harmed its integrity and he hopes the viewing audience enjoys it.

95. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 11, 2013

Correction: the link I posted re Star Trek being in 3D was first published on Wednesday, 9 January 2013.

I do not recall ever reading this quote by JJ Abrams:

“I have trouble with 3D sometimes. I can’t see it right; I get a headache; it annoys me; I hate the glasses; I hate the fact that things get so dim,” he explained.”

96. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 11, 2013

#95 – What are talking about? The article about JJ doing STID in 3D and the comments made by William Shatner are completely separate issues.

Oh dear…I was in error to have posted the link in the first place.

“and that’s the way Abrams’ statement reads to me.”
What Abrams’ statement? Don’t you mean Shatner’s statement?

I am sorry, but your post is not making sense.

97. Cervantes - February 11, 2013

# 40 Nuallain suggested:

‘It’d be kinda neat if Abrams cast Shatner… in Star Wars.’

Sure, a brief appearance in that franchise in some capacity might indeed be a bit of fun. But personally, I reckon it would have been even neater if Abrams had cast Shatner… in Star Trek.

Unfortunately, J.J. and co. were either completely unwilling or unable to come up with a workable way to re-unite a ‘Prime Kirk’ Shatner in a still alive, post-‘Generations’ appearance with Nimoy for their initial ‘TOS’-inspired reboot. Fair enough, although I still reckon that was a very missed opportunity on the maker’s part, and would have been a worthier subplot than some of the stuff that DID end up onscreen.

However, as even the possibility of a brief pre-‘Generations’ holographic appearance was not forthcoming either…then I’m now firmly rooting for ‘Finn’s recent suggestion of a 3rd NuTrek storyline briefly featuring ‘older versions’ of Pine and Quinto’s NuKirk and NuSpock…played by Shatner and Nimoy!

…’whatever’ the cause of the ‘elderly’ transition, it wouldn’t need to last too long before they revert back to their ‘younger’ forms as Pine and Quinto…and a lot of fun could be had in the meantime…

I’d far rather see something along THOSE lines, than see Shatner possibly offered a morsel in J.J.’s ‘other’ franchise.

Just my 2 cents.

98. MJ - February 11, 2013

@93 “Lostrod, if that comment by Shat is complementary, then that is perhaps the most piss-poor example of a complement that I have ever heard. He basically said that Trek 09 was shallow and had no heart. Is that bashing. Hell, yes!”

Thanks Disco for hitting this one out of park and saving me from having to respond to Lostrod.

99. Disinvited - February 11, 2013

#98. Rose (as in Keachick)

The numbering is off by deletions again but I hope I can clarify.

I was replying to your 3D link in a Shatner thread post. Trying to make it relevant by recouching JJ’s last quote in the article as a Shatneresque comment on the 2009 movie to reveal it as the backhanded compliment that I believe Abrams was giving the 3D conversion process.

As for his complaints with 3D that you quoted, I have the same problems when they are too dimly lit.

100. Jonboc - February 11, 2013

#98 “Thanks Disco for hitting this one out of park and saving me from having to respond to Lostrod”

Talking to yourself again MJ? ;)

101. Devon - February 11, 2013

“I 100% prefer TFF to ST09.”

You prefer Feces to Steak? You really have no merit to speak of.

102. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

#101.

LOL!

103. lostrod - February 11, 2013

Disco and MJ:

I don’t want to belabor this, but apparently we disagree on the definition of “bashing”. The dictionary defines it as:

Noun
1.Violent physical assault.
2.Severe criticism.

In my opinion (opinion, not fact), the actor saying he believes the original series had more soul than ST09 does not qualify as bashing. Apparently you feel differently. So be it.

However, I do believe that statements such as one made by you, MJ:

“Sure Shat, JJ knows exactly what to do with you. In your present shape sir, he is ready to offer you the role of Jabba the Hutt in SW E7″

more closely fit the definition of bashing (as in severe criticism).

MJ – you have demonstrated the capacity of providing an incredible amount of insightful commentary on this forum. You have probably accounted for the majority of the posts here, I dare say.

Most of those are great reading and I agree with most of them. It’s just that when you resort to personal insults (most of them seemed to aimed at Mr. Shatner) that I have to disagree.

As you’re fond of saying – you’re better than that.

Regards,
Regards,

104. Trekbilly - February 11, 2013

I don’t care what anyone says. William Shatner is THE MAN. He portrayal of Kirk was one of the big influences in my life and I feel like he’s been with me every step of the way through life.

Mr. Shatner if you are ever on here reading: Thanks for all you’ve given us — not only Trek fans, but fans of science fiction in general!

105. MJ - February 11, 2013

@103. Lostrod, if you want to turn this into have I bashed William Shatner here in the past, then I plead guilty. You have me dead-to-rights — cha-ching!

So what’s your point concerning me? Last time I checked, I’m not acting in STID, nor did I act in TOS or any Trek series for that matter. I am just a guy posting here.

Not getting your comparison, dude?

106. MJ - February 11, 2013

@100. Johboc, you are here to protect Shat AGAIN and claim I have sockpuppets AGAIN as usual. You are nothing if predictable, my old friend.

You and Lostrod are killing me here — guys, I actually had a very positive post in #4 above on Shat. Don’t I get some credit here from you Shat Police that at least I am making the effort to move to a more positive view of the guy given his latest comments?

107. Lostrod - February 11, 2013

#103 – MJ:

“So what’s your point concerning me? Last time I checked, I’m not acting in STID, nor did I act in TOS or any Trek series for that matter. I am just a guy posting here.”

I’m just a guy posting here as well :)

My point was that you used Mr. Shatner’s comments about ST09 not having as much soul as TOS as an example of bashing and I simply disagreed with you.

That’s about it, dude.

Moving on.

Regards.

108. MJ - February 11, 2013

@107. OK!

Dude, I’m really trying to forgive the guy (Shat) and move on with better feelings towards him given his latest positive comments.

109. Lostrod - February 11, 2013

#108:

“Dude, I’m really trying to forgive the guy (Shat) and move on with better feelings towards him given his latest positive comments”

I’ll be rooting for you, MJ. Maybe you can create a support group and invite Mr. Takei? :)

Regards.

110. ifoogivewoo - February 11, 2013

Christ, don’t you people get his schtick already? And so what if he ever bitches about Star Trek? It will forever mark him, he can say what he pleases about it. “Forgive”, blah blah blah.

111. Christ - February 11, 2013

#110. Thanks for directing your post to me specifically. I am all about forgiveness, actually. God Bless You, my son.

112. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - February 11, 2013

Wow! Talk about inferring what you want to hear. I think Shatner’s comments were extremely safe and neutral. He neither really praises nor criticizes. Saying a Jeep is the right vehicles for an offroad adventure isn’t really complimenting the Jeep. It’s just acknowledging the Jeep has what it takes for the task at hand. You might still hate the way it drives, or love the ride! But Shatner isn’t saying.

At least, that’s what I’m inferring ;-)

But it makes sense that Bill’s hurt feelings would eventually abate, or that he’d at least learn to better hide his hurt and be more careful about what he says.

I just can’t hate Bill. I don’t care for some of his work (TFF), and I find him very flawed, but also very human.

113. Trekkiegal63 - February 11, 2013

#54 Jack:

And what new ideas or perspectives did the TOS ‘idea’ episodes ever really give — it used age-old tropes, and the Enterprise basically brought in true (American) civilization everywhere it went. Did people in the 60s really not know that Nazis, mind control and the subjugation of the less powerful by (computers/god-like beings/dictators) were all not cool until Trek told them so?

This again, really?

I’ll save the pointing out that the 1960’s was the height of the Civil Rights movement and the Cold War and how quite a number of people still held antiquated and blatantly wrong views on subjugation and were led by fear (ever been to the backyard of an older built home that had a custom made bomb shelter in the backyard? There are several scattered across the US, let me tell you. In fact, we used to have ‘air raid’ drills in school) because Disinvented already covered that, and did a wonderful job of it. So instead I’ll address the ‘age old tropes’ insult you’ve so carelessly flung.

I could point out that episodes like “Dagger of the Mind” predated such films as “Clockwork Orange” (though not the novel). Or “A Taste of Armageddon” predated “The Matrix”. I could. And it would be a damn good argument because, simply put, plots like these had NOT been seen before on television in the 1960’s. But instead I’ll just quote this article called “Star Trek: Where No Sci-fi Show Has Gone Before” from whatculture.com (http://whatculture.com/tv/star-trek-where-no-sci-fi-show-has-gone-before.php), because the author sums it up beautifully

Although today critics often ridicule the original Star Trek for its plywood and styrofoam sets and campy acting, they often fail to recognize that at the time the show was groundbreaking television. TOS was the first television series aimed at adults to tell sophisticated morality tales and to depict a paramilitary crew on a peaceful mission to explore the galaxy. Its stories were often written by highly regarded science fiction authors, and by the standards of the day, Star Trek was quite advanced and it effectively raised the bar. Science fiction television shows and movies that followed it had to meet its standards of quality and maturity in order to be taken seriously.

New ideas, indeed. Very much so. And this isn’t even mentioning the inventions Star Trek inspired (you own a cell phone, Jack? Kindly google the name Martin Cooper, then read what inspired him) or the engineers and pilots and astronauts who owe their inspiration to TOS. You’re doing them ALL a disservice with such a post.

114. MJ - February 11, 2013

@113. Dude, this is one of the best posts I have ever read on this site.

And I agree with every word of it….100%

O U T S T A N D I N G ! ! ! ! !

115. Shilliam Watner (Click Name for Trek Poster) - February 11, 2013

113. Trekkiegal63 – HECK YEAH!!!

116. Lostrod - February 11, 2013

#113: Trekkiegal63:

Nicely said!

Regards.

117. K-7 - February 11, 2013

Trekkiegal63,

Awesome! Wow!

Poor Jack is toast.

118. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2013

Yup, Jack just got K-Oed!

119. Buzz Cagney - February 11, 2013

#82 yes I did notice we were in agreement there! I almost didn’t make the post when I realised our thoughts were in alignment! My shrink has told me to not let it worry me! :-p ;-)

I’m even more shocked to see you are giving Shat a bit of slack rather than believing all the negative stuff about him!
Maybe there’s hope for us both! :-D

120. MJ - February 12, 2013

@119. Yea, man!!! Try to have an open mind about STID. Maybe we can meet half way this year!

Cheers!

121. Vultan - February 12, 2013

#113

Well put, sir, and here’s Martin Cooper to explain in the excellent “How William Shatner Changed the World!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN-_VA5HFwM

122. Vultan - February 12, 2013

#113

Oh, just saw your screen name. That should be “ma’am” and not “sir.” Sorry for going Turnabout Intruder on you.

123. Disinvited - February 12, 2013

#113. Trekkiegal63.

Thank you. Excellent coda. Since all the other boxing themed praises are spent, I suppose I’ll have to settle for “You really cleaned his clock!”

124. crazydaystrom - February 12, 2013

Off Topic but –
John Cho and his wife Kerri welcomed a bouncing baby girl to their family, aawwww!
Congratulations John!!!

125. BatlethInTheGroin - February 12, 2013

#92: “For some reason, J.J Abrams and William Shatner don’t seem to like each other.”

That’s a completely ridiculous assertion that only stirs up unnecessary controversy. It’s obvious the exact opposite is true.

126. Yanks - February 12, 2013

Nice jesture from “The Shat”.

And for all you conspiracy theorists that think Bill has it in for JJ and/or Chis you’re nuts.

Watch “The Captains”.

127. bmar - February 12, 2013

Oy vey. Can there be one article on this site that doesn’t devolve into sniping at each other? JJ vs. old trek, pro-shatner vs anti shatner, khan theorists vs non-khan theorists. Honestly, it’s getting old.

There was a time that I used to come to this site frequently and post frequently, secure in the knowledge that it wasn’t about polar opposites here and bashing people. We talked about trek, had some fun digging deeper into what it all means, speculated on what the movie would be about, drooled over little bits of info, and occasionally had some fun interacting with Bob Orci, JJ and even Nimoy a couple of times.

Now the place seems to be controlled by fairly nasty discourse between a very few – all of whom consider their opinions righteous and infallible. Oh, and between that – people bitching about when Anthony disappears for a while.

I won’t say “can’t we all just get along” because it’s not human nature, but jeez, folks. It’s a public forum. It’s trek. It ain’t life and death, and it’s certainly not so important that we must tear each other apart. Not every word that comes out of Shatner’s, or JJ’s or Bob Orci, or ANYONE’S mouth needs to be picked apart, searched for hidden meaning or spun.

I’m sure the inevitable comment will follow this one – “if you don’t like it, then leave” – but, you know, that’s not always the answer.

Would like to stay, if you don’t mind.

128. Tom - February 12, 2013

#97 Cervantes

I do like all the ideas to make this happen. However although there is nothing that says you cant do it for a third movie, i believe the best opportunity was in these first 2. After the Shatner appearance did not happen i recall JJ saying perhaps it could happen in the second. Now that it wont happen again , I believe the chances are getting extremely slim. Of course there is the 50th anniversary that might bring a nostalgic thought to a heart tugging scene between Bill and Leonard. If so get it done soon.

129. Jovius the Romulan - February 12, 2013

Trekkiegal63: Spot on. I hate it when people dismiss Star Trek out of hand. One doesn’t have to like it, but at least recognize its innovations in terms of both television and science fiction elements that are common now and how it inspired others!

May I just give kudos that no one on this site has tried to flirt with or hook up with her yet? Glad to know that women are finally accepted as being over half the Trek fandom and not treated as “fake nerds”.

130. sean - February 12, 2013

Shatner has said he and JJ have gone out for sushi numerous times and he considers JJ a friend.

Let it go, people.

131. Still tired - February 12, 2013

John Cho, like me, just welcomed a child into the world.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/star-treks-john-cho-wife-welcome-daughter-145553996.html

132. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 12, 2013

Poor Jack. Although I don’t necessarily agree with him, in this respect, he is not the only person who is of this opinion.

I think it may have something to do with the particular upbringing for
him and individuals like him. A frequent poster to another site would agree with him and I think this is because her upbringing (i.e. parents being more politically and socially aware than most in that time – the 1960s) has made her from an early age aware of notions (like racism, the horror of war, discussion of morality and ethics) that many people never considered, or felt was not of great importance for them personally, or agreed with (like racial segregation). Therefore, for her, Star Trek TOS did not say anything that was not obvious to her already.

Just saying…

133. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 12, 2013

Congratulations to John Cho and wife Kerri. Very cool!

134. Eliasj - February 12, 2013

Just because a flick is a moneymaker…The whole concept means nothing!Its made for consumers..like you and me. Its like Pop corn. Star Trek has a big legacy and passionate fans. Now that’s something mentioning for!

135. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2013

#120 I have a semi-open mind, MJ, regarding the new movie. I give it that because of the pleasure ST’09 gave me at a time that I really needed some escape from certain events in my life. Watching a Trek movie with Kirk and Spock and Bones in it was very therapeutic. Unfortunately that movie leaves me largely unmoved now. In fairness it may be because i’ve seen it too many times. Or it may be I can’t forgive the flaws that I see in it now.
And the Original crew very much are the actors that played them. As good as the new actors are they will never be Shatner or Nimoy or Kelley. I don’t think anybody could expect them to be. But, to me they are youngsters play acting. That they do it with obvious reverence largely saves the day though, and I thank god it didn’t descend into some kind of Starsky and Hutch type remake.
So an open mind, certainly, yes, I am trying to. Unmoved as yet and to be convinced? Definitely. But then the team making the movie know we won’t just roll over and have our belly tickled so the ball is in their court.

136. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2013

#131 and congratulations to you too, Still Tired. The perfect name for a new parent! Constantly Tired But Very Happy might suit you better!
Anyway, every happiness to you.

137. MJ - February 12, 2013

@131. Congratulations!!!!!

138. Still tired - February 12, 2013

@136, 137. Thanks guys, and yeah Buzz your suggestion would work too :), I hope things are going well for John and his wife also.

139. sean - February 12, 2013

John Cho is the youngest-looking 40-year-old I have ever seen.

140. Still tired - February 12, 2013

@139. You should see me, people commonly think I am a teenager, and I am about the same age as Cho. I often have to show people my ID before they believe my age, its kind of fun, most of the time.

141. Obsidian - February 12, 2013

The Shat will no doubt star as Capt. Kirk when the franchise is rebooted again in ten years. Star Trek: The Oxygen Tank Logs

142. gingerly - February 12, 2013

139.

Asian don’t crack either….Unless it’s Jackie Chan’s bones and even then they mend. ;)

I think some of you are taking Shatner’s comments too seriously. The man is clearly kidding. He’s not insulting anyone, he’s just being Shat.

143. itsoktheyalllookthesameJJ - February 12, 2013

Lol, John Cho is getting older looking than George Takei. Serves them right for casting a Korean in a Japanese role.

144. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2013

#143.

Take a hike, bozo!

145. Still tired - February 12, 2013

@143. Hey stupid, Takei himself told JJ it was ok to cast Cho, now take your bigot bullsh-t somewhere else.

146. GarySeven - February 12, 2013

#44 wrote:
“Alright I will never like Abrams take as much but I am still looking forward to into darkness but I am also a fan of all the shows and I hate the TNG hate on this group.
At least the boards on trekcore are more civil.

Red Dead Ryan, at #61 replies to him:
“Yeah, yeah, yeah….blah,blah,blah……TrekCore is more civilized…if that’s the case, go there and stay there. No one will miss your constant whining. Be gone!
And don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!
(Though some of us wouldn’t mind watching that happen).”

Well, #44’s point couldn’t be better supported by #44 himself. You did a great job proving his point.

147. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2013

#146.

You obviously haven’t been coming to this site very long, or else you’d remember that he has told others who disagree with him to shut up numerous times. He has a tendancy to become very angry when someone criticises TNG.

Not to mention how he recycles his own complaints of the J.J Abrams movies over and over.

So I think you ought to take it easy, pal.

148. Harry Mudd Esquire - February 13, 2013

I really hope that I think and behave that young in my 80s. He’s amazing! Keep it up, Bill!

149. Dom - February 13, 2013

146. GarySeven

neill writes the same thing over and over, sometimes across as many as ten posts in a row. This has been going on for five years. We all know him around here! At times I wonder if he’s even genuine and isn’t just someone having a laugh at everyone else’s expense!

The upshot is that he’s panicked about JJ Abrams version of Trek, tries to like it, but when other people praise it, he gets upset because he thinks Nick Meyer would do better (even though he’s retired and is a full-time writer!) and that praising Abrams’ work is the same as peeing on all past Treks. Also, given the majority of Star Trek movies are about Kirk, Spock and McCoy and thus a TrekMovie site will attract fans of the Kirk, Spock and McCoy version Star Trek, he gets very upset when a number of fans of the original Star Trek are dismissive of TNG and its sister shows. Although fans of TNG and its cohorts were often dismissive of the original Star Trek throughout the run of the four Berman Trek shows.

I think the difficulty is that neill was probably brought up in an era where TNG was already in existence, like a lot of Berman Trek fans, so looks at the original series as a peculiar sixties precursor to TNG, rather than as a groundbreaking sci-fi action adventure series. To them, TNG is ‘proper’ Trek and a pure version of ‘Gene’s Vision,’ uncompromised by pesky people like Robert Justman, Herb Solow, DC Fontana, Gene Coon, John Meredyth Lucas, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch, William Shatner, Nicholas Meyer and Leonard Nimoy – people whose contributions to Star Trek TOS fans revere.

The core difference between TNG and TOS is that, in TOS, we had humans doing their best to get along with each other, trying to get along with non-human races, many of whom were older and more powerful, and seeking to learn more about the universe and themselves. In TNG, ‘perfected’ humans (the perfectibility of the human race being a belief of both liberals and neo-cons) travel through space teaching flawed non-humans how to be ‘better.’ And they regularly laugh at those who are different: Data, Barclay, the Ferengi, for example. In simple terms, TOS is about learning and inclusiveness, TNG is about teaching and ‘fitting in.’ I prefer to learn and have my own quirks.

That fundamental difference is why so many TOS fans don’t like TNG (apart from many finding it dull and pompous!) And Abrams’ film was full of characters learning. Spock learns about dealing with his emotions and finding a place to call home. Kirk learns about growing up and becoming a leader of men. The older Spock has to face the awful consequences of his actions, no matter how well-intentioned. The crew has to learn to function as a unit. As The Onion’s very funny spoof video showed, more accurately than some would like, a lot of TNG fans didn’t like Abrams’ film because the message wasn’t spelt out IN BIG LETTERS. No heavy-handed moral statement, no intense, patronising speech from Picard to Number One stating the obvious.

Star Trek and the other shows that took its name are very different beasts. It’s very easy to be a fan of one but not the other. It’s also easy to be a fan of both, but a fan of both is not a fan of ‘one unified Star Trek,’ rather they’re a fan of different shows that happen to use the same name.

If people let the Berman Trek shows stand as one unit and approach ST09 and STID as follow-ups to Star Trek VI, they’ll probably find more to enjoy in them!

150. P Technobabble - February 13, 2013

149. Dom

I pretty much agree with you on everything you said. Having been a TOS fan from day one, I was a little put off by TNG when it first appeared. It came out at a time when Star Trek was riding a wave of popularity in film, and, therefore, began from a point of view that Star Trek was already great. IMO, this led to a kind of arrogance, or righteousness, right from the beginning. I think that during its run there were some very good episodes. But, overall, the “perfected humans,” as you call them, and their “perfected morality” could be quite annoying, just as so much of the “politically correct” movement can be. It seems to me part of TOS’s charm was 3 different aspects of humanity — passion (Kirk), reason (Spock) and conscience (McCoy) — coming together, often in conflict with each other. In TNG there was no such conflict between the characters. Picard was usually always right and everyone said, “Aye aye, Captain.”
Isn’t there some rule that drama is conflict/conflict is drama? TNG tended to rely on clever plots and plot twists to make up for what was missing in terms of conflict and character developement. TOS, being unlike any other series at the time, was literally learning — about how to make good tv sci-fi, about technology, about confronting alien races, about the future of humanity, and so on. The “innocence” of TOS was its attraction, while the “attitude” of TNG was its shortcoming. IMO, of course.

151. Aurore - February 13, 2013

@149.

I loved your post, Dom.
I agree with most of its content.

Thank you.

152. mynameschris - February 13, 2013

@149. Dom, I have come to think very similarly with one exception; I was born in the mid 80’s and probably (I’m to be honest not too sure) started watching TNG but always preferred TOS as a youngster – maybe put it down to wanting to be Kirk and not Picard. In a lot of ways I still do, despite some of the what would be considered hammy acting and ‘dated’ effects I still enjoy TOS over a majority of TNG.

For me the best out of the Berman era was DS9, likely because it had more conflict (not talking about the obvious war) between characters and showed more humanity than TNG, VOY or ENT.

I think you, and a few others further up, nailed it on the head by saying if you consider TOS alone the new timeline feels a lot like TOS. This is what I think many people who loved the Berman era don’t like, and I can see why, to enjoy this you have to forget largely about a vast majority of the Trek they grew up on which is exactly the thinking which sent Enterprise crashing as it was too similar to TNG in many ways. Flip side being the same logic in reverse killed shows like Stargate Universe as the fan base didn’t like how it was so different to SG-1 and Atlantis where as I loved it as much as the other 2, just took most of the first season to get off the ground.

You get most non fans, especially those who don’t like SF to watch the average episode of TNG and they don’t like it, its too talky and too wooden, you have half an hour or so of buildup for Picard to wander in at the last minute and deflate the situation with a compassionate speech = snooooooze

The same people went to see Star Trek in their droves because it looked fresh and exciting which is what TOS was and why Kirk was and is my Captain be it Shatner’s and looking like Pines will be in its own take on the character.

Shatner probably is a little bitter, Ive read some of what he’s said in the past and thought that, but I still have a great deal of respect for the man and can see why he wishes he could have been a part of taking it forward and feels disappointed because he wasn’t.

Oh and for the record I actually quite like STV too, its may not be a masterpiece and will likely always feature low down on fan ratings but its a fun movie.

Thanks for reading =]

153. Disinvited - February 13, 2013

#140 Dom

You make cogent points but I think Mr. Kurtzman as well as myself need to take you to task for drawing the conclusion that full time writers can’t direct. I’d also remind you that J.J. Abrams has credits as a writer under his belt.

154. Disinvited - February 13, 2013

#149. Dom

153 was to your 149.

Also, Meyer was a full time writer when he directed both TIME AFTER TIME and TWoK.

And from Trek, we need only point to Nimoy in regards to whether “retirement” is an impediment to doing anything.

155. Jonboc - February 13, 2013

Dom @149.

I cant say it any better, so i wont even try. Ditto!

156. GarySeven - February 13, 2013

#149 Dom
I want to thank you for making a thoughtful, respectful, and civil post. That itself is very refreshing. I actually agree with only some of what you said, and disagree with a substantial amount of it. But I want to say that I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into your post, and I respect that. Not to mention the civil tone, which is all too rare on this site.
In regard to the post itself, I do understand the pedantic tone of TNG and the boring perfection of its characters and lack of conflict. And I too liked the way ST 09 showed the learning of its characters and their personal development. Also, TOS is the show I grew up with, and I find it has the best balance of conflict, imperfect humans, while still being about striving for an evolved humanity.
I personally part ways with you and others when it comes to Abrams’ and Orci’s et al’s Star Trek. I think Abrams is really a Star Wars guy, of a Star Wars mentality, and it makes sense to me that Orci, Kurtzman (If I am right) made Transformers. This team is no Gene Roddenberry. I think ST 09 is really an action movie for teenagers. There is no underlying commentary on humanity. Nero is a cartoonish villain; his face tatoos are the modern version of a twirling mustache in the villain. There is no message of a humanity striving to overcome it’s primitive tendencies to accept diverse points of view. There is no Philosophy. The message seems to be “if someone is driven by revenge, and is going to destroy your planet, you need to kill him.” This is not inspiring, or thoughtful, and it makes Star Trek into just another action flick with, as Red Dead Ryan says, great special effects. TOS was never about that stuff (special effects). It was about a chance to comment on humanity in ways that TV at that time couldn’t do without resorting to the metaphor of science fiction. I am glad JJ is going to do Star Wars. I think that is his true element. That stuff is fun, but it is not Star Trek.
I know we disagree; that’s fine with me. I know that respectful disagreement is an oddity on this site, but it is a pleasure to have a thoughtful discourse with you.

157. GarySeven - February 13, 2013

Red Dead Ryan writes:
“So I think you ought to take it easy, pal.”
Perhaps Neill is as you say, that may be true. Whether he is a pain or not, his call for respectful discourse is a good one, whether he himself practices it or not. By statements like “So I think you ought to take it easy, pal,” you really are showing that you can’t be respectful, but can only attack others. It doesn’t matter what Neill does. We only can control who we want to be and how we want to act ourselves. Your tone reflects on you, not others.

158. captain spock - February 13, 2013

bill shatner said that jj abrams gone to far by doing both trek & wars in this artical ….

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/william-shatner-says-j-j-abrams-gone-too-181738978.html

159. Phil - February 13, 2013

@2. Here you go!!

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/william-shatner-says-j-j-abrams-gone-too-181738978.html

160. Dom - February 13, 2013

Hi Disinvited.

You said: ‘You make cogent points but I think Mr. Kurtzman as well as myself need to take you to task for drawing the conclusion that full time writers can’t direct.’

That wasn’t intended. ;) I simply meant that a ‘full-time’ writer is probably too busy writing to helm a major, modern franchise feature film. Let’s face it, he’ll be a full-time director while he’s doing that!

‘I’d also remind you that J.J. Abrams has credits as a writer under his belt.’

I’ve liked JJ’s stuff going back to when he wrote Regarding Henry as Jeffery Abrams! I think his writing background is part of what makes him such a good filmmaker.

161. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 13, 2013

“There is no Philosophy. The message seems to be “if someone is driven by revenge, and is going to destroy your planet, you need to kill him.””

Really? So why did Kirk offer Nero and his crew refuge? Spock queried Kirk, however it was Nero who told Kirk that he would rather die than be rescued. Time was of the essence and the Narada along with the Jellyfish and the red matter needed to be destroyed. The Enterprise had to escape!

Kirk seemed happy to comply with Nero’s demands, however he would have rescued Nero and crew had a different answer been forthcoming from Nero, despite Spock’s objections. I do know that (from the what I know of Kirk) and Spock could have known that too. In the circumstances, Kirk did not have to make that offer to Nero, but he did!

Why do some posters keep not paying attention to pertinent scenes and dialogue in the movie?

162. GarySeven - February 13, 2013

#161: That moment did register with me and it echoed TOS. I liked it. However, it was a thirty second exception to the overall movie. A momentary shift in tone does not define ” a philosophy.” it was the exception.
Re: Why some posters keep not paying attention
to pertinent scenes and dialogue in the movie?”
I am not really hopeful that this will reach you, but I point this out to others as another example of the hostile and inflammatory tone of many posters here. Just because we disagree on the movie, there is no need to conclude that I did not notice that moment (it was only part of a scene). It just didnt, by itself, make me feel the movie was big on a humanistic philosophy. It is so common here to jump from differences in opinion and perception to making personal insults. When people do that they just demonstrate something about themselves, even if they think they are putting the other down.

163. Dom - February 13, 2013

Hi 156. GarySeven

You said: ‘I want to thank you for making a thoughtful, respectful, and civil post.’

Pleasure. :)

‘I personally part ways with you and others when it comes to Abrams’ and Orci’s et al’s Star Trek. I think Abrams is really a Star Wars guy, of a Star Wars mentality, and it makes sense to me that Orci, Kurtzman (If I am right) made Transformers.’

In fairness, you could argue that, for kids, Star Trek II gave Star Trek a big dose of Star Wars. Certainly, as a kid in the early 80s a lot of us considered the two ‘franchises’ to be different peas in the same pod. It was TMP, which is arguably TNG’s equivalent of The Cage, that was the odd film out back then. The 80s Trek trilogy was seen as very much part of the same oeuvre as all the Lucas/Spielberg adventures of that era, even down to having the same Rainbow book and cassette packs!

Messrs Orci and Kurtzman wrote Transformers to order. It wasn’t a Bad Robot film and a tent pole film such as that will have put extreme limits on what they were allowed to come up with.

‘This team is no Gene Roddenberry. I think ST 09 is really an action movie for teenagers.’

In fairness, as I often say, Star Trek owed a lot to other people, notably Gene Coon, who really created the mechanics of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy team. Roddenberry was a superb ideas man, but not really as good a writer as some others who came on to the show. I think the Bad Robot team is every bit the production team/ideas house that the Desilu gang were in the sixties (remembering they were also running the iconic Mission: Impossble at the same time.) The older Gene Roddenberry went his own way eventually and, like many ideas men, he might well have been better off with a stronger creative support team than being on his own.

‘There is no underlying commentary on humanity. Nero is a cartoonish villain; his face tatoos are the modern version of a twirling mustache in the villain. There is no message of a humanity striving to overcome it’s primitive tendencies to accept diverse points of view. There is no Philosophy.’

To be fair, while there were plenty of observations of humanity in TOS, there are plenty of episodes that were simply adventure stories. And Kirk and young Spock did offer to help Nero, figuring it could be a way to negotiate peace with the Romulans. Nero refused so Kirk and Spock took him down. Also, as is unfortunate with franchise starters these days, ST09 is a lot like a pilot TV episode, as well as rearranging the Trek deckchairs, so STID is really the one we all need to watch.

‘I am glad JJ is going to do Star Wars. I think that is his true element. That stuff is fun, but it is not Star Trek.’

You see, again, I feel Star Trek and Star Wars have a lot in common. Both are built on great archetypal characters, both have strong literary and mythological antecedents and Star Wars (original trilogy) is often very dark and serious. Star Wars’ ‘fluffiness’ is more down to having a curator/overseer in George Lucas who perhaps doesn’t understand his creation as well as other, better writers and directors. With The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars grew up, because it had a strong script that played to the strengths of its cast. It was also one where Lucas’s ideas had to compromise with someone else’s screenplay and direction.

When the Star Wars prequels came out, they were the Star Wars equivalent of Star Trek: The Next Generation: the pure vision of the creator, who, like Gene Roddenberry didn’t quite understand that the compromises made in the original versions were their strengths. Yet there’s now a younger generation that embraces the prequels more than the originals.

‘I know we disagree; that’s fine with me. I know that respectful disagreement is an oddity on this site, but it is a pleasure to have a thoughtful discourse with you.’

Hey, that’s cool! You take care! :)

164. itsoktheyalllookthesameJJ - February 13, 2013

Lol, how was that comment bigoted? People that think all Asians are the same are bigoted. Takei was being a nice guy about it, trying to save JJ from ridicule. It is disgusting that American cinema thinks all Asians look alike and that they can be interchangeable. Koreans are Korean, Chinese are Chinese, etc…don’t reverse it and call me bigoted. And Takei doesn’t represent all of Asia either. From Karate kid to Star Trek to IronMan 3- Asian people get no respect in American movies and TV shows.

165. BringBackKirkPrime - February 13, 2013

Has anyone mentioned about Bill coming back as Captain Kirk in another parallel universe? In other words, the Star Wars universe! Crossover time.

166. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 13, 2013

#162 GarySeven

This is not the first time I have read such comments. They are all too frequent, however their frequency does not make them any more legitimate.

This is not a good day for me…:(

167. Tom - February 13, 2013

I wish the debate could be sttled once and for all. JJ says Bill wouldn’t do a cameo. Bill says he was never offered anything. Could someone mediate this dispute. How about showing Bill the hologram scene and officially offer it to him. If he says no then he really wasn’t interested in doing that. If he says yes then that debunks the not willing to do a cameo theory. I do realize that JJ didn’t think the scene would work. Yes he is the boss but many fans thought it would and if Bill thought so too then why not try it. I mean there were other things that JJ apparently thought would work that didn’t so there really isn’t that much risk. I think it would put all the speculation of the reasons why this did not happen to rest. Clearly I dont think Bill could have a major role ( in terms of screen time)in the movie. If those were his demands or standards then that is the reason and put the cameo scene to pasture. If he is willing then film the scene in some context of another movie or place it in the special features and let everyone decide if was worthwhile

168. J.Frakes,nothing wrong with my nostrils - February 13, 2013

Shatner is never really serious. When are people going to understand that?

169. Phil - February 13, 2013

Well, a couple of days ago, it was hugs and kisses for JJ. Today, he’s a pig. Go figure…

170. Vultan - February 13, 2013

“He’s a wonderful director.”
“He’s a pig.”

I’m starting to think the transporter didn’t put the good and bad halves back together correctly.

171. Jonboc - February 14, 2013

..wow, after so many years some people still don’t get Shatner’s sense of humor.

172. Disinvited - February 14, 2013

Shatner in the news:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/william-shatner-gets-vulcan-added-possible-pluto-moon-183920753.html

173. Phil - February 14, 2013

@170. He’s a wonderful pig….

174. Vultan - February 14, 2013

#173

And that’s why I like the Shat.
He’s a… com…plicated… man.

:D

175. Harry Ballz - February 14, 2013

Shatner may be a HAM, but that doesn’t make him a PIG.

176. Red Dead Ryan - February 14, 2013

Anthony has gone on his usual “vacation”.

Meanwhile, Keachick is stirring up trouble on the main threads with her usual political trolling and flaming.

What an arrogant little bitch!

177. Red Dead Ryan - February 14, 2013

I meant the BAFTA and toy threads.

178. P Technobabble - February 14, 2013

So, how’s about that hemmorhoid —- uh, i mean asteroid?

179. Gary S - February 14, 2013

178.
the only Asteroid I heard about was supposed to be missing us,
Has there been a development.?

180. Lostrod - February 14, 2013

#171 – Jonboc:

“..wow, after so many years some people still don’t get Shatner’s sense of humor.”

I don’t get it either. Obviously tongue in cheek, in the same vein as the back and forth “ST vs SW” dialogue with Carrie Fisher last year.

181. Phil - February 14, 2013

15K flyby on the asteroid. According to Bill Nye, a short 15 minute trip at present speed….

182. CoffeeProf - February 14, 2013

In my years of reading this site, I just have to say that Dom is now my favorite poster here!

183. Cervantes - February 15, 2013

@ 182 CoffeeProf –

Sure beats the hell out of wading through some of Red Dead Ryan’s ongoing issues.

184. CoffeeProf - February 15, 2013

183

I feel ya. Some of the posts here and the hate they spew make me ashamed of being associated with them as Trek fans. It really does.

185. P Technobabble - February 15, 2013

By now you must’ve heard about the meteorite that whacked Russia. That was just a little Valentine’s kiss… The 150-foot DA14 asteroid that flies by tonite won’t hit, but if it did it we’d be doing the Tunguskan Tango somewhere in the world.

186. Phil - February 15, 2013

@185. Yep. It wasn’t that long ago that had an object entered the atmosphere and exploded, it could have easily hair triggered a retaliatory missle launch. Just a tiny glimmer of hope that maybe we have progressed just a bit.

187. captain_neill - February 15, 2013

I dont care how he views JJ Abrams, bottom line Shatner IS and always wil be Kirk.

Sometimes I fear now that Abrams was using Trek to get to his true love which is Star Wars. I hope for a good movie but I just hope he won’t treat Trek as a jilted lover now.

188. Disinvited - February 15, 2013

#180. Lostrod – February 14, 2013, #171. Jonboc

“..wow, after so many years some people still don’t get Shatner’s sense of humor.” – Jonboc

”I don’t get it either. Obviously tongue in cheek, in the same vein as the back and forth “ST vs SW” dialogue with Carrie Fisher last year.” – Lostrod

I hear yah, but then again it never ceases to amaze me that people in general credit him with creating his iconic lines and don’t realize they were written by writers who were the ones giving voice to the sentiments and not him, but you’d think fans would get the concept that for the most part someone else’s words are coming out of actors mouths on screen.

Not that he hasn’t ad libbed a few zingers but as you say he mostly goes for the laugh.

189. Red Dead Ryan - February 15, 2013

CoffeeProf and Cervantes,

You guys must be the same poster.

190. Uberbot - February 15, 2013

Now is the time when I say “Where’s Anthony?”

191. Jeffries Tube - February 15, 2013

OH LOOK…NO NEWS…AGAIN!!!!!!

192. Dee - lvs moon' surface - February 15, 2013

Star Trek The Video Game – making of video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NNt5Q07mI8

Kirk, Spock and Scotty look awesome!

193. Phil - February 15, 2013

A little fluff news to fill the void…

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/02/15/star_trek_into_darkness_copy_editing_the_culture_considers_the_odd_movie.html

194. PEB - February 15, 2013

@192 Dee I was just about to post that. That video is what just gave me hope for the game. It looks better and better the more that I see. And the fact that we’ll play missions and get to control the ship is a nice bit. I’m a big gamer and I’m definitely looking forward to it. I just hope I start to hear some good news from IGN or GameTrailers. Those 2 sites kept me from buying the major suckfest that is Aliens:Colonial Marines, but got me to pick up the surprise success that is: DMC Devil May Cry. Keeping my fingers crossed for Trek.

195. Lt. Daniels - February 15, 2013

Has anyone seen on YouTube the IGN Star Trek Into Darkness trailer frame by frame showing what looks like the backs of Khan in red and Harrison in white walking out of a room together?

196. Vultan - February 15, 2013

Now this is pretty cool!
If PIXAR made Star Trek (also Star Wars):

http://minionfactory.blogspot.co.uk/

197. DonDonP1 - February 15, 2013

Fascinating. Truth is “Star Trek” is owned by CBS while “Star Wars” is owned by Disney-Lucasflim.

198. CoffeeProf - February 15, 2013

189

Actually nope, we’re two different people. I used to post here as SChaos1701.

199. Trekbilly - February 16, 2013

Leave JJ alone! The man’s a Star Wars fan and he did a heck of job on the last Trek film and I’m looking forward to STID…

There’s not a thing wrong with him directing BOTH franchises or producing Trek if he’s too busy to direct it.

200. Troy - February 16, 2013

William Shatner will never fully accept Star Trek.

201. Rose (as in Keachick) - February 17, 2013

#193 – I just read the link. What a load of bollocks!

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