Lindelof & Abrams Talk Star Trek History Respect, Scripting For Cumberbatch, 3D & More In New SFX Mag | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Lindelof & Abrams Talk Star Trek History Respect, Scripting For Cumberbatch, 3D & More In New SFX Mag April 3, 2013

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

The brand new SFX Magazine has a huge cover story all about Star Trek Into Darkness including interviews cast and crew and more. SFX have provided TrekMovie with some excerpts including JJ Abrams talking about how the movie works for long-time Star Trek fans and Damon Lindelof talking about how the role of the villain changed to accommodate the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch.

 

Abrams and Lindelof talk Into Darkness in SFX

The cover story features interviews with producer/director JJ Abrams, producer/writer Damon Lindelof along with many of the cast members. One of the things Abrams talked about is how the movie is made to work for both Trek fans and non-fans, noting:

“Of course you can’t make this for everyone. There are going to be detractors, people who hate it. But I think that the important thing is this movie, at least the ambition behind it, is… if you’re a Star Trek fan, you’re going to be very happy. Because the movie acknowledges, in a big way, what has come before. If you’re not a lifelong Star Trek fan, like myself, what I think and hope is that you’ll have a great time and you’ll feel something and you’ll be gasping and shrieking and laughing and crying and all that stuff in a way you would not expect to in a Star Trek movie.”

Damon Lindelof was asked if the search for Hispanic actors to play the Into Darkness villain (including the almost-signing of Benicio Del Toro) should be taken as a sign that they were trying to find an actor who could step into Ricardo Montalban’s shows (as Khan). He wouldn’t take the bait, but did say something about how casting Cumberbatch changed the way the role was written…

“One of the things we like to do, character-wise, is have a conceptual framework for what we want a character to be, and then we write a script. The articulate way of answering your question but not answering it is, that character would have been written differently if it was Benicio, versus the way he ended up getting written for Benedict. But we didn’t change the story. They’re very different actors.”

And while Lindelof and Abrams both admit they weren’t’ fans of 3D to begin with, Damon made the case for why Into Darkness:

“I would say that the 3D in Trek is better than the 3D in Prometheus in terms of the way the movie was designed. Because A.) It was built into the story, B.) It wasn’t used in a gimmicky way, and C.) Every shot that J.J. did was cognitive of the process.”


May issue of SFX

More Star Trek Into Darkness

The May issue of SFX magazine went on sale today and there is much more in the Star Trek Into Darkness cover story interview with JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana and Karl Urban – as well as Paramount’s Brian Miller on the new game. And a two-page interview with the film’s antagonist Benedict Cumberbatch. There is also fun ‘Star Trek Prebooted’ feature with light-hearted speculation on what Trek would look like in the 1890s, the 1930s, the 1950s or the 1970s, illustrated by veteran Star Trek comic book artist Mike Collins.


Fun SFX spread re-imagining Star Trek in different eras

You can buy buy the print version online or you can pick up a digital version Apple Newsstand, or Google Play.

 

Comments

1. Adolescent Nightmare - April 3, 2013

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnn!!!!!!!!!

2. Keachick - April 3, 2013

Yay – an interview with the awesome four – CP, ZQ, ZS and last, but not least, KU, whose McCoy has a bit of a kiwi past (you read it here first)…:)

3. Harry Ballz - April 3, 2013

Well, between now and May, it’s going to be one big bout of ANTICIPATION!!!

4. omegaman - April 3, 2013

Pretty much a confirmation in my book. Looking forward to watching the new spin on it.

5. captain spock - April 4, 2013

Khan hope the heck not. so glad Jj openly admited to the fack hes not a trekker, wishing you all the best doing wars JJ , yes i am a life long time star trek fan of 46 1/2 years, hopefully I not be dissapointed with this movie.

John harrison is an agent in one of the trailer i have recently seen, well maybe the carture Harrison is an agent with section 31& not Khan.we are praying hes not Khan….

your saying that If Benicio Del toro got the part we would have been written differently he would not have played the part of harrison .maybe del toro would have played the part of Khan perhaps gees now i’m glad del toro never got a part in trek.

the movie was done in 3D hopefully it was done also in 2D, cant wait untill the movie come out nooooooooo Khan ..if it is Khan i will be very dissapointed in the surpreme court…

6. JohnRambo - April 4, 2013

“There are going to be detractors, people who hate it”

And i hate those people:-)

7. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 4, 2013

Well, what do you know? The UK ordering system actually works for single issues, not just subscriptions. Beats trying to find the issue on ebay because I sure won’t find it in the shops around here. Now to wait the couple of weeks for it to actually turn up so I can read it.

8. Kirk - April 4, 2013

It’s going to be good.

9. Legate Damar - April 4, 2013

He will never be as good as Montalban, but I look forward to seeing Holmes/Smaug’s portrayal of Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

10. Kapten Kerk - April 4, 2013

Am I the only one that saw the cover and read the name of the magazine as SEX?

11. r0bt3k - April 4, 2013

lol you are totally right Kapten 10

12. Marja, all sniffy. - April 4, 2013

#10, Kerk, I think we’ll see intimations of SEX in the PreBoot section – it looks hilarious

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN

Alas, sorta looks like it, to wit:

“… at least the ambition behind it, is… if you’re a Star Trek fan, you’re going to be very happy. Because the movie acknowledges, **IN A BIG WAY**, what has come before….”

and

“… articulate [READ: COY] way of answering your question but not answering it is, that character would have been written differently if it was Benicio, versus the way he ended up getting written for Benedict.”

DAMMIT

13. Keachick - April 4, 2013

I wondered what you were talking about, Kapten Kerk, so I had to look at the article again. As I thought, no SEX, just SFX.

14. Disinvited - April 4, 2013

I would like to know how “Every shot that J.J. did was cognitive of the [3D] process.” if he couldn’t even bother to film it using a 3D camera?

15. Jason S. - April 4, 2013

” if you’re a Star Trek fan, you’re going to be very happy.”

If by “fan” you mean not really or only if nothing else is on, sure Mr. Lindelof, “fans” will be happy. If you mean “fan” as in someone who actually cares about Star Trek, well, do yourself a favor and just go make Star Wars movies and leave Star trek alone!

16. Capt. Roykirk - April 4, 2013

@ 15.
Well said. I am a lifeline Trek fan and hated the first one Abrams and co. made. I think this is pandered just to those who are sci-fi/action fans, because they figure that will make more money.

Also about the “Pre-booted” Star Trek was around in the 70’s. Motion Picture anyone?

17. Son of Jello - April 4, 2013

Cant wait not to see Khan in the movie, I would be sad if Star Trek could not get past the only movie the general public has seen and can reference in large numbers. I’v been thru the 1980s and I dont want another haircut like that. But then again the dayglo coloured lens flairs would be pretty.

18. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 4, 2013

I’ve been a Star Trek fan since the sixties, and I enjoyed the reboot movie – even though I had a few quibbles with it (destroying Vulcan – was that really necessary?). In fact I enjoyed it a lot more than the last 3 Next Gen movies. I am quietly confident I will enjoy STID too, although obviously I won’t know for sure until I’ve actually seen it.

19. Eagleman1969 - April 4, 2013

Ditto #18. Killing off 99.99% of all the Vulcans sucks. They were too big of a part of what the Federation was to do that. Should have been at LEAST the 10,000 on Earth & in ships at the time Nero struck.

So now the Vulcans will be pretty much a non-factor in the new Federation’s future unless (1) they drop the “too cool” act and start cranking out babies, FAST or (2) they send back Kirk II on his first time travel job to SAVE VULCAN!

20. Khaaan, the weasel - April 4, 2013

While I still hope that, well, Cumberbatch isn’t Khan – as that would be kinda cheap – I actually haven’t lost my faith in the writers’ ability to deliver a compelling story.
So if the villain turns out to be Kha(aaaaaa)n nevertheless, I sure hope that the revelation is going to be wrapped in a nice and unexpected plot twist.

21. Killamarshtrek - April 4, 2013

Surely the whole point of using your franchise’s BIGGEST villain is to provide a selling point for your movie. But if no-one knows he’s your villain, what’s the point? I just don’t get it?!

22. Joshua J. Slone - April 4, 2013

#14: Almost exactly what I was going to say. When it comes to 3D, it’s not just the thought that counts.

23. Son of Jello - April 4, 2013

@21 suspence

24. crazydaystrom - April 4, 2013

@10. Kapten Kerk –
“Am I the only one that saw the cover and read the name of the magazine as SEX?”

SFX magazine is fairly notorious for designing their covers the way this one is with the bottom of the ‘F’ covered. The effect subliminally projects SEX.

25. Picard, Jean-Luc - April 4, 2013

After reading most of the comments on this site since I began visiting here it’s a wonder anyone makes anything for the fans these days. The MINORITY of you are just so bitchy and ridiculous that why would Abrams make a movie that just suits a minority of backward looking, scared, basement dwelling, Shatner loving, virgins.

Fools all of you who think JJ Abrams has destroyed Star Trek.

26. Punkspocker - April 4, 2013

Is it me, or does the title of the magazine look like “SEX”?

27. Punkspocker - April 4, 2013

#26- got my attention.

28. Jemini - April 4, 2013

I’ve read this article
there is one mention of a Kirk/Uhura/Spock triangle (from the interviewer part) that I don’t get. There was no triangle in the first movie and I hope the writers didn’t make any stupid triangles in the sequel
The first one worked so well BECAUSE it didn’t really have a triangle and many applauded the writers for that.

29. Superquerulant - April 4, 2013

Still do not believe he plays Khan – But to be honest: The hispanic actor Ricardo Montalban didn`t look indian in “Star Trek II” at all…

30. Caesar - April 4, 2013

Less Uhura, more McCoy.

31. Ctrl-Opt-Del - April 4, 2013

The 1950s Enterprise kinda looks like the one we’ve got right now!

32. Jovius the Romulan - April 4, 2013

15, 16: I’d appreciate it if you’d stop presuming to speak for all Star Trek fans. After four freaking years, I’m getting a bit tired of these implications (sometimes outright declarations) that the only true Trekkies /hated/ the 2009 movie, no in between.

Let me be clear on a few things:

I acknowledge its problems.

I acknowledge not everyone liked it.

I do not expect everyone to.

I thought it was good, but not quite on the level of fantastic.

But it is rather presumptuous and pompous to imply that you are the only true Trekkies because of your opinions. Guess what? Trekkies also like Voyager and Enterprise sometimes, which as far as I can see are much more reviled in general than the 2009 movie!

I might also add, if you hated the first movie so much and have already made up your mind about this one… why are you even here? Last I checked, this is TREKMOVIE.com, not TREKMOVIESUCKS.com. Just saying.

33. Andrew - April 4, 2013

The preboot stuff is awesome. I wish the pic was just a little bigger to read it all.

34. ScottC - April 4, 2013

Well said 32. Jovius the Romulan!!

35. ScottC - April 4, 2013

25. Picard, Jean-Luc : you hit the nail on the head!

36. Jeyl - April 4, 2013

@25 We don’t have to resort to those kind of insults.

37. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

#36.

Yes we do. Now go away.

38. Garth Faction - April 4, 2013

Jovius the Romulan

I’m not a big fan of the first film. However, unlike some people, I can acknowledge “X is bad” doesn’t mean “Those who made X are always bad.”

I liked Fringe. I think Fringe is a key in understanding what will happen in the New Universe. It’s about alternative takes to the classic series, which means, the same cast of characters should show up. Khan is a big one there, but not the only one.

Some of it can be done quite well, even if I think the set up wasn’t done so well. So I have hopes for the movie even if the first didn’t grab me.

39. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 4, 2013

On may 15th at 7pm Central Time. All Answers about Star Trek Into Darkness will be Answerd. Then at or about 11pm on May 15th Anthony Pascale better be ready for a Nuclear Explosion on Trekmovie.

As Kirk Said. Sound’s like FUN!

40. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2013

I am impressed with these words, but be warned. If this movie does not fit well in the Trek mythos, I WILL never see or trust anything JJ again.

41. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2013

However, if this movie is a solid Trek throughout, then you have my alligiance JJ, for decades to come.

42. Jack - April 4, 2013

“Fools all of you who think JJ Abrams has destroyed Star Trek.”

Pretty much. Fools is a little strong, but incorrect works. Unless, by destroyed, they mean ‘made it popular with moviegoers and critics.’ I get tired of this ‘lowest common denominator’ crap — because, that’s not really what happened in Trek 09. Yep, it had problems and the script had weak parts (although not as weak as some previous Trek entries) but it captured the spirit of Trek (the real Trek that was on TV, not the idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek some people here seem to think they watched).

43. Keachick - April 4, 2013

Well, I might be Shatner loving, but I am not a basement dweller (don’t have one), not inordinately scared or backward looking and this keachick with her three kids certainly ain’t no virgin…:)

Just saying…

44. Andrew - April 4, 2013

@25 Totally agree.

45. Marc McKenzie - April 4, 2013

@41: Well said. I also dislike the “how dare they make TREK mainstream!” attitude, because it ignores the fact that TOS started on a major television network pre-cable…how mainstream can you get?

Trek ’09 wasn’t perfect, but it’s a film I can watch again and again and enjoy. And I love this statement:

“…it captured the spirit of Trek (the real Trek that was on TV, not the idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek some people here seem to think they watched).”

If people didn’t like the ’09 film, fair enough. That’s to be expected. But resorting to insults and claiming that everyone who liked it is an idiot is a fool’s game.

46. Peter N - April 4, 2013

Not everyone loves change. Which is not to say that those who do not embrace change are somehow bad people, just like those who do embrace change are not automatically good people. But I do think that everyone should be able to express a respectful tolerance for different opinions, especially if those opinions (pro or con the topic in question) are expressed in a rational, thought-out manner. If we are fans of (any) Star Trek, we should be able to agree to disagree and make our points without name-calling and spiteful rhetoric – which I have read from both sides of the JJ “divide” (as well as other divisions). Tastes and preferences differ, and no new Star Trek since whichever series brought you on board can expect to be universally appreciated by the entirety of Star Trek fandom. I appreciate the effort on behalf of the current team to bring more fans to the franchise; who knows what they will end up discovering during their exploration.

47. Brevard - April 4, 2013

I really wish I cared what Damon Lindelhof had to say, but I don’t. I honestly don’t. ST would be wise to just drop him from any future incarnations. Let him go mess with another franchise.

48. Jovius the Romulan - April 4, 2013

Re: “idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek”… didn’t we all tire of that in the first two seasons of TNG? XD I swear every other episode Picard was making some speech about how humans had evolved beyond their sins. Actions speak louder than words. Humans, no matter how society has improved, are still human and prone to human failings. Even TNG showed that in later seasons.

It sounds to me like Starfleet (or even the Federation itself) is keeping some pretty dark secrets in “Into Darkness”. What is the price of utopia? How far are we willing to go to protect it? These are the questions I am hoping it asks of the audience and something I loved about Deep Space Nine. While it always remained optimistic in the end, it asked some pretty hard questions from time to time about how the Federation stays afloat amongst all the threats in the galaxy and why it has such a high opinion of itself.

In the end, I feel Star Trek at its best is not something that thinks itself better than everyone, but gets everyone to think.

49. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

#47.

Well said! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

50. BH - April 4, 2013

Just wait, in the third film they’ll fix the timeline and we’ll see the new cast sitting on the old, tv bridge set in the closing shots.

And this will have never happened.

Then again, none of it did.

51. Garth Faction - April 4, 2013

I find the whole “it’s change, so you must accept it as good” response is a pathetic defense of New Trek.

Not all change is good.

If the New Trek looked just like Tax Trek, would you still say “Embrace change?” If New Trek was “Hitler Trek” with Kirk like a Hitler in Space, would you say “Embrace change?”

Change for the sake of change isn’t a good thing. Yes, New Trek is better than the two above examples (thankfully) but the point should be clear: just because there is change doesn’t mean it is good.

There are all kinds of ways to engage change which are good (Sherlock is a great example of this). I find the “change” of Trek 2009 to be rather poor. Nonetheless, if I take 2009 Trek as a pilot, I give it room for something better now. Many pilots are rather poor, but the series based upon them become quite good. So I don’t think the defense should be “embrace change” but rather, “Give it a chance to develop and see where it goes.”

52. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

#50.

Don’t you think you’re being a bit extreme there?

53. Garth Faction - April 4, 2013

51

I hope you read the whole comment. I was pointing out “change=good” could be used for all kinds of nonsense. The justification should not be “it’s change” but rather “it’s good.” I can do all kinds of change which will would be bad, and still say “well, you don’t accept change.” So the issue isn’t change, since I think most accept there will be change, but how the change works or doesn’t work.

And I myself didn’t think the 2009 film worked too well. It was like Transformers in Space. But if you note what I said, I also see it as a kind of “pilot” and recognize “pilots” have all kinds of restraints on them. I often dislike “pilots” of shows I like. So I don’t give in to the “it must all be bad because I thought 2009 was weak.” We don’t all have to think it was good, and yet be accused of “not liking change.” It is not change which is the problem for many of us. It’s how it was put together, and how the plot just seems flimsy to us. But if one takes it as a pilot, it can be flimsy and still lead to something good.

I just tire of the “they don’t like change” arguments. That is just a red herring.

54. BH - April 4, 2013

With Garth Faction…

the Delta Vega thing with Kirk NOT put into a brig but expelled from the ship and who he meets was really lazy beyond repair and cannot be defended intellectually.

But we met a lot of our favorite characters and the family feel of Trek is there for me at the end.

This should be better, since that nonsense of establishing everything is gone.

55. Trekkiegal63 - April 4, 2013

#18. ObsessiveStarTrekFan:

Well said. I concur and come from a similar place. I’ve been a Star Trek fan since I was a very small child. I’ve been to conventions (though not since 2002, I’m afraid), saw every film in the theater, etc. And other then a few issues (Vulcan imploding, sexist tropes, promoting Kirk a bit too quickly, etc.) I thoroughly enjoyed the Reboot. As did my husband, who is not a Trekkie beyond mild interest and indulging me, and so did my daughter, who was (almost) twelve at the time. It’s quite rare that the three of us agree on a movie, particularly considering the generation gap between her and us.

Will I be disappointed if the villain turns out to be Khan? A little bit, yes. Because “Wrath of Khan” is my favorite film of the franchise and because I don’t think it needs to be expounded or touched upon. I also feel that the underlying theme of “Wrath of Khan” i.e. Kirk facing age, contemplating relevance, mortality and life choices and learning that sometimes, even when winning a ‘no-win scenario’, you also lose (and, of course, obsession and the drive for revenge can make one more than marginally insane), cannot be addressed as effectively with a Kirk so young, inexperienced and not quite as jaded.

However, having said that I’m withholding judgment until I see the film. I was skeptical of the 2009 film and it blew me away. And I have high hopes this new one will engage me as well, perhaps using Khan to teach a different lesson that will resonate with the audience as effectively as the first incarnation did.

56. Red Dead Ryan - April 4, 2013

I see the panhandlers have made their way to this site….

57. Trekkiegal63 - April 4, 2013

#47 Jovius the Romulan:

Re: “idealized, highly intellectual, highbrow Trek”… didn’t we all tire of that in the first two seasons of TNG? XD I swear every other episode Picard was making some speech about how humans had evolved beyond their sins. Actions speak louder than words.

Ain’t that the truth. It took me a very long time to warm up to Picard for that reason. The first two seasons of TNG were not the better ones, that was for certain. TNG was one of those shows that got better with age (not that I faulted TNG for it, I believe, if I’m remembering correctly, there was a writers’ strike during their second season and as a result they had to use passed over TOS scripts to compensate).

But yes, if there is one thing TNG, DS9 and even Voyager, though it had its issues, taught me is not to pass something over because its not what I’m used to. New ideas can be rewarding in their own ways, and TOS will always be there, immortalized in boxsets and critic appraisal (in Khan’s case, anyway) and nothing will ever take that away.

58. The Great Bird Lives - April 4, 2013

Was watching ‘Into the universe w/ Stephen Hawking, and was surprised that Benedict Cumberbatch does the voice of Hawking in the series. I thought I recognized the voice but wasn’t sure at first. Wow, now I’m off to watch more on Netflix…

59. Trekkiegal63 - April 4, 2013

Sad. I mentioned that ST:WoK was critically acclaimed not twenty minutes ago, then log onto yahoo to discover that Roger Ebert (who was one of those who gave Khan a good review) has died.

So, to honor him, here is a timewarp to 1982, i.e. Ebert’s review of Star Trek: the Wrath of Khan:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19820101/REVIEWS/201010345/1023

60. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2013

Great post, Trekkiegal63.

I remember reading Rodger’s review back in the 80s. It described the Trek experience perfectly post Wrath of Khan. Especially when it came to the characters.

Warp Speed and full impulse, Rodger!

61. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 4, 2013

@59. Trekkiegal63

Thanks for posting that link. In that review for TWOK, Mr Ebert said a couple of things that I feel are relevent to the ongoing discussions regarding STID:

…”because the “Star Trek” stories have always been best when they centered around their characters”

…”Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph.”

Based on what I have seen and read about STID so far, I am hopeful that STID will meet both these criteria.

62. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

Still don’t think it’s going to be Khan. Nothing that has been said or shown supports it. And no confirmation yet – just speculation and rumors. But I must say – great way to create buzz though. Pretty smart.

63. BatlethInTheGroin - April 4, 2013

#15: What a ridiculous comment. It’s quite clear that the vast majority of long-time Star Trek fans loved the 2009 film. You in no way speak for fandom.

64. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

63. BatlethInTheGroin

I agree! I have been a life long fan – and I am 46 – I loved Trek 2009.

65. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2013

Happy Birthday, Trek Fan! ; )

My thought. If it’s just Harrison, evil guy, then is there really any hook to the story?

66. Keachick - April 4, 2013

#65 Really? The Klingons were just the bad aliens in space ships as well – what was their hook? Still, people got interested…the Klingon language was born…need I go on?

67. Basement Blogger - April 4, 2013

Film critic, Pulitzer Prize winner and screenplay writer Roger Ebert passed away today. He did not give a favorable review for Star Trek (2009). He bemoaned that Trek’s ideas of science and philosophy had given way to big action. I liked the 2009 movie but agree with the criticism. I am encouraged that the Supreme Court has announced that they will go deeper with this movie.

Oh by the way, he loved the 1986 Start TreK film, The Voyage Home. He praised that film for boldy going. Link.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19861126/REVIEWS/611260301/1023

68. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2013

The Klingons were always personal for Kirk and his crew throughout their five year mission, and beyond. Indeed, the Klingons were not Kirk’s favorite bunch. Especially after STIII. Which, bye the way (42. Jack), is a story they destroyed (or made irrelevant) in the last movie!

I predict that a subtle subplot will run through this movie and it is going to be about the alternate reality, if it is legitimate, or stable. At least that what I would hope to see. Perhaps Harrison IS from the Prime verse. Don’t you think there was someone at Starfleet who may have been immune from the effects of the Red matter?

69. Trek Fan - April 4, 2013

67. Basement Blogger

With all due respect to Mr. Ebert… I never listen to movie critics. They are just people with a personal opinion about a movie. I usually go see a movie regardless of what the reviewer says. If I want to see a movie, I’ll go see it and make up my own mind.

RIP Mr. Ebert.

70. Trekkiegal63 - April 4, 2013

#60. TrekMadeMeWonder:

Thanks! I’m glad you liked it!

RIP Roger, thanks for your insight.

#61. ObsessiveStarTrekFan:

No problem, I’m glad you enjoyed it.

And once again I agree. I’m hopeful for this film. From what I can tell it looks to be partly allegorical, both in what we know of the villain and in Kirk’s development and I look forward to seeing where they take it. When handled well (“Nemesis” being an exception, of course) I’ve always liked the philosophical approach to Trek the best.

71. Keachick - April 4, 2013

What I meant was that when viewers first saw the Klingons, they knew nothing about them. This is much the same with John Harrison now.

72. TrekMadeMeWonder - April 4, 2013

Nice, Keachick. I get it.

Yeah, but when the Klingons came on screen there was always some ominous music thundering over the old televison speakers.

BTW. I’m sooo glad that Trek and FIOS are not advertising together.

That lame Iron-Man FIOS commercial is terrible. Seriously, I’m being reminded of IM when I see FIOS, now? And that obnoxious kid, in the kid version of the IM suit? G-e-e-z.

Really Paramont/Disney?

73. Disinvited - April 4, 2013

#32. Jovius the Romulan – April 4, 2013

I suppose some could make the argument that the only true Trekkers/Trekkies are the ones who got their cancelled network TV show resurrected has a major movie franchise. The rest would be just Johnny-come-latelys.

74. Keachick - April 4, 2013

Ah yes, the TOS Trek background music – almost as subtle as dino balls…:)

75. Keachick - April 4, 2013

Well, I did my bit to get a fourth TOS TV series made. I wrote a letter to the NZBC, what was then the only NZ TV network and asked when were we to see the next Star Trek television series and if we could see any repeats of the other three series. The answer was No, the series had been canceled and No, no repeats could be screened. One bewildered and very upset person was I, all of 10 years old…

76. Captain, USS Northstar - April 4, 2013

I’m looking forward to this movie. I still maintain the possibility of all of us being surprised to learn that #3 (in this series) is already in post-production and ready for a 2016 release for the 50th Anniversary.

I also still believe that the John Harrison character isn’t Khan, but will “reveal Khan” at the very end.

But, then again, who knows? It’s fun to speculate and May 17 still seems like a long way off. Just to get myself in the mood, I’m re-reading the books “Enterprise” and “Federation”.

77. ug - April 4, 2013

“If people didn’t like the ’09 film, fair enough. That’s to be expected. But resorting to insults and claiming that everyone who liked it is an idiot is a fool’s game.”

Here’s my problem.

The criticism that most Trek fans deal out to JJ Trek centers mostly on the failings of the FILM.

The reaction of JJ Trek fans tend to attempt to attack the CRITICS rather than defend the film. If that fails, then they start dismantling the legacy of Trek (including TOS, Smithsonian or no) to make JJ Trek look better in comparison. And if that fails they will fall back on the populist$ argument. (It made money, therefore it’s “good”).

So my big problem is the crude level of debate that JJ Trek fans engage in. They want to sidestep the legitimate issues that people have with the film. Even if you accept the changes to canon brought about by the alternate-timeline, the film has problems, just as a standalone film. The only thing it truly delivers on is general action, but it has problems at the story level and production design.

Here is exhibit from commenter #6)

“There are going to be detractors, people who hate it”

And i hate those people:-)

So that guy is the poster-boy for JJ Trek fans. “JohnRambo” who hates people who hate JJ Trek and wants the world to know it. I’m sure JJ Abrams is glad to know that he has armies of apologists who will attack his critics in this simplistic manner.

78. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#75. Keachick – April 4, 2013

Since there were 4th and 5th series Trek, I suppose that 10yo girl ultimately prevailed and her efforts were not for naught.

It would be welcome to see the 2009 nufans get outraged about something of theirs being cancelled (toys, novels, theme park experiences, etc.), getting organized, and trying to turn it around.

79. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#77. ug – April 4, 2013

Can’t say I understand why people even try to go attacking original Trek. I mean people have gotten their doctorates doing theses on it. A reasonable person would have to know that there simply is a massive body of work to draw upon in support of it. Bad Robot Trek, no matter how good, is going to take a while to get to that level.

80. captain_neill - April 5, 2013

Hey I am not the biggest fan of the JJ Abrams take on Star Trek, but there are elements that as a movie goer I thought were great. Just because I prefer the Trek as it was before does not mean I can’t appreciate the new movie.

I am more mellow in my thoughts on the movie now but what gets me on this site is the TNG hate, TNG is one of my all time fav shows.

81. captain_neill - April 5, 2013

I think I can appreciate Abrams Trek more by watching it as a film fan and not a Trekkie.

But the important question to ask is would Gene have liked Abrams style?

82. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 5, 2013

We are all entitled to our likes and dislikes.

I found this quote attributed to Gene Roddenberry: “If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life’s exciting variety, not something to fear.”

To me this quote calls directly to the The principles of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

Having been on this site for a number of months now, I am still surprised at the vitriol spewed forth from time to time against various aspects of the Star Trek ‘world’ and against the people who express an opinion for or against those aspects.

I find it jarring and contrary to the principls of IDIC. I guess we Trekkies/Trekkers are not as evolved as we would like to believe.

83. captain_neill - April 5, 2013

when fans bash TOS because of the Abrams movie that is taking it too far.

Abrams might try to take the Trek out of Star Trek but HE CANT ignore the show which his movie would not be here if it wasn’t for.

Abrams movie is the next chapter and IT DOES NOT eclipse what came before.

84. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 5, 2013

@83. captain_neill

Points 1 & 3 – agreed.
Point 2 – I disagree with the assertion that Abrams has tried to take the Trek out of Star Trek. However, you are entitled to hold that opinion – see my post @82 above. IDIC, after all.

85. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 5, 2013

…and today is First Contact Day..

I won’t live to see it, but one of my sons reckons he’ll be in Bozeman on 5 April 2063 just in case ;-)

86. captain_neill - April 5, 2013

perhaps too harsh on last comment but Abrams movie is more aimed at the non trekkie.

The comment that really pissed me off was that when Abrams got Star Wars ,his comment was “I want to do fans proud” yet with Trek it was always “Oh I am not making this for Trekkie” and to me, knowing he is a Star Wars fan, suggested he will not be as onjective with that project than he was with Trek, and also because I prefer Star Trek I likewhat I love to be respected.

I just don’t want Star Trek to be reduced to a film in which you disengage your brain for, I like a bit of thought in my Trek. If we disengage the brain then Trek is reduced to the lvel of Transformers and I don’t want that, this has been my fear about Trek going too mainstream.

There is elements that capture the fun of Trek but I think some of the ideals of Trek where diluted to get Joe public in, and thats the Joe Public who made Transformers 3 4th highest grossing film of all time.

I have no problem withit being more mainstream but I just don’t want the shows integrity lost as a result. Hope this makes sense.

87. Marja - April 5, 2013

There are people who hate “JJTrek” because he didn’t hire Shatner to play Kirk, or because he didn’t make the movie with the whole surviving TOS cast. There are people who hate JJTrek because the writers paired up Spock and Uhura [personally I love S/U as a couple, and this is part of why I saw the movie so many times]. There are people who hate JJTrek for many reasons, most of which have to do with “It’s not how I see my Trek.”

I love JJTrek and I love TOS. Both have their flaws – plot holes you could drive the Enterprise through – operatic villains – too much Kirk-the-cowboy – too much this, too much that.

I love TOS. I started watching the original run of the show when I was eleven. I’ve been a pretty loyal fan for a lot of years.

But as a wise person above said, this site is TrekMovie.com, not TrekMovieSucks.com, and I do get tired of TOS fans talking about how noble and perfect and beautiful TOS was. FOR ITS TIME it was noble, and sometimes beautiful, and some episodes were just about perfect. Some things haven’t aged so well. So when some of us who’ve been through every iteration of ST “defend” JJTrek, we know it’s not perfect. But we also know TOS was not perfect.

So can we feel free to discuss both without slamming one or the other? Without insisting that it’s TrekMyWay or JJ, hit the highway? TOS and its movie spawn had many wonderful, great, moving moments, but the series and movies are not inviolate, any more than JJTrek is. I can’t say I’ve seen ANYBODY saying JJTrek is The Only True Trek, as some people here say of TOS.

JJ Abrams made a great movie with a superb cast, excellent sfx, beautiful design, and IT MADE MONEY – this means Hollywood, and the general public, no longer hear “Star Trek” and think [insert Stereotypical Comment here]. Abrams renewed a franchise that [as Ronald D. Moore points out in his new interview] was weighed down with too much backstory.

I appreciate the new movie: it revived my interest in Trek, the cast wowed me with their talent, and the writers did – and didn’t – make me happy [I’m still pissed about Vulcan, and I wasn’t crazy about the, er, science of the black hole where Vulcan rests, and Nero … well, nevermind] [On the other hand I loved the dialogue, the relationships of the main characters, the humor, the pathos, and every little Trekker tribute]. It was a mixed bag, but overall, I loved it enough to see it lots of times before the DVD came out.

I think I’m pretty clear-eyed about my lifetime companion “Star Trek” so if I point out the flaws of TOS or its follow-on movies, or the flaws of JJ Abram’s movies, can’t I still love Trek and think it’s a wonderful thing?

88. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 5, 2013

@87. Marja

Very eloquently put, and describes my feelings exactly. The noteable difference between you and me – based on what you have written? I’m a year older ;-)

89. ug - April 5, 2013

“JJ Abrams made a great movie with a superb cast, excellent sfx, beautiful design, and IT MADE MONEY ”

I think there are many who would disagree that JJ Trek has “beautiful design”. The new Enterprise, the applestore bridge, the brewery engine room, etc… have few fans. Even those who like JJ Trek concede the production design misfired.

And I say that not because I wanted it to look like TOS or TMP. I just didn’t like the approach taken on its own merits.

I also think saying “IT MADE MONEY” in all caps reflects the populist argument that doesn’t really validate the movie’s quality, since as others have stated, many popcorn movies devoid of much substance have “MADE MONEY”.

The problem is me pointing out these flaws seems to unleash vitriol. And if JJ Trek was really so great, people could defend the film point-by-point rather than using labels to divide Trek fandom into the hipsters and the old fans who should just get the heck out of the way of progress.

The other poster who talked about the IDIC also raises the issue of the ideological subtext of Trek. JJ Trek fans tend not to care about any of that. They make the argument that Trek is and should only be seen as raw and unadulterated entertainment that does not inspire thinking about social issues or anything else besides Kirk and Spock getting themselves out of the next cliffhanger.

At that point, Trek is “no longer Trek” in the sense that it has nothing that differentiates it from Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Transformers, The Avengers, or any other action franchise. It doesn’t take a Trek purist to want Trek to maintain something more than the superficial to ground it to the world with all these decades of history. Yes, Trek was getting stale, but homogenizing it to the point where it no longer offers anything unique about it wasn’t the answer. It made business sense to the studios, but at the expense of taking a whole universe that lots of people worked really hard to build and kind of treating it as a disposable cash-machine.

90. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 5, 2013

@89. ug

I agree with your comments regarding many popcorn movies devoid of substance making money – they don’t get mine, by the way, I see very few movies a year (3 in 2012). I don’t agree with the implication that, because the reboot Trek was a popcorn movie which made money, that it was without substance.

I disagree with your view that the reboot Trek is no longer Trek, but you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion.

“And if JJ Trek was really so great, people could defend the film point-by-point rather than using labels to divideTrek fandom into the hipsters and the old fans who should just get the heck out of the way of progress.”

I believe Marja did this in her post: pointing out what she liked about the movie, and what she disliked.

I have seen over the past few months where comments on this site (from BOTH ‘sides’) have been divisive and vitriolic – I do agree that the fandom shouldn’t be divided by these labels. This is not an either/or scenario. It’s not even a spectrum of responses, where at the extreme ends are those who love TOS (or TNG etc) and greatly dislike the Abrams reboot movie; and those who love the reboot movie and greatly dislike TOS etc. That is not an accurate model because that implies an increasing like of one corresponds to a decreasing like of the other. There are those of us – I am one – who love them both, despite the flaws they both have. This is also one of the points I believe Marja was trying to make.

I am an old fan (since 1966) who also liked the reboot movie and consider it a Trek movie. That doesn’t mean I consider it the best Trek movie ever made – it wasn’t – but as I’ve said elsewhere, I preferred this movie over the last 3 Next Gen movies.

91. Jovius the Romulan - April 5, 2013

ug: I think the point she was making was that, because the movie made a good return, we will have more Trek to enjoy. Star Trek merchandising is doing pretty damn well now, IIRC, better than it was in the early 200s for sure. You have J.J. Abrams to thank for that. You also have him to thank if we get another TV series.

Granted, we don’t have anything going on like two shows at once as well as a movie to look forward to every two years like we did in the ’90s, but we take what we can get at this point! It would be nice to see Star Trek get back to that, but at the same time they may have oversaturated themselves by doing so.

92. Jovius the Romulan - April 5, 2013

*early 2000s

93. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

77. ug

So, umm… why are you even here if you aren’t a fan of JJ’s Trek? I am guessing since you hated the 09 movie so much, you aren’t even going to see the sequel.

Or are you just here to instigate?

94. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

89. ug

I have been a fan of Trek since I was a little kid in the early 70’s. I have watched and enjoyed every incarnation of Trek… all the movies, all the series, all the books and comics. And yes, I like JJ’s Trek too. Who is to say you can’t like TOS and Trek09?

You have very narrow minded thinking, my friend. Just because YOU don’t like JJ’s Trek, doesn’t mean others aren’t allowed to like it.

Roddenberry had his vision of Trek… Berman had his vision of Trek, Moore had his vision and now JJ has his. And there will be other countless visions to come.

95. Red Dead Ryan - April 5, 2013

Yeah, this site is called “TREKMOVIE.COM” for a reason. It was created in anticipation of the first J.J Abrams movie. That movie has been a major success. This site is primarily devoted to coverage of the new movies, so if you hate the Abrams “Star Trek”, do the rest of us a favor and leave.

This site is for fans of the new movies.

96. Disinvited - April 5, 2013

#93. Trek Fan – April 5, 2013

I think as a devoted JJ fan you are morphing trekmovie to jjtrekmovie.com a whole different site.

The goundbreaking VERONICA MARS/kickstarter launch demonstrates that JJ/Paramount’s way wouldn’t have been the only route to movie Trek.

I also think Trek fans may find that JJ’s focus changing to STAR WARS could ultimately (while not purposefully) harm Paramount Trek, because the entertainment media is constantly going to compare the two products and find his Trek wanting. Not because he isn’t producing perfectly adequate movies for Paramount, but merely because it doesn’t perform in the SW stratosphere. This will ultimately be interpreted by industry wonks as meaning his Treks are inferior and an excuse to add the appellation “you can tell his heart really isn’t in it” without giving a thought to it.

97. Anthony Pascale - April 5, 2013

This site is for ALL Star Trek fans, regardless of opinions about any incarnation of Trek.

Anyone willing to learn, chat, discuss Star Trek and stay civil with their fellow fans is welcome here

98. Trek Fan - April 5, 2013

96. Disinvited

Not sure what you are trying to say.

99. Red Dead Ryan - April 5, 2013

I just can’t understand why some folks feel the need to bash the new movies.

100. captain_neill - April 5, 2013

99

I understand, I admit I have been too vocal and have tried to mellow down. I will probably never like Abrams style of Star Trek on the same level as I love the rest of Trek, it’s main goal is appealing to a diff audience, however I am looking forward to seeing the film.

I will try and respect other peoples opinion but I don’t want to be penalised for preferring TNG over the Abrams films. Cause it seems the hate works both ways on this site. Peopl get annoyed that there are fans who don’t like Abrams film as the best ever Trek and there are others who seem to delete in bitching about TNG.

God there are people who are criticisng the great episodes that Braga wrote on TNG, just because he and Berman get a bad rep for the end. Fandom I don’t get. It seems fans dont respect the IDIC ideals. Would Gene appreciate the fans sending death threrats to the Braga and Abrams respectively depending on what camp you are in?

Bottom line I do enjoy Abrams film but I do find Into Darkness will be the make or break.

101. captain_neill - April 5, 2013

but I always will prefer what came before more, Will I be penalised because I have more love for TOS and TNG and DS9 than the Abrams movie? How is this any diff from a Star Wars fan loving the originals over the prequels?

102. Trekbilly - April 5, 2013

Lindeloff is nuts!!

Ridley Scott SHOT Prometheus in 3D using 3D cameras! It wasn’t a conversion! The 3D in Prometheus was SPECTACULAR!! What is “gimmicky” about it? The POINT of 3D IS to have some things pop from the screen! Otherwise, it might as well be a 2D movie!

You can’t compare a 3D CONVERSION to a film that was shot with 3D cameras and DESIGNED in 3D….there’s no comparison!

Geez LOUISE!!!! ((rolls eyes))

103. Trekbilly - April 5, 2013

I will say this — Lindelof’s comments had as many HOLES as his script for Prometheus! LOL!!

104. Marja the Independent - April 6, 2013

This is a long one, folks ….
Obsessive, thanks, you made my night – have almost always read yr posts and said, “Right On!”.

– 89, Ug, My all-caps IT MADE MONEY was my way of saying Money = box office = *audience* = continuation of Trek. Very important to me after 40 yrs of fandom.

Look, I hate the lensflares; thought that lights shining in the eyes of Bridge officers was counter-productive & probably headache-inducing [it amuses me to think of McCoy called to the Bridge to administer migraine relief]. For JJ I think it was “shiny” and brought a feel of I”invigoration” to the Bridge. Dunno. I would welcome the sight of some teak or mahogany on the Bridge, as is traditional, and a bronze nameplate. I’ve been to the Apple flagship :) store though and don’t get the iStore reference but will concede the Bridge resembles an Apple *product* – the design is technically oriented and is sleek and beautiful per the Jobs aesthetic. I used an Apple for awhile (“I’m still a PC” though). I admire Apple’s design immensely.

Yah, I’m not crazy about the pipe- and vat Engineering but it’s something I accept as a “JJ loves locations” and a cost-saving measure (just as I accept the TOS plywood sets with their nonetheless ingenious design). I think of it as a tribute to steamships, and maybe to those intrepid folk who found a way to distill alcohol there ;)

I LOVE the design of the new Enterprise. I think she’s a beautiful lady, with her “ample nacelles.” …. btw I’m answering point by point b/c I want to debate, not because I’m full of vitriol.

JJTrek still offers a unique view of a “peacekeeping and humanitarian armada” – the team who works on the Enterprise does so b/c they love to explore and they have a desire to save others and help them. They keep running into outsize villains that require them to save the galaxy because big-budget movies require those sorts of plots. Once Trek returns to TV, I think we’ll see more of those questing, philosophical stories so many of us enjoy.

I feel I must point out though that the following things in ST2009 hit me emotionally and inspired thought: the sacrifice of people in war – George Kirk and the crew of the Kelvin – brought me to tears; the human element of his interaction with his wife was part of the heartbreak of military life today. The needless deaths of six billion Vulcans [with its echo of six million folk with their intense respect for education and culture who died in the 1930s and ’40s at the hands of a madman] certainly inspired me to think of social issues, as did our “genius-level offender” becoming a captain. It also made me think about “political” promotions in the military. OK, I can look at the use of the six billion number as manipulation by the writers, and I can also examine the unfair promotion of Kirk over Spock, but in the context of a two-hour movie these things worked to communicate emotionally with the audience, some of whom had never seen Trek before.

96, Disinvited, “Veronica Mars” is not set on a starship and doesn’t involve a great many SFX so does not need to raise millions of dollars to make a good story.

However, your point re: JJ’s move to SWars is a good one indeed. It worried me when he accepted because he’s stated time & again that SWars was his first sci-fi love; the thought that people will think his heart wasn’t in Trek and Trek will pale by comparison with SWars’s box office is worrying. I really hope Trek will continue to draw many new fans and will be in capable hands for its third installment. Personally I’ll feel pretty good if Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman are writing it.

100/101 Captain Neil, I loved and still love TNG, but as a fan, I watched Seasons 1 and 2 wincing a bit. For the most part the scripts were rather preachy rehashes of ideas put forth in some of the less-great TOS stories. I soldiered on and got to the wonderful 3rd and subsequent seasons because of the cast, the camaraderie, the new relationships and personalities, and one beautiful ship. The “universe” as it was designed and executed was lovely. But I remember the Picard-bashers who gnashed their teeth every time he consulted with his department heads [like a real captain]. From the 3rd season on there were things I disliked, of course but there was so much to love.

“Penalised for having more love for TOS …”? I do not think I have penalised anyone who’s respectful of differences, but I am mightily tired of being branded an uncritical hipster JJdefender who must be in the Other Camp.

As for SWars, I’m glad George Lucas has departed; the odd thing was that he nearly destroyed his own franchise with bad writing for all the prequels; I feel he should have entrusted his dear creation to more talented directors. “Empire Strikes Back” was IMHO the best Star Wars movie ever.

Please don’t dismiss me as a “hipster” mindless automatic JJ-defender, folks. I haven’t drunk any Kool-Aid and I’m not good at following in lockstep.

105. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#104. Marja the Independent – April 6, 2013

I think Manny Coto demonstrated in the severely FX budget restricted final season of ENTERPRISE that spaceship fx requiring millions of dollars need not be the case.

I don’t have the data to be certain on SyFy’s Caprica but I am under the impression they operated under a similar fx budget restriction.

106. chanel pas cher - April 10, 2013

Great, thanks for sharing this blog.Thanks Again. Will read on…

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