Watch: Lindelof, Cho, Eve, Quinto and Pine Talk Star Trek Into Darkness At CinemaCon | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: Lindelof, Cho, Eve, Quinto and Pine Talk Star Trek Into Darkness At CinemaCon April 16, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Conventions/Events/Attractions,ST09 Cast,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Last night we reported on footage from Star Trek Into Darkness from CinemaCon 2013 in Las Vegas. We now have video of Damon Lindelof, Chris Pine, Alice Eve, Zachary Quinto and John Cho talking about the movie before they showed the footage. Watch that below plus some interview clips with the group.     

 

Pine, Quinto, Cho and Eve talk Into Darkness at CinemaCon

As we reported last night, producer Damon Lindelof brought actors Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Alice Even and John Cho to the movie industry CinemaCon trade show. Before showing footage from the movie, Lindelof conducted a Q&A with his actors. Here are some highlights from that talk (or you can skip to the full video below).

Pine talked about how Kirk is different in Into Darkness vs the first Star Trek:

Pine: I think a lot of maturing happens in this film. For a man who thinks he knows everything and leads with his gut and with his heart and is all kind of passion and heart. He is a man who has to learn to censor himself at times and our bad guy–John Harrison–basically levels this mirror in front of Kirk in which he sees all of his vulnerabilities and his fallibility and everything that is wrong with the way he leads his men and women into battle–and he brings him to his knees. I think you find a lot of vulnerability with this young man who is trying to find his way and trying to learn how to captain this incredible vessel full of these incredible people who are becoming his friends and family.

Challenges playing Spock

Quinto: The limitations [of expressing emotion] are pretty strong as an actor, but it gives me an opportunity to cultivate an interior life which I think is at the heart of [Spock]. I just saw Leonard [Nimoy] a few days ago–we were giving an interview about the character–and it was one of the things we both connected to with Spock. It is an erroneous notion that he doesn’t have an emotional life. This movie gives me an opportunity to explore that in many ways and also to be much more physical than I was in the first movie…Spock’s journey in this movie is learning how to be accountable to the people he cares about and loves ultimately.

Lindelof talked about the differences between Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness…

Lindelof: The stakes are a lot higher [in Into Darkness]. Obviously we wanted to go bigger and better in the second movie but not at the cost of the incredible emotion of the first movie. I really feel–thanks to these actors–the relationships between the characters themselves really–the action happens around them–which really makes you care.

Watch the video (via Showbiz Junkies)

CinemaCon Interview videos

Here are some more videos (via AMC Theaters) with the cast and crew talking about Into Darkness.

Pine on Kirk "maturing" in this film and the next Trek + the ‘huge’ scale + "bigger, badder, louder" action.

Quinto talks about how Abrams and Nimoy helped him become Spock.

Eve on developing the young Carol Marcus and working with Chris Pine.

Cho on why he couldn’t imitate George Takei and how Into Darkness has more action for Sulu.

And here are a couple more press room interview clips from TVShowsAndSeries

Quinto on "scattered" crew and contrasts Harrison and Nero.

Pine on Kirk’s journey, Abrams directing for 3D and embarassment over wetsuit + Alice Eve on how it meant a lot to be part of movie and how she is a fan.

Lindelof and cast talk about promoting Star Trek after Boston bombings

Paramount had the challenge of being the first studio to present at the four day CinemaCon event with their event coming the evening after the bombings at the Boston Marathon. Lindelof and the cast talked to the AP about how they felt selling a movie so soon after that tragedy and about their personal connections to Boston and the marathon.

Comments

1. Copper Based Blood - April 17, 2013

Very Sensitive subject.

2. Kirk - April 17, 2013

I’ve been wondering. What are midichlorians?

3. Ash - April 17, 2013

Sounds really interesting. I can’t wait to see Kirk face all these challenges and become a worthy captain. Also excited to see his developing partnership with Spock.

4. MJ - April 17, 2013

I gotta say, the fact that the new Trek cost won’t go to fan conventions, but have no issues with going to trade conventions, kind of rubs me the wrong way.

5. MJ - April 17, 2013

“Trek cast”

6. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

I’m very much looking forward to seeing this movie, and to seeing the growth of these characters and their interrelationships, as well as all the action, new ships etc.

If this movie lives up to what we’ve seen and read about it so far, I will have found it to be extremely entertaining and enjoyable StarTrek.

7. K-7 - April 17, 2013

Looks like Pine is already in good form for the An American Werewolf in London reboot. He’s due for a big year with Star Trek in May, Jack Ryan at Christmas and Werewolf next Spring.

8. JohnRambo - April 17, 2013

@1
don’t make it one

9. Rick - April 17, 2013

@MJ- They don’t go to fan conventions? Not ANY? That sucks..

10. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

@4 & @9

Going to the trade conventions is probably part of their contracts.

Bear in mind, this cast has been in just 1 (about to be 2) Star Trek movies. They haven’t spend years as these characters in TV series beforehand. Maybe once they’ve got 2 or 3 under their belt they might feel differently.

On the other hand, they might find the rabid trekkies/trekkers just too intimidating ;-)

11. Red Dead Ryan - April 17, 2013

Look, the new cast are only in it for the cash and publicity for future projects. Most of the cast (minus Quinto and Pegg) aren’t Trek fans. They signed a three-picture deal, and after the third movie, they are done.

These actors have more on their plate then the previous casts did. So they don’t have the time to do the convention circuit. The TNG and TOS cast members didn’t have much else going on during their Trek heyday, and so they had time to kill at conventions.

All we’re entitled to from these actors are good performances in the new Trek movies. Nothing more, nothing less.

12. Jack - April 17, 2013

The only reason other Trek actors do conventions is for the money.

Uh, am I the only one who thinks Quinto’s Spock looks like he’s constantly seething with rage? Of course, Quinto himself always looks the same way – in appearances, pap shots and other roles.

13. MJ - April 17, 2013

Yea, I get the reasons why they are not going to fan conventions. Neverthesless, when I see them at “other” types of conventions, it still bothers me. I’m not trying to defend this feeling that I have, but I do have it.

14. MJ - April 17, 2013

@12. More often than not, Quinto looks like he just got out of a 2-day bender at the Moulin Rogue.

PS: Seriously, I am just counting the years until the “two-day old shave” look departs Hollywood. Just so sick and tired of that lazy look.

15. Red Dead Ryan - April 17, 2013

#12.

Well he had just witnessed (and barely escaped from) his homeworld’s destruction in the last movie….

#13.

Yeah, I understand how you feel, but if they start doing conventions, CREATION will hike the ticket prices up by a huge margin….

Also, I think the new cast prefers to hang out with fellow celebs, sponsors, CEOs, and other elite members of society…..

16. Ash - April 17, 2013

@red dead Ryan- karl urban is a huge Trekkie as well :)

17. Jack - April 17, 2013

I also wonder whether a Trek convention would be bad publicity at this point? They’re trying to draw in a larger audience and, in the past, Trek was increasingly seen as made for fans and nobody else.

That, and fans are going to see the movie anyway.

Did the main TOS cast do conventions when the movies were big? Just curious.

18. Jack - April 17, 2013

15. Way before that. I know, he had reasons to be angry. But it just seemed to flow so well.

19. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

@14. MJ

‘ I am just counting the years until the “two-day old shave” look departs Hollywood. Just so sick and tired of that lazy look.’

I’m you with on that one! I’m so old and out of touch, I only discovered last week that electric stubble trimmers exist. I thought guys just didn’t bother to shave for a few days – but, no – you can actually use a trimmer to cultivate that look. I shudder to think what that stubble does to the face of the person they’re kissing.

20. Red Dead Ryan - April 17, 2013

#17.

The TOS cast started doing conventions in the seventies, after TOS hit it big after going into syndication. I believe they continued to do conventions through the eighties and into the nineties.

And yeah, Trek conventions are seen as big nerd fests. Might be a turn-off to some of the new cast members.

Though I could see Simon Pegg dropping in from time to time….

21. Red Dead Ryan - April 17, 2013

I agree that the stubble look has to go. That style is fine for schmoes who work a nine-to-five job in a physically demanding job, but multi-millionaire actors should take some pride in how they look in public.

22. Aix - April 17, 2013

Can I have Lindelof’s sense of humor, please? He is such a funny guy.

23. Son of Jello - April 17, 2013

I wish someone would level a mirror upto their dress sence before they go out. I guess they didnt read the posts about the MTV awards

#2 mediclorians are a big FU to Star Wars fans for a few decades it looked like anyone could be a jedi but George Lucas just wanted to clamp down controle of peoples freedom to dream about it.

24. Son of Jello - April 17, 2013

#21 #14 Agree completely.

25. Son of Jello - April 17, 2013

Alice Eve looks pretty cute in that dress

26. april giant fun - April 17, 2013

I like the cute redhead behind john cho, do you know her name? (-:

27. Calastir - April 17, 2013

The Star Trek franchise is heading for oblivion if they’ll not even keep in touch with the fanbase by attending conventions, and future generations of fans wil not care as much about classic Trek.

We’re definitely running down from a golden age.

Then again, there’s always Star Wars.

28. Son of Jello - April 17, 2013

There is a real lack of Chekov in all of this promotion and trailers I cant seem to see him in any of the trailers. There seems to be a female sitting in his chair in all the bridg scenes. Maybe hes one of the people killed in the attacks on starfleet. If he is dead why is killing an established character drama it seems so cheap. Im starting to have gloomy thoughts about how Abrams in handling these charactors and Star Trek. He has expressed that hes not a fan why should planets blow up and people die because hes not really interested in Star Trek and its history.

Its clear that he’s Star Warsing Star Trek but he seems to have a bit of a one night stand to attitude towards it. Im glad he is having a good time but there are long term conciquenses for those of us who have a little more compasion for the subject he is handling and will still be here after he’s moved on to dating the next sci-fi chick he’s got lined up.

29. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

@28. Son of Jello

From a quick rescan of the trailers Anthony has posted on the main Star Trek into Darkness page, Chekov appears in the (UK) International trailer, the First Look Featurette and the Teaser Trailer. He is running down a corridor in a red shirt – possibly doing something engineering-related while Scotty is off the ship. I haven’t bothered to recheck, but I recall he is in some of the other country international trailers as well. He is also (with the other 6, plus Dr Marcus, on the collector’s cover of the May 2013 edition of Empire magazine (UK version), as well as having a picture in the accompanying article.

He was, as far as I can see, only featured on one TOS movie poster: the poster for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (which featured the 7). I can’t comment on the trailers from that time. I don’t remember them, and don’t have the time to try and find them on the internet.

Yes, perhaps he dies. Perhaps someone else who is part of the 7 dies. Let us not forget Spock dies in TWOK! Having said that, the cover for the Star Trek Ongoing comic #21 (set immediately after the events in STID) does have all the main 7 on the cover. Of course, that could also be a piece of misdirection.

Anything is possible. However, I feel you are being unduly negative on very little evidence. Unless, of course, you never came to like the Star Trek (2009) movie. If that’s the case, then the odds are rather high that you won’t enjoy this one either.

30. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

..oops, I forgot that, of course, Harrison and JJ ABrams are also on the collector’s cover…

31. Calastir - April 17, 2013

I for one never liked the fact that Vulcan was blown up and the same for Romulus in the old Universe, and the ending where both Spock and Kirk act on their feelings of revenge by destroying Nero’s ship.

Star Trek characters shouldn’t act on feelings of hatred and revenge, they should overcome those negative emotions, not act on them.

Either that, or they’re not heroic.

And now I hear new Kirk saying: “Let’s go get this son of a bitch…”

And that’s not a good sign.

32. Mad Mann - April 17, 2013

Dang, Alice Eve is so hot.

Oh yeah, go Star Trek!

33. Flake - April 17, 2013

The cast are only going to these trade conventions because they are contracted and paid to do so as part of promoting the movie. They arent going because they want to be there.

34. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

@31. Calastir

If, by Star Tek characters, you refer to members of Starfleet in general, then I suggest there are any number of episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY where Starfleet individuals have not lived up to these high ideals. These are ideals to be strived for, but even in the 23rd and 24th centuries, Humans are imperfect beings.

If you are referring specifically to Kirk & Spock, then you need to remember these are younger and more ‘unfinished’ than we saw them in TOS. In fact, that is apparently one of the main themes of STID for Kirk: to move on from the arrogant genius punk, through a large dose of humility, to be the leader his crew can trust and look up to. It is Kirk the arrogant punk who is uttering these words, not Kirk the leader. In fact, I think I read somewhere that those words were deliberately chosen to highlight his immaturity at this point.

That said, even TOS Kirk was not perfect. Recall in ST:UC when Spock (referring to the Klingon empire after the Praxis incident) says “They’re dying.”, Kirk replies “Let them Die!”. Then, of course, there were the dissident Starfleet officers (Cartwright, Valeris, etc) in league with dissident Klingons to prevent peace, and willing to commit murder to achieve their goals.

35. Calastir - April 17, 2013

@34
Yes, I was referring to the main cast. But these are not real people, these are heroic characters which up until now promoted those positive ideals as an inspiration.

That’s mostly why we tell stories, to follow by example. What will it mean when even our fictional heroes have given up striving towards higher ideals anymore?

I also hear that in this movie Scotty will kick some bandit out of an airlock and joke about it.

And it bothers me that there’s not even a sign that these characters question their actions.

36. Jack - April 17, 2013

31. “And now I hear new Kirk saying: “Let’s go get this son of a bitch…”
And that’s not a good sign.”

Although the trailer suggests that this is his, and his ship and crew’s, undoing.

37. Jack - April 17, 2013

“That’s mostly why we tell stories, to follow by example”

Maybe the stories in Captain Planet episodes…

38. Son of Jello - April 17, 2013

#31 Calastir
Its the son of a bitch line that got me thinking it was very jarring to hear it in Star Trek it is a quite agressive tone for Star Trek to take. Even when Kirks son was killed Kirk still remained level headed and thought rationaly. Sure Pines Kirk is a lot younger and less restrained but I found it a bit unsettling to hear it I hope this is not a new direction for Star Trek. And I agree its not a good sign.

#29 ObsessiveStarTrekFan

Thanks for the reasurance about Chekov. Spock didnt die he gave his life to save his crew and the people he cared for. He new what he was doing.

We all share a similar delima in this forum they are to many posts and not enough time for anyone to keep up with what people are saying. I have been a bit of an advocate of Abrams and his take on ST. And have berated people more than once when they continue to pine for the old style ST. My reasons being that this needed to happen for ST to remain relevant and survive into the future with a new audience and its success gives hope to a return to TV the format that it is best suited to.

I really did and continue to enjoy ST09 and have watched it on more than one or 9 ocasions because as a movie it is successful and Abrams is quite obviously at the top of his game and he has reinvigorated the franchise. But reading other posts and thinking about other peoples view of Abrams ST. It has made me think that the ST we are seeing is not really what ST is about.

No we havent seen the new movie but so far it is full of agression and violence a theme wich is not something that I expect from ST and is not what ST is about. So my post #28 is just expressing that a bit of a flippant atitude has been taken with the source material. Vulcan is gone and Amanda is dead I can see why she died (spocks loss of controle later) but she didnt have to it just seemed a cheap way to create drama. The theme of death and destruction seems to be continuing into the new movie. I think this is wrong ST is not about revenge. In the trailer Kirk wants to “take him out” and Pike tells him “starfleet is not about vendetta.” Pikes right its not and ST is not about revenge or getting even its about being better than that.

The theme I see in ST is about overcoming such simplistic notions. It’s very representitive of people trying to face problums with maturity and understanding there way out of a situation. Star Trek is not about storming the gates of your enemy. It about overcomeing the natural instinct to be agressive and hate filled because thats what makes us better thats the theme of ST. The struggle to grow beyond what we are now to something better. STTOS was representitve of this and even today the same conflicts between countrys and cultures exhist in our world Its even gotten worse. But its the dream that we can overcome this that is at the core of ST. But with Abrams its all going backwards. Its just a story driven by base emotions. Revenge, Hatered, Vendetta, Death and Destruction and thats not ST at all. How can we hope for something better when everything is destroyed and the only answer available is more death.

39. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 17, 2013

@35. Calastir

I haven’t studied literature since high school, so I’m not going to make a fool of myself trying to launch into an in-depth discussion of archetypes in myth and storytelling.

However, do you not consider character growth to be also part of the Hero’s Journey?

I don’t believe what we have seen so far of Kirk in STID is an example of our fictional hero giving “up striving towards higher ideals anymore”. We are seeing Kirk on the Hero’s Journey. He will strive, he will face challenges and temptations, he will have a revelation, he will atone and he will undergo transformation.

You state: “I also hear that in this movie Scotty will kick some bandit out of an airlock and joke about it”

My reading of the descriptions of this scene are quite different. Scotty is in the airlock waiting to open it to allow the space-jumping Kirk and Harrison to enter the ship. He is confronted by an armed guard, who will prevent him from opening the airlock if he realises what he is intending. If he does nothing, the plan will fail. He opens the airlock and the guard is sucked out. Scotty has strapped himself on to something so he is not also sucked out. Kirk and Harrison land. Scotty says to them “What kept you?”. This is hardly joking about killing someone.

Do our beloved characters question their actions in this movie? Watch the movie and find out for yourself. I intend to.

40. Navy - April 17, 2013

The orginal James T. Kirk was someone to look up to, worked for everything he had and earned the respect of everyone around him. The new Kirk seems more like a lotto winner, accidentally in the right place at the right time.

41. Calastir - April 17, 2013

@37
Condescending tone is noted. But I’d prefer a little more Captain Planet, and a little less Captain Ahab.

@39
I agree that this Kirk may be on a Hero’s Journey, I just hope it won’t take several movies for this character to actually become Captain Kirk and rise above the violent anti-hero archetype.

As they stand, I can neither follow nor cheer for some of these characters. We’ll wait and see.

42. Sunfell - April 17, 2013

Zach joked about his glower and heavy brows in a Conan interview back in February. He even did a couple of poses to demonstrate, to huge laughs. (He also did a hilarious ‘sneak preview’ of the movie.)

Appearance aside, the actor is a genuinely kind and laid-back man, who likes his fans and his character.

As far as the cast going to SF conventions, I would rather know that they are too busy with interesting projects to come.

43. Clinton - April 17, 2013

Living in the Boston area, on the day of the incident I was very sensitive to the fact that “Into Darkness” touches on themes very close to what was happening right at my doorstep. But you can’t be topical without touching a nerve.

In some of its best moments Trek has hit close to home, ripping topics from the headlines. It was the reality when I watched TOS commentary on war while Vietnam was on the news every night. And so it might be with STID.

I will be there on 5/15, cheering on the good guys, booing the villains and hopefully having the best time in the world. Join me, won’t you? (BostonStrong)

44. Captain Hackett - April 17, 2013

ONE MONTH TO GO!!!

I am getting excited!!! :)

45. Disinvited - April 17, 2013

#38. Son of Jello – April 17, 2013

So let me get this straight: STIII’s “bastard” is an acceptable pejorative but STID’s “son of a bitch” goes a bridge too far?

Secondly, as fan of the STAR TREK series from its original 1960’s airings forward, who kept it, as a phenomenon, alive despite its cancellation and decade long absence from any narratives on film stock, I am increasingly weary of all these constant proclamations that any Trek movie has to be made to keep this self-sustaining phenomenon “alive.” The film franchise was came into being to address the demand – it did not create it.

Ten long years with nothing new on any kind of screen big or small, and the phenomenon grew on its own to the point where it so tempted the owners of its trademarks and copyrights that they could not ignore it any longer.

History has recorded that regardless of it being labelled a failure by the entertainment industry at any point since its inception, Trek endures. So spare me the homilies on why any action by Paramount or CBS “absolutely had to happen” to keep Trek “alive.” No it didn’t.

Now to be fair, if you want to hem the gushing in a bit by adding the appellation “as a film franchise” to your contention, I think I can hem-in my knee-jerk reaction agin it and politely entertain the notion.

46. John from Cincinnati - April 17, 2013

10.

When their careers start waning, they’ll be at the fan conventions sitting at the little tables in the dealers room peddling their autographs for $20.

47. Disinvited - April 17, 2013

#40. Navy – April 17, 2013

And I can understand the approach that their story is taking that this Kirk wasn’t just born a great captain but has to rise to it. But it diluted that message when in their first film it has Prime Spock anoint altKirk as the best and then in STID we get the message “not yet.” But I can fudge it a bit by saying Spock Prime wasn’t saying altKirk was best, just better than any emotionally compromised Spock.

48. Curious Cadet - April 17, 2013

@46. John from Cincinnati,
“When their careers start waning, they’ll be at the fan conventions sitting at the little tables in the dealers room peddling their autographs for $20.”

Haha, that’ll be the day. They’ll be rebooting TOS for the 4th time and Chris Pine will have gained 50 pounds and will be giving cantankerous interviews about how the new director screwed him out of reprising his role as the original Alt Kirk in the soon to be released new movie.

49. Navy - April 17, 2013

@47

The point I’m trying to make, is that someone that fell into a role doesn’t make him a role model.

James T. Kirk, in the Prime universe was someone who gave his whole life to becoming a starship captain. So much so that he was even bullied in Starfleet Acadamy. Kirk was the youngest Captain in Starfleet, but there wasn’t a single Starfleet officer who didn’t respect Kirk. That is someone you want your children to look up to and strive to become.

Alt Kirk didn’t have the ambition to be any more than a petty thug until he got his head beat in and Pike convinced him to enlist. Kirk didn’t earn his position as Captain, and while he might have the natural ability to lead he doesn’t represent someone you would want your children to emulate. Would you want to raise your children to work for their own success, or hope that it falls in their lap?

New Star Trek is not Star Trek, it’s just an action movie with familiar content.

50. Michael Li - April 17, 2013

Fans of the trek series will understand that a movie bout terrorism in a futuristic eutopia is still apparent and the movie should still be shown as a message that no matter ow evil tries it will be overcome. However, I think people who do not understand the entire context of the federation , which is only possible though watching the series, in my opinion, will hate paramount and the production team for releasing this so soon.

I think the movie should still be shown, but being the bigger person, I feel pushing it back even on account of one person is neccessary.

51. CaptainDonovin - April 17, 2013

Alice does look great, ZQ, not a fan of those red pants.

52. K-7 - April 17, 2013

@27 “The Star Trek franchise is heading for oblivion…”

You are confused. Oblivion is still scheduled t be released this Friday, and Star Treks May release dates haven’t changed.

53. Clinton - April 17, 2013

@52 Outstanding! LOL!

54. Calastir - April 17, 2013

@52
Yeah, you sure showed me wrong. Let them avoid their fans, right?

55. MC Doctor - April 17, 2013

Qunito is doing interviews with Nimoy – NOW?
Why – because they are buddies or because Prime Spock is in ST-ID.

56. Navy - April 17, 2013

Holding back a movie because it’s contents might offend someone effected by the actions of a deranged luntic(s) is socialism at its best.

Sure doesn’t seem like the last couple generations has made many adults. Lots of children looking for their hands to get held and their sob stories heard.

57. John from Cincinnati - April 17, 2013

Growing up watching the orginal Star Trek in syndication and then the animated series, Captain James T. Kirk was the coolest man ever.

He was someone to look up to. He was “a stack of books with legs” in Starfleet academy. A serious minded cadet and young officer. Rose through the ranks quickly, so quickly he became the youngest Starship Captain in history. Through hard work, not by having it fall in his lap.

Prime Kirk’s backstory of being on Tarsus IV and surviving the massacre there I’m sure also had an impression on young Kirk. An incident scandalously absent from new Kirk. New Kirk doesnt appreciate anything which led to very immature behavior. I would argue Alternate Kirk is the most different from his Prime version than any of the other characters.

58. Navy - April 17, 2013

@57

It could be argued the Kirk was accumulated a Captains worth of experience in such a short career through his sheer dedication. Kirk already experienced life and death decisions before getting his command. Starfleet felt he was so ready for command his first ship was the flagship.

Alt. Kirk has 3 years of the Acadmy, a criminal past and dealing with one demented romulan. Reads like the bio of the mirror universe Kirk… Not everyday a stow-away gets made first officer then regulation wiggles into the Captains chair, so that’s worth something.

59. Brett L. - April 17, 2013

@4
I’ve seen Quinto appear at a fan convention before (Creation event), but I think he’s the only one.

Somehow I doubt we’ll ever see Chris Pine at a con. I fear his newfound stardom may be going to his head. For example, last year he ended his decade-long association with his former agency, apparently in favor of a more high profile outfit. So much for loyalty.

60. LizardGirl - April 17, 2013

If there’s anyone here affected by what’s happened in Boston, I want to give my heartfelt condolences to you,. it’s getting to be that one can’t walk out there front door without their life being in danger.
******
Navy I understand what you’re saying about how original Kirk was a role model (to a degree), but what I personally feel is that kids need real people in there community to look up to nowadays. They don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And then we get major headliners because some kid couldn’t plug back into real life.

It would be nice to have role models in the entertainment industry on and off screen, but sadly, I don’t think you can trust it to teach decent values.

61. Keachick - April 17, 2013

#57 – such silliness…oh dear.

Actually, just because we are not told that this alt.Kirk may have seen and survived a similar or same massacre does not mean that he may not have experienced such nevertheless.

We are told that prime Kirk was a “stack of books on legs” but he was also the same young cadet who chose to cheat/beat the same Kobiyashi Maru test. The reality has to be that this alt.Kirk did study, might even at times been very much a “stack of books on legs”. It is just that we are not told or shown that aspect of this young James Kirk. What is interesting (and so easily forgotten) is that a person who was not even a Starfleet cadet knew what xenolinguistics was – I guess that it is likely that some “book work” would have been required in order to have this information. What’s more, this ability to do a little “book work” allowed this young Kirk to do in three years what other bright people are only able to achieve in four years.

Kirk today would, in all likelihood, be eligible to belong to high IQ organisations like Intel or Mensa. In the real world, prime Spock is an honorary member of Mensa International! My husband, a Mensa member at the time, argued that (prime) Kirk should also be an honorary member. Kirk possesses a different type of intelligence from Spock, but at the same high level. I see no difference, in this respect, from what was shown of prime Kirk and that shown of this alt.Kirk. This alt. Kirk is simply younger and less experienced.

62. Zom B. - April 17, 2013

57, 58 – John from Cincy/ Navy,

wow – i wanted to love JJtrek so badly that i attempted to suspend rational thought and tried to embrace the events of the first movie that led to newkirk’s promotion.

But it simply can’t be overlooked. Sorry JJ & Co. – I mean you could have even done the ‘five years later’ thing or something and showed him getting promoted then. That would have left a lot of material for flashbacks, showing his growth, etc. throughout the next several movies.

As it is, if starfleet were to give command of it’s flagship to a cadet (yes – cadet – did he even graduate??) then the federation deserves to get it’s arse kicked!

63. Keachick - April 17, 2013

Alt. Kirk was no criminal in any real sense of the word. They would have been minor misdemeanours at worst. There is no way that Starfleet would allow someone with convictions for serious offences into the Academy.

64. Shatterhand - April 17, 2013

@ 27

Um, why exactly do the cast members of the new Star Trek movies need to attend conventions to prevent “oblivion” (great hyperbole, by the way)? It would seem to me that the franchise is standing pretty steadily on its own merits so far. The only people shaking fists of rage and seeing any signs of this alleged “oblivion” at this point are the purists who can’t handle the fact that their beloved franchise is taking a different direction. I don’t think that having Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana and the gang attend Star Trek conventions is going to win over those people.

65. Keachick - April 17, 2013

I think it is about old and new fans seeing and hearing these actors talk about working on Star Trek, how they understand the characters they play and possibly, hopefully, even meeting these actors in person, shaking their hands, talking to them etc.

What people like MJ and others mean (please correct me if I am wrong here) is that they would like the visceral, the immediate contact with the new actors playing their beloved Star Trek characters from a TV series which, in three years’ time, will celebrate its 50th Anniversary (half a century). Trek fans have received such from the original actors, as well as those who acted in the various Star Trek spin-off TV series.

Just so long as they do not announce a concern, an affection, even love, for a particular actor…can’t have that now, can we? Might get accused of being covetous and have a pathology (sickness)…(read my sarcasm)

66. Commodore Shaggy - April 17, 2013

I imagine that over time some of the actors will do conventions. Many of them seem to have really busy schedules and probably families and a life to attend to. Once that slows down they would probably be open to it.

As for the “Kirk wouldn’t really behave that way” arguments – it feels a little bit like Doctor Who arguments. i.e. “The Doctor would never use a gun!” but if you go back to some of the classics, he did when he needed to and even zapped some aliens dead. Was Kirk swearing like a sailor on the TV show? Of course not, they had stricter standards back then. Besides, all we really need to say about that is Star Trek IV.

The thing is that the new Kirk has has a nano-fraction of screen time compared to Shatner Kirk. From the trailers we have seen, we also have seen a fraction of Kirk’s dialog from the movie. I am sure he will grow into a better, more heroic person as this film and the third come along. I’m willing to keep giving him that chance. It’s not like what’s going on with the new Trek is like what they did to Transformers.

67. msn1701 - April 17, 2013

I think STID is going to be fantastic. One month left! I think it is incredibly apt especially in light of the bombings in Boston. There is evil in the world, but there is SO MUCH GOOD. And that is one of my favorite things about Star Trek, is the vision for the future where humans and aliens can work together for the betterment of Earth and the Federation.

68. Marja - April 17, 2013

Obsessive referrred to The Hero’s Journey and I am in absolute agreement.

Pike called Kirk a “genius-level offender” – this does not mean he was committing criminal offenses. As another poster said, probably misdemeanors.

Kirk is clearly searching for something worthwhile to do. Being a genius and getting into barfights are pretty incompatible. Pike gave him the opportunity to turn his life to something important, and he does. He’s able to complete SFA in three years b/c he’s a genius.

1st movie: arrogant, disruptive, knows he’s right [and turns out to be]. Gets his butt handed to him a number of times – Spock and others swatted him but good. He comes through and is unjustly awarded the rank of captain [I still think it should’ve been Spock, with Kirk as his First Officer]. Ultimately a lucky and happy man.

2nd movie: the arrogance and “I’m right” come home to roost, as does the fact that he was very lucky first time around. Now he has to fight through to protect his remaining crew and atone for those he lost. As Pine has said in the publicity appearances, “He got the captain’s chair in the first movie, now he has to earn it.”

Cussing: TOS: “blast it, Jim” TMP and ST2009: “dammit, Jim”

Even television has exceeded language like “sonuvabitch” – on prime-time network television, not just HBO and other premium channels.

Appearances [in both senses]: I do wish Mr Quinto would stop wearing those stupid high-water trousers! As for the scruffy look, I’ve gotten used to it, but I also pity the kissee in any romantic interaction! Youch. Pine looks great with a beard! or even half of one :)

Quinto attended the Las Vegas ST Convention in 2009. Several of the stars appeared at ComiCon that year also – though I’m unclear as to whether ComiCon is a tradeshow or fan convention [I think it’s a combination].

Yes! I think Spock Prime will make a brief appearance in this movie. Perhaps it is his funeral we see, or, equally regrettably, Pike’s.

69. Jack - April 17, 2013

64. Shatterhand. Agreed. And yet the predictions of STID’s and all of Trek’s demise at the hands of Abrams continues. Heck , the guy was accused of disrespecting fans by putting up barriers to keep paps from shooting photos of the set, and by not releasing spoilers last August. Not to mention the outrage over what’s being done to Trek in a movie nobody has seen yet. Now the whole cast is dissing fans by (gasp) promoting their movie at a movie industry convention and not at a Star Trek convention. What the heck?

Do these fans not see that they embody the narrowmindedness, fear of the unknown, posse-wrangling, jump-to-conclusions mindset of the backwards planets that the Enterprise crew used to try to enlighten every week?

70. The Sinfonian - April 17, 2013

We still have nothing on the years between the Corvette drive-off-cliff incident to the bar in Riverside. I wish Bob would allow the book authors to work on it.

I’ve always speculated that alt.Kirk ran off at 16 or 17, and joined the Merchant Marine service, and was already well experienced in space with 5 or so years of service. So, when he came home to his mother’s estate in Riverside in 2258 and encountered Pike at the construction site bar, it makes much more sense…. that Pike knows Jim Kirk had been working as the 23rd century equivalent of a maritime service sailor. Even explains him being admitted into the Academy under special service, and also explains why he gets 5 years service credit, which completely would justify his rapid promotion to Lieutenant coming out of the Academy.

That sort of background completely keeps alt.Kirk as a rebel, but a sensible one… a roughneck… a guy who knows how to have a beer. I’m sure on the long voyages from spaceport to spaceport, he read voraciously everything he could… he was a stack of books… that’s why Starfleet Academy (essentially the equivalent of O.C.S. for him) was easily done in 3 years.

Doctor McCoy, similarly… had credit for having his 4 year degree from Ole Miss, and his M.D. Uhura probably already had a college degree in linguistics. Spock, we imagine was back in Command School. A little more explanations, and everything works out.

71. msn1701 - April 17, 2013

Yeah Pine looks great with a beard. Or without. :P

72. BH - April 17, 2013

Go watch the first season of TOS.

Spock is the show’s biggest emotional mess by far. Troof.

73. Phil - April 17, 2013

@68. Well, I think Pike mentioned he was a repeat offender, actually. Misdemeanor or not, in the real world that by itself would probably mean you are getting shown the door at the recruiters office, an invite to the Academy is completely out of the question.

Okay, Kirks a genius, so admission standards either don’t exist, are subject to favoritism, or just don’t exist. It’s Star Trek, so Kirk is getting the chair regardless of the circumstances. It’s not hard to conclude that because of the cheating hearing that Kirks academic performance was not exactly anything to write home about, either.

I don’t think I’ve been all that vocal about the new characterizations, but of the seven crew members, the remastered Kirk was the worst of the bunch. Most service organizations send their officers to command school before the get their first commands, it’s almost impossible to imagine this Kirk getting that nod, too, except…wait for it, Starfleet admission standards either don’t exist, are subject to favoritism, or just don’t exist.

Yeah, I’d be happier if the second installment just glosses over his inadequacies. Apparently, he has to kill his crew to learn humility, to be great. Yeah, we need Kirk in the chair, but making his command on the job training just cheapens the job. It does explain why Pike was out trolling bars for recruits – the alt. universe Starfleet apparently does such a sh**ty job training it’s officers that the mortality rate for the service is apparently through the roof.

74. Phil - April 17, 2013

@57, 58. Spot on observations. It bugs me this Kirk acquired the captaincy of Enterprise by being at the right place at the right time, as opposed to earning it. I enjoyed Trek09, you just cant look to close at it.

75. Jack - April 17, 2013

74. And it looks like this movie is going to explain why that happened…

76. Phil - April 17, 2013

@75. No, it’s not. Either that, or Kirk has pictures of Pike and Admiral Barnett f**king goats…

77. Keachick - April 17, 2013

Actually I believe that the US military may now be recruiting people who have been convicted for minor offences because they need more soldiers.

Your analysis of ST09’s Kirk can’t be looked too closely either.

78. Curious Cadet - April 17, 2013

@64. Shatterhand,
“Um, why exactly do the cast members of the new Star Trek movies need to attend conventions to prevent “oblivion” (great hyperbole, by the way)? It would seem to me that the franchise is standing pretty steadily on its own merits so far.”

Exactly, who are these winers that think these actors OWE them something? All of the actors careers would have taken off regardless if they had done Star Trek or not. It is indeed Star Trek itself and it’s fans that OWE these actors EVERYTHING!

For the first time Star Trek has REAL movie stars. And let’s face it folks, Abrams has said repeatedly he is not making this movie for the fans, and it’s not the fans that have breathed life back into the once dying franchise, but all the casual movie goers looking for something fun to distract them for a few hours. And Abrams gave it to them. Star Trek and its fans OWE Abrams, and the writers, and these actors BIG TIME!

How dare these petulant self-centered fans behave like the actors OWE them ANYTHING? It’s ridiculous. These actors will be done with Trek in three or four years, and likely never look back. The fans may have been responsible for saving Star Trek and William Shatner’s career (among others) in the 70s, but this ain’t your fathers Star Trek. The fans killed Star Trek this time, and Hollywood SAVED the franchise. All these pouty comments from “jilted” fans is just stomach churning. It’s called the movie BUSINESS. It’s not their lives. It’s enough they are agreed to make the movies at all.

Frankly I hope Pine and the others stay far away from the conventions, it will be the best thing that could happen for their careers and those whose lives center on them. Time to grow up and smell the coffee.

79. Steve Johnson - April 17, 2013

@77 Curious Cadet,

You sound very angry. Why?

Also, this notion that Hollywood saved anything is silly. Star Trek as a name brand has staying power in cultural history. All they had to do was reboot it, put some hype behind it, and it would sell. Whether it sells or not isn’t the question. The question is whether it’s any good…

…So far, it does have it’s legitimate merits. I don’t think it’s nearly as great as some people hype it up to be, or nearly as garbage as I’ve heard others make it out to be. It’s fun, and it has a lot of energy and enthusiasm. That’s par for the course with JJ Abrams stuff. It’s cool whip on a slice of pie.

I really can’t agree with your assessment of the Star Trek community either. It is a very diverse group covering dozens of demographics. It isn’t small, it’s composed of arguably millions of people. From children to the elderly.

So, please, have a little respect for those fans. They’re people too. And it is not unreasonable to WONDER why the new cast does not want to participate in the greater Trek community.

80. Curious Cadet - April 17, 2013

@79 Steve Johnson,
“And it is not unreasonable to WONDER why the new cast does not want to participate in the greater Trek community.”

If that’s all that it was, “wondering”. But there’s an entitlement there, as if these fans “own” Star Trek. I’m not angry, I’m frustrated with these particular fans — there’s no “assessment” of the community as a whole, I’m indicting those, and ONLY those, who feel entitled to dictate the terms of their support as if the current success of Star Trek has anything to do with them individually. And yes, Hollywood did save Star Trek, by doing exactly what you suggest in saying “all they had to do”. All who had to do? Not the fans, not Branon Braga, not Rick Berman. Merely rebooting and hyping it is no guarantee of success. Take a look at the last Superman reboot, and the last two Hulk attempts. But either way, somebody had to make the decision to do it. It wasn’t easy to do, negotiating between Paramount, CBS, and all the potential batters who stepped to the plate to take a swing with their ideas. And Abrams and his team hit the ball out of the park. It’s not the greatest movie, but it also wasn’t a matter of simply slapping a fresh coat of paint on it ether. These guys worked hard to turn this franchise around without any help from the fans, so at a minimum these particular fans could acknowledge that instead of sulking about how the actors don’t step into line with the Shatners of the franchise who owe their entire careers to Star Trek. Not to mention very few of these complaining fans have done anything like the letter writing campaigns of the 60s that saved Star Trek for a third season, to earn them the entitlement they so shamelessly display here.

81. Shatterhand - April 17, 2013

@73: I, too, would like a little more fleshing-out when it comes to the pasts of our new Kirk, Spock, and Co., and even of Starfleet in a general sense.

I find myself more forgiving of their alternate versions of the characters we’ve known and loved because this is, as many seem to forget, an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE bent and twisted by events that should never have happened. These characters lived different lives governed by choices they may never have had to make had Nero not invaded the timeline and wreaked his havoc. It always makes me shake my head with confusion and amusement when these Trek purists complain about the characters being so different. Of course they are! It’s an alternate universe!!!

82. Marja - April 17, 2013

I really think the new cast don’t have a lot of time for conventioneering, other than the stuff they’re contracted to do. I’m not in a sweat about it, because as others have said, it gives the actors, whom I admire, time to do other things that I can also enjoy.

Although we may dispute the writing or action in the films, we lucked out with the cast – they are superb. Nor do they lack humility; I’ve had the great pleasure of meeting Mr Quinto and he took the time to be kind.

I’m very pleased that Star Trek is “back” – it’s not perfect but it never was. At times it approached perfection and thrilled me no end, and I have enjjoyed almost every one of its incarnations. I’m glad Abrams and company have injected life into Star Trek and I look forward to the movie.

Phil, while I agree with your real-world take on the military and Kirk’s overly rapid promotion to Captain [!!!], we have to remember it’s fiction, and though ST2009 may have been pretty sloppy with regard to our reality, the writers were concerned with getting the crew-as-we-know-them into place. I’m not entirely happy about the way Kirk got promoted! Above Commander Spock no less! I still think the dramatic possibilities of Spock as captain and Kirk as his first officer would have been nice in the alternate universe.

But at least we have Star Trek to discuss these days, and that is a great pleasure.

Keachick, what you say is pretty true; minor offenders are sometimes given the chance to join some branches of the US military in lieu of jail time. Lack of people power is a particularly troublesome issue these days because the US military forces are now entirely composed of volunteers, and not that many young people are enchanted by the prospect of military service. It’s tough.

83. Kara - April 18, 2013

#78 / Curious Cadet: “Exactly, who are these winers that think these actors OWE them something? All of the actors careers would have taken off regardless if they had done Star Trek or not. It is indeed Star Trek itself and it’s fans that OWE these actors EVERYTHING! For the first time Star Trek has REAL movie stars. And let’s face it folks, Abrams has said repeatedly he is not making this movie for the fans, and it’s not the fans that have breathed life back into the once dying franchise, but all the casual movie goers looking for something fun to distract them for a few hours. And Abrams gave it to them. Star Trek and its fans OWE Abrams, and the writers, and these actors BIG TIME! How dare these petulant self-centered fans behave like the actors OWE them ANYTHING? It’s ridiculous. These actors will be done with Trek in three or four years, and likely never look back. The fans may have been responsible for saving Star Trek and William Shatner’s career (among others) in the 70s, but this ain’t your fathers Star Trek. The fans killed Star Trek this time, and Hollywood SAVED the franchise. All these pouty comments from “jilted” fans is just stomach churning. It’s called the movie BUSINESS. It’s not their lives. It’s enough they are agreed to make the movies at all.”

Likewise I hope I NEVER run into you at a Star Trek convention, you mean-sprited, condescending little priick of a person.

Shame on you!

84. Red Dead Ryan - April 18, 2013

#83.

Curious Cadet was telling the truth. Fans are NOT owed anything by the actors. The convention stuff is a bonus. The previous actors don’t have to do it, but they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, as well as for monetary reasons.

This sense of entitlement on the part of some fans here makes me want to puke. As Curious Cadet said, the new movies aren’t being made strictly for the fans. If you want a pure Trekkie’s Trek movie, go and watch “The Final Frontier” or “Insurrection”. Those movies were made purely for the fans, and both stink like fresh dog crap!

Honestly, I am glad that the new cast avoids conventions. They’d have to put up with Talifans such as yourself!

SHAME ON YOU!

85. Red Dead Ryan - April 18, 2013

BTW, I don’t necessarily think the fans owe any of the actors anything either. They help make a product, and the fans have the choice to buy it or to skip it.

86. Kara - April 18, 2013

Please go puke then. And clean up the dog crap.

You seem to be the local expert here on puke and crap. I guess that is no surprise, since your posts often mirror those two forms of matter.

And don’t think that most of us in the silent majority here don’t know that you, Curious Cadet and MJ are the same person. We know what is going on.

87. stunkill - April 18, 2013

All, I don’t want to get in the middle of all this personal crap here, but I can guarantee all of you, that for at least a couple of these stars in nuTrek, once their careers inevitably falter, guess what? All of the sudden, they will love Star Trek fans and be seen at numerous conventions. I guarantee it

This is the other side of the hypocracy calculation here that Curious Cadet and Red Dead Ryan are ignoring. The are two sides to this coin, and on this other side, they are the schmucks who all of a sudden will be dependent on us.

88. Red Dead Ryan - April 18, 2013

#86.

“And don’t think that most of us in the silent majority here don’t know that you, Curious Cadet and MJ are the same person. We know what is going on.”

Funny, I haven’t seen you before. Then you attack Curious Cadet. I respond, and somehow by “coincidence”, stunkill jumps into the fray as well.

Gee, y’know, this all seems familiar. Could it be that stunkill has resorted to his old tricks of sock-puppeteering on this thread?

I mean, is he that much of a coward that he needs to hide behind the name of “Kara” so that he can put forth his ridiculous arguments?

And he then has the gall to accuse others of being sock-puppeteers?

What a disgrace!

89. Son of Jello - April 18, 2013

#45Disinvited

So let me get this straight: STIII’s “bastard” is an acceptable pejorative but STID’s “son of a bitch” goes a bridge too far?

Im not zeroing in on the word but the context of how it is used. Bastards by kirk I can feel for. But the bitch used by kirk is like the cherry on top of all the the agressivness that comes across in the trailers. We havent seen the movie its something will have to wait and see with. But so far it just seems to be swearing to comunicate agression to hype people up for more violence. Until the movie comes out we wont know.

As for the rest Im not to clear on what it is you are saying. Im not really making a conection with it and my post in #45. But thanks for responding here have a Koala @>o<@. :)

90. JSM - April 18, 2013

Star Trek 11: Battle of the eyebows!

Wow!

91. Calastir - April 18, 2013

@83
Don’t let them get to you. From their own words anyone can gather that these guys don’t love Star Trek like we do and wouldn’t attend conventions anyway.
They can only gather enough energy to troll away behind their keyboards, playing lipservice to overpayed actors who don’t give a damn about us or the franchise.

92. Jack - April 18, 2013

“They can only gather enough energy to troll away behind their keyboards, playing lipservice to overpayed actors who don’t give a damn about us or the franchise.”

Why do they need to give a damn? They’re actors. All they owe anyone is a decent performance.

Even the TOS actors took on Trek as a job. And, in the lean years, conventions bolstered their wallets, and their egos.

Conventions are, at their worst, a place to make Star Trek all about you.

The “franchise?” It’s a business. That said, the best of Trek gives us great stories.

93. Jack - April 18, 2013

We have conventions to thank for Takei becoming deluded enough to think he could float his own series, Sirtis entirely abandoning her character and just playing herself, and Dorn thinking fans would fork over money to pay for him to make whatever he wanted to.

And ‘the convention fans love me’ fueled inflated egos that led to several incredibly crappy movies filled with indulge-the-talent moments.

Plus, every year we get a variety of ‘Shatner didn’t understand that we were an ensemble back in 1966!!’ stories, thanks to conventions.

I’ve been to conventions. To me they’re all about making money. I’m not a big fan. Actors are people who memorize lines — I don’t need to meet them to enjoy their work. Frankly, I’m more interested in what writers and producers say about Trek. Or getting a glimpse at props and behind the scenes stuff. If you like conventions, fair enough. But I don’t think it’s true to say that folks who go to conventions are somehow truer fans. What does that even mean? It’s not a competition.

94. Calastir - April 18, 2013

@92 & 93
You say you don’t care about meeting the actors or other fans.
You don’t care what happens to the franchise, since to you it’s just a money making business anyway and none of yours.

So yes, that just make you a lesser fan than one who cares.

When I go to conventions, I also see individual Trekkies finally bonding, and eagerly anticipating meeting their idols in person. Plus a lot of charity going on as well. It’s a shame they want to let that go to waste for future generations.

95. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 18, 2013

94. Calastir
Whoa, are you trying to say people who don’t go to conventions aren’t true fans? How arrogant is that? Just when did you lose sight of the principle of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations?

I have watched Star Trek since 1966. It influenced my life in general, my career choice and my lifetime partner choice. I own the entire Original Series on both VHS & DVD. I own all the movies (even *shudder* Star Trek: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Nemesis) on VHS and/or DVD. I own approximately 150 Star Trek novels. My (now adult) children have been exposed to Star Trek since birth. My home has some other Star Trek paraphernalia I’ve collected over the years in between having a career and raising a family. Even my bathrobe, d*mm*t, is a blue Star Trek science officer robe. But, because I’ve never been to a convention, I’m not a true fan?

I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the principle of IDIC, and not be so quick to judge the strength of the ‘fandom’ of others, just because they manifest it differently from you.

96. Calastir - April 18, 2013

Don’t twist my words, OSTF. I pose that lesser involvement in fandom makes for lesser fans. Just a fact. The nuance makes all the difference.

So you can stop quoting IDIC to me yet calling me arrogant. Heed your own words; It’s not a competition.

97. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 18, 2013

@96. Calastir

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

98. Jack - April 18, 2013

Love Trek, love the stories, love the designs, love the characters, love the ideas — and so I watch them and read up on all the behind the scenes stuff, and interact with others here and elsewhere. But this talk of “the franchise” The franchise is a money making business. And why we got so much substandard Trek for so long. If they run out of stories, they should stop until they have new ones to tell — which they’re doing now.

Lesser, schmlesser.

I’m not against conventions. The conventions will continue — as they did during all those years when there was no new Trek at all.

99. Calastir - April 18, 2013

@97
“Relax, Lighten up.” ~ J.J. Someguy.

100. Disinvited - April 18, 2013

#80. Curious Cadet – April 17, 2013

#89. Son of Jello

Jello, you repeated a contention that keeps being made (lastly by Curious) that Abrams single-handedly saved the STAR TREK phenomenon. I’m just trying to remind people that no he didn’t. Using this same logic, Robert Wise saved STAR TREK and no, he didn’t, either.

It was a fan phenomenon which is what really saved and continues to save Trek. If any one person could lay claim to its savior crown it would be Bjo Trimble, but she didn’t do it all by her lonesome.

Look, in 1969 the first series was cancelled. It was declared dead by NBC. It was declared dead by Gulf Western. It was declared dead by all the media pundits that noted its unprecedented 3rd season resurrection.

Then 8 years later, Paramount decided to resurrect it as a TV series and 2 years later declared that dead, and decided to reboot it as a major motion picture.

The series ENTERPRISE lasted one more year than its progenitor. All the same declarations of this singular odd little phenomenon being dead were made and far short of 8 years later they were back making a major motion picture.

Please, spare me the notion that any Hollywood director saved a phenomenon which endured 10 long years of ignoring by same and kept itself alive just fine with mere fan devotion.

I mean CBS couldn’t wait 2 years after ENTERPRISE’s cancellation to get the ball rolling again. They were haggling with Paramount which was then a separate corporation (and note we now had 2 corporations struggling to get a Trek movie made). According to the NEW YORK TIMES Moonves gave Paramount’s Gail Berman a deadline to get the cameras rolling or Paramount would lose the movie franchise license. Paramount jumped.

Big corporations don’t spend time and resources on dead phenomena.

101. Phil - April 18, 2013

@100. Perhaps reinvigorated is a better word….

102. Disinvited - April 18, 2013

#101. Phil – April 18, 2013

Exactly, I can politely entertain that notion. Just amazed that after all these years people don’t realize declaring it dead is superfluous. Definitely a cliche after TWoK.

103. Disinvited - April 18, 2013

#101. Phil – April 18, 2013

BTW did you notice?:

http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/17/star-trek-into-darkness-post-production-done-film-now-locked/#comment-5059734

104. Curious Cadet - April 18, 2013

@100 Disinvited,

If you read carefully, I gave credit to the 60s & 70s fans for saving Star Trek. they deserve 100% of the credit. ot Wise, and not Paramount. If anything Robert Wise is responsible for killing Star Trek (along with Gene Roddenberry). Paramount made it a major motion picture out of greed thinking they could do the same as Star Wars. And they very well could have if they hadn’t put Gene Roddenberry in charge and taken a Stanley Kubrick 2001 approach (the exact opposite of Star Wars). By the time Harve Bennett figured it out, it was too late and general audiences thought Star Trek was boring. It wasn’t until after two successful films that general audiences heard enough positive buzz to return for the Voyage Home and make that another box office triumph for Trek. Then Shatner near killed the franchise again with Star Trek V. And that’s when the fans changed.

In any event, those fans of the 60s & 70s were like most activists of that time, a larger part of the population fighting for something they believed in. That doesn’t happen today. You cite Enterprise as a success, but it was anything but. Instead of supporting it and launching a massive letter writing campaign to make it better, they turned the channel. Nemasis is much maligned, but where were the fans turning out to support Trek then? TNG presided over increasingly inflated budgets and rewarded with ever sagging attendance, and the fans drove the last nail into the coffin of the movies by not showing up. I just don’t believe that would have happened in the 60s and 70s.

CBS wanted to get control of its rights. They didn’t care about Star Trek — they cancelled Enterprise as soon as they could. They just wanted to shop it to the highest bidder and make as much money as possible. It was a tactic to get Paramount moving on it (otherwise CBS would have to wait out their contract and development time for a new licensee to get up to speed, and considering Trek’s track record probably made less than Paramount was paying). Paramount never stopped developing Trek, but Berman left it in such a mess they didn’t know which direction to take it to SAVE it. Certainly the fans didn’t. And as soon as CBS said, ‘hey we own this now so if you’re not going to do something with it, then we’re going to give it to the highest bidder to get the income flowing again, we don’t care how they do it’, Parmount diverted internal resources to make it a top priority. Not because it was a money maker (because clearly it wasn’t), but because Paramount believed in it, and they knew if they did it right it could be a money maker again, if not the success it once was. Under the circumstances, I’m not sure another studio would have cared as much. So what does that tell you? Who saved Trek then, if not Hollywood?

Seriously, Paramount made it a priority when it had more than proven itself a money losing proposition, they hired a hot producer, director, writers, engaged real movie stars, gave it a real budget with a massive international marketing campaign and bet the farm on it, all in the face of petulant fans who were highly vocal about how Abrams was ruining “their” Star Trek and they would not support it. The same fans who had long since changed the channel after Berman and Braga did everything they asked for. Of course Abrams didn’t make it just for the fans! That was a death sentence! The $280 million Trek raked in at the box office wasn’t the fans. That was the general public for whom Abrams ignighted their imagination with a long since tarnished franchise whose core base had abandoned it a decade earlier. If you figure Nemesis made $67 million, then That’s the fans contribution to ST09’s box office. So I ask again, who saved Star Trek?

105. Phil - April 18, 2013

@103. Yep, and did you notice that the work that was being done was basically touch up stuff? No worries one way or the other.

106. Shatterhand - April 18, 2013

@ 91, 94, 97: I think you’re grossly misinterpreting the words and actions of J.J., the actors, the writers and others involved with the “Abramsverse” Star Trek movies. Their lack of presence at Star Trek conventions and their attitudes about the franchise do not, in my opinion, add up to that they don’t care about the fans. I don’t think they’d be foolish enough to discount the tremendous pull Star Trek fans have on their latest movie’s success. They may be trying to make Star Trek movies that are more accessible to the casual fan or even new fans in waiting, but the source material is just as sacred as ever, and I think they’re well aware of that.

The reality, as hard as it may be for the purists to accept, is that Star Trek’s continued popularity in all its incarnations owes a lot to the success of the 2009 movie and the anticipation for the new one. Like it or hate it, the movie was a financial and critical success and once again threw a spotlight on a franchise that was starting to wane. Star Trek is more popular than ever because of the new movies, not in spite of it. Argue that all you’d like, but the writing on the wall is pretty clear and legible.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Zachary Quinto, and the rest of the cast are still very active in other major Hollywood productions, as are J.J. Abrams and his crew. The cast members of previous Trek incarnations (with a few exceptions) have a lot more time to go from convention to convention to spend time with their fans. That doesn’t make them less relevant or important, just more accessible.

107. Shatterhand - April 18, 2013

Here’s something I’d like to know: Why have we not heard ANYTHING about Carol Marcus’s role in the STID storyline? I doubt it’s nearly as hush-hush as John Harrison’s storyline (…or IS IT?!? *dramatic music*)

J.J. Abrams may be guilty of the occasional flash of eye-candy (and there certainly doesn’t seem to be a lack of that when it comes to Alice Eve), but considering the character’s significance to Kirk’s life in the prime timeline, I’d be hard-pressed to believe that she’s just there to be Kirk’s latest object of flirtation.

108. Red Dead Ryan - April 18, 2013

J.J Abrams brought the franchise back to life. How much of the $385 million made at the box office had to do with the fans, we’ll never know for sure. One thing we do know is that it obviously brought in way more fans and non-fans than “Nemesis” did. A lot of the fans who stayed home when “Nemesis” was in theatres came out in droves for “Star Trek”, which also appealed greatly to the mainstream, who couldn’t care less about the majority of the previous ten movies.

Anyone who can’t see Abrams’ successful results need to have their “fanhood” questioned.

And oh yeah, I have been a Trek fan for over twenty years. I have most of the episodes and movies on dvd/Blu Ray. I have a bunch of action figures, books, comics, cd scores, ships, etc.

109. Curious Cadet - April 18, 2013

@106. Shatterhand,
“Their lack of presence at Star Trek conventions and their attitudes about the franchise do not, in my opinion, add up to that they don’t care about the fans”

You are of course right. I don’t believe this either, nor despite the ire of my earlier post suggest they shouldn’t. As you point out so astutely, they would be foolish to do so.

———————————–
“Star Trek is more popular than ever because of the new movies, not in spite of it. Argue that all you’d like, but the writing on the wall is pretty clear and legible.”

This is also correct. As I have said above, I believe we have reached a “torch has been passed” moment, for better or for worse. Just like the TNG generation who grew up under very different social conditions than the TOS generation, the Abrams generation are likewise dealing with very different problems and issues than those who came before. Kids and teenagers who first came to Star Trek in 2009 are returning, with little exposure to the Star Trek that came before it. And I’m sure Star Trek will bear little resemblance to this incarnation in another 10 years.

So I suppose we are back to the old argument, better to have Trek die on the vine as it was, or re-imagine it in a way that isn’t as faithful to the original ideals but keeps it alive and thriving?

It’s hard to imagine Robert Downey Jr. showing up at an Iron Man convention year after year especially once he is finished with that franchise, yet some Trek fans feel this is an inseparable part of the assignment, and only because that’s what was established by TOS stars in a different time. Well Abrams has taken Trek into different territory, and I suspect the new fans drawn to Star Trek are less likely to see it the same way, if not because their favorite movie stars have never been as accessible. It’s really unrealistic to expect that level of access from actors, all of whom have the opportunity to do so much more than a single role for three to seven years at a time, especially during their prime years.

110. Disinvited - April 18, 2013

#104. Curious Cadet – April 18, 2013

#108. Red Dead Ryan – April 18, 2013

I don’t think we are at odds. My point is STAR TREK the phenomenon existed 10 years on its own prior to blockbusters and new series. They were and are not needed for that phenomenon to “live” and be attractive enough for investors to try again. No matter how economically a failure ENTERPRISE may have been, CBS still couldn’t resist going to the expense of releasing it to Blu-ray even after deciding to pull it from rerun syndication. Same for NEMESIS, which I agree fails on many levels as a STAR TREK but still Paramount doesn’t abandon likewise.

As Nimoy taught us in STIII: For Trek, being dead isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

As Phil suggests, I can accept contentions from you that Trek may have been diminished by this or that. But dead?

Big Corporations don’t throw money at flat-lined phenomena.

111. Disinvited - April 18, 2013

#104. Curious Cadet – April 18, 2013

I agree with your assessment of the corporate mishandling of Trek. However from the mouth of William Shatner via THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER as quoted in STARLOG, May of 1981, No. 46:

http://archive.org/stream/starlog_magazine-046/046_djvu.txt

””I couldn’t not do it,” Shatner told The
Hollywood Reporter. “I created the role on
TV and look forward to another feature.
After all, Star Trek — The Motion Picture has
grossed over $170 million to date when it has
not even been reissued yet, and has a world-
wide following as well.””

Using the current metric, I don’t think Wise/Roddenberry killed Trek as bad as that same corporation would have you believe.

Just for fun from a 1983 LA TIMES article by Dale Pollock, “Nimoy takes direct approach to SEARCH FOR SPOCK” :

“STAR TREK is a beloved concept. It preceded STAR WARS and will be around long after it. It’s almost an American institution. It’s inevitable. Hopefully, we’ll be talking about STAR TREK 28 while I’m in my wheelchair.” – then Paramount President, Michael Eisner

112. Curious Cadet - April 18, 2013

@110 disinvited,
“No matter how economically a failure ENTERPRISE may have been, CBS still couldn’t resist going to the expense of releasing it to Blu-ray even after deciding to pull it from rerun syndication. Same for NEMESIS, which I agree fails on many levels as a STAR TREK but still Paramount doesn’t abandon likewise.”

Actually they had little choice considering how much money both productions lost. If they just let the product sit on their shelves, they would never recoup ANY more money. It’s a formula they have to run, and in very few cases, even for movies that did horrendously at the box office, do they eschew releasing it on BluRay now.

In the case of these productions there was very little risk. Enterprise was already shot on HD requiring more or less a straight transfer. Likewise for Nemesis which was completed on film. If CBS or Paramount were going to continue recouping their losses they really had no choice. It was a small investment in the future to keep Star Trek selling in BluRay compared to the investment in TOS and especially TNG. While the fate of DS9 and VOY are in question considering the work CBS will have to do to them, it’s hard to imagine not trying to capitalize on a complete series or series of movies in a particular format, even if over time, which require so little an upfront investment.

That’s not to say I don’t get your point. There is and always will be an audience for Star Trek. But how much Anybody spends on it going forward is a matter of how many people are buying it. My point is, you can’t just slap the name Star Trek on something and expect the fans to show up the way they once did. And you can’t expect the core fan base to remain the same for ever. People move on for many reasons, least of which is poor quality. There are so many more choices today for entertainment and especially scifi escapism. If not for Paramount’s investment in Abrams vision, Star Trek might have puttered along as the same niche low budget franchise that it was during the 80s and 90s, attracting more or less casual moviegoers, probably having been picked up by another studio expecting to make the same low profit margins if CBS had had its way.

113. Curious Cadet - April 18, 2013

@111. Disinvited,
“Using the current metric, I don’t think Wise/Roddenberry killed Trek as bad as that same corporation would have you believe.”

Well that’s debatable. He was essentially fired off the movie, and relegated to a consultant on ST II after he pitched an idea about Kirk and Spock going back in time to ensure the assassination of JFK. The budget for II was slashed to a fraction of what the original film cost and III was no better. So he damned near killed it. Of course Eisner said that because from the outside Paramount was not investing in the franchise the way it should have been for something the studio was otherwise supporting wholeheartedly. Certainly the Indiana Jones franchise did not receive that treatment. Audiences attended TMP en mass because Star Trek had brand recognition, and promised the excitement of Star Wars in the days before the internet, cable TV, nor Siskel and Ebert’s “at the movies” could warn them away. But the fact remains Paramount re-assessed how valuable the franchise was, and in their estimation, they had no Star Wars despite its earnings. Audiences came away dissapointed and remembered why they didn’t like Star Trek in the first place. Can you imagine how differently things would have turned out if they had made the Wrath of Khan first, and with the same budget as TMP?

114. Keachick - April 18, 2013

I have never been to any Star Trek conventions, nor am I ever likely to go, because (a) I live on the other side of the world, and (b) (big) crowds scare me.

I realize that these actors (ie Pine, Quinto, Urban et al) are busy with other projects (or hope to be) and I am not whining about the fact that they may not attend any conventions. Perhaps it is better to say –

“You, name of actor, are cordially invited to attend one of our Star Trek conventions. We would love it if you were able to share some of your time and presence, maybe relate a story about how this or that scene was done in your latest Star Trek movie or anything else that you might like to share with us. Thank you.
RSVP – (specify date)”

115. Jack - April 18, 2013

“Please, spare me the notion that any Hollywood director saved a phenomenon which endured 10 long years of ignoring by same and kept itself alive just fine with mere fan devotion.”

Star Trek isn’t Jesus. Paramount realized they were making a bunch of money in syndication on Trek. People were watching it. And not just capital-F fans. It made financial sense to try to cash in on that with new Trek projects, especially after the insane success of Star Wars in 1977. This talk of a phenomenon is simply good marketing.
They also talk about the Twilight phenomenon and the Harry Potter phenomenon. It means: they and it became really popular, more popular than they’d expected. But this idea that the fans resurrected Trek was really, smartly, emphasized by Roddenberry. Roddenberry engineered the famous letter-writing campaign and that too became part of Trek’s brand. It grew in brand awareness, to the general public, from being just a cancelled TV show to this phoenix reborn from the ashes through fan devotion until the powers that be were forced to realize that they’d erred all those years ago. Basically, they realized they had a successful brand and could make more money. And, yeah, there is indeed a solid fan base of Trek “beliebers.” But they were also spun into believing that they were the lone champions of this noble cause. Trek returned because it had an audience (not just fans), plain and simple and that means money. TV viewers = advertising dollars, movie viewers = box office. And, in this case, part of the audience constantly congratulates itself for its taste and wisdom.

116. Bashir - April 19, 2013

I disagree here with those who say these actors don’t owe us anything. They do. It is a free market, and it don’t see their movies, their fees per film go down. So yea, they do owe us, because we are their market.

It is like saying does Kraft owe us American cheese at the Supermarket? Yea, they do, because if their cheese tasted like crap, then supermarkets would take it off the shelves and it would cease to be on the most ubiquitous products in supermarkets across North America.

These actor owe us fans their careers. This is a fact. We are the end-user of their services.

117. Bashir - April 19, 2013

-100: “Please, spare me the notion that any Hollywood director saved a phenomenon which endured 10 long years of ignoring by same and kept itself alive just fine with mere fan devotion.”

You mean, spare your the hard facts that you don’t want to hear. Like that Enterprise’s ratings dropped year after year, following Voyagers ratings dropping year after year. And then, for the first time ever, two awful Star Trek movies were put out in row — Insurrection and Nemesis.

This is not a notion that JJ and his team saved Trek. It is a fact. You are in a dreamworld if you can’t see this. And this situation cannot be compared to the decade after TOS; that was a different time and with a different fan focus for Trek.

118. Bashir - April 19, 2013

-112: ““No matter how economically a failure ENTERPRISE may have been, CBS still couldn’t resist going to the expense of releasing it to Blu-ray even after deciding to pull it from rerun syndication.”

What expense? It was already in HD and widescreen. The cost was minimal. Not sure what you are talking about?

119. Kara - April 19, 2013

#109 “It’s hard to imagine Robert Downey Jr. showing up at an Iron Man convention…”

Yet:

“As if we didn’t love him enough, Robert Downey Jr. surprised Russian fans at a convention for Iron Man 3 at the October Multiplex while in Moscow promoting the film—and, judging by his face, the actor enjoyed hearing the crowd react to his unexpected appearance perhaps more than they enjoyed seeing him stroll onto the stage.”

If Downey Jr can show up an a fan convention, why can’t Pine?

This person’s post proved the opposite of what they were trying to say.

It’s important here that when you make bold statements, that you make sure that they are accurate first.

120. Kara - April 19, 2013

#116 “These actor owe us fans their careers. This is a fact. We are the end-user of their services.”

Yes. This is a fact.

121. Kara - April 19, 2013

#92 #93

Wow, what a bitter take on Star Trek conventions. Some of the best friends and experiences in my life were due to these conventions. You sound like some of the old fuddy duddy types who are a subset of fans who attend these, who seem embarrassed to be there, and who just grumble the whole time and make sarcastic remarks. I feel sorry for you.

122. stunkill - April 19, 2013

@119. Well said. Curious Cadet (aka Red Dead Ryan – “wink-wink”) has a really bad habit of just making up shit as he goes along. Good job on the fact checking on this one.

123. stunkill - April 19, 2013

@114 ““You, name of actor, are cordially invited to attend one of our Star Trek conventions. We would love it if you were able to share some of your time and presence, maybe relate a story about how this or that scene was done in your latest Star Trek movie or anything else that you might like to share with us. Thank you.
RSVP – (specify date)”

Rose, what a splendid idea. Finally, a voice with heart and common reasoning from a great Trek Fan here. I agree 200%.

Outstanding post, Rose.

124. stunkill - April 19, 2013

@83-Kara (to Curious Cadet): “Likewise I hope I NEVER run into you at a Star Trek convention, you mean-sprited, condescending little priick of a person. Shame on you!”

Kara, while you got too personal here for my tastes, I do commend you for responding with the heart of great Trek fan to the mean, lecturing condescending, know-it-all post from Curious Cadet here. Curious Cadet and Red Dead Ryan do not speak for most of here, but they forget that sometimes.

125. cwerdna - April 19, 2013

Re: conventions, John Cho was on stage together w/George Takei at a Creation Star Trek convention in August 2011 in Vegas. I was there.

IIRC, it was John Cho’s first appearance at a Star Trek convention (at least on stage).

126. Disinvited - April 19, 2013

#118. Bashir – April 19, 2013

Dead is like being pregnant. You either are or you aren’t. If STAR TREK were truly dead there’s nothing. Big corporations don’t throw even minimal money at nothing.

Your reference to television ratings is a non sequitur. There’s still the same television ratings as when ENTERPRISE was cancelled as there’s no new televised Trek. By your own television ratings metric, Trek is still dead.

127. Calastir - April 19, 2013

@126
‘Dead is like being pregnant.’

Your metaphors are magical.

128. Disinvited - April 19, 2013

#127. Calastir – April 19, 2013

Just saying there’s no such thing as being a little dead or a little pregnant – you either are or you aren’t.

Unless, of course, you are in the magical world of THE PRINCESS BRIDE.

129. Disinvited - April 19, 2013

#115. Jack – April 18, 2013

Jack, STAR TREK as a phenomenon has been scholarly researched and published:

Google lists 62 thesis:

http://encrypted.google.com/search?q=“STAR+TREK+PHENOMENON”+thesis+site:edu&filter=0

Only 2 of which mention Paramount, the corporation:

http://encrypted.google.com/search?q=“STAR+TREK+PHENOMENON”+thesis+PARAMOUNT+site:edu&filter=0

There’s more to it than is entertained in your philosophy.

130. Curious Cadet - April 19, 2013

@119. Kara,
You quoted me: “#109 “It’s hard to imagine Robert Downey Jr. showing up at an Iron Man convention…”

And then you commented: “This person’s post proved the opposite of what they were trying to say. It’s important here that when you make bold statements, that you make sure that they are accurate first.”

First, you took my words OUT OF CONTEXT to serve your own soapbox purposes, leaving off the rest of my extremely relevent sentence: ‘year after year especially once he is finished with that franchise’.

Here it is in CONTEXT — I wrote:
‘It’s hard to imagine Robert Downey Jr. showing up at an Iron Man convention year after year especially once he is finished with that franchise’

I NEVER said Robert Downey Jr. had never appeared at a fan convention, much less would ever appear at one. If you actually cared to read and understand what I wrote, you would see my point is that I would be surprised seeing him show up once his time with Iron Man franchise is done, or even regularly while he is involved with the franchise. No fact checking needed.

Further, you will note he did not go out of his way to attend that convention, he did it while attending a scheduled film promotion. And he was in Moscow, it’s not like he was in New York and had to catch a regular commuter flight to LA. So taking some extra time to to promote the film to its target audience was probably on the studio’s PR radar already as a key component to promoting the film in Moscow. At the very least it would have been a missed opportunity had he not.

If a Star Trek convention happened to coincide with Chris Pine’s scheduled visit to a city to promote a Star Trek film, you bet I would expect Pine to show up too, if only because the studio would likely insist on it, if at all possible.

I’d say Robert Downey Jr.’s appearance proves exactly what I was trying to say.

131. Red Dead Ryan - April 19, 2013

Guys, I believe that “Kara” is actually a sockpuppet belonging to stunkill.

Recently, “Kara” began showing up on this site, and stunkill was quick to agree with “her” every time.

132. Keachick - April 19, 2013

Oh stop it, Red Dead Ryan. Only Anthony Pascale knows that.

No doubt he will deal with any such nonsense.

133. Son of Jello - April 21, 2013

#100 Disinvited.

Yep OK.

I guess what I mean is. Abrams ST has made it relevant to a mass audience and it is now talked about in the media and promoted in a way that it hasen’t really experienced before. I coulden’t really see a major car and phone company becomeing involved and attaching its brand to ST pre 2009. In a preverse (skin crawling ) way this gives ST credabilty. I have watched a lot of fan made Trek on the internet and undersand what you mean by fans keeping ST alive and it didn’t need Abrams to do that.

So what Abrams has done with ST had to happen and he gave it a bit of flexibility in its ability to grow away from its image of the obsessive fans who snap at people for not being experts on all things ST and keeping it in that world.(that comment is not directed at anyone and is in no way ment as an insult). And hopefully its ongoing success will alow for a new interpritation of ST on TV that sits a little closer to the Ideas that makes ST so popular and supported by fans.

In the condition it was in pre 2009 the chances of it returning to TV were pretty much zero with no chance at a movie. And the only people interested where the fans who made trek and the fans who watched and supported it. And I support that but I also support Its current position (JJST) where an new larger adience can make a connection with it that will hopefully be ongoing as more new fans are good for the franchise.

I guess in a way (positive way) Abrams saved it from itself and what it had become. limited in its future posibilitys and audience.

134. Disinvited - April 22, 2013

#133. Son of Jello – April 21, 2013

Now that, “,,.Abrams saved it from itself and what it had become. limited in its future posibilitys and audience.” I can entertain and I thank you for it. I would only add “as a corporate trademark.” as I think all those theses, books, and articles indicate that while it most definitely IS a marketed commodity, it evolved into something so much more.

135. Son of Jello - April 24, 2013

#134 Disinvited April 24 2013

Agreed.

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