Happy New Year from TrekMovie | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Happy New Year from TrekMovie December 31, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: TrekMovie.com , trackback

Happy New Year! Because of holiday travel and vacation plans over this next week we’ll be checking on the site intermittently, so have some patience if your comment doesn’t show up right away.

Our review of the third season of Star Trek: Enterprise will also be a bit later than hoped, due to the timing of the release being right after the new year, review copies were sent the week of Christmas, right in the middle of visiting with family. So don’t forget that Enterprise Season 3 comes out on Blu-ray on January 7th in North America.

ent-s3-updated-art

ent_s3_xindi_reptilian

The new 3-part documentary is pretty candid about how the previous seasons weren’t really working and how a change in tone and pace was needed. We hear from, normally reclusive, Jolene Blalock in the documentaries too! Our review of Season 3 should be up sometime later in the release week.

ent_s3_bd_doc_jb_

Comments

1. Derek - December 31, 2013

Jolene Blalock’s face seems slightly frozen in time!

2. govna - December 31, 2013

that literally doesnt even look like Jolene Blalock.

3. Ahmed - December 31, 2013

Happy new year to trekmovie staff & all the fans here :)

4. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 31, 2013

The future is bountiful. Treat someone, anyone, to something today.

Pay it forward! It works and it feels GREAT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgq8nDBcufo

Happy New Year to TrekMovie and Trekkies Everywhere!!

5. Ciarán - December 31, 2013

Looks like Jolene has made friends with a plastic surgeon. Either that or it’s a really unflattering pic of her.

6. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Have a Happy New Year everyone! =D

mmmm…. Jolene, Jolene!

I’d LOVE to go surfing with you! ;-)

7. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

That’s Jolene Blalock?? I wouldn’t even have realized it. She used to be so hot before she botched her face with surgery.

8. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

happy new year?

…naw, let’s try to tear-down Jolene Blalock instead! =(

is this indicative of nu-trek philosophy / outlook? (shakes head…) =(

9. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

#8: What does “nu-trek” have to do with this discussion? No one even mentioned Abrams’ films, so your comment is entirely irrelevant.

10. MJ - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year — thanks for all your efforts this past year! Hope you find Anthony in the new year!

“Our review of the third season of Star Trek: Enterprise will also be a bit later than hoped,”

Don’t worry about this, I will save you all some time — here’s the review of Enterprise Season 3 that you can cut and paste here:

“Enterprise Season 3, like the first two seasons, completely stunk, and is barely watchable once again.”

Done! :-))

11. Ahmed - December 31, 2013

@10. MJ

““Enterprise Season 3, like the first two seasons, completely stunk, and is barely watchable once again.”

Done! :-))”

LOL, that was short & to the point :)

Enterprise is the only Trek series that I watched just once . I rewatch episodes from the other series from time to time. Even Voyager, I rewatch any episode centering around our dear EMH.

12. Ahmed - December 31, 2013

@MJ

“Hope you find Anthony in the new year!”

Yeah, but I gotta say that I like the way Matt is running the site now.

Matt is allowing more diverse views in the articles, unlike the case with AP where it was clear that he didn’t like any criticism of JJ-Trek in articles & Op-ed. He allowed it in the comments section but I don’t recall a trekmovie article during his time where it criticized Abrams openly. I might be wrong but that was my impression.

Hope he is well & sound.

13. Basement Blogger - December 31, 2013

@ 1,5, 7

Ahhh. The Internet. And of course the comments section of most websites.

We got some brain dead comments about Jolene Black. It’s easy to sit behind a keyboard anonymously and spew hatred. It’s much harder to think before you speak. Back to you judges of beauty. First, prove she had surgery. And I mean not just your off the top of your head opinion. News report? Interview? We’re waiting. Second show some guts and tell us who you are. You want to get mean, then belly up to the bar. I’ll go first. My real name is Bernie Wong. Third, you do realize it’s been almost ten years since we’ve seen her.

Will patiently wait for everybody’s reply. And I can’t believe it but I agree with “I am not Herbert” for once.

14. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Ahmed: I must agree…

I also like the way Matt is running the site… Keep on Trekkin’, Matt! =)

…and yes, must agree with your impression of “censoring” in the past ;-)

15. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

thanks Bernie! =)

…don’t know where we went wrong, but I KNOW we have agreed before… ;-)

16. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 31, 2013

7. BatlethInTheGroin

Please re-read my post at #4 - and LIVE IT!

17. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

#13: That was a melodramatic and ridiculous post.

18. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Hey guys: how do you do bold, italic, etc…? copy / paste? thanks! =)

19. MJ - December 31, 2013

@13

BB, this topic doesn’t really interest me all that much, but come on dude, anyone can see that she’s had her face altered.

20. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

…what “anyone can see”, is that 10 years has “altered” her face… dude =(

21. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 31, 2013

18. I am not Herbert

Just type in the special “less-than” and “greater than” characters when appropriate in your message.

See this link to see how these few characters of code should appear when you type it into your comment.

http://sillygrrl.com/2012/09/04/nerd-party-basic-html-every-blogger-should-know/

Some of the simple html coding works, like the bold and italic commands. Just remember to turn each switch off once started. Unless its your last..

I welcome you to this new level of nerdiness.

Please use it sparingly, and please pay it forward!

22. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

TrekMadeMeWonder: “I welcome you to this new level of nerdiness.”

SWEET! Thank You, my friend! =)

23. Phil - December 31, 2013

Happy new year…

Jolene’s pick looks like it may have been a screen capture, so while I’d suggest cutting her a little slack it would probably fall on deaf ears. More then a few people were more then happy to pile on Jennifer Lein a couple of years back for having the audacity to let herself go….

Cheers…

24. star trackie - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year! Stay safe!

25. MJ - December 31, 2013

Except that my brother, who’s over here today, is a plastic surgeon, and he’s confirmed it.

:-) ;0 ;-( ;+ := :-))) ;-9 :-/

=============================
20. I am not Herbert – December 31, 2013
…what “anyone can see”, is that 10 years has “altered” her face… dude =(

26. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Oh, okay…

Now I’m convinced… ;-)

u don’t know when to quit, do u?

consider yourself ignored…

LOL! =D

27. Galileo Seven - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year Fellow Star Trek Fans !!!!!

28. MJ - December 31, 2013

“u don’t know when to quit, do u?”

You are telling me that? Dude, your speed-posting antics of dumb-ass stuff here make you unmatched in this category.

29. MJ - December 31, 2013

…and my post above, @25, was me humorously pretending to post like you.

You can’t even laugh at yourself, apparently…

30. Basement Blogger - December 31, 2013

@ 17

I see you can’t respond to the questions. Saying things without thinking. Maybe you and Sarah Palin share something in common.

31. Dee - lvs moon surface - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year! :-)

32. Basement Blogger - December 31, 2013

@ 19

MJ, to be honest, I’m not sure. And frankly attacking her for a picture from a video without knowledge is ignorant. She looks like she put on some weight which is probably okay since she had to wear those skin tight clothes for Enterprise. . Her face is wider which can indicate a little weight gain. Look at her neck. It’s wider. Again, it’s probably okay since she was extremely thin for Enterprise.

33. Phil - December 31, 2013

@30 Pretty close to midnight in your corner of the world, isn’t it?

Happy new year as well!

Also to Rose in New Zealand, though she may not see this…

Cheers!

34. Red Dead Ryan - December 31, 2013

If you’re a Hollywood actor, you go in knowing full well that you will be srutinized, not only on talent, but physical appearance as well. It’s the way it is. For both men and women.

So when an actor or actress goes in for plastic surgery, they are doing it for attention. If the surgery has the actor not looking as good as he or she was before, then criticism is warranted. I mean, people get plastic surgery to be noticed, right? If it turns out good, its okay to recieve compliments, but not any criticisms if it goes badly?

In the case of Jennifer Lien, she had quit acting a long time ago. Her appearance is irrelevent now.

35. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

#29: Your questions weren’t worth answering. And your Sarah Palin comment is as nonsensical as Sarah Palin. Grow up.

36. Hat Rick - December 31, 2013

Thanks, TrekMovie staff, for running such a fine website. And thanks for keeping us informed.

2013 was an interesting year for Trek — not entirely good, because of the semi-disappointing domestic box office for STID — but not entirely bad, because of the excellent foreign box office for STID, and because of new fan productions, development of the third JJTrek movie, lessons learned from the questionably long interval between ST2009 and STID, and other positive things.

Trek may not be as strong as we want — still no Trek on TV and probably none for a significant period of time, measured in years — but it’s still pretty strong. Fan conventions are still fun, and new fans are still being created because of the new movies. Older fans will appreciate not only the traditional TOS/TNG assemblage of personages, but also engaging stars from DS9, VOY, ENT, and the JJTrek movies.

In fact, to accentuate the positive as we head into 2014, I must say that no non-JJTrek movie regular has ever had the potential star power of Chris Pine, who has broadened his repertoire to include taking the lead role in the Clancy-based movies. Not even William Shatner. Tom Clancy-based movies, such as “The Hunt For Red November,” have attracted the star power of none less than Sean Connery, not to mention Harrison Ford. (I’m leaving aside the Hollywood agency unpleasantness for the purposes of this posting.) So PIne could draw in quite a number of new fans by his very presence in the third JJTrek movie if his Jack Ryan role proves popular with the public.

Zoe Saldana has garnered a lot of good notices too for her roles, including a starring role in — you guessed it — James Cameron’s Avatar, possibly the successor franchise to Star Wars. (Cameron says he will make three sequels to the original Avatar, if memory serves.) Avatar 2 will come out in 2015, as presently envisioned.

Karl Urban has a new TV series doing an SF turn as a futuristic LEO (law enforcement officer) — quite a leap from his role as Judge Dredd, no? ;)

Anyway, good things come to those who wait.

Happy New Year, once again, dear friends. And Happy Trekking.

37. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year Everyone! =)

…let’s just ALL ignore the negativity for negativity’s sake, OK? =)

…maybe they will get bored and go away (if we don’t “feed” them)?

38. Tup - December 31, 2013

What is all this Star Trek: Equinox TV movie stuff I’m side my hearing. IMDB, TMZ etc all reporting.

39. CmdrR - December 31, 2013

Let’s put the snarks in a pile for one night. And set a nice New Year’s Eve bon fire.

40. Ahmed - December 31, 2013

@ 37. Tup – December 31, 2013

“What is all this Star Trek: Equinox TV movie stuff I’m side my hearing. IMDB, TMZ etc all reporting.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b22pABKWv6s

You may want to check the Renegades thread, where “I am not Herbert” & I posted some links about this project starting from # 211

Gotta say that I’m not impressed at all by the decision to cast a wrestler in this project.

41. Ahmed - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year :)

https://i.imgur.com/6fnoOb8.png

42. Cygnus-X1 - December 31, 2013

33. Red Dead Ryan – December 31, 2013

—So when an actor or actress goes in for plastic surgery, they are doing it for attention. If the surgery has the actor not looking as good as he or she was before, then criticism is warranted. I mean, people get plastic surgery to be noticed, right?—

I can’t believe I’m getting involved in this discussion, but the answer to your rhetorical question is almost always, “No.”

Most people who get plastic surgery would rather it not be known that they’ve had “work” done. That’s why the likes of Bill Shatner constantly deny it. Shatner won’t even admit to ever having worn a toupee, even though Herb Solow and Bob Justman, in their book “Inside Star Trek,” (which I highly recommend), describe in vivid detail Shatner’s toupee and the appearance of Shatner’s head sans-toupee on the TOS set.

A more extreme example was that of Michael Jackson, who, despite obviously having had numerous plastic surgeries—I mean, we could all see the work being done to his face from album cover to album cover—would adamantly deny having had anything more than two nose jobs, all while having the appearance of a space alien posing as a nose-less white woman.

The most common reason that film and TV actors get plastic surgery is (bringing it back to Kirk) to cheat the aging process (death). And, as with all cheats, it’s much better if people don’t know that you’re cheating. “He certainly has aged well.” “The years have been good to her.”

As for the lovely Ms. Blalock, it’s hard to tell from that still. It could just be an odd capture in that frame.

If she has had something done, to me it looks like it’d be that she’s either on the Botox, which causes paralysis of the facial muscles, or she’s had her eyes done to get ride of crow’s feet. IMO, she didn’t need either of those, but we all know how scrutinizing people can be about their own appearance, let alone people who make their living based largely on their appearance.

In any case, while curiosity does get the better of us when we see someone we’re so familiar with looking a bit…different…somehow, we should remember that they’re people with feelings and insecurities just as we are.

43. boborci - December 31, 2013

happy new year!

whats the stardate?

44. USS Enterprise B - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year Bob! Looking forward to learning some tidbits about Star Trek 3 in 2014!

45. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Cygnus-X1: Hear! Hear! =D

CmdrR: HEH! =)

Ahmed: Thanks for that pic! it gives me a good feeling! =)

…but i have to point out that your prejudice is showing, re: wrestlers ;-)

46. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

correction: EX-wrestlers ;-)

47. Hat Rick - December 31, 2013

I don’t know, boborci, but if it’s like any other year in the life of Trek, it’s the Year of Bob Orci, At least in the new Trek universe. ;)

Live long and prosper! And please continue to keep us entertained, you crazy Trek cat, you!

(Anyone know anyone who can do a decent impression of Bill Murray singing the Star Trek (instead of the Star Wars) theme song as a lounge lizard? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Because I feel that whole vibe coming on just about now. Because it’s New Year’s Eve, dammit, and why the hell not?)

Anyway, LL&P, peeps. ;)

48. Phil - December 31, 2013

@42. Depends on the time zone. ..and to a successful new year.

Cheers!

49. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

boborci: “whats the stardate?”

i want to stay positive, but how sadly indicative is that? =(

(maybe just being lazy, though…) ;-) (or “funny”?)

50. Ahmed - December 31, 2013

@ 44. I am not Herbert – December 31, 2013

“Ahmed: Thanks for that pic! it gives me a good feeling! =)
…but i have to point out that your prejudice is showing, re: wrestlers ;-)”

lol,

51. Hat Rick - December 31, 2013

Oh, to answer boborci’s question:

It’s 09700.00, and tomorrow is 09705.00, or January 1, 2014 under old-style Earth calendar.

So saith Google.

52. Hat Rick - December 31, 2013

Oh, to answer boborci’s question:

It’s 09700.00, and tomorrow is 09705.00, or January 1, 2014 under old-style Earth calendar.

So saith Google.

53. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

boborci: “whats the stardate?”

…or maybe it’s a pop-quiz…. worth extra credit? ;-)

(that’s more positive…) =)

54. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

boborci: “whats the stardate?”

nu-trek or next-gen? ;-)

55. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year, people – may you find it to be a good one for you.

Where I am, 2014 is already 13 hours old ;-)

56. DonDonP1 - December 31, 2013

Happy 2014, everyone! Live long and prosper!

57. Mitchell - December 31, 2013

Happy New Year ALL!!! Am i the only one who likes to watch Star Trek movies for new years?

58. TUP - December 31, 2013

So….this equinox project is another fan thing? I saw tht it was actually a TV movie and got excited.

59. Gary 8.5 - December 31, 2013

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
And, let me concur,
Matt is doing a great job!

60. Garak's Pride - December 31, 2013

I am not Herbert,

Here’s a thought for you. Instead of posting 50% of all the posts here in one day, each post full of strings of one sentence quips with self-aggrandizing emoticons, try instead to combine your thoughts into strings of sentences, which in turn, make up things normal human beings call “paragraphs.” That way we all can read your loads of usual crap in four or five posts a day instead of 20+. You can still get in the same amount of your supposedly funny stand up comedy, and include the emoticons that show us how clever you are. But this would benefit those of us here who are having a hard time ignoring and skipping your posts.

just saying….

61. jas_montreal - December 31, 2013

happy new year everyone!

Putting aside our differences on the interpretation of trek today :)

Look forward to a lot of Trek news in 2014 !!

62. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Garak’s Pride: After reading your bitchy PARAGRAPH, I discovered that I was a few minutes closer to death, with nothing positive to show for that realization… =(

but thanks anyway…

63. CmdrR - December 31, 2013

Happy New Stardate, boborci!

64. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 31, 2013

Hopefully the Stardate includes new temporal coordinates! ; )

65. Red Shirt Diaries - December 31, 2013

#61

Herbert, he brings up something I have been wondering about. Your constant use of emoticons does give one the impression that you are laughing at your own jokes, and seems to be grandstanding. Are you (and I mean this with no disrespect, as I love young people) by chance a teenage Trek fan? I say that because your posts here look like the way my 14-year old son communicates with his friends.

66. Red Dead Ryan - December 31, 2013

Herbert,

I really think you should take the advice of Garak’s Pride and start posting comments in paragraphs instead of short, wannabe-funny, emoticon-laden,, self-laughter-filled quirky bits that happen to annoy most of us here and which makes you come of as an obnoxious ass or an immature teenager.

67. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

#37: Star Trek: Exodus is a fan film series, just like Phase II, Star Trek Continues, Renegades and so forth. I wouldn’t expect the quality to be any better than the above titles, but it DOES star a very beautiful woman:

https://www.facebook.com/blanca.blanco.12139

68. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

#59: People are free to post here however they see fit. No one has to conform to how you’d like them to post.

69. Harry Ballz - December 31, 2013

@42 boborci “whats the stardate?”

Looking for a stardate, Bob?

Dinner with Jennifer Aniston. That’s the star date I’m looking for!

70. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Harry Ballz! …you old SOB! …NOW it’s a PARTY! =D

…now we just need Mongo, and British Naval Dude (RIP)! =D

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!! =D

71. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

BatlethInTheGroin: freedom good, yes =)

…but consider: Honor =)

What Would Worf Say? ;-)

HONOR IN BATTLE!! =)

72. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

BatlethInTheGroin: i agree, i think Blanca will make a BEAUTIFULLY intriguing Vulcan Starfleet Officer! =)

I’M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT PILOT!! =D

73. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

FYI: my emoticons are used sincerely =)

…sometimes, i say (sarcasm) so there is no mistake =)

…sorry if they are annoying? …i guess i’ll try to tone it down? =(

…anyway, it’s not my intent to annoy (with the emoticons) (shrug) =(

74. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

…or is that all you can find to b*tch about? =(

…ANYWAY,

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!! =D

75. a - December 31, 2013

aa

76. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

I think “Star Trek: Exodus” has a REALLY good chance… (fingers crossed)

…and if it gets that shot, it will get a budget! =D

I get the feeling that this will be better than you average “fan film”… ;-)

77. BatlethInTheGroin - December 31, 2013

I have yet to see a good fan film. I doubt Exodus will be any different.

78. I am not Herbert - December 31, 2013

Correction: “Star Trek: Equinox”!!

79. DiscoSpock - January 1, 2014

I am not Herbert,

You are like a continuous running advertisement for Microsoft PowerPoint.

LOL

80. Harry Ballz - January 1, 2014

@69 I am not Herbert “you old SOB!”

You old SOB? So you DO know me! I’m so old latin is my native tongue!

A party? You got it! Let’s party like it’s 2299!

81. I am not Herbert - January 1, 2014

Harry Ballz: HEH! =D

good one! Cheers, Amigo! see ya’ next year! =)

82. I am not Herbert - January 1, 2014

DiscoSpock: glad i could give you a chuckle! =D

LL&P =)

83. Jack - January 1, 2014

“2013 was an interesting year for Trek — not entirely good, because of the semi-disappointing domestic box office for STID”

Good Lord. STID did very well. It may not have done as well as you would have liked — and domestic was indeed down a little from the previous film, but they look at the total. Money is money. And so it was a darned good year moneywise for Trek. $470 million’s nothing to sneeze at, and it’s better than any previous Trek movie — especially in a summer full of true box office disappointments.

Happy New Year!

84. Jack - January 1, 2014

Good job on Sleepy Hollow, Bob. It’s really growing on me. And I think it was smart as heck to make Mills (and her sister and Irving etc) black, both because it works with the themes of the show — and because every other damned show is so bloody white.

85. Cervantes - January 1, 2014

53. I am not Herbert – December 31, 2013

boborci: “What’s the stardate?”

nu-trek or next-gen? ;-)

_____________________________________________________

You missed one – …or tos-trek? (as some of you may be aware by now, my personal canon forbids me to look at the next-gen era as a ‘continuation’ to the classic series…so I like to keep it separate, and look on the ‘nu-trek’ movies as having ‘altered the timeline’ of the totally different ‘next-gen’ universe instead…which happened to have a differently-formed ‘Kirk’ and ‘Spock’ etc. in it’s own earlier past…

HAPPY NEW YEAR to all everyone here, and all the best for 2014. ‘Interstellar’ should hopefully give us some welcome space-faring imagery to keep us going until the next nu-trek instalment.

86. Cygnus-X1 - January 1, 2014

67. BatlethInTheGroin – December 31, 2013

—#59: People are free to post here however they see fit. No one has to conform to how you’d like them to post.—

Hear, hear.

And what’s with all the cattiness today, anyway? New Year’s Eve blues or something? It’s like a bunch of old hens here…pecking away at I am not Herbert because you don’t like his emoticons and how he phrases his thoughts? Give the poor guy a break, ffs. If you’re in a rotten mood, go down to your local boozer and start a bar fight with some mindless bonehead. Don’t take it out on your fellow Trekkies.

87. P Technobabble - January 1, 2014

Happy New Year.

Trek wars are over (if you want it)

88. MJB - January 1, 2014

Bob Orci:
Happy New Year to you and may the force help you live long and prosper!

You should knock the cobwebs off your Twitter account and start tweeting again.

89. Yanks - January 1, 2014

Trekmovie: Thanks for providing a spot to discuss the latest Trek news and for being on top of the STID fury as we waited for the release.

Also, thank you boborci for making yourself available here to the fans. That’s mighty big of you.

Happy New Year everyone, may you all remain healthy and safe and may 2014 fulfill all your wishes.

Oh, and the cheap shots at Jolene for a screen shot are pretty weak guys.

90. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 1, 2014

68. Harry Ballz – December 31, 2013

Dinner with Jennifer Aniston. That’s the star date I’m looking for!

***

Harry. How could you ever pass on Jolene great looks. She beats Jen, IMO.

She is. and most likely will always be (as a Trekkie would say) STUNNING!

91. P Technobabble - January 1, 2014

Aniston is a little to “cutesy” for my taste. Jolene is, in my case, “just an old man’s fantasy.”

92. Basement Blogger - January 1, 2014

@ 34

Batlethinthegroin, you use no logic to defend your positions. And you show no guts in even trying to answer the questions. I posed in thirteen. So, we can assume that you wish to freely post your bile anonymously and without consequence. And since you shoot from the hip, that makes you the Sarah Palin of this site.

By the way, I’m an adult so I have “grown up.”

93. BatlethInTheGroin - January 1, 2014

#91: Your attempts to bate me are boring, so I’m walking away from this irrelevant discussion. You posed no questions in #13 that were worth answering, so I didn’t answer them. If you wish to discuss a topic with me, that’s fine. But you have yet to say anything worth discussing, so I have no interest in pursuing the matter.

94. Basement Blogger - January 1, 2014

RIP Joe Ruskin. He passed away today. Starting with TOS’ ” The Gamesters of Triskelion”,(Galt) he’s been in Star Trek and its spinoffs. (Voyager, Deep Space 9) I’ll bet a quatloo he’s in the Sto-vo-kor.

95. Basement Blogger - January 1, 2014

@ 92

Not baiting you, Batlethinthegroin. But let me say by refusing to answer the questions, you have answered them.

1. You have no proof that Jolene Blalock had plastic surgery . That means you shot from the hip ala Sarah Palin.

2. You refuse to tell us who you are. That means you wish to remain anonymous so you can spew out your bile whenever you want to.

I want to add you can remain anonymous all you like. But it just gives you cover whenever you want to say something nasty. That’s a problem with most Internet comments sections.

96. Harry Ballz - January 1, 2014

@89

TMMW, yes, Jolene Blalock is gorgeous.

I’d sure like to pet her tribble. Bet I could make it purr.

97. Plum - January 1, 2014

@ #43 boborci

I feel the need to point out that this is an ENTERPRISE thread (or Star Trek: ENTERPRISE, depending!), so there is no stardate. Captain Archer would report the date as January 1st, 2164 or something (extrapolating from the year ENT was canceled to this year, counting from the last stardate given on the show). Depending on what chronology you’re going to believe *cough* that would be just after the Earth/Romulan interstellar war. Also, this year would be the “official” founding of the original Federation of Planets (Earth, Tellar, Andor, Vulcan). Of course, ENTERPRISE itself skews some of that, but that was the kind of show it was. ;p

Oh, and Happy New Year! :)

98. Kahless - January 1, 2014

One episode of Enterprise ruined the entire series for me – “Dear Doctor”. Ie the genocide of Dr. Phlox.

99. MJ - January 1, 2014

@95. BB, why is this Jolene Blalock plastic surgery thing such a big deal with you?

I mean, get a grip, my friend — its just some people speculating based on her surprisingly different appearance, that to many of us looks different. Let’s not make a federal case out of this.

100. Disinvited - January 1, 2014

Happy New Year!

I’m Rather proud, boborci kept his new year’s resolution, leaving the punitive damages for me to reveal his first draft:

“What’s the Stardate, Kenneth?”

101. Basement Blogger - January 1, 2014

@ 99

MJ, you should get a grip dude and relax. A group of mean people shoot from the hip and say nasty things. That’s the problem. If I want to fight the nastiness then that’s my prerogative. If you don’t like what I have to say. Don’t read it. In fact, if what I say bothers you so much, then I suggest you not read anything I have to say. You will be much happier.

102. Basement Blogger - January 1, 2014

To my fellow Trekkers,

Happy New Year!!!

Live, long and prosper.

And to our Captain Anthony Pascale. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. I hope you are well. Come back soon.

103. Ensign RedShirt - January 1, 2014

Saying she looks like she’s had plastic surgery(and she does) is not mean, just an observation.

104. Jack - January 1, 2014

I’d missed this one when STID came out. It’s a good look at the absurdities in the story:

http://sequart.org/magazine/21469/star-trek-into-darkness-hostile-to-star-trek-intelligence/

105. MJ - January 1, 2014

@101. You missed my point entirely. My whole point is that a few people gossiping about whether a TV star has had plastics surgery or not should not be a big deal. I don’t really see the need for all the angst here either way. It’s a silly topic of no harm to anyone.

106. BatlethInTheGroin - January 1, 2014

#95: I am seriously beginning to think there’s something wrong with you, BasementBlogger. You are focused on a complete non-issue. And your Sarah Palin comments are entirely nonsensical. The fact that no one is backing you up, whereas several people are questioning why this is even an issue with you, should tell you something. And for the record, EVERYONE here is anonymous–it’s an anonymous comments section. So what, exactly, is your point? Seriously, man… take some meds.

107. Red Dead Ryan - January 1, 2014

Basement Blogger,

I’m not sure what your problem here is, but nobody has said anything offensive about Jolene Blalock. As MJ just said above, we are speculating as to why her appearance has changed. Nothing malicious going on here, except from you. Your Sarah Palin comments are uncalled for. We get it. You hate her. And you label those who disagree with you as being akin to Sarah Palin.

This is just plain childish, obnoxious, and not needed here. Get over it!

108. Red Dead Ryan - January 1, 2014

On another sad topic, “The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air” actor James Avery, who played Will Smith’s Uncle Phil on the show, passed away at 67 today.

He also played a Klingon in the “Affliction”/Divergent” two-part “Enterprise” arc during the latter part of the fourth season.

109. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 1, 2014

Rest in peace, Mr. Avery.

I just read he was one of the actors that tried out for the Worf role on Next Gen. Oh, the Enterprise would have been much different without Mr. Dorn in the role.

I liked Mr. Avery on Fresh Prince. He is missed.

110. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 1, 2014

103. Jack

A well written article.

The author seems to have quite a resume.

111. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 1, 2014

96. Harry Ballz

Right on, Harry!

112. DiscoSpock - January 1, 2014

Basement Blogger,

Lighten up, OK?

113. RAMA - January 1, 2014

That picture of Blalock simply looks like a poor screencap of her. I’ve seen her in the promotional videos for the cast interview and she looks as great as ever. Not that she’d ever remotely consider dating single one of you on this thread anyway…which I got a good chuckle over when reading some of the ridiculous comments here.

114. RAMA - January 1, 2014

Also amused at the out-of-place potshots at the hugely successful and critically well-received STID. They’ll take any chance at it eh? lol

115. AyanEva - January 1, 2014

Happy New Year! (I’m late, sorry)

116. I am not Herbert - January 1, 2014

103. Jack: thanks for the link! that IS a good article! pretty thorough… =)

“…the franchise has been seriously and systematically damaged by this film.”

…sad, but so true… =(

117. MJ - January 1, 2014

“…the franchise has been seriously and systematically damaged by this film.” “…sad, but so true… =(”

My, how overly melodramatic can you guys get. You’d think we never had a mediocre Star Trek movie in franchise history before. Come on guys, mix in some historical perspective on this and get real.

118. I am to Smurfy - January 2, 2014

Never fails MJ always has to attack people for their appearance.
I guess no one can measure up to the sight of perfection that MJ must be to behold .

First Shatner, then Hamil, Ford and Fisher and now Blalock.
Give it a rest dude.

119. I am to Smurfy - January 2, 2014

Matt any chance we can get a Phase II Kitumba thread, to discuss the newly released Phase II episode?

120. K-7 - January 2, 2014

@117

Christ your lazy. Read the posts duffas. MJ is trying to calm things down here.

121. Andorian - January 2, 2014

#118

So much for Cawley’s promise to step down as Kirk a year ago. Here he is again, with the smart-alek grin and amateurish attempt at Shatner-Kirk gravitas.

122. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 2, 2014

113. RAMA

Oh, RAMA. If, IF, Star Trek into Darkness had a Great script, then perhaps we would be seeing double the numbers of the middle of the road Iron Man III.

Sorry, boborci. I have to call it as I see it. And I know its not all your fault.
Just lets have more time reviewing the story and less hands in the kitchen.

Seriously, Iron Man III had a lot of greatness to it, but IMO they missed with the Mandarin, probably due to them mincing business with the Chi-coms.

123. TUP - January 2, 2014

I wouldnt say the franchise has been damaged by STID (if that is, in fact, the film in question since I wont bother reading every post).

Was it good? Not really. But it made money which is a positive. I hope the criticism doesnt go over the heads of the writers and producers as I fear it will be comments theyve made. They have the budget and talent to make a great Trek film. Ask Nick Meyer.

Also, anyone who thinks this fan-made “TV movie” has a chance of actually airing is crazy. If anything, these fan films damage the franchise. They feed the weird geeky, enclosed stereotype of trekkers. How could any “legit” project use any of these actors again?

124. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 2, 2014

I am still waiting for an explanation to last years blockbusters – Man of Steel, Iron Man III, Star Trek into Darkness and the Wolverine – all having plots that included Magic Blood! Did I miss one?

Seriously, last year’s movie memes really make me wonder.

125. Phil - January 2, 2014

@123. Coincidence. Every rom-com and bromance movie made last year also had common themes.

You’re looking for commonality where none exists.

126. Phil - January 2, 2014

@103. Brutal review, sadly, mostly true on the plot contrivances, if not a bit over dramatic. The franchise survived Generations and Final Frontier, it will survive STID.

127. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 2, 2014

124. Phil – January 2, 2014

@123. Coincidence.

Phil, FOUR movies with combined budgets over a Billion dollars is stretching it when if comes to coincidence. But I see your point.

128. TUP - January 2, 2014

You know what else all four of those films had in common? They were all disappointments. Actually The Wolverine wasnt bad.

Man of Steel and IM3 were just awful, especially MOS. Its no wonder that almost every mention of the sequel omits all discussion of Superman and focuses on Batman & Wonder Woman. If it wasnt so close to the Nolen films, I’m sure WB would just ditch Superman has the franchise film and just re-boot Batman guest starring Superman.

129. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 2, 2014

TUP.

The Wolverine was actually my favorite over all the X-Men movies.

130. TUP - January 2, 2014

I thought the interesting aspect to The Wolverine was what Logan was doing in Japan during WWII and how he came to save and befriend an ‘enemy’ soldier but none of that was important.

I thought the end was weak with the “dead” solider returning etc. But Hugh Jackman is so good at the role, even a bad Wolverine movie is usually entertaining at least and I thought this was a good one.

As for MOS, I am a huge Superman fan and was so looking forward to it. Moments into the film, when Jor-el mounted some flying creature I turned to my buddy and whispered “uh oh”. I knew they had missed the point of Superman once again. Superman Returns was FAR better.

IM3 was just a mess of epic proportions.

STID fares better than both of them.

131. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - January 2, 2014

Has anyone heard of star trek returning to TV?

132. Gary 8.5 - January 2, 2014

Nope.
Not yet

133. Lore - January 2, 2014

@122 TUP: AGREED! People gripe about “Into Darkness” but applaud these “Home Movies” Paramount allows. It baffles the mind how anyone can think these “Films” are anything but harmful to Star Trek.

134. I am not Herbert - January 2, 2014

Lore: ” It baffles the mind…”

it is EASY to see, once you consider content over image… ;-)

your welcome ;-)

135. I am not Herbert - January 2, 2014

correction: you’re welcome

136. MJ - January 2, 2014

Yes, it is so ridiculously hypocritical. Fat people who can’t act worth a damn are fine, but STID sucks. Talk about inconsistency.

132. Lore – January 2, 2014
@122 TUP: AGREED! People gripe about “Into Darkness” but applaud these “Home Movies” Paramount allows. It baffles the mind how anyone can think these “Films” are anything but harmful to Star Trek.

137. Phil - January 2, 2014

@130. Yeah. It’s not in the foreseeable future. There are a couple of Kickstarter projects making news, but these are fan films, regardless of the promoters calling them pilots.

138. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 2, 2014

I guess with all these fan films I am not in the minority thinking that they could come up with a good story and good acting.

I certainly entertain the possibility with each viewing.

Anyone seen the new short film LOOM? Too short for my taste.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcvSTk8M5qY

139. Ma00145 - January 2, 2014

Stardate 91605.27 or jan 1 2014

140. MJ - January 2, 2014

All,

I pleased to report that, despite all the bemoaning and fake shock from Curious Cadet, STID did make the Top 10 US Top Grossing Films of 2013 after all:

http://collider.com/2013-box-office-statistics/

What do you have to say now, Curious Cadet?

Cat got your tongue?

141. K-7 - January 2, 2014

@139

Whoa!!!

CC is going to be pissed! LOL ;-)

142. I am to Smurfy - January 3, 2014

Just barely did it make the top 10,
I am just laughing at when I was told by the clown squad back in sept that I was wrong about Gravity going to be the most sucessful scifi movie of the year, critically and finacially

143. I am to Smurfy - January 3, 2014

MJ why can you just accept that there are people that are disapointed with
Into Darkness?
Why does it bother you so much?

I mean seriously It doesnt get me worked up that you and your counterparts liked the movie. I get why people who like it do so, but that doesnt mean I have to like the movie.

And as I have said over and over film is an entirely subjective artform, EVERYONE takes away a different experience. No one viewer is correct.

144. MJ - January 3, 2014

@142

Hey, I am disappointed in Darkness my self. I just don’t think it’s a dud though, and I’m not “freaking out” like many others hear. About half of all Star movies are really good, with the other half being a mixed bag. So JJ is batting .500 right now, and has a chance to up it to .667, which is the Harve Bennett level, for the next movie.

This is the second night in a row you have tried to pick a fight with me. Sorry, but I am not taking the bait.

Easy on the caffeinated beverages, my friend. ;-)

145. MJ - January 3, 2014

“I am just laughing at when I was told by the clown squad back in sept that I was wrong about Gravity going to be the most sucessful scifi movie of the year, critically and finacially”

That sure as hell wasn’t me who said that to you.

146. TUP - January 3, 2014

How the heck is Chekov even in this fan film if it takes place many years after Voyager? And they couldnt put a damn toupee on him so he at least bears a passing resemblance to the character we all know?

147. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@ 139. MJ – January 2, 2014

“All,
I pleased to report that, despite all the bemoaning and fake shock from Curious Cadet, STID did make the Top 10 US Top Grossing Films of 2013 after all”

Star Trek 09 made it to # 7 in 2009, STID ,on the other hand, made it to #10 even with the added 3D & IMAX tickets.

And frankly, it only made it to the top 10 because movies like Pacific Rim, After Earth, RIPD, White House Down & The Lone Ranger all bombed at the box office.

You will find in the same link that even when it come to worldwide grosses, STID made to #14 while in 2009, ST09 made it to #13

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2009&p=.htm

148. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@ 145. TUP – January 3, 2014

“How the heck is Chekov even in this fan film if it takes place many years after Voyager? And they couldnt put a damn toupee on him so he at least bears a passing resemblance to the character we all know?”

The producers said that: “Chekov is 147 and that life span is not uncommon in the future.”

http://observationdeck.io9.com/star-trek-renegades-the-producers-answer-some-of-y-1482883504

A 147 years old character will not resemble the one that you saw 20 years ago in “Star Trek Generations”. So there is no need for him to put on the toupee.

149. Phil - January 3, 2014

And we wonder why no one takes us seriously….

http://news.yahoo.com/this-means-war–n-c–politician-quits-council-seat-in-klingon-language-letter-153439620.html

150. MJ - January 3, 2014

@147

Ahmed, you are starting to sound like Curious Cadet’s baby sister with your whining here over the box office. LOL

Dude, I really don’t care where it finished. I just think it’s really funny that CC was putting so much emphasis, and being so melodramatic, in insisting it would not make the Top 10.

I could really care less. The important thing is that it made decent money overall, and was a huge expansion of the international box office for the franchise.

151. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@ 150. MJ – January 3, 2014

“Ahmed, you are starting to sound like Curious Cadet’s baby sister with your whining here over the box office. ”

Whining ?? Numbers never lies, my friend :)

“The important thing is that it made decent money overall, and was a huge expansion of the international box office for the franchise.”

Yes, it made decent money, no denying that at all.

152. I am not Herbert - January 3, 2014

Mark Twain: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

like box office returns… ;-)

153. TUP - January 3, 2014

@148 So he’s 147 years old. Give me a break. Didnt see too many 147 year olds running around in any OFFICIAL Star Trek TV show or Movie. Even Bones in Encounter at Farpoint was, what, 130-ish? And he looked it.

Its just another example of why these fan films cant be taken seriously. And IF there was another official TV or film project that used the original crew, I would never cast him now, not after that fan fiction appearance.

Paramount needs to stop those terrible fan films.

154. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@ 153. TUP – January 3, 2014

“@148 So he’s 147 years old. Give me a break. Didnt see too many 147 year olds running around in any OFFICIAL Star Trek TV show or Movie.”

What about Khan ? In STID, he was 300 years old man!

“Paramount needs to stop those terrible fan films.”

And then what ? We wait four years between official movies with no TV series or even Direct-to-DVDs movies !

I don’t like most of these fan films,but I don’t think that Paramount should stop them. Let the fans decide that when these films come out this year.

155. Curious Cadet - January 3, 2014

@147. Ahmed,
“Star Trek 09 made it to # 7 in 2009, STID ,on the other hand, made it to #10 even with the added 3D & IMAX tickets.”

STID will drop to #11 domestically after this weekend, less than a week after the end of 2013. Quite a fall from 2009’s achievement, especially considering the boost from 3D. Nevertheless, STID performed extremely well in a very competitive box office. But this arbitrary 12/31/13 milestone Phil has been pushing is just that — arbitrary and pointless. It is a hollow victory STID gets to enjoy for about 5 days before it is rendered moot and forgotten and then STID will close the year where I generally predicated it would. It doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things. And it seems like a manufactured victory for a movie that doesn’t need one. Just the only point to be made. However, it is something that Paramount needs to address in the next film — but that’s just another year at the box office.

I will concede that I originally predicted a 12 or 13th place domestic finish based on anticipated films which underperformed, but in the end I thought Thor would unseat STID from 10th place, not Frozen. Frozen has had amazing success which Boxofficemojo reports:

“Disney Animation’s Frozen continues to exceed even the most optimistic expectations. The animated sensation increased 47 percent to $28.8 million; among fifth weekends, that figure ranks third all-time behind Avatar ($42.8 million) and Titanic ($30 million). ”

It seems like nobody saw that coming.

On another note it is so nice to find I am the focus of completely off-topic conversations on a thread I am not even participating on, nor have any interest in at all.

156. Phil - January 3, 2014

@154. Yep. And frozen for about 85% of that time span.

157. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@ 156. Phil – January 3, 2014

“@154. Yep. And frozen for about 85% of that time span.”

How do you know that Chekov wasn’t frozen as well after ST 7 ?
It is Star Trek, anything & everything is possible.

I don’t really care how any actor looks like, if he is too old or not. I care more about his part of the story, if it meaningful or not. No way to tell until we see the movie.

158. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

With respect to “damage” done by STID, box office receipts are hardly the issue. STID made money, just like lots of bad movies make money. But movies are “bad” for a variety of reasons.

STID isn’t bad just because it’s a poorly constructed, unintelligible story that violates its own world, the Trek universe, and the fundamental spirit of Trek at every turn, though it most certainly is all of that.

STID is bad because it betrays loyal fans of the series, even if some of them don’t realize it (or don’t want to), as well as would-be and future fans. STID made money, but it sold out the Trek franchise in order to do so. The article posted in #104 by Jack does a pretty thorough job of of detailing the elements of the crime and how it was perpetrated:

http://sequart.org/magazine/21469/star-trek-into-darkness-hostile-to-star-trek-intelligence/

My only complaint about this article is that, in the first part, the author makes repeated references to the “intelligence” of ST’09 and how it was such a “smart” movie, but he gives no examples to illustrate or support that opinion. Frankly, I have no idea what he could be referring to. While I enjoyed the experience of seeing ST’09, I didn’t find anything particularly intelligent about it. The movie didn’t leave me thinking about anything afterward, except maybe the Alternate Universe plot element—which actually wasn’t even an original concept, to wit: TOS, “Mirror, Mirror”— and, of course, the various Plot Holes and Bad Science in the movie.

I think that many critics of STID fail to realize that the transgressions of STID were, for the most part, simply more egregious (and therefore more obtrusive) variations of the same kinds of badness present in ST’09.

The same duffel-bag transporter which the author of the above article blames for ruining one of the basic premises of the Trek universe in STID had already been introduced in ST’09. The chief differences of its employment in ST’09 were that, (1) in ST’09, there was no emphasis on the DISTANCE traveled by Kirk and Scotty when they beamed onto the Enterprise—though, being that the ship was traveling at high warp toward the Laurentian System (and therefore traveling millions of miles per minute), there’s really no significant difference between beaming onto the far-away-Enterprise-at-warp from Delta Vega and beaming from Earth to Kronos; and, (2) the emphasis of the transwarp beaming device in ST’09 was on SPEED, i.e. “TRANSWARP” (rather than on distance traveled). It was almost like a sleight of hand played on us by the writers: they gave us all of the gibber jabber dialogue about beaming onto a ship traveling at warp being like “hitting a bullet with another bullet, while blindfolded” yada yada, and we were distracted from the issue of the incredible distance being traversed by virtue of the device and the implications therein for one of the basic premises of Trek, i.e. inter-planetary travel via star ships.

The magic blood of STID—which, by implication, renders everyone potentially “immortal,” as the author puts it—is not entirely dissimilar to the magic red matter of ST’09. Actually, the red matter is even more akin to the duffel-bag transporter of STID, in that they both fundamentally alter the regular mode of travel by members of the Federation, and they’re both fundamentally Bad Science. With red matter, not only can you travel across the galaxy in a few seconds (as with the duffel-bag transporter), but you can travel to alternate universes and alternate times in just a few seconds. All with just a tiny drop of magical red goo.

While the first movie had its share of bad science, most people tend to regard ST’09 more highly because its plot was less illogical. The first movie didn’t have as many plot holes, and the ones it did have weren’t as egregious; most people would call most of them minor. Also, being a reboot, we tend to cut ST’09 slack because it has to introduce a new world, establish the entire cast of characters, yada yada.

However, the seeds of badness that critics and fans more liberally complain of with regard to STID had already been sown in ST’09. The issues with the way that the characters were written were present in ST’09. The poorly or illogically motivated characters (Nero/Harrison/Marcus) were present in ST’09. Spock cried and had an emotional breakdown in ST’09 before reprising it in STID. The bad science was present in ST’09. The unrelenting, unnecessary, mindless action was present in ST’09.

But, most importantly, the conversion of a formerly science fiction franchise—and one of the precious few remaining—into a comic-book-movie franchise, was most certainly present in ST’09.

As a comic-book movie franchise, Bad Robot’s Trek does a decent job of giving that audience what they want—an action-filled thrill-ride with lots of visual titillation and a fleeting, 2-hour escape from the day-to-day.

But, that’s never what Star Trek was or was intended to be. What new viewers are being sold as “Star Trek” is fundamentally different and at odds with what Star Trek had been from 1966 up until Bad Robot et al got their hands on it. The fact that BR’s Trek doppelganger has been bringing in money for Paramount is actually very BAD because it justifies continuation.

159. MJ - January 3, 2014

@155

When I want to know about the box office for I given calendar year, I want to know how much money a film made between Jan 1 and Dec 31st of that year. This is “the year”. So year, Phil is most definitely correct.

Frozen and the Hobbit cross two years in release. So they get to show up on the earnings for two different years – 2013 and 2014.

I do realize that some in Hollywood may prefer “funny math” where you get to add on money from a succeeding year for a holiday release, but that is not how normal people do math. Most of us, when we ask what the top 10 grossing movies were last year, we mean LAST Year, not last year plus Jan and Feb this year. LOL

Try getting the IRS to give you a tax break for something you do in January and February this year — see how that flies with Uncle Sam.

STID was the 10th rated movie in terms of domestic box office during the year 2010. PERIOD !!!!!

160. MJ - January 3, 2014

“during the year 2013″

161. MJ - January 3, 2014

“With respect to “damage” done by STID, box office receipts are hardly the issue. STID made money, just like lots of bad movies make money. But movies are “bad” for a variety of reasons.”

Like because you say it’s so?

;-))

162. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

—161. MJ – January 3, 2014

“With respect to “damage” done by STID, box office receipts are hardly the issue. STID made money, just like lots of bad movies make money. But movies are “bad” for a variety of reasons.”

Like because you say it’s so?—

Like because the author of the article I’m referencing says it’s so.

Along with the numerous other critics and fans who have expressed very similar opinions in exhaustive detail.

163. MJ - January 3, 2014

@162

That was not my quote. That was Disinvited’s quote. You seem a tad confused here, dude?

164. MJ - January 3, 2014

I meant that was your own quote. Now I am getting confused myself?

You realized you repeated you own quot back to me like it was what I said, right?

165. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

In 161, you said this:

—Like because you say it’s so?—

To which I responded in 162:

—Like because the author of the article I’m referencing says it’s so.

Along with the numerous other critics and fans who have expressed very similar opinions in exhaustive detail.—

Right?

I included what you were referring to for the sake of reference, because it was brief.

166. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

I’ll admit you did confuse me with that bit about Disinvited.

167. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

Cygnus-X1 & MJ,

Looks like you two need coffee :)

168. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

=====================================
Watch the 1st 15 minutes of Ron Moore’s Helix NOW

http://www.blastr.com/2014-1-3/why-wait-watch-1st-15-minutes-ron-moores-helix-now

169. MJ - January 3, 2014

Ah, OK, I get it now.

Well, I would point out that on RT, STID has a Fresh Rating with 87% of the critics giving it a good review, and 90% of the movie fans liking it. Those numbers are just a bit off ST-2009 (95% and 91%). Additionally, on IMDB, it rates a 7.9, as compared to an 8.0 for ST-2009.

I think your souce is a bit of cherry-picking, like others have used here. I mean, seriously, who here goes to “Seuquart Research” for movie reviews. I have NEVER EVEN HEARD of this organization??? Huh???

That being said, I think that STID was a misfire, especially in regards to it coming after the great Trek 2009. STID is not a great Trek movie, but neither is it the turd that your’s and other’s here cherry-picking of web site unfavorable reviews makes it out to be.

170. MJ - January 3, 2014

I can do the cherry picking of positive reviews of STID as well, and my sources aren’t so “wtf” obscure as the vaunted Seuquart Research:

Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324767004578486893387882784

Albany Times-Union:
http://www.timesunion.com/living/article/Review-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-both-funny-and-4518299.php

UK Daily Mirror (Ahmed’s favorite UK paper):
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/star-trek-darkness-review-benedict-1877950

BET:
http://blogs.bet.com/celebrities/what-the-flick/movie-review-star-trek-into-darkness/

Quad City Times:
http://qctimes.com/into-darkness-a-strong-star-trek-sequel/article_a1de6aea-5693-5366-bd02-4e1553c59ff8.html

171. MJ - January 3, 2014

I can do the cherry picking of positive reviews of STID as well, and my sources aren’t so “wtf” obscure as the vaunted Seuquart Research:

Wall Street Journal:
“But again, this is because the new “Star Trek” mixes mischief with respect, and spot-on casting. Chris Pine makes the roguish James Tiberius Kirk a charismatic swashbuckler, always willing to bend a rule. Mr. Spock is played, blessedly, by the drily funny Zachary Quinto. Zoe Saldana is a smolderingly businesslike Uhura. A newcomer to the cast is Alice Eve as science officer Carol Marcus, who incites Mr. Spock’s jealousy and Kirk’s libido. The others are equally well used, and while the action is often electric, it’s the relationships that matter. That, and a lippy regard for a cultural legacy.”

Albany Times-Union:
“Star Trek Into Darkness’ both funny and thoughtful”

UK Daily Mirror (Ahmed’s favorite UK paper):
“While Trekkies won’t rate this as the best film in the series – that honor still lies with 1982’s Wrath Of Khan – it’s certainly in the top three.”

BET:
“J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness is a nearly perfect appetizer for the upcoming summer blockbuster season. The Paramount film doesn’t take itself too seriously yet still delivers wit thanks to Zachary Quinto with his superb performance as Spock. All of the ingredients are there: likable characters, standard but enjoyable storyline, funny one-liners and full-blown action. The movie safely does its job and is easily the first must-see action flick of the year.”

Quad City Times:
“‘Into Darkness” a strong ‘Star Trek’ sequel”

172. Phil - January 3, 2014

@157. How do you know he wasn’t frozen after Specter of the Gun?

Serious answer, though, is that there wasn’t anything hinted, suggested, or outright proclaimed in TOS that human lifespans reached well into two centuries. So to just retcon that 147 years is normal is just as silly as suggesting that Guardian of Forever Getaways or Nexus Rejuvenation Cruises are normal for squeezing a few years of life out of average Federation citizens. I get it, though – we live in an era where is something wasn’t specifically forbidden, its open for use. Deep sea diving starships, and very long lifespans. Fair game.

173. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@170. MJ

“UK Daily Mirror (Ahmed’s favorite UK paper):”

lol, nope, it is your favorite newspaper because it gave you the “breaking news” that Pine will star in 2 more Trek movies !!

“I can do the cherry picking of positive reviews of STID as well, and my sources aren’t so “wtf” obscure as the vaunted Seuquart Research:”

Sound like a fun game:

====================
“After increasingly noisy and bloated starship battles, “Into Darkness” reaches a climax with the smashing of a North American city followed by a long fistfight on a flying metal platform. It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. Mr. Abrams will never be Michael Bay, who can make kinetic poetry out of huge pieces of machinery smashing together. Why should he want to be?

The good people at Paramount have asked me not to say too much about the plot, so I won’t, except to note that it is pretty dumb and sometimes needlessly muddled.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html?_r=0

174. Ahmed - January 3, 2014

@171. Phil

Also the fact is that fan films are not canon.

175. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

169. MJ – January 3, 2014

—Well, I would point out that on RT, STID has a Fresh Rating with 87% of the critics giving it a good review, and 90% of the movie fans liking it.—

I’m glad that you referenced the critical reviews at RT, because they support what I said.

Two points.

(1) “Liking” a movie is a pretty low bar. It just means that you had a good time and didn’t dislike it. A barely passable movie that was a low-brow guilty pleasure is indistinguishable from the best movie you’ve ever seen if you judge only by the numbers—they both get a “LIKE.”

While it was a poorly constructed story with many bad components, STID was also a thrill-ride with extremely titillating visuals. The latter attributes carried the movie in spite of the former, and the plot was sufficiently confusing as to lead many (or most) audience members to assume that it must make sense in some “intelligent” sort of way. I’ve heard that form of apologetic for STID over and over from people. A little retrospection obviously invalidates that assumption, as the author of the above article (and numerous other critics and fans) have discussed at length.

(2) With respect to the critics, while the binary, up or down, vote might appear flattering, the actual reviews of those critics who LIKED the movie tend to be less than flattering, if not begrudgingly accepting:

“The effects are exhilarating, even in these jaded post-3D days, and there are enough action set-pieces, humour and character development to distract from a plot that isn’t exactly sci-fi’s final frontier.” – David Edwards, Daily Mirror [UK].

“…a terminally perfunctory followup that just barely gets the job done… –
David Nusair, Reel Film Reviews.

“Moment to moment, it’s as entertaining, rousing and visually impressive as any recent science-fiction action epic, but the script is cratered with illogical motivations and plot holes large enough to swallow Classic Trek’s Doomsday Machine.” – John Beifuss, Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN).

“It’s generally a lot of fun, but it’s exhausting, and the busyness only somewhat disguises the fact that the story doesn’t entirely make sense.” –
Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com.

“The conceptual sci-fi of the original series is nowhere to be found, though you might enjoy watching the skinny young actors approximate their counterparts from the 60s; Chris Pine is especially good as Captain Kirk.” – J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader.

“… a summer film that dimly reminds viewers of what it used to be – and could be again – while still being little more than a rollercoaster ride.” –
Kevin A. Ranson, MovieCrypt.com.

Again, let me reiterate that the above reviews are by critics who LIKED the movie. I won’t bother posting the reviews of critics who didn’t like it.

So, even amongst those who liked it, the most commonly expressed opinion is basically: fun, entertaining thrill-ride with titillating visuals and good acting, but little else of value.

And that all adds up to a hollow, superficial, shallow, fleeting experience, more sizzle than steak, and not what Trek was intended to be. TOS was actually the exact OPPOSITE of BR’s Trek. TOS was poor-quality production values that we overlooked because the concepts and stories were so rich and compelling. TOS (and TNG) were 90% drama, ideas and thought-provocation and 10% action. BR’s Trek reverses that ratio.

176. MJ - January 3, 2014

@174

I pretty much agree with all of this. Like I said, STID was a misfire, not a great movie, but not the turd you or others keep bemoaning about. Yea, I agree with you post, except where you try to extend this to ST-2009 — there I part ways unequivocally with you. ST-2009 is right up there in the top three, if not the best, Trek movies ever made.

177. MJ - January 3, 2014

@173. Well played, Ahmed! :-)

178. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

175. MJ – January 3, 2014

—@174 I pretty much agree with all of this. Like I said, STID was a misfire, not a great movie, but not the turd you or others keep bemoaning about. Yea, I agree with you post, except where you try to extend this to ST-2009 — there I part ways unequivocally with you. ST-2009 is right up there in the top three, if not the best, Trek movies ever made.—

We’re really not that far apart.

In terms of ranking ST’09, I might have agreed with you back in 2009 after seeing it in the theater a couple of times and a couple of times on DVD.
And, even today, in terms of in-the-moment entertainment, I can’t take too much issue with your ranking. I would unequivocally give the top three slots to STII, STIV and STVI, but I might even concede the fourth slot to ST’09…if we’re only judging based on in-the-moment entertainment.

There’s no disputing that ST’09 is an entertaining movie, for all of the aforementioned reasons that STID was entertaining: thrill-ride, titillating visuals, good acting, and some good comedy to boot.

So what changed my mind since 2009? ST’09 does not hold up well over time. The more familiar I became with the story and various elements and devices of the plot, the less I liked and respected the movie, and the more it offended my sensibilities and my loyalty to Trek.

Enjoying ST’09 is kind of like enjoying great quality marijuana that you know is funding the most horrible, sociopathic, ruthless criminals on the planet. You still enjoy the experience of consuming the product, but you don’t feel good about the people who sold it to you and supporting their business because you’re offended by their value system (or lack thereof). (And yes, obviously this is an exaggerated example for the purpose of drawing a clear analogy to illustrate a point.)

Obviously, I can’t tell you or anyone else what to like or approve of. But, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. And I think that if you carefully consider the points made in the article up there, you’ll see that they have merit. And if you then extrapolate the implications for the Trek franchise from the artistic value system—specifically its lack of integrity and fidelity to the spirit of Trek and what has always made it Trek—which underlie both ST’09 and STID, you might gain a bit more appreciation for all of the bellyaching, talk of Trek being “broken” and so forth.

179. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

I don’t know what I did to get on the screening list, but it seems that my last comment is waiting for approval.

In any case, in case if it comes across as unintentionally condescending, I want to say that I don’t mean it that way.

Basically, I have two points:

(1) It has become evident from the similarities in ST’09 and STID that decisions have been made by Bad Robot which have taken the Trek franchise in a fundamentally new direction, a direction which can almost be called “anti-Trek,” as it seems to reverse the sensibilities and artistic values first established in TOS which, more or less, inspired and informed Trekdom over the subsequent decades up until BR took over; and,

(2) The issues that so many fans and critics have taken with elements of STID were firstly manifest, albeit in less obtrusive forms, in ST’09. And I gave some examples of those parallels up there.

180. Red Dead Ryan - January 3, 2014

STID may not be as good as its predecessor, but despite its flaws (of which there are a fair number), it remains a highly entertaining movie that is still superior to about half of the first ten films. I mean, really, is it anywhere near as bad as “Nemesis”, “Insurrection”, or “The Final Frontier”?

The main problem was that the writers kept procrastinating and missing deadlines, forcing them to rush the script because they didn’t have the time required to make sure the movie would be the best it could have been.

181. Phil - January 3, 2014

@173. So, Kirk and Spock ARE gay. That explains a lot….

182. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

178. Red Dead Ryan

—I mean, really, is it anywhere near as bad as “Nemesis”, “Insurrection”, or “The Final Frontier”?—

STID is more entertaining than all of those, because the actors’ performances are better, the production values are better (especially than STV), and the story premise had more compelling elements—If you take the individual plot points and character motivations from STID, you can make a good movie out of them, albeit with a fair amount of tweaking, but the seeds of a good story are there.

Further, Nemesis and Insurrection had as many or more (and worse) plot holes than STID. STV was just awful through and through. Though Generations was rock bottom, even below STV and Nemesis.

183. Cygnus-X1 - January 3, 2014

Insurrection actually had a decent story and decent production values for its time, it was just riddled with so many plot holes. So, I’m not sure that I’d rank STID over Insurrection, though I can see how one might.

The Trek movies get kinda foggy and difficult to rank around the middle of the list, but I feel confident in ranking them like this from the bottom:

12. Generations: The story was just too, too stupid. Entire movie, one big plot hole. Both Generations and STV are painful to watch.

11. STV: Painfully bad scenes, story very stupid, but at least more intelligible than Generations.

10. Nemesis: Story pretty stupid, riddled with plot holes, but decent production values and managed to create some amount of tension within the dark story. Only slightly less painful to watch than STV.

9. The next four spots would be occupied by TMP, Insurrection, FC and STID, though I can see valid arguments for any ordering of them within those four spots, so long as FC was ranked ahead of Insurrection. Of these four, TMP is the only one that wasn’t despoiled by plot holes, but it’s just…sooo….slow…. Though, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it, so maybe I’m short-changing it a bit. I’m open to persuasion about the merits of TMP.

8. ” ”

7. ” ”

6. ” ”

5. ST’09

4.. STIII

3. STVI

2. STIV — I can see valid reasons for reversing the order of IV and VI, though I confidently rank STIV at #2 because it was so riotously funny and entertaining and a very well told story. But, humor being among the more personal tastes, I can see someone not finding STIV as funny and entertaining as I did. I suppose someone who didn’t get the humor at all would rank STIV much further down the list.

1. STII.

184. MJ - January 4, 2014

“(2) The issues that so many fans and critics have taken with elements of STID were firstly manifest, albeit in less obtrusive forms, in ST’09. And I gave some examples of those parallels up there.”

I know we are talking about personal opinions here, but I categorically reject this. The whole Khan think, rouge Admiral “Dick Cheney” and Orci conspiracy story, was just not a great idea for STID, and it lessened the movie to just an average Trek movie, instead of a great ST movie. The first movie had a great story, and none of these weaknesses. Trek 2009 is a classic. No, I do not see any bad tendencies that go across the two films.

My ratings overall on all Trek films,

Group 1: The “Groaners”:

12. STV. Row your Boat and half naked fat old Uhura singing, special effects look like James Cawley’s group did them — basically horrible painful to watch. Enough said.

11. Generations. Horrid and unforgiving death for Kirk that makes me sick to my stomach — ruined the entire movie for me, and it makes me angry to watch it to this day.

Group 2: The “Boring Generation”

10. Insurrection. Get me son NoDoze quickly, as I am falling asleep.

9. Nemesis. Dumbass villain that makes no sense as Picard’s clone, cheap-ass fake Romulan sets, but extra credit for Brent Spinner’s great performance.

Group 3: The “Well Meaning” Efforts

8. The Undiscovered Country. Great efforts by Nimoy and Kelly make up for Shatner mailing it in; Nick Meyer’s laughable Cold War analogy and in-your-face Shakespeare salvaged by good direction of the actors and Christopher Plummer’s great performance.

7. First Contact. Great performance by Patrick Stewart, pretty good story, but cheap sets and production values have led this this one not holding up well over time (ref: the silly deflector dish fight sequence towards the end).

6. Into Darkness. Great performances, outstanding production values and special effects. Great message film that is important to events today. Problematic screenplay, particularly in regards to force-fitting Khan into the movie. Noticeable logic gaps and wtf moments.

5. The Motion Picture. Best science fiction film by far of any Trek movie — outstanding hard science fiction story! Best looking Enterprise ever. Lackluster screenplay and direction. Acting is hampered by screenplay and direction — characters don’t seem comfortable.

Group 4: The Outstanding Classics

4. The Wrath of Khan. Great screenplay and direction by Meyer. Great performances all around, and awesome use of Montelban as Khan. A space battle movie without much of a message though.

3. The Voyage Home. Most “fun” Star Trek movie. Great contrast in Trek life to 20th century life. Great environmental message. Scotty shines! Last decent performance as Kirk by Shatner. Music was creative, and a nice break from Horner/Goldsmith.

2. Star Trek 2009. Surprisingly creative way of bringing back TOS Star Trek. Awesome casting and performances. Outstanding background stories and first meetings of main characters. Creative screenplay — one of the best paced movies I have ever seen. Under-appreciated performance by Bana. Best production values and special effects since TMP. Not a message film, but not needed since it was an origin film.

1. The Search for Spock. Quintessential Star Trek character interaction; the best performances by all of the cast in any movie; best Klingon of all time in Kruge; best Sarek performance ever by Mark Leonard, best Kirk performance since TOS by Shatner; best Star Trek screenplay ever by Harve Bennett. Great message film about the needs of the many versus the needs of the few or the one.

185. MJ - January 4, 2014

What it the heck is going on tonight — I can get my post accepted???

I will try again in the morning — I have a detailed rating of all the Trek movies to share.

186. Disinvited - January 4, 2014

# 159. MJ – January 3, 2014

“Try getting the IRS to give you a tax break for something you do in January and February this year — see how that flies with Uncle Sam.” – MJ

I regret to see that apparently you’ve never taken advantage of the IRA contribution/deduction that allows you to do just that. You couldn’t have chosen a worse example to try to make your point.

187. Disinvited - January 4, 2014

# 159. MJ – January 3, 2014

Note:

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040a/ar01.html

From the IRA deduction worksheet:

“Enter traditional IRA contributions made, or that will be made by April 15, 2014, for 2013 to your IRA on line 9a and to your spouse’s IRA on line 9b “

188. BatlethInTheGroin - January 4, 2014

#170: How is Sequart obscure? Sequart’s a highly visible publisher with a lot of great publications. It’s not obscure at all.

189. Disinvited - January 4, 2014

#163. MJ – January 3, 2014

You’ve just put yourself in the running for 2014’s Smigel award for quote misattribution. But I must admit, it does sound like something I would have said.

190. MJ - January 4, 2014

“(2) The issues that so many fans and critics have taken with elements of STID were firstly manifest, albeit in less obtrusive forms, in ST’09. And I gave some examples of those parallels up there.”

I know we are talking about personal opinions here, but I categorically reject this. The whole Khan think, rouge Admiral “Cheney” and Orci conspiracy story, was just not a great idea for STID, and it lessened the movie to just an average Trek movie, instead of a great ST movie. The first movie had a great story, and none of these weaknesses. Trek 2009 is a classic. No, I do not see any bad tendencies that go across the two films.

My ratings overall on all Trek films,

Group 1: The “F-ups”:

12. STV. Row your Boat and half naked old Uhura singing, special effects look like the Phase II group did them — basically horribly painful to watch — makes me ill. Enough said.

11. Generations. Horrid and unforgiving “death by Home Depot project” for Kirk that makes me sick to my stomach — ruined the entire movie for me, and it makes me angry to watch it to this day.

Group 2: The “I Need to Make a Starbucks Run” Group

10. Insurrection. Get me a double espresso mod quickly, as I am falling asleep. Most boring Star Trek movie, bar none.

9. Nemesis. Surprising silly screenplay, silly villain that makes no sense as Picard’s clone, cheap fake-looking Romulan sets, but extra credit for Brent Spinner’s great performance.

Group 3: The “Well Meaning” Efforts

8. Star Trek 6 TUC. As a partial return to form after the unwatchable V, this movie thus tends to be substantially overrated by fans. A surprising hack screenplay effort by Meyer, with way too obvious in-your-face William S. quotes, and over-the top message related to U.S.-Soviet CW era and politics. C. Plummer saves the day with an inspired performance.

7. First Contact. Great performance by Patrick Stewart, pretty good story, but cheap sets and production values have led this one not holding up well over time (ref: the silly deflector dish fight sequence towards the end).

6. Into Darkness. Great performances, outstanding production values and special effects. Great message film that is important to events today. Problematic screenplay, particularly in regards to force-fitting Khan into the movie. Noticeable logic gaps and wtf moments.

5. The Motion Picture. Best science fiction film by far of any Trek movie — outstanding hard science fiction story! Best looking Enterprise ever. Lackluster screenplay and direction. Acting is hampered by screenplay and direction — characters don’t seem comfortable.

Group 4: The Classics

4. The Wrath of Khan. Great screenplay and direction by Meyer. Great performances all around, and awesome use of Montelban as Khan. A space battle movie without much of a message though.

3. The Voyage Home. Most “fun” Star Trek movie. Great contrast in Trek 23rd century life to 20th century life. Great environmental message. Scotty/Doohan shines! Last decent performance as Kirk by Shatner. Music was creative and different, with fit this movie.

2. Star Trek 2009. Surprisingly creative way of bringing back TOS Star Trek. Awesome casting and performances. Outstanding background stories and first meetings of main characters. Creative screenplay — one of the best paced movies I have ever seen. Under-appreciated performance by Bana. Best production values and special effects since TMP. Not a message film, but not needed since it was an origin film.

1. The Search for Spock. Quintessential Star Trek character interaction; the best performances by all of the cast in any movie; best Klingon of all time in Kruge; best Sarek performance ever by Mark Leonard, best Kirk performance since TOS by Shatner; best Star Trek screenplay ever by Harve Bennett. Great message film about the needs of the many versus the needs of the few or the one.

191. MJ - January 4, 2014

@182 @183 @185

LOL, Disinvinted. :-)

192. MJ - January 4, 2014

“184. BatlethInTheGroin – January 4, 2014
#170: How is Sequart obscure? Sequart’s a highly visible publisher with a lot of great publications. It’s not obscure at all.”

Here is a list of the Top 60 publishers in the world today. Sequart is not on this list. So obviously, they are not as well known as you think they are.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/financial-reporting/article/58211-the-global-60-the-world-s-largest-book-publishers-2013.html

193. DiscoSpock - January 4, 2014

#188

I had also never heard of Sequart before these posts here.

194. Red Dead Ryan - January 4, 2014

MJ, I like your list. I would rank FC and STID higher than TMP and TVH though. But very nice to see TSFS get some much-deserved props around here. It’s still the most underrated Trek film, in my opinion.

I’m also not familiar with Sea Fart….err…Sequart. :-)

195. Red Dead Ryan - January 4, 2014

I will say, however, that Kirk’s “DOUBLE DUMB-ASS ON YOU!!!” replyhas to be considered one of the best Trek movie quotes ever. Just classic.

196. Galileo Seven - January 4, 2014

MJ,

I like that list. I would have Trek 2009 #1 though, as its just a level above any of the other classics IMHO.

I would then have WOK #2 and TSFS #3. And #6 for STID is about right IMHO.

197. Blue Thunder - January 4, 2014

The only Trek productions that are painful to watch are the following.

1. The NG half of Generations(even though the Duras Sisters are thankfully killed off).

2. Insurrection

3. Nemesis

4. Starship Farragut

5. Star Trek Continues

198. Cygnus-X1 - January 4, 2014

190. MJ – January 4, 2014

Obviously people like what they like and can have different reasons for liking things as complex and multifaceted as movies. The most common opinion over the years, however, has STII at #1. And I’ve never seen any list, besides yours, which ranked STIII above STII (and by a three positions, no less.) I’m sure there must be other people who share your particular opinion regarding STII vis-a-vis STIII, though I would venture to say that it is a minority opinion. The bottom of your list (the worst movies), however, is in agreement with the general consensus.

My sort of thesis in this thread has been in reference to the concerns expressed in the article above. From those concerns I have extrapolated a set of values (artistic values and sensibilities) common to both ST’09 and STID, some of which the author finds problematic in his article, and some of which I find antithetical to what Star Trek has always been and been about. It is this divergence in values that people (like Levar Burton, in an article posted here a while back, as well as some of the critics at RT) are reacting to when they complain that BR’s Trek “doesn’t feel like Star Trek.” They’re basically reacting to the change in artistic values and sensibilities consciously made by BR. You may like those fundamental changes. Or you may not find them as offensive as I do.

199. Ensign RedShirt - January 4, 2014

MJ –

Enjoyed your list. May not agree with the order, but a fine list.

Surprised to see III topping it. While I love the character interaction as well, it also features the biggest plot hole in any Trek film: there’s no reason for Kirk and gang to steal the Enterprise and return to Genesis. As far as they know, all they’ll find is Spock’s corpse, right where they left it. Sarek told Kirk to bring them both to Mt. Seleya, but he simply meant his katra. Remember, Kirk is stunned when Saavik tells him Spock is alive.

It’s a huge hole that could’ve been resolved with one additional scene.

200. Red Dead Ryan - January 4, 2014

#199.

“Surprised to see III topping it. While I love the character interaction as well, it also features the biggest plot hole in any Trek film: there’s no reason for Kirk and gang to steal the Enterprise and return to Genesis. As far as they know, all they’ll find is Spock’s corpse, right where they left it. Sarek told Kirk to bring them both to Mt. Seleya, but he simply meant his katra. Remember, Kirk is stunned when Saavik tells him Spock is alive.”

There is no plot hole here. Sarek tells Kirk that Spock’s body must be brought back to Vulcan, to save both Spock and McCoy.

201. Ensign RedShirt - January 4, 2014

200 –

Why? All that’s on Genesis is his corpse. Spock’s essence is in McCoy’s head. All they had to do was charter a shuttle to Vulcan.

202. Red Dead Ryan - January 4, 2014

CORRECTION:

Sarek tells Kirk to return Spock’s katra to Vulcan. Yeah, sorry, you are correct.

But presumably, Kirk figured that Spock’s body was needed anyway, and that’s why he went back to Genesis in the first place. He expected to find Spock as he was when he died, but instead, found a younger, “reborn” Spock.

203. MJ - January 5, 2014

Guys,

On my rankings, my classics, from 1 to 4, are really close in my mind. So don’t get too hung up on my ranking WOK three slots behind TSFS. These four movies are all “right up there” for me.

Cygnus X-1, I do get where you are coming from, but just don’t agree. But like you said, we are not really all that far apart. It will be interesting to see, now that JJ is largely out of the picture, if the next movie gets back to more of the core values Trek you are talking about.

Ensign Red Shirt, thanks! And while RDR points out that Sarek did send them after the body, that is a plot hole still that I have questioned over the years some as well. But nearly all the movies have plot holes like that.

Galileo 7 and RDR, thanks for your comments.

204. Ensign RedShirt - January 5, 2014

202 –

I see what you’re saying, but to me that’s a helluva stretch. Risking all those lives and careers just to retrieve a dead body makes no sense.

To me the movie still works because it’s the only movie in the series that’s truly about the characters and what they mean to each other, and for that alone it’s worth watching.

205. Red Dead Ryan - January 5, 2014

#201.

“Why? All that’s on Genesis is his corpse. Spock’s essence is in McCoy’s head. All they had to do was charter a shuttle to Vulcan.”

Because where else were they going to put Spock’s katra? Presumably, a body was needed, a body without an existing katra or soul living in it. McCoy and Spock’s katra weren’t going to survive sharing the same body together, and I doubt a jar would suffice.

206. MJ - January 5, 2014

@201 @201

Yea, that’s a bit weak in terms of the plot logic.

207. Ensign RedShirt - January 5, 2014

205 –

Spock’s katra was going to be removed from McCoy and put in The Hall of Ancient Thought. That’s in the novel though, not the movie.

Bringing Spock’s corpse to Vulcan and having his katra put back into his body would’ve destroyed Spock’s consciousness.

“Only his body was in death, Kirk.”

208. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

199. Ensign RedShirt – January 4, 2014

Good point. We’re left to make assumptions about how Kirk knew to go back to the Genesis Planet because the issue is never addressed.

205. Red Dead Ryan – January 5, 2014

—Because where else were they going to put Spock’s katra? Presumably, a body was needed, a body without an existing katra or soul living in it. McCoy and Spock’s katra weren’t going to survive sharing the same body together, and I doubt a jar would suffice.—

This is most likely what we are meant to infer, that Kirk figured Spock’s Katra would have to be put somewhere, and he wasn’t going to settle for an urn from the funeral parlor, even if at $180, it was their most modestly priced receptacle.

209. Red Dead Ryan - January 5, 2014

SAREK: Why did you leave him on Genesis! Spock trusted you. You denied him his future!

KIRK: I saw no future.

SAREK: Only his body was in death, Kirk. And you were the last one to be with him.

KIRK: Yes, I was.

SAREK: Then you must know that you should have come with him to Vulcan.

At this point, Sarek doesn’t know that Spock had mind-melded with McCoy instead of Kirk, and that Kirk assumes that the torpedo carrying Spock’s body into the atmosphere of Genesis was the absolute end.

Later on:

SAREK: Kirk, I must have your thoughts. May I join your mind? …He spoke of your friendship.

KIRK: Yes.

SAREK: He asked you not to grieve.

KIRK: Yes.

SAREK: The needs of the many …outweigh…

KIRK: …the needs of the few…

SAREK: …or the one.

KIRK: Spock…

SAREK: I have been …and always shall be …your friend. Live long …and prosper!

KIRK: No!

SAREK: Forgive me. It is not here. I had assumed he mind-melded with you. It is the Vulcan way …when the body’s end is near.

KIRK: We were separated! He couldn’t touch me.

SAREK: I see. …Then everything that he was. …Everything that he knew …is lost.

KIRK: Please wait! …He would have found a way! If there was that much at stake, …Spock would have found a way!

SAREK: Yes. …But how?

KIRK: What if he joined with someone else?

After the mind-meld, Sarek realizes he was wrong about Kirk, and then assumes (incorrectly) that Spock’s katra is lost. Kirk then realizes that Spock placed his katra into the mind and body of another…Dr. McCoy, who was behaving strangely earlier in the film.

Sarek told Kirk earlier that Spock wasn’t supposed to be on Genesis, but on Vulcan instead. He had to have been talking about the body, because he assumes that Spock had joined with Kirk.

The end of the scene is where Kirk realizes he has to go to Vulcan. I’m not sure if the end result of reuniting Spock with his body was what Sarek was thinking of, but I think Kirk’s instincts and intuition led him to doing just that.

I’m not sure this was a plot hole, but something more complex involving metaphysics and spirituality. Conventional logic doesn’t necessarily work in a situation such as this one. Kirk and Sarek shared a scene together, and it revealed that both characters were confused as to what was really going on. That makes sense. But Kirk is able to add two and two together when he rewatches the video of Spock mind-melding with McCoy, and coupling that with the good doctor’s strange behavior.

(both watching video of Spock mind-melding with McCoy)

KIRK: McCoy!

SAREK: One alive, one not. Yet both in pain.

KIRK: What must I do?

SAREK: You must bring them to Mount Seleya, …on Vulcan. Only there can both find peace.

KIRK: What you ask …is difficult.

SAREK: You will find a way, Kirk. …If you honour them both, you must.

KIRK: I will. I swear.

So both McCoy and Spock had to go back to Vulcan….the reason not specific, but possibly as a final resting place.

Kirk probably had an idea — a long shot one at that — of perhaps finding Spock’s body on the Genesis planet. He probably hoped just to find Spock as he was when he died, but obviously was very surprised to find a fully regenerated, youthful Spock instead.

At this point, he was acting mainly on instinct. I think Kirk realized he had found a way…..to (literally) fully restore Spock, and “free” McCoy, perhaps beyond what Sarek had in mind, and obviously beyond what Kirk initially assumed was a simple matter of life and death.

It isn’t a plot hole, but more of an ambiguity created by the combination of spirituality,faith, metaphysics, life and death, and resurrection as well as science. So there is a level of complexity here that is quite different from what we have previously encountered in Star Trek, and arguably, never again.

If you’re relying on pure movie logic, then it doesn’t work. But if you rely on other factors that I mentioned, it does. Especially faith.

210. Red Dead Ryan - January 5, 2014

CORRECTION:

“So there is a level of complexity here that is quite different, and more advanced, than arguably anything we have seen in “Star Trek” before or since.”

I think what I mentioned above is the main reason why “The Search For Spock” is so underrated and overlooked by many. The movie has an understated, yet powerful, brilliance and engenuity about it that is almost concealed by action, visual effects, and scenery-chewing Klingons.

The more I think about it, the more that TSFS strikes me as being even closer to the essence of what makes TOS so great. TWOK happened to be a popular movie sequel to a popular TOS episode, but TSFS was TOS fully realized on the big screen. The writers of TSFS managed to add to the layers of the characters, and to the TOS mythology as a whole in ways that I think the audience still hasn’t grasped, and may never grasp.

211. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

209. Red Dead Ryan – January 5, 2014

I’ll have to watch it again, but from the text this would seem to have been enough information:

SAREK: Why did you leave him on Genesis! Spock trusted you. You denied him his future!

KIRK: I saw no future.

SAREK: Only his body was in death, Kirk. And you were the last one to be with him.

KIRK: Yes, I was.

SAREK: Then you must know that you should have come with him to Vulcan.

(Which could then guide your interpretation of this:

SAREK: You must bring them to Mount Seleya, …on Vulcan. Only there can both find peace.—

My general impression of STIII is that it felt more like a denouement of the climax that was STII. The story feels like it involves a lot of traveling and searching and the flow isn’t as exciting as in STII. Also, STIII doesn’t have as strong and compelling a theme as STII, and I didn’t find Christopher Lloyd nearly as interesting a villain as Ricardo Montalban. But, you have piqued my interest to see the movie again.

212. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

209. Red Dead Ryan – January 5, 2014

I’m watching STIII now.

Kirk first gets the inclination to go back to the Genesis Planet after McCoy breaks into Spock’s quarters on Enterprise and starts acting weird, but before his (Kirk’s) conversation with Sarek. When Kirk and his crew are lined up before a superior admiral being told that they’re all getting honors and shore leave, etc…and that the Enterprise will not be repaired, Kirk says that he’d hoped to take the Enterprise back to the Genesis Planet.

But, it really doesn’t come across as a plot hole or problematic in any way. McCoy’s odd behavior and seeming to be possessed by the ghost of Spock is enough for us to infer that Kirk means to investigate the circumstances around McCoy’s behavior and what he’s saying—telling Kirk to climb the steps of Mt. Seleya on Vulcan—and that investigation logically begins at the location where Spock, who seems to be somehow affecting McCoy, was left behind, i.e. The Genesis Planet.

Soon after Kirk has the conversation with Sarek, which gives him further motivation to go back to The Genesis Planet to see what’s become of Spock.

Kirk’s original motivation for wanting to go back to The Genesis Planet was never vocalized, and I supposed it could have been, but it really didn’t need to be. The whole thing with Spock and Genesis is a mystery, and the audience is naturally in the dark during a mystery. Further, Kirk has always been a character who acted on instinct, and it makes sense for us to infer that, after witnessing what’s become of McCoy, Kirk’s gut is telling him to go back to Genesis. So, there’s really not a plot hole here.

213. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

I would also add that, up to now (I’m about 30 min into the movie) there’s a lot of cheesy dialogue and mundane shots in this movie—Kruge’s pet monster, his crew sucking up to him, etc…

STII unquestionably has better dialogue and is a classier movie, meaning that it doesn’t try for cheap little thrills and corny jokes like STIII does. STIII immediately feels like it’s in a lower class than STII, in terms of writing, at least. I’ll have more to say after I’ve finished the movie.

214. Ensign RedShirt - January 5, 2014

212 Cygnus –

It still makes no sense to risk life and limb to return to Genesis when, as far as you know, all you’ll find is a corpse.

Like I said earlier, I still enjoy the film, but to me it’s a major plot hole or very klutzy writing.

215. Disinvited - January 5, 2014

#214. Ensign RedShirt – January 5, 2014

You are forgetting the “damned illegal thing” that Spock’s katra had McCoy trying to negotiate in the bar that got him thrown in the klink in the first place. That’s where Admiral Kirk who had access to the arresting officer’s report got the idea that McCoy/Spock had to go to Genesis, because that’s where McCoy was trying to illegally go when his Federation shadows overheard and arrested him. And you know Spock’s friend Kirk: even if it was only a desperate groping guess from a Spock jammed into McCoy’s brain, then that’s where he would go.

216. Curious Cadet - January 5, 2014

Congratulations to Star Trek Into Darkness for officially placing #11 in the 2013 Yearly Domestic Grosses Box Office Rankings.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm

Disclaimer: while this is the standard measure by which all movies are ranked both within the industry and by outside observers, it is still subject to change based on films which have not completed their run; however, I personally do not see any other movies released in 2013 grossing more at the box office than STID to displace it from its solid 11th place ranking for the year.

217. Harry Ballz - January 5, 2014

Here is the big difference between TWOK and TSFS:

In TWOK we have an old enemy pop up who attacks Kirk and crew. Yhey react by fighting back in self-defense. Standard stuff.

In TSFS we have Kirk and crew (minus Spock) safely back on Earth. Kirk becomes aware that he must sacrifice his career to help Spock rest in peace. The rest of the crew agree to take the same risk in aid of their friend.

Plainly speaking, in TWOK our favorite heroes fight back for the sake of survival. Impressive, but something anyone would do instinctively in that situation. In TSFS our favorite heroes sacrifice everything for FRIENDSHIP, a rare action indeed.

Personally, I think the scariest line spoken in either film is when Captain Styles says, “Kirk, you do this, you’ll never sit in the Captain’s chair again”.

It shows ultimate bravery when you are willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for a noble cause that you could conveniently ignore for your own safety and comfort.

The definition of a real hero is not the person trying to escape a burning building, but the person on the street who runs into the burning building to save people. They don’t have to do it, but do it anyway because they know it’s the right thing to do.

218. Curious Cadet - January 5, 2014

@217. Harry Ballz,
“It shows ultimate bravery when you are willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for a noble cause that you could conveniently ignore for your own safety and comfort.”

I like your thinking. More than merely doing what’s right, Kirk is showing his devotion for his friend, his “family”. It may or may not be right or noble, but it is definitely something he is obligated to do; though I agree the more positive message is the morality of it.

The reason I make this distinction is because I recently watched the Breaking Bad finale, and it blurs the lines of right, noble and moral actions. SPOILER — In the end, Hank is pursuing what is on the surface an obvious path for justice: he’s going to take Walt down at all costs, to his career and his family, for the right, noble and moral cause. But from my perspective he didn’t do this for any other reason than Khan sought to take out Kirk — he was angry and out for revenge, for no other reason than Walt made him look like a fool. His desire for revenge clouded his ability to make good decisions and in the end, he lost everything.

I don’t believe Kirk was as selfish in his motives. There’s an argument to be made that he wanted his friend back so badly that his desire clouded his judgement. But in the end I think it’s clear, Kirk had the best of intentions to honor his friend, whether it was the right thing to do or not. In fact considering Spock’s years of service, I recall getting quite angry in the theater thinking how unreasonable it was that Starfleet failed to make an exception for Spock.

219. Disinvited - January 5, 2014

#217. Harry Ballz, 218. Curious Cadet – January 5, 2014

I think the writer’s had Kirk express it best to a katra disposed Sarek when he explained, that if he hadn’t tried, the cost would have been his soul.

220. boborci - January 5, 2014

trek work begins whole hog tomorrow. hope you like

221. Red Dead Ryan - January 5, 2014

Harry Ballz, well said.

Kirk actually had a moral imperative to go back to Genesis, to save both Spock and McCoy. Both were suffering, as Sarek had said. I think Kirk knew he had to go back to Genesis after encountering McCoy in Spock’s quarters, but it was most likely only after speaking to Sarek when he actually had a plan in mind.

Obviously he couldn’t anticipate the Klingons, or their murder of his son David, who had sacrificed himself for Savvik and Spock. But he did turn death into life by surrendering the Enterprise to the Klingons, which he then destroyed after they had boarded. By doing this, he reduced the number of enemies, making the odds more in his favor, even though he expressed doubt and regret over destroying the Enterprise.

Kirk later has the presence of mind to pay attention to how the Klingons spoke, remembering a particular phrase — the Klingon version of “beam me up” — he would later use to fool Maltz into beaming Spock and himself off of the disintegrating planet after defeating Kruge.

This movie featured Kirk at his very best, overcoming the odds, besting and out-witting his enemies, and remaining strong even in the aftermath of his son’s death.

It was arguably also Shatner’s last great performance as Kirk, and in my opinion, his best. He managed to perfectly channel the TOS Kirk, the man who would do anything necessary to win the day, and who improvises while on the move. He manages to stay one step ahead, despite all the adversity he encountered inTSFS.

This is why the movie is so much better than it is given credit for. It really tapped into the soul of TOS, and in particular, the soul of Kirk and reinforcing why they are both iconic in the first place.

222. Ensign RedShirt - January 5, 2014

MJ, RDR, Cygnus, Disinvited, Curious Cadet, Harry Ballz,

Thanks for the fun discussion, it was great. It’s nice to see everyone having a lively discussion that doesn’t devolve into name-calling, which is too common an occurrence these days. Seeing as this thread will now be overtaken by reactions to Bob’s post, we should probably move on. Cheers.

223. Ensign RedShirt - January 5, 2014

RDR –

If McCoy and Spock’s souls are suffering, what does that have to do with retrieving a dead body? If retrieving Spock’s body was such an imperative, why not have Grissom simply beam it up and bring it to earth? Sarek could then take it home to Vulcan.

224. Red Dead Ryan - January 5, 2014

Remember, the Grissom ended up being destroyed by the Klingons. And there were no other Starfleet ships in the area until the Enterprise had arrived.

Starfleet had obviously miscalculated in sending out only one ship, and is perhaps another reason why Kirk wanted to go back to Genesis. He knew more about it than anyone else, apart from Carol and David Marcus.

Either way, Kirk exercised better judgment than Starfleet, which clearly lacked proper strategic planning in how it was going to keep Genesis under wraps.

So it makes total sense for Kirk to personally return to Genesis.

225. MJB - January 5, 2014

220. boborci

Love that GREAT news!! Ask your friendly fans here if you have any questions! ;-)

Are you able to share the release date yet?

226. Ahmed - January 5, 2014

@ 220. boborci – January 5, 2014

“trek work begins whole hog tomorrow. hope you like”

We would like to know more :)

227. Disinvited - January 5, 2014

#223. Ensign RedShirt – January 5, 2014

I know you are addressing RDR and please forgive me as I don’t mean to intrude on that but I wanted to be clear about what I got, from McCoy’s arrest: Kirk hadn’t the faintest notion why Spock’s katra needed to go to Genesis. So at that point where he decided to head there after springing McCoy, I don’t think he had retrieving Spock’s body in mind – only accommodating Spock’s katra’s need to go there (Think of it as having a chance to grant a departed friend one final request before Sarek retrieves his katra.) The body retrieval aim came later when he was subtly apprised of its reanimation by Saavik. I also think as a tactical decision, as a place to hole up and size up the situation, it makes sense as Starfleet was desperately trying to keep the planet’s exact location a secret. Grissom and Enterprise were probably the only 2 ships in all of Starfleet that knew exactly where the new planet was. The Federation was likely having everyone give its entire sector a wide berth. The red tape to get another ship and its crew vetted for the security clearance to search for him there was likely something Kirk was counting on to give him time to formulate his best courses of action to help his two tormented friends?

I do note that the retrieval and reburial of soldiers felled in battle is not unknown even in our own time, but any urgent need to that effect is not established in the film as you correctly point out.

228. Phil - January 5, 2014

@226. Least I remind you, we’ve heard this before.

229. Ahmed - January 5, 2014

@ 228. Phil – January 5, 2014

“@226. Least I remind you, we’ve heard this before.”

I know but maybe this time around, Bob will give us real news about real progress. Perhaps he is done with the first draft or they found a director, who knows ?

230. boborci - January 5, 2014

Hey Trek fans!

Do you like apples?

231. Curious Cadet - January 5, 2014

@230 boborci,

I knew it! Does this new movie have a character named Val?

232. MJB - January 5, 2014

220. boborci

You should have the two new writers bring in the coffee and donuts on the first day. Good luck to y’all!

233. Ahmed - January 5, 2014

@ 232. MJB – January 5, 2014

“220. boborci

You should have the two new writers bring in the coffee and donuts on the first day. Good luck to y’all!”

And an apple pie :)

234. Harry Ballz - January 5, 2014

@220, 230 boborci

“whole hog” “do you like apples”

Hmmmm, I’m picturing a pig with an apple in his mouth, suggesting we will be participating in a pig roast.

Well, Bob, just remember, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

(I keed, I keed)

235. Harry Ballz - January 5, 2014

Bob’s apple remark makes me suspect that Matt Damon is already signed for the next movie!

Hopefully NOT as a villain. We’ve had MORE than enough of that kind of story!

236. Jonboc - January 5, 2014

Happy New Year Bob Orci! Lookng forward to more adventures in the 23rd century…with or without apples! But, yes, apple tarts are amazing…Apple Records, even more so.

237. MJB - January 5, 2014

230. boborci

Yes – – every time I see Kirk eat an apple in ST II or ST09, I want to run to the fridge for a yummy Honeycrisp!

238. Harry Ballz - January 5, 2014

Bob knows most of the fans want the next movie to be about exploring the great unknown…

So, we have some entity out there in the far reaches of space who is tempting the crew of the Enterprise with apples?

And this time as a pig and not a snake?

Oh, I see, they encounter Satan.

So, we’re getting the polar opposite of Star Trek V.

oh, joy.

Not that I’m overly cynical, but I’d hang myself right now, only I figure the rope would break!

239. Ahmed - January 5, 2014

@238. Harry Ballz

Maybe The Light Bringer is tempting them with the forbidden knowledge !!

Are we sure that Lindelof is off the project ? :)

240. Ensign RedShirt - January 5, 2014

227 – Disinvited

I like your explanation. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

Harve really should’ve made it a bit clearer, in my opinion.

241. CmdrR - January 5, 2014

Just tell us a good story, BobOrci. You know we love a good Trek story.

242. MJB - January 5, 2014

230. boborci

LOL…now I get it. Earlier I told you to ask us if you have ANY questions. So you asked about the apples. :)
Let me clarify…feel free to come here and ask your friendly fans if you have any STAR TREK related questions that you and your writing team may have while working on the script.

243. MJ - January 5, 2014

I think you guys are being overly obvious in your reactions to Bob’s apples comments. It’s a clue to the next movie for sure, but I don’t think any of you have it on it yet.

244. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

Guys,

With regard to when and why Kirk first gets the idea to go back to Genesis Planet, it’s like I said in #212. Kirk first vocalizes his intention to go back to Genesis Planet when he and his crew are all lined up before his superior officer, being told that they’ll be getting shore leave yada yada but that the Enterprise won’t be refitted. This happens early in the movie, soon after Kirk finds McCoy having broken into Spock’s quarters on the Enterprise. As for WHY Kirk has decided by the time of the line-up to go back to Genesis Planet, we are left to speculate. But, the pacing of the movie makes it rather easy and natural to infer that McCoy’s weird Spock-like behavior is the principal motivating factor. Like I said, Kirk has always been a character who acted on gut instinct. And the strangeness with McCoy talking like Spock and whatnot has Kirk wanting to go back to Spock’s last known location. Subsequent events, like Kirk’s conversation with Sarek, serve to bolster and provide further motivation for Kirk’s decision to go back to Genesis Planet. But Kirk first gets the notion to go back after he sees McCoy in Spock’s quarters.

245. Ahmed - January 5, 2014

@ 243. MJ – January 5, 2014

“I think you guys are being overly obvious in your reactions to Bob’s apples comments. It’s a clue to the next movie for sure, but I don’t think any of you have it on it yet.”

How about you tell us then ?

246. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

—–STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK—–

I finished watching the entire movie again, and it holds up well. It’s entertaining throughout and doesn’t lag, for the most part. The only scene where I found myself a little bored was when Kirk and crew are stealing the Enterprise out of space dock. I found myself a bit bored by how long that scene was dragged out, but that is a minor complaint. On the whole, it’s a fun, compelling movie.

As always, I laughed at the humorous scenes involving McCoy on Earth, trying to charter a ship to go to Genesis Planet (in a scene heavily influenced by the scene in Star Wars ep.4 where Obi Wan and Luke negotiate with Han Solo at a table to charter his Millennium Falcon) and so forth. The comedy works great, and it’s no surprise that the same writer/director combination of Nimoy/Bennett plus additional writing by Nick Meyer and others went on to make an even more humorous movie in the subsequent STIV.

However, while I disagree that the issue of Kirk’s motivation for wanting to go to Genesis Planet qualifies as a plot hole, there actually were two other gaps in the story which do qualify as plot holes….

(continued in next post)

247. Cygnus-X1 - January 5, 2014

—TWO PLOT HOLES IN STIII—

PLOT HOLE #1: Kruge is a ridiculously poor strategic thinker who sacrifices his own life and his entire mission (get the secret of Genesis) for no apparent reason.

After Kirk has outsmarted the dim-witted Klingon Commander Kruge, by beaming himself (Kirk) and his crew off of the Enterprise, which they set to self-destruct, and down onto Genesis Planet, leading most of Kruge’s crew into the trap of the self-destructing Enterprise, Kirk and crew find themselves stranded down on Genesis Planet (because they had no where else to escape to).

Kruge then beams himself down to Genesis Planet to hold Kirk and crew at gunpoint. Kruge orders everyone but himself and Kirk beamed up to the Klingon BOP, and then proceeds to try to shake down Kirk for the secret Genesis info, of which Kirk has told Kruge (it’s a lie) that he is in possession. With the Genesis Planet destroying itself all around them, Kirk tells Kruge that he won’t give him the secret Genesis info until Kruge beams them both back up to the Klingon BOP (where the rest of Kirk’s crew has already been beamed to). The two men are at a stalemate, as Kirk refuses to give Kruge the Genesis info (which he doesn’t have) and Kruge refuses to beam Kirk (or himself) back up to the BOP.

A sudden turn of events on the chaotic planet gives Kirk the upper hand after a brief melee and he kicks Kruge to his death off the edge of a cliff, whilst delivering a line that played very well when I saw this movie in the theater as a kid: “I (kick)….have had ENOUGH (kick)…of YOU!! (final kick, bye bye Kruge).”

Kruge has now died and failed to accomplish his mission for himself or for the Klingon Empire, all for no good reason. A Kruge with half a brain would have done one of two things instead:

(1) Either beam himself (Kruge) back up to the BOP and leave Kirk and crew down on the self-destroying planet until such time as Kirk divulged the secret of Genesis—pretty good motivation there for Kirk to cooperate; or

(2) Beam everyone back up to the BOP, then take Kirk into a private room (anywhere…on the BOP…on another planet, etc….) and tell Kirk that his crew and himself would be tortured and killed until and unless he (Kirk) cooperated.

Instead, for the plot convenience of staging a mano-a-mano fist-fight between Kirk and the movie’s villain, Kruge behaves totally idiotically, needlessly jeopardizing his own life and ultimately undermining his principal motivation in the story, i.e. to get the secret of Genesis. Plus the remainder of Kruge’s crew get taken into custody by Kirk and crew—a complete failure in every regard.

PLOT HOLE #2: Vulcan katra, the main conceit and premise of the movie, is logically undermined during what should have been the pay-off scene at the end of the movie.

The story of STIII is principally driven by the mission of getting Spock’s katra out of McCoy and back into Spock’s body…or into some other receptacle, at least. During their conversation early in the movie, Sarek assumes that Spock’s katra is inside of Kirk. Every bit of dialogue spoken by Sarek implies that the transfer of katra from a dying Vulcan into another (presumably) living being is a normal course of events. Sarek is actually taken aback by the fact that this normal end-of-life event has seemingly gone awry with respect to Spock’s katra. “Why did you leave him on Genesis?!?” Sarek asks Kirk. The normal thing to do, Sarek implies, would be to hang on to Spock’s body in order to transfer his katra back into it at some future time.

And the goal of doing just that—getting Spock’s body back in order to transfer his katra back into it—or, at the very least, going to Mt Seleya in order to get Spock’s katra out of McCoy, drives the entire story henceforth.

However, at the very end of the movie, on Mt. Seleya, the Vulcan high priestess says that the process of re-integrating Spock hasn’t been done “for a very long time, and then, only in legend.”

Putting aside the fact that Sarek had led us to believe early on that transferring Spock’s katra back into his body from McCoy was standard stuff—and that the high priestess is now contradicting what Sarek said earlier in the story—what, then, usually happens to the katra and the person carrying it around? The priestess is now implying that the normal course of events is for McCoy to just keep carrying around Spock’s katra.

So, if we take THAT to be the normal course of events—a Vulcan dies, puts his katra into another Vulcan who then keeps it—what happens when the second Vulcan dies? Does he then transfer both katras into a third Vulcan? And what happens when the third Vulcan dies? And the fourth? Does every living Vulcan walk around with hundreds of katras in his head?

I think this issue of all the katras adding up was actually addressed much later in ST: Enterprise…I think the episode was “The Forge,” though I’ll have to go back and check. But, at the time that STIII came out, the issue was totally unaddressed. At best this plot hole is confusing. At worst, it undermines the main premise of the story.

248. Keachick - January 5, 2014

Happy New Year Everyone!

Thank you, Phil, for your greetings.

It is now 6 January 8.00pm as I type this and it is the first time I have been able to get back to the computer. It’s all go here. We had a lovely new year’s eve party which my son organized and we are now renovating the big bedroom – sanding is hard, monotonous work but necessary to get the finish etc right. I am sitting on a bed in the lounge as I type this – as I said, it’s all go here…

So many comments here – I have not read them all yet.

Chris Pine’s Jack Ryan film comes out here on 16 January – guess where I’ll be. I am looking forward to it. Chris has not disappointed me so far and I doubt he will, as Jack Ryan. Apparently, Chris is supposed to be coming to New Zealand with at least two other actors, Amanda Seyfried and Chiwetel Ejiofor to make a film called Z for Zachariah. It will be filmed at Banks Peninsula, which is near Christchurch, South Island. This is according to the latest NZ TV Guide. It does not say when exactly, just this year 2014.

It is more than likely that Chris will come through Auckland – Chris needs to contact me so I can say Hi to him and give him a big hug, either on the way down to Christchurch or once he has finished filming.

I hope Chris is getting this. Bob Orci – do you have Chris’s ear – Yes, that’s right. Let CP know how this Rose Keachick feels and hopefully Chris might be inclined to oblige. Good man!

Hahaha… but you never know…squeaking door ‘n’ all that…

Anyway, if I don’t come back here for a while, you will know why. Take care of yourselves and be happy!

249. Keachick - January 5, 2014

Apples? What’s all this about apples? Yup – I like apples, so long as it is not the kind of apple Eve gave Adam…oops…
:)

250. MJ - January 5, 2014

“How about you tell us then ?”

I will, if an when I figure it out.

251. K-7 - January 5, 2014

#247 Plot Hole #1,

Seriously guy, you seem to want such anally retentive Star Trek stories.

Lighten up! :-)

252. K-7 - January 5, 2014

Mr. Orci,

Congrats on Star Trek Into Darkness finishing in the top 10 for domestic movies in 2013 (1 Jan – 31 Dec 2013 box office).

Congrats to you and Bad Robot! Well done!!!

253. K-7 - January 6, 2014

To me, the worst plot hole in a good Star Trek movie has to be the painfully ridiculous Spock Death plot vehicle int the engine room in WOK. Three points here:

Point 1 — Why would a human need to perform a simple task of taking a “big bottle cap” of “the mains” in the radiated engine compartment? Any competent industrial robot in use TODAY could have performed that simple task. Surely, a simple robot in the 23rd century could just come into the compartment and put the silly mains cap back on? That was just ludicrous. It’s the 23rd century, come on!

Point 2 — The thin transparent wall for the “mains” death scene was ludicrous, and was never part of starship design for the engine room since. In fact, earlier in the same movie (i.e. WOK) we even see a huge shielded think metal emergency bulkhead sliding into place near the engine room when the compartment has been flooded. The ONLY reason we have that transparent thin wall is to support Nick Meyer’s drama for the Spock scene. Epic Fail — they really blew that one, and it spoils an otherwise great scene.

Point 3 — Anti-matter to matter annihilation in physics does not create dangerous radioactive materials of the types that nuclear weapons or reactors do. So Spock should have just received superficial burns, which McCoy could have easily treated. I wish they had been more scientifically accurate on this one.

254. boborci - January 6, 2014

ok. dont kill the messenger, cuz I am one of u.

I attended TuC in a theater, in my Picard shirt. Jeans and a Picard shirt.

However, research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!

How do u like them apples?

what should we do?

255. Harry Ballz - January 6, 2014

@253

Bob, the answer is simple…..

Produce a movie with an amazing thought-provoking story. Something that is original, classic, timeless and one for the ages. A plot with the appeal of Yesterday’s Enterprise or The Inner Light, only epic in scope.

Something profound that compels people to watch it over and over again.

Oh, and it just happens to be under the title of Star Trek.

That’s not asking too much, is it?

256. Harry Ballz - January 6, 2014

Oh, and one more thing…..what I have just suggested means that you don’t just devote a short period of time to it simply because you have a bunch of other projects on the go.

No, you lock yourself in a room with the other writers and MOVE MOUNTAINS to keep going until you have the classic epic that it needs to be. Give it your best and then just a little bit more to be sure.

Any less would not be living up to your “first best destiny”.

Hey, you asked.

257. MJ - January 6, 2014

Bob,

I also wanted to congratulate you and everyone involved with Into Darkness, on finishing 2013 in the Top 10 Box office of the year.

Congrats!

258. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

253. boborci – January 6, 2014

—what should we do?—

Firstly, who’s “we?” The fans or Bad Robot et al?

Secondly, no one should do anything until they know the rationale behind such purported feelings in a general audience.

The simplistic, binary way that many polls tend to be conducted often yields ambiguous, even meaningless data. It could be that persons polled were responding to a poorly phrased question and/or were answering based on a misconception.

A movie producer or fans reacting to this statement : “Research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are Trek fans, themselves” alone would be very foolish.

259. MJ - January 6, 2014

@257

LOL. You just proved Bob’s point for him. The general movie fan in the theater where I Trek movie is shown doesn’t want to sit within 20 feet of you. ;-)

260. MJ - January 6, 2014

Bob, I got your point and agree with it fully. I think where you went slightly astray in STID was putting some things in it for the fans. I encourage you to just go make a great science fiction movie this time that happens to be Star Trek as well, and don’t worry about the fans.

261. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

252. K-7 – January 6, 2014

Your points are not plot holes; they’re lack of attention to scientific detail, and in the case of #3, maybe bad science. I agree with you that the movie would be even better if it were more scientifically accurate, but the points you raise don’t really undermine the story. Though, they might take you out of the movie for a second if you think about them.

262. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

258. MJ – January 6, 2014

—@257 LOL. You just proved Bob’s point for him. The general movie fan in the theater where I Trek movie is shown doesn’t want to sit within 20 feet of you. ;-)—

What are you talking about? General audiences don’t like people who are conscientious and thoughtful about polling data?

263. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

258. MJ – January 6, 2014

And #253, as it reads, isn’t trying to make any point, but rather asking a question.

Are you just trying to be an a-hole, or do you have a serious point to make?

264. Curious Cadet - January 6, 2014

@220. boborci,
“trek work begins whole hog tomorrow. hope you like”

Just get Star Trek back into the top 10 domestic box office. Don’t let it finish in 11th place for 2013 like STID this year (or lower). Got used to Trek finishing in the top 10! Don’t let us down! (But no pressure ;-)

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm

265. crazydaystrom - January 6, 2014

253. boborci

“However, research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!”

HEAR! HEAR!
No surprise at all that this is true. And, oh so sadly to me, THIS SITE has devolved into a very poor example of Trek fandom.

Shame. Truly.

266. crazydaystrom - January 6, 2014

That last comment of mine was knee jerk. Matt, Kayla et al are doing a fine job of keeping the flame lit and I commend you guys. It’s the general tone and tenor of the comments that have dominated this site for the past (seems like) year or so that are the sad shame of this site. Unfortunately.

267. MJB - January 6, 2014

Bob brings up a good point regarding research. My knee-jerk reaction to that was the general audience could simply wait until the 2nd weekend to watch the movie so the Trekkies can have the theaters to themselves the first weekend. But I suspect the bean counters won’t like that because the first weekend usually brings it a large percent of the total BO.

Guess what, the so called bean counters rule because they use quality research and they also open up the pocketbook for the budget too. So unless we want a token piece of junk Trek movie like Insurrection with a small TV-like budget, then we should accept that Bob & friends will do the best they can based on the criteria that the bosses at Paramount/CBS/BR demand.

Don’t get to hung up with putting in the easter eggs for us. I find them fun but I’d rather have you devote your creativity to an outstanding science fiction story. No Shatner. No Earth. No Klingons. But how about a big A-list star that’ll bring in the general audience? Look what they’ve done with “Interstellar” for example.

In your writers room this morning…write this on the white board: “The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning”
See if that helps you get that killer script written for ST3.

268. MJB - January 6, 2014

265. crazydaystrom

Nice save! Don’t you wish this site had an edit feature?

269. crazydaystrom - January 6, 2014

254. Harry Ballz & 255. Harry Ballz

Outstanding responses to boborci’s query Harry!
And wholeheartedly seconded!

270. crazydaystrom - January 6, 2014

267. MJB
“265. crazydaystrom

Nice save! Don’t you wish this site had an edit feature?”

God yes! Maybe one day…in the future.

271. Stephan - January 6, 2014

I still didn’t get the comment with the apples. Maybe my English isn’t good enough. Can someone please explain?

272. Stephan - January 6, 2014

@boborci:

Nice to hear something about the production. I hope you still have fun writing because sometimes a hobby turned into a job can get burdening. And I hope you still write whatever comes to your mind without too much fear of the fans’ reaction. ;-)

273. TUP - January 6, 2014

Love Star Trek III. Some of the cheesier moments could have been cut but I suspect some studio exec wanted some lighter tones after the revenge plot of II and the rather dark script of III

Shatner was tremendous in this one. Meyer got a great performance out of his cast with an arguably better script in II but Nimoy clearly understands the nuances of the characters and Shatner was playing ball for his friend.

As stated there were no plot holes

– Kirk has the notion to go back to genesis. Sarek clearly implies Spocks body should not have been left behind. McKoy is trying to chatter a flight there. It all adds up.

– Neither Kirk nor Sarek intended to bring Spock back to life. Retrieving his body was to give him an honourable burial on Vulcan. Hence the Remarks at the end about the ceremony.

– Kirk did not risk any lives. He clearly states that only he and bones must proceed. The others then offer to go which, by Kirks reaction, he expected. And remember, this is no risk to Kirk. He doesn’t see his actions as risking life. He has no knowledge of the Klingons. He sabotages the Excelsior. It *should* be an easy trip. The real risk is his job.

Trek 2-4 was masterful in ramping up the issues and sacrifice. In II, Spock gives his life. In III Kirk risks the one thing we know he values even more than his life – his command. In IV, it’s literally the world at stake. And the fact this all happens in a trilogy adds to the drama. In essence they took the enterprise for a little training run and didn’t return until the end of IV. Fantastic.

The only plot issue was actually the end of IV and why they blasted Spock out at genesis on the first place. It was a nice emotional ending but rather odd in hindsight.

274. MJB - January 6, 2014

@270: I copied this from the Urban Dictionary:

In World War I, something called a Stokes gun fired mortars resembling apples with a stick in them, so they were often referred to as Toffee Apples.

In the movie Rio Bravo in 1959, a guy tosses a hand grenade and says “How do ya like them apples?”
Will: Do you like apples?
Clark: What?
Will: Do you like apples?
Clark: Yeah.
Will: Well, I got her number. How do you like them apples?

275. Stephan - January 6, 2014

274: thanks, I think I get the point now.

276. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@ 254. boborci – January 6, 2014

“However, research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!”

I guess it is the same research & focus groups that led Anthony Marcoly, Paramount’s head of international distribution to come to the conclusion to “Basically, it was more action, more of the adventure elements and less of the real Trekkie stuff.”

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-heading-where-no-trek-has-gone-foreign-profitablity-89981

The simple answer to your question is the one that Harry gave you :

#255. Harry Ballz

“Produce a movie with an amazing thought-provoking story. Something that is original, classic, timeless and one for the ages. A plot with the appeal of Yesterday’s Enterprise or The Inner Light, only epic in scope.

Something profound that compels people to watch it over and over again.”

All the best to you & the new guys

277. DiscoSpock - January 6, 2014

Roberto Orci,

Congratulations for Star Trek Into Darkness making the Top 10 in domestic box office for 2013.

Well done!

278. DiscoSpock - January 6, 2014

Regarding the discussion on plot holes in Star Trek movies, there is super-size one in Star Trek II that still bugs me after 30 years.

When Chekov and Captain Terrell beam down to investigate the planet for suitability for the Genesis Project, they think the planet is Ceti Alpha VI. Then, when Khan explains that THIS IS CETI ALPHA FIVE, he says that Ceti Alpha VI exploded—secretly!—fourteen-and-a-half years ago. This is stated as the reason why Ceti Alpha V looks a lot less hospitable than it did during TOS, and it’s presumably the reason why the crew of the Reliant weren’t capable of accurately counting to six.

Planetary systems are numbered from the inside out. Ceti Alpha Prime would be the planet nearest the star, Ceti Alpha II would be the next one out, then Ceti Alpha III, IV, and Ceti Alpha V would be inside the orbit of Ceti Alpha VI. So when the Reliant warps in on its planetary survey mission, they count planets Ceti Alpha one two three four five six… and beam down to the wrong one.

If Ceti Alpha IV had exploded, they might be forgiven for getting the name of Ceti Alpha V wrong. There would still be the pressing issue of a suspicious-looking additional asteroid belt that wasn’t on the charts. But when Ceti Alpha VI exploded, six months after we were left here, the only planets that change their name are Ceti Alphas VII and onwards. The only way for Chekov and Terrell to end up on Ceti Alpha V in a system that, unknown to them, has the sixth planet missing, is if they were actually trying to beam down to Ceti Alpha VII and they still screwed that up.

Also, did the star chart not have a big X marked on it, with Here be incredibly dangerous genetically engineered criminals from the 20th century? Did Kirk not actually tell anyone when he established a colony of psychopaths in a habitable system at the end of `Space Seed’? Carol Marcus does mention, only fifteen years afterwards, the galactic problems of population and food supply. Did Kirk hide a bunch of incredibly powerful, genetically-engineered lunatics on a valuable planet, and then try to act surprised when an innocent survey vessel caught hell for it later?

This has all bugged me for thirty years, and no amount of Ricardo Montalban’s acting can change basic planetary physics.

279. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

According to Box Office Mojo, STID is at # 11

========================

2013 DOMESTIC GROSSES

Total Grosses of all Movies Released in 2013

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm

280. Spock's Bangs - January 6, 2014

These days I think fans of Star Trek are more a fan of fandom itself that the final product in the screen. You can’t please them all, never will, they are just too fragmented! . Just stay on course with Kirk and company and do the best you can. The last 2 movies were great. Stay away from the high-brow pretentiousness that some fans think makes Trek so “golden”, make it imaginative and lots of fun. Can’t wait to see what you guys come up with!

281. Harry Ballz - January 6, 2014

@254 boborci “what should we do?”

Bob, this quote might help:

“You have to assume that the act of writing is the most important of all. If you start worrying about people’s feelings, then you get nowhere at all.”

Norman Mailer

282. MJ - January 6, 2014

@Spock’s Bangs

“These days I think fans of Star Trek are more a fan of fandom itself that the final product in the screen. You can’t please them all, never will, they are just too fragmented! . Just stay on course with Kirk and company and do the best you can. The last 2 movies were great. Stay away from the high-brow pretentiousness that some fans think makes Trek so “golden”, make it imaginative and lots of fun. Can’t wait to see what you guys come up with!”

Dude, in the tradition of Borimir on LOTR saying, “at last Frodo Baggins, we understand each other,” I wanted to say that I agree with your post here 100% Well said!

@Ahmed,

Those Boxofficemojo numbers using the obtuse movie industry practice of adding the next year’s revenues to a movie beyond 31 December. So those are not the true tally of revenues earned by a movie in the actual calendar year 2013. The true 2013 calendar year gross receipts numbers were provided on Collider a few days ago, and the good news here is that Star Trek did make the Top 10:

http://collider.com/2013-box-office-statistics/

283. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

278. DiscoSpock – January 6, 2014

That’s always bugged me a bit, too.

The issue of planet-naming and what would really happen if a neighboring planet had blown up isn’t a plot hole, but lack of scientific detail or accuracy. Those details aren’t essential to the story’s outcome. But you make a good point. Even if CAVI had exploded and somehow altered the orbit of CAV, thus rendering it less habitable, there would be a substantial asteroid belt in place of CAVI. And, as you say, Kirk and crew should have been able to figure this all out—running in Khan shouldn’t have been a surprise. But that surprise sure plays well in the movie, which is why I accept the conceit, and I still love it when Khan says, “THIS IS CETI ALPHA V!!”

The movie’s rationale for why Chekov et al get confused about what planet they’re on is totally unrealistic, though.

284. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

276. Ahmed – January 6, 2014
#255. Harry Ballz

—“Produce a movie with an amazing thought-provoking story. Something that is original, classic, timeless and one for the ages. A plot with the appeal of Yesterday’s Enterprise or The Inner Light, only epic in scope. Something profound that compels people to watch it over and over again.”—

That’s good advice regardless.

My point is that we don’t even know what it means when he says that Trek fans are somehow “deterring” normal people from going to see Trek movies. Putting aside the fact that Trekkies are not monolithic in their opinions, as any fool here can plainly see (I can plainly see that), is it fans dressing up and being overly enthusiastic in the theaters? Is it media reporting on Trekkies and their reactions? Is it some correct or incorrect assumption (misconception) about Trekkies? Is it the cootie effect, wherein normal people think that they will get cooties if they see a movie that Trekkies are excited about? Do normal people just not want to be associated with anything that Trekkies are associated with because Trekkies have a bad reputation? Etc…

The statement offered by Bob Orci in #254 consequent to the “audience research” doesn’t really offer any insight or suggest any productive course of action for anyone. If you’re a producer determined to be guided by that research, I guess the only thing you can do is make a movie that Trekkies will not want to go see, and then market it as such so that normal people will know that the product is dissociated from Trekkies and therefore does not have cooties. But JJ Abrams has already gone halfway down that road with ST’09 and STID, which he repeatedly stated were not movies aimed at Trek fans. Personally, I found this rather off-putting. But if the judgment of BR et al and/or Paramount is that Trekkies are the problem, then the answer for BR is to not make any more movies premised upon Star Trek. That would definitely eliminate the “deterrent” that Bob Orci is concerned about.

285. DiscoSpock - January 6, 2014

@283. Agreed, Cygnus-X1. Good remarks.

But the issue of why there was nt warning or Starfleet record of Khan and his crazies being in that system — now that is a plot hole. As I already said, did Kirk not actually tell anyone when he established a colony of psychopaths in a habitable system at the end of `Space Seed’? Did Kirk hide a bunch of incredibly powerful, genetically-engineered lunatics on a valuable planet, and then try to act surprised when an innocent survey vessel caught hell for it later? Mega plot-hole there, I’m afraid.

286. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

276. Ahmed – January 6, 2014

I would also point out that it is also an option to have some integrity and tell Paramount (if the directive to make Trek movies which depart from the core values of Trek is indeed coming from them) that you simply won’t do it.

From what he’s said, Bob Orci doesn’t seem to be hurting for work. He’s got plenty of other projects to work on. JJ’s got his hands full with Star Wars and whatnot, and he was never a Trek fan anyway. No one is forcing them to make more Trek movies. It takes more cojones to say no and turn down the money than it does to sell out and make a movie called “Star Trek” which betrays loyal fans and besmirches Gene Roddenberry’s original concept.

287. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@284. Cygnus-X1

“But if the judgment of BR et al and/or Paramount is that Trekkies are the problem, then the answer for BR is to not make any more movies premised upon Star Trek. That would definitely eliminate the “deterrent” that Bob Orci is concerned about.”

Come on, we all know that Trekkies come to the opening night wearing these strange uniforms with weird weapons that scare away the precious general audience, right ? !!

I guess that why Disney is blaming “comic fans” for deterring general audience which led to Avengers tanking in the box office, right ?

288. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@ 286. Cygnus-X1 – January 6, 2014

” 276. Ahmed – January 6, 2014

I would also point out that it is also an option to have some integrity and tell Paramount (if the directive to make Trek movies which depart from the core values of Trek is indeed coming from them) that you simply won’t do it.
….
No one is forcing them to make more Trek movies. It takes more cojones to say no and turn down the money than it does to sell out and make a movie called “Star Trek” which betrays loyal fans and besmirches Gene Roddenberry’s original concept.”

The movies are making ton of money, despite the “fact” that we are the “biggest deterrent to a general audience” !!!

They will simply keep making more of them.

289. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

===================
Khan’s Revival

“The Eugenics Wars are over… but the next chapter in the life of Khan Noonien Singh has just begun! Only in this all-new mini-series are the secrets of Khan’s revival in the future by Admiral Marcus and the agents of Section 31 finally revealed!”

http://www.startrek.com/article/first-look-khans-revival
===================

Anyone here actually read these comics ?

290. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 6, 2014

WHo’s a Trek fan? Anyone that like good science fiction and emotional drama.

291. MJ - January 6, 2014

Cygnus,

How about a little healthy self-deprecation here? I mean, come on, we are all Star Trek geeks, and I sympathize with anyone from the public who has to be in the auditorium with us on opening night.

George S. Patton Jr.: “I know I’m a prima donna. I admit it. What I can’t stand about Monty is, he won’t admit it.”

292. MJ - January 6, 2014

“No one is forcing them to make more Trek movies. It takes more cojones to say no and turn down the money than it does to sell out and make a movie called “Star Trek” which betrays loyal fans and besmirches Gene Roddenberry’s original concept.”

I am not aware of any such movie, unless you are perhaps referring to Nemesis?

293. MJ - January 6, 2014

“But the issue of why there was no warning or Starfleet record of Khan and his crazies being in that system — now that is a plot hole. As I already said, did Kirk not actually tell anyone when he established a colony of psychopaths in a habitable system at the end of `Space Seed’? Did Kirk hide a bunch of incredibly powerful, genetically-engineered lunatics on a valuable planet, and then try to act surprised when an innocent survey vessel caught hell for it later? Mega plot-hole there, I’m afraid.”

You are right. That just made no sense, whatsoever. Huge plot a hole, and a deliberate one that they chose to make to fulfill the needs of the story.

294. Disinvited - January 6, 2014

# 254. boborci – January 6, 2014

“…research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!” – boborci

All I can report was there was no such deterrent back in 1979 waiting in line for the premier of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. It was a very pleasant, positive, new and unusual movie going experience. I would describe it as a love-in but I’m not sure that cultural reference has any meaning these days. The first time I felt the notion of any sort of deterrent in trying to see any movie was the following year at the premier of STAR WARS:THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and its following progeny, but I quickly adapted when I realized STAR WARS was so popular that a resolution to those feelings all boiled down to sizing up the character of the various lines and picking the one with which I felt the most comfortable.

Also, I am certain the research of which you speak is very narrowly focused. I doubt CBS, which owns STAR TREK, has any research showing any sort of Trek fan deterrence in its attempts to profit from any of its Treks – especially after the extreme success of its BIG BANG THEORY network show. I’d be very dubious of any film research that didn’t find a measurable contingent of BBT fans attending Trek cinemas.

295. Craiger - January 6, 2014

Here’s an idea for Trek 3. How about having Kirk and the Enterprise crew be involved in helping with the founding of the Federation? You could have Bakula guest star as Admiral Archer.

296. Disinvited - January 6, 2014

#278. DiscoSpock – January 6, 2014

I think its all a matter of what course did Reliant take to enter the Ceti Alpha system? If it came in perpendicular to the planet’s orbital plane then you have a case as there would be no excuse for the ship’s automated astrometrics not to catch that something was off as you observed. However if the course was to enter the system through the orbital plane then it would just stop and orbit at the appropriate distance from the star looking for a planet in that orbit. However, it is still fairly preposterous that in 14 years none of the observatories or their automatics would have detected a change in that star’s wobble at the very least that would have lead to further investigation long before Reliant charted its fateful course there. Maybe Starfleet’s probes’ economics are still plagued by NASA era funding determinations and priorities?

297. Phil - January 6, 2014

@229. Done with the first draft? Maybe, as long as it’s a Sam Adams….

298. Phil - January 6, 2014

Apples…..I smell space hippies.

299. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - January 6, 2014

289. Ahmed – January 6, 2014
===================

“Anyone here actually read these comics ?”

Yes, just not in a timely fashion. I read the previews when they turn up on the internet, and I have ordered the trade paperback – due out around May 2014. I read the Star Trek Ongoings on the same basis – I order the trade paperbacks from Amazon as soon as they are listed.

I am intrigued with what I’ve seen of the Khan one so far and the latest preview implies that Marcus did a real number on Khan both memory and appearence-wise.

300. Craiger - January 6, 2014

I wont see Trek 3 if its Space Hippies. I might even be done with Trek if its that, unless they do a new TV series that looks good.

301. Phil - January 6, 2014

Herbertherbertherbertherbertherbertherbertherbert….

This Way to Eden. The Musical. Tagline….wait for it….

We Reach.

302. Curious Cadet - January 6, 2014

@279. Ahmed,
“According to Box Office Mojo, STID is at # 11″

That is STID’s official rank for the 2013 box office year, as it will be for all of posterity in any metric that counts. As of today, when people Google 2013 box-office results, STID will rank #11 domestically and #14 worldwide on any list that matters.

Annual box office results have ALWAYS been, and will ALWAYS be, for the ENTIRE RUN of a film released for any given year. That has always been the accepted convention and practice, and always will be, as represented by any list documenting such things.

STID made an amazing showing at the 2013 box office, and it has so many accomplishments under its belt, that 11th place means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It is merely an incontrovertible fact.

303. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

287. Ahmed – January 6, 2014

—Come on, we all know that Trekkies come to the opening night wearing these strange uniforms with weird weapons that scare away the precious general audience, right ? !!—

Sure, it could be that. Or, it could be something else. The info provided by Bob Orci doesn’t suggest any particular rationale or cause, which is why I said no one should do anything about it until they have some idea about the cause.

288. Ahmed – January 6, 2014

—The movies are making ton of money, despite the “fact” that we are the “biggest deterrent to a general audience” !!! They will simply keep making more of them.—

I totally agree.

Which is why I find it odd that Bob Orci would even raise the issue of Trekkies being a deterrent to general audiences seeing his movie.

Trekkies have gotten EXTREMELY excited about Bob’s last two Trek movies—in spite of JJ Abrams stating repeatedly that the movies were not aimed at Trekkies in particular—and I have to believe that such excitement is good for promotion. Remove the Trekkies and you’ve just got some mid-level space-action movie coming out in May. Big deal. Nothing special about that. Maybe Bob wants to eat his cake and have it too, I really don’t know.

But if the issue is Paramount demanding an action movie to placate European audiences as in the article that you posted, Bad Robot et al can make an action movie that is not related to Star Trek, and that solves both problems: more action, no Trekkies.

However when you USE someone else’s work in order to advance your own work and MAKE MONEY off of it, you owe some degree of fidelity and loyalty to the artistic values and sensibilities which the original work comprises and advances, and to the person(s) who made it. Otherwise people will rightly have a bad feeling about it.

304. Dave H - January 6, 2014

#302

Curious Cadet, you are just saying that so you can play your little “ha, ha, 11th place” game here.

For gross movie revenue generated between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, Star Trek placed 10th. That’s what I care about.

305. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

291. MJ – January 6, 2014

—Cygnus,

How about a little healthy self-deprecation here? I mean, come on, we are all Star Trek geeks, and I sympathize with anyone from the public who has to be in the auditorium with us on opening night.—

Oh, if that’s your point, then it’s all good. I’m all for self-deprecation, and for making fun of Trekkies…so long as it’s good-natured rib-poking.

But I am actually a rather reserved person in public. I don’t dress up or anything, and in the theater I am indistinguishable from a normal person. I’m what you might call a “Day Walker,” if I may borrow that from South Park. I could be next to you in line at the supermarket making mundane chit-chat about when star fruit is in season, and you’d never know what a FREAK I am. However, I’m sure that my appearance in the theater is not a deterrent to anyone. And I fully encourage people to dress up, act out scenes, or whatever they feel like to express their passion for the movie…so long as they’re considerate once the movie starts.

I mean, jeez…if I had people as passionate as Trekkies getting excited about ANYTHING that I’d EVER done, I’d be STOKED. What could possibly be a greater compliment to an artist, entrepreneur or craftsman than that?

If being a Trekkie is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

Can I get an amen?

306. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@305. Cygnus-X1

“If being a Trekkie is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

Can I get an amen?”

Amen, bro!

307. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

You know what ? I find it a bit irritating that Bob is blaming the fans for deterring general audience, while in reality his movies are making ton of money. Unless he meant something else, it is doesn’t make any sense.

Did he learn any lessons from STID at all or it was all perfect in his view & nothing to talk about there, except these annoying fans who keep the public away from the movie !!!

308. Gary 8.5 - January 6, 2014

230.
Yes, Bob, and, I LOVED “The Apple”From TOS, too.

309. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

Here is an article that mention Star Trek AND apples !

=============================
What Is The Most Profitable Trek Movie Of All Time?
Hint: J.J. Abrams was not even close

Jan-4-2014

So what is the most profitable Star Trek film of all time? Will we find it in the Abrams area, where the films have grossed $888 million worldwide, adjusting for inflation? Or will we find it in a different era?

The 1701News researchers decided to find out. They looked only at what would be apples-to-apples comparisons, and didn’t factor in any expenses other than the film’s overall budget. Of course, marketing, distribution and other costs also play factors, but this is a straight profit margin based on box office gross and the film’s reported budget.
……..
Last year’s “Star Trek: Into Darkness” actually had one of the smallest profit margins both in North American and domestically. It earned $228.8 million in North America, but the film cost $190 million to make, leaving a profit margin of just 20 percent.

That’s slightly worse than the 21 percent profit margin of 1998’s “Star Trek: Insurrection,” and better only than “Star Trek: Nemesis” in 2002, which actually finished 28 percent in the red.

Worldwide, “Into Darkness” did get a lot better. It’s $467.4 million haul provided Paramount a profit margin of 146 percent, but again that was only better than “Insurrection” (105 percent) and “Nemesis” (12 percent).

Many studios like Paramount also have their eye on a different market more than ever: the overseas one. Getting into countries like China, for example, could boost that bottom line considerably. And even a film that may not have done well domestically could be considered a success if Europeans and Asians flocked to it.

“Into Darkness” might not have done well when it comes to profit margins, but even adjusting for inflation, it’s still the highest-grossing Star Trek film of all time worldwide despite being beaten domestically by both “The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek.”

http://1701news.com/node/527/what-most-profitable-trek-movie-all-time.html

310. MJ - January 6, 2014

@ Cygnus

Amen

@ Ahmed

“I find it a bit irritating that Bob…except these annoying fans…”

Whoa Nellie…please, not again, Ahmed…we know how this ends…LOL

@Dave H

Just ignore CC. CC is in love with being able to say STID missed the Top 10 — it’s pathetic in a kind of moronic way. Anybody who can count, knows that of movie revenue for calendar year 2013, STID finished 10th.

311. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@ 310. MJ – January 6, 2014

“@ Ahmed

“I find it a bit irritating that Bob…except these annoying fans…”

Whoa Nellie…please, not again, Ahmed…we know how this ends…LOL”

LOL, lesson learned, my friend :)

“Anybody who can count, knows that of movie revenue for calendar year 2013, STID finished 10th.”

That is why what Bob is saying doesn’t make any sense.

312. MJ - January 6, 2014

@309

I didn’t finish that article, as the author lost all credibility for me when he started using the totally dumb-ass formula for movie profit margins by directly subtracting movie production cost from gross box office receipts.

Gross Revenue is split between theaters and the studios, with different shares depending on how long the release has been out. Additionally, marketing costs must be added to production cost. In the final analysis, a movie typically needs to have at least double (sometimes up to 2.5) the gross box office as compared to production+marketing to reach the break even point.

313. MJ - January 6, 2014

“That is why what Bob is saying doesn’t make any sense.”

Perhaps Bob just had one glass of wine too many when he posted. I’ve been there! ;-)

314. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@312. MJ

lol

315. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

309. Ahmed – January 6, 2014

Great article.

I’m gonna go ahead and copy/paste the stats for all of the Trek movies below.

It really seems like there’s a timeless lesson therein: All of the expensive computer graphics, action scenes and slick production values of the Bad Robot movies didn’t even come close to yielding as much profit as the thoughtful writing and compelling acting of TWOK, which made, on average, 4X as much money for Paramount as their Euro-pandering, Bad Robot action movies. Doing the right thing and having more artistic integrity actually made more money than shallow, fleeting sensory titillation. And not just once, but repeatedly! To wit: the top 4 most profitable Trek movies of all time!

Will Paramount learn a lesson from all of this? Nope.

Will JJ Abrams stand up to Paramount and make the case for a thoughtful sci-fi movie which returns to the core values of Trek? Of course not. JJ doesn’t even LIKE the Star Trek of Gene Roddenberry’s day.

Instead of focusing on making good art and trusting that general audiences can perceive and appreciate and will pay (over and over) to see meaningfulness in movies and stories with thoughtful themes and concepts that will emotionally connect, Paramount and Bad Robot and Bob Orci are talking about how Trekkies are the problem. Again with this theme of the fans being the problem! Didn’t we get enough of this last year with all of the talk about “lazy viewers” and stupid critics and so forth? Anyway, here’s the money:

Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Worldwide – Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)……..$234.9 million………..783%
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)……$283.6 million………..432%
3. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)..$195.9 million………..411%
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)……… $446.9 million……….297 %
5. Star Trek Generations (1994)………………….$189.3 million………..243%
6. Star Trek: First Contact (1996)…………………$223.5 million………..233%
7. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)$161.2 million….213%
8. Star Trek (2009)………………………………………$420.2 million………..176%
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)……..$132.5 million…………152%
10. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)………………$467.4 million…………146%
11. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)………………….$170.7 million…………105%
12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)……………………..$87.5 million…………….12%

http://1701news.com/node/527/what-most-profitable-trek-movieall-time.html

316. MJ - January 6, 2014

@311

Again, there is no such thing as subtracting movie production cost from gross revenues to get “profit margin” for a studio. That is not how it works. Interesting notion, but largely meaningless.

Also, its really about how much money (adjusted for inflation) that these movies made for the studio, not this efficiency-like percentage calculation. This reminds me of some manufacturing efficiency sort of rating for a production company, where if you make a cheap movie, and make OK box office, but this OK box office amount is several times the amount of the cheap production budget, you then then get this silly higher rating than more successful movies, which while more expensive, actually earned a lot more “real profits” in inflation adjusted dollars than the “more efficient” low-budget entries. So again, while interesting, this is largely meaningless.

317. Ahmed - January 6, 2014

@ 315. MJ – January 6, 2014

“Again, there is no such thing as subtracting movie production cost from gross revenues to get “profit margin” for a studio. That is not how it works. Interesting notion, but largely meaningless.”

They explained their method as follow:

“The 1701News researchers decided to find out. They looked only at what would be apples-to-apples comparisons, and didn’t factor in any expenses other than the film’s overall budget. Of course, marketing, distribution and other costs also play factors, but this is a straight profit margin based on box office gross and the film’s reported budget.”

http://1701news.com/node/527/what-most-profitable-trek-movieall-time.html

318. MJ - January 6, 2014

Here is an example of what I am saying, and these numbers are all inflation-adjusted. And for the sake of conveying the information, I will even use this article’s faulty logic of considering profit as gross box office minus production cost.

— Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Box office: $234.9 million worldwide
Production Cost: $26.6 million
“Profit” = $208.3M (in 2013 $)

— Star Trek Into Darkness
Box office: $467.4M
Production Cost: $190M
“Profit” = $277.4 (in 2013$)

So, in reality, STID made 33% more profit than ST-WOK

So there is the “no-spin zone” answer for you.

319. MJ - January 6, 2014

…and I just checked inflation rates for goods and services. For WOK, which was produced in 1981, using those inflation rates, the budget should have been nearly $29 million, not $26.6M. What is happening here is that the author of that article is applying to “ticket price inflation rates” to the production costs to inflate those cost — that is bogus. He should have been applying known goods and services inflation rates to production cost.

As a result of this, he is under-inflating the production costs of older movies, which conveniently serve to exaggerate this questionable movie efficiency rating hypothesis of his.

320. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

315. MJ – January 6, 2014

—Also, its really about how much money (adjusted for inflation) that these movies made for the studio, not this efficiency-like percentage calculation.—

I understand your point, but you’re ignoring opportunity cost.

It’s about total profit, but it’s also about profit as a function of outlay.

How much cash, which is not earning you money elsewhere, do you have to invest in order to get your return.

And it’s also about risk. Risk has an associated cost.

Would an investor rather lay out $190M for the possibility of a 33% larger return? Or would he rather lay out just $29M even if he’s more likely to get a smaller return?

These are business issues, but your point is well taken.

However, you must admit that making $208M from a $29M investment is pretty good. And if you can do that while preserving artistic integrity and maintaining loyalty with the fans, not to mention producing a meaningful work of art that you can be proud of which generations of viewers will watch over and over, that’s a pretty great deal all around.

I mean, who wouldn’t JUMP on that deal?

Who???

321. MJ - January 6, 2014

OK, building on my example in my post @318, I put all the movies into an Excel spreadsheet, and have calculated this now correctly, in terms of this loose profit definition, for all the Trek films, rated from most “profitable” by dollar amount (in 2013 $) to least “profitable”, as follows:

“Profit” in total dollars (2013 $ million)

ST-TMP: 334.3
STID: 277.4
ST-2009: 268.0
ST4: 230.3
ST2: 208.3
ST3: 157.6
ST-FC: 156.4
ST-G: 134.1
ST6: 109.7
ST-Ins: 87.4
ST5: 79.9
ST-Nem: 9.4

There you have it. And this shows an actual meaningful trend rather than trying to score fanboy points. Paramount started the Trek movie franchise with a Tentpole-level investment in TMP, and only when it returned to those levels of production investments for the last two movies, did the profits once again return to near the level of profit that they saw initially in TMP back in 1979. JJ and company stopped the financial slide in its tracks and reversed it — that is what these much more meaningful calculations show.

322. MJ - January 6, 2014

“However, you must admit that making $208M from a $29M investment is pretty good. And if you can do that while preserving artistic integrity and maintaining loyalty with the fans, not to mention producing a meaningful work of art that you can be proud of which generations of viewers will watch over and over, that’s a pretty great deal all around.”

I agree in the case of Trek 2. But look at the numbers — ST2 is an outlier — an exception. All of the other movies in this guys calculations are in about the 100 to 400 % range, and then WOK is way up there at 800%. So in mathematical terms, WOK is an outlier. And that fits with the unique production history of that movie.

323. Cygnus-X1 - January 6, 2014

MJ,

Using your numbers, TWOK yielded a 717% return on investment.

STID yielded only a 245% return on investment.

And since STID probably took longer to produce than TWOK, its relative ROI per period would probably be even lower. I think that’s the author’s purpose in examining profit margins as opposed to nominal return without regard to ROI per period.

If you’re an investor (as Paramount is) you’d rather put your money into a larger number of projects each of which has a higher ROI than into a smaller number of projects each of which has a lower ROI but a larger nominal return.

You lower your risk and increase your capital efficiency.

You make more money and better art!

324. MJ - January 6, 2014

“Would an investor rather lay out $190M for the possibility of a 33% larger return? Or would he rather lay out just $29M even if he’s more likely to get a smaller return?”

But as I mentioned above, that is an outlier.

If I rephrased your question, and told this investor that about once every 20 movies there is a change that he could see 700% profits, then he might not be as excited as if I told him, we have a JJ Abrams produced Trek 2016 movie, that will likely bring in over$450M worldwide, plus another $100M+ in DVD/blu/online, plus long term recurring sales; would you like to be part of our investment team that we are targeting $150M in costs for, I bet he would jump at this relatively stable investment opportunity?

325. MJ - January 6, 2014

Cygnus,

In reality, an investor would want to put money in both “Blue Chip” movies (e.g. JJ Trek), and well as spread money around to multiple higher-risk higher payoff investments (e.g. WOK).

326. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

Here are some of the ROI’s (returns on investment):

TWOK: $27M cost, $235 gain (208\27) = 770% ROI

STIV: $50 cost, 283.6 gain (233.6/50) = 467% ROI

STIII: $38.4 cost, 195.9 gain (157.5/38.4)= 410% ROI

TMP: $112.5 cost, 446.9 gain (334.4/112.5) = 297% ROI

ST09: 152.5 cost, 420.2 gain (267/152.5) =175.5% ROI

STID: 190 cost, 467.4 gain (277.4/190) = 146% ROI

So, if it’s your money to invest, you’ll make more money putting it into a larger number of projects of the kind that cost less but have a higher ROI.

And those kind of projects happen, in terms of Trek movies, tend to be the movies that we all generally rate as the highest quality, best Trek movies.

327. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

If it were your money, you’d want to maximize your ROI portfolio, while taking into account risk associated with different kinds of assets. Stocks are generally riskier than real estate. Bonds are less risky than stocks. Etc.

It’s hard to estimate risk in movies, but basing it just on the cash outlay, you’re obviously risking less by investing in TWOK, STIV and STIII than you are by investing in the high-budget, high-risk Bad Robot movies.

And, not only are TWOK, STIV and STIII less risky (because the cash outlay is so much less) they yielded substantially higher ROI’s.

If you’re Paramount, why wouldn’t you fill up your portfolio with a larger number of TWOK, STIV and STIII projects, as opposed to the riskier, lower ROI Bad Robot movies?

328. MJ - January 7, 2014

“So, if it’s your money to invest, you’ll make more money putting it into a larger number of projects of the kind that cost less but have a higher ROI. ”

Where you are going wrong in this is assuming that if you invest in a whole bunch of low cost movies, that they will make lots of money. For every Harvey Weinstein, there are probably hundreds of investors who have lost their shirts.

329. MJ - January 7, 2014

“If you’re Paramount, why wouldn’t you fill up your portfolio with a larger number of TWOK, STIV and STIII projects, as opposed to the riskier, lower ROI Bad Robot movies?”

The new movies are low risk, and the profit dollars are/will be in the hundreds of billions.

If what you said was true, we’d see Marvel-lite movies, Transformers-liet movies, Star Wars-lite movies, Pirates-lite movies, Hunger Games-lite movies….you get my point. Everybody would be doing this if it were really sound business. But the true fact it, that hardly any low budget sf movies today did what WOK did back in 81 with that sort of ROI. If that was easy to replicate, then we’d be seeing it over and over. But we are not, because its very hard to do that.

330. MJ - January 7, 2014

correction: hundreds of “millions”

331. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

Well, maybe you’re right and big budget movies are lower risk. But I think there’s a good case to be made for low budget movies being better investments, if they follow a successful business model.

Even if we regard TWOK as an outlier, as you said, that still leaves four good Trek movies each of which had substantially higher ROI than the two Bad Robot movies.

Now, let’s also leave out TMP as an outlier because its budget was more like the Bad Robot movie budgets.

Let’s divide the remaining movies into two business models:

(A) Meyer/Bennett model: STIII, STIV, STVI.

*Average ROI: 366%.
*Average cash outlay per project: $46M.
*Number of investments (projects) per $1B: 21.7 movies.

(B) Bad Robot model: ST09, STID.

*Average ROI: 161%.
*Average cash outlay per project: $171M.
*Number of investments (projects) per $1B: 5.85 movies.

Assuming these business models could be repeated—and given the 4 Meyer/Bennett movies which fit this model or did even better (TWOK), I think that’s a reasonable possibility—if you invested $1B into 21.7 Model A movies, you’d get back $3.66B.

If you instead invested that $1B into 5.85 Model B movies, you’d only get back $1.61B. Less than a quarter of the total profit returned from the Model A investments ($2.66B vs. $61B).

Also, with the Model A investments, you’d have more projects and risk less cash on each project.

STIV: $50 cost, 283.6 gain (233.6/50) = 467% ROI

STIII: $38.4 cost, 195.9 gain (157.5/38.4)= 410% ROI

STVI: $50 cost, $161 gain (111/50) = 222% ROI

ST09: 152.5 cost, 420.2 gain (267/152.5) =175.5% ROI

STID: 190 cost, 467.4 gain (277.4/190) = 146% ROI

332. Dave H - January 7, 2014

Re: Cygnus X-1

Guy, if there really was a marketplace for that, then wouldn’t that that be the way that many movies would be made and financed now? So, why aren’t we seeing this?

Well, I don’t think that model has been successful over time, because there are just so many more misses than hits when you go that route. On the other hand, maybe your really have hit on something here that the supposed “experts” just haven’t tried in a franchise environment like Star Trek?

And you make it sound like as well that the WOK investors knew in advance that that would take home ridiculously high profits based on ROI. They didn’t know that in advance.

333. MJB - January 7, 2014

What would the numbers be if you included Pay Per View, Premium (ie HBO), TV and home video (VHS, DVD, Blu Ray)? I thought I heard many years ago that movies make more money with home video vs the box office.

334. Phil - January 7, 2014

I seem to recall that for the number of units sold, DVD sales easily added 100MM in revenue. Also that FX paid something around 30MM for broadcast rights. I’m sure there are actual numbers out there, just not sure where to find them, at the moment.

335. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

254. boborci: what the hell is a “Picard shirt”? =(

…”research” also indicates that the biggest deterrent to “TREK FANS” watching nu-Trek are the NU-TREK WRITERS THEMSELVES!

“How do u like them apples?” brag when u get a DIRECTOR, LOL! ;-)

“what should we do?” please reboot =(

336. Ensign RedShirt - January 7, 2014

Guys,

All these numbers are making the assumption that the studio keeps all the money the movie grosses. This is not the case. I can’t speak for the deals made in earlier years, but I know that these days theaters sometimes take up to 50% of opening weekend grosses, with the studios keeping a great deal more in the ensuing weeks. In Trek’s case, it also doesn’t factor in any gross point participation by Bad Robot or any of the actors(I believe Pine has a very small percentage).

Trying to figure out how much any of these things truly make is very difficult.

337. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

yeah, no… gross means nothing… (except indication of “popularity”)

…u want to look at net profit…

…where STID did poorly… on a par w/ Nemesis…

…thus the need for “adjustments” to strategy… ;-)

338. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

…less than 2 1/2 years to go, just starting to pitch, and still no director…

…better GET ON IT! =O

…or are we in for another cluster-“trek”? =(

(sadly, that’s a rhetorical question) =(

339. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

…it was all a bad dream: Kirk ate too many green apples before bed… ;-)

340. TUP - January 7, 2014

Regarding the Ceti Alpha plot hole: i agree! That always bugged me.

As for the exploding planet, perhaps Khan was not speaking literally. Who knows what ability they had to view other planets (didnt look like much) so “exploded” might have been a guess or an exaggeration. Something altered their planetary course somewhat.

It also adds to the idea that Kirk sort of deserved Khan’s disgust. Khan said Kirk never bothered to check on their progress. It does raise the question of whether he did tell anyone. Presumably he filed a report but this is Kirk we’re talking about,.

341. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

TUP: “…but this is Kirk we’re talking about,.” u r thinking of Red Matter Kirk…

THIS is what nu-trek has wrought… (shakes head) =(

The real (TOS) Kirk is flawed, yes… but A MAN OF HIGHEST INTEGRITY

…not some lying, cheating, selfish jerk. =(

342. Curious Cadet - January 7, 2014

@311. Ahmed,
“Anybody who can count, knows that of movie revenue for calendar year 2013, STID finished 10th…That is why what Bob is saying doesn’t make any sense.”

No question STID finished Tenth for the arbitrary 2013 Calendar Year domestic ranking. And you are correct, that is an IMPRESSIVE feat for any movie, regardless of how it ultimately fares against all movies released in 2013. Orci has no reason to denigrate fans for a poor a showing at the box office.

Perhaps Orci is just upset that STID didn’t finish in the only box office ranking that counts to anyone besides accountants: the Total Grosses of all Movies Released in 2013.

If Orci tried to make the ridiculous claim that STID finished in the top 10 domestic box office for 2013, he would also have to claim that THE HOBBIT 2 did not finish in the top 10 (when it fact it will most likely have a final ranking around the 7th highest grossing movie for the year). He would also have to make the claim that AVATAR was NOT the number one domestic box office movie for 2009. Either of which would get him laughed out of the room.

So if Star Trek fans had not been such a deterrent to mainstream audiences, Orci could claim at parties, with his head held high, that STID finished in the domestic top 10 for 2013. ;-)

343. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 342. Curious Cadet – January 7, 2014

“@311. Ahmed,
“Anybody who can count, knows that of movie revenue for calendar year 2013, STID finished 10th…That is why what Bob is saying doesn’t make any sense.”

Actually the first part is what MJ wrote: “Anybody who can count, knows that of movie revenue for calendar year 2013, STID finished 10th…”

I replied to him saying “That is why what Bob is saying doesn’t make any sense.”

“Perhaps Orci is just upset that STID didn’t finish in the only box office ranking that counts to anyone besides accountants: the Total Grosses of all Movies Released in 2013.”

Yeah, it finished at #11 but that doesn’t explain his strange comment. Maybe he “had one glass of wine too many” when he posted that as MJ put it :)

344. dmduncan - January 7, 2014

For the next movie it might be wonderful not to get any more revenge seeking space villains.

Also, Spock taking anger management classes and the Enterprise neither falling into nor rising out of stuff.

345. MJ - January 7, 2014

Exactly my point, if you follow my earlier comments above on the problems with that 1701 article. That article is completely bogus in terms of how it calculated profits. I only continued to rely on these numbers to make my comparisons to that article, and I stated as such above.

=================================================

336. Ensign RedShirt – January 7, 2014
Guys,

All these numbers are making the assumption that the studio keeps all the money the movie grosses. This is not the case. I can’t speak for the deals made in earlier years, but I know that these days theaters sometimes take up to 50% of opening weekend grosses, with the studios keeping a great deal more in the ensuing weeks. In Trek’s case, it also doesn’t factor in any gross point participation by Bad Robot or any of the actors(I believe Pine has a very small percentage).

Trying to figure out how much any of these things truly make is very difficult.

346. MJ - January 7, 2014

@342

“No question STID finished Tenth for the arbitrary 2013 Calendar Year domestic ranking. ”

Thank you, Curious Cadet. That is refreshing to see you actually acknowledge this.

347. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

344. dmduncan: ” For the next movie … the Enterprise neither falling into nor rising out of stuff.”

HEH! =D

…that’s a good start! ;-) …reading this boborci?

348. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 344. dmduncan – January 7, 2014

“Also, Spock taking anger management classes”

Objection!

Where is the fun if our Vulcan friend is not crying or screaming every 15 minutes ! How is he going to show his human side if he is calm & logical ??

No, I say we keep our Angry Vulcan (TM) in the next movie.

349. I am not Herbert - January 7, 2014

…what about pussy-whipped spock?? =P him too? LOL! =P

350. star trackie - January 7, 2014

Hey, I like the Enterprise rising out of the clouds, water, etc. You guys have something against aesthetics in a movie? You want dull, paint by numbers effects shots or composition? Boring! Keep the cool visuals coming Bob Orci.

351. dmduncan - January 7, 2014

For the next movie, I would also like a fresh score.

Instead of using the Enterprising Young Men theme as the new theme of Star Trek, I would like a different score for each movie. I was disappointed to hear ST.09’s score (which was great) recycled for STiD.

352. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 350. star trackie – January 7, 2014

“Boring! Keep the cool visuals coming Bob Orci.”

Yeah, let the Enterprise come out of an exogorth this time , I bet that the general audience will LOVE IT !

353. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 351. dmduncan – January 7, 2014

“For the next movie, I would also like a fresh score.

Instead of using the Enterprising Young Men theme as the new theme of Star Trek, I would like a different score for each movie. I was disappointed to hear ST.09′s score (which was great) recycled for STiD.”

Yep, totally agree with you. I felt the same way when I was watching STID.

354. dmduncan - January 7, 2014

Well the Enterprise has risen out of gas (twice) and liquid (once). That still leaves two states of matter it hasn’t risen out of yet.

Maybe we can vote on which substance we’d prefer.

355. MJ - January 7, 2014

You guys are right.

When I first heard Alexander Courage’s score, and then the works of him, Fred Steiner, Gerald Fried, etc, in the first couple of TOS episoded, I was like, this is awesome, I love this music.

But then, my mid-season, I was like, when in the hell are they going to replace these guys and bring in new Star Trek music.

But I bided my team, knowing that, surely, with Season 2, we’d get the all knew Trek music that Star Trek needed. To my shock, it was the same Fing hack composers. WTF, I asked. How could they do this us.

And so began a painfully long history of Trek series and movies applying some consistency to the music over time. It’s an F’ing musical wasteland in Trek now, unfortunately. Damn shame!

356. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 354. dmduncan

Let the Enterprise rise out of a mountain that is floating within a plasma !

357. MJ - January 7, 2014

@354….only to discover that the mountain is surrounded by an ice bubble. LOL

358. Harry Ballz - January 7, 2014

dmduncan, I’d be happy if the Enterprise could rise up out of the cesspool that is Star Trek Into Darkness.

359. MJ - January 7, 2014

@358

Where is artist Andres Serrano when we need him.

;-)

360. Curious Cadet - January 7, 2014

@343. Ahmed,
“Yeah, it finished at #11 but that doesn’t explain his strange comment. Maybe he “had one glass of wine too many” when he posted that as MJ put it :)”

Given his past history, with you in particular (no offense), I am a bit surprised at his posting a somewhat antagonistic statement toward the fans, despite using the guise of merely delivering the message. Even if he’s just the messenger, It certainly let’s him off the hook.

I mean if the fans are the BIGGEST deterrent to a general audience, what’s number two, or three?

Yeah he might have posted it because of drinking too much wine, but frankly — Trek Fans were certainly not a deterrent to general audiences driving ST09 to an historic $258 million domestic box office, nor nearly doubling its foreign box office for STID. How does one explain a film that landed in 7th position for the 2009 domestic box office, and made almost a half billion dollars at the 2013 worldwide box office, when the fans themselves kept audiences away?

What could be his motivation other than making more money and ranking higher on the box office charts?

What’s the solution to this news? Should Trek fans just crawl under a rock and slink into dark alleys away from public view? These same Trek fans created the very franchise that is now suggesting they get out of the way. And then what if we do? What happens to Trek then? Nothing? Staus quo, but more people will see the film because nobody is waiting in line with them wearing Spock ears? Or does Orci want to change Star Trek in a fundamental way that the fans won’t accept?

Very interesting revelation.

361. MJ - January 7, 2014

@360

The guy can’t help himself but to read our posts here, and other site where Trek fans posts. Given all the bitching and sometimes mean things that are said here, is it really any wonder that once in awhile the guy takes it a little personally and lashes out.

He’s a human being. Some of us frankly could not restrain ourselves to the level this this guy has done. Cut him some slack.

362. Phil - January 7, 2014

Breaking through the ice…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUqr7-Cgt8

363. Red Dead Ryan - January 7, 2014

I actually like the Michael Giacchino scores. And both were different enough from each other, and yet, still kept the great “Enterprising Young Men” theme.

I hope they keep the theme for the next movie.

364. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ Bob Orci,

Instead of these cryptic messages, how about talking with Matt Wright to arrange an IAMA session here on the weekend ?

365. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@360. Curious Cadet

Until he post again, there is no way to know for sure what he meant by that comment.

@361. MJ

Sure, we are all humans & we all make mistakes. But does he really need to piss off the fans before the movie is even in production ??

366. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@362. Phil – January 7, 2014

Nice!

367. boborci - January 7, 2014

Wasn’t drinking wine.

I am sharing with you research that I have seen. That is all. Not lashing out, not trying to be a dick. Just me, the writer/producer of these movies, being trasparent about things. Perhaps more transparent than I should ever be, but that has been my style all along.

368. MJ - January 7, 2014

@365. One could argue that he’s been remarkedly restrained considering all the negativity on this site towards him and STID.

You a funny guy Ahmed. I remember when you went all ape-shit on Simon Pegg for daring to use the F word in association with fans recently, and now you are acting so put out over what is probably just a little sarcasm from Bob now at the fan’s expense.

Seriously, dude, you need to thicker skin. Why make a federal case out of this. You and the others who have come down pretty hard on him and BR (with some other folks being downright nasty and rude) seem to expect him to just take it and smile???

The guy has pride in his work, he thinks he is doing right by Star Trek, and he’s probably sick and tired of all the whining here. And I don’t blame him.

So you and others’ should stop with the fake pansy-ass shock when he flings a minor insult in our direction. Big deal.

369. MJ - January 7, 2014

@367

Thanks Bob for the explanation. Your comment has generated a lot of hissy fits from the STID malcontent crowd here.

I got your back here, my friend.

370. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 367. boborci – January 7, 2014

“I am sharing with you research that I have seen. That is all. Not lashing out, not trying to be a dick. Just me, the writer/producer of these movies, being trasparent about things. Perhaps more transparent than I should ever be, but that has been my style all along.”

Well, if the research is correct & the fans are scaring the general audience away, then how come ST09 & STID made it to the top 10 box office ?

So, forgive us, when we don’t believe in that research.

371. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@368. MJ

Back in Egypt, I used to follow the Egyptian parliament sessions just for fun, you remind me a lot of Kamal el-Shazly, an Egyptian MP, who used to stand up every 10 minutes to attack & silence the opposition no matter was the topic.

No one is making “a federal case” as you put it, we are asking about this so called research that claim something that is not true when you look at the recent box office results.

372. MJB - January 7, 2014

367. boborci
Shall we assume that if you’re given a high budget again then it’ll have to appeal to both a general audience and global audience? I’m beginning to wonder if the most a top notch Trek film can make is $500 million – therefore the budget will have to be adjusted so everyone is happy with the profit margins. (Duh!)
Anyway, how’s it going with the writing team?

373. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

332. Dave H – January 7, 2014

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg seem to share the opinion that the current Hollywood studio business model of big budget movies is riskier business than a larger number of smaller budget movies:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/is-hollywood-model-doomed-steven-spielberg-and-george-lucas-think-so-20130815

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

374. dmduncan - January 7, 2014

The only thing that bugs me about waiting in line for these movies is the practice that some fans have of placeholding a spot in line for a dozen of their friends, each one the size of a baby whale.

375. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

369. MJ – January 7, 2014

—@367 Thanks Bob for the explanation. Your comment has generated a lot of hissy fits from the STID malcontent crowd here.

I got your back here, my friend.—

Oh, puh-leeeze.

376. MJ - January 7, 2014

“Back in Egypt, I used to follow the Egyptian parliament sessions just for fun, you remind me a lot of Kamal el-Shazly, an Egyptian MP, who used to stand up every 10 minutes to attack & silence the opposition no matter was the topic.”

Yea but now he and that Parliament are long gone, and people look to his times as the “good old days now” in Egypt. Who would have thought that those were the good old days, but it now turns out that they were.

Appreciate me while I am here, Ahmed. You never know what my replacement will like….can you spell “William Bradley?” LOL

377. Red Dead Ryan - January 7, 2014

Cygnus, Ahmed

You two have to admit that you and some others here have been instigating fights and provoking Bob into unleashing his now infamous outburst, resulting in his brief leave of absence from this site a few months ago when it was absolutely uncalled for.

Now you’re accusing Bob of being thin-skinned and oversensitive???

You think he has to put up with the crap you guys throw at him on a regular basis???

I see a lot on arrogance, rudeness and lack of respect and gratitude on display here. It is extremely shameful and disgraceful.

I’m not sure I’d have the same amount of patience Bob is displaying here. I might have left and never come back here again if I were in his shoes.

378. Curious Cadet - January 7, 2014

@374. dmduncan,
“The only thing that bugs me about waiting in line for these movies is the practice that some fans have of placeholding a spot in line for a dozen of their friends, each one the size of a baby whale.”

LOL — “there be whales here!”

379. jonboc - January 7, 2014

Wow. Do some of you just not WANT to understand what Bob has told you?? Trek Into Darkness…most successful Trek movie worldwide…ever. Amazing haul overseas…impressive total box office take. Yet, despite near universal praise from critics and audiences alike, it performs slightly below 2009 numbers. Why, the studio asks… why?
Perplexed they order a ton of research, focus groups, surveys etc. to find a reason. They finally settle on data reflecting what Bob has shared with us. Don’t argue with him… argue with the general public that participated, convincing the suits that fanatical fans are now a liability rather than an asset.

380. MJ - January 7, 2014

“Perplexed they order a ton of research, focus groups, surveys etc. to find a reason. They finally settle on data reflecting what Bob has shared with us. Don’t argue with him… argue with the general public that participated, convincing the suits that fanatical fans are now a liability rather than an asset.”

E X A C T L Y

I agree 100%, Jonboc

381. Tom - January 7, 2014

Glad to hear work is starting on the new movie. I think they should include Pike, Kirk Prime in the movie.

A scene with Pike talking to young Kirk extolling the wonders of a five year mission. It would seem approproate given the mission is just starting. Then you could see something so difficult happening that both young Kirk and Spock wonder if it is really woth it to be on this type of mission. At that point you could include the Shatner scene. Both Young Kirk and Spock can watch the hologram given to young Spock by Spock Prime. Looking at the dialogue of that scene it would fit well in getting rid of their second thoughts of going on the five year mission. You could even have a new (last)scene together with Leonard and Bill with a hologram within the hologram. To have even more fun when Spock Prime gives young Spock the holographic pendant he could say that he will not be seeing him again. He would tell him he is going back to New Vulcan and Veridian 3.

This would be fun. It accomplishes the nostalgia for the 50th anniversary.Gets Greenwood, Shatner and Nimoy involved. Lets Bill and Leonard share one last scene and makes us wonder if he going back for Kirk on Veridian 3

382. MJ - January 7, 2014

“Now you’re accusing Bob of being thin-skinned and oversensitive???
You think he has to put up with the crap you guys throw at him on a regular basis??? I see a lot on arrogance, rudeness and lack of respect and gratitude on display here. It is extremely shameful and disgraceful. I’m not sure I’d have the same amount of patience Bob is displaying here. I might have left and never come back here again if I were in his shoes.”

Agreed, RDR. It’s painful to hear, but I am glad you have said this for all to hear.

383. MJ - January 7, 2014

@381. OMG, I thought folks had finally gave up the lets bring back 85 year old fat Shat thing…Christ Almighty, enough with the Shat nonsense, please!!!

384. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 377. Red Dead Ryan – January 7, 2014

“Cygnus, Ahmed
Now you’re accusing Bob of being thin-skinned and oversensitive???”

Please show me where did I say that ?

385. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 376. MJ – January 7, 2014

“Appreciate me while I am here, Ahmed. You never know what my replacement will like….can you spell “William Bradley?” LOL”

LOL

386. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 379. jonboc – January 7, 2014

“Trek Into Darkness…most successful Trek movie worldwide…ever. Amazing haul overseas…impressive total box office take. Yet, despite near universal praise from critics and audiences alike, it performs slightly below 2009 numbers. Why, the studio asks… why?”

Ask the marketing people who released the movie in North America after weeks of its release worldwide. By the time, the movie hit North America, the entire plot was known to everyone who have access to internet.

Not to mention that the movie wasn’t as good as ST09.

387. Craiger - January 7, 2014

Could Paramount be thinking that Trek fans are obsolete and they think they don’t need them anymore for Star Trek? For the first new Trek they said this isn’t your father’s Trek. Aren’t original Star Trek and Star Trek fan’s getting older now and this is why they are trying to reintroduce Trek and Wars to a new generation?

388. Craiger - January 7, 2014

Sorry I meant original Star Trek and Star Wars fans

389. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

377. Red Dead Ryan – January 7, 2014

—Cygnus, Ahmed

You two have to admit that you and some others here have been instigating fights and provoking Bob into unleashing his now infamous outburst, resulting in his brief leave of absence from this site a few months ago when it was absolutely uncalled for.—

Excuse me, are you on meth or something?

WE WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT STAR TREK III BEFORE BOB MADE HIS COMMENT. I DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO INSTIGATE HIM AND NEITHER DID AHMED.

IN FACT, SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY SUGGESTED THAT WE STOP TALKING ABOUT STAR TREK III AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT BOB HAD RAISED.

Normally I’d say that all opinions are valid, but if you’re just going to say random things that aren’t true, you really should shut up.

And I’m just not having a resurgence of the whole BR/BO police trying to silence critics and suppress all opposition. I have my opinions about what he said, and I think I’ve been rather detailed and thoughtful in expressing them. And I have not insulted nor disparaged Bob nor anyone else while doing so.

So, really, I’ve had enough of the nonsense. Knock it off.

390. Red Dead Ryan - January 7, 2014

I wasn’t referring to just this thread, Einstein. You and Ahmed (along with several others) have been incredibly rude and condescending to Bob Orci.

So quit playing the “innocent victim” card and just accept responsibility for your bad behaviour you have displayed here for the past several months.

391. Ahmed - January 7, 2014

@ 390. Red Dead Ryan

Instead of playing your typical role of BR attack dog, how about you contribute something to the discussion that we are having here about the “research” that Bob mentioned ?

392. MJ - January 7, 2014

@387

“Could Paramount be thinking that Trek fans are obsolete and they think they don’t need them anymore for Star Trek? For the first new Trek they said this isn’t your father’s Trek. Aren’t original Star Trek and Star Trek fan’s getting older now and this is why they are trying to reintroduce Trek and Wars to a new generation?”

Well, look at the highly publicized fake fan poll at that Vegas convention where “William Daley’s fanboy equivalent” organized a bitchfest..err, I mean “scientific poll” of a bunch of condescending baldy-worshiping TNG fans to claim STID was the worst movie since The Human Centipede. With that sort of a recent track record by fans, and considering all the hubris here by so many STID haters, can you really blame Paramount from giving us all the middle finger?

393. Cygnus-X1 - January 7, 2014

390. Red Dead Ryan – January 7, 2014

Let us know when you’re back from your trip to the ethereal plane.

I’ll be here behaving badly as always.

Maybe we’ll start a fan series: “TREKKIES BEHAVING BADLY.”

Maybe we can even convince Bob Orci be in it…

Bob: I’m trying to make hundreds of millions of dollars for Paramount and you Trekkies keep getting in the way.

Red Dead Ryan: Sorry, Bob. I know we’re an albatross around the neck of your business endeavors.

Cygnus-X1: Waitaminute, how are WE the problem?

Red Dead Ryan: Cygnus, you stop being disrespectful to Bob! And you too, Ahmed!

Ahmed: But I didn’t even…

Red Dead Ryan: That’s enough out of you, Ahmed! Don’t mind these clowns, Bob. It’s no wonder your last two Trek movies didn’t make more money with the likes of Ahmed and Cygnus always interfering. Please continue, I’m hanging on your every syllable…

(To be continued?)

394. Harry Ballz - January 7, 2014

Bob Orci:

“Write from the soul, not from some notion about what you think the marketplace wants. The market is fickle; the soul is eternal.”

Jeffrey A. Carver

395. MJ - January 7, 2014

“Write from the soul…”

And when you need a break from that serious writing, write a pourn film where the lead character is named Harry Ballz. :-)

396. Harry Ballz - January 7, 2014

@395

Now you got it, MJ!

They should get the pourn actor Rock Hard to play the part! He’s solid!

(or, if he’s unavailable, get Buck Naked)

397. Marja - January 7, 2014

344 Duncan For the next movie it might be wonderful not to get any more revenge seeking space villains. Also, Spock taking anger management classes and the Enterprise neither falling into nor rising out of stuff. and 348 Ahmed Where is the fun if our Vulcan friend is not crying or screaming every 15 minutes ! How is he going to show his human side if he is calm & logical ??

OK once again guys, Vulcans feel deeply, and yes, Vulcans act calmly and logically, an adaptive behavior they assumed to continue living together as a race, b/c they would have killed each other off with all their extreme emotions. They are incredibly adept mentally, but they are not emotionless.

I hope that in this next movie if we see Spock do violence, it is most economical, adept, and swift. And a nerve pinch! Please can I see a FSNP in the next movie? [famous Spock Neck Pinch]

398. Marja - January 7, 2014

349 I am not Herbert …what about pussy-whipped spock?? =P him too? LOL! =P

Kindly keep that offensive epithet out of the convo. And that stupid assumption, too, that because a man values his woman’s opinion he’s somehow “whipped.” Pay heed to the many ways men “whip” themselves in movies, like with the rage and need for revenge and all that. Khan’s “whipped.” Kirk’s “whipped.” Spock’s “whipped.” But not by Uhura.

399. Marja - January 7, 2014

351. dmduncan and 353 Ahmed,
A fresh score? No, I think musically tying the movies together is a great idea. Perhaps more original music is needed within the soundtrack, but I hope Giacchino keeps “Enterprising Young Men,” the Kirk theme, and the Spock theme [which we didn’t hear much of in STiD]. I enjoyed the complications-within-complications of Harrison’s theme, and hope a new and elegant theme is written for the next film.

400. Marja - January 7, 2014

355 MJ,… But I bided my [time], knowing that, surely, with Season 2, we’d get the all new Trek music that Star Trek needed. To my shock, it was the same Fing hack composers. WTF, I asked. How could they do this us. And so began a painfully long history of Trek series and movies applying some consistency to the music over time. It’s an F’ing musical wasteland in Trek now….

Seriously, MJ? You liked the themes in the first season but after that they’re all “hack composers”? Listen to the “Doomsday Machine” score, and let me know what’s hack-y about it for its time and themes? Remember, as with so many other things, TOS had tight budget constraints and relied on several scores throughout the series. The music changed from season to season also, but, yes, there were often repeated themes, like the Tuuna! Tuuna! Tuna! Tuna! “threat” music [which is part of the "Doomsday Machine" score, but was used repeatedly after "DM"].

401. Marja - January 7, 2014

MJ, I’m also wondering at what age you first encountered TOS. I was a youngling, so was not as perceptive about music as I am now. Now I notice all the re-use, but then, I didn’t. And I was also [to show my age again] able to record the show onto a cassette tape and follow the action with the music. TOS had so many audio cues, I could listen to it like a radio show!

402. Marja - January 7, 2014

Harry Ballz dmduncan, I’d be happy if the Enterprise could rise up out of the cesspool that is Star Trek Into Darkness.

LOL Harry, “don’t mince words, Doctor, why don’t you tell us how you really feel”!

403. Harry Ballz - January 7, 2014

Marja, I’m glad you appreciated my comment.

404. MJ - January 7, 2014

As Jan Brady might say,

“Marja, Marja, Marja,” ;-)

That was suppose to be satire aimed at Ahmed and DM for them calling for new composers and different music in every Star Trek movie. I was taking their comment to an extreme by showing what would happen if we treated the music in TOS in the same manner.

I LOVE TOS MUSIC.

:-)

405. MJ - January 7, 2014

@400. Star Trek hit me hard at about age 10 or 11 in 73/74 when it first went to syndication where I lived. By the late 70’s, I was attending conventions as a teenager. ST-TMP opening in Dec 79 was one of the biggest events of my young life.

406. Marja - January 8, 2014

362 Phil, take a look at this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFalY7wXm-I — pretty funny – I can just see Scotty and crew workin’ away ….

I was interested to see how, in the video you showed us, the sub kind of sinks and rises again to “whack” the ice from the underside. Reminds me of a USCG icebreaker. Which, if it can’t break through with its strong, streamlined bow, will slide partway onto the ice and break through it from above with its tremendous weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8h-pArWZyY

407. Dave H - January 8, 2014

I agree with Marja and MJ,

Star Trek music is best when there is some consistency to it. MG is just getting started; I don’t want them to change horses now.

The two best things about STID were the music and the special effects (the acting was very good too). Don’t mess with MG and ILM please.

408. Jim Nightshade - January 8, 2014

bob orci sir, really about regular audiences not liking trek fans at the movies…are there that many of us…and are we that bad at the movies? i find that hard to believe….who and when were these general audiences polled i wonder? Ive never seen trek fans dressed up as characters or acting obnoxious…ive been to most trek movies opening night or weekend..some where trek shirts…stid i saw in imax 3d the preview night…more trekkies there…they really liked the movie n were a bit louder n boisterous as the movie played…lets see ive seen more fans dressed up as characters for star wars maybe the audience polling audience were mixed up hah..,i even saw a girl dressed up as capn jack sparrow at a pirates opening….ive only been able to afford to go to one trek con, the 40th ann. in vegas…fans act much stranger there than at movie premieres n im sure non fan audiences have never gone to a convention…maybe they just believe that trek fans are obnoxious from all the negative press nerds n trek fans get…besides that domestic box office was down which means fewer trekkies saw it as well, or not as many times as the movies they love…..maybe it was the same trekkies polled at the convention that hated stid maybe they hate themselves or other trek fans too?

409. Jim Nightshade - January 8, 2014

and i also agree some of the regular haters never seem to miss an opportunity to cut down trek in any way they can bordering on obscene comments,think they just enjoy dissing n disrespecting all they can…usually much more rude n crude than non trek fans would be..why…when they make these hate filled spiels they are not fans at all…again i respect all opinions but you dont need to rude n crude and yes cruel n hate filled towards trek n respected creative people like bob orci for instance…im reminded of flower the skunk in bambi…if you cant say something nice dont say anything at all….yes you give opinions pro n con , just be polite n caring….n constructive criticism instead of destructive…we are not impressed by your rude n crude hate filled spiels…if you really are a fan of trek start acting like one…please…judging how stars look 10-20 years or more is like bitching that family members get older n dont look as good…kinda low blows….are you all joan rivers fans?

410. Tom - January 8, 2014

383 MJ

Why would I give up an opportunity to have you say Shat is fat and 85 again???
Love it

411. Disinvited - January 8, 2014

#367. boborci – January 7, 2014

As I recall, you said no research was used in editing STID or rewriting its script. That moves me to ask, “Who decided to finance this deterrent research that you’ve seen, what exactly was the question they were seeking to answer, and who did they hire to conduct the quest for it?”

#400. Marja – January 7, 2014

FWIW with no musical education as an extremely young viewer of the then new medium of TV, I couldn’t help but notice that something musically “interesting” and a cut above the norm was being done by composers for THE TWILIGHT ZONE and before 1959 was over I was seeking out the names responsible for it.

412. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

The more they keep using Enterprising Young Men, the older it’s going to get. I’ve heard Jerry Goldsmith’s TMP/TNG score for so many years that it no longer sounds special to me.

Change the score for the next movie. That should have been left to be a special customized theme of the first movie, and it’s just cheapskate to keep recycling it like you can’t afford to do anything new.

Customize the theme to the movie. Stop recycling the music. Please.

413. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

Star Trek already has a theme, and it’s the one by Alexander Courage which they keep going back to at the end of their movies.

Each movie should have its own separate theme. Stop being boring fans clamoring for the same thing every time.

It’s okay not to be afraid of change.

414. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

I’m actually curious about this “research” as well. Is this the same stuff by the focus group that said they should lose Spock’s pointy ears?

Look, if they’re just trying to make as much money as possible as if how much money your movie makes is the most important thing worth bragging about, why come here and listen to us at all?

Hire the focus groups and do what they say.

But are we to understand that this “fan” effect applies also to Star Wars, which probably has even more fans attending in costume? Does that mean we’ll never know how much the Star Wars movies could have earned had it not been for those fans dressing up?

I dunno. Sounds funky to me.

415. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

But back on the music thing:

Music is REALLY important to how the movie feels, and when your sequel has the same theme that was NEW and EXCITING the first time you heard it in the FIRST movie, then it’s not as fresh sounding in the sequel.

No other Star Trek movie will duplicate the experience of hearing that theme for the first time in ST.09. For every movie that uses it, that theme will become progressively more familiar and less impactful.

My first experience of disappointment with STiD in the theater came when I heard the ST.09 theme reprised at the end of the Nibiru sequence.

I thought to myself: Oh, they spared themselves the expense of coming up with new music for a new movie. Too bad.

416. Marja - January 8, 2014

412 duncan, Come on, I’m not being a boring ol’ fan here. I get what you’re saying about the Goldsmith music b/c we’ve heard it a bazillion times watching TNG reruns. I’ll grant that Giacchino’s music was a little too much the same in STiD, but I liked having certain themes for certain things. Just my feeling, though.

In the movies, I get the same thrill from hearing the “Enterprise” theme as I get from hearing my USCG anthem “Semper Paratus” or the national anthem. Yeah, it’s the same music every time, but it has special meaning to me. That said, I do like hearing new themes for new events and characters.

417. Marja - January 8, 2014

404 MJ, What a relief to find you were being sarcastic, b/c I could’ve sworn we were pretty much of the same mind regarding ST music … :-p

I was all, whatthehell …?

The score for “Doomsday Machine” is part of what made that episode so great. Bits of music did get recycled an awful lot, but you can tell a 1st season ep from a 3rd season ep just by the music.

418. boborci - January 8, 2014

I keeeeed!

419. Marja - January 8, 2014

BobO research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!

Many interpretations here. Trekfans are the problem because …?

No matter what writers write we’ll complain?

We’re nerdy and “scare off” the other movie patrons?

The writers “listened to the fans” after Trek1 and did a little too much “fan service”? Could they possibly imagine that cramming Khan in where he did not belong was “fan service”? If so it was fan service of the worst possible sort ….

I would really like to know the source of this “research.”

Meanwhile, I hope there’s less “relentless action” and more science fiction in the next one.

420. Harry Ballz - January 8, 2014

@418 boborci “I keeeeed!”

What, Bob, you mean about the supposed research you mentioned?

Your “social media experimentation” is beginning to take on the connotation of a kid who enjoys pulling the wings off flies, just so he can enjoy watching them hobble around helpless and in pain.

As Freud would say, “this man has issues!”

421. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

416. Marja – January 8, 2014

Well I don’t mean you are a boring person, Marja, but sometimes fans like things so much they want them repeated until they get sickening.

Giacchino’s score was tailor made for ST.09 so it seems cheapskate to raid it for parts of STiD, AND the theme gets progressively less special for every new movie it is used.

A new movie deserves a new tailor-made theme, and Alexander Courage already gave Star Trek as iconic and recognizable a “franchise” theme as other franchises like James Bond, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones have.

422. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

404. MJ – January 7, 2014

That was suppose to be satire aimed at Ahmed and DM for them calling for new composers and different music in every Star Trek movie. I was taking their comment to an extreme by showing what would happen if we treated the music in TOS in the same manner.

***

That was satire?

I thought what would happen if we had different music (not necessarily composers) for each movie is pretty much what happened for TMP, TWOK, TVH, TUC, and ST.09 itself.

So yes, please, let’s have more of “what would happen” if they did that.

423. Marja - January 8, 2014

Duncan, can you imagine being one of the most successful movie composers working today and being told, “Here’s your theme. Already made. You can’t make a theme of your own to carry through from movie to movie”?

What I’m saying is, I loved the themes MG came up with. I’m not sure he should use them verbatim time after time [and I "get" that verbatim themes can get boring]. Certainly he can write variations on them, using much of the same instrumentation, and introduce new themes for the new movie.

IDK, I just liked what Horner did from STII to STII, keeping but varying the themes for Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise.

All I know is I was damned glad to be shut of the “Nero” music from Trek1. Hated it.

424. MJ - January 8, 2014

“and i also agree some of the regular haters never seem to miss an opportunity to cut down trek in any way they can bordering on obscene comments,think they just enjoy dissing n disrespecting all they can…usually much more rude n crude than non trek fans would be..why…when they make these hate filled spiels they are not fans at all…again i respect all opinions but you dont need to rude n crude and yes cruel n hate filled towards trek n respected creative people like bob orci for instance”

Jim, well said, my friend. Thank you!

425. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

423. Marja – January 8, 2014

Duncan, can you imagine being one of the most successful movie composers working today and being told, “Here’s your theme. Already made. You can’t make a theme of your own to carry through from movie to movie”?

***

Well how does that make sense?

1. Unless you plan on keeping Giacchino for every movie (which is not written in the stars)—a new director might decide to go with someone else, for instance, then the new guy is going to have to use Giacchino’s score if they follow your thinking.

What if the new director gets Hans Zimmer?

And Marja says a man like Hans has to use Giacchino’s theme because some fans have already permanently attached themselves to it? So I don’t see how what you are suggesting is a comprehensive solution to the likelihoods Star Trek will face.

2. Alexander Courage’s theme is iconic and part of the history of Star Trek. It isn’t DM Duncan twisting Giacchino’s arm to reprise that theme at the end of both of his Star Trek movies. Any reasonable composer will not have any issue reprising Courage’s iconic Star Trek theme where appropriate, anymore than they have problems momentarily paying homage to history by hitting the notes of that classic James Bond tune.

3. Reprising the iconic Star Trek theme in no way hampers a composer from coming up with his own particular theme for the particular movie he is working on—and the fact that Giacchino uses Courage’s theme in two movies where his own theme takes precedence, proves it.

4. If the composer is any good he should be able to tailor-make a theme for the job at hand whether it belongs to a franchise he’s already worked on (Jerry Goldsmith turned out TWO memorable scores for Star Trek: TMP and Star Trek: Voyager), or a completely different franchise or movie.

I mean, I did not think of Giacchino’s score for ST.09 as a new franchise score AT ALL; only after STiD when I heard it reprised did I see what they were thinking, and I felt disappointed.

New movie, new music. We’re not on TV anymore.

426. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2014

I agree with MJ and Dave H. The music is fine as it is. There should be some variety between all the scores for the reboot movies, but also some familiar pieces — including the now classic “Enterprising Young Men” — to tie all the films together.

I agree that the TMP/TNG theme is played out, but that is because it was used almost two hundred times. That theme, while classic, obviously needs a long rest. They certainly did not need to play it at last year’s academy awards.

427. MJ - January 8, 2014

“I thought what would happen if we had different music (not necessarily composers) for each movie is pretty much what happened for TMP, TWOK, TVH, TUC, and ST.09 itself.”

And there you have it her in your own example. Goldsmith did 1 and 5, with a lot of the same music; same for Horner in 2 and 3

Of these movies, only one – ST4/Leonard Rosenman, fits your example.

Of course in the case where the composer did two movies, each had different villain and marginally different other themes — just as did MG with 09 and STID.

“That was satire?”

LOL. Hey, I try, DM. :-))

428. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

Imagine if every James Bond movie had the same theme and theme song? I’m not talking about the iconic James Bond riff that instantly identifies the franchise, I mean the actual theme and song of any given JB movie.

BO-RING.

429. MJ - January 8, 2014

Can you imagine if they had brought in different composers for three Lord of the Rings films?

430. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

427. MJ – January 8, 2014

The movies I cited ALL had different composers. Goldsmith, Horner, Rosenman, Eidelman, and Giacchino.

431. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

429. MJ – January 8, 2014

Can you imagine if they had brought in different composers for three Lord of the Rings films?

***

That’s one epic story. Star Trek is more like James Bond than it is Lord of the Rings; each Star Trek movie episode is complete in itself, like James Bond movies.

So, can you imagine if they used the same music for every James Bond movie?

432. MJ - January 8, 2014

@430, Luckily, DM. I was kind enough to fill back in “the repeats” in your examples. ;-)

433. MJ - January 8, 2014

$31. That’s A LOT of movies. I certainly would have been OK with then sticking with a composer assigned to each era — Connery, Moore, etc. etc.

Seriously, am I going to be REALLY upset if Trek 16 gets a new composer? No! But do I think that this is one the fixes that needs to be made to recover from the misfire of STID to get things back on track? No, I don’t.

There are more pressing things to fix for the next movie than replacing our Academy Award winning composer, who’s frankly at the top of his game right now.

434. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

432. MJ – January 8, 2014

Oh but I didn’t mention the repeats because they did not add to or subtract anything from the point I am making, which is: different composers = new and exciting music.

If Giacchino can do all new stuff, then why not keep him? But there’s also people like Hans Zimmer out there if Giacchino runs into composer’s block.

435. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2014

418. boborci: “I keeeeed!” …translation: I was talking out of my ass… ;-)

419. Marja: Yes, I would like to know more too… but apparently he was “keeeeeding”… =(

Also, re: red matter Spock being pussy-whipped: I just call ‘em like I see ‘em… and it’s still the best description I can think of… ;-)

LL&P

436. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

433. MJ – January 8, 2014

Well I like Giacchino and am not making an argument for replacing him unless he’s stuck, where Star Trek is concerned, and I see no reason to think he is. I think he probably did what he was asked to do for STiD, and if a new director wants a new theme, I see no reason why Giacchino would be unable to supply one.

437. Mike Barnett (MJB) - January 8, 2014

418. boborci – January 8, 2014
“I keeeeed!”

You’re killing us, Bob! :-)

438. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2014

254. boborci: “…research indicates that the biggest deterrent to a general audience watching (nu)Trek are TREK FANS THEMSELVES!

I.E. “TREK FANS” are giving (nu)Trek bad word-of-mouth (don’t like it)…

-or-

the “general audience” has negative impression of “TREK FANS”, and wants to avoid being associated… (ego/image issues)

I suspect he is referring to the first choice… ;-) but who knows…?

boborci: “what should we do?” too late =( you’ve already done it…

(destroyed REAL STAR TREK in favor of nu-trek)(trek for dummies)

all you can do now, is either continue to pander to your dwindling audience, or re-boot… I am a proponent of the latter choice… ;-)

439. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2014

…you’ll get a HUGE groan, but i’m telling ya':

the green apples / bad dream explanation IS the BEST WAY OUT… ;-)

…and then hand it over to the young-bloods, ok? thanks! =)

440. star trackie - January 8, 2014

#438 “all you can do now, is either continue to pander to your dwindling audience, or re-boot… I am a proponent of the latter choice… ;-)”

“Dwindling audience”? Can you say, “delusional”??

…I knew you could! lol

441. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2014

ST09 was successful because it was new and unseen… and we were ALL optimistic! =)

by the time STID rolled around, we knew what we were in for… and acted accordingly:

we waited for our sad disappointment on netflix, rather than wasting our hard-earned dollars in the theater a second time…

now what do you think our expectations are?: 50th Anniversary Travesty =(

442. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2014

440. star trackie: if the audience was not dwindling, you would still have a full budget…

also, the “TREK FANS” negative influence would not be considered a factor…

’nuff said…?

443. MJ - January 8, 2014

My Favorite scores ever, not in any particular order:

LOTR Trilogy (Shore)
Conan (Poladarus)
Inception (Zimmer)
Exodus (Gold)
Chariots of Fire (Vangelis)
SW Original Trilogy (Williams)
The Magnficent Seven (Bernstein)
Jaws (Williams)
Avatar (Horner)
Dances with Wolves (Barry)
The Right Stuff (Conti)
First Blood (Goldsmith)
Titanic (Horner)
ST-TMP (Goldsmith)
Out of Africa (Barry)
Forrest Gump (Silvestri)

444. MJ - January 8, 2014

add:

Lawrence of Arabia (Jarre)

445. dmduncan - January 8, 2014

443. MJ – January 8, 2014

Dr. Zhivago has a great score as well.

And I didn’t love much else about it, but the Goldsmiths smithed some real gold for Star Trek Voyager with that epic opening theme. That is still one of my favorite Star Trek themes ever. I used to tune in to Voyager JUST for about 5 minutes, until the title theme had finished. I always changed channels wishing the rest of that show matched the aspiration of its opening theme.

446. Curious Cadet - January 8, 2014

@419. Marja,
“I would really like to know the source of this “research.”

I’m thinking Europeans with gold iPhones. The same people who told Paramount that Trek needed less space, aliens; but more scenes on Earth, and lots more violence.

447. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2014

AndreM5 2014-01-08 09:48 “If you have 72,000 hammers you hit everything as if it is a nail.”

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/282-98/21394-focus-the-rise-of-the-militarys-secret-military

…off topic ;-) but close to home… hope u like being informed =)

LL&P

448. MJ - January 8, 2014

DM,

Believe it or not, as it is an 80’s action film, I think First Blood is actually Goldsmith’s best work ever. There is not a lot of dialogue in the movie, and his score tells the story is a audible way that is just fantastic. Many nuances, and very atmospheric. One could argue that Rambo-FBII is an even better score, as Goldsmith add’s more to the score.

449. MJ - January 8, 2014

“I’m thinking Europeans with gold iPhones. The same people who told Paramount that Trek needed less space, aliens; but more scenes on Earth, and lots more violence.”

Yea, that does sound like the F’ing French.

450. MJ - January 8, 2014

@445. Yes, on Dr. Zhivago. In fact, one could argue that that score took a lesser Lean film and made into a classic.

451. Ahmed - January 8, 2014

@ 418. boborci – January 8, 2014

“I keeeeed!”

huh ?

452. Ahmed - January 8, 2014

@ 449. MJ – January 8, 2014

“Yea, that does sound like the F’ing French.”

lol, more likely it was the Chinese!

453. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2014

Here are my favorite composers and their scores. A long list:

Hans Zimmer:

“The Dark Knight” trilogy — the first two were co-scored with James Newton Howard

“Inception”

“Pearl Harbor”

“The Lion King”

“The Man Of Steel”

“Gladiator”

“Sherlock Holmes”, and “Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows”

Danny Elfman — “Batman” and “Batman Returns”

Ennio Morricone — The “Man With No Name” trilogy

Howard Shore — “The Lord Of The Rings” trilogy, plus “The Hobbit, pts 1 and 2″

James Horner:

“Avatar”

“Titanic”

“The Wrath Of Khan” and “The Search For Spock”

Jerry Goldsmith:

“The Motion Picture”

“The Final Frontier”

“First Contact”

“Alien”

“The Mummy”

John Williams:

All of the “Star Wars” scores

“Jurassic Park”

“Jaws”

“Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”

“Superman: The Movie”

“Schindler’s List”

Michael Giacchino:

“Star Trek”

“Up”

“Ratatouille”

“John Carter”

“Lost”

John Barry:

“From Russia With Love”

“Goldfinger”

“Thunderball”

“Moonraker”

454. Phil - January 8, 2014

JJ Abrams secretary: Mr. Williams is here to see you, sir.
JJ Abrams: Okay, send him in.
John Williams: Good afternoon, JJ.
JJA: Back at you, John, thanks for coming aboard SW7.
JW: The honor is all mine. What can I do for you?
JJA: About the intro….
JW: What about it? It’s a classic.
JJA: Yeah, you see, I’m not really a fan of that…
JW: Okay, maybe freshening it up a bit might work. What did you have in mind?
JJA. Gotta admit, The reason I’m keeping you is because of Lost in Space…
JW: Well, that takes me back.
JJA: What goes around, comes around. We can make that work, right?
JW: Riiiiiiiight….

455. Mike Barnett (MJB) - January 8, 2014

454. Phil

LOL. He was known as ‘Johnny’ Williams during that show.

456. Mike Barnett - January 8, 2014

Lost in Space- – – I meant to say this: in the closing credits you’ll see ‘Johnny’ Williams.

Now back to Trek Talk.

Bob Orci: ‘I Keeeed’ does not compute. Your kidding about what, the research?

457. Jonboc - January 8, 2014

Say what you will aout the show, but Lost in Space had some killer cues and themes…not surprising with the aforementioned “Johnny” Williams at the helm.
Also love me some Lalo from Television’s Mission:Impossible. I do so miss the old fashioned television theme song….a lost art these days
… no doubt due to the ever expanding advertising time vs. the ever dwindling minutes available for storytelling.

458. boborci - January 8, 2014

441. bull shit. no one thought it would work. your revisionist hsitory sucks. recasting Kirk and Spock? read the articles at the time. no one thought it woukd work,

same with Transformers. before anyone knew what it was, it was like, “it’s gonna be the power rangers and fail.” then when both movies come out and work, people like you say, “duh, how could it not be a hit.”

459. Cygnus-X1 - January 8, 2014

459. boborci – January 8, 2014

I will support that, in general.

I wouldn’t say “nobody” thought it would work, at least, from my experience at this site. It was about 50/50. Some Trekkies (maybe 25% or so), God bless them, are optimistic about everything. You tell them the next movie is premised upon a talking cabbage, and they’ll root you on, excited as ever to see the cabbage come to life on screen.

Another 25% were cautiously optimistic. They could see the alt universe premise going either well or badly, but they were more than willing to remain open-minded and give you a fair shot to make it work. In retrospect, your alt universe premise had already been done several times in Trekdom, the first time having been TOS “Mirror, Mirror.” So, it really wasn’t that radical of a concept, per se. Though, I suppose the prospect of applying that concept permanently to the entire franchise was taking it into uncharted waters.

And, roughly 25% were pessimistic about the idea. Some of the pessimists were open-minded and more than willing to give you a fair shot to prove us wrong, but prepared for the worst. And some of the pessimists were totally down on the idea and refused to consider that it might be OK.

Personally, I was somewhere in the middle of the cautious optimists and open-minded pessimists. It seemed like a very risky move, but I was at the theater opening night to see it.

Somewhat ironically, the alt universe premise, itself, is not where you guys went wrong. It’s the motivation underlying your decision for that premise—wanting to start anew and change the characters and the plots, to be more emotional, action-oriented (dumbed down, as some say) and what not—that has led you down a road away from the Trek and its core values and sensibilities that many of us have loved since TOS.

460. Cygnus-X1 - January 8, 2014

459. boborci – January 8, 2014

P.S. I’m giving a sincere response because I’m assuming that your comments in #459 were sincere and not “keeeding.”

I have to say I don’t really get the joke of your comments about Trekkies being a deterrent. I especially don’t get the joke of your apology afterward for being “too transparent” in #367. Your three posts seem like a long way to go for that little gag.

461. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2014

Cygnus – X1,

Your recent posts prove my point about your attitude towards Bob. Here you go again trying to tear him down again, and questioning his sincerity.

462. Ahmed - January 8, 2014

@ 458. boborci – January 8, 2014

“441. bull shit. no one thought it would work. your revisionist hsitory sucks. recasting Kirk and Spock? read the articles at the time. no one thought it woukd work,”

Agreed. Like most people back then, I didn’t think it would work at all. But in ST09, you guys did a wonderful job bringing back TOS iconic characters. As for STID, that is another story!

btw, when you say “I keeeeed!”, are you implying that your comment about the “research” was a joke ? :)

463. MJ - January 9, 2014

“Somewhat ironically, the alt universe premise, itself, is not where you guys went wrong. It’s the motivation underlying your decision for that premise—wanting to start anew and change the characters and the plots, to be more emotional, action-oriented (dumbed down, as some say) and what not—that has led you down a road away from the Trek and its core values and sensibilities that many of us have loved since TOS.”

Sheesh, again??? Really??? We get it, dude. Enough with the whining. We get this is your opinion…message received.

These aren’t the droids you’re looking for…move along.

464. MJ - January 9, 2014

@462.

Ahmed, great post. Good to someone here who has some issues with STID still behave in a classy way with Bob. I’m proud of you, my friend.

465. Aurore - January 9, 2014

“‘I’m thinking Europeans with gold iPhones. The same people who told Paramount that Trek needed less space, aliens; but more scenes on Earth, and lots more violence.’

‘Yea, that does sound like the F’ing French.‘”

________

Indeed it does.

That would be my conclusion too!

:)

466. Aurore - January 9, 2014

“…Indeed it does.

That would be my conclusion too!…”

__________

I already apologised for my part in all this (posts 1567 and…1571) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/08/06/jj-trek-3-possible-director-and-writers/

…Nevertheless, I am willing to do it again ; as a member of the international audience , I am deeply sorry.

Lynda Obst was right all along…

:)

467. MJ - January 9, 2014

@466

Ah, you are time traveling poster here, responding in advance I see to your future posts 1567 and 1571 that you will post here in two weeks, or in your case, 10 minutes ago.

Cool !!!

468. Marja - January 9, 2014

457 jonboc, I agree; you’re right about the shortened time for storytelling on TV programs. Lalo Shifrin’s M:I theme was one of the best on TV, and there were so many themes I loved that I actually recorded a cassette tape full of them. The swingy waltz theme from the P.I. show “Mannix” is one of my favorites. I don’t have the tape anymore, sadly, but do remember many of the themes thanks to repeated listening way back when!

Re: Lost in Space – never could stomach the show either, but from what I recall of the theme, Johnny W. already had some of his favorite musical patterns/voicings in place :-)

469. Marja - January 9, 2014

425 Duncan, What if the new director gets Hans Zimmer? And Marja says a man like Hans has to use Giacchino’s theme because some fans have already permanently attached themselves to it? So I don’t see how what you are suggesting is a comprehensive solution to the likelihoods Star Trek will face.

Heh – if Mr Zimmer writes the score for the next Bond movie you can bet that elements of Barry’s original score will be in there, check “Skyfall” – I’m pretty sure I heard “DAH-DAH! DAH-DAH! DA-DAH! Dahhhhh.”

470. Marja - January 9, 2014

Soo, duncan, are you saying that Giacchino can’t use cues and themes from his own previous score in new scores for the ST Reboots?

I mean, I did not think of Giacchino’s score for ST.09 as a new franchise score AT ALL; only after STiD when I heard it reprised did I see what they were thinking, and I felt disappointed.

I wasn’t disappointed at all, EXCEPT that I was disappointed with the note-by-note recreation of large parts of the score. There were THEMES that should be re-used, but …. [sigh[

471. Marja - January 9, 2014

435 Herbert, Also, re: red matter Spock being pussy-whipped: I just call ‘em like I see ‘em… and it’s still the best description I can think of… ;-)

So let’s see, you’re a Sexist PigDog then? B/c only a sexist pigdog uses a term like that to describe mutual respect in an equal relationship, i.e., Spock and Uhura. ;-)

472. Marja - January 9, 2014

436 duncan, Well I like Giacchino and am not making an argument for replacing him unless he’s stuck, where Star Trek is concerned, and I see no reason to think he is. I think he probably did what he was asked to do for STiD, and if a new director wants a new theme, I see no reason why Giacchino would be unable to supply one.

Ah, so our opinions are not that far apart.

473. Marja - January 9, 2014

445 duncan, And I didn’t love much else about it, but the Goldsmiths smithed some real gold for Star Trek Voyager with that epic opening theme. That is still one of my favorite Star Trek themes ever. I used to tune in to Voyager JUST for about 5 minutes, until the title theme had finished. I always changed channels wishing the rest of that show matched the aspiration of its opening theme.

We are DEFINITELY in agreement there. The opening visuals were also something to write home about :-) … but that was it!

474. Marja - January 9, 2014

452 Ahmed, The Chinese have had a most unfortunate influence on the “intelligence” of Trek, loving as they do Earth destructo sequences, relentless action, need I go on. Nearly everything wrong with AU Trek comes from these influences.

Heck, back in the day when I heard the Chines were going to control the finances of the US one day I never imagined they would start in Hollywood, LOL

475. Aurore - January 9, 2014

“@466

Ah, you are time traveling poster here, responding in advance I see to your future posts 1567 and 1571 that you will post here in two weeks, or in your case, 10 minutes ago.

Cool !!!”

___________

It is good to see someone behaving in a classy manner toward me despite my “time travelling ways”.

I appreciate that.

Rendez-vous in two weeks (or 10 minutes ago), then ?

:)

476. Disinvited - January 9, 2014

#465 Aurore

Wait, are you and MJ really saying that in the throws of passion the French exclaim things in French that sound like “Less space! Less aliens! More Earth! More violence!’ in English?

“Ooo! La ! La!” – Chevalier

;-)

477. Cygnus-X1 - January 9, 2014

461. Red Dead Ryan – January 8, 2014
Cygnus – X1,

—Your recent posts prove my point about your attitude towards Bob. Here you go again trying to tear him down again, and questioning his sincerity.—

Here we go again with your nonsense.

Your “point” is nonsense. You don’t have a point.

We all, yourself included, responded to his previous comment about Trekkies being a deterrant as though it was a serious comment. We all had quite a lengthy discussion about it. Nobody thought that he was “keeeding” at the time. It seems to me that his last comment to I am Herbert was also serious. But I was wrong about the one before that. Hence my proviso. And I think everyone’s probably still a bit confused about it, yourself included. So, if you’d like to explain that joke to me, that would be something worthwhile that you could do. But I don’t think that you can. And who’s “tearing him down?” I was agreeing with what he said to I am Herbert. You’re just confused and obsessed with telling other people what to say. Let people express themselves, dude. Stop trying to oppress opinions that you don’t agree with.

478. Cygnus-X1 - January 9, 2014

I will be more magnanimous to Bob, if it will shut you up:

Bob Orci, I would like to reiterate that you deserve credit for the alt universe premise, which was a risky move that you made work as a premise for Trek stories. There were other problems with the movies beyond the alt universe premise, but no need to restate those with Red Dead Ryan as disturbed as he already is about it.

Hope this will mollify you too, MJ. Somehow I get the impression that you don’t mind if I repeat my opinions, so long as those opinions are praiseful of Bob, BR and their Trek movies. So, there you have it. I will also admit that your last comment was funny.

479. Aurore - January 9, 2014

“…in the throws of passion the French exclaim things in French that sound like ‘Less space! Less aliens! More Earth! More violence!’ in English?
‘Ooo! La ! La!’ – Chevalier”

;-)

________

We’re talkative and…”kinky” like that.

Some of us go so far as to exclaim things in French that sound like; ” More Hispanics!…Mmmmmm….Oh…no, wait ! No…..mmmmm…more British actors to portray ‘ethnic’ characters!….yes, yes, yes…… YES!!!!!!!!!!… ” in English.

480. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

A couple of links to note about how women were depicted in film in 2013 —

http://www.upworthy.com/a-glimpse-at-how-the-media-treated-women-this-year-is-a-look-at-way-too-many-cringe-worthy-moments-aa3-5c-2?g=2&c=bl3

481. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

The list of the ten films that passed the Bechdel test is sad … Dd anybody see even one of them?

http://tribecafilm.com/features/10-films-that-passed-the-bechdel-test-2013

482. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

@469. Marja,
” if Mr Zimmer writes the score for the next Bond movie you can bet that elements of Barry’s original score will be in there, check “Skyfall” – I’m pretty sure I heard “DAH-DAH! DAH-DAH! DA-DAH! Dahhhhh.”

Yes, but that is the 007 brand theme. Dmduncan already stated correctly that like Bond, Star Trek already has a theme too — a good and memorable one written by Alexander Courage. In fact it has two relevant themes, the second by Goldsmith (whose orchestrator was coincidentally A. Courage). Nobody is suggesting THOSE main themes cannot be re-used. “Enterprising Young Men” is a sub-theme for a particular film, not a franchise theme. I will say that Barry recycled many of his minor themes from film to film as well, but he is more responsible for a sound, one which Giacchino masterfully copied for the Incredibles (even without specific themes) — which if I didn’t know better would have said Barry wrote himself. But I’ll bet you none of those actual memorable minor Barry themes have been re-used in any of the recent films.

The main difference with the STID score seems to be that the themes were reused wholesale, as if they were lifted from ST09 and merely cut into the new film. John Williams is an excellent comparison here for the Star Wars scores, while themes were obviously re-used, they were adapted in new fresh ways that kept them interesting and compelling from film to film. Williams pushed the envelope for himself, and it paid off in three brilliantly distinct film scores. I don’t get the same impression from Giacchino’s scores.

483. I am not Herbert - January 9, 2014

458. boborci: “441. bull shit. no one thought it would work. your revisionist hsitory sucks.”

well, it’s MY history, anyway… i was SO optimistic that i bought a nu-trek science tunic on spec…

…now it makes me ashamed (that i own it) =(

FYI: when i say: we were ALL optimistic… i mean trek fans, not gen.public

i CERTAINLY had misgivings, but i was DEFINITELY optimistic =D

484. I am not Herbert - January 9, 2014

re: Bechdel test: interesting… ;-)

the only movies on that list that i’ve HEARD ABOUT, let alone seen, are:

The Heat & Kick-Ass 2

good to know, at least, that there are such movies… =)

485. Marja - January 9, 2014

481 Curious, The main difference with the STID score seems to be that the themes were reused wholesale, as if they were lifted from ST09 and merely cut into the new film.

And I’m not crazy about that. I’m just saying I like certain of the themes and feel fine with those being repeated. I think that’s okay for three films, as a “trilogy,” and I think that’s what BR was going for. I feel MG cheated us a little in STiD but I don’t feel he should jettison the motifs for each character / Enterprise.

486. Marja - January 9, 2014

I’m trying [not so well] to say I’d like to hear the themes for a few bars with variations coming in for each movie.

487. Marja - January 9, 2014

482 Curious, see, I think that AU Trek kind of IS a “new” franchise. It pays some respects to the original [and to A. Courage's theme] … but you will see from many commenters here that it veers too far off course for their taste. Musically, I’m reasnnably happy, but with the caveats above.

488. Marja - January 9, 2014

Herbert, re: Bechdel test: interesting… ;-) the only movies on that list that i’ve HEARD ABOUT, let alone seen, are: The Heat & Kick-Ass 2 good to know, at least, that there are such movies… =)

Well, this is quite advanced of you, in spite of your use of objectionable terminology like “pussy-whipped.”

Don’t you think that term is demeaning of women, since you feel their equality in a relationship “demeans” men? That they are not fully men if they share power in a relationship with a woman?

489. Marja - January 9, 2014

Curious, I’d love to know which ten movies are listed, my flash player isn’t working at the moment. Would you mind listing them?

490. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

@484. Marja,
“I think that’s okay for three films, as a “trilogy,” and I think that’s what BR was going for. I feel MG cheated us a little in STiD but I don’t feel he should jettison the motifs for each character / Enterprise.”

I don’t disagree. In fact I think we were cheated by Leonard Rosenman’s horrible TVH score, which should have been Horner’s to complete the trilogy.

And yes, by all means MG should keep the the appropriate themes he created for ST09, but he needs to do more than just cut and paste the orchestrations from one movie into another. THAT is a TV mentality which is a convention of necessity, especially during the TOS years. But feature film installments are two-hours every 3-4 years. They deserve more care and craftsmanship than a one-hour TV episode every week. I would argue that this is what comes of taking on too many projects at once — they all suffer.

Think about it … if Abrams has temped in “Enterprising Young Men” in STID, and an extremely busy MG gets to that scene, and everybody’s happy with what’s in the temp, where is the incentive to improve it? In a lot of ways, the score mirrors what happened in the film. Abrams reprised several iconic scenes from the first film, most notably the Enterprise rising out of the clouds of Titan, which is duplicated twice in STID. Did Abrams improve upon it, or did he just reprise the scene virtually “note for note”? I would argue the latter.

491. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

@487 Marja —

1. Blue Jasmine (which I only know about because it has been nominated for a SAG award)
2. Frances Ha
3. Kick Ass 2
4. Blue is the Warmest Color
5. The Heat
6. Before Midnight
7. Expecting
8. The Counselor
9. The Bling Ring
10. Enough Said

492. Stephan - January 9, 2014

@I am not Herbert:

I have got an honest question to you without being polemic: What is the goal of your posts, what are you trying to achive? I get that you have problems with Abrams version of trek. Every posting to every article shows that. So why are you doing this? Do you want to be productive? Do you want to change something? That would be something I can understand. But somehow I get the impression that you just want to spread negativity. If that is your purpose, then I would like to know why? I mean, if you really don’t like the actual version of trek, why bother yourself by reading every article about it and even post. If you feel uncomfortable you could do something more delightful in your free time, couldn’t you? I really don’t want to bash you. I just don’t know why you are posting so often just to say you feel uncomfortable about everything here.

Stephan

493. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

@472. Marja,
“445 duncan, And I didn’t love much else about it, but the Goldsmiths smithed some real gold for Star Trek Voyager with that epic opening theme….We are DEFINITELY in agreement there.”

I would agree that the theme was one of Goldsmith’s best. But I thought it was woefully misplaced on Voyager, yet another of that series’ problems. Voyager was more appropriate for Deep Space 9, which had a similar stately theme, suitable for an impressive fixed object rotating in space.

Voyager needed and ACTION theme, much like Enterprise needed an ACTION theme rather than the most popular grocery store music in history. Voyager needed a driving TMP theme like TNG got. Instead it got the STV, Shatner shows off his rock climbing skills in picturesque Yosemite, treatment.

494. Stephan - January 9, 2014

There are some big movies in the “bechdel – List” from big directors like woody allen, sophia coppola, ridley scott, etc.

“Blue is the warmest color” is an oscar candidate with already a few awards received.
“Before Midnight” is the great conclusion to the trilogy with and from Ethan Hawke and Julie Delply. And “Kick Ass 2″ is… well “Kick Ass 2″ ;)

495. Mike Barnett - January 9, 2014

458. boborci

This Trekkie knew ST09 was going to be the first B I G feature film since TMP. I remember saying that Trek was finally in great hands because JJ and the Kurtzman/Orci team were involved.

I assume you are referring to worries about the general audience buying into NuTrek….especially because you all were given a big budget and with that comes the pressure to deliver. In my mind ST09 did just that. I also am standing by my own personal feelings that STID was the best Trek feature to-date. STID isn’t perfect but I will say these two movies have made it difficult to watch all the old ones…even the Holy Grail Star Trek II. With the exception of TMP, all the OldTrek movies feel and look like big budget TV shows instead of big budget features.

My college-aged kids (non Trekkies, by the way) and their friends laugh at OldTrek and refuse to watch them but they will sit down and watch NuTrek. I’m sure the Trek producers are aware of this as part of their research.

I’m a 56 yr old charter member of Trekkie-dom. Been hooked since 9/8/66. NuTrek has revived our dead franchise for the new generation.

My fellow Trekkies can call be a brown-noser if they wish, but I am thankful that JJ, Bob, Alex & friends raised Trek from the dead. I hope they can eventually bring Trek full circle to where it belongs…TV.

496. I am not Herbert - January 9, 2014

490. Stephan: re: “What is the goal of your posts…” thx for the question =)

i have addressed this here before, so i won’t go into depth…

basically, I am here because I LOVE STAR TREK! =D

i don’t want to dump on nu-trek necessarily, BUT i do want to give my input…

(hoping to help improve, or replace w/ something better… ;-))

497. Stephan - January 9, 2014

@I am not Herbert:

Thanks for clarification. I have asked because sometimes you sound a little bit like you just want to dump new trek. Maybe you could concentrate on constructive arguments a little bit more. Because sometimes one can get the impression you want to be negative for the sake of it. And then I ask myself: “is this a fan or just a troll?”. Maybe you can as well be a little bit less melodramatic in your posts.

Finally it sounds sometimes like bob can do what he want, he won’t be able to satisfy you. So if you have constructive input for boborci please write him. But if I were him, I wouldn’t listen to someone who says that I already did everything wrong and I should reboot everything.

Thanks for reading,

Stephan

498. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

@492. Stephan,
“There are some big movies in the “bechdel – List” from big directors like woody allen, sophia coppola, ridley scott, etc.”

“Big” is a relative term. Doesn’t mean many people have seen nor heard of them.

“Blue is the warmest color” ranked 178 at the domestic box office. “Before Midnight” ranked 131. And “Kick Ass 2″ was ranked at 90, earning only $28,000 in North America.

499. Stephan - January 9, 2014

I didn’t mean “big” in term of box office numbers. In that case you could consider “Transformers” as big and “Shawshank Redemption” as small, which earned 28m $.

I was talking about “big” movies in terms of quality. In that case “Shawshank Redemption” holds #1 by imdb rating with a 9.3 rating and Transformers only has a 6.3 rating.

500. MJ - January 9, 2014

“I don’t disagree. In fact I think we were cheated by Leonard Rosenman’s horrible TVH score, which should have been Horner’s to complete the trilogy.”

I love Rosenman’s TVH score. His score was perfect for that unusual story, and would not have worked with “a normal” Trek movie.

We disagree again, cc. I know we are both shocked. ;-)

501. MJ - January 9, 2014

“Blue is the warmest color” ranked 178 at the domestic box office.”

I thought is ranked 69th?

502. MJ - January 9, 2014

Stephan, I used to get angry and try to “fight” Herbert. Eventually though, I just came to realize that he is just kind of a “class clown” sort of person, who is harmless, and actually not a bad guy…even though I still think he is full of shit on some topics. :-)

=================================
492. Stephan – January 9, 2014
@I am not Herbert:

I have got an honest question to you without being polemic: What is the goal of your posts, what are you trying to achive? I get that you have problems with Abrams version of trek. Every posting to every article shows that. So why are you doing this? Do you want to be productive? Do you want to change something? That would be something I can understand. But somehow I get the impression that you just want to spread negativity. If that is your purpose, then I would like to know why? I mean, if you really don’t like the actual version of trek, why bother yourself by reading every article about it and even post. If you feel uncomfortable you could do something more delightful in your free time, couldn’t you? I really don’t want to bash you. I just don’t know why you are posting so often just to say you feel uncomfortable about everything here.

Stephan

503. Curious Cadet - January 9, 2014

@499. Stephan,
“I was talking about “big” movies in terms of quality. In that case “Shawshank Redemption” holds #1 by imdb rating with a 9.3 rating and Transformers only has a 6.3 rating.”

Oh I figured. But that’s what’s disappointing about that list. “Blue Is The Warmest Color” has an 8.3 rating on IMDB, with only 93 user reviews (which also happens to match the professional critics ranking), yet in 10 weeks it only made about $7 million worldwide. So the people who would benefit the most from a movie where women are presented in a positive light, didn’t see it. The fact it’s NC-17 didn’t help.

My point is, where are the top grossing, highly rated movies which everybody sees that pass the Bechdel test?

504. I am not Herbert - January 9, 2014

…not a “class clown”, BUT I AM, shall we say: ECCENTRIC? =D

(relatively speaking… ;-))

thanks for tolerating me, MJ (et al) =)

some of my best friends are full of shit! LOL! =D

but I WILL admit to feeling gratified, if i can “make a strong point” ;-)

505. Phil - January 9, 2014

@497. Some people, you just have to ignore. Bob could be saving kittens from the jaws of snarling pit bulls or catching babies being tossed out of a burning apartment, and Herbert would be bitching about it. There’s a small group of people who view any exercise in creativity around Trek as blasphemous to TOS and/or Roddenberry. It’s a shame, actually, because to remain vital the product does need to be upgraded, and Trek needed the new blood….constantly bitching that New Trek is just horrible accomplishes nothing. Different, yes. Horrible, no.

506. dmduncan - January 9, 2014

470. Marja – January 9, 2014

No. What disappointed me about hearing Enterprising Young Men for STiD is that the repetition made me think they (the producers) are now thinking of that as the new franchise theme, and I wish they wouldn’t.

I love it, and that’s why I want to protect it from the numbness that comes from experiencing it’s overuse.

Yes, I realize it’s only the second movie, but if that is their thinking then it will be back for the third movie, and then the fourth, and if a new TV show comes around, then we might hear it for 200 episodes like what happened with Goldsmith’s TMP theme.

I’m a strong believer in NEW beautiful theme music for each new movie, just like we get great new songs at the beginning of every James Bond movie. Those JB songs are something to look forward to about them; I would similarly like to look forward to a customized theme for each new Star Trek movie.

I wouldn’t make this argument if these Star Trek movies were episodes in one big story, like Star Wars or LOTR or Nolan’s Batman or The Godfather, but they are much more like James Bond movies than those.

And we keep hearing the Star Trek theme in these new movies anyway—the same one that has identified the franchise for 50 years.

I strongly believe that a movie’s theme should reflect the emotion of the story and unless you are doing the same story, then it’s not going to fit as well or give the audience what they deserve.

I think you are really missing something important by going cheapskate on the theme music.

507. I am not Herbert - January 9, 2014

i DID like Zoro! =)

…and this one episode of Fringe was REALLY GOOD: the “shadow” guy, who killed people by touching them…? =)

who doesn’t love kittens!! =D

also, I KNOW it is not all boborci’s fault… BUT he IS responsible to a LARGE extent… =(

and PLEASE… don’t act like there’s nothing to bitch about… COME ON!!

508. dmduncan - January 9, 2014

479. Aurore – January 9, 2014

Hi Aurore!

509. Andorian - January 9, 2014

LOL, MJ. LOL

501. MJ – January 9, 2014
“Blue is the warmest color” ranked 178 at the domestic box office.”

I thought it ranked 69th?

510. Red Dead Ryan - January 9, 2014

“Enterprising Young Men” is clearly the theme for the BR movies. Once BR is done, I really doubt that Paramount will keep using the theme, since it means paying Michael Giacchino royalties if he does depart with BR.

They have to continually pay the estates of Jerry Goldsmith and Alexander Courage already.

EYM is never going to replace the Courage theme.

511. MJ - January 9, 2014

““Enterprising Young Men” is clearly the theme for the BR movies.”

Yea, in fact, I was relieved to hear it again as the main theme for STID. Why would they want to change it after just one movie? These aren’t indie films.

512. MJ - January 9, 2014

@509

We may not agree on much, but I am glad to see that someone got my joke. :-)

513. MJ - January 9, 2014

…incidentally, that is one of the worst movies I have seen in recent years. Completely boring, and even the love scenes weren’t that interesting.

514. dmduncan - January 9, 2014

510. Red Dead Ryan – January 9, 2014

EYM is never going to replace the Courage theme.

***

I agree. That’s also why I distinguish between a FRANCHISE theme and a MOVIE theme. Courage’s music has been so often repeated that it really serves as a franchise theme. Why you’d want a new MOVIE theme for a new MOVIE is a question that answers itself, really.

There’s no way I’d direct a movie I’d be proud to have my name on using recycled theme music. To me it’s a no-brainer. I wouldn’t recycle theme music any more than I’d recycle special effects.

TV shows did that sort of thing to save costs, so you’d get recycled music and recycled special effects from episode to episode. But TV shows are free and movies I pay to see, and if I’m paying for them I expect more from them.

515. dmduncan - January 9, 2014

Of the movies I saw in 2013, I thought Marco Beltrami’s score for The Wolverine was tops. Outstanding music.

516. I am not Herbert - January 9, 2014

yeah, actually Wolverine was NOT BAD… =)

517. Phil - January 9, 2014

Not to sure I’m understanding the disdain being directed toward movie themes. Mention Star Wars, Jaws, Godfather, James Bond and the themes pop into your head immediately. Music can be a powerful identifier of the brand, it would be foolish to abandon a theme because you don’t want to be identified as recycled.

518. MJ - January 9, 2014

“There’s no way I’d direct a movie I’d be proud to have my name on using recycled theme music. To me it’s a no-brainer. I wouldn’t recycle theme music any more than I’d recycle special effects.”

One person’s recycled is another persons sentimental attachment to the characters and title associated with music. I hope the MG is around for the next movie, and I hope to see some of what you called “the recycling” going on. I love it!

519. MJ - January 9, 2014

“Not to sure I’m understanding the disdain being directed toward movie themes. Mention Star Wars, Jaws, Godfather, James Bond and the themes pop into your head immediately. Music can be a powerful identifier of the brand, it would be foolish to abandon a theme because you don’t want to be identified as recycled.”

Phil, EXACTLY !!!!!

520. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

518. MJ – January 9, 2014

And unfortunately you are probably going to get what you want. It’s cheaper than ordering all new compositions, and after STiD I can’t say that giving each movie a strong emotional identity is on their To-Do list.

I’m actually wasting time writing things on Trekmovie that will have no effect. I shouldn’t be doing it.

521. Marja - January 10, 2014

Herbert,

Since you’re hanging around the board, please answer my question at #488. If you want to be taken the slightest bit seriously by me, stop using insulting language regarding women.

I thought that as a “spiritual” person you might be a bit more considerate of others. I am disappointed in you.

If you don’t care about being decent to women, I can stop reading your posts right along with lots of other people. Perhaps you like tearing down women, in addition to Bob Orci?

522. Stephan - January 10, 2014

@I am not herbert:

“BUT I AM, shall we say: ECCENTRIC? =D ”

Sounds like a profile neurosis. That is treatable.

523. Red Dead Ryan - January 10, 2014

Herbert belongs in the mental institute on Elba II. :-)

524. Captain Slow - January 10, 2014

I don’t think they should abandon the EYM theme. It was actually less repetitive than when James Horner reused the TWOK theme for TSFS.

The only thing I would say is that since Kirk has changed and developed the music should as well. It should still be similar but not exactly the same.

But in STID it wasn’t exactly the same as in ST09. Some things were recycled such as in Kirk Enterprises, and that was a little annoying. But I can forgive those small things because there was also Warp Core Values which is my favorite piece of music ever.

Regarding boborci’s comment about work on the movie starting whole hog, does that mean the actual script? If so, keep in mind what you said in the Mission Log podcast: The movie should be unpredictable and include as many new elements as possible, it should be a sci-fi mystery, and focus more on the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship.

I’d also like to add my own suggestions. Have original action sequences and spectacle moments. The space-jump and rising Enterprise scenes were new in 2009. Not so much in 2013 (although I liked the rising shots in STID better). One of the reasons people loved them was because they were different. This movie should have imaginative new scenes as well. You’re the writer so I’ll let you figure out what they can be. Just remember that it’s the 50th anniversary, the movie should be a classic.

525. Aurore - January 10, 2014

@508.

Hi, dmduncan!
I hope you are well. Happy New Year to you!

526. Aurore - January 10, 2014

(Belated) Happy New Year, everyone!

527. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

524. Captain Slow – January 10, 2014

Oh I can’t believe you see the importance of keeping that brassy Enterprising Young Men theme ringing in audience’s ears for the forseeable future, while complaining about STiD’s repetition of a space jump scene and a rising out of stuff scene.

Obviously the next movie needs more of ALL those things, not less.

AND—AAAAND—a Spock gets mad and performs feats of superhero strength and/or athleticism scene.

I did not even briefly mean to imply by not mentioning it FIRST that if is any less important to have a Spock-gets-mad-and-performs-feats-of-superhero-strength-and/or-athleticism scene than it is to turn Enterprising Young Men into a form of tinnitus…

Or than to have a new space-jump-scene…

Or a new rising-out-of-stuff scene (in the next movie, of course).

Bottom line: MORE OF THE SAME, PLEASE; let’s not go all off half cocked here with this nonsensical request for originality by a marginal few fans when the formula is working so well.

Star Trek may get made fun of, but we DO have a nose for the stale and the future-stale, and we outnumber the two or three malcontents here who always want something FRESH and EXCITING (??? WTF???).

So, Bob, just remember: Stale means safe, and safety sells.

528. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

525. Aurore – January 10, 2014

Happy New Year to you as well!!! :-)

Also, I published it since you’ve been away. You wanted to read it, so here it is (I hope you like!):

http://thedoomsdaydiet.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/star-trek-a-crowning-sea-of-stars/

529. Ahmed - January 10, 2014

@527. dmduncan

“Bottom line: MORE OF THE SAME, PLEASE; let’s not go all off half cocked here with this nonsensical request for originality by a marginal few fans when the formula is working so well.”

LOL, indeed. In addition to what you mentioned, we must admit that we all want to see these things AGAIN, right ? :)

The Enterprise to be outgunned by a BIG BLACK SPACESHIP

The villain is an uplifted whale looking for REVENGE!
[For more info on Uplifted animals, please check Starfleet library for David Brin works ]

Kirk must be relieved of command in the first 30 minutes of the movie & later to be reinstated.

Kirk in a foursome!
[He was with one in ST09, with 2 in STID]

Spock & Uhura fight during a crucial mission inside the The Romulan Star Empire

“Star Trek may get made fun of, but we DO have a nose for the stale and the future-stale, and we outnumber the two or three malcontents here who always want something FRESH and EXCITING (??? WTF???).”

Agreed. I love going to movie theaters & pay $16 to watch a movie just to get a sense of déjà vu. It is a very comforting feeling, to see something so familiar!

530. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

529. Ahmed – January 10, 2014

Agreed. I love going to movie theaters & pay $16 to watch a movie just to get a sense of déjà vu. It is a very comforting feeling, to see something so familiar!

***

Ahmed, EXACTLY !!!!!

531. Curious Cadet - January 10, 2014

@517. Phil,
“Mention Star Wars, Jaws, Godfather, James Bond and the themes pop into your head immediately. Music can be a powerful identifier of the brand”

With all due respect to everyone, nothing Giacchino has written for STID falls into that category. He’s written some solid underscore cues which serve the rebooted franchise well, but the memorable BRAND themes are simply ignored, and noing he’s written has substituted for them. And that’s no slight on Giacchino. Horner and Eidleman wrote some fantasticly memorable music for Star Trek, but their themes could not measure up to the Williams, Morriccone, and Barry themes you mention.

I also find it interesting that Abrams has focused on the iconic BRAND images, the red, blue and gold shirts, the delta isignia, the core characters, ship designs, etc., yet he’s essentially ignored the instantly recognizable music for the brand, saving it in both movies for the end titles when the audiences are stubling over each other to get out of the theater. If Abrams wants to reinforce the brand musically, he needs to avoid reinventing the wheel.

532. Captain Slow - January 10, 2014

@ 527 dmduncan

Music and action scenes are entirely different things. The main theme of a movie is something that identifies it. Remember, this is Kirk’s theme. It is linked to his character. That’s why I said that the music should keep the main theme but evolve in some way.

Also, aside from the music over the studio logos, nothing was actually recycled from the previous movie. It may have used some of the same themes but it was all specifically composed for STID.

@ 531 Curious Cadet

I wasn’t stumbling to get out the theater. I wanted to stay through the credits but then they turned on the lights and muted the sound!

533. Ahmed - January 10, 2014

Karl Urban coming to a Star Trek convention in Germany.

=========================

Karl Urban, Tim Russ Added To ‘Destination Star Trek Germany’

Two more names have been announced for the Destination Star Trek event, taking place next month in Germany. On Thursday, Karl Urban (Leonard “Bones” McCoy from Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness) and Tim Russ (Tuvok from Voyager) were added to the big European convention.

DST Germany, which is being produced in partnership with Syfy, takes place February 21-23 in Frankfurt. Previously announced guests include William Shatner, Brent Spiner, Michael Dorn, LeVar Burton, Marina Sirtis, Gates McFadden, Armin Shimerman, Rene Auberjonis, Casey Biggs, Vaughn Armstrong, Steve Rankin, and Kitty Swink.

http://www.treknews.net/2014/01/09/karl-urban-tim-russ-destination-star-trek-germany/

=========================

Did any of the new cast attended a Star Trek convention before ?

534. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

532. Captain Slow – January 10, 2014

Sir, you have incorrectly called Enterprising Young men “Kirk’s theme”; it is not! It belongs to the franchise. Also, asking that the theme evolve “in some way” not only suggests something ill-fitting about Enterprising Young Men for each new movie regardless of its story—but such a reckless suggestion, seriously taken, could over the course of the next two movies lead to an entirely different theme!

THEN where will we be?

535. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

531. Curious Cadet – January 10, 2014

I also find it interesting that Abrams has focused on the iconic BRAND images, the red, blue and gold shirts, the delta isignia, the core characters, ship designs, etc., yet he’s essentially ignored the instantly recognizable music for the brand, saving it in both movies for the end titles when the audiences are stubling over each other to get out of the theater. If Abrams wants to reinforce the brand musically, he needs to avoid reinventing the wheel.

***

Oh that makes logical sense. That’s what the Mission Impossible franchise does. But you can’t ACCUSE JJ Abrams of logical inconsistency. He’d probably either regard it as proof of his genius or not care at all.

536. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

531. Curious Cadet – January 10, 2014

But yeah—they ENDED ST.09 on Courage’s Star Trek theme. They could have STARTED STiD with it, instead of EYM, where the Enterprise is leaving Nibiru, and it would have made the same kind of branding sense you are speaking of, but this is a have your Khake and eat it too crowd making these things so it isn’t surprising that they are muddling brand identities in the music.

It’s like a company that decides to modernize their logo, but then still likes the old one so much that they hang both side by side on their building.

537. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

488. Marja: re: “…your use of objectionable terminology like “pussy-whipped.””

“Don’t you think that term is demeaning of women, since you feel their equality in a relationship “demeans” men? That they are not fully men if they share power in a relationship with a woman?”

It is a commonly used, instantly understandable term. I suppose i could say “vagina-whipped”, but that would be lame/stupid…

when a man is PW’d, he is not on equal footing. he is being manipulated using sex. the man is demeaning himself in order to have access to pussy. the woman is taking advantage of the man’s weakness.

“pussy” is not demeaning in itself:
consider the empowerment of “Pussy Riot”! =)

538. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

Pussy Riot’s Next Act: Exclusive Photos of Life After Prison

http://lightbox.time.com/2014/01/09/pussy-riots-next-act-exclusive-photos-of-life-after-prison/?iid=gs-main-photography#1

539. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

…ignoring personal attacks by pinheads: Red Dead Ryan et al ;-)

LL&P

540. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

Marja: please do not confuse being spiritual with being “milk-toast”… ;-)

yes, i could be more mindful with my words… but then they would have much less impact… ;-)

spirituality, taken to extreme, would cause me to denounce this site ;-)

I advise: MODERATION in all things… =)

541. Curious Cadet - January 10, 2014

@536. dmduncan,
“They could have STARTED STiD with it, instead of EYM, where the Enterprise is leaving Nibiru, and it would have made the same kind of branding sense you are speaking of”

I’m reminded of the opening of STV, which I recently revisited because I couldn’t recall the theme — it’s a beautiful theme by Goldsmith, but not that memorable. But, he opens it with the original prologue fanfare, followed by the TMP march, then he goes into the STV MOVIE THEME.

Now I have no problem with holding off on using the Courage theme until the new characters have ‘earned’ their place in the new films, and I didn’t disagree entirely with the approach in ST09 (though I thought they still could have hinted at what was to come with the iconic franchise brand music without leaning on it). But frankly, to repeat the exact same approach in ST09 when the characters have grown considerably, while repeating the exact same themes from the first film, in the exact same way, simply did the franchise and the brand a disservice. Yes Horner re-used themes from TWOK in STIII, but TSFS had its own unique theme. Goldsmith reused themes, but each film he did had its own identity to unify the events of that particular film. Just as did Star Wars.

The Empire Strikes back had a brilliant theme which unified the events of the entire movie and became Darth Vader’s Theme in the next film which had its own new themes to unify that story. Just as the music for “Doomsday Machine” in TOS did not re-use any of the previous underscore themes. And is quite likely the least re-used of the stock score because it was so unique to the original episode — an episode which is arguably one of the most stand-alone, and feature film-like. But the Doomsday score sounded like Trek, and it was framed by the iconic brand theme. There were other episodes that got similar preferential treatment, and this is the basis of good film scoring as well. Not only do ST09 & STID reuse many of the same themes, they also eschew the BRAND themes in favor of it’s own new franchise themes — which may or may not remain in the Trek lexicon after Abrams departs. So again, I’m not sure how this approach ultimately does the franchise overall any favors.

542. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

541. Curious Cadet – January 10, 2014

Well it may not do the franchise any favors but it certainly placates fans who get attached to things at the speed of light.

I had NO idea and I doubt anybody here had any evidence to believe that EYM would be used as a new franchise theme, so it’s hard to believe this new attachment to it in STiD formed before the movie was released.

So it’s remarkable (well not really) how quickly fans grow sedentary.

Oh well. We are on the losing side of things, I’m afraid. But that’s okay. I’ve grown apart from fandom before; I can do it again.

543. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

Here’s an idea:

Next movie opens with Spock in a shuttle crash. Weeks later when Dr. McCoy removes the bandages from Spock’s face they discover the reconstructive surgery failed. Spock now has unpointed ears, curved eyebrows, and a Justin Bieber haircut.

Hey, no reason we have to stick our borrowing to past Star Trek episodes when The Twillight Zone has such a wealth of material.

544. Phil - January 10, 2014

Gotta love editing…

http://io9.com/kirk-and-crew-derp-it-up-in-the-blooperized-star-trek-t-1498578689/@bricken

545. Ahmed - January 10, 2014

After reading that Disney created a committee to come up with a new SW canon, I’m wondering if the “research” that Bob mentioned a part of a bigger plan at BR ?

=======================================
Disney appoints a group to determine a new, official Star Wars canon

The Expanded Universe as we knew it will soon be no more. Disney has created a special committee whose job it will be to figure out what is and isn’t part of a complete Star Wars canon — meaning all the EU material created over the years will be judged, and either become official or deemed invalid.

Furthermore, this means at some point all new Star Wars spin-offs will matter, because they will all be official. I don’t know how I feel about that.

The Story Group, as its called, includes Leland Chee, who has been Lucasfilm’s “Keeper of the Holocron,” the in-house database of everything Star Wars.

http://io9.com/disney-appoints-a-group-to-determine-a-new-official-st-1497893812

=======================================

546. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

545. Ahmed: after witnessing what JJ & K/O did to nu-trek…

Disney is being QUITE PRUDENT IMHO, LOL! =D

547. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

521. Marja: if u want MY respect: please use my moniker correctly? thx =)

548. Disinvited - January 10, 2014

#526. Aurore – January 10, 2014

For a significant portion of the planet that observes Christmas which includes myself, it is not belated until after the 12th day of Christmas (January 12). So, in my book, you are clear.

Happy New Year!

#535. dmduncan – January 10, 2014

Looks like you are need me dig up that tedious article where MG tells of how JJ rejected the original score he wrote for their 2009 Trek effort and he had to go back to the drawing board.

549. Marja - January 10, 2014

537. It’s demeaning to women b/c it assumes that any man listens to a woman b/c he wants to stay with her. Not f*ck her, be with her as a partner. That’s how you were using it.

Apparently using the term “p*ssy-whipped” makes you feel empowered somehow as a man. Not “milquetoast.”

By using that expression you’re assuming that the sole value women have to men is access to their private parts. I find that offensive.

There’s a common expression women use for guys who tick them off. Note that I am not using it.

550. Marja - January 10, 2014

Duncan, equating the score with the action of the movie is ridiculous.

I want the themes. Motifs do not equal lifting entire parts of the music wholesale. I have said I like the EYM theme. It doesn’t need to be repeated note for note, orchestration for orchestration, voicing for voicing. I like the theme.

That does not equate to seeing all the same action in the next movie.

551. MJ - January 10, 2014

@DM

“Bottom line: MORE OF THE SAME, PLEASE; let’s not go all off half cocked here with this nonsensical request for originality by a marginal few fans when the formula is working so well.”

That is not a fair comment. For my part, I specifically said to keep MG on as composer, and ILM on for the special effects. Those two part of STID worked well and don’t need to the fixed. We need to have a better story, with better logic, and “better Star Trek” — that’s what needs to be fixed in next movie.

@Ahmed

“I love going to movie theaters & pay $16 to watch a movie just to get a sense of déjà vu. It is a very comforting feeling, to see something so familiar!”

I realize you are being sarcastic, but I actually do like to have feelings for franchise movies in terms of at least the look and music of the movie. So your attempt at sarcasm backfired here, my friend, as I actually agree with this statement in terms of the look and music of a franchise film.

552. Marja - January 10, 2014

533 yes, Quinto and Jacob Kogan [Spock and young Spock], and, I believe, Nimoy, attended the Las Vegas Con in 2009.

553. MJ - January 10, 2014

@550

“I want the themes. Motifs do not equal lifting entire parts of the music wholesale. I have said I like the EYM theme. It doesn’t need to be repeated note for note, orchestration for orchestration, voicing for voicing. I like the theme.”

Well said, Marja.

554. MJ - January 10, 2014

Herbert,

Just knock off the language that is insensitive to women here, please. I know you have a bunch of explanations for this, but that fact that you are causing some people discomfort here should just clue you in to just stop doing it.

555. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

549. Marja: that is ALL assumption and YOUR POV. I reject it in whole. =(

the term applies to a MAN (though it does make implication about his woman)

YOUR INTERPRETATION IS OFFENSIVE! =(

YOU ARE **MIS-REPRESENTING** ME, AND THROWING ME UNDER THE BUS… =(

(you are offended by the word “pussy”)(not how i use it…) =(

556. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

i used it as a ONE-SHOT! Marja is making it a federal case… =(

…consider it dropped… (unless Marja wants to keep ragging on it…) =(

557. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

550. Marja – January 10, 2014

I don’t know what you mean about equating score and action. I’m not aware that I did that.

And I love EYM too. It’s beautiful. Nobody ever read me say anything different. It’s a great piece of music.

558. I am not Herbert - January 10, 2014

MJ: re: insensitivity: please don’t be hypocritical, my friend? thx! =)

LL&P

559. Ahmed - January 10, 2014

@551. MJ

“I realize you are being sarcastic, but I actually do like to have feelings for franchise movies in terms of at least the look and music of the movie. So your attempt at sarcasm backfired here, my friend, as I actually agree with this statement in terms of the look and music of a franchise film.”

I wasn’t talking about the music or the look of the movies, it is the story elements that we keep seeing in the new movies.

560. Curious Cadet - January 10, 2014

@545. Ahmed,
“all the EU material created over the years will be judged, and either become official or deemed invalid.”

That’s an interesting quote. It pretty much reflects how Abrams has treated Trek. i.e. everything that happened prior to Nero’s arrival will be the same, unless Abrams wants to change it. In essence, a similar committee could have been formed for Trek where Abrams decided what would be kept and what wouldn’t.

_____________
@548. Disinvited,
“Looks like you are need me dig up that tedious article where MG tells of how JJ rejected the original score he wrote for their 2009 Trek effort and he had to go back to the drawing board.”

I see this as more of a indictment against Bad Robot anyway, not Giacchino. While MG might reduce his workload by duplicating a piece of temp score from ST09, it is Abrams who placed the temp and gave MG the direction, and ultimately (however lazy MG may or may not have been) approved the score Giacchino delivered. Abrams could have easily said, “hey Mike, that theme is a little redundant here, how about we come up with something fresh”. So at the end of the day, it’s Abrams who seems to be most comfortable reprising his greatest hits, both musically and directorally.

561. Disinvited - January 10, 2014

Well, DM my thanks to you because I found better articles this time around covering Giacchino on a lot of his projects that interested me.

Here’s what he thought going in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080202064355/http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=45151

“I think that the thing to do would be to hold on to the only thing that does speak—that says Star Trek—universally, which is the [opening theme from the original series]. To me, that fanfare, boom, that says it all right there, and this film is about everything that came before that. So, yes, I want to keep that. But everything that was done after that, it shouldn’t be about that. It needs to be about these characters now and how they met and all of these things. So it’s a very kind of specific place and time….I grew up listening to all of that great [Trek] music, and that’s part of what inspired me to do what I’m doing. So, yeah, it’s horrifying to think that I’ve got to go and stand in line with those guys. You just go in scared. You just hope you do your best. It’s one of those things where the film will tell me what to do.” – Michael Giacchino

Here’s what developed:

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/06/giacchino-different-music-style-for-characters-still-evolving/

“Quite honestly, that was the first direction we went in, and I had written several themes that were in that space opera kind of vein, somewhere between what Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams did, in that language of what we’ve all come to know as ‘space music.’ On every one of them, it felt right for a big space movie, but it didn’t feel like our movie. Again it goes back to the idea that we were trying to do something that wasn’t exactly what you had seen or heard before. We wanted to do something that was a little different. Space movies don’t have to have this sound.

J.J. always wanted to make it about the character. He’d say that the theme for this movie can’t be polished, it can’t be soaring, it has to have an almost unfinished feel in the way that Kirk is almost an unfinished character.

He’s not a finished person. He’s getting there but he’s not there. He’s a little rough around the edges. J.J. wanted something that was somewhat sad, somewhat brooding. That is clearly not what Star Trek has been in the past, or Star Wars, or anything that would normally go in that direction.

I think he was absolutely right to say what he said and it really took the music in a different direction. We are dealing with the start of the relationships with these characters that we know so well. It’s a tough beginning for them, not an easy one. Any time we did try to be too heroic or too traditional, it felt wrong, and not true to what was going on emotionally in the story.

Musically, had we gone in a direction that it had gone before, it might have felt hollow. It wouldn’t have felt like we were taking it anywhere different. I feel like it really needed to be treated differently than it has been the last ten years.” – Michael Giacchino

Here he credits Lindelof for the final musical approach:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/06/the-soundtracks-of-summer-star-trek-up-composer-michael-giacchino-has-them-covered.html

562. MJ - January 10, 2014

” it is Abrams who placed the temp and gave MG the direction”

Duh!!! He was the Director. That’s what they do. ????

LOL

563. dmduncan - January 10, 2014

560. Disinvited – January 10, 2014

Interesting. Those comments seem to solidly support the argument that the “theme” was really tailored for what was going on in ST.09, which was a very different film from STiD.

But I’m curious: No similar such interviews for what the heck they were thinking on STiD???

564. Aurore - January 10, 2014

@ 528.

Thank you, dmduncan!

As a “time travelling poster”, I am (also) very much looking forward to reading from you on the subject of the philosophy of time, someday…

(“All in good time”, I know.)

:)

Star Trek A Crowning Sea Of Stars?

I already like the title.

565. Disinvited - January 10, 2014

#563. dmduncan – January 10, 2014

Well, here’s how he felt prior to STiD:

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2011/06/giacchino-would-return-to-trek/

“It [2009's STAR TREK] was one of those things that when it ended I was like, ‘Ugh! Never again!’ But now that time has passed…” – Michael Giacchino

and I believe this [the entire article] is what you wish:

http://www.ascap.com/Playback/2013/05/wecreatemusic/fmf-michael-giacchino-on-star-trek-into-darkness.aspx

”This time it was much more relaxed, because I felt like the entire production team had settled into our version of what Star Trek is. You had so much Star Trek that came before this. How much of that do you keep? How much do you throw away? You’re also thinking all the time “Well, if I don’t use this particular thing, is somebody going to be mad?” Because it has such a huge fanbase. But in the end, you just had to do what was best for that story. Once that struggle was over and we got into this next film, I felt much more at home. I just sat down and I knew the world that we were working with, and I was able to expand on it from there. It was a nice experience.” – Michael Giacchino

566. Ahmed - January 10, 2014

Helix debuts tonight on Syfy at 10pm EST.

========================
Helix: TV Review

Created and written by Cameron Porsandeh, Helix comes from a fine brain trust of executive producers: Ronald D. Moore (Battlestar Galactica), Lynda Obst (Contact) and Steven Maeda (Lost, The X-Files).

So, despite the ease with which many of these ambitious ideas go sideways, there’s certainly faith in those behind the curtain to pull something off that’s thrilling and more than just a version of Outbreak that doesn’t deserve a third hour.

………

The first two hours go at a brisk, thrilling pace that allows for character development as well. A lot happens and there’s a desire for more. The question for Helix will be whether the self-contained nature can keep breeding stories over time.

There are hints that things are bigger than they appear, of course, and so Helix could move its environs and expand its world. Or, like Battlestar Galactica, it can thrive on the claustrophobia and fear of something remote with peril afoot.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/syfys-helix-tv-review-669808

567. MJ - January 10, 2014

“Star Trek A Crowning Sea Of Stars?”

Except that we already have the “Star Trek: A Flag Full of Stars” novel from “The Lost Years” series of novels.

568. Captain Slow - January 10, 2014

@ 534 dmduncan

Michael Giacchino specifically said on the music featurette on the ST09 DVD/Blu-ray that it was the theme for Kirk and the Enterprise.

What I meant by evolve is that Kirk is maturing, so the music shouldn’t remain identical, but should still be recognizable. Sort of like in STID where other parts of the theme were expanded on.

I’m not sure why you want them to get rid of the theme if you like it so much. You say that you don’t want it to become old and boring, but in my opinion it will only become like that if the only way to hear it is with the tracks we’ve heard many times in the first two movies. If it is used creatively in the coming movies, won’t the theme always feel fresh?

569. MJ - January 11, 2014

“I’m not sure why you want them to get rid of the theme if you like it so much. You say that you don’t want it to become old and boring…”

Which is odd for DM to say, because’s his very cool Star Trek screenplay that DM himself wrote uses a 40 year old Rolling Stones song to open the movie???

Do any of us really ever get bored with listening to the classic Gimme Shelter Stone’s song? I certainly don’t. And similarly, I don’t anticipate getting bored anytime soon with MG’s EYM main theme for the JJ-Trek movies. Same deal.

570. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

567. MJ – January 10, 2014

Except that we already have the “Star Trek: A Flag Full of Stars” novel from “The Lost Years” series of novels.

***

Which I was not aware of and have never read. In fact, I haven’t read a single Star Trek fan fic novel ever.

And I don’t know if that one does, but my title has a meaning, and I’m aware of it. I didn’t pull the name out of a hat. It expresses a particular idea/thought that Pike even references in my story.

571. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

568. Captain Slow – January 10, 2014

I know what you mean. ;-)

“I’m not sure why you want them to get rid of the theme if you like it so much. You say that you don’t want it to become old and boring, but in my opinion it will only become like that if the only way to hear it is with the tracks we’ve heard many times in the first two movies. If it is used creatively in the coming movies, won’t the theme always feel fresh?”

Well I’ve seen ST.0.9 more than a dozen times already, and how anyone can insist that it’s “fresh” on the 12th hearing as it was on the first is mystery to me. Using that word literally, no, it isn’t as fresh. So when I hear it AGAIN at the start of STiD, “fresh” is not the word that comes to mind.

Apart from that, everything I’ve read DOES point to EYM as being a new FRANCHISE theme, and if you really want to understand where I’m coming from you have to understand the distinction I and a few others make between a MOVIE theme and a FRANCHISE theme.

What Jerry Goldsmith wrote for TMP was a MOVIE theme that turned into a FRANCHISE theme, and in so doing it lost some of its specialness through extreme repetition.

But even if EYM isn’t repeated until we’re begging for it to stop, 1. It still DOESN’T fit as a franchise theme, and I think Michael Giacchino even implies that in his comments about how they came up with it re that it was crafted around a particular story about how Kirk and Spock come together, and since that story is going to change then the music written for that idea will not remain relevant, and 2. Star Trek already has something that instantly identifies the brand and has done so for 50 years and which Giacchino’s score can’t compete with as far as recognizability—a lesson they can learn from the Mission Impossible movies.

In short, EYM is a beautiful MOVIE theme that doesn’t fit so well as a FRANCHISE theme, which they are trying to press it into service as.

I love EYM, that’s why I DON’T want to keep hearing it in every movie. You guys love it too, and that’s why you DO want to keep hearing it.

572. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

569. MJ – January 11, 2014

Which is odd for DM to say, because’s his very cool Star Trek screenplay that DM himself wrote uses a 40 year old Rolling Stones song to open the movie???

***

Well thanks MJ but that song is not the theme of the “movie.” I picked that song for a number of reasons that just so nicely overlapped regarding my goals: It has probably the best intro of any rock song ever, the lyrics were relevant to the scene, it ties the “movie” to the present and gives us something familiar to relate to, and it helps to establish the Earthies Klingon subculture.

ACoS would definitely have needed its own theme music, and probably something beautiful written to express what’s going on between Kirk and Uhura.

And you can’t pop Gimme Shelter anywhere in any movie and get the same result which is also why EYM, written for what was happening in a particular movie, is not necessarily transferable in spirit to all future Star Trek movies this team makes.

573. Curious Cadet - January 11, 2014

Interesting NPR article on race-bending.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/01/11/261449394/who-gets-to-be-a-superhero-race-and-identity-in-comics?sc=ipad&f=1001

574. Curious Cadet - January 11, 2014

@568. Captain Slow,
“Michael Giacchino specifically said on the music featurette on the ST09 DVD/Blu-ray that it was the theme for Kirk and the Enterprise.”

And what I have to say to that is, what a cop-out. Seriously, the theme is for Kirk AND the Enterprise? With few exceptions doesn’t almost every scene include Kirk and/or the Enterprise? So that’s pretty much the entire movie, except where they decide to shift the focus onto another character. I mean really, Kirk and the Enterprise pretty much ARE the FRANCHISE.

575. Curious Cadet - January 11, 2014

What if movie posters got Amazon one-star reviews … Pretty funny on STID

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/10/movie-posters-one-star-amazon-reviews_n_4574149.html?ref=topbar

576. I am not Herbert - January 11, 2014

MJ: re: Gimme Shelter: I recommend the goth version by Sisters of Mercy =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa1CdcMx_G4

577. Aurore - January 11, 2014

“…Except that we already have the ‘Star Trek: A Flag Full of Stars’ novel from ‘The Lost Years’ series of novels.”
_________

“We” do?

:)

In order to understand why, I, personally, was not aware of and have never read ”Star Trek: A Flag Full of Stars”…it’s “time travelling” time!

(…Only for the fellow Star Trek fans who are so inclined, evidently. Posts 114,124, 144.) :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/10/12/unconfirmed-rumor-orci-talked-to-cbs-about-trek-tv-show/

578. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

576. I am not Herbert – January 11, 2014

Cool version. It sounds like Klingons are singing it.

579. I am not Herbert - January 11, 2014

dmduncan: heh! yeah, he’s got some foreboding gruff in his voice… ;-)

Sisters of Mercy RULE! =)

580. I am not Herbert - January 11, 2014

Curious Cadet: heh! pretty funny! (i did a one-star review of STID!) =D

581. Marja - January 11, 2014

555 I am not Herbert, Marja: that is ALL assumption and YOUR POV. I reject it in whole. =( the term applies to a MAN (though it does make implication about his woman) Look, Herbert, I worked in a field surrounded by men. I very well know what a man means when he uses that term. It means he despises/feels sorry for a man who listens to a woman and takes her opinions on board. The implications the term makes about both of them are offensive. [a] the man is a weakling. [b] the woman wields the incredible power of P*ssy to get her man to do what she wants. I.e., man is helpless in the face of his own sexual desires. Awww, poor lil’ thing. For once the traditional balance of power in male/female relationships is turned on its head, if you’ll pardon the pun.
YOUR INTERPRETATION IS OFFENSIVE! =( YOU ARE **MIS-REPRESENTING** ME, AND THROWING ME UNDER THE BUS… =( Well, Herbert, you may go ahead and lie there; I didn’t put you there, you put yourself there by the use of an offensive term used by men to assert their “group superiority” – meaning, “if I was him I wouldn’t take that shit from my woman! I’m stronger than he is!” and all the other guys sagely nod their heads in agreement about how superior they are. (you are offended by the word “pussy”)(not how i use it…) =( No, I am not at all offended by the word pussy. I often call my cats that. I also like Pussy Riot for taking the term and turning it on its head. Surely you’re aware that men use that term regarding women in a very objective fashion. “MMMmmman can’t wait to get me some of that pussy.” I AM offended at the WAY YOU — and many other men — USE IT.
Re your 556, Your plea is falling on deaf ears here. A federal case? That is what many of the men here said the last time feminists spoke up on this site. You “used it as a one-shot,” and I called you on it. Deal with it. Using the term in the way you did, jocular or no, was offensive. And, oh, ‘ “ragging” on it’? Beware of using that term with a pis*sed-off woman. I’m done talking about it, you don’t get what I’ve been saying at all, and at this point further arguing with you would be like teaching a pig to sing. It’s impossible and it only frustrates the pig.

In short, “Herbert” symbolized the Establishment. Yes. You. Are. Herbert.

582. Marja - January 11, 2014

557 duncan, I probably should have addressed my remark to ahmed’s 529 in which he made a satrical “outline” of the next movie … with which you agreed at 530. Seemed to me you guys were equating the re-use of music with the duplication of action.

583. Marja - January 11, 2014

564 Aurore, duncan gave us a link to a screenplay he would have proposed for Star Trek 2 in lieu of STiD. The title is great, and unlike MJ, I think it is a good one, despite the name of a ST novel being similar. I had it bookmarked, but my web browser seems to have deleted my bookmark!

Perhaps dmduncan will post his link again. It was a rippin’ good story.

584. Captain Slow - January 11, 2014

@ 571 dmduncan

The TMP theme was used nearly 200 times because of TNG. The ST09 theme has been used in two movies. That’s a massive difference.

Also, you missed my point about it being fresh. I was trying to say that if they go with a whole new theme for the next movie then the current one will get stale because we will only be able to listen to the same tracks over and over. If it is used again, then we’ll get new variations of it that will be fresh.

I also don’t understand why you say that they should replace it with the TOS theme which was first written for The Cage and is 50 years old now. Haven’t we heard that one more often?

585. Curious Cadet - January 11, 2014

@583 Captain Slow,

I think you are making this harder than it is. I don’t believe dmduncan is saying replace EYM with the Cuorage theme. He is saying — come up with a new theme in place of MOST of the EYM uses (not all) that speaks to the story being told in STID — which is vastly different than how EYM was conceived and worked in ST09. And IN ADDITION include one of the most recognizable themes from the franchise more in the film — Courage’s BRAND theme. Just like Abrams did for Mission Impossible. ts the SAME thing.

Star Wars is the easiest comparison. Three films all with very different character growth and stories, each with their own amazing themes. Each film is heralded by the BRAND theme which originated in the first film. That film is used where appropriate in the next two films, but only in addition to the new fantastic themes that Williams created specifically for the new stories and character arcs unique to each film. This is how most films work. Look at any trilogy and you will most likely hear this. Back to the Future had different themes, though they still used the BRAND theme when applicable.

This I believe is the point dmduncan is trying to make. If not he will school us both. But it’s how I see it, and agree its the correct way to score a film.

586. Captain Slow - January 11, 2014

I get attached to certain things. This theme is one of them. i just like hearing it. You mention Back to the Future which has one of the greatest themes ever. If they had just ditched it every movie it wouldn’t be quite the same. There were certain changes between films but for the most part it was the same.

587. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

584. Curious Cadet – January 11, 2014

This I believe is the point dmduncan is trying to make. If not he will school us both. But it’s how I see it, and agree its the correct way to score a film.

***

That’s a good reading of what I mean.

588. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

585. Captain Slow – January 11, 2014

I get attached to certain things. This theme is one of them. i just like hearing it.

***

You can hear it any time you want. Buy the album. Why do you need it specifically in every Star Trek movie going forward where I can’t avoid your need to hear it over and over? And why behave as if EYM is the last good piece of music that can possibly be written for Star Trek?

Al I know is I loved Logan and Rogue’s theme from X Men. But I also loved Whirlpool of Love from X Men: The Last Stand, and the opening theme and Where To? from The Wolverine.

I wouldn’t have KNOWN how poor I was if the X Men franchise refused to score any new themes and just kept using Logan and Rogue from the first movie because it was such a good piece of music.

Furthermore, I just got done watching John Carter of Mars—what a FANTASTIC job Giacchino did on that movie. I want that guy’s talent used to the fullest extend while Star Trek has him, and not using him for new themes each movie is a crying shame.

Look, I KNOW why you guys want to keep it. I love the music too, but I think it’s better to have new music. If it helps ease your troubled minds, know that you are probably on the winning side of the argument. I wouldn’t fret too much that me arguing for new music is actually going to make it happen.

Indeed, sometimes I think that the better the case I make for something in here, the more likely they’ll do the opposite of what I suggest.

589. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

582. Marja – January 11, 2014

Perhaps dmduncan will post his link again. It was a rippin’ good story.

***

Thanks. Here it is:

http://thedoomsdaydiet.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/star-trek-a-crowning-sea-of-stars/

590. Marja - January 11, 2014

>Re: Giacchino and Trek3

I suspect he may have under-budgeted his time for STiD and thus we did get swathes of repeated orchestrations of familiar themes.

I’m all for variations on a theme, and having read MG’s interview with that LA paper, I’m thinking by ST3 he will be composing a “Kirk, all grown up” kind of theme to overlie EYM. EYM will probably be the “Enterprise” theme [Horner used a similar device in TWOK and TSFS]. I hope to hear a “Spock theme” as well – I loved that erhu in Trek1.

Re: My Screed above I understand guy-to-guy talk, which is fine in a males-only atmosphere. I took Herbert to task because women do check in here, and because I hate lazy “that’s the way the world is, deal with it, women” sexism.

I love the depiction of Spock and Uhura’s equality as a couple, and hope O&K and the New Guys don’t give in to stupid ideas like how “whipped” Spock is by a “whiny girlfriend.” As I’ve said before the “public setting” of the scene was inappropriate, but in and of itself was valid for the couple.

591. Curious Cadet - January 11, 2014

@590. Marja,
“I suspect he may have under-budgeted his time for STiD”

That was my first assumption, but no, he only did one feature film in 2013 and that was STID. The only othe significant project he was working in was season 4 of Fringe, which was made easier by virtue of the fact he’d been doing it for three and half seasons already and had the routine down.

No, unless he was just incredibly lazy, he was doing Abrams bidding. Possibly even fighting with him on it, and ultimately losing the argument.

592. Red Dead Ryan - January 11, 2014

“Enterprising Young Men” is not the franchise theme. No one is arguing that. What some of us are saying is that the track is the theme for the Bad Robot movies.

Whoever makes the next iteration of Trek movies will no doubt compose a new theme for their version.

“Enterprising Young Men” will no doubt go down as one of the greatest pieces of music in Trek history.

593. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

There’s a current Twizzlers commercial running. You guys see it? It uses Alexander Courage’s Star Trek theme to an animation of an Enterprise made of Twizzlers flying through space.

Amazing. 50 year old BRAND music from a 50 year old brand is being used in current commercials to sell stuff.

After 50 years that is the music that still identifies the franchise.

594. Tom - January 11, 2014

One thing Bad Robot and Bob has done is make money with the movies they have made. The next movie is the 50th anniversary and it will be following what is sure to be a huge moneymaker in Star Wars Episode 7. Paramount will see that and have high expectations for the next movie. I am hoping it wont be the last Trek film. If successful they will more than likely want Bad Robot and Bob to continue making them. If it disappoints then they may put Trek on the backburner again. I know Bob and team are up for the challenge! So if it means:
1.More Spock- Uhura romance to bring in the female audience so be it
2. Klingons or Klingon war to have some familiarity so be it
3. Something original to satisfy what most on these boards want so be it
4.An original cast and other guest appearances to keep the old fans so be it
5. Some more eye candy and popcorn movie action to satisfy the masses so be it.

It all means $$. The challenege for Bob is to do those things and not have a convoluted mess of a story. I am concerned that if they do not cover all bases they may make a good or even great Star Trek Movie that wont make enough money in the studios eyes to make future films. Anyway Bad Robot has made some coin in the past. In 2016 Happy Birthday Trek. Here’s to 50 more!

595. Red Dead Ryan - January 11, 2014

#594.

1.More Spock- Uhura romance to bring in the female audience so be it

— No.

2. Klingons or Klingon war to have some familiarity so be it

— Still no.

3. Something original to satisfy what most on these boards want so be it

— I agree with this.

4.An original cast and other guest appearances to keep the old fans so be it

— Absolutely not. We’ve already seen enough cameos in the past. Besides, the prior cast members are now too old to credibly play their parts again.

5. Some more eye candy and popcorn movie action to satisfy the masses so be it.

— Sure, but as long as there are good character moments to go along with all that action.

596. dmduncan - January 11, 2014

591. Curious Cadet – January 11, 2014

I think Giacchino did what he was paid to do. At some point, someone started to think of EYM as not customized to ST.09 but to introduce the franchise’s next episode, and so “brand” music is what it suddenly became. And I think that decision is above Giacchino’s pay grade. It belongs to the director.

Hearing Giacchino’s score during John Carter again tonight made me confident that the man has loads more great original stuff in him yet to write, and even though I do think the odds are against we who want original themes for each movie, I WISH he would get to write some of that greatness for Star Trek.

597. Tom - January 11, 2014

#595 Red Dead Ryan

Thanks for the feedback. I do not like some of the choices I laid out either. However if it means a successfu box office I would deal with it

598. Marja - January 11, 2014

594 Tom, 595 Red Dead,

1.More Spock- Uhura romance to bring in the female audience so be it

– YES! I don’t think it just “brings in the female audience” – I hear it appeals to couples as well. And I think the equality depicted within the relationship is something good for all to see.

2. Klingons or Klingon war to have some familiarity so be it

– NO.

3. Something original to satisfy what most on these boards want so be it

– YES!

4.An original cast and other guest appearances to keep the old fans so be it

–RDR: Absolutely not. We’ve already seen enough cameos in the past. Besides, the prior cast members are now too old to credibly play their parts again.
[With you on this one too, RDR]

5. Some more eye candy and popcorn movie action to satisfy the masses so be it.

– RDR: Sure, but as long as there are good character moments to go along with all that action.

Gad, I’m hoping there will not be MORE action than this last one. Cripes, it just didn’t stop. Eye candy? I’d welcome some eye candy for the ladies, let it be Quinto this time :-)

599. I am not Herbert - January 11, 2014

Dear Marja: FWIW: I regret that i have made you unhappy… I don’t want that… =(

Please accept my apology for exposing you to my crude description? it’s not me, it’s what i’m describing… (weak excuse, i know)

Please also accept my word that i do not use it in the extremely chauvinistic fashion which you portray.

I am sorry that you have been exposed to that type of ugliness, and that I thoughtlessly PUSHED THE BUTTON that brought it back… =(

I commend you for standing up for yourself and for all women! =)
I am honored to trade opinions with you here, and I BOW to you in humble appreciation. =)

600. Harry Ballz - January 12, 2014

@599

Now, that’s what I call an apology!

Kudos, IANH!

601. Marja - January 12, 2014

599, Herbert, It’s cool, I think you get it now. Crude expressions can be interpreted quite differently from how you might intend. That said, one must always consider the entire audience.

Including us womenfolk.

Peace.

602. Aurore - January 12, 2014

@ 589. dmduncan – January 11, 2014
_________

…Still reading and enjoying the story so far.

Thank you again, and again ( and again ) .

:)

603. Disinvited - January 12, 2014

#594. Tom – January 11, 2014

The NYT reporting of the 2005 cleaving made it very clear that if Paramount were to decide not to make movies in Moonves’ set time frames that they would loose all rights to make future Trek movies and Moonves would just auction the new Trek movies license to the highest bidder.

So I really doubt events such as you describe would spell the end any more than TERMINATOR:SALVATION did for that other franchise which is producing yet another TERMINATOR movie with the Governor signed and backed by the money people that financed STID.

604. Marja - January 12, 2014

One question, though, if Paramount has Great Expectations of Trek3 why are they investing so little? Though, I guess $190M minus $20M is not too bad ….

Hoping they get the balance of talents right this time!

May Trek’s 50th truly honor a creation that has brought so many of us joy for these many years, and inspiration to so many of society’s and sciences’ leaders!

605. MJ - January 12, 2014

@599

Dude, I am proud of you!!!

You are my favorite STID hater, excepting Ahmed. :-)

606. MJ - January 12, 2014

“I get attached to certain things. This theme is one of them. i just like hearing it. You mention Back to the Future which has one of the greatest themes ever. If they had just ditched it every movie it wouldn’t be quite the same. There were certain changes between films but for the most part it was the same.”

Exactly.

I would like EYM to continue for this current set of movies as the main JJ-Trek theme. If it’s branding, then so be it — I like that kind of emotional branding where music fits my favorite franchise. I welcome this sort of branding apologetically.

607. MJ - January 12, 2014

whoops: “unapologetically”

608. MJ - January 12, 2014

whoops: “unapologetically”

609. Phil - January 13, 2014

@604. 170MM is a pretty decent budget for just about any movie. And I hate to keep pointing this out, but while it might seem obvious to most of us that having a product out there for the 50th anniversary is a no-brainer, no one in a position to make that commitment has actually done so. A 2016 release is not a done deal, by any stretch of the imagination.

610. Marja - January 13, 2014

Phil, I know, right? Hope they manage to do more than pull it outta their butts in time.

The only good thing I can imagine from a lower budget is that they spend more time on the actors / dialogue and less on the gigantic action set-pieces.

A girl can dream.

611. Ahmed - January 13, 2014

An article about Trek by William Bradley!

=============================
Doctor Who’s Imperfect 50th Anniversary Nonetheless Sets a Challenge for Star Trek
By: William Bradley

Star Trek’s 50th anniversary, about which I’ll have a lot more to say, is in 2016. But the series, which underwent a very successful movie reboot in 2009 with new versions of the iconic cast created by a convenient change in the timeline, seems like it’s in need of reboot once again, and shows no current sign of being ready for its 50th anniversary.

2013′s Star Trek Into Darkness was a sizable hit and did better worldwide than did 2009′s Star Trek, thanks to a greatly expanded marketing effort. But even though the production budget was pumped up for the sequel, it did substantially less well than the 2009 movie, which reintroduced Star Trek with such pace and flash and dazzle that any conceptual problems were simply overwhelmed.
…………..
Now Abrams, who notoriously said he hadn’t watched Star Trek when he was younger because it was “too philosophical,” is off making the new Star Wars. Only Bob Orci of the original Abrams-derived writing group remains for the next picture in the series.

While the studio says the next movie will be released in 50th anniversary year 2016, it still has no director attached and no release date.

Needless to say, I don’t have a good feeling about Star Trek’s 50th anniversary year so far. Since I vividly remember watching the very first Star Trek episode on September 8, 1966, this concerns me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/doctor-whos-imperfect-50t_b_4586253.html

612. Who cares - January 13, 2014

@RDR, I would not care about some people unfairly and incorrectly calling me a sockpuppet if they at least made a minimal amount of sense doing so. You have made accusations that I am the same person as “I am not Herbert” despite the bare simple facts that “IANH” has always been unfailingly negative about JJ, Bob, Alex, and virtually everything else involved in the reboot movies. I, on the other hand, have been just as unfailing in my positivity towards not just ST09 and STID but also towards the entire franchise, including those incarnations that many of you discount, like the animated series, Voyager, and Enterprise.

I have posted messages about how in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” the Enterprise was flying under power at below 60,000 feet in Earth’s atmosphere. How Spock had a human girlfriend 6 years before season 2 of TOS (or right about the time of the current movies), and other points of consistency between the reboots and the older franchise. You RDR have on multiple occasions posted your agreement with these points so I know you have read these posts.

I even had a new one to post after watching “The Deadly Years” a few days ago. Because that episode is the source of Carol Marcus’s alias in STID. The episode featured blond scientist Dr. Janet Wallace, who had a previous romantic relationship with Kirk (which again works out right about where the current movies take place) and who was in the first drafts of TWOK before being replaced by Dr. Carol Marcus.

Frankly I agree with you RDR, and MJ, and K-7 more often than not, other than stupid garbage about non-Trek movie preferences my only major disagreement with MJ has been about the level of maturity and intelligence of comic book readers, and I have had no major disagreements (about any subject of substance) with K-7 either.

Honestly how can anyone think I am the same person as “IANH”? It is completely illogical, unless you are claiming that “IANH” has a split personality.

613. Phil - January 13, 2014

@610. Yeah, opinions abound at this point. I find it kind of funny that in post release interviews Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch have both opined about what a third Trek might look like. Considering that they were guest characters, there is no reason to believe they might be back, but that didn’t stop them from offering up a thought or two. (Yeah, I don’t need to see them again in any Trek universe). To further complicate things, it’s being reported that Cumberbatch has read for a part in Episode 7. So, in addition to busy schedules, some of the actors may be jumping ship as well…so to speak. Does anyone really believe, that if offered, Simon Pegg wouldn’t jump at the chance to work a SW movie as well?

Confidence is low for 2016 on the big screen…

614. Matt Wright - January 13, 2014

@ Phil – Alice Eve is supposedly signed-up for the next Trek movie. So we may indeed see Carol Markus as part of the crew.

615. Ahmed - January 13, 2014

“Alice Eve is supposedly signed-up for the next Trek movie.”

WHY ???

616. Tom - January 13, 2014

#603 Disinvited

Yes that is true but who really wants to go in limbo waiting for the rights to be purchased. Lets hope it does not happen and the movie is successful. Good point onTerminator though. There are many that thought it was done. Hopefully they can revivie that franchise

617. Curious Cadet - January 13, 2014

@613. Phil,
“Confidence is low for 2016 on the big screen…”

No worries there. The literal Star Trek 50th anniversary doesn’t start until September 8, 2016, to coincide with the original air date. So unless one is fixated on the CALENDAR year of 2016, then they have until September 7, 2017 to release the 3rd movie installment and still celebrate a full year of Trek’s 50th Anniversary.

Since that’s the same four year window we all patiently waited for STID, no one should have a problem with this right? Especially if it allows them to ‘take their time’ and ‘get it right'; just like they told us, and were fiercly defended by their supporters, for three years.

618. dmduncan - January 13, 2014

615. Ahmed – January 13, 2014

I already told you why she was going to be in the next movie. Kirk needs a love interest. He’s looking emasculated next to Super Spock.

619. dmduncan - January 13, 2014

617. Curious Cadet – January 13, 2014

Since that’s the same four year window we all patiently waited for STID, no one should have a problem with this right? Especially if it allows them to ‘take their time’ and ‘get it right’; just like they told us, and were fiercly defended by their supporters, for three years.

***

LOL.

Of which I was one. But I believe that when I said that it was also carefully put as a hypothetical, i.e., IF it takes that long to give us a quality movie, THEN it will have been worth the wait.

Clearly, taking your time could also be a sign of missing inspiration.

620. Harry Ballz - January 13, 2014

Uh, they had 4 years last time, and look what we got! A muddled mess!

A high school student can be given forever to hand in an assignment and still come up with a failing paper!

621. Phil - January 13, 2014

@614. I must have missed that. As is, what on gods green earth would compel anyone to see more of Carol Marcus in this universe. Is there a shortage of underwear models in the 23rd century?

622. Phil - January 13, 2014

@617. Well, I to, am celebrating the 50th anniversary of my existence next month, having been born in February of 1964. Not June of 63, at the approximate point of conception, or in 2015, marking my first anniversary. The day is just the moment in time when I made my appearance for the first time, but the year 2014 is known to most as January to December.

Unless you are Jewish, in which case it’s 5774.

623. Aurore - January 13, 2014

@ 620. Mr. Ballz.

“Uh, they had 4 years last time, and look what we got! A muddled mess!

A high school student can be given forever to hand in an assignment and still come up with a failing paper!”

_________

Shut up.

If you don’t comply, I will… “report “… you.

HATER!!!

:))

624. Harry Ballz - January 13, 2014

@623

Careful, Aurore, people here might actually start to believe that you disagree with me!

Which is silly, because WE know the truth!

625. Who cares - January 13, 2014

@614. Thanks Matt, I was really hoping Carol was actually going to join the family as they said in the final scene of STID. I also hope they have one sequence showing Khan and his people escaping with the help of the criminal genetic engineering underground (the predecessors of the people Julian Bashir’s parents take him to) and then don’t have Kirk find out about it until the final moments of the film (cause like MJ I believe Pine when he said he was signed for two more).

BTW Matt, sorry I called you Mike so many times, I did not mean any offense by it.

626. Curious Cadet - January 13, 2014

@622. Phil,
“Unless you are Jewish, in which case it’s 5774.”

Or Muslim, in which case it’s 1435. Or Chinese, in which case it’s 4712.

All of which are offset by days or months from the Gregorian calendar. Perhaps we should find out where STID placed on the Jewish box office calendar. ;-)

Regardless which calendar you use, you won’t celebrate until February on the Gregorian calendar. And while the DMV and Social Security employees may also celebrate the start of 2014 on January 1, they won’t extend your renewals or benefits until the actual day of your birth. Wedding anniversaries aren’t celebrated until the day of occurrence, whether the entire year is a celebration or just the one day.

So whether they want to start celebrating January 1, 2016, they can certainly stretch it out until at least the Summer of 2017. I can hear the voiceover now: Star Trek ended its first season on the air in April 1967. 50 years later, on May 2017, we likewise conclude the celebration of Star Trek’s 50th anniversary with the premiere of the next installment of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek Into Profitability.

627. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2014

#617.

“No worries there. The literal Star Trek 50th anniversary doesn’t start until September 8, 2016, to coincide with the original air date. So unless one is fixated on the CALENDAR year of 2016, then they have until September 7, 2017 to release the 3rd movie installment and still celebrate a full year of Trek’s 50th Anniversary.”

————————————————————————————————-

Uh, nope. “Star Trek” started in 1966, so the fiftieth anniversary has to be celebrated in 2016. Plus it would contradict the twenty-fifth and thirtieth anniversaries, which occurred in 1991 and 1996.

The anniversary movie can come out before or after Sept. 8, but in the year 2016. 2017 would be the fifty-first anniversary. 2015 would be the fourty-ninth. There simply is no credible way of getting around this fact.

Not sure how do mathematical calculations, but obviously your methods are flawed. Also, you might want to brush up on your Trek history as well.

Using your math skills to calculate the fiftieth anniversary date would be akin to using a sixteenth-century atlas as a road map of North America. :-)

628. Aurore - January 13, 2014

@624

“Careful, Aurore, people here might actually start to believe that you disagree with me!

Which is silly, because WE know the truth!”

________

Don’t take that tone with ME, man!

:)

(You’ve been reported!)

629. Disinvited - January 13, 2014

#627. Red Dead Ryan – January 13, 2014

FWIW the first episode of the second season didn’t air until 9/15/67 so the 51st anniversary couldn’t start before that date. Could it?

630. Disinvited - January 13, 2014

#627. Red Dead Ryan – January 13, 2014

I mean it all depends on what celebration, the 50th anniversary of the first season for example, Paramount thinks they can successfully adapt their marketing to? Any tv pilot can get an air date but seeing a first season to completion and then renewal, well if no one celebrates it now, I bet they celebrated it then.

Granted STID’s domestic marketing would tend to indicate likelihood of a fail but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

631. Red Dead Ryan - January 13, 2014

TOS’s first season began Sept. 1966. That is generally considered the date of “Star Trek”s inception, made official by Paramount (in marking the years of 1991 and 1996 as twenty-fifth, and thirtieth anniversary milestones, etc) and later reinforced by CBS, when they marketed 2006 as the fourtieth anniversary.

“The Cage” may have been filmed in 1964, but wasn’t aired until over twenty years later. Nobody celebrates “The Cage” anniversary, and for good reason.

I’m not sure how this manages to confuse anyone here. It’s an open-and-shut case.

632. Disinvited - January 14, 2014

#631. Red Dead Ryan – January 13, 2014

And yet CBS licensing Creation Con to do this in 2005 and again in 2010 somehow doesn’t make these years “official” 40th and 45th anniversary years?:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/27061/message/1117918844/40th+Anniversary+Kick-Off+of+Star+Trek+~+Seattle+%2B+More

“CREATION SALUTES STAR TREK:
The 40th Anniversary Kick-Off Begins in 2005!”

And here:

http://www.creationent.com/cal/sthi.htm

“HONOLULU, HI
Sat. & Sun.
December 4-5, 2010
Sheraton Waikiki Hotel
2255 Kalakaua Ave.

THE OFFICIAL
STAR TREK CONVENTION
in HAWAII to kick-off The 45th Anniversary Celebration

How lucky are we? We get to kick off our year long celebration of the amazing 45th Anniversary of STAR TREK in the world’s most beautiful place: HAWAII! For one glorious weekend, December 4-5, 2010, we are rolling out the red carpet for everyone to join us for a two day party like no other!”

It seems the marketing is determined by the demands of marketing and not conventional wisdom.

All Paramount need do is call a 2017 movie release “50th Anniversary Over Time!” and it’s a done deal as far as a CBS “official” anniversary license goes.

633. Disinvited - January 14, 2014

Further examples of allowed Trek anniversary marketing time creep:

Interplay was allowed to release its 1st edition of its “Star Trek: 25th Anniversary” video game in February of 1992 (NES & PC) followed in 1993 with a Mac version and 1994 for the Amiga all with the same “Star Trek: 25th Anniversary” title.

In 1995 AMT was licensed to commission a 30th Anniversary poster which was included as a bonus in its 1995 boxes of its USS Enterprise-A and USS Enterprise-D models for 1995’s holiday shopping consumption.

In 2002, TV GUIDE published a special 35TH – ANNIVERSARY TRIBUTE STAR TREK edition as a:

” A timeless guide to the Trek universe
Best episodes from each character and series (including Voyager and
Deep Space Nine)!
Plus: The greatest episode of all time!
First look at the new Trek movie!
Pullout poster inside! “

634. Curious Cadet - January 14, 2014

@630. Disinvited,
“Granted STID’s domestic marketing would tend to indicate likelihood of a fail but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.”

First of all … I’m joking.

But that’s not to dimish your point which has validity.

However, here’s the reality … Based on Numerous observations from Phil and others, Paramount seems to have Star Trek on a rather casual 4 year movie cycle. If it pans out again this time, the third film could well end up as a Smmer 2017 release (assuming Paramount continues to insist it be a Summer tentpole, rather than a Holiday release as Disney has done with Star Wars).

If that happens, then the movie will bypass the official 50th anniversary year completely, and lose the benefit of any marketing. So my question is what would Paramount do if the next film lands in the Summer of 2017? Ignore the 50th Anniversary year completely? Or use the entire 2016 year as marketing for the forthcoming movie and ride the Anniversary coattails into 2017 (assuming Arams lets them actually reveal anything about it outside his mystery box)?

Like you suggest, my money is on stretching the anniversary marketing deep into 2017 by any reasoning necessary.

Here’s hoping they surprise us and get the film into production sooner rather than later …

635. Curious Cadet - January 14, 2014

^^^^MORE

And with respect to Star Wars, assuming Paramount gets Star Trek into production in time to actually make a holiday 2016 release date (as TUC barely did in 1991), I could see them moving Trek from a Summer tentpole if Star Wars blows the lid off the holiday season in 2015.

Then again, it’s the first Star Wars movie in ten years. It’s likely to blow the doors off the box office regardless when it opens. Plus, Disney plans on releasing a new Star Wars film every year, so doesn’t that suggest a Fall release date to give each as much time as possible, and if that’s true, doesn’t that mean a Fall release for Star Trek will face a new Star Wars release at the box office? A competitive Fall Boxoffice proved detrimental to Thor 2, knocking it out of the box office much faster than a Summer 3D release. A it’s seems like if Paramount misses a Summer 2016 release date, 2017 it is, anniversary or no.

636. Who cares - January 14, 2014

@634. Episode 7 is not the first new Star Wars film in 10 years, the animated Clone Wars movie was released in theatrically in 2008, that is only 5 years ago.

637. Ahmed - January 14, 2014

==========================
The Final Frontier – The Surprising Musical Origins of Star Trek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTaSjS1pwhQ

638. Ahmed - January 14, 2014

@636. Who cares

“Episode 7 is not the first new Star Wars film in 10 years, the animated Clone Wars movie was released in theatrically in 2008, that is only 5 years ago.”

It is the first LIVE ACTION SW movie in 10 years.

639. Marja - January 14, 2014

If you count years inclusively, September 2015–September 2016 is the 50th anniversary year. Count on your fingers or calendars and you’ll see what I mean.

However most folks add 50 to 1966 to get 2016. So Paramount may count Fall 2016–Fall 2017 as the 50th year.

640. Ahmed - January 14, 2014

In this interview about Ender’s Game, Bob talked about his approach to ST XIII

==============================
Exclusive: Roberto Orci Talks Ender’s Game Sequels

I also fished for some Star Trek 3 news, even going so far as to compliment Orci on the balls it took to do The Wrath of Khan as Star Trek Into Darkness. If, perhaps, that got classic Trek out of their system, would Orci and his cowriters focus on an original Trek story next time or stay in the classic Trek world?

“Little bit of both,” Orci said. “Part of the fun of the freedom that we bought ourselves is that you can harmonize with canon and you can echo what’s come before, so you can do it in a new way.”

http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/629287-exclusive-roberto-orci-talks-enders-game-sequels
==============================

Right !

641. Disinvited - January 14, 2014

#635. Curious Cadet – January 14, 2014 , 639. Marja – January 14, 2014

I think old Paramount’s (Now CBS) 2002 TV GUIDE solution is the obvious way for new Paramount to go: just call the next movie “A 50th ANNIVERSARY TRIBUTE” and release it the hell whenever you can. The only possible trouble I see with a monicker like that is a “tribute” puts more pressure on to produce something very special.

642. Phil - January 14, 2014

It official, we now know what Zoe Saldana is doing in 2016…Avatar 2. Hitting theaters 12/2016.

643. K-7 - January 14, 2014

“If you count years inclusively, September 2015–September 2016 is the 50th anniversary year. Count on your fingers or calendars and you’ll see what I mean.”

Wow, that sounds like something wack that Curious Cadet would have come up with? The 50th anniversary of Star Trek is September 8th, 1966. The is no magical 11 months and 30 days before this date that is part of the anniversary.

Like, who starts celebration their 50th Wedding Anniversary 364 days before the date? No one!

644. Marja - January 15, 2014

642 Phil, with all the sfx in “Avatar” my bet is she’ll be done with her part of filming in 2015. Doesn’t post-production take a year or longer? Trek’s took months and months and wasn’t as sfx-heavy ….

645. Who cares - January 15, 2014

@644. Zoe is signed for 3 Avatar sequels, dunno when they plan to film but if (as rumors persist in saying) the next Trek films this year, then Zoe films Avatar 2 next year, 3 the year after, and so on Phil could be right.

646. Disinvited - January 15, 2014

#643. K-7 – January 14, 2014

Following Creation Con through the decades, I can aver to the fact that if there’s a way for them to anticipate a profit THEY not only will and did start celebrating as early, but continue to so do.

Just look at the link I provided to confirm their Trek 40th Anniversary date:

“CREATION SALUTES STAR TREK:
The 40th Anniversary Kick-Off Begins in 2005!

Sat. & Sun. August 6-7, 2005″

That was a month BEFORE the date that you regard as Trek’s 39th Anniversary!

As you can see, your assertion that no one does is false. And most especially and specifically with regards to Trek “official” sanctioning through continued licensing.

647. Disinvited - January 15, 2014

#646. Disinvited – January 15, 2014

“but continue to so do.” should be “but will continue to so do.” as in, if they can find a way to project a profit in moving it up.

648. Marja - January 15, 2014

645 Who Cares, I think Zoe said she’s filming at least two of them back-to-back
____________________________________________

Alas Ms Saldana is approaching her mid-30s and the “Hollywood Actress Sell-By Date” … she has to do as much as she can in the next few years. It makes me sad that men can work straight through, but unless a woman is Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Viola Davis or Julia Roberts there aren’t a lot of women in their 30s, 40s and 50s on screen. At least not on the BIG screen. Quality television, thank god, is a different story. If ,you haven’t seen Gillian Anderson in “The Fall” do so as soon as you may, folks.

649. Marja - January 15, 2014

645 Who Cares, I think Zoe said she’s filming at least two of them back-to-back
____________________________________________

Alas Ms Saldana is approaching her mid-30s and the “Hollywood Actress Sell-By Date” … she has to do as much as she can in the next few years. It makes me sad that men can work straight through, but unless a woman is Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Viola Davis or Julia Roberts there aren’t a lot of women in their 30s, 40s and 50s on screen. At least not on the BIG screen. Quality television, thank god, is a different story. If ,you haven’t seen Gillian Anderson in “The Fall” do so as soon as you may, folks.

650. Phil - January 15, 2014

@644. Nah, as Bob pointed out a while back, the voice over work is done last. As her character didn’t have a live action component (I think) she’ll be working this in the summer of 2016. Recall that when Leonard Nimoy did his voice over in Transformers, that was done just a couple of weeks before it’s release.

I can’t imaging any competing studio releasing a tentpole anywhere near Dec 2016. All the more reason to suspect that 2016 isn’t going to be.

651. Who cares - January 15, 2014

@650. I thought the Navi characters were done with motion capture like Serkis’s Golum and Ceasar (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), if that is the case then Zoe and the rest will be doing live action work for the scenes. A google search for “is Avatar filmed using motion capture” returns multiple results about the motion capture tech used in the first Avatar as well as multiple stories about James Cameron using underwater motion capture for the sequels, so its probably safe to bet there will be at least some in front of camera work for Zoe and the rest.

652. Disinvited - January 15, 2014

#651. Who cares – January 15, 2014

In the “New Year news tidbits” comment thread I provided a link that established that since the 2009 movie’s relooping, Bad Robot has the technology to relip already filmed scenes so that no one notices there was alternate “original” dialogue filmed. Thus, in a worse case scenario, Phil is correct as all they would need for her to be in their third Trek movie is reloop already filmed but unused footage from their 1st two Trek movie, and, with some he creative adjustments, they could even reuse footage that was used in those films as was done with the fx of the ST:TMP’s Enterprise in the films before BR’s.

653. Disinvited - January 15, 2014

#652. Disinvited – January 15, 2014

“…movie, and, with some he…” should be “…movies, and, with some…”

654. Who cares - January 15, 2014

@652. Phil and I were talking about the Avatar series not Trek, so I am not sure what your point is. Phil was suggesting that Zoe’s character in Avatar was entirely CGI with her performance consisting of voice over work only while I was pointing out that all the information I can find indicates that her performance (as well as that of the other actors playing Navi characters) was actually done with motion capture technology like that used for Andy Serkis in The Lord of the Rings and Planet of the Apes franchises. The only thing I mentioned about Trek was the persistent rumors that the next Trek movie will be filmed this year (2014), and Avatar 2 is reportedly going to be filmed late this year or next year, meaning there is not likely to be a scheduling conflict between the movies.

655. Disinvited - January 15, 2014

#654. Who cares – January 15, 2014

I got that that was your perspective but I wanted to point out that his assertion was applicable across more than just AVATAR which, as you point out, was not as likely to be used for AVATAR because of how her work would be filmed for that. My specific point is Bad Robot has the technology and has successfully applied it in both of their Trek films and can apply it again this time in the service of resolving any scheduling conflicts she or other cast members might have regardless of when their principal photography starts for their 3rd Trek feature.

656. Phil - January 15, 2014

@651. Well, if we are going to split hairs, yes, Zoes character is created using motion capture technology. Does that mean she will be stuffed in the suit, or someone of similar size and build, I don’t know. Basically, all they are doing is blocking out the movie at this point, so they won’t be recording her lines at the time. She may (or may not) have time in the suit, but the voice over work will be done at the end. Either way, she’s plenty busy in 2016, and Trek isn’t on the schedule yet.

657. dmduncan - January 16, 2014

So I counted one Oscar nomination for STiD. Visual effects.

658. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2014

You didn’t really expect any other nods, did you, dmduncan?

659. Stephan - January 16, 2014

@658:
I was hoping for nods in Sound Mixing, Sound Editing or Makeup or other technical categories. So a little disappointing, since it seems to be clear that the visual effects oscar is already reserved for Gravity.

660. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2014

The following quote explains, as far as I’m concerned, why STID stunk:

“Sequential causality is generally considered to be very important in plotting. It is often thought to be the difference between a simple story, which just presents events as arranged in their time sequence, and a true plot, in which one scene prepares for and leads into and causes the scene that comes after it.”

Rust Hills

Star Trek Into Darkness was simply a series of big action sequences with no cohesive storyline. Hell, even some fan fiction stories for Trek are better than what they came up with! This one really stunk on ice!

661. dmduncan - January 16, 2014

658. Harry Ballz – January 16, 2014

You didn’t really expect any other nods, did you, dmduncan?

***

No.

662. Phil - January 16, 2014

@659. And it would be well deserved for Gravity. They had to come up with some creative ways to make that movie. While STID’s effects were top notch, they were already reusing the concepts from Trek 09. Enterprise rising through the rings of Saturn was a ‘ohhhh, look at that’ moment. Enterprise popping out of the ocean had that ‘been there, done that’ feel. When 1701 plummeted through the clouds, her rising back up had been so thoroughly telegraphed by then there was no drama involved whatsoever. Just another effects shot in a long string of effects shots.

663. dmduncan - January 16, 2014

660. Harry Ballz – January 16, 2014

Star Trek Into Darkness was simply a series of big action sequences with no cohesive storyline.

***

After “living” with it for a while now, I agree. I’ve been thinking of it as an ad hoc collection of set pieces.

664. dmduncan - January 16, 2014

Actually, I’m shocked that Pacific Rim was not nominated for Best VFX. It deserves to be up there more than STiD or Iron Man 3.

665. Phil - January 16, 2014

@657. I think every sci-fi spectacular gets a nod for SFX. Hardly a shock. What will be a surprise is if Gravity doesn’t win.

And it needs to be pointed out, again, that budget doesn’t equal quality. Gravity was made for about half of STID, and is very deserving of it’s nominations…

666. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2014

@663

Thanks, dmduncan. I appreciate your feedback!

667. Stephan - January 16, 2014

@662:

There are far more effect shots in the movie, eg. volcano scene. And some scenes were made with cgi which I believed were an actual setting, like the interior of the shuttle bay. I find the effects reel from the ILM guys very interesting.
But maybe Gravity deserves the oscar. But I still think trek should get more attention by the academy awards. Because there are not only movies nominated which efforts are deserving.
So I hoped for nominations in other categories. Why is Jackass and Lone Ranger nominated for makeup. I could see trek instead of them threre. Or captain phillips in sound editing and sound mixing? While it is a great movie which deserves a major win I really do prefer the sound effects of trek. And yes I even think Michael Giacchino could have get nominated.

668. Ahmed - January 16, 2014

Yet again, ST09 shows that it was a better movie than STID when it come to the Oscar.

Star Trek 09 got 4 Oscar nominations & won one:

Visual Effects
Sound Editing
Sound Mixing
Makeup (Won)

While STID was nominated for just one category, Visual Effects, it will most likely not win.

669. Stephan - January 16, 2014

@668.

By that logic Transformers is better than wrath of khan because transformers got 3 nominations and star trek 2 none. And STID is better than wrath of khan and star wars episode 1 is better….

670. Ahmed - January 16, 2014

@669. Stephan

Nope, I’m comparing STID to ST09. The only thing that the sequel did better than ST09 was the worldwide box office.

ST09 did far better at the domestic box office, has a better plot & was fresh. STID was a rehash & even some of the FXs were copied from ST09.

671. Curious Cadet - January 16, 2014

@667. Stephan,
“Why is Jackass and Lone Ranger nominated for makeup. I could see trek instead of them three.”

Seriously? What make-up? One Klingon in one scene? Spock’s ears and eyebrows?

Now if there were a category for ‘Best Achievement in Make Up for White Male Caucasians’, you might have a point.

672. Ahmed - January 16, 2014

@671. Curious Cadet

“Now if there were a category for ‘Best Achievement in Make Up for White Male Caucasians’, you might have a point.”

LOL

673. Curious Cadet - January 16, 2014

@656. Phil,
“Basically, all they are doing is blocking out the movie at this point, so they won’t be recording her lines at the time. She may (or may not) have time in the suit, but the voice over work will be done at the end. ”

Sorry Phil, like your prediction that the Hobbit would not likely ever pass STID at the box office, you couldn’t be more wrong about this too. Not only were there boom mics recording dialogue, but likely radio mics in their facial camera booms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ1JzYPjcj0

However, there are most certainly ADR dialogue changes in post as in any film, but like any animation, the dialogue is always recorded first. In this case, it was recorded during the actual physical performance. But her major contribution to the film will happen during production, NOT post production.

674. Stephan - January 16, 2014

671.

But Lone Ranger? Where there even Makeup? I could have understood American Hustle but Lone Ranger? Then one Spock ear is more makeup than that.

675. Stephan - January 16, 2014

670. Ahmed

Your opinion is still nothing more than that: A subjective opinion.
In my opinion STID has much more depth than ST09. But I think we could discuss this to infinity. My point was that I think some efforts of trek or trek in general should get some more attention by the oscars, when even movies like Iron Man, Lone ranger or Jackass are nominated.

676. Curious Cadet - January 16, 2014

@674. Stephan,
“But Lone Ranger? Where there even Makeup? I could have understood American Hustle but Lone Ranger? Then one Spock ear is more makeup than that.”

Sorry Stephan, your obvious STID bias aside, clearly you didn’t see The Lone Ranger. One of the main characters is in some pretty elaborate make up the entire movie. And makeup is not just lipstick and appliances, it’s dirt, sweat, blood, bruises, scars, and tattoos as well. Plus it’s also period hair, wigs, beards, mustaches, sideburns, etc., as well as the ability to make everyone in the cast look good, consistently, throughout the entire movie. ST09 won for little more than this, and specifically for the many elaborate Romulan tattoos. Show me where STID did ANYTHING truly interesting with makeup.

Besides if makeup was limited to just special effects makeup, then only effects driven movies would get awards, which does a huge discredit to the other hard working members of the profession. It seems as though they nominated three different genres — period makeup, dramatic makeup and sfx makeup. They’re not going to nominate a movie just because they like or dislike it, they’re going to nominate it because the artists did something outstanding with it. The same for any other category you feel STID was slighted.

677. Ahmed - January 16, 2014

@ 675. Stephan – January 16, 2014

“670. Ahmed

Your opinion is still nothing more than that: A subjective opinion.”

Yep!

“In my opinion STID has much more depth than ST09.”

Nope but again, you are entitled to your opinion :)

678. Who cares - January 16, 2014

@Phil. So I guess you haven’t seen the behind the scenes footage of Zoe’s motion capture being filmed for the first Avatar. I have seen it, and I don’t even like Avatar as I have said before. Your statement about it being “someone else of similar build” is also just slightly bizarre to me. It sounds like you are saying that Zoe took credit for work done by someone else for the film. Come on its not like she is Shia LeBouf or something.

679. Stephan - January 16, 2014

@677. Ahmed:

How can you say “nope” to my opinion?

680. Ahmed - January 16, 2014

@ 679. Stephan – January 16, 2014

“@677. Ahmed:

How can you say “nope” to my opinion?”

Because I disagree with your view.

We all have opinions & we can agree or disagree with these opinions, right ?

681. Craiger - January 16, 2014

I wonder if Trek is actually in trouble? With this site not updating regularly without Anthony not caring about Trekmovie anymore, even though Matt’s doing his best to update it and Trekweb gone, I wonder if Anthony and Steve at Trekweb know something we don’t?

682. Mike Barnett - January 16, 2014

How can Trek be in trouble if they’re starting work on another big-budget movie?

683. Disinvited - January 16, 2014

#681. Craiger – January 16, 2014

Been there. Done that:

http://www.salon.com/1999/10/29/trek/

”Mr. Spock is laughing. It sounds as though he will never stop. His is a deep, long chuckle — “Haw haw haw haw!” Then, Spock — OK, Leonard Nimoy — suddenly stops long enough to read a small excerpt from a letter I sent to him, requesting an interview for this story about the future, or not, of “Star Trek.”” – Robert Wilonsky, THE TROUBLE WITH TREK, SALON, Friday, Oct 29, 1999 09:00 AM PDT

684. Marja - January 16, 2014

656 Phil, I saw some vids a while back on YouTube of Saldana in her motion-capture suit, and she also wore the motion capture sensors on her face. So when we see Neytiri grimacing or smiling or shouting it is Saldana’s facial expressions, for the most part, that we see. Pretty amazing stuff. You really get a sense of how much actors play “pretend” as she and Worthington jump and crouch on plywood sets!

I imagine that the bodywork motion-capture will be done before the voiceover finals, and a lot of the dialogue is done at the time of motion capture. But then I know doodly-squat about most of the movie biz, I only know what I saw on YT ….

685. Marja - January 16, 2014

652 Disinvited, how would that even work? I’ll grant that Saldana’s weight did not fluctuate between Trek1 and Trek2 — at least not like the muscle-building leads Quinto and Pine, who each gained over 15# so they could do the fight scenes — but I can’t imagine them inserting shots from the first or second movie …? Continuity-wise it makes little sense to me.

686. Marja - January 16, 2014

655 Disinvited, “My specific point is Bad Robot has the technology and has successfully applied it in both of their Trek films and can apply it again this time in the service of resolving any scheduling conflicts she or other cast members might have regardless of when their principal photography starts for their 3rd Trek feature.”

Can you ‘splain more? Howzit? Did we see recycled footage in STID, or footage left out of Trek1 included in STID? Huh?

687. Marja - January 16, 2014

662 Phil, OMG when I saw the Enterprise head into the cloud layer, I thought, “Oh no they’re not going to–” and they did.

It was gorgeous the first time [Trek1] and neat the second time [STID, rising from Nibiru's ocean] and the third, I went, “Gosh, JJ, again? Really?” Shame to use it so much, it’s a beautiful thing, maybe once a movie, but even that’s pushing it. And the “space dive” repeated in the second movie! Jaysis on a Ritz cracker!

Note to Bob Orci, please avoid such repeats if possible …

688. Marja - January 16, 2014

Harry Ballz, I couldn’t find your comment with the quote by Rust Hills, but yegods, most Hollywood writers could benefit from his tutelage. Unfortunately I think Mr Hills passed away a few years ago …. not that anyone in H’wood would listen to him anyways.

Thanks to you guys, I’m getting pretty sensitive to narrative flow in movies now [and this could disadvantage my enjoyment of movies now, heh] … for years I’ve watched movies without the same narrative expectations I have for books. Though movies are a visual-heavy mediium and can do a lot of exposition just with a couple of brief scenes, the scenes all have to string together better than they did in STID. I still think a lot of things were left out in the final edit of STID. I get the feeling that narrative is somewhat put aside in favor of the relentless race to the big climax.

689. Phil - January 16, 2014

@678. Yes, I have. The point being isn’t who did what when, but the sequence of events. Some motion capture is done in real time, some isn’t. It’s ridiculous to state someone would not voice over their roles, in whole or in part, because it was shot real time. The performers in the upcoming movies will deliver their lines real time, then do the necessary voice over work when the animators are done. My original point, which is getting buried in a blizzard of minutia, was that Zoe will be busy doing voice over work in 2016. If we really want to split hairs, being one of the stars of the movie, she will also be very busy hitting the talk shows prior to the release promoting the movie. Regardless of what she is doing, she is very, very involved in the sequel to the biggest movie of all time. In 2016.

No idea what you find bizarre about this. Ever hear of stunt or body doubles? They are used all the time, and no one is accusing anyone of shirking their responsibilities to the project.

690. Curious Cadet - January 16, 2014

@684. Marja,
“Phil, I saw some vids a while back on YouTube…
I imagine that the bodywork motion-capture will be done before the voiceover finals, and a lot of the dialogue is done at the time of motion capture.”

Marja, I posted a link to the YouTube video above @673, and here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ1JzYPjcj0

Cameron expressly states exactly how it was done — “these are NOT actors standing behind a podium and animators going off for two years”. By the way, animation is ALWAYS voiced prior to the animation, any post production voice work is minimal cleanup and minor changes. Avatar shot all of their dialogue in real time performance, the YouTube video demonstrates that — it was NOT replaced in post. While some minor voice work is done in post it is RIDICULOUS to think most of it is done in post, and that goes for any film, but especially not AVATAR.

691. Captain Slow - January 17, 2014

For all the people gloating over STID’s lack of nominations, I just checked and Back to the Future, one of the best movies ever made, was nominated for best screenplay but lost. It wasn’t nominated at all for best picture. It got no special effects nomination.

The best movies don’t always get the recognition that they deserve. And of course until 2009 no Star Trek movie had ever won an Oscar.

692. Stephan - January 17, 2014

@680 Ahmed:

“We all have opinions & we can agree or disagree with these opinions, right ?”

Yes its possible and that is exactly my point. One can talk about opinions but I find it a little bit impolite to just say “Nope” to someones opinion.

And my opinion is that there has been put a lot of effort into the story of stid. I really don’t care so much about repeated views of the enterprise or some action scenes. What makes Stid a wonderful movie, in MY OPINION, is the character interaction, the friendship of kirk and spock and the many facettes of khan and admiral marcus and the allegories of their whole mission which can be compared to americas revenge mission against terror and so on…

693. Stephan - January 17, 2014

676. Curious Cadet

If you see my “bias” maybe you aren’t looking deep enough. ;)
Actually I did see Lone Ranger and I have to say I wasn’t impressed at all with the makeup. I didn’t even get why ST09 got the Oscar for makeup but I was happy for treks first oscar for a great movie.
I think it is well known that the oscars are no indicator of objective quality, but still I want to get the good movies to get some publicity. And it is common that the academy doesn’t give the important oscars to fantasy/scifi movies, so I get the impression they want to honor the good ones with some technical oscars, and then I am happy if we can say trek was at least somehow recognized.

While I don’t think JJ Trek is perfect I think these are very great movies. Criticism is good when it is productive for future work but I think it is on a high level because the movies aren’t that bad as it sometimes sounds.
But sometimes it seems that even the trek fans are done with the actual incarnation of trek, and that they don’t like it and aren’t interested. So why should the general audience, the industry or the Academy show any interest if the trek fans vote stid as the worst trek film?

694. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

#686. Marja – January 16, 2014

In that other thread I mentioned that I haven’t held a current edition of CiNEFEX in my hands in well over a decade so of particulars I have not.

I’m just extrapolating based on Zoe’s Avatar experience. Alice’s interviews where she tells how JJ was so excited about being able to change in the undressing scene her “dressings”. The fact that when I first mentioned the use of Bad Robots “lip” adjusting tech it was obviously very good as even people who usually accept such assertions based on a history of interacting with me doubted it existed or was employed. Not to mention I didn’t catch it myself when I saw 2009, and I knew to look in STID and still could not say for sure.

I ask you to also recall of what I initially said I expected mostly to be “recycled” is footage from the cutting room floor of both existing flicks.

I think I perceive that perhaps the question you are leaving unasked is whether I think her role will be less prominent if they have to resort exclusively to this tech for Uhura to be in the next picture? Yes, I believe so. Perhaps, unfortunately, to that of Prime Spock in the first picture where it was employed? But I don’t expect it will come to that. While I believe their tech may, indeed, allow them to become modern day recyclers on the level of say, Irwin Allen, I think it more likely they will use it to increase their shooting schedule flexibility to accommodate everyone.

And after reading on how they give 2D actor images build-up to 3D and consider that Paramount most likely is going to hire a director that is more enthusiastic about said 3D, I think they are going to have even more rendering tools available to that scheduling end, than we are trying to wrap our heads around here.

695. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

#691. Captain Slow – January 17, 2014

Given how many times across the years AMPAS changes the categories, eligibilites and rules, it probably isn’t very useful to try to compare film nominations beyond more than a decade of years in reach between them.

Now, awards that haven’t had to ride on that rollercoaster over the decades may have something more useful to contribute to this but I wonder which ones that might be?

696. Aurore - January 17, 2014

@ 660. Mr. Ballz.

“Star Trek Into Darkness was simply a series of big action sequences with no cohesive storyline. Hell, even some fan fiction stories for Trek are better than what they came up with! This one really stunk on ice!

___________

208. boborci – January 5, 2012

I would classify our movies as fan fiction!

http://trekmovie.com/2012/01/04/exclusive-sherlock-star-benedict-cumberbatch-cast-in-major-star-trek-sequel-role/

… It should be noted that, their (fan) movies make money !!!

Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest-grossing film of the Star Trek franchise. Is it not ?

What are YOU complaining about, then ?!

( Sir, should you choose to reply to this blatant provocation of mine, please, try to do so with respect and courtesy ; the adherence to “netiquette” standards will help to maintain and ensure decorum. Thank you. ).

:)

697. Captain Slow - January 17, 2014

@ 695 Disinvited

Definitely you can’t compare them directly. But to say that STID is a terrible movie because it wasn’t nominated for best picture is ridiculous when many movies that people love weren’t nominated either.

Also, if you look at the kind of movies that usually win or get nominated, many of them are completely different from Star Trek. They often tend to be historical movies like Lincoln or 12 Years a Slave.

I predict that the next movie won’t win any major Oscars. Especially not best effects since it will be going up against Avatar 2. It might win something less important like make-up or sound editing but the average person doesn’t care about those.

698. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

#697. Captain Slow – January 17, 2014

Indeed, it is simply a fact that the category for Best Picture was greatly expanded in 2009 which is what allowed that year’s Trek to even get nominated for that. We can’t ever say if BTTF would have fared as well because it didn’t have the benefit of those changes.

699. Marja - January 17, 2014

698 Dis, Didn’t the old Oscars have only 5 nominations for Best Picture? Now they have 10, wheeeee! Bet that made lots of H’wood types happy.

700. Captain Slow - January 17, 2014

@ 698 Disinvited

Was ST09 actually nominated? I thought there was just talk of the possibility.

I still say though that STID’s lack of nominations is not a big indicator of its quality. It’s also nothing to celebrate because it means that Paramount will be probably be less interested in promoting the next movie.

I think that we as fans also need to accept that the movie has divided the fanbase. It’s easy to say “It was great!” or “It was terrible!” but it’s not a movie that’s going to appeal to everyone. There are some movies that everyone in the world enjoys, but a movie like Into Darkness has several things that if you don’t agree with, prevent you from liking the movie. I was able to get past the TWOK recycling and in fact I thought that Kirk’s death was better than Spock’s death (until the Khan scream though). But I completely understand why it would ruin the movie for other people.

So if someone hates the movie I will let them. But if I feel that something is being unfairly criticized I will speak up.

701. star trackie - January 17, 2014

#700 “I still say though that STID’s lack of nominations is not a big indicator of its quality.”

Yep, such notions are patently absurd.

702. Ahmed - January 17, 2014

@ 700. Captain Slow – January 17, 2014

“Was ST09 actually nominated? I thought there was just talk of the possibility.”

Check this old article from trekmovie

================================
Star Trek Nominated For 4 Academy Awards – Matching Franchise Record February 2, 2010

This morning (Feb. 2) the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the nominees for the 82nd annual Academy Awards, and the 2009 Star Trek movie picked up four nominations, matching the record set by Star Trek IV. Although there was a bit of buzz, Star Trek did not pick up a Best Picture nomination. In addition, some Trek vets picked up nods. Details below.

…….

There was much buzz about the expansion of of the Best Picture category to 10 and how that would bring some mainstream films into the mix, possibly Star Trek. The 2009 Star Trek film did end up on the National Board of Review Top 10, and was also one of 10 nominees by the PGA, but in the end didn’t make it for the Academy.

Star Trek gets 4 Oscar nominations

Star Trek was nominated in four categories: Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Makeup.

………

Star Trek ties franchise record

Star Trek is fifth film in the franchise to be nominated, although none has ever won an Academy Award. Star Trek matched Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in total nominations.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/02/02/star-trek-nominated-for-4-academy-awards-matching-franchise-record/

703. Ahmed - January 17, 2014

======================
Chris Pine on ‘Star Trek,’ heroes and ‘Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit’

Q: Which has brought you here. I mean, lots of actors talk about landing a big franchise; now you have two. What’s next for Kirk and Ryan?

A: There will be a third “Star Trek,” for sure, and I’m signed on for more Jack Ryan movies — although it’s still a business, and we have to see how well this one does. I would hope they would do more, though, honestly

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/01/chris_pine_on_star_trek_heroes_and_jack_ryan_shadow_recruit.html

704. dmduncan - January 17, 2014

I think nominations DO say something. Not really a marker for what I think are the best movies of the year—which I rarely agree on with the Academy, but if ST.09 receives multiple nominations and STiD receives only one, then what I think that says is that STiD failed to duplicate the same sense of WOW! that it’s predecessor movie had—if only because that tracks with what I personally feel as well. It was too been-there-done-that in almost every respect, from the music to the plot to the production design to the visuals.

Had STiD been as fresh as ST.09 then I think it’s far more likely we would have seen that reflected in the nominations.

We didn’t see that reflection because it largely didn’t deserve special recognition; I don’t even know why it beat out Pacific Rim in the Best VFX category.

705. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

# 702. Ahmed – January 17, 2014, 700. Captain Slow – January 17, 2014

Sorry about that Captain. The tricks that that distance of time can play with memory is amazing to me. I sincerely thought it made it that far.

Thanks Ahmed. So basically it just got the typical Trek movie nominated categories?

706. Stephan - January 17, 2014

@704. dmduncan – January 17, 2014

“I don’t even know why it beat out Pacific Rim in the Best VFX category.”

Maybe because Pacific Rim looked like a better computer game. You could see the cgi in every scene and there was nothing I haven’t seen in Transformers before. I like it when effects are more subtile.

I just think STID wasn’t able to appeal to everyone as ST09, what I think is an aspect of quality. Everybody liked Avengers including me, but I have already forgotten it. I prefer movies like STID where one can discuss and discuss. I prefer movies which part the audience to movies everybody agrees on.

707. Curious Cadet - January 17, 2014

@689. Phil,
“My original point, which is getting buried in a blizzard of minutia, was that Zoe will be busy doing voice over work in 2016….Regardless of what she is doing, she is very, very involved in the sequel to the biggest movie of all time. In 2016.”

With all due respect (and I do respect your opinions), you are WRONG about this.

If Zoe spent 3 days in an ADR booth recording dialogue in post, that would be a LOT, even for a movie like AVATAR. But let’s say she spent a week — that’s hardly time consuming enough to warrant your claim that she will be “busy doing voiceover work in 2016″ — at least not for AVATAR which seems to be your point.

Then again, you BELIEVE that AVATAR was NOT the #1 domestic Box Office Film of 2009.

708. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

#700. Captain Slow – January 17, 2014

Quality? Yes, you are probably right about that, but there is another elephant in the room whenever I discus the 2009 movie with fans of it: they claim it was more respected than any other Trek film. Granted that can be difficult to meter too but I think being slotted into Trek’s traditional categories tends to indicate that while it may possibly have been highly regarded in the industry, it isn’t the MOST highly regarded one ever if such a thing exists.

709. dmduncan - January 17, 2014

706. Stephan – January 17, 2014

I prefer hard measures. “STiD” has 50% more VFX shots than Pacific Rim,” for instance. That is something that might persuade me—not your content preferences as a Star Trek fan. Movies should be judged FAIRLY.

Pacific Rim was a BLAST, it’s effects were fantastic which is why it was on the contender’s list, and it had about as much in common with Transformers as Star Trek has with Star Wars.

710. MJ - January 17, 2014

“Then again, you BELIEVE that AVATAR was NOT the #1 domestic Box Office Film of 2009.”

Avatar was not the #1 domestic box office film for the calender year 2009 (1 Jan 2009 to 31 December 2009). For that time period, it finished 6th.

However, for the following year, 2010 (1 Jan 2010 to 31 Dec 2010), Avatar was in fact the number 1 movie.

It’s not a question of belief. It’s using your brain to know what a year means and to be able to provide 3rd grade math to be able to see how much box office a movie made in a given year — a “year” that most of us who rely on common sense understand to be from Jan 1 to Dec 31.

711. Stephan - January 17, 2014

709. dmduncan:

Hard measures? Do you think quantity goes over quality?

If I really judge the movies FAIRLY then I have to say the CGI from Pacific Rim looked like they were made on a computer. In Stid there were a lot of vfx shots where I hadn’t assumed them because it looked like an actual set. The whole shuttle hangar scene for instance was made in front of a green screen, although I thought it was a set. And the tribe at the beginning was only one guy. There are so many examples of well made effect shots because they don’t look like effect shots. Pacific Rim on the other hand felt like a computer game in my opinion.

712. Marja - January 17, 2014

704 duncan, well yeah, but ST09 had the advantage of being the first Trek movie in many long time, with all the rush-rush [but not so pell-mell as STID] gleaming SFX that were just coming into play in major movies then.

Re: Trek2009 vs. STID People say how much better the movie was than STID — in a couple of respects it was better for me — but as far as plot I felt it was quite simple, the vengeance model seemed rather simple and rather boring. Plots relating solely to vengeance are boring. (In STID we saw more of the costs of vengeance, and more of the lasting impact on lives.)

At any rate Trek1 was much less complex [some might say much less convoluted] than STID, but Trek1 had no political story, really. I enjoyed the complexities of STID, the address to contemporary politics and the hollowness of paranoia and its fulfillment, but I am very sure too much footage [with relevant plot points] was left on the cutting room floor. Which made STID nearly incomprehensible because of the pell-mell rush to the finish.

713. dmduncan - January 17, 2014

711. Stephan – January 17, 2014

I think your bias as a Star Trek fan is showing. I’ll take any “hard measure” over they chose STiD over Pacific Rim because they had the same opinion that Stephan did. Green screen static set shots are easy compared to what Pacific Rim had to do, which was to create giant piloted anthropomorphic vehicles fighting giant monsters, which it did fantastically well.

Pacific Rim looked much more ambitious than STiD.

And don’t know what video games you are playing but they must be incredibly more advanced than anything I’m familiar with if you think the rendering in Pacific Rim looked like one.

714. Stephan - January 17, 2014

If anyone else comes with my “bias” I wll cry. ;)
Seriously can’t you stay objective without alleging things?

I think it is much more difficult to make effects which don’t look like they were made with a computer. And if an effects team manages this it is an effort. Obviously the academy shares my opinion. And I really don’t get what was ambitious about Pacific Rim. It looked artificial in my opinion and there was nothing I heaven’t seen in movies like Transformers before.

715. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

#710. MJ – January 17, 2014

Common sense? Now where would Creation Entertainment and CBS’ decades of convention profits for otherwise odd, hard to sell dates be if their ticket purchasers used that?

716. Stephan - January 17, 2014

By the way in the demo reel from ILM you can see how complex some scenes like the volcano scene in stid were.

717. dmduncan - January 17, 2014

712. Marja – January 17, 2014

I disagree. I thought the MWI/QM DNA of ST.09 not only gave it the heart of a SF movie, but it directed the entire plot with the subtext that choices make you who you are regardless of the curves the universe throws at you. It was an existentialist theme that, agree with existentialism or not, made the movie more cohesive than STiD, which seemed to have no SF DNA at all.

The lack of inspiration on STiD is palpable with every viewing. Watching the Enterprise rise up out of Titan’s atmosphere in ST.09 was AWESOME.

Watching it rise up out of stuff TWO more times in STiD signals to me a lack of creative vitality on the film.

718. MJ - January 17, 2014

@715

If I was a suspicious person, I’d ask myself why, time after time, when I challenge Curious Cadet on something, you quickly show up here to defend his position?

So thank goodness that I am not a suspicious person. ;-)

719. MJ - January 17, 2014

DM,

I agree with Stephan that just counting the number of special effects scenes in a movie doesn’t necessarily have any relation to the quality of that movie.

720. dmduncan - January 17, 2014

719. MJ – January 17, 2014

DM,

I agree with Stephan that just counting the number of special effects scenes in a movie doesn’t necessarily have any relation to the quality of that movie.

***

Then we are all in agreement, MJ. Merely counting VFX shots does not necessarily make a movie better than another.

721. Ahmed - January 17, 2014

Bob Orci fantasy crossover :)

===========================

IGN: As a fan, do you have a fantasy crossover that can’t happen because of rights issues?

Orci: [Laughs] I’d love to see the Enterprise go to Cybertron. What? Paramount owns both. You mean in the Spider-Man universe?

IGN: Yeah…although, tell me about that! What would that look like?

Orci: Maybe the Enterprise would get the technology to transform itself into other things. The Enterprise becomes Voltron, how about that?

IGN: The world would melt down.

[Please note: this doesn't translate to print as well, but Orci - who wrote both Transformers and the Star Trek reboot - is joking about the Enterprise/Cybertron crossover.]

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/01/16/the-amazing-spider-man-2-writer-on-sinister-six-oscorp-unifying-the-villainsa-possible-eddie-brock-venom-and-the-future-of-the-franchise

722. Phil - January 17, 2014

@707. Interesting – the video you supplied shows all this capture motion filming being done in a warehouse. Basically, a very brightly lit, concrete box. Okay, I can play lets assume, too. I can assume that even though they are capturing motion that lets them create any image they want, they won’t. I can assume that just because they can render the lighting any way they want, they wont. I can assume that the acoustics in the warehouse are perfect, eliminating the need for post production sound work. The whole flippin point of the technology is that the creative team can create and manipulate it any way they see fit. That will necessitate some post production voice work At this point, it really doesn’t matter if it three hours or three weeks worth, to categorically state there won’t be any is just incorrect.

Even if there is no principle or post production photography at all on the sequel, or any voice over work at all, my point is that Ms. Saldana will still be very busy on Avatar 2 in the last third of 2016. Regardless of the particular tasks needed to bring it to the screen.

Also, not to sure why you are assuming I believe that Avatar wasn’t number 1 in 2009. Revenue is generally credited to the year of release, or is that an arbitrary assumption as well.

723. Phil - January 17, 2014

@721. Why not – the fan base seems accepting of the idea that unless something is specifically shown as not possible, then it’s fair game. If Enterprise can be a submarine, or a Aztec temple, why not a giant fighting robot?

724. Disinvited - January 17, 2014

#718. MJ – January 17, 2014

Just keeping it real as to what has been allowed over all these years in the name of “service” to fandom from corporate and the fans support of it through their wallet votes.

If anything, I thought I was falling on old habits from the 70s in slamming Creation and corporate for their lack of common sense or what could at the very least be labelled proper decorum. I must be rusty for you to take it otherwise. I did long ago resign myself to the fact that as long as there was a buck to be made from not using common sense, my rants against it were for naught.

Maybe, all things considered, we’d rather be in Philadelphia circa 1995?:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-04-30/news/mn-60661_1_pop-culture

“It can be found everywhere: a tacky 1970s leisure suit, music of the Great Depression, dishes in a roadside diner, themes of Melville that surface in STAR TREK.

American popular culture is undisciplined, colorful, noisy, artistic. It is everything that’s American, the history people live every day.

And it’s more than the sum of its parts, many in academia say.

More than 2,200 academics meeting in Philadelphia recently tried to make sense of different corners of the American experience, presenting hundreds of papers aimed at sorting it out.” – “Pop Culture Shapes Psyche of Nation : America: It’s the history that people live every day, including Tony Bennett, Tupperware and cocktail shakers. Not to mention STAR TREK.” April 30, 1995|TED ANTHONY | ASSOCIATED PRESS | LATIMES

725. Curious Cadet - January 17, 2014

@722. Phil,
“the video you supplied shows all this capture motion filming being done in a warehouse.”

Nope. That video was done on a professional soundstage at the Manhattan Beach Studio, where all of Avatar’s motion capture was shot. The audio captured will be as good as any recorded there as used in any production.

_________
” can assume that the acoustics in the warehouse are perfect, eliminating the need for post production sound work.”

Any number of variables can necessitate post production sound work. However, you can assume that being shot on a proper sound stage there will be little necessary for acoustic problems. You can also take for a fact that Cameron states he set out to capture their live performances for the purposes of preserving it, not manipulating it substantially. Several scenes are shown side by side, dailies and final and the dialogue perfectly matches the live motion capture — it was not looped. Moreover, he was looking for the emotion form the performance, not just in their faces, but in their dialogue as well. No director wants an actor to come back into the studio two years after their original performance and try to recreate it in an isolated sound booth in synchronization with an animated picture. Nothing works that way and based on Cameron’s comments, definitely not Avatar.

_________
“my point is that Ms. Saldana will still be very busy on Avatar 2 in the last third of 2016. Regardless of the particular tasks needed to bring it to the screen.”

No argument there.

726. MJ - January 17, 2014

That’s hardly much worse of a stretch than that fan production where they brought in a geriatric version of Apollo for no good reason other than fanboy hubris.

=================================
723. Phil – January 17, 2014
@721. Why not – the fan base seems accepting of the idea that unless something is specifically shown as not possible, then it’s fair game. If Enterprise can be a submarine, or a Aztec temple, why not a giant fighting robot?

727. Curious Cadet - January 17, 2014

@722. Phil,
“Also, not to sure why you are assuming I believe that Avatar wasn’t number 1 in 2009. Revenue is generally credited to the year of release, or is that an arbitrary assumption as well.”

Well you can’t have it both ways.

STID either finished in the top 10 box office for 2013 as you claim, AND Avatar did not win the #1 spot in the 2009 box office; or, STID finished in 11th place for 2013, AND Avatar was the top box office grossing film for 2009. It’s mutually exclusive.

So I’m glad to see you’ve come around to seeing it the way the rest of the world views box office rankings. Too bad for STID, but 11th place is nothing to sneeze about. Thankfully you are not trying to claim the ridiculous notion that Avatar was not the number one movie of 2009, but instead the number one movie of 2010. That would get you laughed out of the room.

728. MJ - January 17, 2014

Avatar finished 6th in 2009. Avatar finished 1st in 2010.

STID finished 10th in 2013.

Nothing mutually exclusive about it — these are the facts. It’s not rocket science. Just count the box office totals from 1 Jan to 31 Dec in a given year, and you will know what movies made the most $$ in that year.

I choose to ignore the silly movie elite tendency of having “imaginary years” where some movies get to count revenues from adjacent years. That’s moronic, and it illustrates the lack of basic math skills by the entertainment elite.

729. Ahmed - January 17, 2014

2016 just got more crowded! Superman vs Batman will be released on May 6, 2016.

=============================
Batman-Superman Movie Bumped to 2016, Sets Up Marvel Showdown

The superhero team-up is set for May 6, 2016 as a Peter Pan movie takes the previous July 2015 release date.

Superman and Batman are going to have to wait a little longer to team up.

Warner Bros. announced Friday that the Man of Steel follow-up will hit theaters May 6, 2016, nine months later than its previous July 17, 2015 release date. That date will now be reserved for a Peter Pan movie directed by Joe Wright.

The move sets up a potential Warner Bros/DC showdown with rival Disney/Marvel, which also has set an untitled Marvel move for that date. Marvel has had huge success with releasing big-budget tentpoles in early May. Iron Man 3 became the second biggest-grossing film of 2013 after an early May release. In 2012, The Avengers became the third-biggest grossing film of all time after an early May release.

Warners is now aiming for its share of the early May box office.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-superman-movie-bumped-2016-671998

====================================

730. MJ - January 17, 2014

@729

I bet the Batman-Superman script sucks, and they are starting over.

This is an epic fail for Warner, and essential pushes back and real competition from them against Marvel by nearly a year.

731. Captain Slow - January 17, 2014

@ 712 Marja

Exactly. While I adore both movies, I can say that ST09 had a much more basic plot. People also seem to be forgetting that back in 2009, everyone hated Nero. They went on about how he lacked development and about how awful “Hi Christopher. I’m Nero.” was. Once STID is released and there’s something new to complain about ST09 becomes a perfect movie.

I personally never had a problem with Nero, but I prefer the complexities of the villains in STID. Also I hadn’t spoiled myself about anything really so I had no idea that BC was playing Khan.

732. Keachick - January 18, 2014

Actually I love the way Nero introduced himself, as in “Hi Christopher. I’m Nero”. Also, who knew that Romulan could sound so Australian? LOL I thought it was actually those little touches that helped make ST09 a bit different, in a good way.

I also get the giggles when I see Kirk try to punch Harrison/Khan just after Khan surrenders and just as Kirk has just about knocked HIMSELF out, Khan says, “Captain?” It’s the Cumberbatch delivery of that one word that propel my giggles into outright laughter…oh, such awesome black humour! Once again, those little touches.` And, lest we forget her “talented tongue”…

Not good movies? I guess I’m just Trek/Pine loving moviegoer who really has little time or interest in statistics or whether one story is better than another etc etc.

Thanks, Ahmed, for posting that link to the Chris Pine interview. Good read. I found Chris’s comparison between the nature of the two heroes that he now plays, James Kirk and Jack Ryan, rather interesting.

I’m not sure that Kirk always seeks to be centrestage, but Kirk wants to excel and exceed expectations (mostly his own) which often means taking the initiative. Kirk is successful most of the time (I call it “good karma”), which he needs to learn he cannot take for granted… Jack Ryan, unfortunately, does not share the same “good karma” but attempts to make the most of what he does have. Perhaps if you see the Jack Ryan film, you may understand what I mean.

Actually – Anyone seen the Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit film yet? I have – first screening. I enjoyed the film and Chris did not disappoint. Definitely going to see it again…:)

733. Keachick - January 18, 2014

Chris Pine was just asked about the next Star Trek movie. He said he did not know where things were at, except that he thought that Bob Orci would still be involved and that they were interviewing possible directors. Nothing we did not know already – just confirmation.

However, Chris also said he would like to see Kirk go “dark… dangerous…” Perhaps he needs to explain what he means by that, but I have reminded him about the basic premise of Star Trek as created by Gene Roddenberry – that Kirk and his crew are people of goodness and integrity, that being “dark and dangerous” is not what these characters are about.

He said this in an interview which can be found on the Chris Pine Network. I posted my comment there. Perhaps he reads these comments. I don’t know. I hope so. Anyway, it is interesting to hear what the actor thinks and would like to do.

It would be so good if Chris could chat about what he means by “dark and dangerous”, the context etc. I think he wants to get the opportunity to play a character who is not so nice, heroic, good…it might work if the next story dealt with a TOS Mirror Mirror type theme, but I want my lovely good guy Pine/Kirk back at the end of it all, for sure!

Of course, we will all be on our best behaviour…won’t we, folks?…:)

734. Captain Slow - January 18, 2014

@ 732 Keachick

I didn’t have a problem with the line. It was a little weird when I first saw the movie simply because it was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.

Didn’t Kirk already go dark? I thought that when he was hitting Khan over and over until his arm tired that was his dark moment (although not really dangerous).

735. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

Looks like Paramount made the right decision moving Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit to January. It would have gotten lost in the busy holiday season.

Rotten Tomatoes has ranked it 62% of all critics, with audiences in agreement at 63%. Top critics gave it a dismal 52%.

It will be interesting to see how well it did at the box office opening night and over the long weekend.

Chris Pine gets good enough reviews, but if the movie tanks it won’t do much for his career. One interesting observation, I’ve seen very little advertising for this film, but the few billboards I’ve seen featured Kevin Costner, NOT Chris Pine, suggesting Paramount doesn’t feel Pine is a strong enough draw on his own. Or perhaps research shows that people who are influenced by billboards don’t know who Chris Pine is. Whatever the reason, it seems like Paramount has already written this movie off.

736. Marja - January 18, 2014

735 Curious, I’ve seen very little advertising for this film …perhaps research shows that people who are influenced by billboards don’t know who Chris Pine is. Whatever the reason, it seems like Paramount has already written this movie off.

Heck, Curious, going by these standards, it would seem Paramount did that with Into Darkness! ;-p

737. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@763 Marja,

You know I can’t really comment on the lack of advertising for STID, and I’ve never understood the complaints that it wasn’t very well advertised in the US, because where I live (LA), there were STID posters and billboards on almost every street corner. I couldn’t walk into a sports bar without seeing a commercial flash on all the TVs in the joint. And they seemed to have been up so long it was as if they had always been there. But I can say by comparison, it’s as if Jack Ryan was a straight to video release of a new Kevin Costner film.

738. Marja - January 18, 2014

duncan, I thought the MWI/QM DNA of ST.09 not only gave it the heart of a SF movie, but it directed the entire plot with the subtext that choices make you who you are regardless of the curves the universe throws at you. It was an existentialist theme that, agree with existentialism or not, made the movie more cohesive than STiD, which seemed to have no SF DNA at all.

First, I’m not familiar with MWI/QM, maybe spelled out I would know…? Men With Interests, Quartermasters? [hee]

On the other question, I agree with “choices make you who you are” as an intelligent subtext, although I could debate on the point “regardless of the curves the universe throws at you.” The latter influences the former [our choices], does it not? Granted George Kirk’s death and subsequent events in Jim Kirk’s life, and the AltVerse in general, were initiated by Nero’s choice to exact revenge on Spock, which was initiated by the Vulcans’ choice to help the Romulans, which was initiated by the nova in the Romulan system … which then resulted in the beginning of an AltVerse ….

I certainly agree that STiD had little SF DNA, it was more a socio-political plot, examining choices made by people high up in government, and their effects on everyday folks, and the battle against these forces, which – as you may have intuited from many of my posts – I am very interested in and often ticked off about. Any SF was a by-product, I see that, and I agree, I would like some more emphasis on SF in the next film. Though I wouldn’t object to some more socio-political commentary :-)

739. Marja - January 18, 2014

Duncan, The lack of inspiration on STiD is palpable with every viewing. Watching the Enterprise rise up out of Titan’s atmosphere in ST.09 was AWESOME. Watching it rise up out of stuff TWO more times in STiD signals to me a lack of creative vitality on the film.

Yeah, sadly, they wore that out didn’t they. Along with the spacediving [yawn].

740. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

Yikes:

Jack Ryan opened 3RD! Despite having almost 800 more screens than RIDE ALONG. This is not good for that franchise, Pine nor Paramount, and ultimately Star Trek. Good thing Pine has four years to build his celebrity ;-) has anybody checked out the films Pine’s working on over the next year? It’s all silly comedies, and a sequel to one at that. What is his management team thinking? Into the Woods is the highest profile film among them, but that’s a musical!

1 RIDE ALONG 2,663 $14,500,000

2 LONE SURVIVOR 2,989 $6,700,000

3 JACK RYAN 3,387 $5,434,000

741. Ahmed - January 18, 2014

@ 735. Curious Cadet – January 18, 2014

“It will be interesting to see how well it did at the box office opening night and over the long weekend.”

The movie is struggling at the box office, it opened to just $330,000 on Thursday evening !!!

“Jack Ryan took in $330,000 as it rolled out at 9 p.m. Thursday, on par with Ron Howard’s recent Formula One drama Rush. Tracking for the pic has been soft, but it didn’t expect to do big business Thursday night, since it is likely to appeal to an older crowd.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-ride-along-scores-671796

===============================

Box Office: ‘Ride Along’ Tops Friday With $14.5 Million; ‘Jack Ryan’ Struggles

Kenneth Branagh’s Jack Ryan, starring Chris Pine as the iconic character created by author Tom Clancy, entered at No. 3 with $5.4 million, but the film is expected to slip to No. 4 for the weekend with a so-so debut in the $17 million to $18 million range.

Tracking has been on the soft side for the Paramount film, which hopes to relaunch the studio’s marquee spy franchise.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-ride-along-tops-672091

===============================

742. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@738 Marja,
“I certainly agree that STiD had little SF DNA, it was more a socio-political plot, ”

First QM/MWI = Quantum Mechanics / Many Worlds Interpretation, which I also thought was genius and very much true to the franchise.

But, I’m not sure I can agree 100% with this other sentiment. Socio-political plots were fairly common in TOS, and entirely too ubiquitous in TNG, often involving very little sci-ifi.

If anything, it was the execution in STID. If I had to guess, I would say Orci got wrapped up in telling his 9/11-based conspiracy story and completely forgot he was writing a Star Trek story. If I were to give Lindelof any credit it was probably recognizing this, and trying to inject a little Star Trek back into it. Too bad he insisted on Khan.

743. Marja - January 18, 2014

733 Keachick, Nice to see you! I agree with you on “Hi Christopher, I’m Nero” … I remember it got a tense laugh from the audience!

I look forward to Pine as Ryan; however I can’t agree with Pine on wanting to see Kirk “go dark and dangerous” … I thought there was enough of Kirk being “dark” in STiD. The need to have revenge is dark indeed, and I don’t really want to see Kirk go there again. I want to see him being a leader, a non-traditional genius thinker and tactician.

744. Ahmed - January 18, 2014

@740. Curious Cadet

“has anybody checked out the films Pine’s working on over the next year? It’s all silly comedies, and a sequel to one at that. What is his management team thinking? ”

Maybe he needs to fir his agent, again !

I just checked his IMDB page & as you said, it all comedies! Nothing is wrong with doing comedies, of course, but he should try other genres.

745. Marja - January 18, 2014

737 Curious, I can tell you that in Tallahassee, the state capital of Florida, there was little to none until three weeks before the movie opened, major TV ad saturation. No visuals except a teensy poster in the corner of the theatre for about 6 weeks.

746. Ahmed - January 18, 2014

@ 745. Marja – January 18, 2014

“I can tell you that in Tallahassee, the state capital of Florida, there was little to none until three weeks before the movie opened, major TV ad saturation. No visuals except a teensy poster in the corner of the theatre for about 6 weeks.”

Sound familiar with another Paramount marketing campaign last year :)

747. Marja - January 18, 2014

Curious, If I had to guess, I would say Orci got wrapped up in telling his 9/11-based conspiracy story and completely forgot he was writing a Star Trek story. If I were to give Lindelof any credit it was probably recognizing this, and trying to inject a little Star Trek back into it.

I didn’t get a major impression of “false flag/inside job 9/11 conspiracy theory” from the movie. What I got was an allegory about Cheney &co. reacting to 9/11 as a grand opportunity to put their profiteering plans into place, using Right wing paranoia. About government action driven by a few, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, both active duty forces and innocents, resulting from the actions of these unhappy few.

Ahh yes, the Many Worlds/Quantum Mechanics thing. The escape of Enterprise from a quantum singularity struck me as unrealistic, b/c I may have confused a quantum singularity with a Black Hole. I’ve seen folks here explaining the Black Hole thing, but some of that went over my little artistic non-mathematically inclined brain ….

Too bad [Lindelof] insisted on Khan. Yes, and on “KHAAAANNNNNN!” from Spock. Ugh. Destroyed an otherwise good dramatic moment.

748. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@747 Marja,
“I didn’t get a major impression of “false flag/inside job 9/11 conspiracy theory” from the movie”

Neither did I. I do not subscribe to that theory at all. What I wrote was “9/11-BASED conspiracy story”, meaning following a 9/11 type incident (as confirmed by Orci re: the destruction of Vulcan), the government reacted conspiratorially. That I do believe, and I think we are in agreement on.

749. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

738. Marja – January 18, 2014

FWIW. I felt the 2009 effort was a reasonable good “B” style SF film. It would have been a letter better if it had found a way to explore in more depth the implications of decisions made outside your universe having major long term effects on it – even leading to its creation. Having the hero summarize it as “cheating” was an entertaining inside Hollywood B movie type wink which nonetheless I felt left me wanting for a Trek film. So I enjoyed it as an SF film but not so much as a STAR TREK film even though I thought the cast hit their marks and delivered excellent characterizations. It has been pointed out that whatever it was that left me wanting for a Trek, it likely was that it was an “origin” film and in that respect the equivalent of a pilot episode which rarely contains all the nuances that one grows to associate with a beloved series. That may be, but a lesser Trek was not a product from corporate that I was anxious to purchase at this decade in my fandom, and as fate would have it, the universe agreed with me so I can’t complain about any expenses in that regard.

Now as for STID, Bob Orci assured my very doubting self in these very forums that now that he got the “origins” part out of the way, the next film [STID] would be a recognizable STAR TREK. I feel he delivered on that promise. It felt like Trek to me. Oh, it was very flawed and it did it at the expense of the SF which I prefer to have in what I regard as the best Treks, but he manged to do that which I thought he couldn’t in my despair at the first product presented to me. And perhaps that’s all that need be said by me about it. Too bad it wasn’t better marketed to us in the U.S.

750. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

#742. Curious Cadet – January 18, 2014

Now there’s a poser: “Are STID and the Neo-Nazi planet episode PATTERNS OF FORCE roughly the same type of socio-political exploring Trek, or does one have more SF than the other?”

751. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@750 Disinvited,

The difference between PATTERNS OF FORCE and STID is that they didn’t produce a 300 year old thawed-out Adolph Hitler being manipulated by Melakonto teach him the things Gill wouldn’t.

That and one was about another planet’s culture rather than our own — which, make no mistake about it, is a major component of Star Trek’s ability to entertain as it lectures. Separating the venue from Earth by vast interstellar distances is essential to Trek’s storytelling ability. Pointing the finger directly at the audience very rarely works, and despite STID separating events by 300 years doesn’t change the fact that it’s still us they’re lecturing to and about.

752. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

#751. Curious Cadet – January 18, 2014

You are forgetting the Ekosians were the more primitive planet. The Zeons were the ones who developed space travel and discovered Ekos and were teaching and educating them peacefully. Then Gil comes in with this theory that he could more effectively “advance” the Ekosian development by introducing the “best” of the Nazi rise to power and technical advances. He thinks he can keep the whole truth about the Nazis from his best student who then learns the truth, uses it and turns on him – even kills him.

There are parallels but that’s not why I brought it up. I’m more interested in does PoF feel like it has more SF and why, and do you regard them both as members of your socio-political Trek sub-genre?

753. Phil - January 18, 2014

@749. There is a huge difference between recognizable and rehashed.

754. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

#753. Phil – January 18, 2014

I definitely acknowledge it is flawed. But if if rehashing was somehow mutually exclusive of being recognizable in regards to Trek in the films then the “franchise” would have never have launched in the first place. Even though I deeply appreciate ST:TMP, I still knowingly chuckle when fans refer to it as WHERE NOMAD HAS GONE BEFORE.

755. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

#753. Phil – January 18, 2014

FWIW from that LATIMES article I cited to MJ:

”Elizabeth Jan Wall Hinds, who teaches at the University of Colorado, turned a critical eye on the movie “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.”

She found that its theme and plot echoed Melville’s “Moby Dick,” and that the film’s main villain, Khan Noonian Singh, quoted from Captain Ahab.

Simple dramatic license? Hinds thinks not. She sees it as a way that mass media export themes of classical literature–the tragedy of obsession, in “Moby Dick’s” case–to new audiences.

“The values that were perpetuated in previous centuries through books are now transmitted through TV and movies,” Hinds said. “The themes recur, and the themes are preserved. That’s popular culture’s use.”” – April 30, 1995|TED ANTHONY | ASSOCIATED PRESS | LATIMES

756. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@752 disinvited,

I’m not forgetting anything … im actually making a joke, equating Hitler with Khan, Weller with Melakon. Obviously I do think STID and POF are both representative of Star Trek’s core DNA, which is why I disagree with Marja and Duncan on that point. Just like The Omega Glory, and Private Little War, and Mission of Mercy, and A Taste of Armageddon, et al.

Indeed STID probably has more core scifi elements than any of those episodes. So it’s not the scifi, nor the philosophy that makes STID feel like another franchise … It’s the execution.

And with that, you seem to have overlooked the main point I was making — once Star Trek starts pointing a finger directly at its audience it loses its ability to make powerful observations about ourselves without alienating that audience. The Federation needs to be above the fray, reflecting the best of our society and who we are and the potential we hold to become that. Corruption and evil needs to come from the outside. We need to recognize the evil within us from the outside, through allegory. STID simply holds up a mirror, showing us a world not so far removed from ouselves, which kind of takes the fun out of the experience.

757. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

#756. Curious Cadet – January 18, 2014

Interesting point. But I take it you are fully aware that the Trek films started holding that mirror up (and most egregiously) in ST:IV (my favorite Trek film and FUN) where they not only held it up but went back in time to our current era (at the time) to hold it right in front of our faces? And then there was ST:VI…

So what STID did was not something exceptionally new for a Trek film mirror-wise?

758. MJ - January 18, 2014

“However, Chris also said he would like to see Kirk go “dark… dangerous…” Perhaps he needs to explain what he means by that, but I have reminded him about the basic premise of Star Trek as created by Gene Roddenberry – that Kirk and his crew are people of goodness and integrity, that being “dark and dangerous” is not what these characters are about.”

WOW !!! That’s cool that your finally got meet to meet him in person, or at least have been corresponding with him directly

So what was Chris Pine’s response when you reminded him of this?

759. Ahmed - January 18, 2014

============================
Friday Box Office: ‘Ride Along’ ($14.5m) Crushes ‘Jack Ryan’ ($5.4m)

Debuting with a perfectly mediocre debut was Paramount’s Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. The $60 million thriller earned $5.4m last night, setting itself up for a disappointing $18m four-day debut.

The Chris Pine-starring/Kenneth Branagh-directing action film was of course an attempt to restart the Tom Clancy franchise, last seen in Ben Affleck’s The Sum of All Fears in 2002. What we should remember is that the series, while popular, was never among the top tiers of box office debuts.

But the last film debuted with $30m back in 2002 and the Harrison Ford vehicles (Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger) had over/under $20m debuts in the early 1990′s when $20m was a solid hit for pretty much anything.

Chris Pine is not a draw on his own, the generic trailers didn’t entice, there are plenty of adult alternatives in the marketplace right now, and the Jack Ryan character is indeed only as popular as the actor playing him.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/01/18/friday-box-office-kevin-hart-is-now-a-movie-star-as-ride-along-earns-14-5m/

760. Phil - January 18, 2014

@733. There was an excellent piece on Pine and his career track that hit the magazine racks recently…unfortunately, as it detailed that he is rather protective of his privacy, I suspect he would not be commenting on fan forums any time soon. I also suspect you know this. Regardless, there was enough candor in the story that caused me to rethink some of my criticisms in the past. He seems happy with were his life and career are, and it’s not my job to opine otherwise.

Actually, even in the enlightened Trek universe, there is room to speculate that Kirk can get dark and dangerous from time to time. By the time TUC rolled around, it’s been established that Kirk is a rather polarizing figure within the Klingon Empire. While we saw him be the peacemaker/keeper, it strikes me that as the Klingons see him as a worthy opponent, it also implies that once peacemaking or keeping got past the point of no return, Kirk was a formidable adversary. I doubt that Kirk earned that reputation by having a killer Gagh recipie. Anyway, just a thought….
“No better friend, no worse enemy” than a Starfleet Captain

761. Disinvited - January 18, 2014

#760. Phil – January 18, 2014

LOL, you gave me pause to consider what exactly it was he whipped up in the Nexus’ kitchen?

762. Keachick - January 18, 2014

No, MJ, unfortunately I have not made actual contact with Chris Pine. I wrote what I thought about his desire to play a darker, dangerous Kirk on the Chris Pine Network because I believe he may read some of the comments there, few though they are.

Anthony Pascale commented that Chris Pine is aware of this site and has read the comments at various times. I believe he also posted a comment about William Shatner a little while ago – a positive one about William Shatner as a person, someone he has, of course, met and conversed with on at least two occasions that we know about.

My comments had nothing to do with his personal life – just what he said about Star Trek and James Kirk.

Chris Pine has a nice singing voice – a melodic, mellow sort of baritone. He sang a few bars from the old Sinatra song “Fly Me to the Moon” on the Jimmy Kimmel Show and also said he would love to play Frank Sinatra. The comment seemed a little out of context, until I remember about a rumour that a film was considered being made dealing with the early life/career of Frank Sinatra, the Rat Pack (Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis and Sammy Davis Jnr), Lauren Bacall et al, a little while back. Perhaps a studio/producer may be revisiting the idea, because Chris Pine has very publicly “put his hat in the ring” (as it were) for this possible role.

We’ll have to see…

I think that Chris wants to have a go at acting in as many different film genres as possible. It’s work, it’s a living. He wants to “stretch” himself as an artist, hence developing and using his singing abilities as well. I just hope the right opportunities continue being afforded to him.

763. MJ - January 18, 2014

It’s great news for Star Trek that Pine is not making it big. Neither have any of the other stars. This means we might get a twenty-year run out of these characters/actors, and it even opens the door for them moving the franchise back to an upscale HBO or Showtime 10 ep per year series at some point.

So its good that none of these actors are hitting the A-list.

764. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@757. Disinvited,
“But I take it you are fully aware that the Trek films started holding that mirror up (and most egregiously) in ST:IV …And then there was ST:VI…”

Oh, I don’t deny that. But those films are different, no? Regardless it still boils down to execution.

TVH was essentially a comedy … and I think outside of the Japanese, and a few other minority whaling businesses, you wouldn’t find anyone who disagreed with saving saving the whales in 1986. Plus there was no evil conspiracy, just an alien probe that arguably didn’t know what it was doing to the humans.

TUC is the tricky one. It is the most like STID. I will say most of these problems in that movie, like TVH are dissipated by the broad humor. The whole middle of the film on Rura Penthe is like a completely different movie. And there’s some pretty comical stuff going on aboard Enterprise too. Certainly the way they portray the Klingons allows the audience to laugh pretty heartily either in agreement, or at themselves for behaving the same way. However, the crux of that movie is mainly a murder mystery investigation. By the end, the conspiracy plot is meaningless, and ultimately it’s not some nefarious Starfleet organization by themselves anyway, it’s a rouge guy working with the Klingons, who end up taking the brunt of the blame and satisfying destruction. And like saving the whales, the Berlin Wall had already long since fallen and the general attitude of the world was that it was for the better, and war mongers like Adm. Cartwright were idiots.

Likewise, I think Insurrection suffers from this problem somewhat (though it had so many others), and so does First Contact (which shows the near term bleak future of the Earth), but both of those films likewise avoid making that the central focus of the story.

So back to STID: was centering the story on Starfleet and making the HEAD of star fleet a pretty bad guy, a problem? Well, it certainly wasn’t in keeping with TOS, which told such stories, but about other worlds. And while STID had some humor, it was nothing like the humor we got with TVH or TUC. All things considered, it was a pretty dark movie that dealt with some pretty heavy concepts, most of which obviously pointed at finger at our own government. I mean think about it, this could have easily been the plot of a Jack Ryan film set in 2002. And if it was, then it would have been about Afghanistan and Iraq, and Marcus would have been something akin to the Secretary of Defense. That’s a pretty volatile story to tell don’t you think? And it’s not much in keeping with what I’ve come to expect form Star Trek.

765. Tom - January 18, 2014

Maybe for the new movie they can rip off Marvel and do an end credit scene. For the 50th anniversary you can put the Shatner scene at the end. Would be a nice coda. Leonard and Bill to close it out without interfering with the general story if there is no organic way to include them.

Also I think Bob should run a contest to have one of us come down to visit the set with a guest(or sock puppet lol). Would be so cool since he interacts with us here. Would be nice for a Harry, CC, MJ. Keachick etc to get that chance .Of course I would say Ahmed but Bob would rig it so he loses! seriously though think it would be a nice.
I think its a great time to have fun with the movie and try something different

766. Curious Cadet - January 18, 2014

@765 Tom,
“For the 50th anniversary you can put the Shatner scene at the end. Would be a nice coda. Leonard and Bill to close it out without interfering with the general story if there is no organic way to include them.”

That’s an excellent idea. Seriously.

It solves all the problems.

767. Ahmed - January 18, 2014

@ 765. Tom – January 18, 2014

“Maybe for the new movie they can rip off Marvel and do an end credit scene. For the 50th anniversary you can put the Shatner scene at the end. Would be a nice coda. Leonard and Bill to close it out without interfering with the general story if there is no organic way to include them.”

Great idea, Bob should really consider this.

“Also I think Bob should run a contest to have one of us come down to visit the set with a guest(or sock puppet lol). Would be so cool since he interacts with us here. Would be nice for a Harry, CC, MJ. Keachick etc to get that chance .Of course I would say Ahmed but Bob would rig it so he loses!”

LOL

768. Ahmed - January 18, 2014

@763. MJ – January 18, 2014

“It’s great news for Star Trek that Pine is not making it big. Neither have any of the other stars. This means we might get a twenty-year run out of these characters/actors, and it even opens the door for them moving the franchise back to an upscale HBO or Showtime 10 ep per year series at some point.

So its good that none of these actors are hitting the A-list.”

I think Zoe Saldana is the exception here, after all she is starring in the upcoming Avatar sequels.

As for Pine, he really needs to pick his new projects carefully & not get involved in crappy movies like “This Means War” or the new “Jack Ryan” movie.

769. MJ - January 18, 2014

“Maybe for the new movie they can rip off Marvel and do an end credit scene. For the 50th anniversary you can put the Shatner scene at the end. Would be a nice coda. Leonard and Bill to close it out without interfering with the general story if there is no organic way to include them.”

Tom, you’ve got it backwards. Check out the trailer for Captain America Winter Soldier. Marvel is stealing huge parts of STID for this new movie, right down from the Shield becoming corrupted to a huge ship at the end crashing in the bay of a major city. Go look and the trailer, and you will see what I mean.

And to warn you in advance, Ahmed will likely chime in here and whine about how this isn’t so, but awhile back I presented this and the vast majority of people on that thread agreed with me on this.

770. MJ - January 18, 2014

@768.

Just got back from Lone Survivor. Best and most realistic war movie since Black Hawk Down, and kind of similarly both depressing and awesome like that movie was. Entire audience clapped at the end — and the theater was packed.

771. Harry Ballz - January 18, 2014

@765 Tom “Would be nice for a Harry….visit the set”

Great idea, Tom!

I volunteer and promise not to make raspberry sounds as i watch them film a scene!

772. Red Dead Ryan - January 18, 2014

Apart from “Star Trek” and “Avatar”, Zoe Saldana hasn’t had a run of hit movies.

Although she currently has the best chance of becoming an A-lister since it looks like Chris Pine –though a great Captain Kirk — has peaked in terms of star power. The rest are supporting actors.

773. Marja - January 18, 2014

765 Tom, It’d be great if all of us could be there … we’d probably be really polite to each other in person ;-) and we’d be nice to the actors too! Maybe even be nice to Bob O ….

774. MJ - January 18, 2014

“and the Jack Ryan character is indeed only as popular as the actor playing him.”

I disagree. Tom Clancy fans, and there are a lot of them, know that this movie is some cooked up screenplay that is not based on any of the mega-hit Clancy novels. I know this, because I am a Clancy fan, and I kind of groaned at the fakey sounding origin movie approach by Hollywood to make it less about a great Tom Clancy story and more about Jack Ryan superstar.

I realized that part of the issue is that the Cold War is over with. But a gutsy move that I would have tried here would have been to reboot The Hunt for Red October, make it take place in 2020, and have the Chinese be the ones with the silent sub and the danger of a nuclear war with China….but then again, all those pussies in Hollywood are so worried about offending the Chinese, they wouldn’t have the guts to try this. Kind of like how we ended up with a politically correct pasty white Brit Khan in STID. :-(

775. Keachick - January 19, 2014

Ahmed – Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit and This Means War were both good films in their own right, even though they belonged in different genres. Chris Pine was great in both these movies. Of the two movies, I do prefer Jack Ryan.

The only other Jack Ryan film I can remember seeing, several times, is the Hunt for Red October, which is something of a classic in its own right. Curiously, it was actually Sean Connery’s portrayal of the Russian captain and that of his first officer, played by Sam Neill, who really caught my attention. Alec Baldwin’s Jack Ryan tended to merge with the background a bit…Perhaps that is possibly the point – the Jack Ryan character is a more reserved individual by nature, but still able to get the job done…

I think Chris Pine summed up the differences between James Kirk and Jack Ryan in one of the recent interviews. Kirk is more extroverted, likes to be centrestage, in the thick of things, taking initiative etc whereas Jack Ryan tends to be a quieter, more reflective individual. Both characters are probably as bright as each other and share similar commitment to crew/family/service etc – just born under different star signs…:)

It is interesting to read people’s comments about Jack Ryan on other boards. For example, some say that this movie started off well but ended not quite so well, yet others have said virtually the very opposite about the very same film…hmm…sigh…LOL

776. Keachick - January 19, 2014

Correction: “I think that both characters…”

This is my opinion about the two characters. Chris did not allude to that, so I have no idea what he may think.

777. Keachick - January 19, 2014

MJ – A Jack Ryan movie set in the future doing a remake of the Hunt for Red October?

No!

778. Disinvited - January 19, 2014

#774. MJ – January 18, 2014

My turn: If I were a suspicious type, mind you, I’d be suspicious of the misspelling history you share with Curious Cadet of spelling rogue as red cheek makeup. If I were a suspicious type. ;-)

779. MJ - January 19, 2014

@778

LOL

If I were Curious Cadet, then that would make MJ as Sheriff Andy Taylor and Curious Cadet as the well meaning moron, Barney Fife.

780. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - January 19, 2014

@779. MJ – January 19, 2014

Oh, now I’ve got the theme music for the Andy Griffith Show in my head. I did NOT need that earworm as I was heading off to sleep…

781. Tom - January 19, 2014

#769 MJ

I agree MJ. I see some similarities to STID in the Winter Soldier trailer . I just think that Marvel has been doing end credit scenes for awhile. I was referring to that being a nice way to include Shatner and Nimoy as a coda without being intrusive to the movie. I know how you feel about the believability in Bill playing the role again. I think it solves the problem in that if it isnt the greatest Shatner as Kirk moment it wont harm the movie in the end credits. I think it would be a nice way to cap what is being billed as the 50th anniversary movie

782. Tom - January 19, 2014

#773 Marja

Yes we would be nice on the set. It really would be cool. There are so many of us that I didn’t name that I enjoy reading comments from. Just think it would be great if at least one of got to go courtesy of Bob

I really hope he considers the ideas for one of us to go and for an end credit scene for Bill and Leonard

783. Tom - January 19, 2014

# 767 Ahmed

i would love to see you and Bob on set. Kodak moment!!!

784. Tom - January 19, 2014

#771 Harry Ballz

Would be great if you go…even if you did sneak a raspberry in!!

They are making tons of money from the general public but Trek would have been LOOOONNG finished if it were not for fans like us on this site. That is why Bob should reward us

785. Aurore - January 19, 2014

@ 771. Mr. Ballz.

“…I volunteer and promise not to make raspberry sounds as i watch them film a scene!”

_______

:))

Good!

…And, if they ask your opinion on Star Trek Into Darkness, will you THEN agree that, all things considered, it was a rich and complex story with a…cohesive storyline that would have made Lawrence Rust Hills proud?

:)

786. Phil - January 19, 2014

Can’t believe there is still some chatter about Shatner in the next movie. That’s three years away, at best, which will make him 86.

787. Curious Cadet - January 19, 2014

@768 Phil,

Nimoy is the same age, yet I don’t see anyone suggesting Nimoy couldn’t be in the next film, other than maybe they don’t want him in it. Prime Spock has been unfortunately made a significant recurring character in the Abrams movies, and as such may well make another appearance.

Moreover, the proposal on the table is an end credit sequence, one that only the fans will stay and see anyway. If Shatner can’t pull it off, then at worst they simply don’t do it and it does not impact the film at all (and maybe it ends up on the DVD). At best, he pulls off a touching scene between he and Nimoy, which still does not impact the film at all, but makes the fans happy, helps commemorate the 50th anniversary (heck just celebrating that the original legendary principals are still alive to see this milestone is worth it), and helps pass the torch in a way that Generations simply failed.

And finally, it’s an end credit sequence having nothing to do with the main film to be shot. Orci already has a scene written, that could be adapted for the new film, or he could toss one off in his sleep for all this needs to be. Then it could be shot anytime between now and 2017. So they neither actor need age another 3-4 years before they shoot it, if the producers are so inclined.

It’s kind of a perfect solution and I don’t really see the downside.

788. Curious Cadet - January 19, 2014

Phil, I’ll go you one further …

Most of these end credit scenes tend to be humorous. I would even get a kick out of Nimoy and Shatner sitting in a darkened theater in civilian clothes, eating popcorn, watching the credits with us and commenting on the film they just saw, even Shatner saying something like, “I wish I had had blue eyes”, or “this Pine kid’s not so bad, he just needs a few pointers”. Then maybe Nimoy says, “you ready to leave Bill”, and they stand up, Shatner flips open a communicator and they both beam out, to the surprise of a slack jawed kid wearing a Command Gold uniform.

789. Tom - January 19, 2014

787 Curious Cadet

I really think it works. I think they could rework the written scene or easily write a new one. I hope Bob considers it. The only issue is if Bill and Leonard would do it knowing it is an end credit scene. For those who don’t care for the idea enjoy what hopefully is a great movie and leave as the credits start to roll.

790. Ahmed - January 19, 2014

@ 769. MJ – January 18, 2014

“Tom, you’ve got it backwards. Check out the trailer for Captain America Winter Soldier. Marvel is stealing huge parts of STID for this new movie, right down from the Shield becoming corrupted to a huge ship at the end crashing in the bay of a major city. Go look and the trailer, and you will see what I mean.

And to warn you in advance, Ahmed will likely chime in here and whine about how this isn’t so, but awhile back I presented this and the vast majority of people on that thread agreed with me on this.”

The movie is not out yet, so it is not logical to judge a 2 hours movie based on a 2 minutes trailer.

You are making a judgment based on insufficient data :)

791. Curious Cadet - January 19, 2014

@789 Tom,
“The only issue is if Bill and Leonard would do it knowing it is an end credit scene.”

I think the reality is that Nimoy and Shatner both know that this next film may be the last time either of them will get to do anything officially connected to Star Trek. And certainly the 50th Anniversary is something to be tied to more than anything else, especially if its the last thing they do, more so than the 54th anniversary year anyway…

Shatner has been passed over twice now, so My guess is he’s looking at the situation a little bit more realistically now.

Whether a parody or serious, I can’t imagine either turning it down, even if it’s just an end credit scene — it’s in the end credits of the 50th Anniversary film, and likely one of the last feature films either will ever do, and possibly the last official on-camera association with Star Trek.

I think the fans will want to see them both as Kirk and Spock in a serious scene, but I would be happy with anything (it’s not part of the film afterall). But, I can see using motion capture a la Avatar to do almost anything they want — considering where it is now, imagine the technology in 3 more years. Short of that, I could even see a dream sequence where and older Kirk (older than he should be because he’s already died) and Spock play a nostalgic game of chess, where Kirk issues a stern warning to Spock about the Klingons, or some such thing, which awakens Prime Spock on New Vulcan. After he looks at a photo of he and Prime Kirk in happier days which he keeps by his bedside, he contacts New Spock, gives him the usual disclaimer about how he said he would never do this, then sets up the premise for the 4th film with the warning his dream with Prime Kirk reminded him about.

792. Tom - January 19, 2014

#791 Curious Cadet

Good points. Hopefully they would do it. I would like a serious scene. The dream sequence sounds cool. I also like a rewrite of Bob’s original Shatner scene. The theme being the journey itself is home. That was awesome and would be a perfect cap to the 50th anniversary movie. The only qualm I waould have is I would like to see the together. The dream sequence you describe works great on that level.

793. Harry Ballz - January 19, 2014

@785 Aurore

Aurore, i don’t know what you’re smoking, but I’d like to have some!

794. Ahmed - January 19, 2014

BREAKING NEWS – JJ ABRAMS: “THE SCRIPT IS DONE”

Sorry, he is talking about Star Wars: Episode VII script, not Star Trek XIII script. Oh & he is not focusing on Star Trek at all !!

===================================
J.J. Abrams Says the STAR WARS EPISODE 7 Script is Done; Also Talks About the Jesse Plemons Rumors, Shooting in IMAX, More

Question: Are you close to finding a director for Star Trek 3?

JJ ABRAMS: I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now. That’s the focus.

Where are you on Star Wars? Is the script done?

ABRAMS: Yeah. We’re working really hard. We’ve got our script and we’re in deep prep. We’re full steam ahead.

Since you’re going to have to start production soon, when might we hear announcements about cast?

ABRAMS: When the announcements happen. But, we’re working really hard on it and it’s quite a thrill.

http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-7-script-imax-j-j-abrams/

===================================

Good to know that Star Trek is in the hand of Abrams , a caring & loving executive producer !!

795. Curious Cadet - January 19, 2014

@794. Ahmed,
“JJ ABRAMS: I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now. That’s the focus.”

Yup. That’s all the admission we need that he should have graciously stepped aside and let somebody else take the helm of Star Trek.

I mean seriously, if all he’s focusing on now is Star Wars, to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else, when will he ever be able to focus on Star Trek? Star Wars is only going to require more and more of his attention from here on … And even after he delivers the film in late 2015, and does all the press tours and premiers, and assuming he will only be producing the 2016 Star Wars installment, he’ll have to go right into prep for episode VIII due in 2017.

Star Trek should be getting 100% of some producers attention now so that it can become the franchise Paramount hopes it will be. Instead, Abrams is working on a plan for Disney to produce a new Star Wars film every year, and evidently a new Star Trek movie might hit the screens in four years assuming Abrams can find the time.

796. MJ - January 19, 2014

“Good to know that Star Trek is in the hand of Abrams , a caring & loving executive producer !!”

Agreed, he has brought back Stark Trek in a big way, and his attention to detail and work on the movies have been outstanding, despite a slight misfire on STID.

797. MJ - January 19, 2014

“I think the fans will want to see them both as Kirk and Spock in a serious scene”

NO WE DON’T

798. MJ - January 19, 2014

“I agree MJ. I see some similarities to STID in the Winter Soldier trailer”

Yep, exactly, Tom. Good assessment!

799. Tom - January 19, 2014

797 MJ

Come on MJ not even an end credits scene?? Just walk out before it goes on in full defiance!

800. MJ - January 19, 2014

@799.

OK, I could support that. Yea, OK, dude.

801. MJ - January 19, 2014

…and I would stay to watch the clumsy geriatric Nimoy-Shat end credits scene…even I can’t resist looking over to the side of the freeway to see a car wreck. ;-)

802. Ahmed - January 19, 2014

@ 795. Curious Cadet – January 19, 2014

“@794. Ahmed,
“JJ ABRAMS: I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now. That’s the focus.”

Yup. That’s all the admission we need that he should have graciously stepped aside and let somebody else take the helm of Star Trek.”

Agreed. It was a mistake to give one guy control over two major science fiction franchises. It is absolutely ridiculous of him to dismiss Trek in that way. Paramount should tell Abrams to step aside & bring in a new EP who will have full focus on Trek.

803. Tom - January 19, 2014

801 MJ

Totally respect your opinion MJ. Trainwreck or not for end credit scene as long as the movie is awesome.

804. Aurore - January 19, 2014

793. Mr. Ballz .

@785 Aurore
“Aurore, i don’t know what you’re smoking, but I’d like to have some!
_________

Fine.

If you insist.

I could provide you with a few…(grilling and) smoking recipes for… vegetables…

:)

805. Tom - January 19, 2014

#791 Curious Cadet

I am really liking using the chess game in the dream sequence. Like MJ said they are geriatric. So they would be like two older men playing chess in the park. I think they could pull off a nostalgic scene. I also like that the first scene we saw Shatner and Nimoy in Where no man was a chess scene. Fitting and symbolic to close it the same way together one last time.

806. Phil - January 19, 2014

@787. Apparently you weren’t paying attention – there was very little support for Nimoys cameo in STID, which really was pointless. I can’t recall anyone stepping forward on this board and suggesting that what Trek 13 needs is ‘more Nimoy’…or any Shatner,

@788. Why in the hell would anyone hang around in the theater for that. If you really want to see the two of them together that bad, petition Priceline to put them in a commercial together – at least we can laugh at that and feel good about it, as opposed to some pathetic attempt at fanboy service that’ll be the fodder for jokes on Fallon for weeks to come.

807. DiscoSpock - January 19, 2014

I agree with Ahmed and MJ in that JJ has really brought Trek back in a big way, and left the franchise as strong as ever.

808. Ahmed - January 19, 2014

@ 807. DiscoSpock – January 19, 2014

“I agree with Ahmed and MJ in that JJ has really brought Trek back in a big way, and left the franchise as strong as ever.”

Actually MJ misunderstood my comment, he probably didn’t read the whole thing :)

Abrams brought Trek back in a big way as you are saying but he didn’t leave it strong. In fact my comment was about Abrams being dismissive of Star Trek in the recent interview with Collider

Here is my original comment

—————-
794. Ahmed – January 19, 2014

BREAKING NEWS – JJ ABRAMS: “THE SCRIPT IS DONE”

Sorry, he is talking about Star Wars: Episode VII script, not Star Trek XIII script. Oh & he is not focusing on Star Trek at all !!

Question: Are you close to finding a director for Star Trek 3?

JJ ABRAMS: I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now. That’s the focus.

Where are you on Star Wars? Is the script done?

ABRAMS: Yeah. We’re working really hard. We’ve got our script and we’re in deep prep. We’re full steam ahead.

Since you’re going to have to start production soon, when might we hear announcements about cast?

ABRAMS: When the announcements happen. But, we’re working really hard on it and it’s quite a thrill.

http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-7-script-imax-j-j-abrams/

===================================

809. Ahmed - January 19, 2014

“Good to know that Star Trek is in the hand of Abrams , a caring & loving executive producer !!”

I was being sarcastic here :)

810. Tom - January 19, 2014

#806 Phil

That is the great part of an end credit scene. Just leave. As for who would stay that is up to the individual. As for Fallon, I would not worry too much. Never much positive on Star Trek from any comedian.

811. Phil - January 19, 2014

@810. Well, there isn’t much positive when the fan base keeps gift wrapping fan service fodder life this for them to mock.

Actually, you are ducking the question. I asked why would anyone want to see this? I’ve been watching Trek since the late 70’s, and have some rather fond memories of watching these heroes explore space, and pondering the possibilities that may exist out there. Now you’re telling me that what we need are old Kirk and Spock, reminiscing about the glory days? Playing chess, or dominoes? Yelling at the neighborhood kids to get the hell off their lawn? Or even worse, dressing up a couple of very old men and pretending they are action heroes one more time? So, of what possible interest could this be, other then to feed a little nostalgia? I don’t need to see Adam West in the next Batman/Superman movie anymore then I need to see Shatner and Nimoy in another Trek….

812. K-7 - January 19, 2014

“Good to know that Star Trek is in the hand of Abrams , a caring & loving executive producer !!”

I agree with this completely, Ahmed. JJ’s under-appreciated, for sure.

813. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2014

#806. Phil.

“@787. Apparently you weren’t paying attention – there was very little support for Nimoys cameo in STID, which really was pointless. I can’t recall anyone stepping forward on this board and suggesting that what Trek 13 needs is ‘more Nimoy’…or any Shatner,”

Yes, well said. Nimoy had a nice, meaty role in the first film which served a purpose, and helped pass the torch. The cameo in STID felt forced, and really wasn’t necessary.

“@788. Why in the hell would anyone hang around in the theater for that. If you really want to see the two of them together that bad, petition Priceline to put them in a commercial together – at least we can laugh at that and feel good about it, as opposed to some pathetic attempt at fanboy service that’ll be the fodder for jokes on Fallon for weeks to come.”

Another good point. If fans want Nimoy and Shatner back together again, they should petition Priceline.Com to film an ad featuring the two. Other than that, its time for the old actors to graciously step aside, and for fans to move on.

And quite frankly, Shatner can no longer credibly play Kirk anymore anyways.

814. Jonboc - January 19, 2014

#813 “And quite frankly, Shatner can no longer credibly play Kirk anymore anyways.”

The idea that the actor who breathed life into the character at age 34 is, somehow, incapable of playing the same character at an older age is so utterly ridiculous, that I’ve ALREADY given it way too much attention with this post! lol

815. Red Dead Ryan - January 19, 2014

#814.

“The idea that the actor who breathed life into the character at age 34 is, somehow, incapable of playing the same character at an older age is so utterly ridiculous, that I’ve ALREADY given it way too much attention with this post! lol”

Ah, irony! Very good, sir! :-)

816. MJ - January 19, 2014

“The idea that the actor who breathed life into the character at age 34 is, somehow, incapable of playing the same character at an older age is so utterly ridiculous, that I’ve ALREADY given it way too much attention with this post! lol”

But then there is the fact this this just happens to be completely true.

Yes, he is no longer capable of playing the part credibility. Reference the Academy Awards last year if you really want to get into this further.

817. Tom - January 19, 2014

#811 Phil

Totally get it Phil. You don’t like it. You walk out. As for why yes I would like a little nostalgia. I think there was enough debate and interest in seeing Shatner that they wrote a scene for it. So I think some people would like it.However I get and respect your point that you don’t see a purpose for it. that is why you walk out and not wait for the end credits if you don’t like the idea. I never said the movie NEEDS this. I am sure there was plenty of things in the last 2 movies we didn’t need that were there.

818. Garak's Pride - January 19, 2014

@812

Wow, Ahmed has really come full circle now in his opinion of JJ Abrams.

819. Harry Ballz - January 19, 2014

Would it be cute to have Shatner and Nimoy at the end of the next movie after the credits roll?

Of course.

Here’s the snag…..they would probably demand $2 million each for doing that. Yes, for one day of filming they will ask for that price.

This is not like the Marvel films, where the actors are already contractually bound to film those silly tag scenes for after the credits. They’ve been paid and are simply following orders.

Shatner and Nimoy know that this is a special “one off” scene. Icing on the cake for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. They know only they can do it and therefore will be asking for major coin.

Do you really think Paramount is going to pony up that kind of dough for a “throw away” scene that only the diehard fanboys will appreciate?

Not bloody likely!

820. Phil - January 19, 2014

@817. I have no issue with an end credit scene – it could provide some aside to the just completed move, or tease the next one. Or it can be some weepy ode to a bygone era. It’s a legitimate question to ask why – as a small handful of people seem to want it done, the rubber meets the road with a credible explanation. If it’s nostalgia you want, here you go…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzR7xa3KTaQ

821. Phil - January 19, 2014

@819. Well, if Shatner and Nimoy really want to do that ode for the fans, they can agree to do it for free on a DVD release. That’s were it belongs, not on the big screen….

822. Curious Cadet - January 19, 2014

@806. Phil,
“Apparently you weren’t paying attention – there was very little support for Nimoys cameo in STID, which really was pointless.”

Apparently you weren’t paying attention. Agreed Nimoy was totally pointless included in the body of the film — shoehorned into a pointless scene as part of the exposition. Nobody in the last 20 posts is suggesting that. What they are suggesting is something that stands separate and apart from the film, take it or leave it.

—————-
“Why in the hell would anyone hang around in the theater for that.”

Seems like there’s enough fan base buying whatever crap CBS churns out from TOS, making it so profitable that CBS won’t stop doing it so Abrams can otherwise rebuild the franchise around fresh concepts. My guess is, they’re the ones. Nobody else has to stick around and see it. And frankly, every screening of ST09 and STID I saw, the audience couldn’t get out of the theater fast enough. So how does this affect you, Phil?

You can be callous and pragmatic if you want, but we are talking about the 50th anniversary, a major milestone in anyone’s life, and a franchise which also happens to remarkably have two of its founding principals still alive to witness it. Comparing Nimoy, Shatner and Star Trek to Adam West and the Batman franchise is nearly blasphemous. I don’t condone having them in the movie proper at all, but I don’t really understand why you would deny a loyal fan base a little nostalgia on such an occasion, when it doesn’t impact the film at all. Who gives a crap what Jimmy Fallon will do!? You seem to think what Abrams is churning out is somehow legitimizing Star Trek fandom, but it hasn’t. He’s making a compelling action film which applies the Star Trek brand as a veneer. That’s what general audiences are embracing. It’s a fun movie, with bright colors and big explosions. The geeky fan base isn’t going away, no matter how slick the films get, and there will always be something for Fallon to make fun of. Adding a disposable scene that might heal the rift between those fans and the current filmmakers isn’t going to destroy the universe. If anything it might help keep it together.

823. MJ - January 19, 2014

I think if you gave Shat and Nimoy at take it or leave it $500K offer each for one end credits scene, which would involve one day at the studio to shoot, they would definitely both agree.

Again, I am not supporting that scene. But they would both do that for a hell of a lot less than $2M each.

824. Curious Cadet - January 19, 2014

@819. Harry Ballz,
“Do you really think Paramount is going to pony up that kind of dough for a “throw away” scene that only the diehard fanboys will appreciate?”

No. And if Nimoy and Shatner want to go that route in the twilight of their years, then screw them, and don’t do the bloody scene. Nobody has suggested breaking the bank to make it happen. It’s the 50th Anniversary. They should try to take advantage of all the resources available.

Then again, I have serious doubts Paramount even cares whether the next film is released in time for the 50th Anniversary, much less take advantage of unique opportunities this franchise may afford them. So screw it all I guess.

825. MJ - January 19, 2014

“Then again, I have serious doubts Paramount even cares whether the next film is released in time for the 50th Anniversary, much less take advantage of unique opportunities this franchise may afford them. So screw it all I guess.”

Oh yea, so that’s why it was specifically brought up having a movie ready for the 2016 anniversary at one of their Board Meetings last year. LOL

Pay better attention to the news, Curious Cadet.

826. Harry Ballz - January 19, 2014

MJ, I disagree with your assessment of how much Shatner would take.

Shatner knows he doesn’t have to do it. He’s already rich.

He’ll milk it for every dollar he can get.

Shatner is such a megalomaniac, he’ll ask for the moon.

Q: The difference between William Shatner and God?
A: God doesn’t think he’s William Shatner!

I was being kind at the $2 million estimate.

827. Phil - January 19, 2014

@826. Everyone knows Shatner wants millions to show up – I’d flip him a dime to do it, and throw him out of the office if he held out for eleven cents. It’s devolved to the point where it’s just a garbage scene at the end of the movie – if the fan base wants it that bad, give it to them on the DVD release. That is worth about ten cents.

828. Harry Ballz - January 19, 2014

Phil, keep in mind, Shatner doesn’t give a sweet sh*t about the fans.

He’s only in it for the money. Don’t ever kid yourself about that.

Based on that premise, why should he do it for cheap?

the answer is……he won’t!

829. MJ - January 19, 2014

“Phil, keep in mind, Shatner doesn’t give a sweet sh*t about the fans.”

Oh, I agree completely. But he also has a huge ego, and he perceives that Nimoy has upstaged him on two JJ-Trek movies now.

So I maintain, if it was presented as a take it or leave it offer to him and Nimoy for half a mill each, he would accept. Especially if Nimoy agreed to it.

830. Phil - January 19, 2014

@828. Oh, I know that. To elaborate on MJ’s point, he’s being a lot more generous then I offering a half million each. I’d gladly make a 10K donation to a charity of their choice, but would not expend any effort or money beyond that to film a garbage scene. Spock could be helping his inform buddy polish his medals.

It’s never going to happen, not sure why people keep bringing it up.

831. Disinvited - January 19, 2014

#816. MJ – January 19, 2014

Whether he can or can’t, you don’t have to reach back to the Awards show, Shatner was on Leno Friday night playing Kirk again for Jay’s walking skit where he goes to college dorms knocks on doors and gets the occupants to reenact scenes in Jay supplied costumes and makeup from their favorite films.

I often wonder whether Shatner’s willingness to roll out the Kirk out might have something to do with this:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-14/entertainment/ca-45870_1_star-trek

“There are currently more than 250 STAR TREK licensees, with products ranging from Christmas ornaments to CD-ROMs to a Franklin Mint chess set. STAR TREK stars William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy had long ago sought and received compensation from the studio, which pockets a 7% to 10% royalty on the sale of STAR TREK goods.” – ”4 Original ‘Trek’ Actors Settle Dispute for $1 Million : Television: The quartet who played Scottie, Chekov, Uhura and Sulu reach agreement with Paramount in a dispute over the marketing of their images””, September 14, 1995|DANIEL HOWARD CERONE | TIMES STAFF WRITER

832. Aurore - January 19, 2014

“JJ ABRAMS: I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now. That’s the focus.”

________

Yes.

As far as I was concerned, that much was certain…several months ago.

When it was announced that Mr. Abrams would direct Star Wars before the marketing “rollout” of the (then) next Star Trek :

http://trekmovie.com/2013/01/24/the-force-is-with-jj-j-j-abrams-to-direct-next-star-wars-for-disney/

833. Disinvited - January 19, 2014

# 827. Phil – January 19, 2014, 828. Harry Ballz – January 19, 2014, 829. MJ – January 19, 2014

The only thing I find puzzling about these declarations is that it is done with an air as if it should be something else. I can assure you it’s not as if Brad Grey or Les Moonves is in the Trek business for anything less.

And correct me if I’ve got this wrong but the impression I get is none of you have much respect for the people who are putting out Trek for no compensation, either. So I’m a little at loss to comprehend what exactly it is that you are seeking from a Trek star and or actor?

834. Disinvited - January 19, 2014

#832. Aurore – January 19, 2014

You know I agree. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why they were more worried in the marketing about keeping the Harrison/Khan “secret” than keeping STAR WARS news from overshadowing and negatively impacting it?

835. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#828. Harry Ballz – January 19, 2014

Sorry, Harry. Just noticed I unintentionally lumped you in there.

836. Aurore - January 20, 2014

@ 834.

“You know I agree. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why they were more worried in the marketing about keeping the Harrison/Khan ‘secret’ than keeping STAR WARS news from overshadowing and negatively impacting it?”

_________

All I was saying is this ; given the timing of the announcement regarding the Star Wars news [ which I commented on (@ post 660) on the thread I linked to earlier...so did you, by the way :) ], reading an interview where Mr. Abrams states that Episode VII is the focus, is, shall we say…logical to me .

He was hired to direct Star Wars, after all.

And so, had he declared ” Star Trek is the focus, right now. I’m just focusing on Star Trek 3.”, I would have been “shocked”…

837. Stephan - January 20, 2014

836. Aurore:

You are right, it sound logical. But I still hope someone is working on Trek 13 right now. At least boborci is writing. When I read the Star Wars news I ask myself, is trek getting enough love in the moment? ;) Hopefully the quality of trek won’t suffer under Star Wars and hopefully trek 13 comes out before 2023.

838. Tom - January 20, 2014

#830 Phil

I brought it up to do something fun and different for the 50th anniversary. I believe it could make some fans happy without pissing off the fans that are adamantly against it. Perhaps it wont be a scene but it will come up to see what Shatner and Nimoy would do in terms of the anniversary. I agree it probably will not happen. I would prefer the end credit scene to what we will probably get. I can see some interviews as part of a retrospective special. We will get Bill and Leonard saying how great it is that Trek has been around so long and blah blah blah. And Bill plugging his documentaries. iI like your idea as part of a DVD release too. If done right it will be a memorable Trek moment. Agree with all that if done poorly it could be real goofy. I think it is worth the risk which is minimized in an end credit scene or DVD attachment.

839. Curious Cadet - January 20, 2014

@836. Aurore,
“And so, had he declared ” Star Trek is the focus, right now. I’m just focusing on Star Trek 3.”, I would have been “shocked”…”

Abrams is the caretaker of two major franchises. Star Wars news has been streaming out of Disney on a weekly basis since they bought Lucas. We’ve heard precious little about Trek. Yet when asked one question about Trek, he completely blows it off, when he has a responsibility as Trek’s producer to say something about it. Instead, he doesn’t even say the words Star Trek … He manages to deflect the question by saying more about Star Wars. He doesn’t even acknowledge he’s the producer of Star Trek, as if doing so will somehow dimished his efforts on Star Wars.

Nobody is expecting Abrams to say Star Trek is the focus of his attention right now, but to completely ignore it doesn’t seem to make any sense either.

So it doesn’t really matter what anybody else says about Trek, including the studio giving lip service to bringing the next film out for the 50th Anniversary, because it’s just been made clear with that statement — nothing’s going to happen until Abrams decides it’s going to.

840. Phil - January 20, 2014

@833. First point: Seems to me I’ve been pretty clear. Had Nimoys scene in Trek 09 ended up on the cutting room floor, the final product would not have suffered. In the alternate universe, there is no need to be dragging in actors from TOS solely for nostalgic reasons. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Why? When an actor or athlete attempts to recreate their glory days, the results are almost always pathetic or disastrous. It cheapens Trek to turn a professional production into a side show, particularly so when one of its FORMER stars still seems to think the franchise can’t survive without him.

Second point: To the contrary, amateur theater is alive and well, and quite entertaining to the masses. My son participates in his High School theater, and my wife as a cousin who is a stage manager in a local theater group. I get a level of enjoyment in volunteering to help him with their props and sets work. For all these people, it’s either a hobby, community outreach, or just being involved. They know it’s an amateur production, and in the case of the high schoolers they are learning the craft. Fan productions are amateur productions, and this includes Trek productions. Where the disconnect occurs at the Trek productions is they seem to feel that because they can drag in the occasional Trek guest star that it somehow lend some legitimacy that their work is somehow a step above amateur hour. It’s not, and having people mouth off that they could ‘do better’ is just laughable. As far as amateur productions go, they are just fine. It’s obvious these guys like playing dress up and pretending they are Starfleet’s finest. When they hold themselves out as being uncompensated professionals, it’s going to invite the comparisons, and they come up lacking. It’s not that fan productions are bad, it’s just that their promoters do a lousy job at managing the expectations.

841. Aurore - January 20, 2014

“….Nobody is expecting Abrams to say Star Trek is the focus of his attention right now…”

____________________

I was not implying otherwise. As expressed with the sentences preceding the one you quoted(@ 836), I was merely saying that his recent statement was nothing new, to me.

“…but to completely ignore it doesn’t seem to make any sense either…”

The fact is…he does as he pleases…I, personally, am not bothered by it.

I can only observe what is (not) going on, for the time being at least, regarding the franchise…and, all this after its “highest-grossing film” (?) was released…

“…So it doesn’t really matter what anybody else says about Trek, including the studio giving lip service to bringing the next film out for the 50th Anniversary, because it’s just been made clear with that statement — nothing’s going to happen until Abrams decides it’s going to.

We’ll see…

But, again, that is, more or less, what I meant when I said the following ( @ 832 ) :

“…As far as I was concerned, that much was certain…several months ago. When it was announced that Mr. Abrams would direct Star Wars before the marketing ‘rollout’ of the (then) next Star Trek …”

842. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2014

@835

That’s okay, Disinvited. Leave the lumps to the chumps!

(I keed, I keed)

843. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@841. Aurore

Abrams is the executive producer, for him to dismiss Star Trek in that way doesn’t bode well for ST XIII. He could have easily said that Bob or someone else is taking care of the search for a new director or something along these lines.

Abrams should step aside & let someone else take care of the project.

844. Curious Cadet - January 20, 2014

@840. Phil,
“When an actor or athlete attempts to recreate their glory days, the results are almost always pathetic or disastrous.”

You keep discussing this as if anyone in this current conversation is advocating Shatner and Nimoy take key roles in the movie. Regardless as you yourself admit with the use of the word “ALMOST”, the results of such attempts sometimes therefore succeed, if not often. And as you yourself point out, the Nimoy footage in STID could have been left on the cutting room floor and nobody would have missed it.

So what’s being discussed is TRYING to do something that clearly has an audience, and putting it in the movie (as opposed to the DVD) where it might generate some additional box office revenue from that target audience. How is this different from trying to drum up additional audience by putting Carol Marcus in her panties in most of the marketing material?

However, unlike the pointless “Skype” scene with Nimoy in STID, what’s being suggested now is to make it a separate thing from the rest of the film, capable of being easily left on the cutting room floor if it doesn’t work, and ultimately seen in the end credits by only those who care to stick around and watch it (which is not an insignificant number). If it doesn’t work, it’s no skin off your nose; if it does, they might actually capture some magic. So if they can do it for a reasonable amount, whether it makes it into the final cut or not, why are you so opposed that they try?

845. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#836. Aurore – January 20, 2014

After mulling this over, we do realize that Abrams is more than just a hired “director” and not just for DISNEY? That his “focus” is STAR WARS is no surprise (and as you say, expected) that he has nothing to say in minimal service to his company’s Trek product is. And I don’t need to remind you that in spite of his merchandizing woes there are other Trek products out there, such as the comics, that shouldn’t want for lack of support from him

I believe that many, after the fact, came to the conclusion that when he did SUPER 8 that was his “focus”, but I don’t recall dismissive responses about focus from him when he was asked about Trek while he did that equally loved project?

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2011/05/06/star-trek-2-update-jj-abrams-returning-to-star-fleet-once-super-8-wraps/

“At the moment, there isn’t a [STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS] script that’s been ‘officially approved’ by anyone, but we’re working on it.

There are some amazing ideas. These are not just great friends of mine, but they’re great writers. I’m thrilled and very optimistic that it’s going to get to where it needs to get to.

The truth is that my focus has been so much on finishing ‘SUPER 8 that it’s [what became STID] been something I’m looking forward to getting to, but with an incredibly compressed post schedule, there hasn’t been a whole lot of time for me to be working with the writers.” – J.J. Abrams

At that point, Abrams hadn’t signed on as STID’s director so he was in an equal position towards it but managed to be a Trek chatty Cathy compared to this “WARS focus” reply.

846. Curious Cadet - January 20, 2014

@843. Ahmed,
“He could have easily said that Bob or someone else is taking care of the search for a new director or something along these lines.”

As long as we’re putting words in Abrams mouth, all he had to say was something like “we’re very happy with the progress we’re making on Star Trek, but we’re not at a point where that decision can be made; Star Wars is our main priority at this time”. That shows he actually cares about, and that he’s giving Star Trek some attention, even if he can’t give it his full attention.

Instead it’s the equivalent of a reporter asking Obama whether he is close to an agreement on balancing the budget to avoid a US credit default, and Obama responding that he’s ONLY focusing on the affordable care act.

847. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@845. Disinvited

“At that point, Abrams hadn’t signed on as STID’s director so he was in an equal position towards it but managed to be a Trek chatty Cathy compared to this “WARS focus” reply.”

Exactly, his response to a simple question shows the level of interest that he has for ST XIII, which is ZERO or close to it.

848. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@846. Curious Cadet

“Instead it’s the equivalent of a reporter asking Obama whether he is close to an agreement on balancing the budget to avoid a US credit default, and Obama responding that he’s ONLY focusing on the affordable care act.”

Yep.

849. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#844. Curious Cadet – January 20, 2014

FWIW as I recall Nimoy’s STID cameo wasn’t even filmed on proper set but at a Bad Robot office much as Shatner’s Kirk appeared to be done in some office for Leno.

850. Stephan - January 20, 2014

I am now in my exams with every few days one exam. Shortly before one exam I am just learning for that one without thinking about that after that because than I would get even more stress. So I “focus” on the one that is next completely, after that I care about the next one.
I could imagine that the production phase of Star Wars right now is “hotter” and needs more energy than Trek 13.

851. Stephan - January 20, 2014

I want to add: Even if I know that every exam is important I just don’t want to hear any word about the second exam before I have absolved the first one.

852. Curious Cadet - January 20, 2014

@845. Disinvited,
“we do realize that Abrams is more than just a hired “director” and not just for DISNEY?”

Whatever the specific details of Abrams deal with Disney for Star Wars we do know Bad Robot is producing, just as they are for Star Trek. Both are major science fiction franchises. At a minimum, he owes them both, the studios, the copyright holders, and the audiences and fans, equal consideration if not his immediate attention.

While we don’t know the specific details of his deal for Trek, one can reasonably assume Bad Robot is obligated for three pictures. If he has no first-look provision following the conclusion of the third film, then he would have little incentive to give Trek much more consideration beyond producing the next obligatory installment. Unless of course he can get Paramount to release him from even those duties, or commit to more than they likely have the power to, considering they don’t own Star Trek.

Anyone who thinks Star Wars is just another Hollywood project is seriously underestimating the situation. Again, without knowing the specific details, Bad Robot has probably signed on for the entire six film project, essentially a reboot of one of the most profitable franchises in all of motion picture history. No pressure there … NOT. This isn’t just taking a couple of years to focus on “Super 8″, it’s likely his entire company working on six of the highest profile projects in Hollywood, one relentlessly after the other, with potentially billions of dollars of revenue riding on it all. And Abrams gets a piece of it all as a producer if he succeeds — that or he gets fired for failing to deliver, walking away with a paycheck and a damaged reputation, not to mention losing his childhood fantasy.

So, how does one reconcile working with a lesser franchise, produced by a lesser studio, with a merchandising partner in CBS who won’t even support your efforts, in the face of such monumental demands? I think the answer is clear. Walk away as soon as possible. Heck, he’s got the easiest out in the world — blame it on the fickle fans. Works every time.

853. MJ - January 20, 2014

@852

Jesus Christ, CC, you made up so much shit in this post, and took so many leaps of faith with your information, that you really ought to develop a screenplay based on this.

;-)

854. MJ - January 20, 2014

@847 @848

Ahmed, make up your mind, dude. Yesterday you were saying very kind things about JJ, and now today you’ve reversed course???

@End Credit Nimoy-Shat Scene Debate

I have been completely opposed to more Nimoy, and have Shat at all, in the next movie. However, I am warming up to Tom’s idea of have a short, like 30-seconds, POST-CREDITS scene, where an elder Kirk and Spock are playing 3D chess and say some illuminating and amusing lines. I wouldn’t really have a issue with this at all.

855. Curious Cadet - January 20, 2014

@851. Stephan,
“Even if I know that every exam is important I just don’t want to hear any word about the second exam before I have absolved the first one.”

This is not the same thing at all. If anything, making the respective movies are like the the entire classwork, including periodic exams throughout the semester. You might have an exam that takes most of your attention in calculus one week to study for, but you still have homework in biology that has to get finished on time as well. If the headmaster asks how your biology homework is going, how do you think he will feel if you tell him you are focused only on calculus and walk away?

Here’s one better: you have an after school job to pay your bills. The boss asks how the work you are doing for him is going, and you tell him you are focused only on your calculus exam? Not only is that a politically incorrect answer, but you’d better be doing the work he’s paying you for too.

856. MJ - January 20, 2014

“Here’s one better: you have an after school job to pay your bills. The boss asks how the work you are doing for him is going, and you tell him you are focused only on your calculus exam? Not only is that a politically incorrect answer, but you’d better be doing the work he’s paying you for too.”

Or, you could be HONEST and tell the boss the truth, even if he doesn’t want to hear it.

CC, you and others kill me here — you spend post after post essentially complaining that JJ should have lied to you. What a joke!

I can’t say I like JJ’s answer, but it’s better to get the truth then to have a lie to assuage my Trek fan ego.

857. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 854. MJ – January 20, 2014

“Ahmed, make up your mind, dude. Yesterday you were saying very kind things about JJ, and now today you’ve reversed course???”

Nope, you just misunderstood my comment or didn’t read it the whole thing.

===============================
794. Ahmed – January 19, 2014

BREAKING NEWS – JJ ABRAMS: “THE SCRIPT IS DONE”
Sorry, he is talking about Star Wars: Episode VII script, not Star Trek XIII script. Oh & he is not focusing on Star Trek at all !!

===================================
J.J. Abrams Says the STAR WARS EPISODE 7 Script is Done; Also Talks About the Jesse Plemons Rumors, Shooting in IMAX, More
Question: Are you close to finding a director for Star Trek 3?
JJ ABRAMS: I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now. That’s the focus.
Where are you on Star Wars? Is the script done?
ABRAMS: Yeah. We’re working really hard. We’ve got our script and we’re in deep prep. We’re full steam ahead.
Since you’re going to have to start production soon, when might we hear announcements about cast?
ABRAMS: When the announcements happen. But, we’re working really hard on it and it’s quite a thrill.

http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-7-script-imax-j-j-abrams/
===================================
Good to know that Star Trek is in the hand of Abrams , a caring & loving executive producer !!

===============================

Does this sound like I was saying “very kind things about JJ” ?

I was being sarcastic about Abrams who was so dismissive of ST XIII in that short interview with Collider.

858. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 854. MJ – January 20, 2014

“@End Credit Nimoy-Shat Scene Debate

I have been completely opposed to more Nimoy, and have Shat at all, in the next movie. However, I am warming up to Tom’s idea of have a short, like 30-seconds, POST-CREDITS scene, where an elder Kirk and Spock are playing 3D chess and say some illuminating and amusing lines. I wouldn’t really have a issue with this at all.”

Good to hear that.

859. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 856. MJ – January 20, 2014

“CC, you and others kill me here — you spend post after post essentially complaining that JJ should have lied to you. What a joke!

I can’t say I like JJ’s answer, but it’s better to get the truth then to have a lie to assuage my Trek fan ego.”

No one said that Abrams should have lied to us, what we are saying that he should step aside as EP & let someone else take care of the project, since Abrams is too focused on Star Wars.

Why should ST XIII suffesr from lack of focus because the EP is busy with his beloved Star Wars ?

And I don’t see his answer as being honest, he was dismissive of Trek, period.

860. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#856. MJ – January 20, 2014

Granted, I seem to recall that you made some well reasoned claims in the distant past that there was some lying going on with regards to the Trek script progress while J.J. was putting SUPER 8 together. But now you seem to be intimating he totally was wearing a false face in that interview I cited and in the more recent STAR WARS we now are getting his more “honest” one???!!!

And even if this is a correct assessment of Abrams’ lack of Trek veracity on your part why turn-off the Trek hype machine now?

861. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#851. Stephan – January 20, 2014

I get it that that’s your approach. But everything I ever read about J.J. Abrams is that is definitely NOT his. He constantly juggles all kinds of projects, i.e. has many balls in the air at the same time. He is the head executive of his Bad Robot company and that company won’t be competitive, nor last very long if he allows his STAR WARS “focus” to overwhelm all his executive decisions towards keeping it afloat and moving forward.

J.J.’s style is often referred to as ADD, NOT as a criticism so much as an explanation of how he can have all those balls in the air and not drop them. He changes focus all the time. On TV he has REVOLUTION and now:

http://tvline.com/2013/08/31/hbo-westworld-pilot-jj-abrams-jonathan-nolan/

WESTWORLD for HBO and a mystery novel:

http://blogs.mprnews.org/daily-circuit/2014/01/4-book-picks-from-our-roundtable-guests/

There’s a reason he’s made the poster boy for TvTropes’ Attention Creator Deficit Disorder:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AttentionDeficitCreatorDisorder

862. Marja - January 20, 2014

774 MJ, If they did an “actual” reboot, they could take “Hunt for Red October” or another Clancy novel and make it look like the 1980s, with the technology used in those days, and advance the character thru other 1980s Clancy novels using Jack Ryan as the “focus character.” [I'm not sure how many books Clancy wrote.] Look at how well “American Hustle” recalled the 1970s – every detail looked authentic to me, a survivor of the “Me Decade.”

I remember the debut of “The Hunt for Red October,” popular among Navy and Coast Guard officers, printed by the Naval Institute Press!

863. Marja - January 20, 2014

786 Phil, Now I think about it, it’d be nice to have him read “Space, the final frontier …” over the end credits. That way he would be able to record it in comfort and truly bring “Star Trek” full circle. And Nimoy could conclude the voice-over with “Live Long and Prosper, Star Trek.”

No visuals, no costumes necessary!

864. Marja - January 20, 2014

788 Curious, A GREAT IDEA! I love it! Humor and friendship and Trek.

865. MJ - January 20, 2014

@862

Yea, they could. However The Hunt for Red October and Clear and Present Danger are two of my favorite all-time movies, so I’m not sure I want to see an actual period reboot?

866. MJ - January 20, 2014

@859

Again, I don’t know what you are bitching about. They are writing the screenplay, and are doing an active directors search. At a recent Paramount Board Meeting, they outlined the anniversary movie as being ready for 2016.

There you go again getting so hung up waiting for your multi-sourced public pronouncements. My God, I would hate being you — constantly hampered by an inability to assess or believe individual factoids as they come in, and stressing out continually on pins and needles waiting for that “magic bullet” press release or Variety articles that will give you the facade of real news on this. Dude, you must be blowing through rolls of Tums like water. ;-)

867. Marja - January 20, 2014

808 Ahmed, Abrams brought Trek back in a big way as you are saying but he didn’t leave it strong. In fact my comment was about Abrams being dismissive of Star Trek in the recent interview with Collider

Abrams brought Trek back big. He didn’t leave it strong. He did Trek a disservice by discussing “Star Wars” at all the press events for STID.

Alas it seems Trek — as ever — is stuck behind Star Wars in the promotion and “respect for fans” department. When, IMHO, Trek popularized Science Fiction in non-print media for people around the world! I sometimes feel so cynical as to believe Abrams only took on the Trek project so he’d get priority consideration by studios to direct SWars.

Abrams is a “hands on” guy. I don’t think he’d want to turn over any responsibilities to a different Executive Producer. He worked with Giacchino on the music, for pete’s sake. I think he’ll h ave a tough time resisting “directing the new director”!

868. MJ - January 20, 2014

@867

Again, from DAY I, JJ TOLD US ALL HE WAS PRIMARILY A SW FAN.

Why the fake shock from all of you that now he is knee-deep in SW? Like I said, I give the guy credit for at least being honest about it.

They have a Directors search ongoing, and they are writing the screenplay, and the studio has projected the movie being ready for the anniversary.

Sheesh, do I really have to keep explaining this to all of you over and over an over?

JJ is doing what he has always wanted to do — SW. He was always honest about that for those of us who were paying attention.

GET OVER IT !!!!!

We will get our Trek 2016 movie — I have no doubts about that. You are all stressing for no good reason.

869. Phil - January 20, 2014

@844. Just because a tiny portion of the audience wants something is not, by itself, justification for doing it. If we polled enough fans, I’m sure we could find a few who would want to see Klingons actually cut a few throats, or intimate relationships in very graphic detail. The only honest answer that has been fronted for doing this up to this point is nostalgia, and that’s fine as a DVD extra. I’ve already explained why it’s a bad idea in general. The end credits scene is a bad idea as well – it creates a false expectation that we might see more of these characters, and if it’s truly throw-away, then it’s just pointless. It doesn’t clarify some point in the movie, or tease another one. It could just be the two characters sitting around drinking Guinness, complaining that their shipment of adult diapers is late, or reading lines from Monty Python. Fine material for a DVD or a gag reel, but disturbing that time and money was wasted sticking this on a major motion picture. So, if it’s nostalgia you want, here you go. Shatner and Nimoy, together again. No need to thank me…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTqrFrEwee8

870. Phil - January 20, 2014

Trek 09 and STID both had multiple EP credits. JJ does not personally EP every single project Bad Robot has under contract. Bad Robot isn’t resigning anything, someone else will be taking the reigns of the day to day EP tasks. My guess is Byran Burk, though it could be anyone under contract.

871. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 866. MJ – January 20, 2014

“Again, I don’t know what you are bitching about. They are writing the screenplay, and are doing an active directors search. At a recent Paramount Board Meeting, they outlined the anniversary movie as being ready for 2016.

There you go again getting so hung up waiting for your multi-sourced public pronouncements.”

Are you dumb or something ? I’m talking about Abrams attitude toward Trek in that short interview, I wasn’t waiting for him to make an announcement or something.

Perhaps as Abrams & Bad Robot public defender here on trekmovie, you have no problem with the way he was dismissive of Trek when was asked by the reporter, but I & others didn’t like that response at all.

872. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@867. Marja

“Abrams is a “hands on” guy. I don’t think he’d want to turn over any responsibilities to a different Executive Producer. He worked with Giacchino on the music, for pete’s sake. I think he’ll h ave a tough time resisting “directing the new director”!”

Yeah but then again, why Paramount should continue with an EP who is not going to gives ST XIII some of his “focus” ?

873. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 870. Phil – January 20, 2014

“Trek 09 and STID both had multiple EP credits. JJ does not personally EP every single project Bad Robot has under contract. Bad Robot isn’t resigning anything, someone else will be taking the reigns of the day to day EP tasks. My guess is Byran Burk, though it could be anyone under contract.”

At the moment only Abrams & David Ellison are listed as producers on ST XIII page at IMBD

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2660888/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers

874. Phil - January 20, 2014

@872. Abrams owns Bad Robot. He’s listed as executive producer on a few of their projects. By virtue of ownership, his executive producer responsibilities on, say, “Almost Human” probably don’t extend past signing paychecks and an occasional staff meeting. JJ is personally working on SW right now, what did you expect him to say? Paramount is comfortable with BR, the company, producing. That does not extend to suggesting that JJ has to work on Trek projects exclusively, which obviously, he hasn’t done.

875. IDIC Lives! - January 20, 2014

“That way he would be able to record it in comfort and truly bring “Star Trek” full circle. ”

(“he” means Shatner)

Shite, are you condescending toward William Shatner! He is on the road, coming to my home state of Iowa in January, none less, and is traveling all over the country (again). He’s been to Australia (again) recently. Just take a look at his schedule on the Shatner website.

He has done a one-man show over and over again, did multiple dates in CA just last month or month before.

I am not an expert on his exact schedule but anyone can see, from multiple appearances on talk shows to new ventures to his traveling one-man show, he is vital and active.

So do ya want him to pop open his pants button to record, “Space, the final frontier…? That’s real big of you. Very condescending.

Frankly, none of the 3 or 4 people on this site would have Star Trek at all if not for the driving force of William Shatner’s energy and passion.

Don’t bother to take me to task again, Marja. Pop open your pants button and be comfortable. Yes, I am a bad, bad person.

876. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@874. Phil

Unlike “Almost Human”, ST XIII is a multimillion-dollar project. I think it deserves more from him than this.

877. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@875. IDIC Lives!

WTF

878. Phil - January 20, 2014

@863. Here you go, full circle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGI

This just illustrates the problem – this already exists. And having Shatner and Nimoy talk about how crappy the food is in the Old Starfleet Officers Retirement Home might bring a tear to the eye of the nostalgic, but it’s not Trek. At least having them read Monty Python would be funny…

879. Curious Cadet - January 20, 2014

@869. Phil,
“Just because a tiny portion of the audience wants something is not, by itself, justification for doing it.”

A tiny portion!? I’ve already explained this, but my guess is all of the fans responsible for driving CBS licensing’s lucrative multimillion dollar Star Trek business (so lucrative they told Abrams they wouldn’t change it to accommodate his sucessful reboot of the franchise), are the very fans who will plunk down more money to see such a sequence at the box office. And you’ll forgive me if I don’t accept your interpretation of what constitutes success at a the box office as gospel, after your completely innacurate Hobbit prediction.

________
874. Phil
“By virtue of ownership, his executive producer responsibilities on, say, “Almost Human” probably don’t extend past signing paychecks and an occasional staff meeting.”

We’re not talking about ALMOST HUMAN, or REVOLUTION, shows that merely seemed like a good financial investment for the company. We’re talking about a franchise he’s been intimately involved with for over 7 years, one that he built from the ground up, and challenged the notion of what even the studio thought could be done with it, and perhaps is directly responsible for getting Abrams the Star Wars job. Even if he turns the reigns over to someone else to produce, is he really so callous that he would just walk away and turn his contribution into signing paychecks, and taking an occasional staff meeting? That’s both sad, and sad that you think so. That’s like sending his oldest son off to college and never speaking of him again because he’s too busy raising his new infant.

880. Aurore - January 20, 2014

@ 845
“#836. Aurore – January 20, 2014

After mulling this over, we do realize that Abrams is more than just a hired “director” and not just for DISNEY? That his ‘focus’ is STAR WARS is no surprise (and as you say, expected) that he has nothing to say in minimal service to his company’s Trek product is. And I don’t need to remind you that in spite of his merchandizing woes there are other Trek products out there, such as the comics, that shouldn’t want for lack of support from him

I believe that many, after the fact, came to the conclusion that when he did SUPER 8 that was his ‘focus’, but I don’t recall dismissive responses about focus from him when he was asked about Trek while he did that equally loved project?

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2011/05/06/star-trek-2-update-jj-abrams-returning-to-star-fleet-once-super-8-wraps/

‘At the moment, there isn’t a [STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS] script that’s been ‘officially approved’ by anyone, but we’re working on it.

There are some amazing ideas. These are not just great friends of mine, but they’re great writers. I’m thrilled and very optimistic that it’s going to get to where it needs to get to.

The truth is that my focus has been so much on finishing ‘SUPER 8 that it’s [what became STID] been something I’m looking forward to getting to, but with an incredibly compressed post schedule, there hasn’t been a whole lot of time for me to be working with the writers.’ – J.J. Abrams

At that point, Abrams hadn’t signed on as STID’s director so he was in an equal position towards it but managed to be a Trek chatty Cathy compared to this ‘WARS focus’ reply.

________________________________

At that point, things were different, in my opinion.

For instance, at the time, Mr. Abrams had not professed his loyalty to Star Trek…only days before accepting to direct Star Wars, either. Indeed, who could forget these words?… :

“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things. I declined any involvement very early on. I’d rather be in the audience not knowing what was coming, rather than being involved in the minutiae of making them.”

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/25/jj-abrams-turned-down-directing-star-wars-ep-vii-over-loyalty-to-star-trek/

…You made interesting points in your comment @ 845, as was the case on other threads ( the “Will Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt Star Trek Into Darkness marketing rollout?” thread comes to mind ).

But, my point is that, although I’m interested in what people say online and/or offline, ultimately, what really matters to me is what people actually do.

Thus, as I was saying earlier, today, I can only observe what is (not) going on, for the time being, concerning the franchise.

And, we’ll see what happens next.

881. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#869. Phil – January 20, 2014

There are all sorts of things that appear in the end titles/credits that ticket purchasers neither expect nor demand. But would it not be shocking that if this film gets marketed in some way that slaps 50th ANNIVERSARY on it and Paramount, at the very least, and perhaps in conjunction with CBS, manages to NOT include a vanity card thanking fans the world over for their long-lived and continuing contributions toward making it as long lasting a phenomenon as it is. And in this modern age in which we live, a vanity card which includes animation or live footage just isn’t as unusual as you make it out to be.

#870. Phil – January 20, 2014

True according to Lucasfilm:

http://starwars.com/news/master-filmmaking-team-announced-for-star-wars.html

JJ isn’t even EPing STAR WARS. Tommy Harper (Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Jack Ryan, Star Trek Into Darkness) and Jason McGatlin (Tintin, War of the Worlds) are serving as its executive producers. Kathleen Kennedy, and Bryan Burk are assisting JJ in producing SW.

There is a chance that Burk may suffer from some of his own “focus” in regards to his SW duties which would take him off of your EP candidacy list as well.

882. MJ - January 20, 2014

” JJ is personally working on SW right now, what did you expect him to say? Paramount is comfortable with BR, the company, producing. That does not extend to suggesting that JJ has to work on Trek projects exclusively, which obviously, he hasn’t done.”

Exactly, Phil. It’s not a big deal. This is just the Ahmed-Curious Cadet gang trying to fire everybody up here with a manufactured crisis. Oh yes, it was such a dramatic slight at Trek fans from JJ…give me a franking break….what a bunch of babies here.

883. Phil - January 20, 2014

@876. Almost Human is so a multimillion dollar project. Eight episodes at a couple million a pop is multiple millions. So, do we pro-rate his time? Star Trek is 20% of Bad Robots revenue, so JJ needs to allocate 20% of his time to it? No where else in corporate America would you be insisting that attention to quality requires Apple’s CEO to be on the factory floor making iPads, or McDonalds CEO to be flipping burgers. But JJ not personally producing Trek13 is an insult to the franchise, and requires the removal of his company from EP duties?

Nah, don’t think so. If Orci (or someone else) does assume the EP responsibilities, they’ll do fine. This isn’t Bobs first rodeo, now….

884. K-7 - January 20, 2014

Curious Cadet and Ahmed,

Can we please drop the anti-JJ war-mongering? Honestly, you guys sound like Snake in The Two Towers trying to control old Theoden.

885. K-7 - January 20, 2014

Re: Phil

“No where else in corporate America would you be insisting that attention to quality requires Apple’s CEO to be on the factory floor making iPads, or McDonalds CEO to be flipping burgers. But JJ not personally producing Trek13 is an insult to the franchise, and requires the removal of his company from EP duties?”

Yes, this is one of the more dumb-ass ideas that the usual gang of malcontents here have come up with recently. Got to give them a A for creativity though. LOL

886. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

I see that MJ called his one of his alter egos :)

887. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 884. K-7 – January 20, 2014

“Curious Cadet and Ahmed,

Can we please drop the anti-JJ war-mongering? ”

Sorry, I don’t respond to requests from BD drones :)

888. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#882. MJ – January 20, 2014

Being a fan of the old saw “turnabout [intruder?] is fair play” and being “honest” I suppose I’d like JJ/Paramount to announce Lawrence Kasdan has been signed to direct the next STAR TREK is what I’d like. That and a picture of the DISNEY studios exec’s faces as the pair of them told them they waited a month to tell them and that it was hitting the major wire services even as they spoke.

But, as Harry would say, “I keed.”

889. Tom - January 20, 2014

# 869 Phil

I do not think the end credits scene will create a false sense that we would be seeing the characters again. In fact I think quite the opposite. If done right we would know we would definitely NOT be seeing them again. The idea is to close out their contribution and hopefully wrap up the Spock Prime character in the alternate universe. The fact that they are in their 80’s does make this challenging but also does pose the reality that this is the last time this probably could be done. The 50th anniversary would be the time to do it.

890. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 883. Phil – January 20, 2014

“Almost Human is so a multimillion dollar project. Eight episodes at a couple million a pop is multiple millions.”

Are you comparing a TV show to a movie ??

“No where else in corporate America would you be insisting that attention to quality requires Apple’s CEO to be on the factory floor making iPads, or McDonalds CEO to be flipping burgers. But JJ not personally producing Trek13 is an insult to the franchise, and requires the removal of his company from EP duties?”

The guy extended a first-look deal with Paramount to the end of December 2015, a deal that is very lucrative to Abrams & BR, and He gets to approve major decisions concerning the movie. So, yeah, it does require more bloody attention from him.

====================================

J.J. Abrams And Paramount Extend First-Look Deal Through End Of 2015

I’ve just learned that JJ Abrams and his Bad Robot production banner partnered with EVP Bryan Burk are one of, and perhaps the, most important relationships at Paramount. So this is no surprise. But betcha the terms were rich indeed to extend their first-look deal through the end of 2015. The deal dates back to 2006.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/j-j-abrams-and-paramount-extend-first-look-deal-through-end-of-2015/

891. Disinvited - January 20, 2014

#883. Phil – January 20, 2014, 885. K-7 – January 20, 2014

You mean no where else but the Trek corporate owner’s own UNDERCOVER BOSS?

892. Marja - January 20, 2014

875 IDIC Lives! I won’t bother. I don’t follow Shatner’s itinerary across the country. I admire his energy. Enjoy keeping up with him.

893. MJ - January 20, 2014

Right on schedule….the minute people start agreeing with me, then all of a sudden you pull out this tired shtick.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
886. Ahmed – January 20, 2014
I see that MJ called his one of his alter egos :)

894. MJ - January 20, 2014

Phil, are you my alter ego as well?

LOL

895. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 893. MJ – January 20, 2014

“Right on schedule….the minute people start agreeing with me, then all of a sudden you pull out this tired shtick.”

I’m following your example, my friend :)

======================
882. MJ – January 20, 2014

This is just the Ahmed-Curious Cadet gang trying to fire everybody up here with a manufactured crisis

896. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

RIP, Kelley.

================================

Remembering DeForest Kelley… On His 94th Birthday

Leonard Nimoy@TheRealNimoy

“De Kelley. A friend so much loved, so greatly missed and too soon gone. RIP”

7:00 AM – 20 Jan 2014

http://www.treknews.net/2014/01/20/remembering-deforest-kelley-94th-birthday/

897. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2014

Looks like Ahmed has assembled his own “gang” to spread anti-Abrams propaganda here.

Abrams has said he was more of a “Star Wars” fan than a Trekkie. We know this for a fact. Yet, Ahmed continues to distort the truth here.

Also, Abrams has never displayed a negative attitude towards Trek, or Trekkies. The main criticism of Abrams is that he takes on too many projects, such as the case after 2009’s “Star Trek”, when he took on so many projects that he was forced to put off directing STID by 1-2 years. This criticism is also directed towards Bob and Alex, who kept missing their own deadlines, resulting in them having to rush out a script without any time to fix the problems that showed up in the final product.

If anything, there is a rather sizeable number of fans here who have attempted to tear down Abrams and co. with their ranting, bitching, and tabloid-style sensationalism that would be a far more logical reason for Abram’s supposed indifference to the Trek fanbase.

898. Ahmed - January 20, 2014

@ 897. Red Dead Ryan – January 20, 2014

“Looks like Ahmed has assembled his own “gang” to spread anti-Abrams propaganda here.
Abrams has said he was more of a “Star Wars” fan than a Trekkie. We know this for a fact. Yet, Ahmed continues to distort the truth here.”

I guess you are too dumb to actually read the comments here, because no one is disputing the fact that Abrams is a Star Wars fan.

“If anything, there is a rather sizeable number of fans here who have attempted to tear down Abrams and co. with their ranting, bitching, and tabloid-style sensationalism that would be a far more logical reason for Abram’s supposed indifference to the Trek fanbase.”

Well, I think he can rests assured of yours & the other BR drones continuing support who will defend Master Abrams regardless of what he says or does about/to Trek.

899. Cygnus-X1 - January 20, 2014

897. Red Dead Ryan – January 20, 2014

The main criticism of Abrams is that he takes on too many projects

No, the main criticism is that before becoming involved with Trek, JJ Abrams never liked Trek, never “got” Trek, and so he fundamentally changed Trek into something more to his liking, the result being that Trek is now a comic-book/action-movie franchise instead of the science fiction franchise that it had been for the 45 years up until JJ Abrams seized the opportunity to exploit it for his own purposes.

And how the lot of you who approve of BR Trek aren’t bothered by JJ’s unwavering lack of appreciation for the fundamental spirit of pre-BR Trek, I may never understand. I mean, I can understand the feeling of desperation after Trek was driven into the ground by Rick Berman, but have some self-respect, people. JJ-Trek is really just an exploitation of the characters, names and likenesses developed by more creative people over the 45 years leading up to JJ’s doorstep.

And that’s THE HARD TRUTH, no matter how you slice it. Yes, they’re visually titillating movies with some enjoyable scenes here and there, but name ONE original, fertile science fiction premise in JJ-Trek. Just one. You can’t, because there aren’t any. And, no, the ridiculously fantastical, unscientific technology written into those movies isn’t a valid response. Red matter and trans-warp-beam-instantly-to-anywhere-in-the-universe and magic blood don’t measure up. Nuff said.

900. Red Dead Ryan - January 20, 2014

Ahmed, Cygnus-X1,

Oh, he clearly got what Trek (TOS in particular) is all about. He simply updated and modernized it for the twenty-first century.

The fact that you and some others here happen to thumb your nose at Abrams just reminds every rational person how out of touch with reality you guys are.

901. Red Shirt Diaries - January 20, 2014

RDR, I agree completely. This rather boring JJ quote just gives the JJ haters another excuse to complain.

Ahmed, since I know it’s coming from you, I will save the trouble of you having to slam me here — I’ve written your response to me in advance right here:

——

@Red Shirt Diaries

Ah, I was wondering when another one of MJ’s and RDR’s gang of sycophants was going to show up an reinforce the group of JJ apologists.
– Ahmed

902. Cygnus-X1 - January 21, 2014

900. Red Dead Ryan – January 20, 2014

Whatever dude.

903. Mike Barnett - January 21, 2014

I’m with the Red’s on this one. We’re getting hung up on JJ’s lack of involvement with the day-to-day operations on the Star Trek 3 project. I believe Bob Orci is one of the main players. He mentioned before that he is directly involved in interviewing potential directors. So he has that responsibility along with leading the writing team (with Alex Kurtzman). We just need to take a chill pill until things start ramping up. I would expect that to happen as soon as Paramount announces who will be the next director.

Back to JJ….he took a franchise that was dead and buried 6 feet under and revitalized it for the next generation. He delivered on 2 movies. I personally find it really hard to watch any of the old ones now. It’s a shot in the arm that the franchise needed and I expect there will be a new TV series soon after Star Trek 3 is released. Remember that Orci is one of us. He’ll make sure the script is worthy of a 50th anniversary epic movie. No earth, no Klingon’s, no Shatner or Nimoy. I’d rather have them focus on a great story instead of wasting time trying to put Kirk Prime and Spock Prime in the movie.

904. Phil - January 21, 2014

@903. It’ll happen when it happens at this point. It is ludicrous for people to be suggesting that because JJ owns the company that he has to be hands on with every single project. Delegation is a wonderful thing, and it employs a lot of people. Suggesting that because JJ isn’t painting sets, writing the music, or doing Chris Pines hair is somehow breech of contract is really nothing more then a fantasy at this point. JJ will do a good job on Star Wars, and whoever ends up EP’ing Trek 13 will do a great job!

905. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@ 901. Red Shirt Diaries – January 20, 2014

“Ahmed, since I know it’s coming from you, I will save the trouble of you having to slam me here — I’ve written your response to me in advance right here:”

Thanks for saving me the time to write a response :)

906. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@903. Mike Barnett

“Remember that Orci is one of us. He’ll make sure the script is worthy of a 50th anniversary epic movie.”

I hope so.

“No earth, no Klingon’s,”

I second that.

“no Shatner or Nimoy.”

I disagree.

907. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@ 904. Phil – January 21, 2014

“Suggesting that because JJ isn’t painting sets, writing the music, or doing Chris Pines hair is somehow breech of contract is really nothing more then a fantasy at this point.”

And he is not working on the costumes as well, THAT IS A BIG BREECH OF CONTRACT, RIGHT ? :)

“JJ will do a good job on Star Wars”

Yep, SW is the perfect movie for Abrams & I can’t wait to see what he will do with it.

“and whoever ends up EP’ing Trek 13 will do a great job!”

How do you know that if we don’t know who is going to be the EP ?? You are just assuming that whoever will be EP’ing will be great !!

908. Phil - January 21, 2014

@907. You tell me, I’m not the one suggesting that anything less then full hands on involvement is breech of contract, you are.

Bad Robot has a number of people who can step into the EP role, all of whom have done credible jobs for them in the past, are professional, and have the full confidence of management. Of course I’d expect whoever ends up doing the work to do a good job. If you are suggesting that their hiring process is to grab some random homeless guy off the street, you may want to support that argument. Simply suggesting that because it’s not JJ means it’s all screwed up is an insufficient argument in and of itself.

909. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@908. Phil

“Simply suggesting that because it’s not JJ means it’s all screwed up is an insufficient argument in and of itself.”

I suggest no such thing. My position is simply to let someone like Bob Orci take over the EP duties, since he is already part of the management team.

Abrams can continue focusing on SW, while Bob or someone else take care of ST XIII. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that.

910. Phil - January 21, 2014

@909. Nice to see you’re coming around on this. Back when you were rather passionate that Trek 13 required ‘more bloody attention’ from JJ, you left the distinct impression that Mr. Abrams needed to be more involved.

On a related note, I noticed that the dissection of ‘Jack Ryan’ soft box office has begun. I didn’t see that Chris Pine was being blamed, on the other hand it wasn’t a ringing endorsement of his leading man potential, either. While that bodes well for his availability for future Trek, it gives pause to consider if Paramount may be considering taking the franchise in a different direction….

911. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@ 910. Phil – January 21, 2014

“Nice to see you’re coming around on this. Back when you were rather passionate that Trek 13 required ‘more bloody attention’ from JJ, you left the distinct impression that Mr. Abrams needed to be more involved.”

IF Abrams remains as the EP, then he should gives ST more bloody attention :) but if Bob or someone else took over, then Abrams can focus on his SW movie & everybody is happy.

912. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@ 910. Phil – January 21, 2014

“On a related note, I noticed that the dissection of ‘Jack Ryan’ soft box office has begun. I didn’t see that Chris Pine was being blamed, on the other hand it wasn’t a ringing endorsement of his leading man potential, either.”

Actually some reviewers are blaming Pine.

==================================
The re-booted ‘Jack Ryan’ is a clear and present disaster

Now it’s Chris Pine’s turn to step into the role of Jack Ryan. You can almost hear the wheels grinding, turning, in the minds of those responsible for this re-make, and their decision to cast Pine. Pine was, after all, picked to play Captain James T. Kirk in the recent Star Trek re-boot.

And although he is interesting to watch as Captain Kirk, his version of Jack Ryan shows no stretch of acting, star power, or characterization. The powers-that-be, per norm, probably just thought that you could pluck out the same actor and you’d have instant success.

http://www.examiner.com/review/movie-review-the-re-booted-jack-ryan-is-a-clear-and-present-disaster

…………………..

‘Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit’ review: Chris Pine miscast in bland spy thriller

Pine is also miscast. He is not the Jack Ryan who could ever grow into Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford or even Ben Affleck, actors who played Ryan in earlier movies. With the exception of one brainstorming scene, Pine seems sluggish in this role, in contrast to the vigour he had in the Star Trek reboots. Even a silken performance from Costner cannot save Pine from his robotic stupor.

Having a bland leading man leads to another problem: With his steely stare and broad Russian accent, Branagh is so good as the uber-villain that I found myself rooting for him, not the American heroes.

http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/2014/01/17/jack-ryan-shadow-recruit-review-chris-pine-miscast-in-bland-spy-thriller

913. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

A new report from the Hollywood Reporter about “Jack Ryan”

================================
‘Jack Ryan’ Franchise in Question After Snub From Younger Moviegoers

UPDATED: More than a third of the film’s opening-weekend audience was over the age of 50, despite a star turn from 33-year-old actor Chris Pine.

The fate of Paramount’s marquee spy franchise has been thrown into question following the soft debut of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit at the North American box office, where the action thriller failed to connect with younger audiences unfamiliar with author Tom Clancy’s iconic character.

Director Kenneth Branagh’s reboot, starring 33-year-old actor Chris Pine and in a bid to relaunch the series, opened to a soft $18 million over the long Martin Luther King Jr. weekend. More than a third of the audience was over the age of 50, while only 15 percent was under 25, according to exit-polling service CinemaScore. All told, 63 percent of the audience was over the age of 35.
………….

Whether the studio and co-financing partner Skydance Productions decide to pursue another installment now largely rests on Jack Ryan’s performance overseas, where it is off to a solid start, as well as its ability to drum up continued interest among older adults in the U.S., sources tell The Hollywood Reporter.

Adds Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore: “The affection for the franchise was definitely 50-plus. The young audience didn’t turn out for the opening weekend. The question now becomes, does a younger audience now discover it, whether in theaters or on home entertainment?”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jack-ryan-franchise-question-snub-672533

914. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

Somehow Chris Pine is attracting older moviegoers, not the younger ones. The same thing that is happening now with “Jack Ryan”, happened with STID back in May 2013.

=====================

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Needs to Get Younger at Box Office – Fast

Analysis: J.J. Abrams’ space epic sequel drew an audience that was 75% over 25, and there’s not much time to fix that

“Star Trek Into Darkness” didn’t connect with enough young moviegoers this weekend, and that’s the biggest reason it didn’t hit the $100 million heights that Paramount Pictures had hoped it would.

Only 25 percent of those who went to see “Into Darkness” were under 25 years of age. That’s considerably less than the 35 percent that the previous film attracted, and it’s far more older-skewing than the first-weekend audiences for Disney’s “Iron Man 3,” which was 45 percent under 25, 27 percent families and 21 percent teens.

“It didn’t grab the attention of young moviegoers, and you’re not going to get your movie over $100 million with just older folks,” Exhibitor Relations vice-president and senior analyst Jeff Bock told TheWrap. “It’s tough to figure, because with Abrams doing it, it’s really not your father’s ‘Star Trek.’ But it needs to find that young audience in a hurry.”

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-box-office-needs-younger-audience-fast-furious-hangover-III-92796
=====================

STID of course did manage to get over $200 million at the end of its release. But what happening with Chris Pine’s movies, when it come to younger audiences, might gives Paramount a pause, as Phil said, when it consider hiring Pine for other major movies.

MJ, you were right that Pine may not make it to the A-list yet.

915. MJ - January 21, 2014

@Ahmed

“Abrams can continue focusing on SW, while Bob or someone else take care of ST XIII. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that.”

Exactly. Which is why I am wondering what you whole issue is with JJ’s statement. Isn’t JJ focusing on SW and not Trek basically what you wanted anyway?

Never look a Gift Horse in the mouth, my friend. ;-)

916. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@914. MJ,

“Exactly. Which is why I am wondering what you whole issue is with JJ’s statement. Isn’t JJ focusing on SW and not Trek basically what you wanted anyway?”

Because he is still the EP :)

And as I said in my comment to Phil:

“IF Abrams remains as the EP, then he should gives ST more bloody attention :) but if Bob or someone else took over, then Abrams can focus on his SW movie & everybody is happy.”

917. MJ - January 21, 2014

@916.

Well, he is obviously delegating to Orci. Whatever, I jut think he hurt your fan feelings?

Anyways, this topic is getting boring now.

918. Phil - January 21, 2014

@915. JJ is an EP by virtue of the fact he owns Bad Robot. Trek 09 had 4 producers listed (2 EP’s), STID had 9 (4 EP’s). JJ’s a EP by virtue of the fact he owns the company, that does require him to actually have hands on for every project in his stable. JJ’s focus is SW. Bad Robot, JJ’s company, is focused on Trek. This has NEVER been an EITHER/OR situation, your protests aside.

919. Mike Barnett - January 21, 2014

Keep in mind that Orci & Kurtzman are NOT Bad Robot employees. So they wouldn’t take over EP duties for JJ/Bad Robot. Who knows, who cares….

920. MJ - January 21, 2014

@918.

Exactly, Phil. EP’s delegate a lot. Ahmed is confused with JJ’s previous more active role when he was both Director and EP. I am not sure Ahmed completely understands the typical role of an EP on a movie?

921. Marja - January 21, 2014

YES. JJ Abrams and Bad Robot rescued Trek. They revivified it and got a new generation interested1

YES. He did a great job with the first movie and a pretty damned good job with the second. However, it rushed by too fast.

NO. I did not appreciate his speaking about “Star Wars” when he was at the various premieres of STID. I wish he had said, “I’m promoting Star Trek right now. I’ll be happy to talk to you in a few weeks.”

YES. I’ve always thought that compared with Star Wars, Trek has seldom gotten its due from the public at large.

JUST SAYIN

922. Marja - January 21, 2014

As an “older moviegoer” I appreciate Chris Pine for his American Hero vibe. As I’ve said before he strikes me as the next Harrison Ford.

He expresses anguish, confusion, despair while taking action.

Yeah I’m older, so what. So TF what. I’m tired of Hollywood forever trying to appeal to teenagers. They don’t have the money my demographic has [tho' individual results may vary]. Why are they determining so much of the direction of Hollywood “product”?

I’ve been to see a movie nearly every week this year. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Industry Bigwigs.

923. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

918. Phil & 920. MJ

The two of you don’t seem to understand Abrams role in ST XIII. Check this interview with him about that role

=============================

Collider: J.J., how important was it for you to stay involved with the franchise, even though you won’t be available to direct the next film? Does it feel a bit like you’re sending your baby away to college?

ABRAMS: It’s a little bittersweet. But, I will say that I’m going to be producing the movie. Whomever it is that directs the film will be someone we all know is going to keep the cast and crew in good hands. I feel very lucky to have been part of it, and it definitely feels like the right time to let someone come in and do their own thing. I certainly don’t want someone to come in and try to do what I would have done. We want to hire someone who’s gonna come in and bring their own sensibility. I’m very excited to see what comes next, despite feeling jealous of whomever that person is.

Collider: Are you already giving creative input, as Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci are breaking the story?

ABRAMS: Yeah, we’re working on the story now.

http://collider.com/j-j-abrams-simon-pegg-star-trek-into-darkness-interview/

=============================

So, he is involved in decision making regarding hiring new director & story input. Doesn’t sound to me like he is delegating.

The bottom line, get someone else take over as EP.

—————————–CASE CLOSED————————————–
RDR, hope you wouldn’t mind using your trademark closing :)

924. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@ 919. Mike Barnett – January 21, 2014

“Keep in mind that Orci & Kurtzman are NOT Bad Robot employees. So they wouldn’t take over EP duties for JJ/Bad Robot. ”

Interesting

925. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

And here is an article from trekmovie

================================

J.J. Abrams endorses Rupert Wyatt for Star Trek 3 director – still nothing official September 12, 2013

While still nothing official has been announced about the next director for the 3rd Bad Robot Star Trek movie, the website HitFix caught up with J.J. Abrams during the home video release celebration of Into Darkness. They asked him about the rumor that Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) was being considered, and the status of any pre-production progress on the 3rd movie

On the status of Trek 3:

“It’s too early to talk about details, but there have been a lot of really exciting ideas about what comes next.”

On producing Trek 3:

“I plan to be involved in the story and producing the film and I feel very blessed to be involved at all.”

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/12/j-j-abrams-endorses-rupert-wyatt-for-star-trek-3-director-still-nothing-official/
===============================

Very blessed, indeed !!

926. Phil - January 21, 2014

@923. I understand his role entirely, as owner of Bad Robot…

Orci: Got that outline for Trek 13 ready, JJ. Will e-mail it over for a once over.
JJ: Great …next day
JJ: Bob, looks great.
Orci: Glad you like it.

Or how about this…
JJ’s Admin Assistant (JJAA): Mr. Abrams, did you review the invoices from last month?
JJ: Sure did. Do I need to sign anything?
JJAA: Here, here, and here sir.

or this staff meeting…
Byran Burk: JJ, we have had good discussions with Ron Howard to direct Trek 13. He likes the script, the schedule, and we’d like to make him the offer we forwarded to you. Is that okay?
JJ: Sure is. Good job, Byran, and lets give Ron a proper welcome.

Yeah, it’s good to be the EP…..

927. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@926. Phil

“Yeah, it’s good to be the EP…..”

Sure, man!

Question, why did you pick Ron Howard in your example ? Do you have any inside intel that you want to share with us ? :)

928. Cygnus-X1 - January 21, 2014

922. Marja – January 21, 2014

You tell’em, Marja!!

929. Curious Cadet - January 21, 2014

@926. Phil,
“I understand his role entirely, as owner of Bad Robot…”

Such keen insight. I’m sure that’s exactly how Lucas Executive Produced the last 5 Star Wars films too. Yup, you sure got this ‘biddness’ figured out.

As long as we’re making stuff up, and since I can’t back this up, here’s something I have on good authority from someone inside Fringe: Abrams, who had a titular EP title on that show (as you allege such positions to be), was described as a micro manager, totalitarian, control freak. An example of this is that he was soooo busy working on Super 8 and micromanaging Lost and his other projects at the same time, that he would on occasion come into a writer’s meeting just days before an episode would go into production, read the script for the first time and throw the whole script out and start over with his ideas. I’m sure there’s a degree of exaggeration in that story, but the point is, that’s hardly delegating. Nor is it the stereotypical leisurely producer you laughingly portray above.

Orci can confirm or deny this story, but true or not, it’s a lot closer to reality in Hollywood than your ridiculous example of what Abrams’ day is like.

Bottom line: Abrams said: “I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now.” in response to the question about Star Trek. He did not say he wasn’t going to be deeply involved with it. In fact his answer suggests the exact opposite — He might as well have said: “I’m just focusing on Episode VII, right now, but I’ll be focusing on Star Trek soon enough.” If he truly was delegating the EP responsibilities, why wouldn’t he have said, “you’ll have to talk to Bryan Burk, he’s taken over the day to day and doing an amazing job, I’m just focused on Episode VII now”.

930. Curious Cadet - January 21, 2014

^^^^MEANT TO SAY:
I’m sure that’s exactly how Lucas Executive Produced The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi too.

931. Ahmed - January 21, 2014

@929. Curious Cadet

“Abrams, who had a titular EP title on that show (as you allege such positions to be), was described as a micro manager, totalitarian, control freak.”

Check this trekmovie article that was reporting on New York Times Magazine feature about JJ Abrams.

==========================

“Abrams struck me as focused to the point of obsession on “Super 8.” Friends and collaborators say that when he homes in on a project dear to him, he can be a relentless perfectionist. That was certainly the case on the early May day when I watched him carom between the scoring stage where a 104-piece orchestra was recording the movie’s music and an office suite, just three doors down, into which he had temporarily moved the final editing of “Super 8.” He would huddle with the movie’s composer, Michael Giacchino, over whether there should be an earlier swell of strings here, something more sinister-sounding there. Then he would spend 10 minutes with one of the movie’s two editors, Mary Jo Markey, on a detail as small as how long the camera should dwell on one actor during his dialogue in one scene.”

http://trekmovie.com/2011/05/26/ny-times-mag-profile-of-jj-abrams-provides-insights-into-his-focus-relationship-with-paramount/

932. Disinvited - January 21, 2014

#920. MJ – January 21, 2014

Point of order and just to keep our facts accurate: JJ had no STID directoral duties at the time of his SUPER 8 interview either. He hadn’t yet signed on to direct at that time.

933. Marja - January 21, 2014

931 Ahmed, Thanks for that; I was trying to say about 100 posts ago that JJ is obsessive enough to have gone over the music with Giacchino on Trek1. I had read about this tendency of his to want to fine-tune the entire feel of a production, I think in a long interview done by The New York Times.

So … WILL we have a Trek3 in 2016?

Here’s hoping we will.

And Phil, it really would be fun if Ron Howard directed ;-)

934. MJ - January 21, 2014

“You tell’em, Marja!!”

Huh???

935. MJ - January 21, 2014

“Point of order and just to keep our facts accurate: JJ had no STID directoral duties at the time of his SUPER 8 interview either. He hadn’t yet signed on to direct at that time.”

Come on, don’t fall in the to Ahmed trap of needing everything spoon fed to you in “official” information instead of using your brain to figure things out. I didn’t see you as being so limited as that, Disinvited?

936. Disinvited - January 22, 2014

#935. MJ – January 21, 2014

If you mean by that to call on me to look at it from other angles, I can do that.

Let’s see… we know that Ahmed’s NYT wayback call reminds us that JJ loves mystery boxes. And when he has one of these games afoot, he does like to play it tight-lipped. So the reason his Trek response may have been so terse was in service to this big 50th Trek Anniversary surprise he has already planned.

Plausible. Especially considering he doesn’t strike me as the sort who’s going to let his STID Mystery Box fail deter him from trying again and harder.

Let’s see, Alice EVE…Bob dropping apple hints… No! MJ, you don’t think? Why would JJ even think about going there? He’d have to be out of his ever-puzzle-loving-mind! But I’d have to admit I’m kind of hooked on finding out if he can pull it off. Clever.

937. Disinvited - January 22, 2014

This story finally answered my puzzle over why I thought the word had gone out long ago that only digital studio theater movie releases but I kept finding these non-major chain venues that were still showing new releases on film:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-paramount-end-to-film-20140118,0,5666826,full.story

”Roll credits.

For more than a century, Hollywood has relied on 35-millimeter film to capture its fleeting images and deliver them to the silver screen. Now, in a historic move, Paramount Pictures has become the first big studio to stop releasing its major movies on film in the United States.

The studio’s Oscar-nominated film “The Wolf of Wall Street” is the studio’s first movie in wide release to be distributed entirely in digital format, according to theater industry executives briefed on the plans who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Paramount recently notified theater owners that its Will Ferrell comedy “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues,” which opened in December, was the last movie released on 35-mm film, these people said. Previously, only small movies such as documentaries were released solely in digital format.

Its reticence reflects the fact that no studio wants to be seen as the first to abandon film, which retains a cachet among purists. Some studios may also be reluctant to give up box-office revenue by bypassing theaters that can show only film.

About 8% of U.S. theater screens have not gone digital and can show movies only in the old-fashioned film format. Internationally, Paramount is still expected to ship film prints to Latin America and other foreign markets where most theaters still show movies on film.

Studios prefer digital distribution because it is much cheaper. Film prints cost as much as $2,000; a digital copy on disc usually costs less than $100. Eventually, these movies could be beamed into cinemas by satellite, saving even more on production and shipping costs.

Digital technology also enables theaters to screen higher-priced 3-D films and makes it easier for them to book and program entertainment.

Other studios were expected to jump on the digital bandwagon first. 20th Century Fox sent a letter to exhibitors in 2011 saying it would stop distributing film “within the next year or two.” Disney issued a similar warning to theater operators.” – “Paramount stops releasing major movies on film”, LATIMES, By Richard Verrier, January 18, 2014, 5:30 a.m.

938. Disinvited - January 22, 2014

The odd thing is that while I support Abrams’ decision to stick to his artistic guns,:

”The director confirmed cinematographer Dan Mindel’s plans to shoot Episode VII on film rather than on digital cameras, but he ruled out shooting the new film in IMAX format.

Abrams complains that “The problem with IMAX is it’s a very loud camera, it’s a very unreliable camera, there’s only so much film that can be in the camera. You can’t really do intimate scenes with it. It’s slow. They break down often.”

Harsh words — especially after Abrams described IMAX as “my favorite format; I’m a huge fan” in 2011 while preparing to shoot parts of “Star Trek Into Darkness” in the oversized format. As recently as September, IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond hinted he was in talks with Abrams to film Episode VII in IMAX format. ”

it’s a puzzle as to whether there’ll be a large enough venue in the U.S. where he can exhibit it in that 35mm film format for its premier? And that almost seems to seal the deal that said premier will have to be in some foreign venue that can?

Hat Rick, would your highest capacity theater still be able to project any Abrams’ 35mm film movie in the future of 2015 and beyond if called upon for a celebrity studded gala premier?

939. dmduncan - January 22, 2014

JJ is right. 35mm is really the most practical film format to shoot in. VistaVision cameras haven’t been used to shoot a feature in years, but it would be cool to redevelop those units as a compromise. I suspect they’re noisy though, and only as suitable for sync sound shooting as IMAX cameras are.

940. Red Dead Ryan - January 22, 2014

Studios are under ever-increasing pressure from shareholders to increase profits, and one way to do that is to cut production costs any way they can. Digital is how its going to be done from now on. I also suspect that IMAX will go the way of the dodo eventually as well, because it is super expensive just to shoot a few scenes. It’s hard to justify shooting a film entirely in IMAX, “Avatar” notwithstanding.

941. Disinvited - January 22, 2014

Here’s the link to Abrams’ casting IMAX aside:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1026_3-57617472/jj-abrams-falls-out-of-love-with-imax-new-star-wars-movie-to-be-shot-on-film/

View ILM behind the scenes film of STID:

“Star Trek Into Darkness contains over 1600 visual effects shots, created by Industrial Light & Magic, Pixomondo, Atomic Fiction and Kelvin Optical Inc. In this reel, we’ll take a look at ILM’s work which encompassed virtually every tool and discipline in our effects arsenal. ” – ILM

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2014/01/watch-ilms-behind-magic-of-star-trek.html

According to this report:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/j-j-abrams-talks-star-wars-lost-and-more/

JJ had time to talk about LOST, no possibility of a LOST movie, BELIEVE & STAR WARS but no Trek.

“The only confirmation the director could make is that Jesse Plemons will be in the [STAR WARS VII] movie; he is best known for his roles in Friday Night Lights and Breaking Bad. However, there is no current confirmation about which role Plemons will take.

Abrams has been very tight-lipped over his plans for the seventh Star Wars movie. The only thing that he has confirmed about filming is that it will be done without IMAX. Despite saying that this was his favorite camera during Star Trek: Into the Darkness in 2011, he now says that it is slow and unreliable. It makes it hard for the intimate scenes and there is only so much that can be filmed at once.

This is a step back in the film industry, as other studios are moving into the digital era. Paramount Studios explained that Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues will be the last movie filmed by them on film.

The predicted date of release for the new Star Wars movie is Dec. 18, 2015. Actors still need to be cast for the roles and it is only just entering the pre-production process. There is so much more for Abrams to focus on, other than Star Wars, although a Lost movie appears out of the question.” – Alexandria Ingham, freelance writer, “Guardian LIberty Voice”, January 20, 2014.

FWIW PRODUCTION WEEKLY reported JJ Abrams opened his Pinewood Studios offices in November of last year.

942. Disinvited - January 22, 2014

# 939. dmduncan – January 22, 2014, 940. Red Dead Ryan – January 22, 2014

Yes, I agree that the hand writing was on the wall once Home DVDs became a significant retail revenue generating stream.

And yet, as an old A/V geek from way back I have to wonder about how the industry expects to long term archive these digital things as the formats change and don’t last anywhere near 100+ years between said changes?

943. Ahmed - January 22, 2014

Kirk-Khan brothers in BLOOD!!

=======================
Chris Pine talks Star Trek 3

Total Film: “If you were to sit down with the writers of Star Trek III and request any scene or moment for Kirk,” he was asked, “what would that be?”

Pine: “Well, for anybody who’s seen the second one,” said Pine, “given the fact that Kirk’s been revived by Khan’s blood, I think there’s definitely room for Kirk to go dark, which we’ve obviously seen in the original series, and that would be fun, I think.”

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/chris-pine-talks-star-trek-3
===========================

Bob Orci, Please ignore this suggestion from Pine, thank you!

944. dmduncan - January 22, 2014

942. Disinvited – January 22, 2014

And yet, as an old A/V geek from way back I have to wonder about how the industry expects to long term archive these digital things as the formats change and don’t last anywhere near 100+ years between said changes?

***

Archiving digital material IS an issue, and I know at least some digital movies have been transferred to film for archival purposes.

Long term I think it’s idiotic to go purely digital but it’s also often fashionable for a decaying civilization to be idiotic. In the long run I think a large chunk of movies to be made will be lost over a longer span of time because they are not archived in an analog medium.

I respect JJ for consistently choosing film. He obviously cares about the projects he personally makes so much that he probably doesn’t want them forever imprisoned in some transient codec of 1’s and 0’s, dependent on some future obsolete and unduplicable technology to be retrieved.

945. Curious Cadet - January 22, 2014

@944. dmduncan,
“Archiving digital material IS an issue, and I know at least some digital movies have been transferred to film for archival purposes.”

Interesting. Well that solves the problem of preserving the published film itself, but negates the ability to go back into the original footage for anything else, e.g. deleted scenes, bloopers, “directors cuts”, etc.

Digital preservation is a concern, and I know some archival schemes basically have set schedules by which they re-backup the media onto fresh baked hard copies, as well as transfer to any new preservation standard which is developed in the future.

Regardless of how one feels about film, it’s hard to believe that this scheme will be any less efficient than storing and restoring 35 mm film, or maintaining analogue equipment to transfer obsolete formats. Many of the older Hollywood films suffered serious deterioration in less than 100 years time, before the movement to restore and preserve the film for the home video market. The reality is it costs a lot of money to maintain it correctly, and the irony is digital was probably the savior in the restoration end of it. However, if digital is properly maintenance over time, I have to imagine it can be done much more efficiently and inexpensively than similarly maintaining individual film elements.

946. dmduncan - January 22, 2014

945. Curious Cadet – January 22, 2014

Well it takes someone’s effort to rebackup and transfer over to whatever new codec and medium is current, and the faster technologies change, the harder it is to do that. Theoretically digital is more secure, but in the real world there are many real world problems that make it more complicated. I used to think it was just a matter of copying a DVD, until I read a couple papers and found it’s not that simple.

In contrast, film is a relatively simple storage medium and you can see the content of the frames with your naked eyes. The technology to display film movies is much simpler and less delicate. But as the industry moves away from film, options for analog backups may become impossible and then there’s no longer a choice of what to do or of how to back up your movies.

Someday there’s going to be the equivalent of an artistic Fukushima.

Probably most of the material that gets lost will not have been worth keeping anyway, but you never know.

In the end, everything turns to ashes anyway; the difference is just in how long we make our stuff last.

947. MJ - January 22, 2014

@943

You kill me, dude. You ignore the little bits of news that have meaning, and yet get all worked up about the little bits of news that are meaningless.

The actors will have NO input on the core story for the next movie. You can take that to the bank. I GUARANTEE IT!

948. Ahmed - January 22, 2014

@946. MJ

“The actors will have NO input on the core story for the next movie. You can take that to the bank. I GUARANTEE IT!”

And the bank will REJECTED IT.

You really need to do some digging before you come up with your own personal version of how things might work in the movie.

Read this article from trekmovie.

==========================

Quinto: Star Trek Sequel Is ‘Bigger and Bolder’ + Actors Collaborated With Writers February 10, 2012

Recently Star Trek’s new Mr. Spock Zachary Quinto sparked a lot of discussion when he talked about how the script for the Star Trek sequel currently in production had been evolving. Now he is saying that the actors had some input into this process.

While he of course can’t divulge details, the actor did talk about the story in general:

“Well, it’s bigger and bolder. And I think in some ways more dynamic. And it’s so exciting to be back. And the first time there was a writer’s strike when we were shooting the movie so nothing was able to be changed – the script was locked. And this time Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] and Damon [Lindeloff] and J.J.[Abrams] are really getting in and working on the story and sort of allowing it to expand and evolve – and bringing us into the process. So there’s a real collaboration that wasn’t even legally permitted the first time that I feel really grateful for. We’re having a really great time.”

http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/10/quinto-star-trek-sequel-is-bigger-and-bolder-actors-collaborated-with-writers/

949. dmduncan - January 22, 2014

945. Curious Cadet – January 22, 2014

It costs a lot more to maintain digital video than film.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?_r=0

950. MJ - January 22, 2014

@947

Read again what I said: I said they would have no input on “the core story.” I stand by this, and guarantee it. And rest assured, they didn’t impact “the core story” on STID.

951. Marja - January 22, 2014

934 MJ, I think Cygnus was agreeing with my “why are movies so heavily geared toward young people, we boomers are the ones with the bucks” rant.

952. Marja - January 22, 2014

943 Ahmed, but you are missing out on such a great plot idea!

Kirk goes all dark and Khan-like and power-mad and Spock kicks his ass!

Doesn’t that just make you tingle with anticipation?

I keeed, I keeed

953. Ahmed - January 22, 2014

@952. Marja

“943 Ahmed, but you are missing out on such a great plot idea!

Kirk goes all dark and Khan-like and power-mad and Spock kicks his ass!

Doesn’t that just make you tingle with anticipation?”

LOL

954. Curious Cadet - January 22, 2014

@949. dmduncan,
“It costs a lot more to maintain digital video than film.”

Thanks for the link to that article. I haven’t done much research into it, and it seems somewhat counterintuitive at first, given that digital storage is 11 times the cost of film; until you realize that the distribution costs are the complete opposite. So the film industry is merely shifting the cost burden to the back end, probably with an eye toward digital storage improving and getting cheaper over time. Financially, it’s a reasonable gamble considering the disparity in distribution and storage costs. $12K a year to store a digital movie vs. $6 million to distribute one on film is a substantial savings even at 11x the cost of film storage. It would take 500 years of digital storage at that price to match the cost of distributing it on film. And of course Moore’s law essentially tells us that the cost will eventually dwindle long before a studio approaches negating the long term cost benefit.

955. MJ - January 23, 2014

@954

Moore’s Law has nothing to do with how long a given memory storage media will last.

956. dmduncan - January 23, 2014

Well it may be cheaper to distribute but digital is more costly to maintain, and what is the cost of losing your movie forever?

One of the problems with “improvements” in digital technology is that after a certain number of them, backward compatibility is lost. That isn’t the case with film where ancient projectors can still show modern films.

I’ve read a paper where a researcher proposes a method for better archival of digital movies, but I don’t know if it’s being funded and developed, or even if it’s a complete solution.

Meanwhile, digital movies ARE being archived on film. Ironically, if digital kills film, it won’t be able to use film as an archival medium. Film manufacturing and processing is an industry; it needs a certain amount of business to survive.

But it wouldn’t be the first time someone got into a boat and threw away the oars, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that better digital storage you want only comes after a lot of good movies are permanently lost.

I am reminded of the Carrington Event. Even though we were aware since 1859 of the damage that solar storms could do to power systems on earth, we still somehow managed to build a power distribution infrastructure that completely ignores the danger. Why? It was cheaper to house SCADA systems in unprotected boxes, and now we are at the mercy of the sun’s calm and pleasant nature.

“For want of a nail the kingdom was lost.”

957. dmduncan - January 23, 2014

Good news in Europe for film: All major UK broadcasters will accept movies originated in the Super 16 format! That came after a campaign by numerous notable directors.

See there’s a large number of directors who want to PRESERVE the CHOICE of film, and they are up against a few grumpy old farts like George Lucas—a man who has never had a comfortable relationship with the medium, who doesn’t understand why some directors love the stuff, and who apparently feels that everybody should do as he did and dump it.

I’m on the JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg side of the issue because I know how rewarding an experience it is to sit at a Steenbeck with film all over the floor around you as you MAKE your movie. You go into the editing room with a spool of film and you come out with a MOVIE. In there you have a very personal relationship with the film itself, handling it, cutting it, viewing it forward and backwards, frame by frame, analyzing, looking for the BEST place to make your cut. I LOVE being able to grab a piece of film, hold it up to the light and to SEE what’s on it. There’s no software or computer chips between you and what you’ve filmed, and I feel sorry for people like Lucas who apparently don’t know the love.

958. Phil - January 23, 2014

Was curious if the Library of Congress was working on this.

http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2013/10/planning-for-preservation-storage/

959. Disinvited - January 23, 2014

Trek returns to PIONEERS OF TELEVISION, the article features Takei:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/01/21/bob-newhart-ray-romano-pbs-jimmie-walker/4730685/

And a little more illumination for those very few who struggle to comprehend what exactly it was that Trek’s “kiss” faced in the 1960s:

”[Leslie] Uggams faced resistance on Sing Along with Mitch Miller [1961-1964], blacked out (“no pun intended,” she says) in the South, where viewers resisted minorities on TV.”

960. Disinvited - January 23, 2014

Perhaps this illustrates the problem a little better, and its not just a federal government problem:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-16-moon-footage_N.htm

”NASA could put a man on the moon but didn’t have the sense to keep the original video of the live TV transmission.

In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.

Nafzger said a huge search that began three years ago for the old moon tapes led to the “inescapable conclusion” that 45 tapes of Apollo 11 video were erased and reused. His report on that will come out in a few weeks.

The original videos beamed to Earth were stored on giant reels of tape that each contained 15 minutes of video, along with other data from the moon. In the 1970s and ’80s, NASA had a shortage of the tapes, so it erased about 200,000 of them and reused them.

How did NASA end up looking like a bumbling husband taping over his wedding video with the Super Bowl?

Nafzger, who was in charge of the live TV recordings back in the Apollo years, said they were mostly thought of as data tapes. It wasn’t his job to preserve history, he said, just to make sure the footage worked. In retrospect, he said he wished NASA hadn’t reused the tapes.

Outside historians were aghast.

“It’s surprising to me that NASA didn’t have the common sense to save perhaps the most important historical footage of the 20th century,” said Rice University historian and author Douglas Brinkley. He noted that NASA saved all sorts of data and artifacts from Apollo 11, and it is “mind-boggling that the tapes just disappeared.”

Smithsonian Institution space curator Roger Launius, a former NASA chief historian, said the loss of the original video “doesn’t surprise me that much.”

“It was a mistake, no doubt about that,” Launius said. “This is a problem inside the entire federal government. … They don’t think that preservation is all that important.”

Launius said federal warehouses where historical artifacts are saved are “kind of like the last scene of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark.’ It just goes away in this place with other big boxes.”” – 2009 The Associated Press

Digital relies largely on magnetic storage devices which if not maintained and used correctly is easily corrupted by stray magnetic fields, EMPs, extreme Solar activity, high temperature, human error, remote malicious intent, etc.

Granted before the invention of safety film, film had a lot of problems as well which is why much of the silent era is lost. But safety film has proven to be an excellent format for long term storage and even if every projector on the planet fell into disrepair, would still be an excellent form of hardcopy storage that could easily be scanned back in to digital systems using robotic devices now and in the future.

961. Ahmed - January 23, 2014

@960. Disinvited

“In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.”

We all know the REAL reason for erasing Apollo 11 tapes, right ? The moon landing was FAKE :)

I keeed!

962. dmduncan - January 23, 2014

960. Disinvited – January 23, 2014

In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.

961. Ahmed – January 23, 2014

We all know the REAL reason for erasing Apollo 11 tapes, right ? The moon landing was FAKE :)

***

Oh the mission was real, alright. But I wonder what was on those tapes they didn’t want us to see? ;-)

963. Ahmed - January 23, 2014

@962. dmduncan

“Oh the mission was real, alright. But I wonder what was on those tapes they didn’t want us to see? ;-)”

Maybe they found “The Ark” on the dark side of the moon ;)

964. MJ - January 23, 2014

The real problem here that you are all dancing around, but have not mentioned yet, is there is currently no solid state memory media that is available in the production stage (i.e, produced media available in mass quantity versus a research project) that will last for “deep history.” By deep history, I mean at least 500 years, but preferably, thousands of years.

If you developed some super memory block or other solid state memory technology that had deep history storage capability, then you’d also want multiple vaults across the word to store these in, so that you are covered in case one or two vaults failed or were destroyed.

965. MJ - January 23, 2014

@963. They didn’t find the Ark there. But they did find a Pink Floyd album.

LOL

966. Ahmed - January 23, 2014

@MJ,

Check this article from your dear friend, William Bradley! I know that you miss him a lot :)

===================================

Paramount’s problems in managing the Jack Ryan franchise mirror its problems with Star Trek. After a glut of Trek on television and in theaters stopped the franchise dead early in the last decade, Paramount brought mega-TV producer J.J. Abrams and his crew in to reboot things.

The result was 2009’s terrific Star Trek, with Pine and a host of others capably taking on the iconic roles after the timeline is changed by a catastrophe. While there were some conceptual lapses, it didn’t seem to matter much with the reboot because it was such a bravura piece, full of flash, dazzle, and smart energy.
…………………
Star Trek Into Darkness, which began promisingly as a terrorism-oriented piece around the brilliant Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch as a disgruntled Starfleet officer only to devolve into a nitwit reworking of perhaps the greatest of all Star Trek films, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. With the lily white Londoner Cumberbatch as former South Asian warlord and 20th century genetically engineered superman Khan Noonien Singh!

The misstep poisoned the well around the film, especially with reboot director J.J. Abrams repeatedly insisting before the movie opened that Cumberbatch was not playing Khan.

Now Abrams, who notoriously said he hadn’t watched Star Trek when he was younger because it was “too philosophical,” is off making the new Star Wars. Only Bob Orci of the original Abrams-derived writing group remains for the next picture in the series.

While Paramount says the next movie will be released in 50th anniversary year 2016, it still has no director attached and no release date.

But why worry after seeing how well the Jack Ryan franchise is being handled?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/jack-ryan-reboot-points-u_b_4641297.html

967. Disinvited - January 23, 2014

#963. Ahmed – January 23, 2014

dm is right. They found all the other Apollo moon landing tapes so, using your elbowed reasoning, all the other moon landings must be real and they just faked the one. Why? His reasoning makes much more sense. Especially given the lost tapes contained more than just the video which is why they were recycled as NASA recycled Data tapes back then.

But look what else they did find which makes dm’s reasoning even more palatable:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134771/The_lost_NASA_tapes_Restoring_lunar_images_after_40_years_in_the_vault

”However, the tapes were useless without compatible tape drives — in this case, analog Ampex FR-900 reel-to-reel units. Weighing half a ton and resembling refrigerators, the drives were formerly used by the U.S. Air Force to record radar data but have not been manufactured since 1975. “There were probably thousands of them at one time, but as the radar stations refitted with new drives, most [of the old ones] were dumped in the ocean to make coral reefs,” Evans says. There are “thousands” of the old drives off Kwajalein — an atoll that’s part of the Marshall Islands — and Florida, she says.

She finally got a call from an Air Force base that had four of the old drives. She stored them, along with documentation and spare parts, at her home in Sun Valley, Calif., and tried to get funding to restore the tapes. None was forthcoming, so the machines gathered dust for two decades.

By 2006, the tapes — still in JPL storage — fell under a new NASA edict that no planetary data should ever be destroyed, Evans explains. However, by then she needed the storage area occupied by the tape drives for the veterinarian practice she and her daughter maintained. In an effort to preserve the drives, she submitted a white paper about the tapes and drives at a Lunar and Planetary Institute conference. After seeing the white paper in a blog post, Wingo contacted her and arranged to have the drives, and later the tapes, transported to Ames in rented trucks.

Then Wingo obtained a grant of $250,000 from NASA to get started. His largely volunteer crew was able to restore two of the drives using pieces from the other two, plus off-the-shelf parts and additional components that had to be custom-made.

“We had to pay big bucks to get the bearings replaced, the motors rebuilt and rubber parts cast. We had to dip the motors in liquid nitrogen to get the bearings off,” he recalls. ” – By Lamont Wood
June 29, 2009 12:01 AM ET, COMPUTERWORLD

968. MJ - January 23, 2014

@966

Yea, except WB is full of shit as usual. Completely different production teams, writers, directors, etc. So his logic is simply faulty. And as I mentioned previously, when you make a Tom Clancy movie, you should base it on a Tom Clancy novel…that is the whole point about it being a Tom Clancy franchise…duh!

The one valid comparison is that Paramount’s marketing of both recent movies sucked — at least domestically.

969. Marja - January 23, 2014

957 duncan, Even though I’m not a filmmaker, I’ve read the comments of directors, including JJ Abrams, about film over digital. There’s a difference in appearance, a more organic “feel,” and what you say about the visual, tactile, and immediate experience of editing a film backs all that up.

The fact that computer chips interfere with these experiences is significant. Digital film and music will always require a “translation” mechanism. Film, you can lift to the light and see that there are images there. That’s about as immediate as it gets, and the mechanism, for a future society, would be simple enough to design that they would get a rough idea of life in our time, or our perceptions of the future and the past.

I am with you 100% and personally hope that digital releases — except for directors who are rank beginners — go the way of the dodo. It’s a good beginning for directors-in-training, being far cheaper than film, but after they’ve learned to frame and light shots, and work with writers and actors, they need access to film and the education to work with the true medium.

970. Disinvited - January 23, 2014

#967. MJ – January 23, 201

Is this just a Tom Clancy rule or does it apply to other franchises such as Ian Fleming?

971. MJ - January 23, 2014

@969. Exactly. They didn’t start deviating much from Fleming until they ran out of novels…although some of the movies only loosely followed the novels as they became out of date.

It’s not a rule though…just common sense. When the literay property, like Fleming, Rowling and Clancy, is mega-class, you base the movies on the books. Not a rule, but certainly a “best practice” that should generally be followed…and if you don’t follow it, you’d better make a hell of a great compelling and interesting movie.

972. MJ - January 23, 2014

And a huge other reason why WB’s comparison just makes no sense, it that Shadow recruit is the origin story reboot for that franchise. So if he wants to compare that to Star Trek, then Trek 2009 is the origin story reboot that you would logically compare to Shadow Recruit. Not the sequel, STID???

It makes no sense to try to draw an analogy between a franchise reboot origin story movie and another franchise in which the movie is a sequel? Huh???

Bradly should stick to his foreign policy columns — he as least somewhat understands that topic. It’s like when I hear the Duck Dynasty guy tell me around religion and politics — “just shut up on those topic, dumb-ass, and stick to your duck comedy show, which is your expertise.” Same goes for Bradly — stick to what you know, as stop trying to use your position in the media to all of a sudden tell me about movies and sf, where I actually know a hell of lot more that you do, dude.

973. dmduncan - January 23, 2014

968. Marja – January 23, 2014

Video has come a long way and it does have its advantages, but there’s no way I would confine a project that takes years of my life to complete to purely digital storage. And yes, the image quality IS different.

Now, CDs were supposed to kill off vinyl. There’s a good parallel here between CDs and vinyl and digital video and film. I’ve noticed a resurgence in vinyl records and turntables lately, and I hope to see the same thing happen for film.

And when I look around I DO see sincere interest by new filmmakers in keeping the medium of film alive. Not every new filmmaker is like old George Lucas complaining like a bad carpenter about how wood gives you splinters and that everyone should switch to recycled plastic lumber instead.

I hope JJ’s decision to shoot episode 7 on film was a kick in the nads to George, whose pro-digital for everything noise sounds like “Oh, I’ve invented colored pencils—painting is obsolete!”

974. MJ - January 23, 2014

@971.

Sure, but film, even if stored in the perfect conditions, won’t last 500 years.

What is needed is a truly long term — 1000 year life — medium of storage.

975. dmduncan - January 23, 2014

972. MJ – January 23, 2014

Well that’s true. Eventually it’s going to come down to chiseling all the data we want to save on giant rocks.

976. Disinvited - January 23, 2014

#973. dmduncan – January 23, 2014

Laser or lava glass focused solar beams?

Some say we should store billions and billions of copies of the entire library of all human knowledge by creating a virus to replace redundant copies of junk DNA in all life on our planet or at least ourselves and any extinct life we resurrect.

977. Disinvited - January 23, 2014

I don’t expect Matt to be able to do anything about it but just wanted to note some strange “moderation” behavior by the autobot. Around message 967 I posted a link and quote from a story about tapes from the 1966-1967 Lunar Orbiters. “SAY IT!” showed it took but when someone else posts here it disappears. When I contribute an entirely new post such as this very one that you are reading, it comes back – for my feed at least.

About the best I can hope from noting this is to help someone else who may have experienced this weirdness understand that it is not something specifically targeting them: it’s they way things are.

978. dmduncan - January 23, 2014

974. Disinvited – January 23, 2014

Oh we don’t want to do that. I know you said “redundant,” but a recurring argument from ignorance that scientists have a bad habit of making is to conclude that since we don’t know what x does, x therefore does nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?pagewanted=all

But then where would the pharma€eutical indu$try be if they couldn’t irrationally promise us that everything they want to inject into us is perfectly safe?

979. MJ - January 23, 2014

Yea DM, we will really freak you out by including a deep time movie preservation app in the Avatar-like transcendence approach for the human race in 2050.

:-))

980. Captain Slow - January 23, 2014

@ 966

“The misstep poisoned the well around the film, especially with reboot director J.J. Abrams repeatedly insisting before the movie opened that Cumberbatch was not playing Khan.”

To the best of my knowledge, this is a lie. The only denial I know J.J. gave was when he said that Benicio Del Toro wouldn’t play Khan, right before it was announced that Del Toro had dropped out.

981. MJ - January 24, 2014

@980.

Agreed. Not only that, WB’s supposed analogy between Shadow Recruit and STID makes no sense at all when you think about it a bit.

The obvious reason why WB’s comparison just makes no sense, it that Shadow recruit is the “origin story reboot” for that franchise. So if he wants to compare that to Star Trek, then Star Trek 2009 is the origin story reboot that you would logically compare to Shadow Recruit. Not the sequel, STID — of course not! It makes no sense to try to draw an analogy between a franchise reboot origin story movie and another franchise in which the movie is a sequel? Duh!!!

WB should stick to his government policy columns — he as least understands that topic. It’s like when I hear the Duck Dynasty guy tell me around religiion and politiics — “just shut up on those topics, Einstein, and stick to your duck comedy show, which is your expertise.” Same goes for WB — stick to what you know, WB, and stop trying to use your position as a govt affairs commentator in the media to all of a sudden tell me about Trek movies and sf — and area where I actually know a heck of lot more than you do, dude.

982. Disinvited - January 24, 2014

#978. dmduncan – January 23, 2014

Which is why I offered the least alternative of storing it in extinct life we’ve resurrected. Something often glossed over is that while we may indeed be able to resurrect DNA of extinct species and the current approach likely will produce something incredibly close, it won’t be exactly as it was; changes are introduced in the first step as an original egg cell cannot be used because viable ones don’t don’t exist.

Storing it in ourselves, I offer because we’ve already gone down in history modifying ourselves and it seems a safe bet the computers to read the database will eventually be there right next it.

983. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@980. Captain Slow

“To the best of my knowledge, this is a lie. The only denial I know J.J. gave was when he said that Benicio Del Toro wouldn’t play Khan, right before it was announced that Del Toro had dropped out.”

Are you kidding me ? Abrams & the cast kept lying to us all the way to the opening night about Khan. They insisted that BC was playing Johan Harrison not Khan.

==================
J.J. Abrams admits lying about Star Trek 2’s Khan was a mistake

The most irritating part of Star Trek Into Darkness was the reveal of Benedict Cumberbatch as Kirk’s arch-nemesis Khan, because 1) J.J. Abrams swore for months, multiple times, that the character was not Khan, but 2) we all knew Cumberbatch had to be playing Khan because it wasn’t worth keeping any other character secret, so that 3) when the movie revealed it was indeed Khan, it wasn’t surprising at all, just obnoxious. And now J.J. Abrams kind of agrees.

http://io9.com/j-j-abrams-admits-lying-about-star-trek-2s-khan-was-a-1475078061

===========================

Now that the truth is out there of who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing in Star Trek Into Darkness, it’s time to look back and collect all the lies that Abrams and crew perpetrated over the last year.

Lets start with the director. In December of 2011 they were attempting to cast Benicio Del Toro in the role of the villain. Naturally that immediately made everyone think the villain was Khan. HitFix asked Abrams if that were true:

Abrams responded with two very direct words: “Not true.”

Next up is Simon Pegg. In a May 2012 interview with the Telegraph, Pegg adamantly swore that Cumberbatch is not playing Khan:

“It’s not Khan,” replies Pegg, annoyed. “That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.”

What about Khan himself? In December of 2012 Benedict Cumberbatch was interviewed by Access Hollywood and said this:

“I play a character called John and not that other name,” Benedict continued. “It’s interesting. Speculation is speculation and that’s all fun.”

The denials even came more recently, such as when Alice Eve was asked on the BAFTA red carpet in February 2013:

Succinctly, she said “He’s not playing Khan.“

http://furiousfanboys.com/2013/04/the-lies-spread-about-star-trek-into-darkness-villain/

984. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@972. MJ

WB is not comparing “Jack Ryan” to STID, he is talking about Paramount handling of the two franchises. Granted, it took WB forever for make the case in his looooooooooooong article but still, it is clear that his main point was about franchise management at Paramount.

Here are some excerpts:

==========================
“Showing that Paramount, the studio which has released all the Ryan pictures — and may have an emerging problem on its hands with the Star Trek franchise — has some issues with effective franchise management, nothing happened after Sum of All Fears became a hit.

What’s gone wrong this time?

Think one word: Generic.
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. The title alone is problematic. What the heck is a “shadow recruit?” It’s meaningless.

Fortunately, the cast is good and the film is well-done. Yet it’s all too generic, and not all that true to the character of Jack Ryan.”

“Paramount’s problems in managing the Jack Ryan franchise mirror its problems with Star Trek. After a glut of Trek on television and in theaters stopped the franchise dead early in the last decade, Paramount brought mega-TV producer J.J. Abrams and his crew in to reboot things.”

“While Paramount says the next movie will be released in 50th anniversary year 2016, it still has no director attached and no release date.

But why worry after seeing how well the Jack Ryan franchise is being handled?”

==========================

985. DiscoSpock - January 24, 2014

#984

Say Ahmed, I don’t think this management comparison makes any sense. For the new Star Trek movies, they pretty much ceded management to Bad Robot, while Jack Ryan was managed in-house. Two completely different ways of management.

And interesting coincidence? Perhaps.

986. DiscoSpock - January 24, 2014

#983

Well said, Ahmed. Agreed on Simon Pegg lying. Same for a couple of the other actors. JJ provided a grey area that is debatable concerning his statement, but in the end, the spirit of what he said was still lying.

987. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@985. DiscoSpock

“Say Ahmed, I don’t think this management comparison makes any sense. For the new Star Trek movies, they pretty much ceded management to Bad Robot, while Jack Ryan was managed in-house. ”

I think Paramount still have lot of saying about Star Trek even if they ceded management to BR. Star Trek after all is a property of Paramount, not BR

988. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@ 986. DiscoSpock – January 24, 2014

“Well said, Ahmed. Agreed on Simon Pegg lying. Same for a couple of the other actors. JJ provided a grey area that is debatable concerning his statement, but in the end, the spirit of what he said was still lying.”

Yeah & when you think about it, there was really no need for them to do it.

989. Dave H - January 24, 2014

“WB should stick to his government policy columns — he as least understands that topic. It’s like when I hear the Duck Dynasty guy tell me around religiion and politiics — “just shut up on those topics, Einstein, and stick to your duck comedy show, which is your expertise.” Same goes for WB — stick to what you know, WB, and stop trying to use your position as a govt affairs commentator in the media to all of a sudden tell me about Trek movies and sf — and area where I actually know a heck of lot more than you do, dude.”

Well put, MJ. I could not agree more.

990. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@989. Dave H

Did you actually read the article by WB before agreeing with MJ ?

Here is the link, in case you didn’t:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/jack-ryan-reboot-points-u_b_4641297.html

991. Disinvited - January 24, 2014

#988. Ahmed – January 24, 2014

Well most people take the view that a half-truth is a whole lie; so in that regards they’d say JJ flat out lied. However I’ve never been able to get that equivalence to quite work in Boolean Logic, and I took the course from the bloke who wrote the textbook.

992. Dave H - January 24, 2014

Ahmed, yes I read it.

What I am agreeing with MJ here on is his general point that William Bradley, just because he is a political commentator in the media, is not at all an expert on Star Trek, movies and science fiction. He’s using his position as someone who is an expert on foreign policy and government, to occasionally write pieces on Trek, movies and science fiction. And I am not buying it. He is simply not an expert in those areas. And this is reinforced by his continuous wacky posts on Trek from him that lack common sense and illustrate his general lack of knowledge on Star Trek. He should refrain from publishing commentaries like that that are outside of his domain of expertise until at least he is ready to start doing his homework and to apply more common sense and logic to these columns.

I mean, come on, he’s comparing and origin story to a sequel, and trying to draw management lessons learned from that. It makes no sense at all?

993. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@992. Dave H

Well, we can all agree or disagree with WB’s point of views but to say that he is not qualified to write a column about Star Trek, that doesn’t make any sense. It is Star Trek after all, not Quantum entanglement!

994. Dave H - January 24, 2014

993

Ah, I see you point. I didn’t explain myself very well, Ahmed. Sorry.

What I meant by that was that WB is no more qualified to write about Star Trek than you or I. However, because he has this huge audience on the Huffington Post for his expertise on his political and defense columns, this huge audience also sees his Star Trek and movie columns. And a lot of this audience are probably thus duped into thinking that this guy is an expert on Star Trek and movies, which he clearly is not.

This is more clearly the point that I was trying to make above.

995. K-7 - January 24, 2014

Dave,

You make complete sense to me. I’ve always found W-Brad’s published commentaries on Trek to be head-scratchers at best, and just plain dumb-ass at worst.

W-Brad is obviously out of his journalistic comfort zone when he tries to assess science fiction, Star Trek and genre movies.

996. Ahmed - January 24, 2014

@994. Dave H

Thanks for the clarification, I understand what you meant now.

997. Red Dead Ryan - January 24, 2014

I agree with those criticising William Bradley’s highly flawed pieces critical of “Star Trek”.

The guy wasn’t afraid to spam his comments multiple times and hijack a particular thread, but once someone takes issue with something he wrote which was erroneous, he got all defensive.

He simply lacks credibility when it comes to “Star Trek”.

998. Captain Slow - January 24, 2014

@ 984 Ahmed

If he’d said “the team lied repeatedly” I wouldn’t have an issue, but he singles out J.J.

999. Lemingsworth Bint - January 24, 2014

Do you think that Von Glinow and Rosen deserve to know that William Bradley is a trekkie with an agenda?

Because I’m thinking that Von Glinow and Rosen deserve to know that William Bradley is a trekkie with an agenda.

1000. K-7 - January 25, 2014

@999

Van Helsing, Van Wilder and The Rosenbergs probably know as well by now.

1001. Harry Ballz - January 25, 2014

Well, 1000 posts and, in effect, all we’ve been doing is pounding sand up our ass!

1002. Phil - January 25, 2014

Idle chatter, Harry. Speculating on the speculation is about all we have at this point, while we watch the 2016 movie schedule fill with movies not named Star Trek.

1003. Ahmed - January 25, 2014

@ 1002. Phil – January 25, 2014

“Speculating on the speculation is about all we have at this point, while we watch the 2016 movie schedule fill with movies not named Star Trek.”

Yeah, here is a partial list of movies that are coming out in 2016:

Warcraft
The Mummy ( A Bob Orci project)
Superman vs Batman
Alice in Wonderland 2
X-Men: Apocalypse
The Amazing Spider-Man 3 ( A Bob Orci project)
Finding Dory
Independence Day 2
Untitled Star Wars Spin-off Movie
Untitled Marvel Studios film
Ice Age 5
Untitled Planet of the Apes film
Avatar 2

1004. Harry Ballz - January 25, 2014

@1002

Yeah, Phil, I agree. And don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a criticism. That’s why I said “we”.

I just hope, like many of us here, that the next Star Trek movie is EPIC, as it should be for the 50th anniversary.

1005. Ahmed - January 25, 2014

@ 1004. Harry Ballz – January 25, 2014

“I just hope, like many of us here, that the next Star Trek movie is EPIC, as it should be for the 50th anniversary.”

Here, Here!

1006. Curious Cadet - January 25, 2014

@957. dmduncan,

“I know how rewarding an experience it is to sit at a Steenbeck with film all over the floor around you as you MAKE your movie. You go into the editing room with a spool of film and you come out with a MOVIE. In there you have a very personal relationship with the film itself, handling it, cutting it, viewing it forward and backwards, frame by frame, analyzing, looking for the BEST place to make your cut. I LOVE being able to grab a piece of film, hold it up to the light and to SEE what’s on it. There’s no software or computer chips between you and what you’ve filmed, and I feel sorry for people like Lucas who apparently don’t know the love.”

That’s a very romantic and nostalgic sentiment. And Spielberg is old enough to have made films exactly that way, both personally and professionally. Abrams is the last generation to have been exposed to that as a student and professionally. However, they don’t edit film on Steenbeck’s anymore. Especially movies like Abrams and Spielberg make. Kids who graduated film school in the last 15 years will most likely have never even thought about editing on film. Even if a movie is shot on film stock, it will be edited and completed no differently than an all digital film. The actual handling of the film negatives will be done by technicians in the transfer facility. An EDL will guide them through the transfer process, and then the resulting pristine digital image will be further processed in a digital suite. Today, it’s unlikely the filmmaker will ever see the developed film stock.

But I’ve been there. I understand your passion and connection the physical medium. And I dont disagree with your desire to preserve the medium. My question is, if the next generation of filmmakers lacks this nostalgic sentiment, will they have any interest in film?

1007. Phil - January 25, 2014

@1004. Oh, I know. It’s just that sand up the ass is a bit chafing….

1008. Curious Cadet - January 25, 2014

@973. dmduncan,
“Now, CDs were supposed to kill off vinyl. There’s a good parallel here between CDs and vinyl and digital video and film. I’ve noticed a resurgence in vinyl records and turntables lately, and I hope to see the same thing happen for film.”

But that’s a fad, and has nothing to do with quality. Whatever the argument an audiophile might make about the superiority of vinyl, it has no bearing on the resurgence which is strictly a fad about perpetrating an image, accounting for less than 3% of all music sold. The masters that are being transferred to vinyl are 100% digital. They originated in 16-bit 48KHz samples and as such are as limited as any CD, the only difference is now there’s less fidelity, and more surface noise. It’s the equivalent of shooting a film digitally and then transferring it to 35mm for exhibition in a theater. Yeah it’s a movie on film, but with few of the benefits.

If your hope that 35mm has a similar resurgence, then its not likely to be about quality. When people go into a theater, they don’t know whether they’re looking at film or video, and the majority don’t care. They only care about the content on the screen. Somehow advertising a movie as shot on real film doesn’t seem to have the same appeal as owning an anachronistic vinyl record of your favorite band to play for your friends instead of punching it up on your iPod. That’s the novelty of vinyl, not enhanced quality.

So what will drive such a resurgence among young filmmakers who have never worked with film before, and if they chose to do it, will they produce a product of higher quality than if they shot it digitally — at least enough to justify the cost, considering most of their training has been in video?

1009. Phil - January 26, 2014

Well, I coughed up five bucks, and watched STID On Demand yesterday. Twice. In it’s defense, it doesn’t rise to the level of awfulness that is Generations. On the rewatch, the problems just do go away…

Vengeance is twice as big, and three times as fast. Okay, twice as big can be overlooked, but three times as fast? So, warp 27 is the new warp 9?

Apparently Khans sentence for plowing a Starship into the heart of Starfleet Command was to be put in suspended animation. What exactly does one need to do in the 23rd century to actually see some prison time, or a rehab colony?

If Admiral Marcus was exposed as a traitor, why isn’t Carol Marcus in prison?

Okay, Bob objected to identifying a person of color as a villain, but had no qualms about staging an attack on Starfleet that mirrored Al Qaida operatives plowing a plane into the Pentagon?

The vagueness of a lot of points in this movie just struck me as either very deliberate, or such a rush job on the writing that they were hoping no one would notice. So many issues could have been resolved with just a couple of tweaks of the script. Makes me wonder why they didn’t.

1010. Harry Ballz - January 26, 2014

Phil,

if you had a gazillion projects on the go, and the studio was willing to pay you the same money for either a “Spock’s Brain” script or a “Yesterday’s Enterprise” one, tell me, how hard would you work on coming up with your personal best?

Oh, sure, some of us here would be diligent, but I guess certain successful writer/producers don’t feel compelled to “knock it out of the park”!

As Kirk would say, “C’est la vie!”

1011. Phil - January 26, 2014

Harry,
I think we have been around long enough to recall that back in the day when a musician was bumping up against a deadline to produce a new album, and they had nothing new to record, that the Eagles or Bob Seger would kick out a greatest hits or concert album. The fans and the label were happy, but there really wasn’t anything new there. STID is basically a greatest hits album. Snappy new cover art, a couple of bonus tracks thrown in, but it isn’t anything we haven’t seen before. In that context, and understanding that every single sci-fi epic isn’t going to rise to the level of 2001 for quality or Star Wars for audience appeal, I can watch it if there isn’t anything else on TV. And I don’t fault Bob for that…but don’t let it happen again.

Such is life, indeed.

1012. dmduncan - January 26, 2014

1008. Curious Cadet – January 25, 2014

So what will drive such a resurgence among young filmmakers who have never worked with film before, and if they chose to do it, will they produce a product of higher quality than if they shot it digitally — at least enough to justify the cost, considering most of their training has been in video?

***

1. I think you are mistaken. Music IS still being recorded analog on tape. I don’t know what your source is, but what I have read says different. Some new LPs are mastered on digital and some are not. You have to shop.

2. What will drive a resurgence in film is what IS driving it among people raised on video already: image quality. Analog is different than digital. The two capture information differently and the result is noticeable. If you like the difference, you may find yourself wanting it in your movie for a number of reasons, most of which will probably go back to your preference for the look. But I think there are some people who actually prefer the process for the same reasons that George Lucas hates it.

Crayons didn’t make paint obsolete, bullets didn’t make arrows obsolete, cars didn’t make horses obsolete, bicycles didn’t make running obsolete, and Cheez Whiz didn’t make cheddar obsolete.

When there is an important difference, people tend to want it.

1013. dmduncan - January 26, 2014

1006. Curious Cadet – January 25, 2014

They don’t use Steenbeck’s anymore? They don’t use film in film school anymore?

Where are you getting that from, dude? It’s totally wrong! You seriously believe that NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts has gone totally digital and that nobody is even TEACHING how to shoot film anymore????

1014. Harry Ballz - January 26, 2014

@1011

Phil, I very much appreciate your sympathetic tone in describing STID.

There’s only one thing wrong with your rationalization……

THE PEOPLE AT BAD ROBOT HAD 4 YEARS TO COME UP WITH A KILLER SCRIPT!

4 YEARS!

Let me say that one more time, just in case somebody didn’t hear………

THEY HAD 4 YEARS TO WRITE AN EPIC KILLER STAR TREK SCRIPT!

ONE FOR THE AGES! A CLASSIC BY ANYONE’S STANDARD!

THEY COULD HAVE WRITTEN A “CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER” COUPLED WITH “YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE”, ON STEROIDS!

but, no.

1015. Curious Cadet - January 26, 2014

@1013 dmduncan,

Actually I don’t know. From articles I read, it seems like the focus is not on film, not that they don’t teach it, but it is the more expensive of the two between video and 35mm film. Are they shooting on film for more than a single semester class? When a student goes to do a thesis film, digital seems to be the most likely format for a number of reasons. Money being a chief contender. But the least of which is the first job many of these film students will get will be shooting on video. Seems like they’d want a calling card in the medium for which they will be employed. But I defer to you. You’ve been to film school. I haven’t.

And then there are articles like these that make it pretty clear there’s not much of a market to shoot movies on film, outside of a specific love to do it, with both resources and financing in rare supply:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/29/pixar-ken-loach-analogue-editing-tape

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sundance-a-world-gone-digital-672528

Honestly, I’m asking you, not debating.

1016. Phil - January 26, 2014

@1014. Yeah, I’m bending over backwards to extend the benefit of the doubt here….

I don’t know if you have (or had) kids or not – inevitably one of mine would come home, announce they had some project that needed to be done at the end of semester, then it would be a mad scramble to get it done 48 hours before it was due. During that four years, Bob was always “almost done’ with it, while Cowboys and Aliens came along, Hawaii 5-0, and numerous other projects kept popping up on the radar scope. Somewhere in that four years they banged out enough of an outline to keep the studio off their back, but considering what we say on screen, they banged out most of that script 48 hours prior to the start of shooting….

I completely agree – had it been top priority, they had plenty of time to get it right. Unfortunately, distractions abounded….

1017. Ahmed - January 26, 2014

@1014. Harry Ballz

“THEY HAD 4 YEARS TO WRITE AN EPIC KILLER STAR TREK SCRIPT!
ONE FOR THE AGES! A CLASSIC BY ANYONE’S STANDARD!”

Why would you expect an epic Star Trek script from the people who wrote Transformers, Cowboys & Aliens, The Island, The Legend of Zorro, Xena: Warrior Princess & Hercules: The Legendary Journeys ?

Star Trek 2009 was a good Trek movie but not epic by any standard. With STID, I was hopping for something as good as ST09 at least but the result was something worse than ST09.

There is no real reason to expect something epic from the current writing team. Lets just hope that they will come up with something as fresh & good as ST09, nothing more & nothing less.

1018. dmduncan - January 26, 2014

Well there’s good signs and bad signs.

A good sign is that Bob is not wasting time in here which at least creates the impression that he’s got something and he’s “on it.”

A bad sign is that the two guys he picked to help him write this thing are newbies with a record for adapting a graphic novel and rebooting a biblical story. Given that that is what Bob himself does…there does not appear to be a good balance of complementary skills on this writing team.

We’ll see what happens.

1019. dmduncan - January 27, 2014

1015. Curious Cadet – January 26, 2014

There is no doubt about the convenience and prevalence of digital movie making. Digital cameras offer many advantages that make it more suitable for a variety of reasons on many projects. But for those projects that meant the most to me I would choose film. Unlike George Lucas, I don’t see the difficulties of using film as problems, just like I don’t see the messiness of paint as a reason to switch to crayon.

Work is good.

1020. I am not Herbert - January 27, 2014

Godzilla 2014 = Awesome Sauce =)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjQKrt-uB4

1021. MJ - January 27, 2014

@1017

“Star Trek 2009 was a good Trek movie but not epic by any standard.”

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

ST 2009 was epic by most standards.

E P I C

! ! ! ! !

1022. MJ - January 27, 2014

“Where are you getting that from, dude? It’s totally wrong! You seriously believe that NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts has gone totally digital and that nobody is even TEACHING how to shoot film anymore????”

But will they be using film 25 to 20 years from now at NYU and USC?

I rather doubt it, outside of some specialized electives.

1023. MJ - January 27, 2014

@1008

“But that’s a fad, and has nothing to do with quality. Whatever the argument an audiophile might make about the superiority of vinyl, it has no bearing on the resurgence which is strictly a fad about perpetrating an image, accounting for less than 3% of all music sold. The masters that are being transferred to vinyl are 100% digital.”

I agree. It’s not vinyl is really coming back beyond a niche fad market.

1024. Matt Wright - January 27, 2014

Not to add too much fuel to this fire, because I love film, and think it should absolutely be taught at film schools. However, the cost to make and develop film (both monetarily and to do so soundly for the environment) has big costs at increasingly diminishing returns. Kodak already has plans to sunset their 35mm movie stocks. FujiFilm already quit making theirs. Both vendors thankfully have big back-stocks of their film so it will be quite a while before it really runs out.
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/fuji-ceasing-film-production-kodak-on-life-support-is-celluloid-done-for/

Movie camera vendors also quit making new 35mm film cinema cameras in the last few years. Now obviously the existing ones will live a long time being refurbished as needed, but the fact remains all the major vendors (ARRI, Panavision and Aaton) quit producing them.

1025. MJ - January 27, 2014

@1024

Yea, unfortunately, the writing is on the wall.

Perhaps 70 years from now, some new up and coming director will make a throwback movie using 35mm film and analog audio, and it will likely win all kinds of movie awards….it will be the 2085 analogy of like the way 2011’s “The Artist” (black and white silent film) took the world by storm.

1026. DiscoSpock - January 27, 2014

#1017 #1021

Star Trek (2009) is not only my favorite Star Trek movie, it’s one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.

If that movie is not epic, then what the hell movie is?

Come on, Ahmed?

1027. Red Dead Ryan - January 27, 2014

Ahmed,

Seriously, man, you lack credibility when you post asinine statements suggesting that the 09 “Star Trek” movie was not epic.

Any sensible and objective person will tell you that it is epic, and like Disco Spock, I consider it one of my all time favorite movies.

1028. dmduncan - January 27, 2014

1024. Matt Wright – January 27, 2014

Where did you read that Kodak will stop making film stock? I know Fuji did, and Agfa has look disappeared, but Kodak emerged from bankruptcy last year selling off much of it’s assets but holding on to the motion picture film stock division.

Kodak is the only game in town, now.

And yes, the existing movie cameras will last a LONG time. Old Mitchell and VistaVison cameras are still serviceable. As long as Kodak keeps making film to shoot, people like me will keep their cameras running…

Sort of like Cubans with their old pre-embargo Fords and Chevys.

1029. dmduncan - January 27, 2014

look = long

it’s = its

1030. Andorian - January 27, 2014

As you all know, I can’t stand Into Darkness, and I hardly ever agree with the Read Dead-MJ tired old gang here. But Star Trek 2009, now that one should certainly be classified as an epic movie. It wasn’t a perfect movie, but it certainly was epic in nature.

1031. Matt Wright - January 27, 2014

@dmduncan, it’s not ceasing production, but it’s starting the long-term goal of eventually not making it:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/14/kodak-to-stop-making-cellulose-acetate-for-film/

So yes it’s still making it for now:
http://thedissolve.com/news/384-kodaks-back-in-action-and-making-film-stock-again/

1032. dmduncan - January 27, 2014

1025. MJ – January 27, 2014

Not if Kodak stops producing stock and filmmakers stop using it. Even if someone discovers a ton of usable old stock safely tucked away in some underground chamber, the labs capable of processing it will be gone. It will be useless.

We’ll have to wait and see if the demand is enough to keep the slimmed down market alive.

I haven’t read of any Kodak plans to stop making stock.

1033. dmduncan - January 27, 2014

1031. Matt Wright – January 27, 2014

Okay so they stopped making the ACETATE BASE, which is entirely different and no doubt part of the bankruptcy restructuring to stay alive. Given the trouble they were in that’s a smart business decision and will not impact the production of stock for years to come, after which they will—if the market still exists—have options for renewing their supply. I presume they are not selling off their manufacturing equipment, but just unplugging it.

1034. Garak's Pride - January 27, 2014

Star Trek 2009 was a grand, huge, “EPIC” Star Trek movie.

No doubt about it.

1035. Matt Wright - January 27, 2014

@1033 – I guess you’re right it’s more about the finances than anything else. I saw that news awhile back and figured it was the first step in a slow (very slow) withdrawal from film. That’s why in my initial comment I used the term “sunset” since it isn’t immediate.

1036. MJ - January 27, 2014

Even if they stop producing film in this the old fashioned chemical process way, whose to say some sort of nano-tech machine couldn’t reproduce it easily again 100 years from now for specialized artistic applications?

1037. MJ - January 27, 2014

Wow — even you, dude, admit that Trek 2009 is epic! That seals it.

CASED CLOSED!!!!!

===========================
1030. Andorian – January 27, 2014
As you all know, I can’t stand Into Darkness, and I hardly ever agree with the Read Dead-MJ tired old gang here. But Star Trek 2009, now that one should certainly be classified as an epic movie. It wasn’t a perfect movie, but it certainly was epic in nature.

1038. K-7 - January 28, 2014

@MJ

What was that sound I just heard?

Ah, it was the sound of Ahmed backpedaling faster that a high-class call-girl on Oscar night.

LOL ;-)))

1039. K-7 - January 28, 2014

@1034

“Star Trek 2009 was a grand, huge, “EPIC” Star Trek movie. No doubt about it.”

Yes, of course it was. Duh !!!!!

1040. dmduncan - January 28, 2014

1036. MJ – January 27, 2014

I suppose it’s possible! I hope we get to that future.

I was reading that Daily Mail story this morning about the magnetic pole flipping.

I once interviewed an expert on that who assured me there was no fossil record of extinctions occurring around known historical magnetic pole flips, so I forgot about it as not really worth worrying about.

However, I didn’t think to ask if magnetic pole flips make our power grid more vulnerable to solar damage, and now comes that Mail story.

Solar flares are a danger, but a direct hit from one typically only affects a region of the earth, leaving unaffected regions able to provide help to repair the affected region.

A global grid collapse happens and we are screwed. Modern high tech society is a house of cards built in the eye of a storm. The storm is moving. The house is not.

1041. Dave H - January 28, 2014

Guys,

I agree completely — Star Trek 2009 is one of the most epic sf movies ever made.

And I think that Ahmed’s rather obvious absence here to defend that bonehead remark speaks volumes. I mean, when has Ahmed ever not defended his viewpoint before? Answer: never.

The poor guy just had a brain-fart, and I think he is pretending to not notice the ubiquitous and demonstrative contrary response.

1042. Red Dead Ryan - January 28, 2014

Yes, I think Ahmed realizes just how much he had embarrassed himself with that remark, and knows he can’t defend himself this time or put up a credible argument defending his statements here.

1043. Ahmed - January 28, 2014

@ Dave H & RDR,

“And I think that Ahmed’s rather obvious absence here to defend that bonehead remark speaks volumes. I mean, when has Ahmed ever not defended his viewpoint before? Answer: never.”

Actually, I moved to the new thread “JJ’verse news bites”. You are all welcome of course to continue posting in this old thread.

As for ST09, I stand by what I said. The movie was good but not epic in any meaningful way. The origin story was fresh, Pike was amazing & the new cast did a wonderful job. Nero on the other hand was weak & one dimensional.

You can continue debating but I’m not really interested in having long useless discussions with you guys again. After all, you guys consider the new Trek movies EPIC & MASTERPIECE & you know what, that is fine.

1044. Red Shirt Diaries - January 28, 2014

#1043

Huh? I always thought that you considered Star Trek 2009 as a great movie? You use to maintain here that STID was a failure but that Trek 2009 was great.

Why the sudden change of opinion?

1045. Red Shirt Diaries - January 28, 2014

Ahmed, do you recall your post below from May 2012, where you equated Star Trek 2009 to The Matrix and Inception — two “epic” sf movies.

?????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1994. Ahmed – May 5, 2012
@1990.dmduncan – May

Totally agree with you, The Avengers was so much fun that I’m going to see it again. I usually don’t watch a movie twice in theater, except for movies like Star Trek, The Matrix and Inception; The Avengers is one of these movies that worth a second viewing

1046. MJ - January 28, 2014

Red Shirt,

Yea, I recall many similar emails from Ahmed saying very glowing things to Bob and others here about Star Trek 2009.

Not sure why he’s trying to rewrite his own history here, but perhaps he been going negative so long on STID, that he’s now had a change of opinion about Trek 2009.

But Ahmed definitely used to think that Star Trek 2009 was epic — as he himself ranked it up there with The Matrix and Inception, as that old post clearly shows.

1047. Dave H - January 28, 2014

@Red Shirt
@MJ

Thanks for the confirmation, guys. I knew I wasn’t imagining that Ahmed once though very highly of Trek 2009.

1048. K-7 - January 28, 2014

All, I’ve just pasted some of the above posts into the newer thread, as Ahmed indirectly suggested. So let’s continue this discussion over there…..

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