Wheaton Blog: On Abrams ‘Reinventing’ Trek

Last week there was a lot of talk about Star Trek director JJ Abrams latest comments about his film. One Trekkie who took notice was Wil Wheaton, Wesley Crusher on TNG and author of “Just a Geek.” In the following guest blog (originally posted on Wil’s blog) Wheaton gives his thoughts on Abrams latest comments.

[EDITORS NOTE: Wil’s Blog contains some ‘colorful metaphors’]

“reinventing?” uh-oh. i’m not sure how i feel about this

Wired says that JJ Abrams promises to “reinvent” Star Trek:

“Effects for Star Trek have never, ever been done like this,” says Abrams, who credits George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic for the visual fireworks.

Abrams was fanatical about Star Wars as a kid. But Star Trek? Not so much. Directing the new movie, he tells the Associated Press, “was an opportunity to take the characters, the thoughtfulness, the personalities, the sense of adventure, the idea of humanity working together, the sense of social commentary and innovation, all that stuff and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling.”

Without a lot of context, it’s tough to puzzle out exactly what this means for guys like us who’ve loved Trek forever and ever. If he’s just talking about bringing modern special effects to Star Trek, which totally would make it more thrilling to watch, this is great news.

However, if this “reinventing” — which is such a loaded term in this post-Episode One world (5-19-99 never forget!) — extends to some of the fundamentals of the Star Trek mythos, and if he wants to make Star Trek more like Star Wars, we could be looking at the biggest geekriot in history.

On one hand, this could be Abrams saying, “I’m going to take Star Trek and make it relevant to an audience that hasn’t loved it and watched it for 40 years.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

On the other hand, it could be him saying, “Look, Trekkies, I know you’ve been watching this show for 40 years, but I’m JJ Fucking Abrams and if I want to ‘reinvent’ this thing that means so much to you, I’m going to do it. So don’t get your spacesuits in a knot when I put turbines on the Enterprise, okay? They look cool!” That would be a very bad thing.

Speaking as a lifelong geek, my knee-jerk reaction when I hear someone talking about “reinventing” something like Trek is that it will be a tower of suck, built out of an endless supply of Jar-Jars and midichlorians.

However! Ron Moore reinvented BSG, and it’s the greatest thing ever, so reinventing things isn’t automatically horrible. In fact, if the article had been titled “JJ Abrams promises thrilling effects for Star Trek movie” I’d be celebrating right now. Language is important, as they say.

I guess it comes down to who is doing the reinventing, and if their vision builds upon the existing foundation in an interesting way, instead of pulling a massive, insulting retcon on us all. In his favor, JJ Abrams is really, really good at starting things (not so much with the keeping them awesome after one season, sadly,) but absolutely awesome at starting things. Since this is the beginning of Star Trek, I’m hopeful. Apprehensive, but hopeful.

So, yeah, not entirely sure how I feel about the “reinventing.” At least the people who totally fucked Star Trek up aren’t involved, but why does anyone need to “reinvent” Star Trek at all? There’s a good reason it managed to endure through four decades and several generations of Trekkies and casual viewers alike. I hope JJ Abrams groks that, because I really want to like this movie.

Oh, how about an almost-instant update:

JJ Abrams also says:

“It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world _ to sound crass, a franchise _ and treat it in a way that made it something that I wanted to see”


“The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of `Star Trek,’ necessarily,'” Abrams said. “If you’re a fan, we’ve got one of the writers who’s a devout Trekker, so we were able to make sure we were serving the people who are completely enamored with `Star Trek.’ But we are not making the movie for that contingent alone.

“You can’t really make a movie for them. As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you’re in trouble. You have to make the movie in many ways for what you want to see yourself, make a movie you believe in. Then you’re not second-guessing an audience you don’t really have an understanding of.”

That makes a lot of sense, but, uh, JJ? You should probably understand Trekkies if you’re making a Star Trek movie. Seriously, have one of your minions make you a quickstart guide or something; it’s not that tough.

Anyway, making it for fans of movies instead of exclusively for Trekkies is something I can completely agree with, and shows that he understands the massive challenge that making a movie like this brings. That’s real good news, as long as he doesn’t go turning Star Trek into Attack of The Four Toed Statues or something.

He also says:

“I feel like this is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the `Star Trek’ you’ve seen. At the same time, it’s being true to what’s come before, honoring it,” Abrams said.

I’m going to commit heresy right now and say what few people are willing to say out loud: most of the Star Trek movies are absolute garbage. There have been ten Trek movies, and I’d say that two of them are accessible to mainstream audiences, another two are great, and the remaining six are nearly unwatchable. If JJ Abrams wants to make his new Trek movie unlike the 80% of Trek movies that aren’t that good, that’s just fine with me. Not that my opinion means anything, you understand, but rambling on and on about things like this is the price of being a geek, and I regret nothing. NOTHING!

Wil Wheaton is an actor, author, gamer, geek and blogger, best known for his portrayal of Wesley Crusher in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

Wil’s latest memoir, “The Happiest Days of our Lives” is available now from Monolith Press.


Above, re-posted (with permission) from Wil’s blog, WWdN: In Exile


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would disagree that most of the Trek movies are garbage. Strongly disagree.

As for the rest of the commentary, I appreciate Wil Wheaton’s thoughts. I am more confident of JJ’s adherence to the spirit of Trek than perhaps they seem to convey.

Wil wheaton… i couldnt stand wesley crusher, but you gotta love Wil.

Go Will!!

Wheaton obviously doesn’t regularly peruse this site if he thinks Abrams still needs a Trekkie minion to fill him in on Trekkies. He has Orci et al. doing his Trekkie bidding, so on that front, I think Abrams is safe.

I’m with ONE.. the Trek movies are what got me into the genre alltogether. There’s maybe THREE bad movies, but only two UNWATCHABLE…that is the only thing I disagree with.

Quite an opinionated guy. I wonder why he thinks so little of the Trek movies overall – his remarks do not fall in line with the opinions of most Trek fans, I am sure.

And everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

He’s overreacting a little, probably. Every Trekkie is going to see this movie anyways, so… let’s see what happens then.

To say that “most of the Trek movies are garbage” is not accurate. “The Final Frontier,” “Insurrection,” and “Nemesis” are the weakest and most disappointing Trek films by far, my personal least-favorites. But even those films have positive qualities that appeal to Trek fans.

I am going to STRONGLY disagree. I liked all the Trek movies growing up, even the so-called bad ones. Personally, I love First Contact, Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Generations, Voyage Home, and Search for Spock (I could go into detail on why on each but thats not point of my comment). Even the films I don’t like that much, including Motion Picture, Insurrection, Nemesis, and Final Fronter, had some great moments. For example, I think the scenes involving Sybock and Kirk, McCoy’s, and Spock’s character revelations are some of the best in Trek. I found the wedding in Nemesis very moving as a life-long Next Generation fan and enjoyed some of the battle sequences.
While the movies are not cinematic genius generally, they are meant for Trek fans like us. The thing about Star Trek XI that I love is that Paramount has sunk so much money and production values behind the project for a Trek film that normally do not make much money. Also, the cast seems enthusiastic, and I love Nimoy being back. Personally, I would have just filmed Shatner’s book The Return, but Paramount did not ask me. In short, I think J.J. Abram’s Trek might break the mold and finally appeal to non-Trekkers while retaining those hardcore fans like myself who know the history, technobabble, and character bios. However, this is all pure speculation.
Anyways, I learn more intellectually from a Trek movie than I do from the average film…that has got to mean something!

I wonder which Trek movies he’s talking about specifically…

Two Accessible to Mainstream: Star Treks IV and First Contact?
Two Great: Star Trek II and VI?

Any other guesses?

Will Wheaton speaks for all of us who fear our future’s end of TOS. He has the guts to say Abrams’ resume is not that perfect & has concerns with his wordings, the very fears I’ve been expressing in this forum!

Reinvent the beginning of TOS & everything we’ve watched that followed is wiped from existence. Our DVDs fearfully become transformed fantasies of what was once canon reality.

As for Will’s critique of the prior Trek movies, I would say TWOK, TVH & TUC were perfection, TMP, TSFS, TFF & FC were good, GEN is watchable only when Kirk, Scotty & Chekov are onscreen and INS & NEM are painfully unwatchable.

Will, keep on blogging—you’re my hero!

Oops, typos: I meant ‘Wil’ not ‘Will’

I’m with you, 5. If anything, I’m even more positive. I don’t think of any of them as unwatchable.

Star Trek: TMP: While slow, still unmistakably grand, majestic, and cosmic in a way befitting the entire enterprise. I mean, franchise. Hat Rick’s Rating: Four and one-half stars out of five. With tighter pacing, suggested in the Director’s Edition, easily five stars in my book.

II: TWOK: Makes the top ten list of many a SF — and mainstream — movie buff. Need I say more? Five stars.

III: TSFS: A worthy adventure for a gallant crew. Three stars.

IV: TVH: See TWOK. Four stars.

V: TFF: A nice effort. Two stars.

VI: TUC: Politically relevant and engaged, this marked the return of the rollicking style and good times we saw in TWOK. Four stars.

[VII:] Generations: A masterful and substantially successful attempt to blend two separate generations in the Trek universe, this movie made a powerful statement about the importance of heroism and what it means to live life to the fullest. Four stars.

[VIII:] First Contact: Not since TWOK has a movie had so much appeal to mainstream and Trekfan audiences alike. The cinematic centerpiece of the TNG universe, STFC made Trek moviewatching an experience to treasure again and again. Five stars.

[IX:] Insurrection: Marking the denouement of the TNG era, Insurrection asked the question: “When does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few?” The answer it gave brought Trekfans along for a fulfilling fight against an elusive enemy: A moustache-twirling villain allied with a rogue admiral within the Federation itself. Three stars.

[X:] Nemesis: While the pacing was off and dramatic elements seemingly out of order, this movie left Trekfans wondering why it couldn’t be better. Two stars.

[XI:] Star Trek: Trekfans anticipate this movie with the highest of expectations. If wishes were horses, this movie would top Star Wars, and — knock wood — it may!

As always, your mileage may vary!

Wil Wheaton is a percpetiv,e, fine, upstanding fellow. Wesley the Wonder Boy we could have done without.

Having said that, I agree with his assessment and his concerns. I even like his take on the crassness of “franchise” which is a business licensing agreement with roots in monarchic Europe.

But on reflection, that’s what Paramount think of itself, isn’t it?!

Quality of Trek movies to date? Give me VI and V (yes, I rather enjoy V!); II does not wear well; III sucked then and sucks today; IV is also dated but is humourous in a nostalgic kind of way; Generations never happened – it was merely Kirk’s nightmare coming off a weekend bender!; Frist Contact? I will never forgive them for turning Cochran into a drunk and I dislike the man who played the part intensely; the rest? Never bothered to see them!


I’m guessing the same movies as you.

I’m going garbage: X, IX and V. But, even these each have enough good moments that I’ll watch and scream at the TV when they come on.

What’s wrong with turbines? The pinwheels have to be powered by something, why not collosal turbine? I have no idea how pinwheel or turbines work with anti-matter, so why does it matter which we see? I certainly prefer turbines to friggin’ nuclear cooling rods. Sheesh! Does anyone like THAT movie? (Oh, I guess some people do, including me.)

Anyway — I’ve long accepted that this movie will bring many simultaneous moments of WOW/OH CRAP! The only thing that hurts is that we have to sit at the top of the captain’s log flume ride for a full year. I want to do the plunge now!

I meant Wesley Crusher, not Will Wheaton. On ST TNG the two things that I disliked the most were the ferangi and Wesley Crusher. WC was put into TNG for the young audience and well I think we could of done w/o the ferangi, stupid character. But like they say, opinions are like aholes, everyone has one.

I guess everyone has their right to an opinion.

But Wil seems a little jealous to me. Maybe because J.J. did not invite him to the set like he did other actors from Trek.

My thought is this… Since he did not talk with J.J. or visit the set, then Wil is just like the rest of us, he has no idea what to expect.

16, on the anticipation thing: Think of it as one year’s worth of having something cool to anticipate in Trek. Despite all our fondest hopes and the three-movie deal previously written about, there is no guarantee that there will be the two further sequels we all hope for — particularly if this next movie tanks.

Having a movie in postproduction is as close we can get to having a sure thing to see in the near future. Unlike the days of Star Trek: Enterprise, we can be reasonably certain there will be no cancellation talk for Trek in the next 365 days.

Finally, it helps if we break down the next year into manageable chunks. Promotional merchandise, product tie-ins and other ancillaries are sure to fill the void, exactly as the article has stated.

Leave, just leave please, Pestley Crusher.

I’ve got to give Will Props for being willing to stand up and say that. It takes guts.

For the most part I like the Trek Movies. Except Insurrection!

Did the writers even bother to check what was going on with DS9 at the time?

The Dominion had captured Beta-Zed, and was preparing for an assault on Vulcan. At that point in the war hundreds of Federation ships had been destroyed.

And the most powerful ship in Starfleet is on the Opposite side of Federation space from the front lines? Ok.

Oh, and Deana Troi really looked upset that her home world had been captured.
(It’s not like her Mother and new Baby Brother were there is it?)

Oh and don’t forget the part about the Son’a selling supplies to the Dominion. And the Federation is doing business with them?

Here’s what would have really happened:

Admiral Dufus has a meeting with the Son’a, goes back to his ship.
He is delivered a report by a “Commander Sloan”. Five minutes later his
Staff finds him dead of a heart attack. And on their way home the Son’a ship has an “accidental” Warp Core Breach!

Section 31 would never have let things happen the way the did in Insurrection.

Mr. Frakes did a great job directing. But the story was Ridiculous.

He dropped the F bomb which personally I find completely unneccessary and totally offensive.

I always thought he was a punk. Now I am sure of it. Why dont we ask him about how gracious and ass kissy he was when Berman invited him back for a scene in Nemesis. ONLY to have cut the scene out.




I didn’t get the “Harbinger of Doom” message that you did out of Wheaton’s blog. At worst, the impression I was left with was that it could go either way. Your comments have been showing a pervading air of doom and gloom and I am starting to be genuinely worried for the health of your psyche. It’s only a movie. If it’s no good, it doesn’t spell the end of the world. We will always have TOS in it’s original form. This movie will not brainwash the masses into forgetting it. If it’s great, it may just infuse new life, freshness and vitality that the franchise has been missing for awhile. Just keep things in perspective. Good or bad, the world will continue to orbit the sun.


Agreed that Insurrection failed to handle continuity well. The whole “Hey look. Worf is AWOL again. C’mon aboard” thing wore thin. Mostly, Insurrection fails because it’s a contrived plot. Gathering faerie dust from this planet seems silly when we’ve seen Federation science copy so many medical miracles and duplicate them. Plus — I just never believed that a fountain of youth existed in this story. It never felt plausible. It felt like the movie was built around a big fake-out: 18 actors who own 7 small buildings and a bridge brought home from Home Depot in a pick-up, living off of what they can farm from 1/16 of an acre of tilled soil. Oh, and they live forever but never marry… and the hot MILF has been waiting centuries for Picard to arrive and stop being gay. COME ON!

Nemesis is a crime against Trek. Some great moments, but mostly manufactured fakeness. And zero respect for Data’s personal history. Plus stock dune buggy footage from Delta Force (anyone?!?)

Again, both movies have some good points. But, overall, they’re both a blueprint on how to kill off a franchise, which they double damn near did. (Pardon my colorful metaphor.)

#22. I agree. I started reading his blog when it first came out, but then it got worse and worse. I presume he thinks he can get more attention that way, but he won’t get anymore from me.

Isn’t Will like 14 years behind on reacting to all this? Just because you’re a Trek actor, or a Trek fan, doesn’t automatically mean you’re a decent movie critic, or a decent writer, or a decent producer, or a decent director. Just because you’ve read the lines someone else has written and put on the costumes someone else has made and done exactly what you were told, well, it doesn’t mean you actually get what makes it all work better than anyone else, or even at all (look at the indulge-the-cast efforts of Spiner, Shatner and Stewart).

But a decent director/writer/what-have-you who can make a decent flick, period, can therefore possibly make a good Trek flick, whether that person is a fanatic or not.

Slavish devotion to everything that has come before = Superman Returns. It got everything right on continuity-minutia checklist, but missed the whole bloody point.

Will was cute in Toy Soldiers.

While I will disagree with Wil on the Star Trek movies, I do see his overall point with the term “reinvention”. That’s the only time I get nervous hearing JJ talk about the film. I really DO think he means updating special effects and maybe making certain technology something we can relate more to in our 21st century world. Little things like the seatbelts on the shuttlecrafts; he’s probably going to make it a bit more REAL feeling to us. Am I making sense? I think it’ll do what ENTERPRISE was supposed to do, but never seemed to actually do it and that is make the universe something we can actually envision happening in a coouple hundred years.

But I can see where the “reinvention” word causes stress.

I think the bottom line here is that most if not all long term franchises other than star trek have reinvented themselves… with new casts and directions… I can’t think of any off hand which haven’t worked. James Bond has been mentioned a lot since the start of this star trek turnabout.
It’s nice that we can all have our two pence worth here but ulitmately we need to give the guy(s) a break and see what’s out there in a year.
I have a funny feeling we’ll be extremely entertained by the new movie. For me though the only thing I hate about sci-fi is when it goes back and ‘re-tells’ stories we’ve heard of… what’s wrong with keep going forward into the 24th and eventually 25th centuries? why go to the past? Enterprise was an outrage until Manny Coto got his teeth into it but it was too late… look to the futre boys and girls… I’m sure that’s what Gene was on about!
I’ll be quiet now :)

re22: this was reposted from his BLOG…….a place you have to go to to read. He did not know YOU were going to read it. Wil is a cool guy and I have been impressed by his thoughts and insights into the Trek world……..Loved a story about Shatner and Starbucks at a Vegas Con a few years ago. He is not a punk he is a thirty-something man now that never had a real childhood so cut him some slack…………..I did not like Wes because of the way he was written not because of Wil…….Wil I like. Plus you gotta respect an actor that had a leach on his balls……..Stand By Me was one of my favorite movies of that time period.

warning for flaming

#23: “Just keep things in perspective. Good or bad, the world will continue to orbit the sun”

From which direction? The ‘new-improved for the masses’ TOS Remastered has now canonized Earth in a reverse rotation.


I like Wil Wheaton and I’ve seen him perform in person at a local venue.

Wanted to say that my disagreement with a part of his opinion has nothing to do with whether I like him as a person. We can disagree about things without being disagreeable. I don’t know that much about him personally, anyway.

Just my two cents’ worth.

I tend to agree with Wil. I really enjoyed Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country, and thought that The Motion Picture (catchy name), Search for Spock and The Voyage Home were.. okay. The rest were just not terribly good , unfortunately.

I’ll admit that I’m quite curious to see what Abrams does with the film, although I’m somewhat disappointed that I’ll have to wait another year to see it.

Funny how Gene Roddenberry himself was the first person to “re-invent” Star Trek when he conjured up TNG. Which was, in it’s own right, very successful and yet bore absolutely no resemblence to Star Trek. That, in turn led to another 20 years of re-invented “Trek” cut from that same cloth

During that time I longed for a Star Trek that, you know, was made like Star Trek. Not the new age Trek that Roddenberry cooked up in his ailing years but THE Star Trek that started it all. I look at JJ’s “reinvention” as possibly being the return to Trek that I’ve been waiting for since 1991. Maybe..just maybe…JJ isn’t so much “re-inventing” Trek…but bringing it back to it’s original formula, which would seem new and unusual to anyone who has only been exposed to Berman-Trek. Maybe..just maybe…he is bringing Star Trek (no colons involved here) back to where it belongs.

WW makes some good points. But the problem with the trek movies is not that a lot of them being “unwatchable” but rather that often the charm of the characters and the universe makes them all too watchable, meaning that the film doesn’t get the right work donw in other areas.

Even the worst Trek films are easy to watch.

I think he’s jumping the gun a bit on his opinions of the new movie, especially for a movie that’s not even finished the post-production phase, won’t be seen for a year, and not even the leads had a full script to work from, just their scenes.

Why is it that almost all the TNG cast seems jealous or critical as all heck about this movie?

i disagree about some of the comments.i dont think any of the star trek films were bad,some were better than others,even star trek 5 did have some enjoyable moments.and i think the wrath of kahn,and first contact are the greatest incarnations of trek,above any of the series or episodes.i also dont agree about the new battle star galactica,it may have good plots,and special effects,but severely lacks the imagination of the original.like the costumes and egyptian influence,the people dressed in suits and ties,is just lame.i do enjoy the sexy women,but give me a chrome cylon any day.

My wife, who is not a trekkie at all, and a good representative of the ‘mainstream’ movie audience, seemed to enjoy Star Trek II and IV when she first saw them with me (yes, I forced her to watch them, as any respectible trekkie should do for their spouse), the other ones were an incomprehensible bore to her. So I’m going to guess that those are the two that managed to get outside the trek geek bubble and have some appeal to mainstream.

32–wish everyone could have your outlook on things!

I’ve never been a fan of Wil Wheaton, and his opinions on his blog do not help.

As for “reinventing Trek”, he was part of the cast on the television series that did that very thing back in the 80’s. I guess that never occurred to him.

And on his opinions about ST movies, hey, different strokes for different folks. I enjoy all of the original films except TFF (The Great Trek Turd) to this day. Most of the rest of it IS, IMO, unwatchable…Even the best of the TNG-era films (FC) is a mediocre one to me.

Wil Wheaton…LOL…He is entitled to his opinion, but I am entitled to refrain from taking it seriously as well. I think I’ll excercise that option…

And I’ll continue to be optimistic about Abrams’ STXI.

Decloaking . . .
Actually, I’ve been bummed ever since I read JJ’s thoughts referenced above. I’m more convinced than ever that they are going to “Dumbdown” our beloved Trek to the 4th grader Star Wars, Indy, and Transformers level of mentality.

JJ has to in order to draw the mass general audience necessary to pay off the $150 million price tag.

Already we’ve seen hot cars (the red corvette) ala Transformers, Sulu swordfighting (gee is it a “phasersword”), and yes I’ve known since 1966 that Sulu is into fencing. He is also a Theoretical Mathematician. But, that does’nt compute in a dumbed-down action flick. Instead, he is a “Badass,” (like Han Solo???).

And the big E has big fat powerful muther Hemmie V-96 warp nacelles.

Need I go further, and no wonder the info leaks are so throughly plugged.

If the rumor that Nimoy appears in “Spirit form” ala Obi Wan is true, I’m getting up and walking out and screw my $10.

Yes, I have all six Star Wars eps on DVD and I like them all, along with Transformers (at least until Magan Fox becomes submissive and Shia becomes ‘the man.’ Then I switch to watch some old Trek with an intelligent plot line.)

Have you noticed that the word: “Intelligent” is about the only adjective NOT uswed to describe this film. It was Trek’s trought provoking storylines, dialog, and BIG WORDS that attracted almost all of us to Trek to begin with.

But, that’s something that someone who says that we are: “an audience you don’t really have an understanding of,” wouldn’t understand, now would he?

Yes, I’m going to go see Star Trek 0/XI, at least once and IF Nimoy doesn’t show up in “Spirit Form”, then I’ll buy the DVD as well. If only to support Trek as I have done since 1972.

Hell, why not? I was stupid enough to buy Nemesis.

To: my friend and fellow writer CmdrR in #24. If you can gag down the special features in Nemesis you’ll actually see them shooting the dune buggy scenes. They would have been better if the had been “Stock footage”.

To: Wil Wheaton, I more or less agree with you “Wes,” and I certainly understand your apprehension. I’m feeling it as well. And, congrats on getting away with the “F bomb”. Free speech lives.

See ya’ll next year, maybe.

Recloaking and still bummed.

Rock on Wil! Your right on as far as I’m concerned and your also right I think, some of the films seemed like grand episode knock offs in some way, not mainstream theatrical productions. Just new films to fill the shelves. Others had wonderful thinking into the story lines, but the treatment fell far short due to production issues. I wish other people who’ve been involved with Trek would speak out like you have been, but then again, perhaps they aren’t geeks.

Keep on!

Another thing…I have yet to find where it is JJ Abrams said he was “reinventing” Star Trek. From what I can tell from the article on “Wired”, that is the author’s word, not JJ’s.

Even if he has said it that way in the past, who the Hell knows what he meant?

“Re-inventing” could mean turning Star Trek into something that attracts more moviegoers, while still maintaining the basic principles of Star Trek. What’s wrong with that approach, given the fact that you cannot make a $150 million movie just for established Trek fans (unless you plan to lose a ton of money)?

34 Mr. Bob — I’m with you. Good point. I never liked TNG’s preachy first season. Eventually, it learned to walk, then run. But, the touchy-feely parts really hurt, including Wesley’s character — sorry, Wil.

I think what Will is saying is mostly correct. As a lifelong fan of Trek, I don’t really think it needs too much “reinventing”, but I also know that in this world of really, really short attention spans and opening weekend boxoffice so important, that something has to give in order to make the film more commercially acceptable. Reimagining isn’t always bad (BSG) but as long as Abrams takes the fans into consideration, tweaks the action and effects up a few notches, and makes a great story.. I’ll look forward to it.

Will is right when he speaks of Abrams chice of language when he refers to the movie, but we have a year till it comes out, so i’m sure they can’t keep it so hidden from us for all that time that we won’t get answers to at least some of the more pressing questions..

41 – Please decloak and tell us how you’ve seen the new movie.

Why are people judging this movie, when its not out yet?

I am nervous of XI, I really am, the last 4 have been poor. (Story wise, direction wise they have generally been fine)

I like the first 6, even 5 though I wish bits of the book (like how the Klingons followed the Enterprise into the Center) had made it into the movie.

Anyways thanks Wil for sharing your thoughts.

Commodore Lurker – May 8, 2008

We did not dumb this movie down.

Wheaton hit the mark on this one. I hope they do the “reinventing” correctly, but this one holds no hope.

I’ve always been a Classic Trekkie, remembering when the original series was on the air. I’ll agree with Wil that some of the movies stank, though I seem to like more of them than he does. I also worry about JJ Abrams, since I’ve not been impressed with his portfolio of works, and gave up on LOST after season 3 when I realized the producers had no clue what it was all about, but were making it up as they went along.

As for Wil Wheaten, yeah, i was a Weasley Dumper with the best of them, but have always separated the character from the actor. I loved his guest hosting on the old Screen Savers and love reading his twitter notes. Lay off the guy, he’s cool and kudos to him for having the guts to publicly air his misgivings on the new Trek movie.