TREKS IN SCI-FI FORUM

What do you think? :spidey

(http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/series/MOV/011/poster1/800x1035.jpg)

i saw it on startrek.com... i like it...

Very iconic image.  It's definitely looking like an early TOS setting for the movie.  Most likely with a young Kirk and Spock's first adventure together.  I like the early buzz this will generate as well.  Exciting news.  Hopefully JJ Abrams can pull this off.

A bit more info and images links here:   http://www.trektoday.com/news/230706_01.shtml

I think matt damon will do a great job as captain kirk..

hes a good actor

Quote from: duken on July 25, 2006, 08:38:18 PM
I think matt damon will do a great job as captain kirk..

hes a good actor

Just a rumor about this so far.  I actually don't think he would take the part.

Aww, I just made a post to see if people would guess my avatar, o well. Very cool, that's why I'm using it, and I'm starting to adjust to how the movie will be as a prequel, rather than a sequel.

there's an old saying, "dont judge a book by its cover" this can work both ways u know.... just because the XI has an awesome poster doesn't mean that it will be a good movie.... i'm not gonna get my hopes up... i dont want to be disappointed....

I just really hope that, if they do a prequel, they don't make it a chick flick. That would just suck! They have to keep a Star Trek feel. Personaly, I would've rather had a new series, but hey, beggers can't be chosers.

chick flick? what are u talking about? WHY would that EVER happen? It's Star Trek....

Yes, but they are young, and at the academy (kind alike high school, or university). I'm just saying.

eh... i dont agree with u on this one... i dont think that that would ever happen...

there is a lot to worry about with idea, but i dont think "chick flick" is one of them...

This article kinds of disturbs me... not liking where this is going, but I'm open minded.

Star Trek Update: J.J. Abrams Going Boldly Where No Trek Has Gone Before!


Written by Robert Sanchez 
Thursday, 17 August 2006
Since J.J. Abrams was announced to write and produce the next Star Trek film, fans have been speculating who we will see as the main characters.


Rampant rumors have Kirk and Spock returning to the franchise but what has had some Trek fans up in arms is that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy will not return to reprise the roles that made Star Trek a household name.

Abrams and company have kept a tight lip and have even gone so far as making a pact between writers and producers not to talk about the new Trek until production starts.

What is known is that we will be seeing Kirk and Spock in their early Starfleet years. The new movie will chronologically take place before The Original Series.

There are quite a bit of problems with this specific storyline since it goes against established Trek mythos from the last 40 years but that’s a whole other story.

The interesting development as of late is that the rumors regarding who will play Kirk, they have made it all the way to, well, Kirk himself.

William Shatner, in two recent interviews, mentioned hearing rumors that Matt Damon has signed on to play the role of James T. Kirk in the upcoming film. This could simply be the same rumors that have made it on to the web and every other Trek fansite.

The interesting note about his recent interview with the Toronto Star is that he mentions he would be interested in coming back for the next film.


So is there any chance of that? “Absolutely not,” is what we have been told by an unnamed studio source. “This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many more generations to come. We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for the last 10 years and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we will have to take some bold steps that might be controversial at first but we are sure to bring new fans to the dying franchise."

So when asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would like the direction the new Trek is headed towards I was quickly told that, “Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air and we are looking on bringing over “Alias” and “Lost” fans and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone before.”

Paramount and JJ better be REAL careful.  If they think they can alienate the fan base and replace them with all new fans plus additional fans (they might be in for a surprise).  I'll try to keep an open mind until I see what they come up with.

 Yeesh, I don't know what the hell to expect anymore!

Sounds like some strange ideas there.  Hope they don't screw this up.

Alias/Lost meets Star Trek ???  Hmmm...think JJ is getting a one-track mind.  Maybe Tom Cruise will be in this film.  :smilie_nono:

I don't mind not bringing Kirk/Spock back and doing the pre-1701 (no A,B,C or bloddy D) days.  I thought they were talking orignally centering a film around starfleet academy.

lol i just watched that TNG epidsode.

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on August 20, 2006, 07:19:46 PM
“This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many more generations to come.

ok, if they dont want to cling to the old aspect of trek, why the **** are they making a "Kirk and Spock" movie!?!?!?!?

and what are they thinking here? do they play to get a "new" fan base while leaving all the real, hear and now fans out to dry?!?!!?!? this is all very disturbing... I am looking forward to the release of this movie less and less as time goes by...

I don't have a lot of trouble with the basic idea of doing an early Kirk/Spock story - but it's this talk of the history of Trek not being that important that bugs me.  I am truly starting to believe that the folks at Paramount, etc. don't really understand and get what Trek is all about.  Everyone seems to always be thinking something is "wrong" with it.  Keep in mind in the year "2006" there is so much more Sci-Fi to pick from than 40 years ago.  It's much more competitive out there.  I wish they would take a lesson from the "New Voyages" gang and create some cool web episodes and pop them on iTunes for $1.99 each.  They would sell like crazy!   ;D

web episodes? interesting... thats a good idea, but nothing like that has been done yet (selling web eps of a TV show that never went on TV)... and if someone is going to start doing stuff like that, i doubt it would be paramount... and i really dont think it would be star trek...

I listen to the slice of scifi podcast also and they have a theory that all movies are targeted towrads 13 year old girls. From what I have seen in the theaters lately maybe a concern that star trek could become part chick flick could be a concern. Look what happened to the prequels to the original star wars they were targeted towrads kids and the retail toy market. I am worried.  :vulcan

Matt Damon???? Matt Damon???? I'm sorry, but whenever I think of him now, I immediatly think of his puppet in
Team America.

Aha, and the funny thing about that is Matt Damon is actually a very inteligent man.

He was awesome in the 2 Bourne movies and Good Will Hunting. I would not be adverse to seeing him as a young Kirk. I am solidly with Rico that my only issue is the re-invention of Trek history. Enterprise was tough enough with Archer and crew doing so much thattread on TOS territory, including the Vulcan first officer. It tended to lessen the impact of TOS adventures as you think, "oh, well they were already out here fighting all these guys and exploring, so big deal".

Star Trek XI â€" the prequel film that could bring big changes to the franchise â€" is still on the drawing board at the moment, but the movie could be given an official green light for production this winter. According to The Trek Movie Report, the eleventh Trek motion picture is likely to get the nod from Paramount in December or January. “Although it hasn’t been greenlit yet, it is as close as you get around here,” the site’s industry source told them. Paramount intends to make it one of their 2008 summer tentpole releases.

Additionally, producer Abrams and his team are already interviewing potential cast members. A first draft of the movie script is expected soon, and the story’s main characters apparently include Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty.

If all goes well, Trek XI could begin filming in the spring, with production lasting six months. All this is subject to change, so watch the headlines!

The latest Trek magazine indicates a first draft of the script should be done by the end of the year and if approved filming would probably be next summer (2007).

Thats great news that they are making good progress on the script, and could be ready to start filming next year.

Oh no, seems they are still sticking to the prequel idea. I don't like it and I think it'll end in tears. Hope i'm wrong though.

Latest Trek XI Rumor: Cruise?

The Star Trek dedicated website TrekWeb is reporting that actor Tom Cruise, friend of director J.J. Abrams, is rumored to be very interested in appearing in the next movie installment in the Star Trek franchise. Tom is said to be a huge fan of Star Trek and would be delighted to make a cameo in the film.

The story first broke on the WENN entertainment news service and picked up by both TrekWeb and Canada’s TV Guide magazine, which said, “He didn’t even need to be begged to appear in it.”.

Don’t pin too much on the information - at this point it is all still rumor. Whether one likes Cruise or not, he is a gigantic box office draw and even a small cameo would bring Star Trek to an even broader audience than it currently reaches and could snatch up literally hundreds of thousands of future fans.

I'm going to bet that's a rumor, just because... well because. I want to, and it's my post. However, if it9's not a rumor, then things are starting to get pretty funky for the next star trek movie. Thanks kenny

I have enjoyed my fair share of Tom Cruise movies in the past, but if he is in the next Trek movie, I hope it is no more then a cameo. I would be surprised if it was any more then that, since he cut ties with paramount over the summer. Maybe if he is in the movie, he can jump up and down on the captains chair, just like he did on that couch. ;)

It has to be nonsense, although it wouldn't be the first time a big Hollywood star cameoed in a Trek film, Christian Slater appeared in The Undiscovered Country and I believe he was a big fan. Although when he showed up, it was a surprise to me. I had no idea about his cameo

In the rumored story that Tom Cruise wanted to make a cameo appearance on the next Star Trek flick, a spokesperson for Cruise flatly denies the story. Of course, when the rumor first hit the news wires, SoSF and every other entertainment news agency across the globe did a blurb on it; we even give it a small mention on our upcoming show due out this Wednesday….hey, even a rumor like that is news, especially since it is known that Cruise is a big fan of the franchise and his buddy Abrams is directing.

All that being said, Cinema Blend is now reporting that one of Tom Cruise’s publicists, a fellow named Arnold Robinson states “That story is not true.”

So, another chapter in the life of Tom Cruise closes and it looks like Mr. Excitement won’t be making any one-shots for Star Trek, at least not for now. We will keep you posted.

It was a pretty easy rumor to fake.  Tome Cruise just worked with JJ Abrams on MI3 and JJ is doing the next Trek film.  I'm actually happy this is "most likely" not going to happen.

Abrams: Trek XI Shapes Up

J.J. Abrams, who is writing and will direct a proposed 11th Star Trek movie, told TVGuide.com that the story is shaping up, but declined to reveal any details. "The framework is firmly in place, the script is being written now, and we are incredibly enthusiastic about it," Abrams told the site.

Abrams also declined to address casting rumors. "It's way too early to talk about casting," he said. "But the story is incredibly cool. All of us working on it are just giddy about it."

JJ Abrams was in Beverly Hills this past Wednesday to present an Atrios Award to his longtime casting director April Webster. TrekMovie.com was there and got a moment to talk a little Trek XI. Abrams confirmed their earlier story on the current status and Spring 2007 production start. He also explained why he hasn’t yet committed to direct and talked a bit about why he thinks Kirk and Spock continue to endure…see the (shaky) video.

Here is the text of that short video interview:

TrekMovie.com â,,¢: How will you decide if you will direct Star Trek XI?

JJ Abrams: (JJA) It is too early, I haven’t even seen the script yet. It is one of those things where I want to make sure I am the right person for it. As we proceed…I won’t committ to anything that I don’t think I can deliver the way I think it needs to be delivered.

TM: Roberto Orci said they were shooting for end of October for the script so is the first draft soon?


JJA: Did he? I would love to see that quote so I can call him up say ‘uh Bob?’…Well they are in the midst of it and it’s in progress.

TM: So shooting next spring is realistic?

JJA: The idea is to start shooting somewhere around there, otherwise we are not going to make the date that they have.

TM: Would summer 2008 be preferable to winter 2008?

JJA: Well winter would be preferable because you would have more time

TM: Why do you think the characters of Kirk and Spock endure?

JJA: That was an amazing relationship, it was an incredible relationship. It was brilliant writing and brilliant casting…and I agree with that.

TM: Any other message for the Trek fans?

JJA: No…no really. I dont say anything before its time

Unforunately the interview was cut short because the show was about to start, so the rest of ther Trek questions will have to wait until next time. It was interesting to see that Paramount seem to be driving the advanced schedule and that Abrams would prefer more time. His answer regarding Kirk and Spock was telling, he seems to have an affinity with those characters. And what exactly does ‘and I agree with that’ mean?

Thanks for posting the interview. I was not aware that JJ might not direct, I guess I assumed he was. Sounds he wants to do it right which is good, and hopefully he will not let the studio push him into producing an unfinished movie.

I saw that interview too.  Sometimes I think JJ should run for office.  He talks a lot but doesn't say anything.  Hehe!  Same when they talk to him about "Lost."  On directing I'd be fine if he directs or not.  Actually I think if he is handling a lot on this he might want to find another director.

Quote from: Rico on November 04, 2006, 06:17:47 AM
I saw that interview too.  Sometimes I think JJ should run for office.  He talks a lot but doesn't say anything.  Hehe!  Same when they talk to him about "Lost."  On directing I'd be fine if he directs or not.  Actually I think if he is handling a lot on this he might want to find another director.

Yeah he's a good person who can talk and talk and say nothing.  :wallbash: I thought the same thing when I read the interview but figure it was Star Trek News and there hasn't been much lately.

it seems to me like nobody knows anything yet... news is just trickling out slowly, and the news that does trickle out isnt even true... i think its way to early for us to know anything for sure... besides, right now, i would imagine that the star trek franchise is focusing more on the new games that are coming out and the remastered voyages on tv...

More Rumors

Abrams Leaning Toward Unknowns

At this past weekend’s Creationent CON in New Jersey, Bill Shatner told a large audience that “J.J. is committed to having Leonard [Nimoy]….and me, in the film.”

Of course the film Bill speaks of is the new “Star Trek XI” that has sparked an untold number of rumors about casting ever since Paramount let it be known of their intention to continue the franchise on the big screen with new blood behind production.

Bill went on to indicate, as we reported in the MeeVee interview, that “it’s easy for Leonard, because Spock’s alive. But I’m [James Kirk is] dead.” The biggest surprise came when he reportedly put the young Kirk casting rumors to rest by stating that Abrams has put aside the idea of having actor Matt Damon as the new Captain Kirk (Matt was Bill’s early-on favorite choice). As to who Abrams would pick to play the part Bill would only say, “I think they’re going to go with unknowns [for Kirk and Spock].”

Abrams Will Direct Star Trek XI

It has been known since day one of the announcement of a new big screen Star Trek feature that J.J. Abrams would be the man-in-charge of the production side of the flick - dubbed Star Trek:XI. What was not known, and has remained a mystery since then is who would be chosen to helm the project from the director’s chair.

That query has finally been laid to rest as Viacom CEO Phillppe Dauman announced to Variety today that Abrams will not only produce, but will also direct the highly anticipated return of the Trek franchise to the big screen, giving him virtually complete control of the fate of Trek for the next few years. On the heels of said announcement, Paramount also indicated that the release of the film may be moved back to 2009, which fits nicely into Abrams’ current filled calendar of events.

“We’re revitalizing [Trek] in a new and interesting way,” Dauman told the trade paper, after confirming Abrams as director.

As was earlier made public, scripting is being done by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

I'm ok with him directing, but that "revitalizing Trek" line scares me a bit.  And now maybe 2009.  Come on guys - get this ship moving!

I agree totally. Always when they suggest a reimagination or similar it puts the willies into me. Look at "Lost in Space" - ugh! However, Battlestar Galactica on the other hand worked pretty well... so this could go either way really, but still I do worry... I think though after Nemesis they had to do something different...

so we will see.

I'm with you guys....."reimagination" is not necessarily a good thing when you are talking about an iconic 40 year old franchise. R-MEL is correct, it works occasionally as it did with BSG but BSG was a short lived sci-fi show from the '70s. 

Goes along with the popular hollywood thing to do right now with regards to remaking old movies...."We liked the original but we wanted to make it darker"   UGH

One of the most respected names in the world of Star Trek other than that of the late ‘Great Bird’ himself Gene Roddenberry is Robert H. Justman. Justman during an impressive career played a crucial role in helping get Star Trek: The Original series and Star Trek: The Next Generation off of the ground.

However due to stress related illness the producer retired back in 1987 after having helped launch the Next Generation. Since that time he has continued to support Star Trek and in a new interview for Star Trek Magazine he gave Star Trek Movie producer J.J. Abrams a message of encouragement.

Though the new movie is likely to be a reboot with a younger Captain Kirk. Justman remains open minded.

“I don’t know much about the new film, so I don’t see why I should write it off in advance,” Justman explains. “ I remember how some people tried to write â€" off Star Trek: The Next Generation before they saw the show. So all I’ll say at this point is that if J.J. Abrams can make a good movie that sheds more light on what has already happened and adds more creativity to the mix, that sounds great to me.”

“I’m looking foreword to hearing what he has planned for Star Trek and I’d be pleased if Mr Abrams contacted me and asked me some questions. I’d be happy to talk to him about Star Trek.”

Although there is presently no new Star Trek on Television or any new series in production right now. Justman is among the many who feel that the series and its themes will never really die.

“I think Star Trek’s appeal is largely down to the fact that it’s essentially a morality play,” he notes. “It’s about issues and people that we can recognize and it has a message: that life should be lived morally. Young people feel when you’re young â€" it’s only when you’re older that you realize you sometimes have to compromise you ideals a bit.

“I think Star Trek is probably going to be around â€" in some form or other â€" forever,” he declares. “It’s really become part of our culture now.”

You can read much more of what Bob Justman shared with David Bassom for Star Trek Magazine in the new issue which is out now.

The problems with a lot of the star trek movies has always been a bad script, all we need to do is look at the last film for this.

I hope they realize that they are on a very dangerousquest to alter startrek history. I do not know how many more bad movies this franchise can take before fans will just stop going to badly made movies.

Every bad movie just makes it harder to revive the series, all we have to do is look at the bad computer games recently released as an example of this.

Unfortunately the movie studios, producers and directors continue to disappoint fans because they dont listen to them and continue to move away from Gene Roddenburys vision.

The problem is that fans dont determine how well the film does, its the general public who decide if a trek film will be a success or not.  I mean every person who was still watching enterprise could see the film with a friend and it would still be considered a flop.

JJ knows this and has outright said it, that the fans are not the key to true film success.

look at the prequels for star wars, the fans hated them, but they made tons of money worldwide so lucas did not care. He alienated his fanbase but was rewarded with big box office, and thats the model that CBS is looking at I think.

Not to go all negative, I mean we can still get an amazingly good film from abrahms and his track record is very good so far. MI III was an excellent film that suffered from Tom Cruises bad press and still did over 150mil domestic. And Both Lost and Alias started off as amazingly fresh tv. ( although both seemed to not be able to hold the magic )

I guess the key point im trying to make is that its not Us that he is trying to make the movie for. If he is sucessful in bringing in the mainstream audience neither he nor CBS will care if he did it over the horrfied screams of protest from every trek fan as he runs roughshod over our beloved continuity.

I hope he wont make a mess trek history, I really do, but its not our hopes Abrahms is concerned with.

bigt - some very good points there.  The thing that I think though is you can have both.  I think you can make a great TREK movie, pull in the general audience and please the fans - all at the same time.  "The Voyage Home" movie is probably the best example of this in the Trek movies.  I still think JJ will do a good job, but I do think he has to keep the fans in mind at least a little bit.

Sometimes I think The studios dont care at all about the fans, which is dissapointing, because if they made the fans happy they would ultamately make a lot more money then if they just made a movie to to make money. Also a good movie would keep the franchise going for years.

And perhaps one of the most important things They need a good script not just one that that is filled with special effects and no substance.

With the Trek films, after the First few, I always found that Paramount was treating them as money makers. I think they knew going in to making them, how much they would probably make off of the movies, so there was no reason for them to budget the movie past a certain point. A lot of the Trek movies I found the special effects to be lacking compared to other movies of their time. Actually in some cases the Movies (Star Trek 5) were not as good as what was on the TNG Television show at the time. The TNG movies I always felt the Special Effects were not any better then the series. As well a few of the movies felt very episodic, and any two part TNG episode had a better script then Insurrection. I always felt that the strength of Star Trek came from the series, and not the movies.
I am very hopeful that JJ Abrams will do a good job. He might change a few things around, but I think on the whole, the core of the movie will stay true to what is Star Trek. James Bond is a good example of making changes to a franchise, and coming out with a great movie.

All I have to say is that FANS made Star Trek what it is. You don't turn a blinds eye to the core fanbase. A good writer can create a script that is loyal for the core base and bring in new fans. This is what I hope for with JJ at the helm.

BTW I really enjoyed the Star Wars Prequels, and I'm an original core fan of Star Wars...  :r2d2line

Maybe Im behind on ST news lately but as I read this recent interview w/ Shatner on IGN, it sounds like Shatner is planning on being on screen in ST XI?  Is this how everyone else is reading this or I am reading into it too much?

"IGN: With the JJ Abrams movie, is it exciting for you to think about playing Kirk on screen again?

Shatner: Yeah. You know, the visual, as you get older, of the contrast between what you were like when you were younger and when you're older is a bit of a shock, for me, let alone to you. So that's something you've got to deal with."

Here is the full interview:
http://tv.ign.com/articles/753/753148p1.html

Any thoughts?

Nothing is in stone yet.  The general rumor is Kirk/Shatner and maybe even Spock/Nimoy may have cameos that will then create the flashback to their younger, Academy days.  If done right, it could be good.  Have to wait and see how it turns out.

I read the article, and got the impression that he will be in the New Trek Movie as well. Sounds like they are trying to fit the Older Kirk and Spock into the film some way. Interesting article, though some of Shatners responses did not make much sense to me.

William Shatner revealed to SCI FI Wire that the upcoming 11th Star Trek movie will indeed, as rumored, deal with the early years of Capt. James T. Kirk and Spockâ€"and that he will definitely appear in the movie if director J.J. Abrams can find a place to use him. Shatner, who originated the role of Kirk in the original Trek series and several subsequent films, said in an interview that he was invited to meet with Abrams (Mission: Impossible III), who is also co-writing the movie.

"I met with J.J., and they told me they would like me to be part of their film, but they have to write the role," Shatner said in an interview promoting his new SCI FI Channel film, Alien Fire.

As for the many rumors concerning the sequel's story, Shatner said that Abrams will explore Kirk and Spock during their Starfleet Academy years. "Yes, we know the story is based on young Kirk," Shatner said. Up until now, everyone connected with the film has maintained strict silence about the storyline, though rumors have run rampant that they concern Kirk and Spock's first missions.

As for Shatner's place in that storyline? "They need to figure out how to put the dead captain in with the young captain," he said. "It's a very complex, technical problem of how to write the character in, and I'm not sure how they will solve it." It sounds as if Shatner may play an older version of Kirk.

Coincidentally, the Starfleet storyline is one Shatner is already working on for his latest Trek-based novels. "I'm writing with Gar and Judy Reeves-Stevens two books on the academy, with the young Kirk and the young Spock," Shatner revealed. "We've submitted the first book to the publishers, and I think it will be out in the beginning of 2008. It's got a working title of The Academy, but I don't think that will stick."

Meanwhile, Abrams told Entertainment Weekly that a draft of the Trek XI script is done and will be trimmed sometime soon. The sequel will be targeted, "on the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying," Abrams told the magazine. "For people who've never seen it or know it vaguely, I think they will enjoy it equally, because the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek. I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind."

All of that sounds fine....except that last sentence. Sounds like JJ needs to be reminded that the majority of his target audience is more than intimately familiar with the material and he should please them first, otherwise no box office for you!

Darth Hideous clued me in on this story....interesting stuff....

Captain Christopher Pike And Scotty To Appear in Star Trek XI       PDF        Print        E-mail
Written by Robert Sanchez   
Thursday, 11 January 2007

Regardless how much JJ Abrams and gang are trying to keep Star Trek XI under wraps, there are still a few leaks. There have been a few this week and the IESB too, has heard some storyline ramblings.

ImageA close source to the film revealed to me the first few pages of the script. Yeah, I know, a few pages isn’t jack shit when you think of a script as a whole, but when certain characters are mentioned your mind goes wild trying to figure out how they will all fit into the story.

Here’s what I know, yes the script was turned in three weeks ago and it is currently being “polished up.” I’ve been told there are plenty of big name actors and complete unknowns that have been coming in and out of meetings regarding casting.

So while it’s old news that the new storyline will involve a young Kirk and Spock, we have been told to expect to see Captain Christopher Pike and our favorite Scottish, miracle-working engineer Montgomery Scott, or as he is best known, Scotty originally portrayed by James Doohan.

For those of you who do not know who Captain Pike is exactly, well, shame on you, he was the first Captain of the starship Enterprise NCC-1701 (unless you count the reference to Captain Robert April in the animated series) and starred in the pilot episode of The Original Series entitled, The Cage. He was portrayed in TOS by two actors, Jeffrey Hunter and Sean Kenney (as an older version of Pike).

ImageAlso, the feature film’s storyline is non-linear, there are different timeframes addressed. This goes along with the rumors of William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy’s involvement. The character of Christopher Pike’s involvement in the Star Trek XI storyline makes sense because Mr. Spock served under Pike on the Enterprise for at least 10 years before Kirk became Captain and Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain.

Well kiddies, as Kirk said, “Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Unfortunately, due to the context chosen by Abrams for this installment, it looks like we will be going where all these men have gone before, oh and guess what? SPOILER WARNING!! Do not read any further if you don’t want to know…Kirk, Mr. Spock, Scotty and Pike all  survive to the end! Amazing isn’t it? Who knew!

Time will only tell what the new Star Trek feature film will hold for us…for now we can only wait...

Article here:
http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1575&Itemid=99

Here is another article I read on Trek Today about the new film... hmmmm

By Michelle
January 23, 2007 - 8:39 PM
Casting rumours for Star Trek XI have been swirling for months, with names like Tom Cruise and Matt Damon being dropped as potential Captain Kirks. Now Scottish actor James McAvoy is said to have the inside track for a role for which he has the perfect accent.

The UK's Sunday Mail reported that McAvoy, who played Mr. Tumnus in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and earned good reviews as Dr. Garrigan in The Last King of Scotland, is keen to play Montgomery Scott in the film. "I have a passion for sci-fi. Films, books, memorabilia, art - I'm an addict," the actor reportedly said, explaining that he grew up reading The Lord of the Rings and watching Star Trek.

The article claims that an insider said the producers think "the 28-year-old is perfect for the iconic role", though it also states as fact that Damon has been cast as Kirk - something repeatedly denied by both Damon's publicist and the studio, which refused to comment on casting.

"The producers are keen to have a Scottish Scotty and James is the No.1 choice," stated the unnamed insider. "He's Scottish and has box office appeal so he fulfils both criteria." Scotty was played on the television show by the late James Doohan.

The original article is http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/feed/tm_method=full%26objectid=18508310%26siteid=64736-name_page.html (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/feed/tm_method=full%26objectid=18508310%26siteid=64736-name_page.html)

From Mind-Reading to Mind-Melding

TrekMovie is reporting that Greg Grunberg (Heroes), the very close friend to producer/director J.J. Abrams, and the only semi-confirmed cast member for “Star Trek: XI,” has decided what kind of alien he would like to play in his best friend’s new Trek feature.

“I’d love to be a Vulcan, it’d be great. That would be incredible,” Grunberg said in a Rotten Tomatoes interview.

In even more important Trek XI news, Greg says that the script for new Trek film is almost complete, saying, “He (JJ Abrams) is finalizing the script right now so I just talked to him today and he said, ‘I’ll send it to you as soon as it’s done’ so hopefully it’ll be very soon.”

Backlot sources are claiming that Paramount has set aside a number of stages for Trek XI to occupy in the near future.

With the script near finalization, stages set aside and sets being built, it shouldn’t be too much longer before we begin learning a little more about the actual storyline and which actors will be coming onboard for pivatol roles. I get the strong feeling that what ‘Wrath of Khan’ did to ignite renewed love for the franchise back in 1982, this new Abrams effort will do the same for a whole new generation of fans in the 21st Century.

Excerpt from a Time magazine interview with William Shatner:  Here is  a link to the entire article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582327-1,00.html

Lost producer J.J. Abrams is working on a Star Trek movie for 2008 about a young Kirk and Spock, and there are rumors you will make an appearance.

I did have a talk with J.J., and he outlined what he wanted to do. Getting a character who is supposed to be dead to talk to his younger self is a storytelling problem. But if you want to guarantee the audience will come in droves, one of the things you might do is include some members of the old cast.

You are so indelibly linked to Captain Kirk, how do you pass on the torch to a younger actor?

Well, you light a match ... No, I really have nothing to offer. I can't say to some young actor, "Play it this way," because he's going to play it his way. But I will say, he's got to be young and good-looking and rich. And charming.

Some people say Star Trek is past its prime, and it's time to move on. Would you agree?

There was something about Star Trek that sustained it all those years. But with so many entities of Star Trek out there all at once, the audience began to leave it. Now there's a huge experiment going on: Will the audience pick up their love affair? We don't know. And as talented as J.J. is, this is the real test for him. He's got to give a known quantity the Abrams twist and yet maintain the Star Trek game.

Anyone find it interesting how Shatner said, "getting a character who is supposed to be dead to talk to his younger self...." Sounds like some kind of time travel scenario or something.  Anyone have any more info / ideas on that?  Cheers. :andorian

Thats was an interesting article, thanks for posting. I think it will be a unique way that the Characters will communique with each other, and hopefully will add to the movie. I think that Trek is on an upswing already, and I really believe that there will be lots of great years to come with Trek and SciFI in general.

The easiest way to have the old characters 'talk' with their younger versions would be the ole 'slingshot effect' but I hope they do not solve this with Time Travel.  Personally, I think that is getting to be a 'writers crutch' when they cannot figure out  more creative solution to a problem.

Of course, there is also the weird wormhole that Voyager experienced that let them send radio transmissions back to Starfleet but due to a time dialation effect, they were talking to a different 'time'.  Kinda like that movie "Frequency" when the main character was talking to himself in the future using his ham radio...

Or, maybe the Starfleet Temporal Police are somehow involved in this (like they were in the Enterprise series).

Or, they could send Kirk/Spock back using the Guardian...

Hmmm......

-Rick

Has anyone mentioned the Nexus(Nexxus?). However its spelled.
It's been a long time since I saw Generations, but could that be worked in?

Spock returns from his dealing with the Romulans, hears that Kirk was alive and then killed, decides to seek out the nexus, use it to...uh, go back and save Kirk..or well, I dont know. Just a thought. I havent caught up on all the threads yet, so if its been brought up, sorry for the rehash.

Quote from: Kirk-Fu on February 01, 2007, 05:07:43 AM
Has anyone mentioned the Nexus(Nexxus?). However its spelled.
It's been a long time since I saw Generations, but could that be worked in?

Spock returns from his dealing with the Romulans, hears that Kirk was alive and then killed, decides to seek out the nexus, use it to...uh, go back and save Kirk..or well, I dont know. Just a thought. I havent caught up on all the threads yet, so if its been brought up, sorry for the rehash.

That is just absolutley crazy!  I had the exact same thought. 

For what it's worth the whole nexxus thing kind of didn't make sense to me anyway.... it like this weird paradoxal time shift deal.... I get in these debates with people at my job about timelessness and how it looks because we as humans exist in time, but outside of time is eternity... man.. it gets over my head really quick.

Anyway, that is a great possibility, but since JJ isn't a real Star Trek geek, do you think he would even take advanatage of the nexxus??? Besides, isn't nexxus a brand of hair product?

That's it... A giant bottle of hair gel squeezes over the universe just in time to be straightened by a hot iron....   :worthy

and do you think they have netflix in the nexxus?  That would be funny if they did.  Because it sounds cool, but you would never have to rent any movies, because you would already have them.  :shocked

Hmmmmm.

Anyway, all that to say, I had the same thought on getting Kirk and Spock together one more time. :)

I think you all may be reading that qoute too literaley. I don't think Shatner meant there would be an actual conversation between old Kirk and young Kirk. I think it's much more likely the film could start with an old Kirk reflecting back upon his younger years. That would be a much more elegant way to include the some of the old cast without having to engage in the machinations of a whole new time travel twist. I think old Bill was just talking off the cuff about the whole old to new transition.

I hope you're right...

The whole Nexus thing wouldn't really work anyways.  Even if Spock finds the nexus, and can find a planet it will intersect with (remember, ships cant handle the stresses) so he can enter it, Kirk is not in the nexus any longer.  He left.  (Unlike Guinan who left a part of herself in the nexus when the transporter ripped her out during the attempted rescue by the Enterprise-B in Generations).

So if Spock was in there, the only Kirk he would find would have to be an image created by his own desires rather than the actual energy signature that was 'Kirk'.  He 'could' use the nexus to go in and then exit at a time in the past but Kirk would not be with him...

One other thing to consider from a timeline/storyline consistency thing -- the young Kirk and Spock cannot be exposed to any technology or race from a future timeline. Otherwise, all those episodes where they had their 'first encounter' with that race/technology would be rendered 'incorrect'.  I hate continuity gaps.

Does anyone wonder if this movie is a one shot type thing, to restart the movie franchise, or will we likely see a series tied to it. Or will we see a series that isnt related to the movies?

I love my Trek movies, even the kinda bad ones, but I really want a weekly series.  I would enjoy a Riker series, but really dont want them to go much farther into the future...Trek Tech is already highly advanced. Go another 100+ years into the future, how wild would that be. Too much tech for me. I wasn't thrilled when I saw a transporter in Enterprise. I really wanted the NX era to be a bit more low tech.

Sadly there is no word of any plans for a series other than the rumored animated webisodes that have not been given the green light.

I think paramount/cbs is waiting to see how well XI does before they make any further comitments to the franchise.

Come on JJ, give us a blockbuster. At this point i dont care if its mission impossible in space as long as it makes a ton of money and gets paramount re engaged to support the franchise as a whole again.

I couldn't find that this was already posted but if it has been, I apologize but Ive been away for a while.  I just read this article from last night that confirmed JJ Abrams will direct ST XI.  Here is the info from Trek Web. 

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Star Trek XI producer J.J. Abrams has signed on to direct the next installment of the Star Trek feature franchise, sources said late Friday.

Abrams will produce and direct the Star Trek XI prequel, which according to rumors will be released on Christmas 2008.

According to the site, Abrams has been developing the project through his Paramount-based Bad Robot shingle as a producer and writer. But Abrams never committed to directing the project until Friday evening, when the deal was finalized, sources say. Abrams reps at WMA declined comment on the matter.

Also, the article in the trade paper repeats the summary of Trek XI first reported in Variety : "a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission."


The original report can be found here http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3idc516528ddd1b4263febcf5c67efa0ce

Yeah!

I absolutely loved MI3.  We can only hope that Trek XI is nearly as good

Yeah I read that too.  Looks like Abrams is going to direct it.  I liked MI 3 a lot.  I have high hopes for this.

I would have high hopes too, if the story wasn't a prequel.

Wow, thats crazy. A day or so ago I read he was going to direct The Dark Tower thing, and would just produce Trek. Now he is for sure directing.

I like it. Glad he has his priorities straight :-)

WOOOOOOHHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Trek XI has officially been green-lit!

http://trekmovie.com/2007/02/26/star-trek-xi-has-been-greenlit/

Awesome!  Cool!  Let's line up now!!!   ;)

This is great.  I just knew they couldn't stop making Star Trek movies.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of seeing the story of Kirk & Spocks first meeting on screen.  I am getting excited now!

I think it would be cool if we got to see Kirk's reprogramming of the Kobiashi Maru simulation in the movie and watch how 'his unique solution' played out....

Casting rumors flying now....
Matt Damon for Kirk
Adrian Brody for Spock
Gary Sinise for McCoy

All rumors, but interesting choices.  I find it interesting they seem to be looking hard at some pretty high profile actors for a Trek movie. 

I'm sure they figure that if they get someone everyone knows, people will give it a shot.

Either way, yay!  There's gonna be another Trek movie!

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! :lol2

Although I have the same continuity and canon issue's others have expressed about a prequel to TOS, I have no problem with the rumored casting. I think Matt Damon would be an awesome young Kirk and could potentially carry the franchise forward with more feature films if it resonates well enough with fans both old and new. I wouldbe willing to watch a series of films which bring the Big 3 from the academy right up to the Enterprise. Yes, it would conflict with the fact that Spock served with Pike for years befor eKirk came aboard, so maybe they cheat a little and allow for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy to have a different back story. Honestly, the only audience that even know any of this us! No one esle will care, they will be more interested in seeing a good sci fi movie with good actors, good story, ect

Sinise for McCoy?? Like it. Still dubious about the whole prequel thing though

*THIS JUST IN!!!*

Official Paramount press release:

http://trekmovie.com/2007/02/27/it-official-star-trek-is-back-122508-film-to-embrace-canon/

Weeee!!!! It's really happening!

Yes - like I said --- it's really happening.

Does anyone here watch Rome on HBO? The guy who plays Brutus could play Spock. But, he may be a bit old for what they are looking for.

Star Trek XI Story Buzz
Is it a Starfleet Academy story or not?
by IGN Staff

March 1, 2007 - It has been widely reported that the next Star Trek film would be a Starfleet Academy story recounting how a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock first met as cadets. But, according to IGN's insiders, that is not quite the case.

IGN was informed that Trek XI -- to be directed by J.J. Abrams from a screenplay by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci -- will be more of a "first adventure" for Kirk and Spock rather than their first meeting. It is possible that they met while at the Academy -- didn't it seem like Jim Kirk served with every young officer's father at the academy? -- but the movie will explore their first mission together.

One source claims there is a reason why the Starfleet Academy idea won't be central to the film: Harve Bennett, the producer of Star Trek II-V. IGN was advised that, since the Academy idea was Bennett's and has been kicked around for so long without success, Paramount and the filmmakers are going in the "first adventure" direction.

No sooner had we been told this than TrekWeb.com pointed out a new interview with Bennett in the latest issue of Star Trek Magazine. "It's a complicated issue for me…" Bennett told the magazine. "Right now, no one knows for sure what the next film is going to be. I thought it was interesting that the day after the story came out about them doing a Starfleet Academy movie, J.J. Abrams came out and said, 'That's not necessarily true.' I am assuming that the current regime at Paramount didn't realize that the studio had already bought that premise and someone went, 'Hold on a minute!'"

Bennett added, "It's possible they might do 'young Kirk and Spock' and, depending on what they do with it, it might be something I might not contest. But if they ever decide to do a Starfleet Academy film, my feeling is that they better call us because that was our baby."

Sources advised us that the plot will focus more on Kirk and Spock than the other characters, with Dr. McCoy being more of a supporting role. IGN recently reported that Paramount had three actors in mind for the roles of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, respectively: Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise.

We must stress again that these are the actors that the studio wants; it does not mean that they will indeed be cast, although we hear that Damon is closer to becoming a reality than any other rumored contender. Repeated inquiries for confirmation or denial to Damon's reps at Endeavor and to Brody and Sinise's at CAA have gone unanswered.

Sinise is only available to work on other projects during his hiatus from CSI: NY, which we were told is scheduled for April to August 2007. If he is indeed cast, Sinise could conceivably film his scenes in August before segueing to CSI -- especially if McCoy is not a large role. If not, then Sinise might be unavailable to do Trek. However, some actors -- such as George Clooney juggling ER and Batman and Robin or Steve Carrell with The Office and his films -- have been able to do both TV and film projects simultaneously.

Damon is also awaiting a script rewrite before committing to starring in The Fighter, which could lens in Massachusetts this summer. Brody, meanwhile, has been rumored for the lead role in The Incredible Hulk, which begins filming this summer in Toronto.

We were also advised that actor James McAvoy is basically somebody Paramount has in mind to play Scotty; that's all. It may not even go beyond that.

The studio's recent press release announcing Abrams' hiring as director only gave a vague fall '07 start date for Trek. In movie production terms that could mean anytime from August to November.

Sources also advised IGN that soundstages on the Paramount lot will start being reserved starting in May.

Matt Damon looks alot like young Kirk. I hope he takes the role, I like his movies.
Here's something to think about: not only will Damon have to play the role of James T. Kirk, he will have to invoke Shatner playing Kirk. Can Damon pull off an impersonation of Billy boy? Sure, he's an Academy Award winner that's a big plus...but many people have impersonated Shatner as a joke. Will audiences see Damon's acting as a Saturday Night Live skit or a ligit performance? We're so use to SNL the skits and Shatner's-over-the-top personality....Hummm. ::)

I'll watch this movie whether he's in it or not. I love Star Trek too much not to go. :wub

you have know idea how happy i am.

:D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also wouldn't mind Matt in the Kirk part.  He certainly has the charm of a young Kirk. 

"not only will Damon have to play the role of James T. Kirk, he will have to invoke Shatner playing Kirk"
Hate to disagree with Jen, but I really hope the actors in the next movie dont actually copy any of the original actors. I really want to see Damon or whoever is playing Kirk, and the other new actors, actually put their own spin on the characters. The TOS characters all have personalities of their own, to varying degrees, and thats the take on them I want to see.
Jim Kirk is young, somewhat brash, action oriented ladies man. Strong leader. Thats what I want the actor to look at and run with. If Damon tries to ape Shatner, it becomes a parody, at least to me it does.

However, as Jen said, it's Trek...im there regardless.

Quote from: Kirk-Fu on March 03, 2007, 11:20:51 AM
"not only will Damon have to play the role of James T. Kirk, he will have to invoke Shatner playing Kirk"
Hate to disagree with Jen, but I really hope the actors in the next movie dont actually copy any of the original actors. I really want to see Damon or whoever is playing Kirk, and the other new actors, actually put their own spin on the characters. The TOS characters all have personalities of their own, to varying degrees, and thats the take on them I want to see.
Jim Kirk is young, somewhat brash, action oriented ladies man. Strong leader. Thats what I want the actor to look at and run with. If Damon tries to ape Shatner, it becomes a parody, at least to me it does.

However, as Jen said, it's Trek...im there regardless.

But we know Kirk has a distict way of speaking. I think there will be a big stink if fans don't hear that same inflection coming from "the new guy". If McCoy is expected to have a Southern accent...Kirk will need to speak...using...short...choppy... sentences.  ;D

Well, I guess this is an example of what JJ Abrams is facing. Its quite possible half will love it, half will hate it.

Quote from: Kirk-Fu on March 03, 2007, 05:22:08 PM
Well, I guess this is an example of what JJ Abrams is facing. Its quite possible half will love it, half will hate it.

True. I don't envy him. Guess that's why they pay him the big bucks!   ;D

I think that 50/50 split is about right, but that's just 50% of the established fanbase.  If he can bring in more viewers from outside that fanbase than recent Treks have, this'll be a success, regardless of the offended die-hards.

Does anyone else think they should be making a sequel instead of a prequel , I mean how should it be that you should replace all the classic actors that are not here and that they made famous like Bones, Scotty, I mean I think they should move forward and make a movie with like TNG and have it move with Rikers ship and then work in the other series DS9 & Voyager. and if it does well with Riker's ship in the lead then you maybe can spin off and make a new TV series or even another ship and new crew  that work with then TNG crew and they pas the torch and spin off a new show. I will watch the new movie but I think they should leave the classic alone.

I'm still kind of reserving judgment a bit.  I can understand the built in appeal and idea of doing a young Kirk/Spock tale.  Truthfully, if I was doing it I would be tempted to shoot Trek about 100 years past TNG and have some really weird new aliens, big advancements in technology and really expand the Trek universe.  If they ever do a new TV series I hope it's something new and different like that.

See that is where I agree with you. I think it should be in the future as well. I mean I am a big trek fan and I will watch the movie even if it is not that good I mean I still watch all the new star wars movies and they are not as good as the original ones and I still watch Star Trek V every once in awhile. I just wish they would give us a new trek show in the future with maybe a new enterprise or something like that.

Have you been reading Star Wars Legacy, Rico?
I think a movie/series further in the future would be pretty cool

Yes - I like Legacy a lot.  Only SW comic I'm currently picking up.

Yeah I am holding off judgment until I see the movie but I agree with Rico that I think the best bet would be to go further into the future. With going into the past it gets kind of sticky having to deal with previous canon. If the writer is good and knows Trek they can make it work. But even then having someone else play Kirk or Spock or one of the originals is hard for me to see.. William Shatner will always be Kirk.. you can't replace him. Plus these new actors are really going to be acting like William Shatner doing Captain Kirk or Leonard Nemoy doing Spock. We all know how these characters act and react. Guess we just have to wait and see.

Actor James McAvoy has denied the rumors that he will be taking part in Star Trek XI and that Abrams has not approached him about it. While walking down the red carpet at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony he told an Empire Online interviewer when asked to verify or deny the rumor, “No. There’s no truth in the Star Trek rumors,” McAvoy stated. “I am a Trekkie, but no â€" absolutely not. And if he was offered a part…any part, what then? “Hmmm, I’d have to see,” smiled the actor as he strolled into the Kodak Theater.

Here's the latest:

"Trek XI" Writers Talk, Drop Hints


The title of the eleventh film in the Star Trek franchise may simply be "Star Trek," and it's being considered more a reimagining than a prequel, the writers of the project revealed in an interview posted today on MTV.com. They also promised that the story will be a starship-based adventure with more action and a bigger budget than any previous "Trek" film.
Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci â€" the two screenwriters who also serve as executive producers â€" told MTV that "Star Trek" by itself is their intended title. "I don't think we want to put any colons or anything on it," Orci said. This detail about the "Star Trek XI" project is still up in the air, though, where the studio is concerned, and likely to be subject to change until the last minute.

The article contends that Kurtzman and Orci described the film as "not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise," without quoting them directly saying that. The article does quote Orci as saying, "We're not going to start totally from scratch." But, "We want it to feel like it's updated and of the now. That's actually the discussions we're having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing's new. It's tricky."

The writers did promise that this movie will contain more action than any "Trek" film that has preceded it, and said it will have the biggest budget. Apparently Paramount gave them no stipulations and no limits. "They were just like, what would you do with 'Star Trek'?" Orci recalled. "We've been watching [Trek] all our lives. I've even read the books. It was all about, what have I always wanted to see in Trek?"

Orci also said, "The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power. With this one we're going for the broad audience to bring people into Trek for the first time."

Kurtzman added, "The challenge of the movie is to be 100 percent true to the fanbase but also to bring in a whole new group of people who've never seen Trek before."

But they were still mum on the details of the story, or which characters will appear in it, deflecting such questions from the interviewer with a persistent "Who can say?" But they did allow that it will be a starship-based adventure. "I don't know how you make Star Trek without a starship," Orci laughed. "You have to trek through the stars, so you need a ship for that. There, you got something out of us!"

Kurtzman said the same thing about the oft-maligned "technobabble" staple of Trek scripts. "I actually love the technobabble!" Kurtzman said. "I don't think you can do Trek without technobabble."

Without discussing why, Kurtzman and Orci revealed that they and producer J.J. Abrams did recently visit with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. "It was pretty much the most stressful thing ever, but it was wonderful," Kurtzman said. "They were amazing."

While apparently describing the film as a "reimagining," the writers do believe their script adheres to the original vision of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry. "Trek, more than anything, has always been about the human interactions," Orci said. "It's all about the human soul."

"And the friendships," Kurtzman added. "And everyone being a family. Whatever the story was, we always knew what it had to feel like."

The pair expressed relief that Abrams decided to direct the movie after reading the very first draft. "When we finally turned in the script I started lining up other directors, and that really got [Abrams] going," Orci joked.

As for other crew members, the article cited Scott Chambliss as production designer and Daniel Mindel as director of photography, who worked with Kurtzman, Orci and Abrams on Alias and "Mission: Impossible III."

On recent rumors regarding casting of key roles, the writer/producers were very coy, only saying things like, "We never said Bones was in it." Kurtzman did admit, "I'm the hugest Matt Damon fan ever. If he became [Kirk], great."

In the full article, Kurtzman and Orci also talk a little about Star Trek: The Next Generation, and what "crazy" fans they are. Read it at this MTV.com link.

Hmmmm.......   If they want to imagine something new - why not just start fresh??  Must discuss this more on tomorrow's Skypecast with all of you.

I agree, this sounds a little problematic for old school Trek fans, although I can appreciate the pressure they must be under to create a film to draw in a broader audience. The fact that it is a starship based story also moves us out of the Academy and into possible Kirk and Spock first ship board mission. I think I was more willing to maybe believe they were at the academy together, now they are galavanting about the cosmos, a game for the young, Doctor!

See with stuff like that it must mean that they are remembering back which could be ok but then you have to be careful to make sure that it is in between star trek 6 and genarations so you can keep congruent. I wish they would just to a war with the borg or Romulans with the three cast that are left then just start a new series 70 to 100 years in the future that show the federation just getting back on its feet after the war with a new crew and NEW Enterprise. Also I see picture of this ship that looks like the nx but they call it the enterprise j what episode is that from.

That was from an episode of "Enterprise" featuring the temporal cold war story line.

Oh ok thanks I have not seen that one yet.

I'm still in my wait and see mode.. but I'm not liking what I'm hearing.

I don't mind the re-imaganing of Trek.. it's the fact that it sounds like they are going to use characters that we already know and love. If you want to re-imagine Trek then start with the ideals of Trek and create new characters.

Thank you kenny that is what I think of as well i am use to seeing Nimoy , shatner, doohan , and the rest it will be different I a huge trek fan so I will watch it.

As long as it's TREK, I'll be there.

Im thrilled about the 'reimagining' aspect, and that its 'starship' based.

The academy aspect was scaring me. Like it or not, I think it's important to try and bring in new fans. That may take some reimagining.

I think Star Trek has been good at bringing in legions of new fans, two different times in particular. TOS started the craze, especially when it went into syndication. Then when we thought it may be dead, TNG ramped it up again, and honestly I would say to an even greater level.
Really, while TNG is obviously Trek, it took me a while to warm up to it because it looked nothing like the original, had a French captain, aliens on the bridge, etc.
TNG was a reimagining disguised as a leap forward in time.

Quote from: Kirk-Fu on March 10, 2007, 06:48:34 AM
TNG was a reimagining disguised as a leap forward in time.

I agree with earlier sentiments that they should do this again, leaping forward time provides for lots of reimagining opportunities.

J.J. Abrams Talks Star Trek
Source: TrekWeb
April 18, 2007

TrekWeb says that Star Trek producer/director J.J. Abrams talked to Star Trek Magazine and mentioned that "James T. Kirk appears in the movie."

This marks the first time that Abrams or anyone from the production has disclosed any plot detail about the film.

"The respect we all have for Star Trek canon - and for a brand-new audience - is massive," Abrams added. "The script is done. We're now starting pre-prep, and we can't wait to start shooting! Many more details to follow!"

Paramount Pictures is targeting a December 25, 2008 release for Star Trek.

Sylar as Spock?

Zachary Quinto, who plays the menacing Sylar in NBC’s hit series “Heroes” could be in the running to play one of the icons of science-fiction television and moviesâ€"Mr. Spock.

Since the news that J.J. Abrams was helming a revival of the “Star Trek” film franchise that would recast the original crew, Quinto say there has been a huge groundswell of support for him to don the pointed ears.

“When the news about the next Star Trek movie began to surface, I became inundated with e-mails and links to Web sites where people were saying, ‘Zach Quinto should play [young] Spock,” said the actor, according to the most recent issue of Starburst that hit newsstands in the United Kingdom this week. “I started opening myself up to the idea and I think the exploration and immersion to be done with such a character would be amazing.”

While casting rumors have been running rampant, several actors have expressed a desire to take on reimagined roles of Star Trek’s greatest figures that include Capt. James T. Kirk, Spock and Dr. McCoy. While a lot of interest from various actors has more to do with how much they are a fan of the science-fiction franchise, Quinto says his interest is far more professional … and logical.

“I tend to be a type of person who acts from a very visceral place and reacts emotionally to situations, and to ‘become’ a character that is completely the opposite of that is one of the reasons why I am an actor,” Quinto said. “I would love the opportunity to understand what it is to only operate from a place of logic and look at things so specifically from that perspective.”

It is still unclear if Quinto will have some extra time in his schedule this fall as his fate seems to be undetermined for the second season of the hit NBC series, which will return in the fall.

I've heard this rumor before.  Not really buying into it.

 â€œStar Trek” (XI) Casting Revealed Next Month

Posted by Sam on Monday, 18 Jun 2007
No Comments so far...

Certain roles in the J.J. Abrams directed/produced Star Trek film will be announced next month at San Diego’s Comic Con, according to IESB.

Abrams’ “Lost” collaborators and writers of the “Star Trek” script, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, sat down with a group of reporters at a press conference being held for Michael Bay’s “Transformers” movie and they revealed this and some other information when queried by reporters. The other bit of news is that shooting on the 11th film of the 41-year old franchise will begin this November.

Neither Orci or Kurtzman would say if the casting announcements coming next month will be for major roles or supporting cast.

“Star Trek 11,” or simply “Star Trek,” is looking at a Christmas Day (Dec. 25th) 2008 premiere.

Trek Script Done, Shoots In Fall

Roberto Orci, who with writing partner Alex Kurtzman is scripting the new Star Trek movie, told SCI FI Wire that they have finished the script are in preproduction on the movie, which will go into production in November under director J.J. Abrams. "We're still casting," Orci said while promoting his next film, Michael Bay's Transformers. "We're in preproduction, actually, this month."

While revealing little about the 11th Trek film's top-secret plot, Orci offered a few tidbits. "Kirk is in the movie," he said. "Some kind of Kirk. ... We literally haven't cast them yet. It's actually one of the challenges, and so we're hoping to have something by Comic-Con [in San Diego in July], but we'll see."

Orci added that producers are wrestling with whom to cast. "That's one of the debates, you know?" he said. "Like, how much does a familiar face hurt or not?" As for rumors that Matt Damon is in line for Kirk or Adrien Brody for Spock, Orci would only smile. "I've read all those rumors, too."

Is the Trek movie being eyed as the kickoff of a possible TV series? "I'm sure CBS is thinking about that," he said. "That's not [something] we're thinking about. We're just thinking about the movie. Certainly, I don't know how they could not think about that."

Frakes Gives Opinion on Next Trek Film

Actor/director Jonathan Frakes is no stranger to television, movie-making or Star Trek. For seven years he portrayed Commander William Riker, first officer of the USS Enterprise D on “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” and followed that long performance with four feature Star Trek films. In the final film showcasing The Next Generation cast Riker and Deanna Troi get married and he finally accepts promotion to Captain with command of his own starship.

Frakes is also very comfortable behind the camera in that real center seat. He cut his teeth on directing in his Next Gen TV days taking the helm for eight episodes of the highly acclaimed series. From there he directed three episodes of “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” a Trek video game, three episodes of “Star Trek: Voyager” and two Trek movies â€" “Star Trek: Insurrection” and “Star Trek: First Contact,” considered by many (and box office and DVD sales) to be the second most popular Star Trek film after the TOS blockbuster “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.”

He continues directing and acting today with his most recent gig as one of the chosen directors for the upcoming “Masters of Science Fiction” series this fall. Frakes hasn’t given up acting in front of the camera either. He will be in the 2009 release of “Castlevania.”

With all that experience under his belt â€" most of it with Star Trek (20 years worth), what better person to ask about J.J. Abrams’ attempt to jump start the Trek franchise for a whole new generation of movie goers? That is exactly what was done recently when Jonathan was being interviewed by Trek Movie Report. They put the question to him and here is how he responded.

“J.J. Abrams, who created Lost, which I think is one of the greatest shows on television, has been given the keys to the spaceship and I for one, being the eternal optimist that I continue to be, am very optimistic about what he will do with the franchise, what he will do with the next film and I think all of us who are excluded are reacting in different ways. My feeling is, from the work that he has done and the passion that he has for the franchise and the legacy and the vision of Roddenberry that it will be in good hands…It’s going to happen so we can’t be upset. And I’m very glad that the franchise is carrying on, obviously, but it could be great. And that’s what I hope.”

 Spock Minus Kirk in Trek XI

The man who brought Captain James T. Kirk to life won’t be making a cameo in the upcoming “Star Trek” movie. William Shatner, who has lobbied furiously for a cameo in the upcoming “Trek” prequel will not be making an appearance. Instead the cameo role will go to Leonard Nimoy as Spock.

The prequel, directed by J.J. Abrams, will recast the iconic roles of the original “Star Trek” (as if you could ever truly replace Shat!). Script rumors speculate the story will be that of the first voyage of the starship Enterprise under the command of James T. Kirk. (Though how you get Dr McCoy in there without violating canon, remains to be seen).

Rumors are swirling as to who might replace the original actors in the roles. Shatner has endorsed Matt Damon to take on the role of the young James T. Kirk.

Shatner is said to be very upset about not being offered a role in the upcoming film. No word yet on how the Nimoy cameo will fit into the film. Bill isn’t upset with his longtime friend, but with the studio. However, this is not a precedent setting event â€" Shatner starred without an appearance by Nimoy in “Star Trek: Generations,” although that was Leonard’s choice to be left out, not Paramount’s. But remember, this is Hollywood. If enough pressure can be brought to bear on the backs of execs, they will succumb, and Star Trek fans, as well as Bill himself, are notorious for knowing how to put on the pressure. If he really wants the role bad enough â€" it will be his in the end.

Since this is “Star Trek,” regardless of the franchise’s infamous security precautions, I expect the entire script to be leaked on-line within ten minutes of J.J. Abrams turning it over to Paramount execs by some overzealous office staff…..and, thank goodness for them.

Kenny - is this officially confirmed info?  Where did you read this?  My guess is there are still a lot of possibilities for the film. 

I got this from the Slice of Sci Fi Website

It's just a rumor ... and yes I agree.. until Comic Con things will just be rumors.

Hello!  :biggrin I just wanted to say that I am very excited about the new Star Trek movie.  It'll be interesting to see the very first voyage of the starship Enterprise under the command of Captain Kirk.  That is, assuming that's what the movie is about of coarse.  I wonder which characters will make it into the movie and which will not?  For example, Chekov could get a cameo as a lower-decks security guard.  8) However, I don't think we'll see McCoy in the movie since he didn't join the crew until some time between the 2nd pilot and the 3rd episode.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 26, 2007, 03:28:31 PM
Hello!  :biggrin I just wanted to say that I am very excited about the new Star Trek movie.  It'll be interesting to see the very first voyage of the starship Enterprise under the command of Captain Kirk.  That is, assuming that's what the movie is about of coarse.  I wonder which characters will make it into the movie and which will not?  For example, Chekov could get a cameo as a lower-decks security guard.  8) However, I don't think we'll see McCoy in the movie since he didn't join the crew until some time between the 2nd pilot and the 3rd episode.

Based on that, don't expect to see Chekov either as he didn't show up until Season 2!

Quote from: Rico on June 26, 2007, 10:09:15 AM
Kenny - is this officially confirmed info?  Where did you read this?  My guess is there are still a lot of possibilities for the film. 

This story originally appeared in a NYC tabloid, so its credibility is non-existent.

Quote from: Bryancd on June 26, 2007, 03:44:39 PM
Based on that, don't expect to see Chekov either as he didn't show up until Season 2!

Chekov is a different matter, because he was a lower-ranked officer.  In Seasons 2 & 3, he was just the navigator.  The Wrath of Khan established that Chekov was on the Enterprise during Season 1 ("Spade Speed" is a Season 1 episode), so he must have had some lower decks job, probably a security or science officer.  Having Chekov in a small role in the new movie wouldn't violate continuity. :)

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 26, 2007, 03:55:29 PM

Quote from: Bryancd on June 26, 2007, 03:44:39 PM
Based on that, don't expect to see Chekov either as he didn't show up until Season 2!

Chekov is a different matter, because he was a lower-ranked officer.  In Seasons 2 & 3, he was just the navigator.  The Wrath of Khan established that Chekov was on the Enterprise during Season 1 ("Spade Speed" is a Season 1 episode), so he must have had some lower decks job, probably a security or science officer.  Having Chekov in a small role in the new movie wouldn't violate continuity. :)

Yes it would, just like Wrath of Kahn violated continuity. That's what continuity means and just beacuse it's violated doesn't make it canon. So the writers of the Wrath of Kahn decided to ingnore continuity and allow for Chekov to know Kahn. Yet we give them a pass by making up some dumb story about Chekov being on the lower decks. Do you really think the writters of this film will let a few episodes of TOS get in the way of them making their story?

Well, also keep in mind the biggest idea being tossed around is it's a young Kirk and Spock story.  Chekov is at least ten years younger than Kirk, so that might make him a teenager if the time era of this movie is the same we have been hearing (Academy days for Kirk/Spock).  Therefore - very doubtful he would turn up much.

Quote from: Bryancd on June 26, 2007, 05:07:51 PM
Yes it would, just like Wrath of Kahn violated continuity. That's what continuity means and just beacuse it's violated doesn't make it canon. So the writers of the Wrath of Kahn decided to ingnore continuity and allow for Chekov to know Kahn. Yet we give them a pass by making up some dumb story about Chekov being on the lower decks. Do you really think the writters of this film will let a few episodes of TOS get in the way of them making their story?

Exactly which episode or movie states that Chekov was NOT a member of the Enterprise crew during the first season?  The writers of The Wrath of Khan didn't ignore continuity, they just forgot that Chekov was not in "Space Seed."  By the way, when continuity is changed, it's not a violation, it's called a retcon (retroactive continuity).

Quote from: Rico on June 26, 2007, 05:12:55 PM
Well, also keep in mind the biggest idea being tossed around is it's a young Kirk and Spock story.

It's also been said that it will be Kirk's first mission as Captain of the Enterprise.  However, this is rumor and speculation.

QuoteChekov is at least ten years younger than Kirk, so that might make him a teenager if the time era of this movie is the same we have been hearing (Academy days for Kirk/Spock).

It won't be an Academy movie, because it would be a total flop.  Only the fanboys care about Starfleet Academy.

Quotevery doubtful he would turn up much.

I'm not suggested he turn up a lot, just for a cameo.

I really didn't want to turn this into a Will Chekov be in ST11? thread. :wallbash: I was just asking who you guys feel will appear in the movie.  Obviously there's Kirk and Spock, but... who else?  Maybe Scotty?

McCoy and Scotty for sure will be included, maybe a very young Sulu. And unless it appears on screen, it never happened, that's canon and that's why Chekov WASN'T on the Enterprise for Season 1 by definition. :)

IMO, TWOK was neither a continuity violation nor a retcon. 

Unless there was a scene in Space Seed which showed us each of the 400+ crewman onboard during that story, we can assume Chekov might have been aboard serving in some capacity other than bridge crew.

Sulu wasn't on the bridge in WNMHGB, but we know he was on the ship.

If there was a scene in Amok Time where someone welcomed Chekov to the ship, that'd be a different story.

Quote from: Bryancd on June 26, 2007, 05:43:52 PM
Unless it appears on screen, it never happened, that's canon and that's why Chekov WASN'T on the Enterprise for Season 1 by definition. :)

Bryan believes that for the entirety of the five-year-mission, no crewmember ever went to the bathroom.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I never saw it so it never happened ;)

Quote from: Bryancd on June 26, 2007, 05:43:52 PMunless it appears on screen, it never happened, that's canon and that's why Chekov WASN'T on the Enterprise for Season 1 by definition. :)

I'm sorry, but just because we didn't see Chekov in Season 1, that is NOT sufficient reason to assume he was not on the ship.  It's perfectly logical to conclude that he was elsewhere on the ship and simply wasn't seen due to the character having not been thought up yet.

Quote from: pickard on June 26, 2007, 06:11:04 PMIMO, TWOK was neither a continuity violation nor a retcon.  Unless there was a scene in Space Seed which showed us each of the 400+ crewman onboard during that story, we can assume Chekov might have been aboard serving in some capacity other than bridge crew.

Agreed, well said! :biggrin

QuoteSulu wasn't on the bridge in WNMHGB, but we know he was on the ship.

Yep, he was some kind of science officer or something.  However, I'm guessing the new movie might ignore this part and establish Sulu as having always been the pilot.

QuoteIf there was a scene in Amok Time where someone welcomed Chekov to the ship, that'd be a different story.

Indeed.  While "Amok Time" is the first episode with Chekov that aired, "Catspaw" is the first episode that Walter Koenig was filmed in.

I think Sulu was actually an assistant science officer.

I actually have no problem with small continuity fudges like Chekov and TWOK and would be fine with seeing a McCoy on the Enterprise prior to WNMHGB in a new film. I get more bent whith some of the liberties they took on "Enterprise".

Quote from: Bryancd on June 27, 2007, 06:57:54 AM
I actually have no problem with small continuity fudges like Chekov and TWOK

To be a continuity fudge, it has to contradict something.  Which episode or movie states that Chekov was not a member of the Enterprise crew during the events of "Space Seed?"  The audience not seeing him is not sufficient evidence.

Quotewould be fine with seeing a McCoy on the Enterprise prior to WNMHGB in a new film.

I think they should avoid using McCoy in stories set before "Where No Man Has Gone Before," because it felt like McCoy didn't join the crew until some time between the 2nd pilot and 3rd episode.  Now, if they feature McCoy as a character stationed somewhere other than the Enterprise, that's fine by me.

QuoteI get more bent whith some of the liberties they took on "Enterprise".

Blah... I think the show had great continuity aside from a few lame episodes, but then every Star Trek show has a few lame episodes.

"Enterprise" was a continuity disaster, IMO.
This Chekov discussion is now officially going nowhere.
As far as McCoy, yeah I could see him being part of the project but not as a crew member of the Enterprise, maybe they run into him and he becomes part of the story.

...Play nice boys.   :angel:

If Paramount's ability to follow continuity is the subject of this thread, then Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman, Sulu will be a crazy fencing instructor and Chekov will be a cabin boy swabbing the lower decks.  :D

But if we're talking about who we'd like to see in the film, then I for one hope they find some way to pay homage to all the characters. Even if its just a one minute appearance of Walter Koenig playing a background character. A  little nod to the original crew would be nice. I'd be very happy with a cameo appearance from the original actors who's characters shouldn't be on the ship yet.

As a side note, I don't think continuity means anything to the "big wigs" who make the ultimate decisions at Paramount Picturesâ€"they've pretty much proven that with Voyager and Enterprise. The recent onslaught of "space vixens" bothers me more than anything. They cater to the only audience they think they have...geeky men. They just want as many eyes as they can get tuned to their shows and more rears in the seats at the theater. But I digress...  ;)

Quote from: Bryancd on June 27, 2007, 10:09:37 AMThis Chekov discussion is now officially going nowhere.

Indeed, since you won't answer my question when I ask for evidence of the continuity violation.

QuoteAs far as McCoy, yeah I could see him being part of the project but not as a crew member of the Enterprise, maybe they run into him and he becomes part of the story.

One possibility is for the crew to bump into him while he's working on a starbase or something.

Quote from: Jen on June 27, 2007, 10:57:24 AMIf Paramount's ability to follow continuity is the subject of this thread, then Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman, Sulu will be a crazy fencing instructor and Chekov will be a cabin boy swabbing the lower decks.  :D

Scotty's Scottish. :P

QuoteBut if we're talking about who we'd like to see in the film, then I for one hope they find some way to pay homage to all the characters. Even if its just a one minute appearance of Walter Koenig playing a background character. A  little nod to the original crew would be nice. I'd be very happy with a cameo appearance from the original actors who's characters shouldn't be on the ship yet.

I believe Leonard Nimoy is going to make a cameo.

QuoteAs a side note, I don't think continuity means anything to the "big wigs" who make the ultimate decisions at Paramount Pictures—they've pretty much proven that with Voyager and Enterprise.

The big wigs don't write the episodes, so they have absolutely nothing to do with the story's continuity.  That falls on the shoulders of the writers.

QuoteThe recent onslaught of "space vixens" bothers me more than anything. They cater to the only audience they think they have...geeky men.

You can thank UPN for putting Seven and T'Pol into catsuits.

QuoteThey just want as many eyes as they can get tuned to their shows and more rears in the seats at the theater. But I digress...  ;)

None of the movies have had space vixens except for a gal here and there in a cameo role, so I wouldn't be concerned.

Fine, since you refuse to drop it. Continuity for TOS is ONLY what appeared on screen, not what can be interpreted later. That's all there is to it. If Gene R. didn't put in on the show it didn't happen. That's what canon is. Continuity must follow canon, so by definition, since Chekov is not seen until Season 2, he wasn't there. You can't just make up a good backstory and call it canon.
Look, I really don't mind Chekov knowing Kahn, doesn't bother me in the least, but by definition it IS a violation of continuity. If you don't agree, that's fine, that's cool, no worries. :)

Quote from: Jen on June 27, 2007, 10:57:24 AM
...Play nice boys.   :angel:

As a side note, I don't think continuity means anything to the "big wigs" who make the ultimate decisions at Paramount Pictures—they've pretty much proven that with Voyager and Enterprise. The recent onslaught of "space vixens" bothers me more than anything. They cater to the only audience they think they have...geeky men. They just want as many eyes as they can get tuned to their shows and more rears in the seats at the theater. But I digress...  ;)

I think that's an unfair assessment Jen. They have given equal time to eye candy for the women as well as far as I can see. Sexuality will always be a part of TV because it's part of our humanity. Now, I would have preferred no catsuits but I wouldn't stop watching because a female character wears one any more than I would stop watching because they found a way to get Archer or Kirk's shirt off for the women to enjoy.

Kevin

Trying to not get sucked into this space/time/repeating discussion loop.  ;)   

But it's Khan, not Kahn.   :)

I agree with Jen that the use of sexuality in "Enterprise" was overt but not unexpected considering the era in which it was made. It does seem odd watching a Star Trek product and seeing that, but now we are just showing our age ;).


Not that Jen's old by any stretch! Just us old boy's ;)

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 27, 2007, 12:25:59 PM
You can thank UPN for putting Seven and T'Pol into catsuits.

Thanks, UPN!!!

The sexuality in Enterprise and especially Voyager was downright timid compared to the female guest stars/eye candy in TOS.

Quote from: Bryancd on June 27, 2007, 04:20:21 PMFine, since you refuse to drop it. Continuity for TOS is ONLY what appeared on screen, not what can be interpreted later. That's all there is to it. If Gene R. didn't put in on the show it didn't happen. That's what canon is. Continuity must follow canon, so by definition, since Chekov is not seen until Season 2, he wasn't there. You can't just make up a good backstory and call it canon.
Look, I really don't mind Chekov knowing Kahn, doesn't bother me in the least, but by definition it IS a violation of continuity. If you don't agree, that's fine, that's cool, no worries. :)

I suggest you read this web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_%28fiction%29).  It explains that a continuity violation is something that contradicts an established fact.  Now, in order for Chekov's recognition of Khan in The Wrath of Khan to be a continuity violation, there would have to be a scene or dialogue that established that Chekov was not on board the Enterprise during that first season.  As far as I know, Chekov simply appeared in Season 2.  He didn't get an introduction episode, he was just there.  Logic suggests he was either transfered from another post or simply reassigned from somewhere else within the ship to the navigation console on the bridge.  The Wrath of Khan established Chekov was on the Enterprise during Season 1, he simply wasn't seen because his character had not yet been created.

If you want to tell us that Chekov was not on the Enterprise, that's cool.  Provide evidence to convince us, otherwise it's just an opinion.

You can always expand on an existing story with a subsequent story so long as you're not contradicting established facts.

Quote from: Bryancd on June 27, 2007, 05:09:44 PM
I agree with Jen that the use of sexuality in "Enterprise" was overt but not unexpected considering the era in which it was made. It does seem odd watching a Star Trek product and seeing that, but now we are just showing our age ;).

I think the strong sexuallity was a result of the network, not necessarily today's standards.  Neither Stargate show had sexuallity anywhere near what we'd see in Enterprise.  If you look at UPN's other shows, you'll notice that they're all sexed up.  UPN had the idea that there weren't enough fans watching, so they had Voyager (Seasons 4-7) and Enterprise sexed up to appeal to horny guys. ::)

Hey Guys... I think we have gone off topic a bit... can we bring this topic back to Star Trek 11. If you wish to continue your discussion on Star Trek continuity issues or sexuality on Star Trek please create another thread and continue there... Thanks

Wow, we did get off topic with Chekov and The Wrath of Khan, didn't we? :laugh: I appologize! :ninja Let's get back on topic as requested. :biggrin

Do you think we will see the starship Enterprise in the movie?  If we do see it, do you think it'll be the main setting or merely be a background ship?

It would be typical of the makers to just show the Enterprise in the final five minutes of the movie. Man i really don't want them to do a prequel.

That's not typical... out of 10 movies, they've only done that once. :blink

Well that's because the previous films have been about the crew of the Enterprise and it would be natural to feature the great bird. But this new film is about Kirks Starfleet days, the Enterprise doesn't necessarily have to feature. :blink

Keep in mind that, while Paramount is the studio behind this, the production teams, writers, and directors are all new to this franchise, more or less.

Paramount can have a heavy hand about their property, but I think they have noticed how the fan community works, and they are going to try not to antagonize us.

They did, after all, keep stringing Berman along until his contract ran out, then handed the reins to JJ Abrams without even a "Sorry about that, chief".

They didn't hand the reins over to J.J. Abrams, he asked for them.  Also, there's no evidence that he will be the new franchise executive.  All we know for sure is that he will be producing the 11th movie.  He may simply be the next Harve Bennet, a guy who'll produce a few Star Trek movies, and then move onto something else.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 29, 2007, 04:12:35 PM
They didn't hand the reins over to J.J. Abrams, he asked for them.  Also, there's no evidence that he will be the new franchise executive.  All we know for sure is that he will be producing the 11th movie.  He may simply be the next Harve Bennet, a guy who'll produce a few Star Trek movies, and then move onto something else.

I'm hoping that he'll have more of a positive effect on the franchise than Harve Bennett. He has the track record as well as the love. Bennett wasn't a fan the way Abrams is. While I'm not in love with a sort of prequel movie, I'm ready to hope for the best.

If it ends up being a reimagining like BSG, then it will most likely be a cool one. All I gotta say is that Uhura had better be at least as fine as Nichelle Nichols. :-).

I don't care if Abrams or Bennett are fans.  You're missing my point.  What I am saying is, I don't think that Abrams will necessarily be taking over the Star Trek franchise.  When Bennett took over the film series from Roddenberry with ST2, he simply produced 4 movies, then went on to something new.  It was Rick Berman who had succeeded Gene Roddenberry.

The movie will be a prequel.  There have been some reimagining comments, but I believe that has more to do with appearance than continuity.  Most news articles point to the movie being a prequel.

No, you are missing the point. The reason Trek was not up to the fan's expectations was because Berman was not a fan of Roddenberry's vision.

They allowed his contract to run out, so they could give the franchise to someone else to reboot, or prequel, or any other term you'd like to use.

JJ Abrams IS a fan of the original vision, so it matters to him whether or not it meets the fans expectations.
He may not be taking over the franchise, but he is taking over this movie. Paramount is the owner of th franchise, so they will do with it what they will. Letting Abrams have a go should be interesting.

I don't believe anyone said he was going to be running Trek, just making this movie.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 29, 2007, 10:27:45 PM
I don't care if Abrams or Bennett are fans.  You're missing my point.  What I am saying is, I don't think that Abrams will necessarily be taking over the Star Trek franchise.  When Bennett took over the film series from Roddenberry with ST2, he simply produced 4 movies, then went on to something new.  It was Rick Berman who had succeeded Gene Roddenberry.

The movie will be a prequel.  There have been some reimagining comments, but I believe that has more to do with appearance than continuity.  Most news articles point to the movie being a prequel.

I understand your point. From my perspective, it is not clear whether or not Abrams will make a movie that will warrant a sequel, or that ST XI will even be a good movie. I'm just saying that I'm more hopeful about this one than most previous "Trek" movies. No one may be taking over the franchise. However, I do hope that Abrams can breathe new life into "Trek" the way Christopher Nolan did with "Batman" and Sam Raimi did with "Spiderman".

With that, I'm backing out slowly...

Quote
I think that's an unfair assessment Jen. They have given equal time to eye candy for the women as well as far as I can see. Sexuality will always be a part of TV because it's part of our humanity. Now, I would have preferred no catsuits but I wouldn't stop watching because a female character wears one any more than I would stop watching because they found a way to get Archer or Kirk's shirt off for the women to enjoy.

Kevin

Hi Kevin,
I see where you're coming from and I agree for the most part. I do like to complain about space vixens...Its my lot in life. Actually, I was referring to the more recent shows (can't count Kirk among them). When Voyager's ratings dipped they added 7 of 9. They tried to continue that precedence by adding a character of equal "stature" to Enterprise (T'Pol).  They added lots of steamy scenes in Enterprise (ex the degerming scenarios) to keep the target audience interested. Guys like that sort of thing... Women like romance and that's why I liked the idea of Tripp and T'Pol. 

Though I personally like Archer's character and I  am sure there are women who are attracted to him...I don't think of him as "eye candy".  When Mr. Jonathan Frakes was on TNG, back in his early days, he was eye candy.  :o

Not to change the subject, but I felt I should include this:
Because we are reading posts instead of listening to people verbally express their ideas,  it's hard to know when people are being critical or just sarcastic. I'm not sure, because I can't hear your individual voice inflections, but I think some of the tones within this thread sound a little more "heated" than than they should. If I'm correct, then I would recommend that we take a clue from Trek and try to be more diplomatic. I think its fine to disagree, and as you can see in my signature, I do welcome debate, in fact I enjoy debating... but edict should be used when debating and I think the approach should be respectful and courteous when possible.  :)

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I keep visiting Rico's forums is because the people here are friendly. Lets try to keep these boards a place people enjoy visiting.

Quote from: Jen on June 30, 2007, 07:15:47 AM
I see where you're coming and I agree for the most part. I do like to complain about space vixens...Its my lot in life. Actually, I was referring to the more recent shows (can't count Kirk among them). When Voyager's ratings dipped they added 7 of 9. They tried to continue that precedence by adding a character of equal "stature" to Enterprise (T'Pol).  They added lots of steamy scenes in Enterprise (ex the degerming scenarios) to keep the target audience interested. Guys like that sort of thing... Women like romance and that's why I liked the idea of Tripp and T'Pol. 

Though I personally like Archer's character and I  am sure there are women who are attracted to him...I don't think of him as "eye candy".  When Mr. Jonathan Frakes was on TNG, back in his early days, he was eye candy.  :o

I agree that Voyager and Enterprise went a little too far with those characters. They did come off a little like "space vixens" and a little too surgically inserted. It was okay when June Lockhart dressed like that, she had a different vibe. My other problem with T'Pol is that they tried to make her more like a human femaie, with her emotion too close to the surface. She still could have been interesting without going down the road of her having a disease which compromised her logical nature. Nothing wrong with a strong female. With that in mind, what would Voyager have been like with either Linda Hamilton or Angela Bassett as Janeway?

I always thought that Trek could have benefitted from more classically heroic looking men. Imagine Carl Weathers as Ben Sisko or Tahmoh Penikett as Jonathan Archer. There's a part of me that even thinks that Christopher McDonald (Castillo) would have made a better Riker (please don't think me too blasphemous  :) ;) ).

Quote from: Jen on June 30, 2007, 07:15:47 AM
Not to change the subject, but I felt I should include this:
Because we are reading posts instead of listening to people verbally express their ideas,  it's hard to know when people are being critical or just sarcastic. I'm not sure, because I can't hear your individual voice inflections, but I think some of the tones within this thread sound a little more "heated" than than they should. If I'm correct, then I would recommend that we take a clue from Trek and try to be more diplomatic. I think its fine to disagree, and as you can see in my signature, I do welcome debate, in fact I enjoy debating... but edict should be used when debating and I think the approach should be respectful and courteous when possible.  :)

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I keep visiting Rico's forums is because the people here are friendly. Lets try to keep these boards a place people enjoy visiting.

I too am detecting a bit of negative energy, but I've experienced the same uncharacteristic situation at the Star Trek website. It's been a long, long time since I've been on that forum. I know that I can be critical and sarcastic, but am not one to involve myself with personal dynamics. It's not about being right, it's about the exchange of ideas and perhaps expanding one's world (or Trek) view. There have been times that I've been off-base and I hope that should I come across someone doing same, that they are treated with grace and respect.

Jen, thanks for bringing up this subject. I still feel a  new here and hope that I can settle into what seems for the most part to be a positive community.

Quote from: Locutus on June 30, 2007, 12:45:15 AM
No, you are missing the point. The reason Trek was not up to the fan's expectations was because Berman was not a fan of Roddenberry's vision.

Really... is that why TNG and the movies (minus Nemesis) were such a huge success?  Is that why DS9 had a great premise (other produces fleshed it out, but Rick Berman c-created it), is that why VOY had a seven-year run?  Berman didn't loose sight of the vision until ENT rolled around.  The man cared about TNG and VOY, and DS9 to a lesser extent.  By the time ENT rolled around, I think he was tired of Star Trek and just there for the paycheck.  He tried, but he was clearly creatively burnt out.  They should have kept him on as the Executive Producer, but otherwise introduced a new production team.

QuoteThey allowed his contract to run out, so they could give the franchise to someone else to reboot, or prequel, or any other term you'd like to use.

I doubt his contract said he was locked on to all future Star Trek movies.  They were unhappy with NEMESIS, so he was simply not asked to work on the 11th feature.

QuoteJJ Abrams IS a fan of the original vision, so it matters to him whether or not it meets the fans expectations.

He should ignore the fans and just make a good movie.  Trying to please the fans gets us NEMESIS. :blink

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 30, 2007, 09:53:16 AM

Quote from: Locutus on June 30, 2007, 12:45:15 AM
No, you are missing the point. The reason Trek was not up to the fan's expectations was because Berman was not a fan of Roddenberry's vision.

Really... is that why TNG and the movies (minus Nemesis) were such a huge success?  Is that why DS9 had a great premise (other produces fleshed it out, but Rick Berman c-created it), is that why VOY had a seven-year run?

How huge a success was "Insurrection"? DS9 also had Michael Piller and Ron Moore. Perhaps another reason "Enterprise" didn't do so well is because  the good help left the house.

I ment the TNG movies in general, I was not refering to a specific movie.  While INS isn't a huge success, it is generally thought of as a good TNG movie.

TNG, DS9, & VOY all had great writers.  It seems the ENT writing staff was too small, forcing B&B to write half the episodes during the first two seasons.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 30, 2007, 10:47:53 AM

TNG, DS9, & VOY all had great writers.  It seems the ENT writing staff was too small, forcing B&B to write half the episodes during the first two seasons.

I'm not sure I agree with this. B&B writing half the episodes was a matter of control over their baby. Nothing more.

Kevin

Quote from: Ktrek on June 30, 2007, 11:30:34 AM

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 30, 2007, 10:47:53 AM

TNG, DS9, & VOY all had great writers.  It seems the ENT writing staff was too small, forcing B&B to write half the episodes during the first two seasons.

I'm not sure I agree with this. B&B writing half the episodes was a matter of control over their baby. Nothing more.

Kevin

That's my take on it as well. B5 had the same problem, but the writing was a notch better. The addition of Manny Coto on Enterprise helped, but wasn't enough. The show just needed more and better writers. Would have been nice if they'd accepted outside scripts the way the previous series did.

I'm not claiming to be prescient or anything, but there's a part of me that's betting many of the next great Sci-Fi stories are going to be seen online. Maybe from New Voyages, possibly not. But somewhere in the ether.

Manny Coto was too late.  They needed to build a strong audience in the first season.  They should have known that UPN is cancel-happy and thus work as hard as they can to tell good stories.  Instead, they went into coast mode and assumed people would watch for seven years regardless of quallity.  That got the show cancelled.  Well, that and oversaturation.

QuoteI'm not claiming to be prescient or anything, but there's a part of me that's betting many of the next great Sci-Fi stories are going to be seen online. Maybe from New Voyages, possibly not. But somewhere in the ether.

Do you mean fan films?

According to someone I interviewed who actually worked on TNG, Generations, First Contact, Voyager, insurrection and Nemesis (more than worked on, he was one of the top people in a department, but I won't tell you who) Berman had no love for Star Trek. And by the end, Paramount had no love for Berman. They strung him along until his contract ended, asking for constant rewrites of his script, which is a common practice. His contract stipulated that anything Trek-related that Paramount did he would get a part of, and have creative input. They didn't want that, so they ran him out and kicked him to the curb. Very shortly after his contract ended, they announced JJ Abram's was making a new Trek, which means they had it under wraps while they were waiting for Berman's contract to expire.

I'm not sure how much of Nemesis was fan-love. But you can stay true to the vision and source material while telling a kick ass story, and that's all that THIS fan is asking for. Just because fans want to see something doesn't mean it's good for the franchise. But if it adheres to continuity, isn't boring, and adds something of worth to the universe, it should be fine, and the fans will embrace it. Generally speaking.

Thanks for the input, but it's difficult to respond when the one who claims Rick Berman had no love for Star Trek is a complete mystery.  However, I don't blame Paramount for kicking Berman to the curb.  There had been a change in management during ENT's run.  The new runners of Paramount don't care about Star Trek and saw Rick Berman as the producer of a show with poor ratings and a movie that had flopped.  I don't blame them for deciding not to renew his contract.  However, I wasn't aware that his contract garunteed involvement in all future Star Trek productions.  That was a mistake on Paramount's part.  It's one thing to agree to allow a guy to create X number of movies, but to give absolute control over a major franchise?  Wow.

It seems there were a number of stories considered for ST11 including a 5th TNG movie, a movie featuring a mixture of 24th century characters, a new crew movie, a Romulan War trilogy, and now this TOS prequel movie.

It's possible that J.J.'s movie has been in development for all this time, but I sincerely doubt it.  He was the one who approached Paramount, so I'm pretty sure that started when the news articles said it did.

NEM was written by John Logan who claimed to be a huge Trekkie and said the movie was for the fans.  Take that as you will.  The problem with NEM wasn't really Rick Berman, but rather Stuart Baird who was forced into Berman's lap by the Paramount CEO's.  Had NEM been close to three hours, it might have been good, but Baird cut all the character seens out, leaving us with two hours of action that didn't have much meaning, because we didn't see most of the important character scenes.

I'll agree with that. I'm sorry I can't tell you who I spoke to, but I told him I wouldn't.

Star TrekLucas Company Involved With Next Trek Flick

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/07/03/lucas-company-involved-with-next-trek-flick/

George Lucas and his Industrial Light & Magic are no strangers to the Star Trek universe. It was ILM that provided the special effects for six out of the 10 Trek films including “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” considered by the majority of Trek fandom as the finest film of the entire franchise and one of the best SF films ever made.

Now Anthony Pascale has filed a story over at Trek Movie Report that ILM has been called to duty by J.J. Abrams to do its thing for his version of “Star Trek,” the 11th film in the 40-plus year old franchise.

In related Trek news, screenwriter Roberto Orci recently told Latino Review that this 11th Trek film, which he and writing partner Alex Kurtzman have penned is more of an “introduction to the [Star Trek] world, but not necessarily exactly a prequel.”

We have learned that, despite what fans may have heard otherwise from news sources, both he and Kurtzman want William Shatner in this next film along with Leonard Nimoy, and that the NCC-1701 U.S.S. Enterprise will be an integral part of the movie.

Orci revealed that the script is finished and shooting is definitely set for this November. Various locations are being sought and sets are being built, and they are right in the middle of casting many of the major roles. As we reported earlier here on Slice, some of those casting choices will be revealed at this year’s Comic Con.

More and more good news in my eyes.

If only I could fast-forward time...

Yea...I think this is a very encouraging sign. At least it shows they are willing to spend some money this time around!

Kevin

ILM doing the special effects is fantastic news.  I am also glad the U.S.S. Enterprise is making an appearance.  Do you think it'll look as it did in the TV show?

What does Roberto Orci mean by, "introduction to the [Star Trek] world, but not necessarily exactly a prequel?"  If it's set before the 1960's TV show, it's a prequel. :blink

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 03, 2007, 10:07:10 PM
What does Roberto Orci mean by, "introduction to the [Star Trek] world, but not necessarily exactly a prequel?"  If it's set before the 1960's TV show, it's a prequel. :blink

So far as I know there has been no offical news announcing it as a "prequel". All we know is that Abrams has said that Kirk will "appear" in the film. Now with this news it's possible that a new crew will introduce people to Star Trek with appearances by known characters. I'm sure more info will be coming in November once shooting begins and the script leaks out. I'm actually surprised it hasn't yet!

Kevin

I knew it.

Zombies. It's always zombies.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 03, 2007, 10:07:10 PM
ILM doing the special effects is fantastic news.  I am also glad the U.S.S. Enterprise is making an appearance.  Do you think it'll look as it did in the TV show?

Hopefully, it will look better.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 03, 2007, 10:07:10 PM
What does Roberto Orci mean by, "introduction to the [Star Trek] world, but not necessarily exactly a prequel?"  If it's set before the 1960's TV show, it's a prequel. :blink

Perhaps it will begin with Christopher Pike, middle with his tragic accident and end with Kirk taking command of the Enterprise.

Quote from: Ktrek on July 03, 2007, 10:45:52 PM
So far as I know there has been no offical news announcing it as a "prequel". All we know is that Abrams has said that Kirk will "appear" in the film. Now with this news it's possible that a new crew will introduce people to Star Trek with appearances by known characters. I'm sure more info will be coming in November once shooting begins and the script leaks out. I'm actually surprised it hasn't yet!

If it's featuring Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise, and is set before the events of the TV show... doesn't that make it a prequel? :blink

I recently read news that the Enterprise will appear as it did in the TV show.  Woo-hoo! :biggrin

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 04, 2007, 09:46:23 AM
If it's featuring Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise, and is set before the events of the TV show... doesn't that make it a prequel? :blink

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "appear" and "feature"? So far nothing offical has been said that the film will "feature" anyone or object you mention. Only that they "appear". Until there is official news it's all speculation and we can only go by what Abrams or Orci have said themselves, which is VERY little. Everyone just assumes that the story is going to be a TOS story but the fact is it may be a story set within the TOS timeframe and THAT makes more sense.

Kevin

Considering how the production team keep going on about how they love TOS, and now we know Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise will appear in the movie, we can safely conclude that it will be a TOS story.  I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is going to happen.

I, for one, would rather wait until I sit my butt in the theater, wait another 20 minutes for the preivews to play and watch the story unfold. I don't want to hear spoilers or see a whole movie's worth of previews or stills.

I have read all these posts now and I still have many concerns for the film and really hope it won't concentrate on any characters we have seen in previous Trek lore. But I feel it is almost certain that it will be a prequel. In my view, it could be the ruin of Star Trek in the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not really excited about this film. Have I mentioned these thoughts before?? :laugh:

Heh. Even if you have, if they are strong enough, they bear repeating.

Although I dispute the use of the word "prequel", if only because it makes it sound like any story in an established universe after the initial one would be a sequel or prequel. It feels like saying Casino Royale was a prequel. It wasn't, not really. It was a new movie in that universe.

The Indiana Jones are not "sequels" in the strictest sense, either, because they are just different stories in the same universe. However, I would say that the new Indy would be a sequel to Raiders, because it deals with issues from that film, supposedly.

However, I do understand that the word "prequel" is applicable, I just wish there was a more accurate word.

Quote from: trekkygeek on July 05, 2007, 12:06:50 PM
I have read all these posts now and I still have many concerns for the film and really hope it won't concentrate on any characters we have seen in previous Trek lore. But I feel it is almost certain that it will be a prequel. In my view, it could be the ruin of Star Trek in the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not really excited about this film. Have I mentioned these thoughts before?? :laugh:

Considering that all ten movies thus far have featured characters from the TV shows, why would you expect them to not use the TV characters in the 11th movie?  It's like expecting a Batman movie without Bruce Wayne.  Seriously, though, I'd like to understand your perspective on this.

I agree that it will most likely be a prequel.  It'll either be that or a reimagining of the original TV show.  All the news pretty much confirms it'll be one or the other.  What do you mean by the ruin of Star Trek n the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise?  Are you refering to Joel Schuemaker's Batman & Robin?  That's already happened to Star Trek's film series: NEMESIS.  The movie did so poorly, it effectively killed the film series until J.J. Abrams came along.

Quote from: Locutus on July 05, 2007, 12:58:03 PM
Although I dispute the use of the word "prequel", if only because it makes it sound like any story in an established universe after the initial one would be a sequel or prequel. It feels like saying Casino Royale was a prequel. It wasn't, not really. It was a new movie in that universe.

The Indiana Jones are not "sequels" in the strictest sense, either, because they are just different stories in the same universe. However, I would say that the new Indy would be a sequel to Raiders, because it deals with issues from that film, supposedly.

However, I do understand that the word "prequel" is applicable, I just wish there was a more accurate word.

A prequel is simply a story taking place before an existing story, Star Wars is the perfect example of this.  We have the original movie, two sequels, and three prequels.

James Bond continuity is fair at best.  The film series has been going since the 60's, yet James Bond is still in his 30's more or less.  I would like to imagine that the James Bond film series effectively starts over when a new actor takes over the role.  Granted, there are still references to the previous movies.  In Casino Royale's case, we have forshadowing.  I would devide James Bond up like this...

James Bond (Sean Connery): Movies 1-5, 7
James Bond (George Lazenby): Movie #6
James Bond (Roger Moore): Movies 8-14
James Bond (Timothy Dalton): Movies 15-16
James Bond (Pierce Brosnan): Movies 17-20
James Bond (Daniel Craig): Movies 21-22

The Indiana Jones film series began with Raiders of the Lost Ark, continued with the prequel The Temple of Doom, and ended with the sequel The Last Crusade.  The series is being revived with a fourth feature.  The Temple of Doom is a prequel, because it's set a few years before the original movie.  However, it was always intended to be viewed as the second movie.

In any event, if the new Star Trek movie features is set before the TV show and is structured to work as a lead-in to Star Trek, it will be a prequel.

trekkygeek,

I hope that you're referring to Joel Schumacher as the one who killed off the Batman franchise. Christopher Nolan not only revived it, he legitimized it. The Tim Burton versions were certainly quaint (and we got a nice Six Flags roller coaster from it) and assuaged our Bat-appetites for a while. "Batman Begins", however, is the only real Batman movie as far as I'm concerned. It is one of the few superhero movies that I own, along with "X-Men" and "Spiderman" -- three landmark genre movies.

Before I go too off-topic, I hope that the Enterprise looks a few shades better than it did in the series. That is, unless the characters are going to be marionettes.  :) :laugh:

CJLP - I am aware of word etymology. I understand what the words mean. I am not saying the words are not correct. I am saying they are not as accurate as I would like.

I also understand that something is what it is - i.e. Temple of Doom is a prequel, etc. Considering the James Bond franchise rebooting with each different actor, that sort-of flies in the face of the other point you were making and somewhat supports mine, as in they are not exactly sequels, but other films set in the universe of.

What I'm actually talking about here is refining terminology. Yes, Star Trek 11, if it comes before TOS, will be considered a prequel, in the common accepted usage for such.  However, a film/book/game/painting, etc that continues the adventures of, independently of the previous outings insofar as it only contains characters and characterizations but not plot threads, should, IMHO, be called something other than "Sequel" or "Prequel", as they connote poor quality or an afterthought on the aforementioned entertainments. There are many stories that can be told in many universes. Is each volume of a trilogy a sequel? No, they are chapters. Is each episode of a TV show a sequel? No, it is an episode. My contention, again, and apparently mine alone, is that the words "prequel" and "sequel" now have so much bad inferred when they are used, that a new term that would be more accurate could be a better choice. For instance, the word "episode". It works for TV, why not for further movies in a property, especially if they do not follow major plot threads of the previous film(s)?

Dialog is more than simple refutation, CJLP. You must also take into account what is meant by the previous statements. Lest this move too off-topic, I am looking forward to Star Trek 11, I just feel that usage of certain words (sequel and prequel, for those following along at home) can dampen the excitement for a property. I hope this film can be taken on it's own merits, and not be "compared" to the others. It is and should be a different film, good or bad, and should be treated as such. Maybe if we called it an "episode" or something along those lines, trekkygeek and others would be able to drum up a little more excitement, and not feel as let down as they did by Nemesis, for example.

Personally, taken on their own, I felt Nemesis and Insurrection were not bad movies in the Star Trek universe. I thought compared to First Contact and Wrath of Khan they were ... not great. And ultimately, that is my long-winded and singular opinion.

:laugh: Hippity hop down the bunny trail. :laugh:

I'm viewing ST XI as a different animal, somewhat along the lines of the James Bond movies. They, for the most part, had the continuity of producer(s). With each new lead, I feel that the series got a reboot. The stories were told quite differently from one another. I'm expecting ST XI to be like this, while hoping that it remains true to Trek sensibility and philosophy (while trying to fill seats with lots of action for Joe & Jane Everyperson). TOS movies were their own set. TNG movies where their own set again (I see "Generations" as the first of this set). ST XI and any films that come after will be a unique volume. This is someone else telling the story from their perspective. Even if Shatner, Nimoy or anyone else from TOS is in ST XI, I still view it as a J.J. Abrams story. This will be a different author, just like with the Star Trek books or fan fiction.

What I really appreciate about what is to come is a  return to the original era of Star Trek. The "cowboy diplomacy" sensibility. The attitude of exploration and the unknown. This era, for me, most embodies the phrase, "To boldly go...". There was no help from the Vulcans (Enterprise) and no corporate refinement (TNG, DS9, Voyager). I'll admit that this was my era (I was a kid in the '60s), but it has the advantage of being The Original. Yes, more stories were told better in later series, but the rougher edge of TOS lends itself to grittier storytelling. A more "think on your feet", "by the skin of our teeth" sensibility can be manifest. There's more freedom of action for the characters. Anyone want to add to that?

I hope that this movie will land in the Sean Connery/Pierce Brosnan/Daniel Craig realm. In other words, I hope that this will be a film that Gene ("Poopoo") Roddenberry could be proud of.  :)

Your post is huge, so I'm breaking out the quote code. :biggrin

Quote from: Locutus on July 05, 2007, 03:25:52 PM
CJLP - I am aware of word etymology. I understand what the words mean. I am not saying the words are not correct. I am saying they are not as accurate as I would like.

Ah, sorry for the missunderstanding. :ninja

QuoteI also understand that something is what it is - i.e. Temple of Doom is a prequel, etc. Considering the James Bond franchise rebooting with each different actor, that sort-of flies in the face of the other point you were making and somewhat supports mine, as in they are not exactly sequels, but other films set in the universe of.

I see where you're going with this... you're saying that Star Trek 11 will be a prequel in the style of Cosino Royale rather than the Star Wars prequels?

QuoteWhat I'm actually talking about here is refining terminology. Yes, Star Trek 11, if it comes before TOS, will be considered a prequel, in the common accepted usage for such.  However, a film/book/game/painting, etc that continues the adventures of, independently of the previous outings insofar as it only contains characters and characterizations but not plot threads, should, IMHO, be called something other than "Sequel" or "Prequel", as they connote poor quality or an afterthought on the aforementioned entertainments. There are many stories that can be told in many universes. Is each volume of a trilogy a sequel? No, they are chapters. Is each episode of a TV show a sequel? No, it is an episode. My contention, again, and apparently mine alone, is that the words "prequel" and "sequel" now have so much bad inferred when they are used, that a new term that would be more accurate could be a better choice. For instance, the word "episode". It works for TV, why not for further movies in a property, especially if they do not follow major plot threads of the previous film(s)?

Episode is more of a TV term than a movie term, because episode and movie effectively have the same meaning.  The second episode of X film series.  OR  The second movie of X film series.  I just don't see how using the term episode changes anything.

Some film terms that I have seen thrown around are: sequel, thematic sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, and reimagining.  If a prequel does not follow the continuity of the previous movies, I would call that a reboot.  For example, Batman Begins tells the story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman.  The first thought is that is a prequel.  However, it does not follow the continuity of the previous films.  It is officially considered a reboot, a fresh start.  However, it is respectful to the creative world, so it's not necessarily a reimagining.  Granted, the style got reimagined, but that's to be expected.

QuoteDialog is more than simple refutation, CJLP. You must also take into account what is meant by the previous statements. Lest this move too off-topic, I am looking forward to Star Trek 11, I just feel that usage of certain words (sequel and prequel, for those following along at home) can dampen the excitement for a property. I hope this film can be taken on it's own merits, and not be "compared" to the others. It is and should be a different film, good or bad, and should be treated as such. Maybe if we called it an "episode" or something along those lines, trekkygeek and others would be able to drum up a little more excitement, and not feel as let down as they did by Nemesis, for example.

I am also looking forward to Star Trek 11.  After NEM, it doesn't matter how it's described... people don't care about Star Trek movies anymore.  This means that Paramount is going to have to spend a lot of money promoting this movie to show the audience that this is not like the previous movies... it's a Star Trek movie, but it's also something new.  The production team appears to be aiming towards two groups: fans of the original TV show and casual movie goers who simply want to see a good science-fiction movie.  There is one fatal flaw, though.  The TOS generation seems to think that my generation (teens and 20-somethings) are aware of TOS and don't care about the spin-offs.  That couldn't be farther from the truth.  Most people I know my age will not watch one episode of Star Trek with me, because it's too hokey.  If I offered to show them a remastered episode... they'd just roll thier eyes, because their lack of interest has squat to do with special effects.  It's the overall 1960's campy retro feel they dislike.  Now, perhaps my local area is bizzare in not likeing TOS, but this is what I have observed.  I think Star Trek 11 will be comparable to Superman Returns.  In the case of Superman, the new movie came out 19 years after the last one.  Naturally, it couldn't be a straight sequel.  They had to make some creative changes in addition to generational changes.  This movie was aimed at the grown up kids of those who watched the previous four movies.  In Star Trek's case, when the new movie comes out, it will have been 17 years since the last TOS-centric movie (1991's The Undiscovered Country).  It's also going to be a prequel set before the TV show that aired in the 1960's.  It's going to be extremely different from those first six movies featuring Captain Kirk's crew, but it can still be a prequel.  Perhaps the terminology we're looking for is loose prequel? :)

QuotePersonally, taken on their own, I felt Nemesis and Insurrection were not bad movies in the Star Trek universe. I thought compared to First Contact and Wrath of Khan they were ... not great. And ultimately, that is my long-winded and singular opinion.

I try to judge the movies on their own merits unless it's a direct continuation of a previous movie (2-4 for example).  Insurrection is a very good movie.  I liked it so much, I bought the DVD and the soundtrack.  I liked Nemesis enough to buy the DVD and soundtrack, but objectively speaking... it isn't just a bad Star Trek movie... it's a bad science-fiction movie.  The studio clames it did poorly, because people have lost interest in TNG.  It did poorly, because it is a bad movie.  However, that's not to say you, I, and anyone else shouldn't enjoy it.

CJLP, you've hit the nail on the head. Another reason to expect good things from ST XI is that it will use more modern means of storytelling. Not a dated -- or outdated (read "hokey") -- sensibility. I can still watch many (not all) episodes of TOS and understand why people would shun the series altogether. But, for its place in history and what it stands for, I profoundly hope that this will be an uncompromising new beginning for Star Trek.

I dunno, Darmok, I think many modern shows would do well to blend decent scifi storytelling with issue-laden episodes like Let This be You Last Battlefield, and Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or even The Doomsday Machine.

The acting may have been over the top and sets cheesy, but the heart was there; something missing from many modern shows. If the new film can recapture that, and not just treat ST11 as product, I think we'll be in for a great ride.

CJLP: while you make many salient points, I would like to point out that the term "loose prequel" still has the word "prequel" in it, and that's the one I was talking about being imprecise. However, I would be perfectly fine with "The second episode of X film series.  OR  The second movie of X film series." While in some people's minds it may MEAN sequel or prequel, it won't SAY sequel or prequel, and whether or not that makes a difference to you personally, it makes a huge difference in the perception of the films to the general public, believe it or not.

I think the characters, ship, aliens, concepts, and so forth are still appealing.  If not, how on Earth did they manage to make six movies based on the TV series?  It's just a matter of reworking the story so it is relavent to today's teenagers and young adults.

Locutus, the only way this movie will not be a prequel is if it is a reboot and simply does not follow the continuity of the TV show and subsequent movies.  I think this is extremely unlikely.  If you think the term prequel will drive people away, well... the Star Wars prequels didn't drive people away.  Ultimately, that's what this movie is going to be compared to regardless of wether it's called a prequel or simply the 11th movie.

I'm curious... what would you call it, if not a prequel?  I don't mean the new movie/episode, but what specific term would you use?

Actually, the movie won't be a prequel to the ENTERPRISE series.  But it really doesn't matter how it's labeled.  All that matters is if we enjoy it and it's good.  The movie is simply going to be called:  STAR TREK.

Thank you Rico... I was going to say the same thing... I don't care what they call it... as long as it's good.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on June 27, 2007, 12:25:59 PM

Quote from: Jen on June 27, 2007, 10:57:24 AMIf Paramount's ability to follow continuity is the subject of this thread, then Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman, Sulu will be a crazy fencing instructor and Chekov will be a cabin boy swabbing the lower decks.  :D

Scotty's Scottish. :P

Hi guys. I know I'm a little late in responding here but I have to defend my "geek cred"  :D. 
The above statement: "Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman" was meant purely as a joke CJLP. I was trying to lighten the mood at the time, by poking a little fun at the "continuity" discussion. I'm well aware that he's Scottish...hence the name "Scotty".  ;)   :)

Sorry to interrupt...please carry on with the discussion..  :)

Quote from: Locutus on July 05, 2007, 04:55:48 PM
I dunno, Darmok, I think many modern shows would do well to blend decent scifi storytelling with issue-laden episodes like Let This be You Last Battlefield, and Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or even The Doomsday Machine.

The acting may have been over the top and sets cheesy, but the heart was there; something missing from many modern shows. If the new film can recapture that, and not just treat ST11 as product, I think we'll be in for a great ride.

I'm totally with you. I just got off the phone with a friend who agreed that TOS was the storytelling gold standard for television (along with "The Prisoner") of that time. The key to a good Star Trek story is the heart, the discussion of issues regarding the human condition. If ST XI is simply an action-adventure story, then it will be Star Trek in name only.

Star Trek is many things, including:

Science Fiction
Science speculation
Action-adventure
Morality play
Character study
Fashion (cheesecake) showcase

At the core of it is a storytelling vehicle seeking to reflect and improve the human condition. It tells the story of an optimistic future where there is still conflict, but resolution as well. It is Shakespeare, Vonnegut, O'Neil and Chayefsky.

It's just that cinematic storytelling has evolved a great deal. Films like "Alien", "Aliens", "The Abyss", "The Incredibles" and "12 Monkeys" represent a whole new language of storytelling. There are also TV shows like "Battlestar Galactica" (a little too Post-Modern with the good-evil thing, but what the heck), "House", "Alias" and "Law & Order" that have altered the landscape as well. Style plays a significant role in unfolding a story. Synthesizing modern storytelling methods with the core of the Trek world could be like the mixing of matter and antimatter.

I'm also a Walt Disney fan (not so much of the films, but of the man). In recently reviewing Disney's original plan for EPCOT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkT2iLetCTc), I'm reminded that it was to be a laboratory for urban planning. EPCOT was envisioned to suggest a solution to urban blight as well as help to elevate the human condition. Star Trek has had the same type of goals, though I feel that they have been diluted as the years have advanced.

So, let's hope that Mr. Abrams finds this thread in a Google search and takes it to heart (if he hasn't already).

If there's anyone in the New York/New Jersey area that wants to go see ST XI, I'd love the company. It would be cool to discuss it immediately afterwards -- or be cajoled into watching it again (not sure where that all came from, but what the heck).

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on July 05, 2007, 05:21:42 PM
Thank you Rico... I was going to say the same thing... I don't care what they call it... as long as it's good.

There you go. As long as it's good, as long as it's Star Trek.

Quote from: Rico on July 05, 2007, 05:18:23 PM
Actually, the movie won't be a prequel to the ENTERPRISE series.  But it really doesn't matter how it's labeled.  All that matters is if we enjoy it and it's good.  The movie is simply going to be called:  STAR TREK.

I said it would be a prequel to Star Trek.  I didn't say it would be a prequel to Enterprise.  I agree, it's first and primary purpose is to entertain us.  I hope it does just that. :biggrin Why do you think it's called Star Trek?  That's the name of the TV series.  This new movie needs it's own title.

Darmok, well said.  Star Trek is only outdated in the superficial department (sets, costumes, acting, and so forth).  The stories have the same impact now they had 40 years ago. :biggrin

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 06:24:48 PMStar Trek is only outdated in the superficial department (sets, costumes, acting, and so forth).  The stories have the same impact now they had 40 years ago. :biggrin

Some of the same stories can be told today with relevance:

Slavery/bigotry
The abuse of power
The depersonalization of technology
The imperfections of technology
The ravages of war
The evils of false prophets
Respect for an enemy

Imagine a Star Trek Darfur story, or one about leaders misguiding their people for personal gain? I could go on, but believe you get the message. Star Trek excelled at using metaphor to broach important topics while entertaining us.

I want Mr. Abrams to make me think and drool at the same time. Is that too much to ask?

When I heard J.J. Abrams was going to produce the movie, I thought it would be crap, because Alias and Lost are terrible TV shows.  However, after seeing Mission: Impossible III, I think he'll make a fantastic Star Trek movie. :biggrin

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 07:24:10 PM
When I heard J.J. Abrams was going to produce the movie, I thought it would be crap, because Alias and Lost are terrible TV shows.  However, after seeing Mission: Impossible III, I think he'll make a fantastic Star Trek movie. :biggrin

The thing about it is that he brought back a bit of the original flavor of the TV series -- the team ethic. Tom Cruise turned "Mission: Impossible" into a self-centered vehicle and mangled it. "Mission: Impossible III" is the only one of the "Mission: Impossible" movies that I would actually watch again. Abrams isn't perfect, but he has a sense of style and a great respect for what has come before. He also respects his audience. Great hope abounds.

I genuinely liked the first season and a half of "Alias". From what I've heard, the network tried to force Abrams in another direction and he eventually let go. It went into a really bad place and never recovered. Although I did enjoy the season opener with Angela Bassett (because of her, not so much the scantily-clad Sydney). It at least showed a return to the original vibe of the series. It just never made it back. It was nice to see an action-adventure show with a sexy woman who was able and intelligent, was well as stylish. She wasn't Pamela Anderson and I was glad for it.

"Lost" I never developed a taste for. There was a short-lived series on ABC in the late '60s called "The New People" that it reminds me of. Just a more developed version of it.

I'm glad it's J.J. Abrams. The only other contenders in my book would be James Cameron (who left Hollywood to become Jacques Cousteau), Brian Singer (after "Superman Returns", I don't know -- but then again, he did develop "House, M.D.") or Sam Raimi.

That's harsh.  I wouldn't say that Tom Cruise turned Mission: Impossible into a self-centered vehicle.  He's just an actor, afterall.  Personally, I enjoy all three movies, but I can see why some would dislike the second one.

I haven't seen much of Abrams work, so I cannot comment on his sense of style, but that's good to know that he respects what came before in addition to his audience.

If not for J.J. Abrams, my choice would be Bryan Singer.  A shame Paramount wouldn't sign a deal with him.  The man did awesome work with X-Men 1 & 2 and Superman Returns. :biggrin

I didn't mean to offend. It's just that the nature of that series was neglected when it initially went to the big screen (Cruise is a producer of those films as well as lead actor). As a kid, I watched "Mission: Impossible" on TV (up until Leonard Nimoy joined the cast). It was about a team of highly talented professionals banded together to overcome extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It was an ensemble piece. Now, the series had its share of negatives, but it had a unique flavor. Having seen all three films once, I'd elect to see the last one again. That's because of The Abrams Factor.

I respect what Tom Cruise has accomplished as an actor/producer in Hollywood and own "Minority Report". My other favorite Tom Cruise films are "The Firm" and "Rain Man". There was a time when I roared at "Risky Business", but now I'm the father of a teenage  girl... :ohwell

You didn't offend me at all.  By harsh, I ment harsh to Cruise, not to me.

Making the movie all about Tom Cruise rather than a team effort was probably a studio decission.  It's possible this was the result of Tom Cruise being producer, but why blame the man when we don't know for sure?  It just seems everyone wants to tear the man down for being a scientologist and acting stupid on Ohpra. :-\ I'm sorry you went to see the movie expecting it to be like the TV show.  In hindsight, it's clear that Paramount was basing the movies on the premise and then going in a new direction.  If it makes you feel better, most of Tom Cruise's movies are The Tom Cruise Show.  Wether that is because of the actor or the studio is unkown to me.

Wait... aren't we suppose to be discussing the new Star Trek movie? :ninja

I read that Nimoy will make a cameo. :)

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 10:30:20 PMIt just seems everyone wants to tear the man down for being a scientologist and acting stupid on Ohpra. :-\

I'm actually tired of that tabloid crap. The press milked it and now it's in people's heads. The Scientology thing. The "gay" thing. The Oprah thing. Large targets are easy to shoot at. I'd actually not thought about it for a good long while, until tonight  -- mostly because I'd seen the "Tom Cruise" thread.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 10:30:20 PM
Wait... aren't we suppose to be discussing the new Star Trek movie? :ninja

I read that Nimoy will make a cameo. :)

If it happens, I hope it makes sense. Perhaps it will take the form of an interview of Spock at the end of his career looking back at when Kirk first took command of the Enterprise (or something like that). It would be a drag if they made the cameo too tongue-in-cheek.

I also wouldn't mind if none of the original cast were in this movie. Just let it be a great film.

For once, I've met someone who ignores that tabloid crap.  His personal life is his business.  When it comes to his movies, I watch them based on the story and his character.  I don't care about what he does outside of the movie.

Having Spock look back on the events of the movie is lame (to me).  I've never liked the concept of framing a movie as a two-hour flashback.  I'd much rather see Leonard Nimoy play a different character, perhaps having a cameo as a Vulcan Ambassador.  If the movie must be framed as a flashback, I'd prefer to see the new Spock actor in old-age makeup.  That would be far more convincing.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 10:49:57 PMI'd much rather see Leonard Nimoy play a different character, perhaps having a cameo as a Vulcan Ambassador.  If the movie must be framed as a flashback, I'd prefer to see the new Spock actor in old-age makeup.  That would be far more convincing.

That could be potentially confusing to the uninitiated (or even underinitiated) who later see a TOS movie or episode and mix up that character with Spock. I know that people like Mark Lenard played other roles, but Spock is very iconic. I'd probably even roll my eyes if he plays "Grandpappy Spork" or some other member of his family.

But that's just me.

LOL, Spork!

And Lost is not an awful show, you just don't like it.

Three of my personal favorites:

Lost (they redeemed themselves this year in my eyes)
Alias (yeah it went downhill a bit at the end, but early on I loved it)
and of course Star Trek.

When I first heard JJ Abrams was tapped to do the next Star Trek movie I was very excited - and I still am very excited.

I do hope we learn more actual facts From Comic Con in a couple of weeks to put some of the rumors and speculation to rest.

Quote from: Darmok on July 05, 2007, 11:23:51 PM

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 10:49:57 PMI'd much rather see Leonard Nimoy play a different character, perhaps having a cameo as a Vulcan Ambassador.  If the movie must be framed as a flashback, I'd prefer to see the new Spock actor in old-age makeup.  That would be far more convincing.

That could be potentially confusing to the uninitiated (or even underinitiated) who later see a TOS movie or episode and mix up that character with Spock. I know that people like Mark Lenard played other roles, but Spock is very iconic. I'd probably even roll my eyes if he plays "Grandpappy Spork" or some other member of his family.

But that's just me.

Did people think Colonel Worf in The Undiscovered Country was Worf from TNG?  I can't think of anyone who did.

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 06, 2007, 08:37:37 AMDid people think Colonel Worf in The Undiscovered Country was Worf from TNG?  I can't think of anyone who did.

I don't believe that the character of Worf -- and especially not the actor Michael Dorn --  resonate with the general public the same way Spock and Nimoy do. Nimoy is way, way more recognizable than Dorn. Spock is, well... Spock.

Perhaps if they don't cast him as Old Spock, then they'll hide him in tons of latex and a moustache. I just hope that the appearance isn't too tongue-in-cheek. Like being The Old ProSpocktor on Rigel IX.

When The Undiscovered Country came out, TNG was in it's 5th season and a major success.  Everyone knew who Worf was!  When The Undiscovered Country came out, people generally were aware that Picard's crew are a century ahead of Kirk's crew, therefore the Worf in that movie must be Worf's ancestor, his grandpa to be specific.

If Leonard Nimoy is going to be in the movie, he seriously needs to let go of the "Spock" character and let the new actor take over.  However, it would be interesting to see Leonard Nimoy playing a different Vulcan character.  How about Sarak's father?  That would be a nice twist.  Star Trek has had a few actors of well-known characters appear in other stories as that character's ancestor.  Brent Spiner played Data's creator's ancestor in three episodes of ENT, and Michael Dorn played Worf's grandfather in ST6:TUC.

Couple little comments here.  None of the actors have any rights or make any decisions with regards to who plays them or if someone new were to play them.  Star Trek and everything that covers is owned by Paramount and CBS.  So, anyone that may be approached for the next movie whether it is an established actor/character like Nimoy as Spock (or someone else) is based on the script and what the studio/Abrams wants for the movie.

Also, TNG was a success in syndication.  Not a major network hit.    And pretty far from having the characters and actors who played them know by "everyone."

TNG is an equal to TOS as far as success and popularity go.  Everyone knows who Worf is.  They might not know who Michael Dorn is, but they know Worf is the black guy with the thing on his forehead, he wears a yellow outfit and fires the weapons.

Well, I think success as measured by it's general popularity I would say TNG was more successful than TOS but I think the characters of TOS, having more time to become part of the collective memory of the world, are the most recognizable.

Well said Bryan.. I agree with you 100%

Yeah, I agree also.

Neither show was, as Rico put it ,"a major network hit", but while TOS barely managed to last three years, TNG was an unqualified success.  I'm just guessing here, but I think that TNG was the most successful syndicated show ever (next to Baywatch!?).

An impressive, but not often mentioned fact is that, in its final season, TNG was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series, even though it was a syndicated show, and they're never really considered.  Many network hits can't make that claim.

Obviously, Kirk and Spock are still more recognizable than Picard, Data and Worf, but the gap isn't really that much, even though TOS had a two decade headstart.

Quote from: Darmok on July 05, 2007, 02:09:35 PM
trekkygeek,

I hope that you're referring to Joel Schumacher as the one who killed off the Batman franchise. Christopher Nolan not only revived it, he legitimized it.

You're right mate, I mentioned the wrong name there, Chris Nolan certainly did revive the franchise and made a better film than any previous Batman. Forgive my mistake

Quote from: Captain Jean-Luc Picard on July 05, 2007, 01:21:00 PM

Quote from: trekkygeek on July 05, 2007, 12:06:50 PM
I have read all these posts now and I still have many concerns for the film and really hope it won't concentrate on any characters we have seen in previous Trek lore. But I feel it is almost certain that it will be a prequel. In my view, it could be the ruin of Star Trek in the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not really excited about this film. Have I mentioned these thoughts before?? :laugh:

Considering that all ten movies thus far have featured characters from the TV shows, why would you expect them to not use the TV characters in the 11th movie?  It's like expecting a Batman movie without Bruce Wayne.  Seriously, though, I'd like to understand your perspective on this.

I agree that it will most likely be a prequel.  It'll either be that or a reimagining of the original TV show.  All the news pretty much confirms it'll be one or the other.  What do you mean by the ruin of Star Trek n the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise?  Are you refering to Joel Schuemaker's Batman & Robin?  That's already happened to Star Trek's film series: NEMESIS.  The movie did so poorly, it effectively killed the film series until J.J. Abrams came along.

I didn't say I expected them not to use old characters, I said I HOPE they don't use them, especially Kirk or Spock. Batman, and Spiderman were completly re-imaged and not always to the die hard fans acceptance. What I am saying is, if you are going to make Trek again, don't take a step backwards, there are plenty of alternatives to using Kirk again, and I for one never want to see another actor taking Shatners mantle

Quote from: trekkygeek on July 07, 2007, 11:49:37 AM

Quote from: Darmok on July 05, 2007, 02:09:35 PM
trekkygeek,

I hope that you're referring to Joel Schumacher as the one who killed off the Batman franchise. Christopher Nolan not only revived it, he legitimized it.

You're right mate, I mentioned the wrong name there, Chris Nolan certainly did revive the franchise and made a better film than any previous Batman. Forgive my mistake

No worries. I can stop scratching my head now.  :)

Star TrekAIC Claims To Have Star Trek Casting Sheet

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/08/06/aic-claims-to-have-star-trek-casting-sheet/

Written by: Samuel K. Sloan (Farpoint Media Exec. News Dir.)

Aint It Cool (AIC) is making claims to the ownership of a leaked casting sheet for the upcoming Star Trek film to be directed by JJ Abrams.

Not much is learned from it. We already knew that Kirk, Spock and possibly McCoy and Scotty would be cast in this film. However, if the piece is to be believed, two other additions to the cast will leave little doubt as to the ship and exact time period the film will deal with.

According to AIC, actors are being persuded for the roles of both Uhura and Sulu. If this is true then the ship has to be the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 and the time, since Chekov was not mentioned in the casting sheet, would have to be sometime after the second pilot (”Where No Man Has Gone Before”) was shot (minus McCoy as ship’s doctor, Sulu at the helm or Uhura at the communications center), and before the addition of Ensign Chekov who appeared after Season One. Of course, the argument goes that in the first season Chekov was onboard the Enterprise but never seen because he wasn’t yet a bridge officer. In the film “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” Chekov’s face is remembered by Khan, and “Space Seed” was an episode that happened in Season One of the 3-year series. Also, the real die-hard Trek fans (like myself) remind everyone that when “Where No Man Has Gone Before” aired, it was shot in such a way that it is obvious that Kirk has been the Enterprise commander for some time and is quite comfortable in the position, known and well-loved by his crew, which as any ex-military personnel knows, takes some time and a few missions under the belt for a leader to get that kind of respect from his/her subordinates.

What adds to the confusion for some was NBC’s 1960’s early Fox-like move to air the shows out of sequence. “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” the actual first episode (and 2nd pilot) featuring William Shatner as Captain Kirk, was aired after “The Man Trap” and “Charlie X.” These two episodes prominently featured Dr. McCoy. The very first pilot, “The Cage,” starring Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Christopher Pike, never aired until 20+ years later with an introduction by Patrick Stewart, who played Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise-D on “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

Here is a copy of the alleged Casting Sheet posted on AIC’s website:

STAR TREK
Feature Film
SAG
PARAMOUNT PICTURES/BAD ROBOT

[JAMES KIRK] 23-29 Handsome,cocky self assured and earnest. Great physical condition. 6 ft or less

[LEONARD(BONES)MCOY] -28-32 Medic on the Enterprise. Smart, clever and a bit danger-loving. Dark hair, blue eyes.

[UHURA] 25ish -African American. Brilliant, beautiful, heroic and FUN!, Uhura is almost tom-boyish - as if she grew up in a houseful of brothers.

[SULU] 25-32 -Asian American male (preferably Japanese). Helmsman on the Enterprise. Extremely fit, capable and dedicated. A bit of a wildcat

[MONTGOMERY(SCOTTY) SCOTT] -28-32 a brilliant ship’s engineer. Must be able to do a flawless Scottish accent!

Way to beat the Newsbot Kenny.  I guess you have to take anything like this with a grain of salt but seems a bit strange when it says McCoy's character is a bit "danger loving."  I'm sure you would have to have some of that quality to serve on a star ship, but with McCoys apprehension about using the transporter, etc I never got that impression.  Interesting though.  Thanks Kenny.

Star TrekNew Cruise Rumor For Trek XI Surfaces

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/08/07/new-cruise-rumor-for-trek-xi-surfaces/

Written by: Michael Hickerson (SoSF Staff Journalist)

Being friends with J.J. Abrams can help you find work in Hollywood. Just ask Abrams favorite Greg Grunberg, who has appeared in a large number of Abrams’ projects over the years.

It appears that Abrams has a new buddy in Hollywood â€" actor Tom Cruise. Abrams directed Cruise in “Mission Impossible 3? and their friendship solidified during the filming process. Now the new rumor has it that Abrams wants to see Cruise participate in next year’s “Star Trek XI” for a cameo appearance as Captain Christopher Pike. Pike, as most “Trek” fans know, was the captain of the Enterprise before James T. Kirk took the center seat.

In the original series, Pike was played by movie actor, Jeffrey Hunter in the original pilot “The Cage.” (Footage from “The Cage” was later incorporated into the original series’ only two-part episode, “The Menagarie.”) When NBC asked for a new pilot from “Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry, Hunter was unable or unwilling (there are reports his wife felt the show would kill his career and talked him out of it) to return to the lead role. The role was re-written and re-cast with William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk and the rest, as they say, is history.

There is no official confirmation from either Cruise or Abrams that Cruise has been cast as Pike â€" or any other role in the upcoming “Trek” film so treat this one as pure speculation until we hear from Paramount.

Nimoy To Begin Trek Shooting

Original Star Trek star Leonard Nimoy, who will reprise the role of Spock in J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek film, told fans at a convention in Las Vegas that he will begin shooting his scenes in December and will do more in February and March of next year, StarTrek.com reported.

Nimoy's role as the older Spock is "not gigantic," but, "it's more than a cameo," Nimoy said on Aug. 12. Heroes star Zachary Quinto will play Spock as a young man.

At the same convention, William Shatner, who played Capt. Kirk, appeared onstage with Nimoy and ribbed his co-star because Shatner apparently won't be in the new movie, the site reported.

Abrams' Star Trek, which reportedly deals with the first mission of a young Capt. James T. Kirk and Spock, will begin filming in November, the site reported.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=43312

I was hoping for some more news to come out of the Vegas convention but it doesn't sound like anything substantial came out.  I did see the new poster (yawns), but other than that I couldn't find anything.  I really hope that Shatner makes it into the film.  It just doesn't seem possible to have a ST movie with Captain Kirk and not have Shatner in the movie.  There is still a lot of time, so I'm not giving up hope.

I really think they will have Shatner in the film.  They just have to work out the details.  It does still seem weird to me that they don't have the cast nailed down yet.  But they are still a few months away from filming.

Well just because we don't know who the cast is doesn't mean they don't have them nailed down.  When are they suppose to start shooting?? It's coming out in 2008 Christmas?? That's not a long time for a big sci fi movie. Most big budget movies take few years to complete.

Well, just 2 weeks ago JJ Abrams admitted they didn't have their Kirk yet or several of the other main cast members.  So unless they have signed people up very recently I don't think they have the cast nailed down yet.  They are suppose to start shooting in November.  Honestly, a year will be fine.  They are doing the Indy movie in about the same amount of time from when they started shooting it.  Keep in mind those long periods to make a movie involve a lot of preproduction time, which has already been happening for Trek XI.

I like the idea of casting Tom Cruise as Captain Pike. His name would lend the production a little star power and help to ease any fear in Hollywood that Trek is a failed franchise. The actors on Abrams  "A" list could be afraid to risk their careers on getting involved  (that might explain Bill Shatner's absence too).
To bad it has to be made in Hollywood.
Can you imagine "Farscapes" Ben Browder  cast as the young Capt Kirk?

A few more tidbits trickling in....

Zachary Quinto, who will play a young Mr. Spock in J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie, told USA Today that he will begin shooting the top-secret movie in November, during a break from his role as the villainous Sylar on NBC's Heroes.

Quinto added that 11 sets have been built on the Paramount lot and that two weeks will be spent shooting in Iceland.

Quinto also offered a few hints about the movie's storyline. "I really identify with Spock's struggle," Quinto told the newspaper. "We're going back to a time before anything [original Spock Leonard Nimoy did in the original series] was established. These characters are in a completely different stage of their lives."

source:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=43470

Quote from: davekill on August 16, 2007, 07:55:51 PM
I like the idea of casting Tom Cruise as Captain Pike. His name would lend the production a little star power and help to ease any fear in Hollywood that Trek is a failed franchise. The actors on Abrams  "A" list could be afraid to risk their careers on getting involved  (that might explain Bill Shatner's absence too).
To bad it has to be made in Hollywood.
Can you imagine "Farscapes" Ben Browder  cast as the young Capt Kirk?

Having star-power in this that is not Trek-based just to have a star in it will turn off the fans and probably not bring in the rest of the consumers. Did Tom Cruise fans go see The Last Samurai? Not really. Did they see Magnolia? Not really. Lots of people saw those movies, but the average Cruise fan (of which I find there are less and less) would not be inclined to see a Star Trek film just cause he's in it. And many fans would NOT see it just cause he's in it. Or it will be a harder sell if they do, and the criticisms will be much more harsh.

No, they need to stay away from that kind of selling out, and I really think Abrams knows better.

As far as being made in Hollywood, even movies not made physically in Hollywood, if they are an American film, are "made" in Hollywood. But that doesn't mean it has to be a "Hollywood' film. Again, I think Abrams is smart enough not to do that again (See MI3).

Iceland huh? Humm, does anyone have a theory as to which location Iceland will represent in the Trek Universe? Andoria? Or maybe its just Iceland? Hoth is obviously out of the question. I can't think of any other cold planets in Star Trek. But then I'm not the guru some of you folks are.

Actually I'm no expert on Iceland but it's not really that ice like from what I have heard.  It's more rugged and New Zealand looking to me.  If I had to guess I would say it's going to be some new planet we have not heard of or seen before.

Yes Iceland is very green.. and Greenland is very icy. Go figure...

Yeah shooting in Iceland could be used as anywhere in the Trek verse.  Iceland has a VERY diverse ecosystem.  Not anything like what many people believe.

They could shoot in New Zealand and discover a planet the call Middle Earth.

I should of known that. I've seen several documentaries on the Discover Channel/ History Channel. Is it like that in the winter though? I thought I read they were going to start filming in November.

I read today that Quinto has signed a several film deal. So, apparently the powers that be have confidence that the film will be somewhat successful, which is a good sign!

Kevin

That's standard now a days.. they sign the stars to a three picture deal.. doesn't mean will get three.. but  just in case it's a hit they don't have to renegotiate a deal.

Star Trek’s New Uhura?

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/08/30/star-treks-new-uhura/

TrekMovie.com is reporting that they have heard from sources close to the production of the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie that actress Zoë Saldana (”Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl”) has been offered the part of Uhura - the USS Enterprise’s communications officer originally played for 40+ years by Nichelle Nichols. Nichols reprised her role of Uhura in the upcoming and highly anticipated Tim Russ online independent Trek feature “Of Gods and Men.”

Saldana is currently starring in James Cameron’s mega-film “Avatar,” and a scheduling conflict could nix the Trek deal unless something can be arranged.

That now makes three casting choices for the new film: Zachary Quinto as Spock, Anton Yelchin in the role of Pavel Chekov and now Saldana, if it pans out, to be Uhura. Still, the big unanswered question - Who will be Kirk?

She's easy on the eyes.

I'm really starting to wonder about the idea of having what seems to be the entire old crew together in this movie.  If it was set in the early days when Kirk first took command of the Enterprise that might make sense.  But this is probably either during their Academy days or just after that.  So to see the entire old bridge crew together will seem sort of odd to me.  Maybe some will just be small roles but I'm getting more curious on how all this is going to come together.

PS - The big other news I heard recently is Zach Quinto is suppose to be signed up for three movies total.

Even if it was early days of command, it wouldn't make sense for Chekov to be there. He'd likely still be in the academy!

Yep - there is roughly a ten year age difference between Kirk and Chekov.  I mean I'm sure they could come up with some crazy way to bring them all together but I'm wondering why they seem to of decided to go that route.

Or they'll just pull a Worf and have people randomly show up and pan the camera away from them when they begin to explain why they're there.

I agree, she is very attractive.  I agree with Rico, if this is set in the early Days of Kirks command of the Enterprise, then all this casting will make the most sense. Regardless, I am getting more and more excited for the movie

mild plot SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER warning

***************

TRACKING TREK RUMORS
08.31.07
By Jeremy Smith
Contributing sources: Ain't it Cool News

{snippet}

"Picture an incident that throws a group of Romulans back in time. Picture that group of Romulans figuring out where they are in the timeline, then deciding to take advantage of the accident to kill someone’s father, to erase them from the timeline before they exist, thereby changing all of the Trek universe as a result. Who would you erase? Whose erasure would leave the biggest hole in the Trek universe is the question you should be asking.

Who else, of course, but James T. Kirk?

If Spock were in a position to change that incident back, and then in a position to guard that timeline and make sure things happen the way they’re supposed to, it creates...

... well, what does it create? Because evidently the plan is to use this second timeline as a way of rebooting without erasing or ignoring canon. These new voyages of the Enterprise, they’re taking place in whatever timeline starts with this story. Maybe this timeline features dramatic differences. Like... say... if Vulcan were to be blown up. If the Vulcans in the series were suddenly the last of their kind, alone in the universe, it would change who they are and maybe even redefine their strict rejection of emotion in favor of logic."

{/snippet}

***************

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=11635 for the full story

:dstar   
If Vulcans were suddenly the last of their kind...
...then they'd be El-Arian. I hope they don't do that.  :-\

I don't know what to think about this. I kinda like it and I think it's a good idea to do something fresh with the franchise, but I don't know what this is ... yet.

UGH!

Sounds like a bad dream, or a bad Brannon Braga script.  Keep an open mind...keep an open mind...Spock is cool, keep an open mind...

Change "Romulans" into "Borg", and "Kirk" into "Cochran", and you have most of First Contact.

I guess we'll have to see what happens. But I don't think a majority of fans are gonna be happy about this (obviously) right from the outset.

I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt only because with each new generation of Star Trek, things were lost. No mention of Archer or his Enterprise until the series. Voyager goes to earth in the 2000's and there is not a single sign of the Eugenics War. Kirk goes in the 80's and the technology isn't even in place even though the Augments should have been at the very least young adults.


Maybe something does need to be done to fix all of the issues that were created with each successive generation of shows. Maybe this is a good time for them to write out some of those Epps from the shows that many agreed didn't work well. (Threshold or Spock's Brain anyone?).

For me, the setting has carried just as much weight as the characters and in some cases more. This might be a chance to build something better, something that takes those Wagon Train in Space roots and mixes it with the things that have come to be great scifi in recent years.

I enjoyed Enterprise because they tried to go beyond convention. They tried to explore not just the technology and relationships, but the birth of what was to come. Sure they stumbled, but they tried. I loved DS9 because they turned trek from a collection of episoded into an actual living breathing episode with things evolving from one day to the next. People grew up and changed. For me that was always a problem with the other shows until Enterprise. The epps were good, but unless it was a two parter, little was talked about regarding past epps.

If this is what it takes to build a growing and expanding universe, then count me in. I want to feel wonder again.

All good arguments X, and I think most of us agree...I too loved Enterprise. The technology in that show didn't bother me and it felt like Star Trek to me. Sometimes fans get possesive...cue Star Wars geeks.

My major concern is the rumor that they may "rewrite history" by removing major characters (if I read the rumor correctly, posted by Locutus). I just hope they leave Roddenberry's original crew alone. It's his brain child... Addtions are fine but no subtractions!

Yeah, I'm with you guys. I like that they will be going a different direction, but I don't like that they will be going a different direction, if you catch my drift.

I loved DS9, it was my favorite series (except the very awful ending) and Enterprise picked up right when they canceled it, so that was disappointing.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's not like JJ Abrams hasn't lied about or obfuscated his projects (see: 1-18-08), so this may just be a ruse.

It's Confirmed: New Uhura Cast For Star Trek


By MICHAEL HINMAN
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Sep-17-2007

Just a few weeks ago, rumors started to circulate just a few weeks ago that Zoë Saldana had been offered the role of Lt. Uhura in "Star Trek XI." And it appears those rumors were right.
Saldana, who is one of the stars of James Cameron's "Avatar," has been confirmed to be in final negotiations to join the growing cast of J.J. Abrams' movie set on the USS Enterprise. The Hollywood Reporter confirmed the story for its Tuesday publication which would have Saldana join Leonard Nimoy, Zachary Quinto and Anton Yelchin as other actors already a part of the project.

Saldana will play Uhura, the role originated in 1966 by Nichelle Nichols, who carried the character through more than two decades in films. Uhura was last seen in "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County" in 1991.

Saldana got her big break in 2002's "Drumline," but she also played Anamaria in the 2003 film "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl."

Yelchin is already on board as Pavel Chekov, while Quinto and Nimoy will both play Spock -- the role that Nimoy originated in 1966 as well.

There is still no word on who will play Kirk in the film, but it seems almost certain that William Shatner -- who has lobbied for some type of cameo, if not a role like his friend Nimoy -- will not be a part of the project.

Nichols is still staying active. She is set to join former castmate George Takei as a recurring actor in the second season of NBC's hit series "Heroes."

"Star Trek XI" is aiming for a Christmas 2008 release
:spidey

Canon is slowing slipping out the window on this movie.  These characters age differences are not being taken into account.

Please to god let there be not time travel or alternate timelines and please don't make the universe explode but at the end of the movie have someone do something so everything resets.

Not having Shatner in this movie will be a big mistake, I dont like where this is going.

Shatner Still Wanted For Trek Movie

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/10/09/shatner-still-wanted-for-trek-movie/

Written by: Samuel K. Sloan (FarPoint Media Executive News Director)

240×3201.jpgScreenwirter Roberto Orci says that he, Alex Kurtzman and JJ Abrams are still wanting to get William Shatner to join his friend and former castmate Leonard Nimoy for the new Star Trek movie.

"What J.J. said at Comic-Con is still true," stated Orci in an interview with TrekMovie. "We are actively perusing, looking for a way to make a part that is worthy of him and that is not pandering to either his role in Star Trek or to the fans."

Bill has also stated on more than one occasion that although he would love to be in the film, the role would have to be more than just a bit part, but one that allowed the older Spock and Kirk to go out with dignity.

Other confirmation came from the interview. We already know that the younger versions of Spock, Uhura and Chekov have been cast, but now we can say that Sulu, Bones and Scotty will definitely be a part of this project.

"I don't know how you can have Uhura without Bones. So yes it is the original crew, commented Orci.

Also, some other familiar characters from the original series may be seen as well. Secondary characters such as Rand, Kyle and Nurse Chapel will be there however Orci was quick to say, "I can't say which. We are aware of all of them, but we are mindful that you can't just try and stuff everything into a first movie just to stuff it in. Our hope is that this is 'movie one' of several and so anyone who gets omitted is immediately on the list for 'movie two'. It is a factor of what can one movie tolerate and how well can a character be serviced and if they can't be serviced correctly we would rather do it well later than do it poorly now."

Negotiations continue with Shatner and his people, but it is this writer's opinion that it is very likely that we will again see the great William Shatner don the Starfleet captain's uniform one last time before bidding his beloved character a final adieu.

Boy....I'm not sure this movie is going to go over well...

King Linksr

Seems like they have a lot to still hammer out, hopefully they have enough time to film and finish the movie for the Christmas 2008 release. I do like that they are considering Characters carefully, and not including characters for the sake of including them.

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/10/24/slice-of-scifi-news-briefs-21/

Leonard Nimoy, who once proclaimed he was fully retired from acting so he could dedicate himself totally to his award-winning photography, has been lured back in front of a camera after a long absence to play his most known and beloved role of Mr. Spock for the new Star Trek movie. Recently he was asked why he would come out of retirement now, when in times past he refused to do so, even for another Trek project. His answer ought to give encouragement to fans who have been a bit leary about this next Star Trek film. Leonard said he could sum up his decision to come back to Trek in one word — "Abrams!"

The legendary 76-year old performer told The Jewish Chronicle that director J.J. Abrams and his writing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have "come up with a strong idea," one that tweaked his interest enough to put away his golf shoes for a while. That is saying something as Nimoy has been adamant in the past about not returning to acting unless the project was enough to knock him off his feet. For him to return for this new Star Trek film says volumes about its script being one that just may be what the franchise and fans have been desiring for a long time now.

Has anyone heard, or has it already been posted, what the story is about? I heard on one of my podcasts (I can't remember which one but If I remember right they were pretty reputable) that the story involves Romulans who enter Earth's past and Spock goes after them. Its supposed to alter the time line as we know it and allow for cannon to be rewritten. I'll be so embarrassed if it was Rico's podcast I heard that on!  :D  Forgive me if it was...my mind is spinning with work and I have an awful memory to begin with.

Be careful what is posted here.  Rumor or not, if it ends up being true it could be a spoiler.  I will label the thread as such.

But officially no real story outline, era, or plot has been released.

ACTION! Cameras Roll on "Star Trek" Movie Rebirth‏

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/11/07/action-cameras-roll-on-star-trek-movie-rebirth%e2%80%8f/

Written by: Tony Artym (SoSF Contributor)

Production officially starts today on the eleventh movie in the Star Trek franchise, but the first to be directed by J.J. Abrams and his Bad Robot production team. This is also the first movie to "re-imagine" a prior Star Trek, casting new people in roles defined by actors from the Original Series. In many ways, this Star Trek gives birth to a new era, one not defined completely by past production teams, sensibilities or casts (save Leonard Nimoy, of course!).

The film is in new hands, ones trusted by the studio and, judging by the buzz, the fans. So what do we know about the movie? Behind the scenes, we know that the budget is the biggest yet for a Star Trek film. That's partly due to the way movies are made these days, with special effects often pushing costs well above the $100 million range (Paramount has not officially published a movie budget). At least the special effects will be state-of-the-art, not last-minute add-ons.

We also know that the new cast members have been tasked with putting their own personal touches on iconic characters, which may or may not be a tricky transition for some fans. As for the business aspect, we should point out that the market is much different than it was 28 years ago when the first StarTrek movie was released, as witnessed by the emphasis for a movie's success placed squarely at the feet of its opening weekend box office.

A little over one year ago when the movie was first announced, there was no script, no cast and no real conception in the minds of the fans as to what would be forthcoming from J.J. and his team. Slowly the blanks are being filled in, as the cast is now almost complete, and other small details start to filter down. The movie has no official title yet, but we wouldn't be surprised if it remained as it first appeared on the original teaser art that debuted at Comic-Con 2006, and the follow-up poster that was unveiled at this year's event –simply, "Star Trek." The name alone speaks volumes. If you happen to be unaware of the terms "Star Trek," the "U.S.S. Enterprise,""phasers" or "Beam me up" by now, then you probably were born yesterday (and if you were, congratulations for learning to read so quickly!)

What we also know for certain is that Kirk, Spock (young and old), McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov will appear, along with the much-talked-about Christopher Pike character. Although the story is and will remain under wraps, the characters seem younger, presumably not long out of Starfleet Academy, and the story may be about one of their early missions. It all remains to be seen, literally.

Perhaps not by design, but by cosmic coincidence, the month of November also sees the first season of the Original Series released on HD DVD/DVD in its newly remastered form. This will be the first look for the mass market at how these uncut, remastered episodes look on our own TV screens, and in HD. If nothing else, these "new" old episodes will keep us going into the next year as we await the new movie.

One other item to tide us over and serve as a forerunner for the movie is the big-screen debut of the remastered episode "The Menagerie" in theatres around the globe. Such an event has never been attempted before on this scale, with showings in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, and Australia.

Any pre-production shoots aside — for trailers, test footage, etc. —we should also mention that the filming of the new Star Trek movie on Wednesday comes amidst a time of great strife in Hollywood as the Writers Guild of America (WGA) went on strike Monday morning when they could not come to an agreement with the studios on revenue sharing, particularly on DVDs and internet downloads. J.J. Abrams, what they call in the business a "multihyphenate" due to his producer-director-writer credits, is standing tall for his writers union; already, J.J. has been seen hoisting picket signs in solidarity with his union. He is reportedly set to go to work on Wednesday, in keeping with his contractual obligations as a director, but he will not be performing any writing duties. "If I didn't stand with my fellow writers, I'd feel it in my gut," said Abrams in the Tuesday Daily Variety. You can now add strike action to the list of potential movie and TV production inhibitors, along with fires, riots, earthquakes, floods,heat waves and mudslides. Los Angeles may be the home of entertainment, but it can also come at a price. Right now, the price is right to pay the writers what they deserve so we can keep enjoying the wide variety of entertainment produced here. And that includes Star Trek, of course.

Here are the other pictures...

very cool

Wow. They got several of the actors down as far as resemblance goes. The new actress who is cast to play Uhura looks just like Nichelle. I wonder if they will opt to keep the uniforms and hair do's similar or if they will reinvent those aspects as well.

Thanks for the heads-up, Kenny!  And the comparison pictures are pretty cool.  Call me crazy, but I'm slowly gaining confidence that this film will turn out to be pretty good! :)

Cool pictures Kenny.  I also am excited (of course) for the movie.  This just in.  It seems actor Bruce Greenwood has been cast in the role of Captain Pike.  I like this choice and have enjoyed Greenwood over the years.  He's a good choice and solid actor.

I'm not thrilled with the choice of Greenwood but I can't think of anyone else either so, I guess he'll just have to do.

Kevin

Open Call for New "Star Trek" Movie

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/11/08/open-call-for-new-star-trek-movie/

Written by: Tony Artym (SoSF Contributor)

There is an open casting call on Saturday, November 10 in Burbank,Calif., for a feature film project called "Corporate Headquarters,"which appears to be a code name for the now-in-production "Star Trek"movie.

HeadquartersCasting.com has posted a notice seeking background talent for "the way Cool Sci-Fi Feature Film titled 'Corporate Headquarters'" which originally included descriptions for characters whose eyebrows will be "shaved from the arch outward to portray a 'Vulcan type' eyebrow shape." However, as of this morning the website changed the"Vulcan" reference to say instead, "'science fiction type' eyebrowshape." But it's out there, so the important point is that the casting agencyis looking for a few good men, women, and just about anyone with" interesting and unique facial features."

Besides "Vulcan" or "science fiction type" looks, the film is also looking for "military type" extras. They are looking for a pretty broad range of people with interesting features, all ethnicities, hair lengths, ages 18-90 and more. The HeadquartersCasting site has all the details for the call, with specific photographic requests. We recommend you read the descriptions carefully to simplify the process and to increase your chances of being picked for the film, should you decide to stop by Burbank this Saturday.

Address:
Headquarters Casting
3108 W. MagnoliaBurbank, CA 91505

The call takes place between 2:30 - 5:00 p.m.

Meet Spock's Mom

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/11/09/meet-spocks-mom/

Anyone even remotely aware of the original Star Trek series and the six movies it spawned know that Spock, the Vulcan first officer of the Starship Enterprise for 40 years, had a Vulcan dad and a human mother named Amanda.

The role was played by the great dame of TV, Jane Wyatt for every appearance that Amanda made on the small and silver screen. Wyatt was the winner of 3 Emmy Awards over the course of her long television career, all for her role as the caring and intelligent 1950's mother in "Father Knows Best." Wyatt first appeared as Amanda in the 1967 Star Trek episode "Journey to Babel" and reprised the role in the 1986 Trek film "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." Although she had limited camera time, her performance as Spock's mom left an indelible mark that permeated the entire history of Trek. One cannot think of Spock without remembering his father Sarek (Mark Lenard) and Jane Wyatt. She died last year at the age of 85.

J.J. Abrams will be including Spock's mom in the new prequel Trek film due out on Christmas Day 2008 and has cast Golden Globe winning actress Winona Ryder to play Amanda. Spock is being portrayed by "Heroes" star Zachary Quinto (Sylar).

I read this too earlier today.  Now that is some odd casting.  How much older than Quinto is she?  Hmmm,....

Wow.. really? Winona Ryder? That seems like an odd fit. But, I withhold judgement until I see the movie

Winona Ryder is 36 yo

Zachary Quinto is 30yo


hmmmmm

Couple of possibilities.  Flashback to Spock as a boy.  Make Winona look older.  Or maybe both.

New Star Trek Film — Rumored Plot

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/11/12/new-star-trek-film-rumored-plot/

If IESB.net is to be believed, then the plot for the next, highly anticipated Star Trek movie will be different and yet familiar. The following is pure rumor thus far, but even if a rumored storyline is more spoiler than you can take, then read no further.

The big question from the very beginning, when it was rumored that J.J. Abrams would be doing a TOS prequel that included younger versions of Kirk, Spock and all the familiar Enterprise NCC-1701 bridge crew, was how will Abrams tell the story without trampling all over the sacred Trek canon? The answer, according to IESB is — Alternate Universe. Yep! If the site is to be trusted, then that old tried and true method of alternate timeline will be used to tell the story for this entry.

Please remember that everything that follows has not been confirmed by any official source from Paramount, the cast, or from Abrams' office. And, while what follows certainly sounds plausible, treat it all as unsubstantiated rumor at this point.

IESB claims to have two different sources for this one. These are the same sources that gave them the intel on Karl Urban cast as Bones and Chris Hemsworth joining on. Now, they have both given some very juicy tidbits on how this whole time travel/alternate timeline is going down.

First, the most important thing to remember is that writers Robert Orci and Alex Krutzman are big Trek fans, especially Orci and they both have a great respect for Trek history and canon and do nothing in this script to upset the apple cart in that regard. They did their best to keep the continuity of Trek alive in their script.

Much of the script will be along the lines of the most popular story to ever come out of Trek verse — "The City on the Edge of Forever," which starred Joan Collins as the pacifist Edith Keeler. Kirk fell in love with her but had to allow her to die in order to keep the timeline in tact.

For this new film, IESB offers the following plotline:

Romulans from the future, most likely TNG time frame led by a Romulan named Nero, played by Eric Bana, finds the City on the Edge of Forever and uses the Guardian of Forever to go back in time and kill the person who has been the biggest thorn in the Romulan's side and is crucial to the success of the Federation and Starfleet, James T. Kirk.

Mr. Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy in the original timeline, becomes aware of Nero's plan (not clear on the details of how he knows) and also goes back in time to protect his best friend, James Kirk. This is where the Old Spock (Nimoy) and Young Spock (Quinto) meet.

Old Spock warns young Spock about Nero's plans and it's up to them to protect the future Captain Kirk and also help try to protect the timeline and the future of the Federation and Starfleet.

This happens before Kirk and Spock form their life long friendship and bond. We have been told that there is a very cool scene where Old Spock tells the Young Spock about his friendship with Kirk, so while this may sound "illogical" (pun intended) it's been described as very emotional.

It's not totally clear, but this film may bring about the death of the older Spock, just as "Star Trek VII: Generations" saw the death of the aging Kirk at the hands of Dr. Soran.

The first time in the film that the audience is introduced to James T. Kirk is while he is taking a certain test that Starfleet cadets are required to take, the Kobayashi Maru. Kirk was the only cadet up to that point in Starfleet history to win the test's "no win scenario." Of course, using that Kirk perchant for disobeying the norm, he overcame the "no win scenario" by reprogramming the computer that ran the simulation. He was given a commendation for "original thinking" ("Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan").

So, there you have it in a nutshell. Is this the course Abrams plans on taking for his next film? With the script under very tight wrap, it is hard to say for sure, but with IESB's track record for accuracy I wouldn't totally count out the possibility that portions of what you just read might be true. However, until official word comes down from Paramount, it is pure speculation at this point in time.

I heard this very same rumor—I think I posted it here. It sounds to me like a great solution. :)

All of this sounds close to what I've heard from a lot of different sources; I have a feeling that it is all more or less true.  I think the ideas could work-- I just hope that Abrams is up to executing them properly. 

With such a wild premise, this will most definitely NOT be a mediocre film.  It will be either one of the greatest Star Trek movies ever, or one of the worst.

Of course, I'll see it in either event (most likely several times).  After all; it IS Star Trek. ;)

pics!

(http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/spockstartrek.jpg)

(http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/spock2.jpg)

http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/11/12/first-look-zachary-quinto-as-spock/

You cheeky monkey—very cool! The costume and indoor set (if that's indeed a set) looks a tiny bit retro.

Oh, now that is too cool. Nice find!

Great pics!  Also I like Bruce Greenwood.  Ever since we watched him as JFK in Thirteen Days (excellent movie btw) I have liked him.

I like the story concept rumor Kenny posted above a geat deal, but it leaves me with a question. We know that Quinto has signed a mutli picture deal and I would hope that if the film is a sucess that more will be coming, but then how do they address canon and continuity issues? They'll be stuck again.

Also, Rico, I was just listening to the most recent podcast and had a comment abot the spy shots showing the extra's in cloaks to hid their uniforms. You mentioned all the colors and how they looked muted. If you go back and watch "The Cage", the uniforms of Pike's era were very muted and included peach as the command color! So from a continuity standpoint, we shouldn't see the bright red, blue, and gold we are more accustomed too.

More Trek Casting News

Australian actor Chris Hemsworth ("The Cache," "Brothers") will play James T. Kirk's father, George Kirk. Ironically, in real life, Hemsworth is three years younger than actor Chris Pine, the man portraying the younger James T. Kirk, leading many to speculate that the George Kirk scenes will be flashbacks.

Another great casting choice by J.J. Abrams is Clifton Collins Jr. ("Alias," "Capote"). Collins will portray a bad guy by the name of Ayel. His character will partner up with the film's primary villain named Nero, played by Eric Bana.

OK, now that jibes well for the Winona Rider as Amanda casting, clearly the parents will appear in flashbacks.

People keep talking about canon. I just dont think that it would be smart of Abrams to allow himself to get bogged down in it. I think you have to adhere to a certain amount of what has come before, but aside from that, I say have fun.

Plus, if we are going to get a series of movies, I think JJ is smart enough to keep his stories largely separate from the adventures we have already seen.

Lets assume for fun here, that the 70+ episodes of TOS all happened on Wednesdays, that leaves 6 other days of the week for JJ to spin his tales  :-)

i want the shirt! :D

OMG, Chris Hemsworth. Up until recently, I watched him every night in the Australian soap "Home and Away". He was a main character who left the show a couple of months ago. I think my Missus secretly fancied him.
I tell you, this guy is seriously toned and I always had a feeling that he had movie star looks. I'm looking forward to seeing him on the big screen, and who knows, It might even convince my Sarah to come and see the new film with me. I'm really pleased for him.

House's Morrison Joins Trek

J.J. Abrams, director of Star Trek, told TV Guide that he has hired Jennifer Morrison (TV's House) for the cast of the reboot movie.

"She is indeed in the movie," Abrams told columnist Michael Ausiello. "And she is most excellent!"

Last week, Morrison was spotted outside one of Trek's Hollywood soundstages, sparking rumors that she had quietly come aboard the ensemble alongside Chris Pine, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban and Heroes' Zachary Quinto.

Abrams won't say what role Morrisson will play but denied rumors that she would be Yeoman Rand, the role originated by Grace Lee Whitney.

Sarek — Spock's Father Cast for New Trek Film

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/11/19/sarek-spocks-father-cast-for-new-trek-film/

Veteran actor Ben Cross, most notable for his outstanding performance in the award winning film "Chariots of Fire" will now take up the legendary role of the the Vulcan Ambassador Sarek, the father of Spock, in the upcoming J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" feature film. Sarek was played by the late Mark Lenard for the first 40 years of the Star Trek franchise. We applaud Abrams — another great casting choice for a tough role to fill.

Cross, who will next be seen in the upcoming crime drama titled "Hero Wanted" with Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ray Liotta, also resurrected another famous role a few years back — starring as the vampire Barnabas Collins in the "Dark Shadows" remake.

He will join Winona Ryder, who we announced a few weeks ago, will portray Spock's human mother Amanda Grayson. The young Spock is played by "Heroes" star Zachary Quinto, while Leonard Nimoy will reprise his iconic role as the older Spock.

Filming has already begun and the movie will be in theaters on Christmas Day, 2008.

Great choice!  He will make a good Sarek.

Been awhile since I updated with some news here besides just the podcast.  Some pics have popped up online of Chris Pine as Kirk in some type of Academy uniform along with maybe a green Orion slave girl - maybe.  Take a peek....

Very cool

NICE! ;D

They need to hurry up and give us a trailer!

This is cool news:

McGillion In Trek After All

TrekMovie.com reported that former Stargate Atlantis cast member Paul McGillion won an unspecified speaking role in J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie.

The Scottish-born McGillion, who played Carson Beckett on Atlantis, had auditioned for the role of Scotty in Trek, a role that eventually went to Simon Pegg.

But McGillion's audition reportedly impressed filmmakers enough that they found a small speaking part for him.

McGillion finished shooting his role in November, reportedly a scene with Chris Pine (James T. Kirk).

P.S.  A trailer will be coming with "Cloverfield" on Jan. 18th.  Keep in mind they only have been filming a few weeks now on the movie.

Where have you read this Rico.. about he Trailer being with Cloverfield.. I haven't seen it anywhere.

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on December 16, 2007, 04:48:59 PM
Where have you read this Rico.. about he Trailer being with Cloverfield.. I haven't seen it anywhere.

Been reported in several places for awhile now.  Since it's a JJ Abrams film, it makes sense.  I've mentioned it on the podcast a few times now too.  Check this link out:

http://trekmovie.com/2007/11/30/star-trek-teaser-coming-with-cloverfield/

Writer Reveals Trek Details

Roberto Orci, co-writer of director J.J. Abram's highly anticipated Star Trek movie, told SCI FI Wire that the tightly guarded story for the upcoming franchise reboot depends heavily on the appearance of original series star Leonard Nimoy.

Orci (Transformers) added that the movie will explore Trek history that hasn't been mined before and confirmed that the story will take place before the events of the original series.

"There were many, many elements of the story that we had talked about just theoretically if ever Star Trek were to come back," Orci said in an interview in November. "There was lots of stuff we wanted to do, and that was a blessing. Normally you don't have that much investment and research for a project you get hired to do. If you are a fan of [classic] Star Trek, there is a lot of unexplored history. With the original series, there was so much that could have come before it. It felt like it has been The Next Generation and The Next, Next Generation for so long, it seemed like a fresh thing to go back to the source and to go back to what happened before it."

The crux of the screenplay involves the appearance of Nimoy in his iconic role as Spock. "I think a lot of people were speculating that we must have had multiple ideas [for the script]," Orci said. "The truth is that we took a gigantic gamble in terms of the movie we wanted to do, and it was essential that we had Nimoy. Frankly, I didn't understand any other way to do it. We didn't have a Plan B. I think that would have shown that we didn't have a true, singular vision of what we wanted to do, so it was essential for us to get Nimoy. It was a gigantic gamble, and I can't even believe that J.J. supported that kind of a gamble, but I think he understood it was the way to do it and a way to get the blessing for Star Trek, to show there is continuity for the spirit of what it was before. So when Nimoy said yes, not only as a fan was it a relief--if that didn't work, I don't know where we would be!"

Orci, who previously tackled a beloved franchise with Transformers (which he co-wrote with partner Alex Kurtzman), said that adapting Trek was even harder because of the dedicated fan base watching every move.

"The dangers are that now you are opening up yourself to the fact that the fans know what you know about the characters," Orci said. "They have their own ideas about what should be done and what is right for the franchise. So the goal with this movie is twofold. One is to make sure that the fans--who have been the stewards of the continuity and who are some of the most savvy and intelligent fans of any franchise ever--that they be satisfied with anything that has the name Star Trek on it. But, more importantly, the goal is really to introduce casual fans and people who don't know Star Trek at all to this universe and to connect it to today. ... The goal of Star Trek ... is that if you don't like sci-fi or know Star Trek, this will bring you into the world." Star Trek opens on Christmas Day 2008. --Tara DiLullo Bennett    

Update on Rumored Trek Roles

Weeks ago it was acknowledged that "House" actress Jennifer Morrison would be in the new Star Trek movie which is set to premiere on December 25, 2008. None of us in the news business knew at the time of the announcement which role she would be starring in. As is the case with any Trek feature, a lot of speculation arose concerning if Morrison would be cast as Captain Pike's Number One, Spock's mom (later to be revealed as Wynona Ryder) or possibly a Romulan agent for Eric Bana's bad guy role.

If Trek Movie Report has it right, then the lastest from the rumor mill is Morrison will star as the pregnant mother of James T. Kirk (no doubt in a flash back) and George Kirk, James' father, will be portrayed by Chris Hemsworth. The same Website is also reporting that ex-"Alias" actress Rachel Nichols, who had revealed a few weeks ago that she would be in the J.J. Abrams film, has been cast as a green Orion girl.

Related to the above casting news, yes Jennifer Morrison is playing Kirk's mom and Rachel Nichols is a green Orion girl.  Here's a bit from Leonard Nimoy on his first bit of shooting on the sets.

I have now spent several shooting days on the various sets of the new film. Security has been held tight.

Because of strong interest there has been an effort on the part of some to get unauthorized photos of actors going to and from their trailers, etc.

The size of the production impresses me. It's a big picture. An imaginative and ambitious project. The director JJ Abrams is able to work on a very large scale while also paying close attention to the intimate work of the actors. The cast members are uniformly talented and enthusiastic. It's a pleasure to be around them and to work with them.

My hopes for this film continue to be very positive.

Urban: Trek Is True

Karl Urban, who will play a young Dr. Leonard McCoy in J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie, told TV Guide that the film will be true to the original series' spirit.

"The movie is very, very faithful to the spirit of the original series and the characters that were created in the '60s," Urban told the magazine.

Urban (Doom) said that his McCoy "is the lovable, irascible humanist that he has always been [and] a good friend of Jim Kirk [Chris Pine]."

But Urban added that "J.J. is going to reinvigorate this franchise in a fresh and exciting way." Star Trek is aiming for a Christmas 2008 release.

Trek Creature Rumored

TrekMovie.com reported a spoilery rumor about one classic creature that will make a brief appearance in J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie.

Citing an anonymous source, the site reported that the original series' benign furry Tribble will appear in one scene, apparently in a cage or container of some sort.

As Trek fans know, Tribbles were first seen in the original series episode "The Trouble With Tribbles."

Tribbles later appeared in the animated Trek series, in episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Enterprise and in the feature film Star Trek III.

I want the Mugatu!

The Gorn would have been cool.

Star Trek teaser trailer info

Matt Reeves is the director for the JJ Abrams produced monster movie Cloverfield...and one of the few people who has seen the teaser trailer for the Star Trek (which debuts with Cloverfield). He certainly is the only one talking about it on the record, saying "it's a teaser trailer. But still, I was like 'Wow!' Just the scope of it, the scale of it, you just look at it and it's so elegantly done."

I think what [he and his producers] are doing with the trailer is fantastic; this is a great way to reboot the franchise, and get people excited about something new....That's what excited me about seeing the trailer, was that I thought 'Well, this does look completely different and new, but while having all the stuff that will make fans of 'Star Trek' still feel fulfilled.'

I'm really starting to get excited....

I'm also starting to get a bit excited about this. A small part of me also worries that this is just the hype machine at work.

Nimoy's comment is enough for me. If he says it's good... I believe it. Spock doesn't lie. :)

No, but he does have the ability to embellish and exaggerate  ;D

"Star Trek" Lead Chris Pine on the Importance of Being Kirk
Sunday, December 30th, 2007

The new Captain Kirk, Chris Pine, is on the hot seat handling the legacy of Star Trek and in for a little "Bottle Shock" closer to Earth.

By Jeffrey Jolson

HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) Stardate 12/30/07 – Chris Pine, who plays the young Captain James T. Kirk in the upcoming $150 million movie "Star Trek," is starting the new year with his own five year mission. To boldly go where few actors get the chance to go, or dare to.

"It brings a big responsibility," Pine said on the importance of being Kirk, whom generations of fans know as intimately as a family member. "It's not your standard tentpole movie. It has a 40-year history attached to it. These are iconic roles that have been done, and done well," he told Hollywood Today.

It is indeed a big responsibility, and one that will be judged under a microscope. Trekkies are the most rabid of all fans, have always had the largest conventions, most enthusiastic collectors and those who will examine every nuance, line and action of their revered Captain Kirk and the cadet who dares to play him. Not only against how William Shatner played it on TV and film, but against the canon of Trek lore, which adherents believe in almost religiously.

An informal radio survey once reported that a third of the people polled believe the government is capable of producing warp drives, or already has. This is indicative that fantasy passes to belief if you've seen it on TV and movies often enough since you were a kid.

Pine, who is white hot right now and taking time off the Trek set shortly to attend his first Sundance premiere, "Bottle Shock" (more on that later), is not on this daunting journey alone. At the helm of Star Trek XI, set for release Dec. 25, 2008, is J.J. Abrams ("Mission: Impossible III," "Lost") whose job includes making it less daunting for the Enterprise actors. ""When you are attached to something of this scale, you have more attention on you than you've ever had before," he said. "JJ is able to make such a big experience seem small. You never get the sense that you are working on this grand event, you just focus on that scene," Pine said from the hush-hush set of the 11th film outing of "Star Trek."

Pine explained the film to Hollywood Today thusly: "It's a 'Batman Begins.' You get the birth, the childhood and beginning of the main characters before the Five-Year Mission. "That's what is going to be great. You get a sense of where they came from and how they began. Plus anyone who is a lover of big action films is going to love this."

So it seems we will be seeing his Star Fleet Academy days and when he took over the Enterprise from Captain Pike, plus the famous time Kirk cheated the Kobiyashi Maru test by re-programming the computer to let him win what was otherwise an un-winnable character test. It's these little flashes of creator Gene Rodenberry's Trek history should make the film come alive for fans.

"What I will say is that I really think fans will enjoy this new installment. It's not like anything they've ever seen before: the humor, production, effects and action blend into a great package. There's enough humor and drama and action to satisfy everyone. This is movie for fans and non-fans alike, it's going to create new generation of fans who have never been exposed to it before – for my generation and younger, said the 27 year-old actor ("Smokin' Aces, "Princess Diaries 2"). "I remember the original TV show re-runs from when I was a kid, though I never watched all the movies. So for many people from my generation it will be a brand new experience."

He said his scenes did not call for him to work with Winona Ryder, cast as Mr. Spock's human mother. She plays opposite Sarek, Mr. Spock's Vulcan pop, portrayed by British actor Ben Cross. Winona is also Kirk's mothers name in the Star Trek world, played in the movie by Jennifer Morrison.

Of course there is lots of interaction with young Spock is played by Zachary Quinto ("Heroes," "Crossing Jordan") who had his eyebrows shaved off and spends three hours in makeup each day for his pointy ears – no plastic clip-ons here.

Photographed here at an ST panel, Leonard Nimoy as an elder Mr. Spock meets Quinto's young Spock, courtesy of a little time travel that is a Trek plot device familiar to fans. Shatner does not, prompting him to make no secret in the media of his disfavor. "How could you not put one of the founding figures into a movie that was being resurrected? That doesn't make good business sense to me," the 76-year-old actor told TV's "Extra," saying he was more popular than ever. "But, they are going in a different direction and it'll be a wonderful film."

Pine had to chose his words carefully as the studio jealously guards any information being released about one of its most important and lucrative franchises. "I'll be arrested and strung up by Paramount security," Pine said.

Karl Urban, who plays Dr. McCoy told Starweb.com "There's a level of security and secrecy that we have all been forced to adopt. I mean, it's really kind of paranoid crazy, but sort of justified. We're not allowed to walk around in public in our costumes and we have to be herded around everywhere in these golf carts that are completely concealed and covered in black canvas."

So Pine, who turned down an offer to play against then-cast George Clooney in "White Jazz" to take on Trek, is aware that this is a huge opportunity, or the opportunity to screw up on a huge scale. Abrams knows it too, and is acutely aware of continuity and the Trekkie community. "Being involved with a series that has a passionate and vocal following makes me incredibly sympathetic. They have put up with so many incarnations along the way. These fans, they are a smart bunch. They are an intelligent group. We are very respectful and we have no intention of subverting the material," he told the Irish Times recently.

Yet Pine has another trek in three weeks that also means a lot to any young actor. His film "Bottle Shock" is a featured premiere at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival. "I've never been there before and I wanted to go with a film, instead of attending for swag. It means a lot." It's an indie film, but has some blockbuster-friendly faces in it from other sci-fi/fantasy mega-hits: Alan Rickman ("Harry Potter"), Bill Pullman ("Independence Day") and Rachel Taylor ("Transformers").

This role is decidedly down-to-earth compared to galaxy-hopping as he moves from Kirk's Iowa farm origins to the farmlands of California. He plays the scion of the Napa Valley wine-making family involved in the scandalous pivotal event which led to the creation the $50-billion dollar California wine industry.

Back in 1976, a blind taste-testing was held in Paris when the French invited the upstart Napa wines to a challenge against their legendary noble rot. When the judges, to their own shock and dismay, came down in favor of the Napa area wines, the scandal rocked the wine world.

You'd have thought Germany had suddenly been declared winner of WWII. Protests erupted, judges tried to backpedal on their opinions, but the die had been cast. Pine said "It's pretty much due to that pivotal wine-tasting that careers were made, fortunes were made and prosperity came to the region."

Pine portrays party/surfer boy Bo Barrett, who had to grow up in a flash when his family's struggling vineyard, Chateau Montelena, is suddenly ranked world-class for its Chardonnay. "I talked to Bo Barrett and asked him about growing up the 70s and the movie from aimless childhood to finding his niche in the wine business." Pine also had to take a crash course in all things wine, even though he went to school in nearby Berkley, California.

"Alan (Rickman) is very knowledgeable and the winemakers from the film up there taught us even more about the proper ways to sip and appreciate wines," he said. "It wasn't a bad gig, I can tell you that." The film is from director Randall Miller and writing and producing partner Jody Savin,

He explained "Bottle Shock' deals with culture shock, from that of his character being a pot-smoking surfer living in Southern California and being summoned up to the farm up North, from the California blue-collar wine business to the posh palaces of the French wine community, from Napa then to Napa now.

"In the pre-Renaissance period, Napa was not the upper-middle class area we know now," Pine said. It was rural California and nothing was up there except farm workers and a couple of big commercial vineyards. It was the Wild West up there, very different than what's there now that it's become a $50 billion business."

"'Trek' takes me until April 1, so thankfully they are giving me the time to go to Sundance with "Bottle Shock." After "Trek" I just want to take a little time off and hopefully get involved with something just as rewarding. Hopefully, I won't just be flavor of the month."

Wow....excellent interview and article.  That movie Bottle Shock actually sounds fairly interesting.  Thanks for posting Kenny.

Trek Trailer With Cloverfield

MTV.com reported that the first teaser trailer for J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek film will be attached to Cloverfield, which Abrams is producing and which hits theaters on Jan. 18.

Cloverfield director Matt Reeves has seen the trailer and told MTV.com that "it's amazing, and it looks pretty incredible."

Reeves added: "I thought 'Well, this does look completely different and new.' But while having all the stuff that will make fans of Star Trek still feel fulfilled."

Reeves, a longtime associate of Abrams from their days on TV's Felicity, added that he has seen some footage from the top-secret Trek movie.

"I've seen little bits of the movie, too, and I feel that way as well," Reeves said. "He's doing an amazing job. It's very exciting. It's not your grandfather's Star Trek, that's for sure." Star Trek is slated for release on Christmas Day 2008.

Thanks for that tidbit of info StarTrekFanatic5, it gives me a warm fuzzy hearing that.

"It's not your grandfather's Star Trek, that's for sure."

What!?!?!?  Who the hell are they marketing this movie to anyway? God I feel old... *cry*

Hey Guys... a German website has the Star Trek teaser trailer up.

http://www.treknews.de/treknews/newspro-treknews/static/119996429049211.php

I'll let everyone see it before I comment. Enjoy

I found it on You Tube already and in the comments some folks are saying it's a fake.. so I'm not sure.. guess will find out tomorrow.

It's a fake! I don't know why this is getting posted everywhere. The CGI is shakey, the music is from TOS and Generations and the Nimoy voice over is from the end of TWOK. Pretty well done for a fan effort but I wish these things would quit getting posted as the real deal. We will see it soon enough.

Kevin

Thats actually fairly convincing for a trailer.  But I have to definitely agree with Ktrek.  I recognize Nimoy's voice from TWOK.  Not bad though, but I wish they would quit doing that. 

King

No - it's not convincing at all.  It's complete hooey!  I'm with KTrek on this one.

Trust me, next week when you see the real deal you will have your socks blown off!

Yeah they better not waste 20 sec of a 30 sec trailer flying thru our solar system.....I don't want plot point or anything but I hope there is more than that.

Don't feel bad Kenny...I thought it was well made for a fan film. But I recognized a lot of it from other movies... even the fan made CGI was copying other scenes from Trek. It just makes me want to see the real deal all the more. When is Cloverfield being released? I'm going just to see the Trek trailer.

18 Jan 08 I believe.  I will jst wait until the 19th when it will most assuredly be online.

Quote from: Ktrek on January 10, 2008, 08:23:52 AM
...It's a fake!

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/itsafake.png)

LOL

"IT'S A TRAP!!!!!!!

(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i31/wraith1701/tarp.jpg)

Seriously though; the trailer looked pretty cool, but I agree that it isn't the real deal.  By the way, I read on SyFy Portal that the Enterprise will look like the ship we expect to see ON THE OUTSIDE, but there will be some changes to the internal structure and station layouts. 

QuoteIt's not only hard to get any information out of the "Star Trek XI" sets, it's almost impossible. But Dawn Brown, a multi-talented Hollywood artisan who has credits ranging from "Ocean's 11" to "The X-Files," has been working hard on J.J. Abrams' latest outing of the USS Enterprise, and while she still remains as tight-lipped as everyone else, Brown has some stories to tell.

There has been a lot of debate going back and forth on the Internet for months about what that Enterprise will look like -- with fans getting their first look at a new "Star Trek XI" teaser trailer next week on another Abrams film, "Cloverfield." It seems that those who were betting that the 2008 look of the NCC-1701 will be far different from the 1960s version should start collecting their winnings now.

"I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out," Brown told SyFy Portal's Will N. Stape. "As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same. I don't know if that came from J.J. or Paramount."

Some of that was to be expected, however, as only so much 1960s nostalgia would work in today's cinema. But stubbornness should really be checked at the door Christmas Day when the new Star Trek movie premieres.

"I can't discuss any details, all I can offer is that you lose all your expectations of what Star Trek should be," Brown said. "If you see this movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great time."

While there are some physical structures, a lot of "Star Trek XI's" sets will have what has become the more traditional CGI enhancements ... something that Brown is never fully happy with.

"I'm not a fan of the digital and green screen or blue screen sets," she said. "I understand they have their place, but I think it usually looks better when things are physically built. It gives the actors something to react to. The design of the film belongs to the art department, not the visual effects department. I worked on a very large set on 'Star Trek' that would have been an absolutely fantastic physical build. But it became a visual effects shot instead. My involvement was reduced to marking out blue screens and platforms. We have so many talented carpenters and scenic artists and sculptors, and I have seen some truly amazing sets. It is a shame to trade their contributions for green screens."

I imagine the interior might look something like the bridge of the NX-01 Enterprise.  I'm OK with changes, as long as they stay true to the spirit of the original series.  Can't wait till the 18th! ;D

Quote from: wraith1701 on January 11, 2008, 06:33:48 PMI'm OK with changes, as long as they stay true to the spirit of the original series.  Can't wait till the 18th! ;D

I agree! I'm very much agreeable to change as long as the spirit of Star Trek is left in tact. I do hope that the exterior "look" of the Enterprise ship is the same as the ship we have come to love as it is really one of the "characters" of the show. I think most Star Trek fans LOVE the ship design and would feel slighted if that was changed. I think most of us could accept an interior design change though as long as it was "functional". After all this is science fiction and NOT fantasy and sci-fi should take into account what "could" be within realistic expectations and projections.

Kevin

I would expect that the inside of the ship should resemble what we saw in The Cage -- the timeframe would be close to that period.  It should be higher technology-wise than the NX-01 but not exactly where the Enterprise was when Kirk took over...

-Rick

Well I came across a description of the Star Trek Teaser Trailer.. I don't know if it's real so please don't attack me for posting this. If you plan on seeing Cloverfield tomorrow and don't want to be spoiled then don't read it. If you don't care then read it and you can decide if it sounds like a trailer or not.

SPOILER...SPOILER...SPOILER.. SPOILER...SPOILER...SPOILER...SPOILER.. SPOILER



Here's the Star Trek trailer description.

Slow Paramount logo.

Bad Robot logo.

Black, suddenly some sparks (very saturated, Michael Bay looking cinematography)

We hear an old NASA radio countdown: "30 sec and counting."

Close up of a timeless guy with goggles leaning down doing some weilding and sparks flying around.

He lifts his googles — slightly futuristic head covering. It's not a space suit, btw.

The dude leans down and wields some more — he's standing on big metal.

"FROM DIRECTOR J.J. ABRAMS" (blue font with a nice lens flare)

Some Kennedy speech about space flight: "The eyes of the world now look to space."

People walking around the saucer section. The wielders are everywhere, showing size.

We hear, "The Eagle has landed."

Huge overhead shot pans across, suddenly showing what looks like miles of scaffolding underneath.

Title: "THE FUTURE BEGINS"

Really impressive shot from by the nacelle(?) of people all over the ship, and you can see a huge industrialize city or shipyard in the background. It's being built on Earth, not in space.

Neil Armstrong: "One small step for man..."

Camera slowly cranes up over the whole saucer section.

Then we hear then Leonard Nimoy's line: "Space, the final frontier," and the familiar "Star Trek" theme horns.

The shot continues, revealing the writing on the top of the saucer — "U.S.S. Enterprise," and these huge aircraft-like warp engines in the background. Technically, the first reveal of what we're seeing.

Just the Starfleet log (no title)

Title card: "UNDER CONSTRUCTION"

"CHRISTMAS 2008"

Oooooh...I just got chills reading it....I cannot wait to SEE the teaser!!!

I read a book many years ago, maybe the Star Trek Reader, that said the Enterprise was built in space, not on earth.  And in an episode, it was made clear that the Enterprise could not withstand the gravity of Earth so it could never land on the planet.

So how can they be building it on the planet?

Continuity, continuity, continuity....

But I am still oh so ready to see the trailer anyway!!!!!   :D

So the description of the trailer that I posted the other day seems to be correct.. Cloverfield has already opened in Australia and folks have scene the trailer and reported the same thing.

They officially released the first look at the new Enterprise.

Edit... you can check out a larger version here. http://www.aolcdn.com/aolmovies/star-trek-uss-enterprise-full

Oh my.... :)

Wow!

I wonder where the trailer will pop up first online today!

I just read at Trek Web that Paramount has confirmed that the trailer will appear online on Monday, January 21st. That's not to say a bootleg version will make it on sooner..

LOL! Trying to push "Cloverfield" biz...

That's what it sounds like to me.. most would release it at the same time online as it's released in theaters.. not this time...

 :jawdrop

I must have that as my wallpaper......looks good so far.

Actually with the release of the movie down under already I am surprised that the trailer isn't on line already

The engines look interesting!  Hope I can see more soon.

King

whoa

I see they are going with a more TMP hull look with individual plates in different shades and the bridge is a bit off. It looks great, BUT it's different from TOS. I for one will be fine with that as the original filming model was bland and wouldn't stand up well on the modern big screen, but some other purist are going to freak!

And I should have known the RPF would be all over this subject! Many thing this is going to be close to the look of the ship as was speculated but dismissed a while ago. I don't like it at all.. :thumbsdown

Yea, it looks too....idk robotic like.  I mean, it looks cool and all, but I prefer the more original look personally.

King

I LOVE that ship. The lines are fantastic. The ship looks like a starship. This ship LOOKS like a descendant of the NX-01. The rotating bussard collectors look much better in this version. You can see what causes the strobe effect. They got a better strobe in the enhanced version, but I am really enjoying this look.

I agree, it looks damn cool. I am very confident they took the NX-01 into consideration when they designed this version. I like the retro 'cowls' on top of the collectors.

Oh boy...and so the battle lines are drawn. Just like Star Wars, Star Trek will now be defined by those that had TOS as kids and those that had TNG!

I don't think that a line needs to be drawn at all. I saw every series in order. Sure I saw TOS and TAS in reruns, but I saw them all and liked them for what they were.

Even Gene felt that the effect could have been done better with better tech and more money. The big screen Enterprise and the Klingons were how Gene thought they always should have been. Even now we are getting better effects in the Enhanced Versions.

If the series had the money that they needed, we would have seen far more diversity in Trek. There were rampant redresses and repurposing of Models ... hell even the sound stages were in flux. Redress of Voyager or Enterprise sets filled the movies.

I think that this might work because it hold to the spirt of Trek. If there is a chance to make the vision of the future better and more inline with the current progress of technology, I say go for it.

Ok, I'll admit, it looks pretty darn cool. 

King

Quote from: Just X on January 17, 2008, 08:06:24 PM
I don't think that a line needs to be drawn at all. I saw every series in order. Sure I saw TOS and TAS in reruns, but I saw them all and liked them for what they were.

Even Gene felt that the effect could have been done better with better tech and more money. The big screen Enterprise and the Klingons were how Gene thought they always should have been. Even now we are getting better effects in the Enhanced Versions.

If the series had the money that they needed, we would have seen far more diversity in Trek. There were rampant redresses and repurposing of Models ... hell even the sound stages were in flux. Redress of Voyager or Enterprise sets filled the movies.

I think that this might work because it hold to the spirt of Trek. If there is a chance to make the vision of the future better and more inline with the current progress of technology, I say go for it.

Oh, for sure, X, I agree with the reasoning behind a new look and that TOS, had it not been budget restrained, would have looked differently. What I am saying, in a very general sense, is that the older TOS crowd, of which I am just on the cusp being born in 1968, are going to be upset. I think they were hoping for a more true to the original story and look as opposed to a complete re-imagining. I also think a younger, more progressive audience will be willing to embrace this new look as making more sense and being visually more interesting. I sort of fall in the middle on that.

Here's a handi-cam version of the trailer.  Watch it before it gets yanked from Youtube!


http://www.youtube.com/v/RllSZW_YLk8&rel=1

Ok, even though I'm going to be seeing this in about 5 hours on the big screen I caved and watched.  First impression, very, very cool.  I like how they tied it into the space program, NASA, Kennedy, etc. just like Enterprise did.  I'm also very happy they didn't show much, but enough to get us fans excited I think.  Ok, now on to details....

Building her in space.  It's always been my impression from everything I have learned over the years that this Enterprise was assembled in space - much like the international space station is these days.  Components put together on Earth, then assembled into space.  It makes the most sense.  No problem at all from me on that.

The look of the Enterprise.  I like it.  She's still the Enterprise, but just a bit updated and I'll say "jazzed" up.  We all knew this was coming.  It wasn't going to look precisely like the TOS Enterprise.  And for someone like me that has every inch of the original burned into my brain to accept this I think is a good thing.  Right or wrong, this is a good step for the future of Star Trek.  And I'll say right now, it will help a lot to get the younger people to embrace the show and film even more.

I can't wait for December!

I like it. Same as Rico. When Spock started doing his thing I felt chills.

My impression is that the trailer is only symbolic and not footage from the actual film. The whole premise is to let you know that things are "under construction" like it says at the end of the trailer and also on their webpage. So I wouldn't get too excited about anything because they really have shown you nothing.

Kevin

Although I am not wild about the design and would have preferred a more TOS looking ship, I do agree that in order to generate a new audience to keep the franchise viable, changes and modernization is needed.

I disagree.  I do think we will see some of that construction footage in the film.  As far as my excitement level, too late.  I've been excited since they green lit the movie!

I can't recall exactly, I know that Christopher Pike will be in the movie. Will he be captaining the Enterprise? I take it there is no mention of Robert April (I think that was the name of the first Captain).

Pike will be in the movie.  Bruce Greenwood is playing Pike.  I'm guessing the Robert April thing is just going to be ignored a bit.  It only really popped up a couple of times and most people don't know about Pike let alone April.

Has April actually ever been officially mentioned as being captain? I know he was the working name for the captain in the Gene Roddenberry's initial proposal and the pilot draft for The Cage according to "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield but I don't think the character has ever been canonized or spoken of on screen.

Kevin

not sure it'd be considered canon but he did show up in an ep of the animated series as well as a few books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_April

The animated series is considered Trek canon.

Quote from: Bryancd on January 18, 2008, 11:16:32 AM
The animated series is considered Trek canon.

Ahh, not really Bryan.  It's kind of in that limbo area.  Gene at least never considered it canon.

I was aware of the books he appears in but I don't consider the books canon. However, I forgot about the TAS episode and I might be willing to list that as a canon reference but Paramount to this day still insists that TAS is not canon.

Kevin

They were for a while and then they weren't, but stuff from them are still used in some things Trek. Here is the wiki on the show canon issues:

At the end of the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, all licenses for Star Trek spin-off fiction were renegotiated and the animated series was essentially "decanonised" by Gene Roddenberry's office. Writers of the novels, comics and role-playing games were prohibited from using concepts from the animated series in their works.[3] The Star Trek Chronology by production staffers Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda does not include the animated series, but does include certain events from "Yesteryear".[4] The timeline in Voyages of the Imagination dates the events of the series to 2269-2270, assuming the events of the show represented the final part of Kirk's five-year mission, and using revised Alan Dean Foster stardates.

Since Roddenberry's death in 1991 and the consequent firing of Richard H. Arnold, there have been various references to the animated series in the various live-action series. In the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Once More Unto the Breach", Kor referred to his ship, the Klothos, which was first named in the TAS episode "The Time Trap". Other DS9 episodes to reference the animated series include "Broken Link", where Elim Garak mentions Edosian orchids (Arex is an Edosian) and "Tears of the Prophets" where a Miranda class starship is called the USS ShirKahr (sic) after Shikahr, the city from "Yesteryear". David Gerrold who contributed 2 stories to TAS, states in an interview that he personally believes:

" Arguments about "canon" are silly. I always felt that Star Trek Animated was part of Star Trek because Gene Roddenberry accepted the paycheck for it and put his name on the credits. And DC Fontana -- and all the other writers involved -- busted their butts to make it the best Star Trek they could. But this whole business of "canon" really originated with Gene's errand boy. Gene liked giving people titles instead of raises, so the errand boy got named "archivist" and apparently it went to his head. Gene handed him the responsibility of answering all fan questions, silly or otherwise, and he apparently let that go to his head.[5] "

More DS9 references to the animated series include the episode "Prophet Motive" where the title of healer is resurrected from "Yesteryear" as well. Vulcan's Forge is also mentioned in "Change of Heart", where Worf wants himself and Jadzia Dax to honeymoon there.

Most recently, the Star Trek: Enterprise episodes "The Catwalk" and "The Forge" included references to "Yesteryear", the latter featuring a CGI rendition of a wild sehlat. The remastered Original Series episode, Amok Time featured Shikahr in the background as Spock beams up at the episode's end. [6]

In more recent years references to the Animated Series have also cropped up in books. M'Ress and Arex, characters from the animated series, appear in the Star Trek: New Frontier novels. A race introduced in the episode "The Jihad", represented by M/3/Green, is named as the Nasat in the Starfleet Corps of Engineers e-book novellas. These stories feature a regular Nasat character, P8 Blue. The city of ShiKahr also appears in many books.

Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. has — as part of its license for the Star Fleet Universe series of games — incorporated many aspects of the Animated Series into its works, not least being the inclusion of the Kzinti, although in a modified form. In addition FASA used elements from the animated series in its sourcebooks and modules for its Star Trek role-playing game.

If Star Trek Enterprise had been renewed for a fifth season, the Kzinti would have been introduced.[7] Starship designs were produced which closely resemble the Kzinti/Mirak ships from the Star Fleet Universe, a gaming universe that includes the boardgame Star Fleet Battles and its PC analogue Star Fleet Command.

On June 27, 2007, Star Trek's official site included information from the animated series into its library section.[8]

The inclusion of TAS refrences in other ST productions makes it canon, you can't pick and choose elements which are and others which are not.

Quote from: Bryancd on January 18, 2008, 11:32:16 AM
The inclusion of TAS refrences in other ST productions makes it canon, you can't pick and choose elements which are and others which are not.

I kind of agree with you.  However, the "company line" has been it's a cartoon and it's not canon.  Just like the books and comics for example are not canon.

Really I thought I read somewhere that the TAS was now cannon.

Quote from: Rico on January 18, 2008, 11:35:19 AM

Quote from: Bryancd on January 18, 2008, 11:32:16 AM
The inclusion of TAS refrences in other ST productions makes it canon, you can't pick and choose elements which are and others which are not.

I kind of agree with you.  However, the "company line" has been it's a cartoon and it's not canon.  Just like the books and comics for example are not canon.

Especially since the whole DVD release. Certainly that gives them a tremendous amount of legitimacy.....but now we are all OT!

Actually you can. If you only refer to specific names or places, they become canon, but the TAS events around introducing the things aren't.

Take the Forge ... while it was in TAS, it wasn't canon until mentioned in DS9. I think Gene said yesteryear was the only "canon" show that he wanted from TAS, but I don't remember where I read that.

I found it on Memory Alpha:

Star Trek: The Animated Series was not considered canon by Paramount Pictures and could not be included in Michael and Denise Okuda's reference books. However, they made an exception in the case of "Yesteryear" (or at least its backstory) because of its importance to the Star Trek timeline and elements of Spock's backstory established here have made it into official sources and future live-action episodes of TNG, so "Yesteryear" was mentioned in the Star Trek Chronology. The producers of later Star Trek series incorporated elements of "Yesteryear"'s backstory into canon: Spock's desert journeys are mentioned by Sarek in TNG: "Unification I", and T'Pol mentions her own kahs-wan in ENT: "The Catwalk". In addition, Vulcan's Forge is mentioned in DS9: "Change of Heart" and seen in ENT: "The Forge".

Nice I completely derailed the thread!

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm a big, big fan of the animated series.  And I'm certainly aware of the bits they picked out of it over the years and mined in other projects.  April is even mentioned in the Enterprise episode set from season 4 "In the Mirror Darkly."  I basically consider it Star Trek, but again officially TAS as a whole isn't canon.  And we are not likely to hear Captain April's name in the new movie (but who knows - maybe we will).

Back on track - who is going to see the trailer and "Cloverfield?"

Me!


also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Coklq_pA0

I have to say like the look of the ship.Yeah it's differant but one look & you know it's the Enterprise..

Some very interesting comments from Robert Orci (one of the movie writers) about the teaser trailer.  From trekmovie.com

The first teaser trailer for Star Trek (showing now with Clovefield) may be the biggest thing to hit Trek in years and has sparked quite a bit of interest and even some controversy. TrekMovie.com has conducted a 'post game interview' with Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci to help sort it all out. Orci talks about JFK, Nimoy, Earth vs. space construction, the new Trek 'Supreme Court,' and more....read below.

TrekMovie.com: How does it feel to finally see something you have done with Star Trek actually on the big screen:

Roberto Orci: It is both wonderful and terrifying at the same time. There is no going back now.

TrekMovie.com: In my review I noted that the trailer seemed to be trying to make the connection from today to the future of Trek...was that the intention?

Roberto Orci: Absolutely. This is us. This is who we are. This is real. This is maybe not so far off in the future as it used to be. In the 60s the cell phone was a fantasy. Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. It is a different millennium for God's sake. We are literally a century closer than we were before.

TrekMovie.com: You bring up the 60s. The trailer contains voices from the 60s space race, including John F. Kennedy. What was the thinking behind that? And is there some kind of JFK-Kirk link you are trying to make?

Roberto Orci: First of all, it has been written about that Kirk was in a way modeled after JFK. Like being the youngest captain ever, like Kennedy was the youngest President ever. Obviously the space race being kicked off by JFK is very much associated with Star Trek. It was also due to what we just discussed and linking it back to today. If we do indeed have a Federation, I think Kennedy's words will be inscribed in their someplace. He kicked us off. And on a third level it is a slight nod to Star Trek Enterprise, in that we are not blind to the fact that going back to some of the more historical aspects of Star Trek that haven't been covered in a while...that that is something that Enterprise tended to do as well.

TrekMovie.com: I have to ask...is the trailer actually going to be part of the movie itself?

Roberto Orci: No comment [laughs]

TrekMovie.com: Is that a new recording of Nimoy's voice?

Roberto Orci: Yes. He recorded that on set just between takes.

TrekMovie.com: How many takes did it take to get it?

Roberto Orci: Not very many [laughs]

TrekMovie.com: Did you guys realize that when you set the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth that it would spark controversy?

Roberto Orci: Of course.

TrekMovie.com: So what is your guys logic for setting it on land?

Roberto Orci: Besides the thematic stuff we discussed, which is to connect it to today and make it clear. Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don't have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don't ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is
very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.

TrekMovie.com: Where did that come from?

Roberto Orci: That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

TrekMovie.com: Did the dedication plaque [which has 'San Francisco, Calif. written right on it] factor into your thinking?

Roberto Orci: Yes, that is part of where some of the canon, literary and other sources sparks from.

TrekMovie.com: But this does seem to fall into one of those canon grey areas where you guys made a call.

Roberto Orci: Exactly

TrekMovie.com: Looking at the reaction from this one little thing, are you now thinking about what it will be like for all the other judgment calls you made?

Roberto Orci: Not really. The main judgment call is going to be whether or not the theory of the movie works. And the theory sort of encompasses it...either you buy the movie or you don't. So we aren't going to sweat every little detail. We are going to sweat whether or not you buy our interpretation of it. But this is not a surprise. When we were constructing the trailer we knew that many were going to criticize it. We have our eyes wide open I think. But again, of course it is terrifying. I think I said on your site that in those times when canon is fuzzy, then we are 'The Supreme Court' right now and the court has to rule one way or the other.

TrekMovie.com: So who sits on the court?

Roberto Orci: It is the five of us: me, Alex [Kurtzman], JJ [Abrams], Bryan [Burk], and Damon [lindelof]

TrekMovie.com: Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.

Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51.

TrekMovie.com: What is being conveyed by the "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" thing?

Roberto Orci: Both the literal interpretation that we are putting the movie together, but also to convey the idea that this is something that this is something that could be coming soon. It is the idea that The Federation may exist may exist. The idea that the future is not nearly as far off as it was in the 60s.

TrekMovie.com: And why isn't the title "Star Trek" in the trailer prominently?

Roberto Orci: No reason, other than it is our M.O. To make people ask 'what is it.' And those who know will say "it's Star Trek."

TrekMovie.com: While we are on end credits, why are Spock's parents (Ben Cross and Winona Ryder) listed, but Kirk's parents (Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison) aren't?

Roberto Orci: I guess they must have better agents.?


...and the conversation continues
Mr. Orci has been kind enough to interact with the TrekMovie.com community from time to time (and continues to claim he reads every post). So keep track of the talkback below...you never know who might show up....and maybe some of you lurkers and new visitors could join in

source:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/interview-orci-answers-questions-about-new-trek-trailer/#more-1466

Thanks for the info, Rico.

Regarding the construction of the Enterprise-

QuoteTrekMovie.com: Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.

Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51.

Assuming that the components of the ship are being built in San Francisco, this is a nice nod to current Trek continuity.  :)

I think that Orci is full of it. Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible. It would be like us building the Space Station here and then trying to get it into space. Small components of the ship could be built here undoubdtedly and then assembled in space, but for the major construction to happen here? It's laughable to say the least! And even if the Enterprise was to be built on Earth San Francisco is the least likely of all places. It's too overcrowded. You would need a more remote and desert like location to launch from. And how do they know that engaging warp drives within an atmosphere would not create unexpected problems? So, thrusters would have to be used and the amount of energy required to get a vessel the size of the Enterprise into space without any problems would be a logistical nightmare. Did Orci or anyone actually consult real space engineers or physicists before making such an absurd decision? And to say that the nacelles could only be balanced in a gravity well is just trying to cover their creative license. The more Orci actually talks about the movie the more worried I am becoming.

Kevin

I'm just not too crazy about this whole re-boot, which is beginning to look like. I can't wait to see the movie, but part of me wishes they had just gone someplace new rather than a revision of TOS. TOS wasn't broken, why fix it?

Quote from: Ktrek on January 19, 2008, 01:35:36 PM
I think that Orci is full of it. Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible. It would be like us building the Space Station here and then trying to get it into space. Small components of the ship could be built here undoubdtedly and then assembled in space, but for the major construction to happen here? It's laughable to say the least! And even if the Enterprise was to be built on Earth San Francisco is the least likely of all places. It's too overcrowded. You would need a more remote and desert like location to launch from. And how do they know that engaging warp drives within an atmosphere would not create unexpected problems? So, thrusters would have to be used and the amount of energy required to get a vessel the size of the Enterprise into space without any problems would be a logistical nightmare. Did Orci or anyone actually consult real space engineers or physicists before making such an absurd decision? And to say that the nacelles could only be balanced in a gravity well is just trying to cover their creative license. The more Orci actually talks about the movie the more worried I am becoming.

Kevin

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is possible to build it on earth and it is probably cheaper because you don't have to bring all of that metal into space. If you factor in anti-gravity generators, it would be MUCH easier to build on earth.

I don't think that they consulted actual scientist because well half of the stuff in the ship ignores science in some aspect.

I think that it's cool that it was built in San Fran ... hell that's what the plaque says it was done. We also don't know how crowded the city is that far in the future. I'm willing to give them the benefits of the doubts because they are trying to do their part to honor the past and push to the future.

I am just thankful they are doing some more Trek stuff.  I am holding off judgment till I buy my popcorn and sit in the theater.  Then I will let you know what  I think.

People complained about Battlestar Galactica, but it turned out pretty cool.

Most things that are re-imagined can go either way.  We will see.

I want to see the whole package before I say yay or nay.

:ohbaby

I wouldn't sweat the details too much yet.  A long way to go still.  Again, it was expected there would be some changes made.  But like Rick says above, it's really about the whole package.  If a few details are changed a bit but we end up with an exciting and spectacular movie I know I will be very pleased!  :)

most likeley the under construction steel girder look may be more a commentary on the state of the movie and a small punny than an actual peek at the movie.  . . i hope?

Quote from: MouseSlayer on January 19, 2008, 03:27:44 PM
most likeley the under construction steel girder look may be more a commentary on the state of the movie and a small punny than an actual peek at the movie.  . . i hope?

Welcome to the Forum, MouseSlayer.  I think the teaser was at least partly symbolic, hence the "under construction" tag line.

Even so; while I would prefer to see the ship constructed in orbit, I'm still willing to accept the ship's components being constructed on earth.  I don't think the physics concerns listed earlier are really an issue- after all, the starfleet shuttlecraft are able to reach escape velocity and travel to and from a planet's surface into space.  Considering the decidedly non-aerodynamic shape of the shuttlecraft, I don't think they rely on thrusters to achieve orbit.  Instead, it seems as though the Federation uses some kind of anti-gravity technology to fly the ships while they are within a planet's atmosphere.

Also, the ships use a structural integrity field to reinforce their frame while zipping through space; whose to say that a similar energy field couldn't be used to keep larger sub-assemblies intact during transit? 

Quote from: Rico on January 19, 2008, 02:32:03 PM
I wouldn't sweat the details too much yet.  A long way to go still.  Again, it was expected there would be some changes made.  But like Rick says above, it's really about the whole package.  If a few details are changed a bit but we end up with an exciting and spectacular movie I know I will be very pleased!  :)

I agree with all that, but how about a little gut reaction as an kid who grew up with TOS? Let it loose, brother, let's get a dialogue going on this! They have a great thread going on the RPF and so should we. Should we just accept that a re-imagine of the series is fine just so we have something? Is it just ok to say well at least we get more Star Trek?  Come on people! :)

Quote from: Bryancd on January 19, 2008, 04:45:08 PMShould we just accept that a re-imagine of the series is fine just so we have something? Come on people! :)

Yes.

Quote from: Just X on January 19, 2008, 04:49:52 PM

Quote from: Bryancd on January 19, 2008, 04:45:08 PMShould we just accept that a re-imagine of the series is fine just so we have something? Come on people! :)

Yes.

Clearly we disagree. I am very much looking forward to this film, I just think it is worthy of debate.

If we want Trek to survive and go on to more movies and TV I think this movie has to do well.. so in a matter of speaking we do have to accept it... do we have to like it.. no.

But again we don't have a choice.. this is where they decided to go with Trek. If we are true fans we give them our support.

Kenny, it's not that we shouldn't support it to keep the franchise going. Of course we should. It's how do we FEEL about that? This is a community of Star Trek fan's, I have a hard time believing we all just want  to go along to get along within our own community.

It seems to me that the Star Wars generation is much more apt to throw away real science for fantasy because the end justifies the means, and as long as we are all "entertained" then what does it matter? Right? The difference between Star Trek and Star Wars was and still is that Star Wars is pure unadulterated fantasy and believable if you accept that. Star Trek is "science fiction" and as such is based upon science fact for it's proposals of a possible future reality. As far as I know Star Trek has always consulted with real scientists for help in predicting the future. I really cannot accept that any NASA scientist would go for the Enterprise being built on Earth.

That said though I will still go see it with great hope and expectation but if they take Star Trek in the direction of Star Wars then they will have lost one fan here and I'm sure many more too. And it's not that I don't love Star Wars because I do but I have always loved Star Trek more and most of that love has been because of the real "possibilities" that Star Trek projects about our future. Think about how many things have already been developed all because of TOS! Once Star Trek diverts into the realm of fantasy you have lost what Roddenberry meant Star Trek to be and it has become something else, NOT STAR TREK! Now that does not mean it cannot be entertaining in it's own right but IMHO the Star Trek name should not be attached to it if it is just going to be a fantasy film with space ships involved.

Kevin

Quote from: Bryancd on January 19, 2008, 05:01:36 PM
Kenny, it's not that we shouldn't support it to keep the franchise going. Of course we should. It's how do we FEEL about that? This is a community of Star Trek fan's, I have a hard time believing we all just want  to go along to get along within our own community.

I agree with you Bryan! What kind of a community do we really have if we are all going to take an attitude of fanboys and not "rock the boat" or go against the status quo? We would be a bunch of clones and yes men just to get along. If the Star Trek future is ever to become reality it can only come about by people willing to discuss things openly with no fear of reprisal or recrimination. To say that "you must not be a fan" of Star Trek just because you may not support what is perceived, at this time, to be a misdirection of the franchise, is absurd! That would be like me saying that you're NOT a fan of musicals because you hate Phantom of the Opera and I love the film!

Kevin

Certainly everyone can have their own views and opinion.  But I will say again, there is very little to go by so far.  A 1 minute and 14 second trailer isn't much.  Let's wait a bit and see how this all turns out.  If you are excited by the trailer - that's great.  If not - that's fine too.  The last thing I will say is most of the people I have known who enjoy "Star Trek" usually are able to accept new concepts and ideas.

Quote from: Ktrek on January 19, 2008, 05:05:18 PM
I really cannot accept that any NASA scientist would go for the Enterprise being built on Earth.

I would have to disagree with this. First I want to point out that NASA, while good at what they do, is the authority in space travel. Secondly, I am quite sure that both NASA scientist and others in the field have agreed that transporting raw materials into space even to build a lunar colony isn't cost effective. They have been looking at ways to use the natural enviroment of the moon to build future bases because they don't think that building in space is a worth much.

If you ignore all of the fantasy tech, there is a lot of energy required to build in space. The weilding alone would rapidly consume oxygen if using standard torches and/or a lot of power if you use arc weilders. Then if you factor in the protection that someone will need to work in space and take in account that fine manipulation is more difficult because of the lack of gravity, from a strictly science standpoint, building on ground is safer and cheaper than building in space.

When we factor in the trek tech and things like transporters, we know that they are a far leap and peices of that "technolgy" were created for the sole purpose of bypassing laws of physics that would prevent the tech from working.

I'm pretty sure that any article you pick up in any science mag that does a story on space stations and lunar bases will point out that one of the primary problems with building in space is the access to the right materials to do the job.

Addendum: NASA scientists consulted on Armagedon with Bruce Willis, but they still went with the Space Drill because it worked for the movie.

Quote from: Ktrek on January 19, 2008, 05:13:54 PM
What kind of a community do we really have if we are all going to take an attitude of fanboys and not "rock the boat" or go against the status quo?

My problem with that is that I like what I see. If I'm enjoying the ride on the boat, I'm not going to tip it over because what might or might not be on the horizion.

My opinion is that every decision that I've seen, from casting to the trailer is something that I like. If there was something to rock the boat about, I'd be the first one in line. See my comments on Spider-man. If the story backs the movie, I'm for it. If the tech looks evolved, I'm for that too.

I can understand if you are not liking what you are seeing and hearing, but some of us are and remain in a holding pattern to see if we will continue to like it.

When they announced Battlestar and the cast, I was all for it, but my wife hated it on prinicple alone. She would call the show Battlestar Gasucktaca and rail against Starbuck.

She saw the show and tried to hate it. I kept watch and now she's pretending she liked it from the start and only had a problem with Starbuck being a girl and no Athena. She still hangs on to some of that hate even while she gets upset that the show isn't back.

That taught me that there were two kinds of fans.

People that will consider change and people that have to be convinced of it. If something is bad then it's bad, but if something is good, don't hate it because it's different from what you remember.

Hollywood has been remaking movies and shows since they began. Some things work and some don't. For me, at this point, the changes are working.

Quote from: Rico on January 19, 2008, 05:18:49 PM
Certainly everyone can have their own views and opinion.  But I will say again, there is very little to go by so far.  A 1 minute and 14 second trailer isn't much.  Let's wait a bit and see how this all turns out.  If you are excited by the trailer - that's great.  If not - that's fine too.  The last thing I will say is most of the people I have known who enjoy "Star Trek" usually are able to accept new concepts and ideas.

Again, That's fine. However, I think there are a great many fans out there who are a little hurt and put off by this POTENTIAL re-boot. For sure we all don't need to agree, but how about a little passion and defense for the Star Trek of our youth? What's wrong with that? JJ will deliver a new Star Trek to the screen this Christmas. It's OK to speculate from what we have seen and read that it is going to be a very different concept. It may be awesome! Until then, ther eis nothing wrong with discussing. It's fun!

Quote from: Bryancd link=topic=814.msg37683#msg37683Again, That's fine. However, I think there are a great many fans out there who are a little hurt and put off by this POTENTIAL re-boot. For sure we all don't need to agree, but how about a little passion and defense for the Star Trek of our youth? What's wrong with that? JJ will deliver a new Star Trek to the screen this Christmas. It's OK to speculate from what we have seen and read that it is going to be a very different concept. It may be awesome! Until then, ther eis nothing wrong with discussing. It's fun!

What exactly do you want to discuss? I think everyone is sharing their opinions pretty well. If you want to be passionate and defensive of Trek, more power to you, but I don't think it needs a rallying cry when people are saying what they think. I also don't think anyone is trying to stop any discussion. It just appear that most of the discussion is about being interested in what they've seen.

For me, the things I hear screams Star Trek. 30% of the trek movies involve some form of time travel. The most famous and some might say the most popular TOS show features time travel.

Stats:

5 TOS episodes involve time travel
1 TAS Episode involves time travel (the most popular of the series)
3 Movies
12 TNG
10 DS9
13 Voyager
12 Enterprise

As for alternate timelines:
TOS: (2)
"The City on the Edge of Forever"
"Mirror, Mirror"
TAS: (1)
"Yesteryear"
TNG: (5)
"Time Squared"
"Yesterday's Enterprise"
"Tapestry"
"Parallels"
"All Good Things..."
DS9: (11)
"Crossover"
"Past Tense, Part I"
"Past Tense, Part II"
"Visionary"
"Through the Looking Glass"
"The Visitor"
"Shattered Mirror"
"Trials and Tribble-ations"
"Children of Time"
"Resurrection"
"The Emperor's New Cloak"
VOY: (12)
"Time and Again"
"Non Sequitur"
"Before and After"
"Future's End"
"Future's End, Part II"
"Year of Hell"
"Year of Hell, Part II"
"Timeless"
"Relativity"
"Fury"
"Shattered"
"Endgame"
ENT: (8)
"Shockwave"
"Shockwave, Part II"
"Twilight"
"E²"
"Storm Front"
"Storm Front, Part II"
"In a Mirror, Darkly"
"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"
Star Trek films (3)

If anything this movie follows the traditions of trek directly. If they are doing what they have always done, but bringing in new concepts to keep it from being stale ( Like they did when they created TNG than the others), what exactly is there to defend?

Enterprise being build in San Fransisco? They never said it wasn't and the dedication plaque clearly states that it was. If it was built in orbit, wouldn't they just put the shipyard on it? In fact, it wasn't until the A that it was done at the shipyard, which is in orbit. I would say that it's probably easier to build the first Constitution class ships on the ground instead of waiting for them to build a massive shipyard in space. Maybe they were still building the earlier classes in the shipyard in space and then when that class was phased out, they moved the constitution classes to space. At that point they could have enough ships that were bringing in cargo and material from other planets to justify the ability to build in space.

I have one other thing to say in regards to the Enterprise being built on Earth in San Francisco. According to the book The Making of Star Trek by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry the Enterprise was "built" on Earth and "assembled" in space. If the film goes along this line then I am fine with it but if they disregard what Roddenberry himself said and try to show an Enterprise lifting off from Earth just for some stupid special effect sequence I will be disappointed.

Kevin

Ok, X, you lost me. What does time travel have to do with the re-imagining of TOS? I know that is speculated to be part of the story and that is fine. I just think they could have paid it bit more homage to TOS in term of what we have seen from the look of the ship, wich portends a very new look overall. I'm just not ok with that yet and there are a lot of fans who feel the same.

Quote from: Bryancd on January 19, 2008, 09:06:15 PM
Ok, X, you lost me. What does time travel have to do with the re-imagining of TOS? I know that is speculated to be part of the story and that is fine. I just think they could have paid it bit more homage to TOS in term of what we have seen from the look of the ship, wich portends a very new look overall. I'm just not ok with that yet and there are a lot of fans who feel the same.

I can understand that and I can understand that there are fans that feel the same. I just don't think that people here are going to debate it if they are enjoying the direction or doing the wait and see thing. Then you have the other group of people that figure that it's happening and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

I like the new look ... Gene obviously wanted something different than the TOS ship because as soon as he got the cash to do so, he changed it twice. Every ship they have has been evolving with the technology. Even the enhanced series has worked hard to make the ship look better.

I just want to see what they can do with the franchise... it can't do worse than Nemesis and it just might be the shot in the arm that the franchise needs so that they make more Trek on both screens.

If folks are digging it, awesome. I am really psyched about the whole thing but felt a little let down by what may be the look of the new ship. I was more directing my comment at the notion that "well, we just have to suck it up, buttrecup!" in regards to what they put out there for us to consume as Star Trek fans. Ultimately that's true but I will not go silently into the night! ;)

I have posted this image before, but there is some internet chatter that this image may have inspired what we are seeing in the teaser trailer.  I'm sure posting this will create more controversy.  Just so you know, if it was me making the movie I would never have the ship assembled on Earth.  But who knows, maybe they have some massive powered transporter system than "beams" it into space.  Not likely, but you never know.  Anyway, here is the image.  Let the games and chatter begin!

I've seen that one before. A nice photoshop of an AMT 18" E model at Newport News! I wouldn't be surprised if someone on JJ's team had seen that before. I actually don't care too much about where she is built, although considering "Enterprise" continued the continuity of a space dock from TMP, I would rather it be done that way.

I thought of that picture when all this discussion started and although the picture is well done it was meant as a joke. To think that someone on Arbams team might have seen this pic and used the idea is I suppose possible.

Kevin

QuoteAccording to TrekMovie.com, Star Trek New Voyages fan series executive producer and Kirk actor James Cawley meet J.J. Abrams at the Paramount Pictures lot last week and was invited to visit the set where they are currently shooting scenes on the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Now, TrekMovie reports that Cawley has been offered a role in the new Star Trek movie. He has been fitted for a costume and has to report for work on the set today. All he knows is that he will be playing a Starfleet officer on the Enterprise.

Here are few excerpts from his TrekMovie.com interview.

Regarding the U.S.S. Enterprise sets, Cawley said "I like the set. The bridge is spectacular, absolutely stunning, but it is not what I would  have done. But I think the fans are going to go 'woah' I think people are going to be genuinely stunned. I think people are going to be impressed. It is a beautiful set."

Regarding the uniforms, he said "The uniforms are perfect, spot on perfect. I wouldn't have done anything any different. When I saw the look of what he was going for, he's got it."


"No two people are going to share the same ideas." Cawley said  "I can like aspects of it, even though they are not my choices...If I had been in his position I would have done things a little differently because I am not JJ Abrams. He has an idea and is going to follow that to the end, just like we do with New Voyages...We can have differences of opinions and still enjoy each other's work. Would I have made some design changes? Sure! Would I have made a red button, blue? Ya! Are his sets spectacular? You better believe it!"

That sounds like an honest assesment of what he saw. Will it look awesome? You bet! Will it still feel like Trek? Maybe!

Well, it's wonderful to know Cawley approves, somewhat(Kirk-Fu turns off sarcasm)

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2008/01/25/chris-doohan-scottys-son-will-be-in-trek-movie/

Chris Doohan (Scotty's Son) Will Be In Trek Movie

In January 2007 we wrote an article about Chris Doohan wanting to play his father's famous role in the next Trek film. Now we learn that he did get a role in the new Star Trek movie from J.J. Abrams and Paramount Pictures. Chris is the son of the legendary actor James Doohan, who starred as Enterprise chief engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott in the original Classic Star Trek television series, the episode "Relics" on Star Trek: The Next Generation" and in 7 of the 10 big screen Star Trek films. Chris also has a twin brother named Montgomery. Both appeared in minor roles in the 1979 film "Star Trek The Motion Picture." Chris is also a well known alternative rock musician.

Of course, the role Chris really wanted to audition for was the same one his father did for almost 4 decades before his death in 2005. However, the studio decided to go with actor Simon Pegg ("Shaun of the Dead," "Mission Impossible III" & "Hot Fuzz") for the part of the gruff Scottish engineer. Doohan isn't disappointed and is happy with Abrams' choice of Pegg for the part of Scotty.

Also, Chris' auditioning process wasn't in vain. He has landed a role in the upcoming Trek film due to be released Christmas Day 2008.

Recently Doohan spoke, as much as he was allowed to, about his role with TrekMovie.com, the website quickly becoming the new mouthpiece for everything Trek after the demise in December 2007 of Trek's official CBS/Paramount website StarTrek.com. Security surrounding this release is extremely tight so he couldn't tell much, but what he could reveal is still interesting.

Here is that interview:

TrekMovie.com: When do you shoot and do you know where you will appear?

Chris Doohan: At this point, I'm tentatively scheduled to go in later next week to film, but, like James Cawley, I still don't know exactly what I'm going to do. I can tell you that my father would be happy with my position on the ship.

TrekMovie.com: Have you seen your costume yet?

Chris Doohan: I went to Paramount Studios a couple of weeks ago for my fitting. After my déjà vu moment, I stood there in awe of the rows and rows of Star Trek uniforms that seemed to be everywhere. The uniforms are incredible and extremely well made. When it comes to wardrobe, they definitely spared no expense and I can only imagine what the Enterprise set will look like. I can't wait to see it.

TrekMovie.com: Have you met Simon Pegg (the new Scotty), or (director) JJ Abrams yet?

Chris Doohan: Simon Pegg and I have exchanged a few emails and we may get together to toast my Father. I guess I'll need to bring some green food coloring to put in our drinks. I'm really looking forward to meeting the rest of the cast and J.J. Abrams. I not only think that he was the right guy to do this movie, I believe he's the only one who could do it in a way that respects Gene Roddenberry's vision. The fact that he asked Randy Pausch to be in the film proves that for me. Definitely a class act. Being on this film is a dream come true and I can't thank him enough.

Well so far most people that have seen anything that has to do with this film have been impressed. Then again, Nemesis (which I did really like) could have been a much better movie if not for choppy editing. There is still a long way to go!

You can watch a video of New Frontiers producer James Cawley's interview with TrekMovie.com regarding his impressions of the new set, uniforms, and actors here- http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-cawley-to-appear-in-new-star-trek-movie/  Just scroll down towards the center of the page. 

I thought it was pretty interesting; the interviewer asked some pretty good questions.
         

Yelchin: I'm Signed For Three Star Trek Movies

By MICHAEL HINMAN
Source: TrekWeb
Jan-29-2008

Paramount Pictures is making a strong commitment to "Star Trek XI" -- or as writer Roberto Orci likes to call it, "Star Trek: Zero" -- and the entire movie franchise of Star Trek, as actor Anton Yelchin, who plays Pavel Chekov in the film, says he's on board for three Trek pictures.

Yelchin has been filming Chekov recently, and says he is trying to capture a little bit of what Walter Koenig originally brought to the table with the character, but sometimes it can be a little strange.

"Chekov is like the weirdest guy," Yelchin told IGN. "Like, watching the old show really makes you realize just how strange, but incredible it was. Like there's one scene where they're talking to Apollo or something, or the god that used to be Apollo in the old show, and Apollo is like, 'I am Apollo.' And Chekov is like, 'And I am the czar of all Russias.'

"That's not how I'd choose to do the accent, but it's like they gave him these lines. I mean he really is the weirdest, weirdest character."

As for many actors trying to recreate iconic parts, Yelchin studied a lot of what Koenig did as a character -- including his desire to change the letter "v" to the letter "w." He said he had to work closely with J.J. Abrams to capture exactly what the director was looking for in the new movie.

"I talked to JJ a lot about what he wanted, and his thing was like, we're not making something that's supposed to be the old Star Trek," Yelchin said. "He's making his own movie, but there is a bit of like I think people want to see what they love. And so we're all sort of trying to find things that will remind people of the old characters. And so that's been interesting sort of picking up little things."

QuoteAs for many actors trying to recreate iconic parts, Yelchin studied a lot of what Koenig did as a character -- including his desire to change the letter "v" to the letter "w." He said he had to work closely with J.J. Abrams to capture exactly what the director was looking for in the new movie.

I'd like to see Yelchin stay true to the character as Koening portrayed him.  It's "nuclear wessles", not "vessels". ;)

Re. Yelchin's 3-film deal:  If this film does OK, I think it's a given that we will see more.  I read somewhere that Abrahms and co. plan to store the bridge set after filming, instead of trashing it.

Here a Kirk, There a Kirk, Everywhere a Kirk-Kirk

It appears like everyone will get to play James T. Kirk in the next Star Trek movie, except for the original Kirk, William Shatner.

Paramount announced today that 11-year old Jimmy Bennett will play the childhood Kirk for J.J. Abrams' Trek movie. The young thespian already has an impressive resume with films such as "Hostage," "Firewall" and Evan Almighty."

daniels.jpgAlso, TrekMovie.com is reporting that 15-year old Spencer Daniels will be cast as Kirk's older brother George Kirk, Jr.. He was mentioned in the TOS episodes "What are Little Girls Made Of?" and "Operation: Annihilate!" George Jr. ended up having his own son named Peter, a nephew to James and one who will appear prominently in the upcoming Star Trek New Voyages 2-part episode "Blood and Fire," due for release in April.

I think it is safe to assume now that the third Spock, spoken of by Leonard Nimoy a few weeks ago for a television interview will also be the childhood version of the famous Vulcan.........perhaps.

Chris Pine stars as the young adult and Starfleet officer James T. Kirk. "Star Trek" is set to premiere December 25, 2008.

Since both Kirk and Spock's parents have been cast for this movie (and with relatively young actors in the roles) it has always been assumed we will see both a very young Kirk and very young Spock in the film as well as their older versions.  Should be neat to see.  Especially since except for the animated series we haven't seen the original main characters ever at a young age like this.

Official "Star Trek" Movie Forum Now Open

The official Paramount Website for the new Star Trek film is still under construction, however, the forum section has been launched and is ready for all registered users to participate in.

To become a part of the group and discuss Star Trek, what this movie means to you and much more, first visit the Forum's FAQ Page and then Register so you too can talk Trek with fellow fans of the legendary franchise.

Since that just came online today I can't believe how many threads have already been started on that board! If TrekSF was that busy I'd never be able to keep up!

Kevin

Well, I looked to see how things are going at the Star Trek XI board and in one day they acquired (and it hasn't even been 24 hours yet):

Threads: 148, Posts: 3,118, Members: 995, Active Members: 995

Busiest Star Trek board on the web I'd have to say. Nice layout too and the skin design is nice looking.

Kevin

NASA Scientist Tapped for Star Trek Film

Written by: Derek Kessler (Trek United News Editor)

Carolyn Porco, the lead imaging scientist on the joint NASA/ESA Cassini mission to Saturn has been tapped by the "Star Trek" (2008) crew to provide her expertise to the graphics teams. She will be ensuring that the sets, mattes, and planets are all realistic and at least scientifically plausible, following a time-honored Star Trek tradition of bringing aboard scientific advisors to make the film that much more real.

Said J.J. Abrams, "Carolyn and her team have produced images that are simply stunning. I'm thrilled that she will help guide our production in creating an authentic vision of space, one that immerses our audience in a visual experience as awe-inspiring as what Carolyn's cameras have captured."

Porco directs the Cassini Imaging Central Laboratory for Operations (CICLOPS) at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado. CICLOPS is the flight control center for Cassini and processes all of the imagery from Saturn that the probe sends back to Earth.

Porco will be working with Industrial Light and Magic's Roger Guyett, who has been working with ILM for 14 years. His work can be seen in such blockbuster films as "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," "Mission: Impossible: III," and the latest Harry Potter film. Carolyn Porco served as a consultant for the 1997 Jodie Foster movie "Contact," and worked with A&E television on the 25th anniversary Voyager mission special "Cosmic Journey."

I just posted this video in the science section on this lady, she is really cool.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/11/interview-with-star-treks-new-science-advisor/#more-1573 (http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/11/interview-with-star-treks-new-science-advisor/#more-1573)

According to movie spoiler web site aint it cool dot com, a reporter visited the toy fair in Germany and found the toys for the new Star Trek film. Here is a quote from that site.

"In the special Star Trek room were about 50 action figures, a few phasers, play sets, Spock's ring, Spock's ears and the new Enterprise. The action figures were not the final versions, but you could hardly tell that they weren't from the original tv-series but from the new movie. Kirk wore his famous yellow uniform (and black trousers), Spock his blue one (a little bit darker though) and Scotty the red one. The Leonard Nimoy Spock had a white monk-like robe, that looked like a variation on the one he wore in The Search for Spock. Highlight was Zoe Zaldana as the new Uhura. She wore the same red communication uniform, but this time the skirt was much shorter and there was much more emphasis on her breasts. In this movie she will give Seven of Nine a run for her money!
The phasers and communicators were almost the same as in TOS. Even the
sounds were identical. And then... the new Enterprise. As a toy it had a great TOS feel to it. It's a little more 'organic' than the original one and I
think the two warp engines and the 'bite' taken from the central body are a
little bit bigger. The floor of the new transporter room is red, by the way."

For the full report from that go to this link
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35566 I put that in as i don't want to be accused of stealing stories, best to be honest i think.

I posted this yesterday in the Collectable thread as well.. some pretty cool stuff coming our way.

Yeah some cool stuff. Hope you have started saving up those pennies. I have a feeling some serious cash is going to be spent.

I want some pictures....descriptions are great but....must see!!!

Possible aerial views of some outdoor sets shooting the movie....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xjfg3NNhp8

"That looks like the Star Track Enterprise over there"

God I hate it when people call it that.

/sigh

King

I'm with Billybob on this one.....learn to pronounce the word "trEk"...it is not "trAk"

We shoudl start calling them "ferks news" in retaliation.

Wow.. you guys are harsh today.. I watch these guys every morning and they are great, btw they are #1 in LA.. let's see you do a live three hour show Monday through Friday and never make a mistake.

Well today isn't my best day ever. Don't mean to take it out on anyone.

everyone has bad days. Great to see some set shots, can't wait to some more, keep em coming. Has anyone seen any pics of the good Mr Simon Pegg yet.

News teams and Star Trek have always been kind of at odds.  Especially when they think we are all still a bunch of nerds with no life outside of Trek.  But I cut them a lot of slack these days.  I haven't seen many of the main actors yet in costume.  They are keeping things pretty secretive.

Will be like opening a good present when we see the costumes. You're not overly keen on Simon Pegg being Scotty are you Rico. I'm a big fan of Peggy ever since Spaced (seriously check that show out if you haven't seen it, 2 series and both available on DVD), and he's a big Sci Fi fan so i reckon he'll give it his best. according to Nick Frost he and Simon went away on holiday last year and he couldn't figure out why Simon kept drifting into a Scot accent, looks like we know why. Plus on a personal note my friends reckon i look a bit similar to Peggy (every film i go to they say good acting Meds, especially when Run fat boy run came out ha ha), so i'm hoping his Scotty will be great purely for the lookalike pointing.

I'm sure Pegg will do fine, I just thought Paul McGillion who played Dr. Beckett on Stargate: Atlantis would of been a better choice.  He looks much more like James Doohan and is Scottish too.  But he did land a small part in the movie anyway.

Here are a few more hidden camera pictures

A bit of an interview with Eric Bana....

While Bana and the rest of the cast have remained fairly mum of the plot of the movie, at the New York press conference for "Boleyn," Bana did answer a few questions about his upcoming stint in outer space.

You've said that your character Nero will only be making a cameo in the upcoming "Star Trek," but isn't he the main villain? What can you say about that?

Bana: Well, I guess he kind of is, but I guess what I mean is that in the context of the roles I usually do, the weight is firmly on other areas, you know what I mean? It's not one of those roles where you're carrying the movie, is what I'm saying. I feel like I'm very much in a supporting role, not one of the main guys. So "cameo" is a way of saying I don't feel like, as I am in this film or some other films, where you're clearly carrying a lot of the film. It's a luxury to not be in that position. It's nice to be offered a part like that.

What made you want to do it?

Bana: I couldn't resist. I read it and I know J.J. pretty well and there was just no way to say no, it's just too much fun.

So you're not a Trekkie?

Bana: I like the show, I liked the original as a kid. I loved it. I haven't seen a lot of the movies since, but I was a fan of the original series. But even if I was crazy about the original series, that wouldn't have been enough to make me sign on to a film I didn't want to do. I just read the script and I went "That is an awesome script" and it's J.J. and it'd be a good time, to play a character like that. It was a very easy decision.

Have you filmed your part yet?

Bana: No, they started shooting quite a while ago. I've got the plum gig on that film, I've gotta say. I haven't even started yet. I just go in at the very end and do my cameo.


source:  http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startreknews.php?id=41845

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on February 15, 2008, 03:50:49 PM
Here are a few more hidden camera pictures

Is it just me, or do the black starfleet uniforms look a lot like the uniforms worn by the crew of an Imperial Star Destroyer?

Quote from: wraith1701 on February 15, 2008, 06:45:12 PM

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on February 15, 2008, 03:50:49 PM
Here are a few more hidden camera pictures

Is it just me, or do the black starfleet uniforms look a lot like the uniforms worn by the crew of an Imperial Star Destroyer?

It's Captain Piet!

You have failed me for the last time...

cool new pictures of Sulu with a sword...  hmmmm...

http://www.jfxonline.com/jfxonline/2008/02/15/more-trek/ (http://www.jfxonline.com/jfxonline/2008/02/15/more-trek/)

Great pics, excitement is building. I see what you mean Rico, regarding Paul McGillion. I reckon Peggy will pull off a fine job, lets face it if you are doing this film, its similar to Daniel doing Bond, you really can't afford to mess it up.

Looks like the film has been delayed till  8th May 2009, due to Paramount saying "the pic's gross potential is greater as a summer tentpole", Kind of obvious really.

Trek Movie.com (http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/19/greg-ellis-joins-star-trek-cast/) announced a couple of days ago that DS9 extra Greg Ellis has joined the cast to play the Chief engineer of the Enterprise.

An excerpt from the article-

QuoteChief engineer? What about Scotty?
[SPOILERS]

Little is known about Ellis' role as Chief Engineer except to say that it is a speaking role with multiple scenes. Some may be wondering why Ellis' Olsen (and not Simon Pegg's Scotty) is being listed as the Chief Engineer. However it should be remembered that this film is primarily a prequel to The Original Series. TrekMovie.com has already reported that the original crew characters go through their own arcs in Star Trek. For example Kirk (Chris Pine) does not start off as captain. So just like Bruce Greenwood's Pike is the captain of the Enterprise for part of the film, so, too is Greg Ellis the Chief Engineer.

According to a source, Scotty may appear for part of the film as a civilian. However, it is confirmed with multiple sources that he eventually steps into his iconic role as Chief Engineer of the Enterprise under James T. Kirk. And TrekMovie.com has got one other Scotty report that is a bit strange but here it is...apparently at some point Scotty has a "midget sidekick." It isn't clear if this tip has anything to do with the casting call for little people in January. Not really sure what to make of that one, but it is from a reliable source so thought it should be passed along. Maybe a drinking buddy.

Little chat with JJ.....

http://www.reelzchannel.com/video/32271/star-trek-cloverfield-2--the-dark-tower

Hey Rico.. link isn't working

You are too fast Kenny, I already fixed it.   ;)

:) Well you know I live on these forums...

cool interview.. just wish the women would hold the mic up to herself when she asked a question.

Here's a pic of the kid playing Young Spock in the next film-

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/kogan1.jpg)

and a comparison pic of the animated version of the famous vulcan-

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/youngspock2.jpg)

I think it works.  I don't know if the kid can act, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.  Here's a link to the story from TrekMovie.com-http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/27/meet-little-spock/#more-1649 (http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/27/meet-little-spock/#more-1649)

Interview with Anton Yelchin (Chekov in the movie).

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/233682/star-trek?clipid=32374

Thanks for the link, Rico.

I like what Yelchin said about trying to stay true to the spirit of the character Koenig brought to life, while also putting his own spin on it (paraphrasing here).  I like this approach much more than if he were to try and mimic Koenig's performance right down to the last detail.  In my opinion, that would come dangerously close to looking like a parody. 

This film is probably going to shake things up quite a bit; but as long as all of the actors (and Abrahms) take the same approach that Yelchin speaks of, it just might prove to be a revitalizing shot in the arm (something that a lot of folks say Trek needs right now).

The more I think about it the more that moving the film to May might not have been the best decision. With the elections coming up and the thought of people wanting a hope for the future Christmas would have been able to ride on that impetus. By May things may be back to business as usual and people will slip back into their pessimism about tomorrow. I hope that's not the case. We have way too many dark, doom, and gloom sci-fi shows and movies. What other show or movies portray a positive future besides Trek?

Kevin

I was updating my movie listings and came across this little picture gallery, kind of cool, we've seen most ofthem.

http://movies.aol.com/movie-photo/star-trek-new-enterprise-cast-photos (http://movies.aol.com/movie-photo/star-trek-new-enterprise-cast-photos) but it was still cool.

:)

Brief comments from Nimoy about playing Spock again...

I've had a great time working on the movie. I expect to finish around the end of March. The level of production, the quality, the size and the talent continue to impress me. The people I've worked with have all been extremely enthusiastic and JJ Abrams impresses me as a very special talent and as a person.

Is it strange to be playing Spock again after so many years? Definitely...and I'm having a wonderful time !!

The opening date of the picture has been pushed off to summer of '09 and I take that as a vote of confidence. It is an additional cost to the company to do this and I assume they have decided that the footage they are seeing is exciting and makes it worthwhile to make the additional investment.

I look forward to appearing at the conventions in the near future.

source:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/05/nimoy-log-is-it-strange-to-play-spock-again/

A Friend Gives Cho a Brief Glimpse of His Great Responsibility

Actor John Cho ("Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle") is starring as the new Sulu in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" prequel set for a May 8, 2009 release.

Just recently it hit him how great a responsibility he has undertaken by accepting the iconic role played for 40 plus years by the legendary George Takei.

As he began shooting his segment of the "Star Trek" filming schedule a close friend of his emailed him to congratulate him on the gig. Now that Cho is wrapping up his segment of the "Star Trek" shooting schedule he reflected on that email and came to realize that it really brought it home to him just how important this role is, to not only his career and his friends, but to millions upon millions of Star Trek fans spanning nearly three generations from all across the globe.

"Right after I got the gig, a friend of a friend e-mailed me and said, you know, `Congratulations, I'm so happy for you, and also I just wanted to impart to you how great a responsibility this is,' and, like, just went on for a while about how important it was and how `Star Trek' changed his life and how it's responsible for everything good in his life," Cho said. "And he also went on to claim that `Star Trek' is the predecessor to the iPod, cell phones and all that.

"So it is daunting, it's scary. Frankly, I'm not used to this kind of heat," he added. "Usually somebody asks, `What are you working on next?' and you tell them the name of the project and they're like, `What is it?' and you're like, `Uh, two guys go to a hamburger place.' They're like, `Yeah, right. Good luck with that.' And this is the first time everyone knows what I'm talking about."

Commenting on Abrams' tight-lip policy, Cho commented, "But I think he [Abrams] sees it as a favor to fans to keep everything on the down-low because he's a very enthusiastic moviegoer, and he wants to be surprised and he wants things to be kept from him until the last minute," Cho said of the director. "But it's been going great, what can I say except that it's really thrilling. There are a few dreams that you have when you're a little boy: It's cowboys and Indians, it's being on a spaceship. This is one of the great fantasies of my life."

Here here for JJ's comments about being tight lipped. Imagine if that really does happen, how excited we'll all be if we don't know hardly anything about the film when we sit down in that cinema. For me personnaly the hairs on the back of my neck stood up when the trailer was played so i dread to think what i'll be like when the actual movie starts to play in May next year.

Thought this was a cool images collection.  Shows the cast for the movie along side who they are playing.  Pretty good matches in most cases.

credit:  www.screenrant.com

Chekhov needs a Beatles wig!

So they are shooting this film called CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS right down the street from where I live at Cal State Northridge.. check out the photos I found at Ain't it Cool.com

Looks highly suspicious.. me thinks it's Starfleet Academy.

Doesn't give away much.. just a bunch of extras.

Too cool!!!

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on February 11, 2008, 09:29:11 AM
NASA Scientist Tapped for Star Trek Film


Carolyn Porco, the lead imaging scientist on the joint NASA/ESA Cassini mission to Saturn has been tapped by the "Star Trek" (2008) crew to provide her expertise to the graphics teams. She will be ensuring that the sets, mattes, and planets are all realistic and at least scientifically plausible, following a time-honored Star Trek tradition of bringing aboard scientific advisors to make the film that much more real.

THANK THE LORDS OF COBOL!!!  They should also have used Mr. Andre Bormanis, IMHO...And the Okuda's, but they are involved, right?
  :D

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on March 18, 2008, 08:40:38 AM
So they are shooting this film called CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS right down the street from where I live at Cal State Northridge.. check out the photos I found at Ain't it Cool.com

Looks highly suspicious.. me thinks it's Starfleet Academy.

Doesn't give away much.. just a bunch of extras.

Yeah, look at all the uniforms...and notice the little "solar-electric-car"

Pretty cool.  I think I see a few mini skirts out there too.

Good eye Rico.. looks like the mini's are back :)

Moore Has Trek Déjà Vu

Battlestar Galactica executive producer Ronald D. Moore, who also worked on several Star Trek projects, told SCI FI Wire that he had a sense of déjà vu when he visited the set of J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie, which is currently in production.

Moore was invited to visit the set recently by Abrams. (Moore worked on The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager and the films Generations and First Contact.)

"Oh, that was amazing," Moore said about his visit in an interview. "It was really great for me. They were shooting on one of our old [Paramount] soundstages on the day that I was there. So to walk on one of our old stages and see a Federation starship again was a treat. There was a positive vibe in the cast and the crew. I really appreciated the visual look of it, and I was excited to see the uniforms and all that kind of really hardcore, Trekkie geek stuff came flying back to me."

Moore said he did not read the Star Trek script and thus doesn't know the direction in which Abrams is steering the franchise. But Moore praised the decision to bring in new blood following 18 years of Star Trek television shows and features overseen by Rick Berman and his team.

"I thought it was a very smart move to sort of clear the decks, wipe the slate clean and start over," Moore said. "I just think that Star Trek had gone on for so long and had developed such a complicated backstory and so much continuity that it really wasn't possible for any one writer or any one group of writers, really, to keep it all straight anymore."

The result, Moore said, was that viewers and moviegoers had to be so "inside Trek" to appreciate it anymore, which created a barrier for potential audiences. "And that meant there was a whole legion of people out there that weren't even going to make the effort because it was just too much work," Moore said. "This really gives it a chance to start over and bring everybody back to what made it so great to begin with."

Abrams' Trek, which aims to reboot the franchise, is due in theaters in May 2009. --Ian Spelling

Too cool

Nice interview with Peggy if you go to this link (sorry if this has already been reported Kenny)

http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/25/pegg-james-doohan-is-scotty/

Some interesting new pictures.  Check them out....

And a couple more...

Definately starting to look like they are taking the look from"Enterprise" and moving it forward technologicaly. Looks cool, not TOS cool, but cool nontheless.

Very nice!  I got a little chill looking at the picture of the shuttle console.  It looks "retro" yet practical.  And I appreciate the fact that it has actual moving parts instead of the touch-screen LCARS technology that we see in Next Gen.

By the way, I think Bryancd has hit on a good point--  I get the impression that Abrahms is going to use Enterprise as the 'jumping off' point for the new film, as well as any future Trek films.  If this is the case, it would be cool to see some nods made to Archer, the NX-01, and Cochrane.  Maybe a cameo or two, in the form of a flashback? 

Very cool. I know this is technically a 'reboot' but if the kept a bit of the same look from Enterprise I'd like it. Enterprise had a very cool style.

Nice, very nice.

Here are a couple of more pictures-

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/ship2big.jpg)

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/shuttleintbig.jpg)

GEORGE TAKEI TO APPEAR IN STAR TREK XI !!!

From TrekWeb-

by Anthony Pasquale , Filed under: ST09 cast , 131 comments


George Takei, the actor who immortalized the character Hikaru Sulu from the Star Trek Franchise, has signed on for a cameo in J.J. Abrahms new Star Trek Film. Takei states that he is "...thrilled to be a part of this exciting relaunch of the Trek Franchise."

  While Abrahm's production company Bad Robot is keeping hush-hush about the role Takai will play, Takei did admit that his character's last name will be Sulu, and that he will be playing the father of one of the new leading characters.

Ann Cullen from Sci Fi Pulse, who got a copy of the magazine, reports "It's TRUE. Takei is in the new movie and will also be in a brief Flash Foreword scene between him and Spock."

UPDATE 1 : Sci Fi Pulse posted the following excerpts of the Starburst Magazine article.

In a new and exclusive interview for Starburst Magazine which is out now in the UK. Actor George Takei revealed that he will be reprising his role of Sulu for a brief flash foreword scene in the new J.J. Abrams movie Star Trek.


The scene which little is known about at present involves a brief exchange between Leonard Nimoy as Spock and Takei as the more mature Captain Sulu.  Though the mature Captain Sulu is just an assumption on my part given that the article refers to the scene as a flash foreword scene.


Though Takei didn't talk about his role in the new movie, he more than happy to talk about the daunting challenge, which lays ahead for J.J. Abrams.


"He's got a daunting challenge, I think," reasons the voice of an old pro, "the technology we had back in the series back in the sixties was 'oh wow' mind boggling. We walked around the Starship with this compact device attached to our hip and wherever we were, whenever we wanted to we could tear it off and start talking, 'Oh wow isn't that great!' I mean, today it's a nuisance in our society, and so how do you capture that?"  In a recent interview, Takei was also quoted as saying "april fools."

Makes you wonder why they cant do the same thing for William Shatner, doesn't it

Quote from: iceman on April 01, 2008, 08:52:40 AM
Makes you wonder why they cant do the same thing for William Shatner, doesn't it

Shatner has gone on record and said he didn't want a cameo appearance.. he wants a big part in the new film.. there is a difference in a cameo and a big part.

Quote from:  IcemanMakes you wonder why they cant do the same thing for William Shatner, doesn't it

Quote from:  KennyShatner has gone on record and said he didn't want a cameo appearance.. he wants a big part in the new film.. there is a difference in a cameo and a big part.

I guess no one read the last line of this post... ;)

Quote from: wraith1701 on April 01, 2008, 08:16:33 AM
GEORGE TAKEI TO APPEAR IN STAR TREK XI !!!

From TrekWeb-

by Anthony Pasquale , Filed under: ST09 cast , 131 comments


George Takei, the actor who immortalized the character Hikaru Sulu from the Star Trek Franchise, has signed on for a cameo in J.J. Abrahms new Star Trek Film. Takei states that he is "...thrilled to be a part of this exciting relaunch of the Trek Franchise."

  While Abrahm's production company Bad Robot is keeping hush-hush about the role Takai will play, Takei did admit that his character's last name will be Sulu, and that he will be playing the father of one of the new leading characters.

Ann Cullen from Sci Fi Pulse, who got a copy of the magazine, reports "It's TRUE. Takei is in the new movie and will also be in a brief Flash Foreword scene between him and Spock."

UPDATE 1 : Sci Fi Pulse posted the following excerpts of the Starburst Magazine article.

In a new and exclusive interview for Starburst Magazine which is out now in the UK. Actor George Takei revealed that he will be reprising his role of Sulu for a brief flash foreword scene in the new J.J. Abrams movie Star Trek.


The scene which little is known about at present involves a brief exchange between Leonard Nimoy as Spock and Takei as the more mature Captain Sulu.  Though the mature Captain Sulu is just an assumption on my part given that the article refers to the scene as a flash foreword scene.


Though Takei didn't talk about his role in the new movie, he more than happy to talk about the daunting challenge, which lays ahead for J.J. Abrams.


"He's got a daunting challenge, I think," reasons the voice of an old pro, "the technology we had back in the series back in the sixties was 'oh wow' mind boggling. We walked around the Starship with this compact device attached to our hip and wherever we were, whenever we wanted to we could tear it off and start talking, 'Oh wow isn't that great!' I mean, today it's a nuisance in our society, and so how do you capture that?"  In a recent interview, Takei was also quoted as saying "april fools."

;)

Yes - be careful what you read today.  ;)

Yeah sneaky April fools jokes.

A few more tidbits from the Grand Slam Con this past weekend about the movie....

Star Trek XI was written with a specific actor in mind.

As reported by Screen Rant, the script for the new Star Trek movie was written with Leonard Nimoy in mind. It was fortunate that he liked the script, as he is said to be pivotal to the story and had he not liked it, there would have been a problem.

The same could not be said of William Shatner's absence. Nimoy, who was at Grand Slam XVI, said that it would have been damaging to the Star Trek XI story to have put Shatner in the movie.

Nimoy claimed that Star Trek XI is a gigantic movie, the largest on which he has ever worked. He also said that Paramount is losing money on it now but they feel that it will be a summer blockbuster. The budget on the film is said to be below two hundred million dollars.

Roberto Orci revealed that Steven Spielberg read the script and talked to J.J. Abrams about directing it. Abram's wife helped to talk Abrams into taking on Star Trek XI

To read more, head to the article located here:
http://screenrant.com/archives/hungry-for-more-star-trek-deta-1566.html

I talked about this on yesterday's podcast.  Here you can see a little footage of them filming out in Bakersfield (Kirk's Iowa farm).  Pretty spoiler free I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz8cH-f9NVg

A few more bits of interview chatter...

With the DVD release of Cloverfield, J.J. Abrams discussed the possibility of a sequel to the movie.

As reported by TrekMovie.com, a sequel is a possibility, but not set in stone. "There are a couple of ideas that Drew Goddard, the writer, and Matt Reaves [director] have that are pretty fantastic," explained Abrams. "So we are playing around with ideas. Obviously unless it is something that really excites us and inspires us we won't do it."

Abrams moved from discussion of Cloverfield to Star Trek XI, which is in the editing process. "Well we're cutting now, we're editing the film," he said. "And obviously it's Star Trek so there are a gazillion visual effects. We're very lucky to have ILM doing the visual effects, and they're spectacular. And I'm just starting to see some of them now and it is mind blowing."

Jennifer Morrison, who plays Winona Kirk, concurs with the superlatives when describing her time on Star Trek XI. "This has been an amazing experience," she said. "It is a huge set and I loved every minute of it. Everything was top secret, thus we ended up riding in cloaked vehicles and were dressed in black robes over our costumes so that no one can see our make-up or our costumes. Each morning I received the script with only my scenes of the day, so I have no idea what is the general plot of the movie. I couldn't believe I was a part of this production."

Rachel Nichols, who may be playing an Orion at Starfleet Academy, complimented the powers-that-be on the success of keeping details about Star Trek XI secret. "They've done a very good job in keeping the character I play under wraps," she said. Of her character, Nichols said, "All I can say is that it's a memorable role."

source:  http://www.trektoday.com/news/250408_03.shtml

Here are a couple pictures.  One is of Jennifer Morrison and the other is an artist's rendition of Nichols as an Orion.

It's been brought up that many of these actors had signed on for two future Trek movies if this is one is successful - just a contractual technicality, but a hopeful idea none the less.

I'm really liking the worn contemporary industrial look of the props we have seen so far. Sort of like "Star Wars meets Chevron Oil Refinery". It's a little less Utopian

Just don't put on the red jump suit!

The look is suppose to blend some of what we saw in "Enterprise" and mixing with TOS.  Should be fun to see!

Tahir Breaks Star Trek Barrier

Faran Tahir, who is soon to be seen as an Afghan insurgent leader in Iron Man, told SCI FI Wire that he went straight from that role to a part as a heroic Federation starship captain in J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie. Tahir, who was born in Los Angeles to Pakistani parents, said he was honored to play the first Star Trek captain of Middle-Eastern ethnicity.

Tahir described himself as being like a little kid while shooting his scenes as Captain Robau on a starship bridge set. "The first thing is that you all of a sudden go back to being 9 years old when you realize that you're going to be in Star Trek as a captain," Tahir said in an interview while promoting Iron Man.

"You walk onto the bridge and you see that bridge, and your first moment is not 'What is my line?'" Tahir said. "Your first moment in yourself is 'Wow! I'm on the bridge of a Federation ship, and I'm the captain.' That's exactly what went on in my head. You have to get over that, and then you go, 'OK, now let's actually make him work.'"

Tahir added that director Abrams' decision to make the character Middle Eastern was very much in keeping with Star Trek tradition. "The thing that I love about that idea is that, to me, it gives a lot of hope that in the future all these racial divides and all these cultural divides will be non-issues," he said. "And that's the spirit of Star Trek, right? It's about moving forward with all of this. To me, as an actor, it was very freeing to be able to do that, where my character was not being seen through the prism of my cultural or ethnic ties."

Tahir added: "They were being seen as how competent or incompetent, through what kind of a captain I was going to be in that situation. What matters is the merits of the character, rather than what his background is." Iron Man opens May 2. Star Trek beams into theaters on May 8, 2009. --Ian Spelling

Some more comments from JJ on the movie...

Although more of a Star Wars fan, J.J. Abrams wanted to make a better Star Trek.

As reported by Yahoo! Movies, Abrams found something in Star Trek that appealed to him, and wanted to improve upon it. "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," said Abrams "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. To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling."

Improving Star Trek means appealing to more than just the devoted Star Trek fan. "The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek,' necessarily," said Abrams. "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."

Abrams went on to explain why he felt that reaching out beyond Star Trek fans was necessary. "You can't really make a movie for them," he explained. "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."

Redoing Star Trek means updating the 1960s characters for the modern day. "It's a chance to see what Kirk and Spock would look like done now," said Abrams. "What's thrilling about it is how great the cast is, how remarkably talented and funny and just spot-on they all are."

An actor from one of Abram's childhood favorite movies, Star Wars, paid a visit to the Star Trek XI set according to TrekMovie.com. Harrison Ford (Han Solo) dropped by during the last week of shooting on the film to have lunch with Abrams. He is just one of several actors who have paid visits to the set during filming, including Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg among others.

source:  http://www.trektoday.com/news/020508_01.shtml

Here's more sounds bites from Abrams

Director polishes 'Star Trek'
By David Germain
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES – J.J. Abrams grew up more a fan of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo than of James Kirk and his Vulcan buddy Spock. So why is a self-professed "Star Wars" kid directing "Star Trek"?

"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," said Abrams, who recently finished shooting on "Star Trek," due in theaters May 8, 2009. "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. To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling."

While he enjoyed the TV show about the Enterprise crew, Abrams said he was not a rabid fan.

The revival of the franchise seven years after the last movie ("Star Trek: Nemesis") flopped may depend on introducing a new generation to the 23rd century explorers.

"The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of 'Star Trek,' necessarily," said Abrams, creator of "Lost" and "Alias." "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."

Abrams would not share plot details, saying only that the movie would remain faithful to the original while breaking new ground in action, drama and visual effects.

"I feel like this is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the 'Star Trek' you've seen," Abrams said.

Kenny - this is pretty much what I posted above your post.   ;)

I kind of wonder what this mean?

Quote"I feel like this is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the 'Star Trek' you've seen," Abrams said

How far can you stray from the formula before it's Star Trek in name only?

Kevin

Quote from: Rico on May 02, 2008, 10:11:15 AM
Kenny - this is pretty much what I posted above your post.   ;)

Yeah I saw that but there was additional info :) .. I found the bit about Star Wars interesting.

Quote from: Ktrek on May 02, 2008, 10:14:03 AM

How far can you stray from the formula before it's Star Trek in name only?

I think that Enterprise proved that nothing is sacred. I loved Enterprise, but it seemed a last ditch effort to do everything they could to redefine star trek.

I think that we need something new. It's not going to take away from the hundreds of hours of other trek because that's already out there. I think of it more like Shakespeare. It was meant to be adapted to different times as time progressed. It wasn't the word of the script it was the ideals behind the script.

If they can keep to the spirit of Gene's vision, I can accept a new coat of paint. I could only pray that this is as successful as the new BSG.

I hope this movie does for Trek what the new Doctor Who and new BSG did for their properties.

Let's be honest, who couldn't do without giant energy hands holding the ship still or Spock's Brain?

A fresh BSG like start might be what we need so that our grand kids get to see new trek in their time.

Yep - I agree.  Bring on "Star Trek: The Next Next Generation."  :)

We could always have the federation destroyed by an alien race. Then, the Enterprise, as the last remaining starfleet ship could lead a ragtag fugitive fleet in search of a new home called...uhh...something that isn't Earth.

Quote from: billybob476 on May 02, 2008, 11:30:39 AM
We could always have the federation destroyed by an alien race. Then, the Enterprise, as the last remaining starfleet ship could lead a ragtag fugitive fleet in search of a new home called...uhh...something that isn't Earth.

ROFL! I love your sense of humor Billy!

Kevin

Trek XI writers fill in gaps in Trek history
Posted by Michael Hickerson on Monday, 19 May 2008

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2008/05/19/trek-xi-writers-fill-in-gaps-in-trek-history/

Over its 40 plus year run, the Star Trek universe has provided fans with a lot of details about the history of not only the Federation, but also the characters who inhabit Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future.  With hundreds of hours on both the small and large screen, the task of creating a new, original script for the next installment of the Star Trek franchise might have seemed daunting to screen-writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

However, the writing partners agreed that while finding the right script to please long-time Trekkers and attract new fans to the franchise could seem a bit overwhelming, finding a time and place to tell the story wasn't as difficult as you might imagine.

"It's tricky, but we found out that it was an amazing opportunity, which is there'd never been an origin story of how this original crew of Kirk [Chris Pine] and Spock [Zachary Quinto] and Bones [Karl Urban] and Scotty [Simon Pegg], how they met," Orci said in . "So when we went back and started thinking about it, we realized, 'Goodness, that's never been covered.' It's not even a remake. There simply has not been a story that told how they got together."

"When we realized that, we thought, 'Well, that solves the introduction problem, because this will literally be an introduction to these characters that everyone knows, but not everyone knows how they met.' So we knew that we could tell a story that was still viable for Star Trek fans, because it's not a retelling. It's a new story. But we knew that for those who don't know Star Trek, it's going to be an introduction to the world. So we kind of lucked out in that it hadn't been done before."

Orci and Kurtzman have written several "first" installments in a potential franchise in recent years.  Along with the Trek reimaginging, they wrote last summer's successful Transformers.  However, Orci stated the tendency to see the first films in a franchise as an origin story and a necessary evil to set up superior second installment as a bit of a disservice to the first film and its creative team.

"I can tell you right now, we need not make any qualifiers like that," Orci said. "This is not something like, 'Oh, just sit through the first boring one, and then we'll get to the fun.' This one, I'm telling you, it's an origin story, but ... we didn't save anything for later. We wanted to make sure that it was, A, great for the fans, but [also for] a regular audience, a general audience. They're not going to be able to rely on they love Kirk or they love Spock. They have to love it on its own merits."

Orci added: "Transformers and Star Trek are very different things. However, I don't think anyone would say that the first Transformers somehow is like waiting for the second one to happen. Our goal is always, 'Do not be arrogant enough to think that you're going to get more than one movie.' Make one good movie, and if that movie's good, then hopefully you'll get another one. Don't save anything for later. Don't plan on the sequel. That's a mistake. And that's how we approached it. We were like, 'Let's make one good movie, and ... God willing, we'll get to do another one.'"

From Trektoday.com & Trekmovie.com
(spoilers ahead)

New Federation and Romulan ships will appear in Star Trek XI including one of a class never seen before on Star Trek.

As reported by TrekMovie.com, much of the Star Trek XI action will take place on the Enterprise NCC-1701, commanded by both Christopher Pike and James Kirk. Approximately four weeks out of the twenty weeks of shooting took place on the Bridge of this ship. Other parts of the ship that will be seen are: sickbay, crew quarters, corridors, engineering and the transporter room.

Another Federation ship is named the USS Kelvin, a starship one generation before the Enterprise. The Kelvin is of a new ship class and is smaller than the Enterprise. Captain Robau will be commanding it with George Kirk as his first officer.

Spock will be traveling in time and will be using a small Vulcan ship specially constructed for time travel. He will be the only crewperson on the ship.

The Romulans, villains of the film, will be arriving from the twenty-fourth century. Their interior ship design is supposedly different than the TNG-era Romulan design and is said to be "surreal". Nero (Eric Bana) will be commanding this ship.

Other ship locations which are known to be appearing in Star Trek XI include: a medical shuttle (from the USS Kelvin era), transport shuttle and a Federation ship bridge simulator for Kobayashi Maru testing.

To read more, head to the article located below:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/05/27/spoilers-details-on-star-trek-movie-ships/

Sweet....give me a time travel story anytime.  I know...some people hate'em for the blatant inconsistencies they seem to produce but I no care......I love me some quantum mechanics.

Thanks for the heads-up, Rico!  I feel my trek-fever starting to build...

Some new Trek Academy pictures have popped up again on www.joblo.com

These are some pics from the set of Star Trek Academy. The location is California State University of Northridge and the school library is being used as a... well, school. This shows some nice costumes and art design. During filming, all the extras run over to the right side of the field, to the blue screen and point, as if something big crashes.

(more here:  http://joblo.com/index.php?id=21353)

Cool, althgough that little ground car thing looks more '70's sci fi than new Star Trek!

A few things I'm noticing in these pics.  Miniskirts, black boots, lack of insignia on the cadet uniforms but something on the guys in dark colors, a license plate on that little pod car, and the most important thing ---> pointy sideburns are back!

Yay for the pointy side boards.

Looks like a sequel is already being discussed....

Star Trek XI screenwriter Robert Orci revealed this week that Paramount is already trying to woo the creative team behind the new film to commit themselves to a possible sequel.

"[They] already want to lock us down to write the sequel. Take that as you will," Orci told TrekMovie.com. Orci's comment applied to the whole creative team, including his co-writer Alex Kurtzman, director J. J. Abrams, and the producers. However, he also clarified that this was simply the studio's standard way of making sure the same creative team would be in place for a possible sequel, not a confirmation there actually would be a sequel: "Unless the studio had a horrible experience with us, they would be trying to lock us down as standard operating procedure. They haven't even seen the movie yet, so this news should not be taken as evidence that we are anything special. It's a quite normal practice."

Of course, with the current film not even having been finished yet, let alone released, no work has yet been done on a possible sequel. But Orci did say the following when asked whether he'd put much thought into a sequel: "It depends on what you classify as 'much.' We've certainly thought about it some."

While Orci this week talked to TrekMovie.com, director Abrams briefly dropped by Entertainment Weekly to talk about his experience with Star Trek fans who want to know "every gory detail about a movie that's still a year away." Abrams advised Trek fans that they'd be better off not hunting down spoilers: "Learning raw detail and experiencing that detail as it was intended are two totally different things. [...] I would argue that not knowing those details in advance is a more refreshing way to live when it comes to entertainment."

source:
http://www.trektoday.com/news/050608_02.shtml

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

More trek is good.

Another quick interview with Zachary Quinto....

http://vids.eonline.com/services/link/bcpid1396519019/bctid1591450347 (http://vids.eonline.com/services/link/bcpid1396519019/bctid1591450347)

Do we have any news on what the phasers will look like?

Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on June 12, 2008, 12:13:08 PM
Do we have any news on what the phasers will look like?

Well they should actually be called lasers and look more like the ones seen in "The Cage" pilot (given the time frame of the movie).  But who knows at this point.

I'm thinking Master Replica's will be ready to pounce.

I am sort of hoping that they ignore the Cage and the whole laser vs phaser thing. I would rather believe that this movie is an evolution of the Enterprise timeline and their look.

There's Nothing Gay About 'Star Trek XI'

By MICHAEL HINMAN
Jul-15-2008

Star Trek has always been known as the franchise that props up minorities and presents a society populated by more than just the majority race. But it looks like the 43rd year of Star Trek will come and go yet again without any official acknowledgment that gays and lesbians will make it into the future.

Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman tells After Elton that while it was discussed, there won't be any openly gay characters featured in the upcoming "Star Trek" film.

"Nothing in the movie precludes that from being the case," Orci said. "Not everyone sounds off as to their preferences in the movie. I won't give anything away, and hopefully the franchise will last more than one movie and that can be addressed."

Kurtzman acknowledged that Star Trek has always been about diversity and inclusion, and that leaving the gay community out in the cold doesn't really support that. But if fans really want to have the gay community included, they need to go above the two writers and convince Paramount that it's the way to go.

"We'd like to see it and your support will be noted because it allows us to go back to the powers that be and go, 'When you finally hit this directly, you better support it.'"

The Star Trek franchise has a long history of false starts when it comes to gay and lesbian inclusion. "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry told fans in 1986 that he would include gay characters in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," a move that would've continued Star Trek's role as a trailblazer when it comes to minority inclusion. However, despite a well-known script from "Trouble With Tribbles" writer David Gerrold, Paramount Television nixed the idea fearing that the show could lose some of its pre-primetime slots in first-run syndication in markets around the country, detracting from its family audience.

Gay themes have been addressed in later years, including a same-sex kiss in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," despite the fact it was technically initiated by a heterosexual couple. Also, it was implied that some of the characters in DS9's mirror universe were at the very least bisexual.

Michael Jensen, editor of After Elton, said it's time for Star Trek to catch up with the times.

"Two of those directly involved with the new franchise say they are aware of this issue. However, the proof is in the pudding, and with the new movie coming out in 2009, we're pretty much guaranteed that the Trek franchise will be almost 50 years old before the show finally fully lives up to its boast of diversity," he said. "And let me just add, giving us a minor ensign who kisses his partner in a scene only to beam down to an alien planet where he is promptly killed does not count. Given the franchise's ridiculous exclusion of gay characters for five decades, they owe us big time."

"Star Trek," in all its heterosexual glory, premieres in May 2009.

Wow. If there was any article that I ever disagreed with, this is it. I don't see any exclusion as opposed to simply not addressing the sexuality of every character involved.

I think people are grasping on this one.

Quote from: Just X on July 15, 2008, 07:53:47 PM
Wow. If there was any article that I ever disagreed with, this is it. I don't see any exclusion as opposed to simply not addressing the sexuality of every character involved.

I think people are grasping on this one.

I actually agree with this article, It doesn't take much to add a line from a crewmen or character mentioning their partner or boyfriend or girlfriend. I'm surprised that there isn't a gay character in the Star Trek universe (I know Hawk is gay in the novels) but if any show can pull off a main gay character it's Star Trek. Maybe some day Star Trek will go bodily where very few have gone before.

The truth is "Star Trek" has never generally focused on sexuality very much.  I mean how long did it take Riker & Troi to get married?  So, if it isn't important to the plot I see no reason to put comments about any character's sex preference into the story.  Now, if another TV series comes along where they might have time to explore this some I think that would be a good opportunity.  But in a 2 hr. movie, it has to be focused on the story at hand.

Well, all Treks after TOS never focused on sexuality much. TOS had the whole 'babe of the week' thing going on.

I think that if they were to do it it would be a very fine line to walk, if it was just a passing mention I think it would go over people's heads and proponents of having it in the film would say it wasn't given enough emphasis. If they concentrated on it, it wouldn't really be Trek.

I'm not saying Trek shouldn't have gay characters, it just needs to be done right. I also realize that no matter how they do it (if they were to), someone will be offended.

Quote from: Rico on July 16, 2008, 04:43:27 AM
The truth is "Star Trek" has never generally focused on sexuality very much.  I mean how long did it take Riker & Troi to get married?  So, if it isn't important to the plot I see no reason to put comments about any character's sex preference into the story.  Now, if another TV series comes along where they might have time to explore this some I think that would be a good opportunity.  But in a 2 hr. movie, it has to be focused on the story at hand.

I agree with this. At the same time, I also think that you'd get more people in the gay community upset if you mention that someone is gay in a throw away line. It would then become a story about how a character was introduced as gay then subsequently ignored by the movie / series.

There have been lots of gay characters on television going all the way back to Soap. It's not as if they would be breaking new ground with it. It's also not as if they focused on the sexual orientation of every character on the show.

I think that the lack of a gay character doesn't do anything. We haven't seen a Cuban, Blackfoot, or middle eastern main character either. There is only so much show to go around.

J.J. Abrams Talks Star Trek
Source: Scott Huver
July 16, 2008

For the past several months getting any information out of the always enthusiastically secretive J.J. Abrams camp about his re-launch of the classic Star Trek series for the big screen has been about as easy as getting light out of a black hole.

But when ComingSoon.net cornered Abrams at a big Hollywood event this week, we were surprised that he seemed finally ready to reveal a few tiny, tantalizing hints about his version of the final frontier, as well as his feeling about the franchise and his film's old school standard bearer – and we didn't even have to pull a phaser on him.

CS: You've said that you didn't start out as an uber-fan of "Star Trek," but you quickly became a fan. Can you talk in general terms about what you fell in love with about the whole franchise?
Abrams: I fell in love with the relationships between the characters. I fell in love with the characters. The idea of – it's so funny because you hear something so often and it loses it's meaning. But "space, the final frontier" – if you actually consider space as uncharted territory there's something about the idea of these people, because any ship flying by isn't going to get you excited. It's who's on the ship that matters. I feel like these characters actually going out into that nothingness and finding something is great. Having lived with it now and gotten to know the characters and worked with amazing actors who portrayed them, it made me fall in love with that notion, that idea that for some reason never struck me the way that "Twilight Zone" did.

CS: Are you ready to talk about the Jennifer Morrison character? There's been a lot of speculation and confusion as to exactly who she's playing.
Abrams: She is so great. I'll just say that she plays Kirk's mother. She's awesome. Great.

CS: Does the film feature many flashback sequences? We also know that Winona Ryder is playing Spock's mother.
Abrams: Yeah, most of the movie is not - I wouldn't call them flashbacks, but she's in a great sequence and is so good. I love her.

CS: What can you say about about working with Leonard Nimoy?
Abrams: It was really just a dream experience, working with him. He is everything you want him to be. He's funny and incredibly thoughtful and was surprisingly open and receptive to direction. He's just got an amazing wife and family and working with him was literally... Like the other day we were doing some ADR and he was there and because we weren't shooting anymore I was standing there and I just looked at him while he was doing his thing. I wanted to burn it into my head. It was so great to get to work with that guy. He's just an amazing man and is terrific in the movie.

CS: Is he a major presence in the film?
Abrams: Yeah. I think he's a major presence in any scene he's in. He's terrific.

Star Trek opens in theaters on May 8, 2009.

Quote from: Just X on July 16, 2008, 09:57:31 AMI think that the lack of a gay character doesn't do anything. We haven't seen a Cuban, Blackfoot, or middle eastern main character either. There is only so much show to go around.

I think the point is that Str Trek has always claimed to look into a future where humanity has reached a type of pinnacle of culture. TOS attempted (with varying degrees of success) to include women and people of various cultures in positions of power in a time when TV was pretty prejudiced. Heroes were white, black people were servants, Asians were cast as comic relief, Russians were bad guys, etc.

I guess that the next logical step in Star Trek's 'diversity evolution' would be making homosexual characters take prominent roles. Imagine a gay Captain? That would have changed A LOT of TOS episodes.

Again, I think it's a fine idea and in keeping with the original spirit of Star Trek, it just needs to be done right.

Ok - back to the actual movie.  Entertainment Weekly's next issue will be focusing on Comic Con.  And even though there will be no "Trek discussion panel" there, they are going to be releasing a four poster set featuring four of the main cast members from the movie.  It's our first real look at them in character - and I love the presentation.  Make sure to look closely at the eyes in each picture.

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images/ewkirk1.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images/ewspock1.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images/ewuhura1.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images/ewnero1.jpg)

and the whole set put together.....

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images/ewall.jpg)

very cool... can't wait to see these in person.

Head on over to the official site at http://www.StarTrekMovie.com to check out the brand new site with an all-new look and brand new downloads!

For those who want all four images in one as a desktop, this morning I put together this desktop wallpaper from the new trek art. Its sized for my Mac here at work so if its too big you can crop or resize to your own needs. Enjoy.

(http://fileserver7.jpghosting.com/images/tn_trekmoviewall01_69bf3bb6178b421915049931ff5f4ed3.jpg) (http://fileserver7.jpghosting.com/images/trekmoviewall01_69bf3bb6178b421915049931ff5f4ed3.jpg)

Cool!  My new desktop!  Thanks!!

Haven't looked through the threads but....if there are klingons in this movie, what will they look like ?   Come on, you guys/gals know what I am talking about.  "Klingons ?  There are klingons here ?"  :D

Not sure we will see Klingon's or not.  But if we do based on things shown on "Enterprise" they could look the old school way or the TNG way.  Just depends on which type you run into.

We don't talk about with others.

Well, the first screening of the first cut  of the movie has happened and gone well.  Read on....

Four months after wrapping principal photography JJ Abrams and his editors Mary Jo Markey and Maryann Brandon have finished their first cut for Star Trek. Late last week Abrams screened this cut for studio boss Brad Grey and other big shots at Paramount and according to sources it went very well.


The Paramount buzz on Star Trek went into high gear last week. One source tells TrekMovie that first cut showing was "a hit." Another old studio hand who isn't even working on the projects called the cut "very impressive." And yet another source said that the reaction in the screening room was "far beyond expectations" and as we know expectations have been high at the studio since the powers that be decided to move it from a Christmas 2008 release to their first summer tent pole of 2009.

Of course we are still nine months away from release, but Abrams is determined to stick with his original schedule, although due to the large number of effects shots needed this may slip a little to save some money on overtime. There is still a lot of post-production to be done on the film, with the visual effects from ILM being the biggest element that needs completing (so far only a few of the 1300+ shots are considered 'finished'). Another major task yet to be done is the music by Michael Giacchino, but sources say the composer is already at work and that scoring sessions should get underway in the Fall.

The next major step for Star Trek is likely to be the release of the first theatrical trailer. The trailer itself is edited already, but apparently the effects are not finalized. Unlike the first teaser, this trailer will include live action shots from the film itself. No word yet on when this will be released, but it is expected (but not guaranteed) sometime in 2008. Other promotional milestones include official movie poster (and tagline), release of full picture of the Enterprise, and additional viral campaigns.

source:  http://trekmovie.com/2008/08/04/first-cut-of-star-trek-complete-paramount-preview-goes-well/#more-2245

cool new set of posters..... from trekmovie.com 

Woo-hoo!  Nice!

Is it just me or does anybody else not know who is who in that poster?   :blink

Top row, Sulu - Scotty. 
Bottom Row,  McCoy - Chekov.

Quote from: Rico on July 23, 2008, 10:36:29 AM
Not sure we will see Klingon's or not.  But if we do based on things shown on "Enterprise" they could look the old school way or the TNG way.  Just depends on which type you run into.

We may see he Klingons right at the end of the movie as a teaser, just like the Joker teaser at the end of "Batman Begins".

More and more excited every day....and we still have nine months....NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Did you guys and gals notice that the uniform (you can really see it on Sulu's) has the Trek symbol woven into it?  Looks really cool.  Maybe I am late to the party on this one but I thought it pretty sweet.

Director Kevin Smith (sort of) Reviews initial cut of the New Trek Film!!!  ;D

source- Trekmovie dot com



Host: So thumbs up on The Watchmen, what else you got?

Smith: I saw a movie last night that I cannot talk about.

Host: Was it good?

Smith: It was phenomenal.

Host: Any stars, any break out stars, and do they trek?

Smith: The stars absolutely trek in this film. It is fantastic. Anybody who was worried doesn't need to be worried–about this film I cannot talk about...It was in very capable hands. The director did a phenomenal job–the director and his crew. Top notch cast and the guy that plays the lead is an instant star. That dude is going to be so famous. He is so wonderful. He picked up a role that I would say is pretty challenging for someone to step into the shoes of, because it is a role that has been played before many times by the same guy.

Host: How do you out Shatner, Shatner?

Smith: I don't know what you are talking about.

Host: I was just saying that as an expression.

Smith: Yes, absolutely, in a world of expressions, I would agree with that...I am so not good with this game, you are going to bury me man.

Host: We had you on before The Dark Knight and I remember asking you if you could direct a movie like Dark Knight and you said 'hell no' it was so far out of your sphere...but I bring that up to preface this. Let's say a franchise like Star Trek, not that you have seen the movie or we are talking about the movie, but we are talking about it for example. That is something that is so dangerous to attempt. Is that the kind of project you would like to do? Would you like to be the guy who gets to do a movie like that?

Smith: I would not like to be the guy. In the case of something like Star Trek, it would take a really insanely talented filmmaker–storyteller. Like in the case of Star Trek, JJ Abrams. So leave it to the people who are best equipped for it. I am just the guy who should be watching those movies.

Smith seems to have a true genre-fan's taste when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy movies, so this really has me pumped up!!   ;D

The news just keeps getting better and better!  I really can't wait for this to be a great hit movie and tell everyone who has been saying Trek is dead.  I just can't wait to say ----  "See, Trek still rocks!"

I'm as eager as you are Rico to see the new movie be a huge hit and I really hope it is but we do have to remember that the PR machine is up and running. I mean after all have you ever heard a studio admit they have made a stinker? Not once that I can recall. They want to fill seats in the box office and they will say and do whatever they have to, lie, cheat and steal if need be, to get people out to the theater. So, I am still a little reserved and unsure about the future of Star Trek. It might be like all the hype prior to Superman Returns and to me that film is a bomb.

Kevin

I trust Kevin Smith. He wouldn't say it was good if it wasn't.

Yeah, Kevin Smith doesn't have a dog in this fight and he is a well known fanboy, so I see no reason for him to even mention it. Clearly he is tip toeing around a nondisclosure agreement by even bringing it up to praise it.

Well - the reason he mentioned it was because the interviewer asked him about it and was trying to pump him for some info.

Quote from: Ktrek on August 23, 2008, 04:30:57 PM
I'm as eager as you are Rico to see the new movie be a huge hit and I really hope it is but we do have to remember that the PR machine is up and running. I mean after all have you ever heard a studio admit they have made a stinker? Not once that I can recall. They want to fill seats in the box office and they will say and do whatever they have to, lie, cheat and steal if need be, to get people out to the theater. So, I am still a little reserved and unsure about the future of Star Trek. It might be like all the hype prior to Superman Returns and to me that film is a bomb.

Kevin

I really don't agree.  Kevin Smith doesn't do PR for others and he certainly doesn't hold back when he thinks something is good or bad.  This isn't a Paramount exec. or employee or member of the film talking.  Now, of course we can all decide next May on whether the movie is something we like or not but I have no reason to doubt what is being said by Smith.  Plus, I'm generally the glass is half-full kind of guy.  ;)

Quote from: Rico on August 27, 2008, 05:33:14 AM
Well - the reason he mentioned it was because the interviewer asked him about it and was trying to pump him for some info.

The interviewer asked him if he had seen any other movies recently and Kevin Smith brought up Star Trek. Sounds like they set it up. I'm agreeing with you that he clearly was busting a gut to mention it as he clearly enjoyed the movie and I don't see Kevin Smith as part of the Paramount PR machine.

Why Shatner's Not In Star Trek
By Stuart Wood: 2008-09-09 10:41:23
   
In an interview with AMC, where, typically, Abrams talks much and reveals little, the only thing he did let slip was his position on the whole contentious issue of Shatner's absence in proceedings. He reveals that initially they tried to be accommodating, writing in a flashback scene but on reflection "it didn't quite feel right."

The more pressing issue, according to the very diplomatic Abrams, was that Shatner was wanting an "all or nothing deal." "He was very vocal that he didn't want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly, which, frankly, he deserves."

To put the whole issue to bed, Abrams refers bluntly and logically to the issue of canon, which many Trekkers have been banging on about since day one, "The truth is, the story that we were telling required a certain adherence to the Trek canon and consistency of storytelling. It's funny -- a lot of the people who were proclaiming that he must be in this movie were the same people saying it must adhere to canon. Well, his character died on screen [in Generations in 1994]. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that. "

So there you have it, Shatner isn't in it because old Kirk died 14 years ago. Can everyone please now get over it and can Paramount please start acting like they want people to come see this movie.

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on September 09, 2008, 10:42:43 AM
Why Shatner's Not In Star Trek
By Stuart Wood: 2008-09-09 10:41:23
   
In an interview with AMC, where, typically, Abrams talks much and reveals little, the only thing he did let slip was his position on the whole contentious issue of Shatner's absence in proceedings. He reveals that initially they tried to be accommodating, writing in a flashback scene but on reflection "it didn't quite feel right."

The more pressing issue, according to the very diplomatic Abrams, was that Shatner was wanting an "all or nothing deal." "He was very vocal that he didn't want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly, which, frankly, he deserves."

To put the whole issue to bed, Abrams refers bluntly and logically to the issue of canon, which many Trekkers have been banging on about since day one, "The truth is, the story that we were telling required a certain adherence to the Trek canon and consistency of storytelling. It's funny -- a lot of the people who were proclaiming that he must be in this movie were the same people saying it must adhere to canon. Well, his character died on screen [in Generations in 1994]. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that. "

So there you have it, Shatner isn't in it because old Kirk died 14 years ago. Can everyone please now get over it and can Paramount please start acting like they want people to come see this movie.

Shatner says as much near the end of his recent autobiography.

Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on September 09, 2008, 10:42:43 AM

So there you have it, Shatner isn't in it because old Kirk died 14 years ago. Can everyone please now get over it and can Paramount please start acting like they want people to come see this movie.

Well thats fair enough really. I mean seriously, did anyone want to see Kirk looking older than ever? Not me.

I wouldn't be able to see Kirk at this point. Only Denny Crane and then start looking for Alan Shore.

Quote from: Just X on September 09, 2008, 04:08:26 PM
I wouldn't be able to see Kirk at this point. Only Denny Crane and then start looking for Alan Shore.

:)

Denny Crane!

Denny Crane, Denny Crane. Cigars and brandy on the bridge of the Enterprise. I can see it ha ha

Shatner speaks out about Kirk role in new movie... or lack there of.

That is very funny.  He is so hilarious.  Gotta love him. :)

So was "The Shat" suggesting they make Jurassic Park 4 with him as the lead dinosaur then?  ;D
Seriously though, I love the bloke and just want to remember Generations as his final heroic outing.
We love you Shat baby.

Nice that he had the chance to clear the air some.

It would have been so great if they wrote a part for a grandparent or uncle of the young Kirk in the move. Maybe the grandpa Tiberius. And he would be the outrageous, cantankerous, old man that inspires the future actions of the James character that has him honor that individual for the rest of his life. I say it was a lost opportunity.  :2cents

On Friday evening Simon Pegg was interviewed on the Jonathan Ross show, he as usual couldn't say anything about the film or do the accent. He is even contracted not to do a scott accent before the film comes out.

Yeah, that was weird. He wasn't even allowed to do a Scots accent, that is hardcore "clamping down" mate. I liked the way he described about having to walk between sets in hooded cowls. We've all seen them haven't we.

I'm sorry but that's completely crazy.  Legally barred from doing a Scottish accent before the movie comes out?  What the hell are people thinking?  How could this possibly negatively affect the film in any way?  In my opinion it's an example of lawyers getting paid so much for what they do that they will come up with the stupidest crap just to be able to bill for an extra fifteen minutes.

Yup got it right there mate, bonkers. Simon Pegg's wife is Scottish so he really does have to watch what he says. Even on Radio 1 interview yesterday he said the same things. I bet he can't wait till the trailers come out.

I was over at trekmovie.com and they are reporting that  in all likelyhood that the theatrical trailer will debut in front of the new Bond Flick Quantum of Solace.  Even though it is a non-Paramount movie, they figure it will reach the widest possible audience.....or so they are reporting right now.

Just thought y'all might wanna know

Quote from: Darth Gaos on October 14, 2008, 01:42:57 PM
I was over at trekmovie.com and they are reporting that  in all likelyhood that the theatrical trailer will debut in front of the new Bond Flick Quantum of Solace.  Even though it is a non-Paramount movie, they figure it will reach the widest possible audience.....or so they are reporting right now.

Just thought y'all might wanna know

Just conjecture right now, but I would love that if it turns out to be true!

I'm trying to get some info.. my friend works at the company that is doing the trailer. He told me it was close.

Various "Star Trek" Tidbits
By Garth FranklinWednesday, October 15th 2008 4:44am

JJ Abrams tells MTV News that his upcoming reinvention of "Star Trek" will have a two-hour runtime. "I'm sick of these two hours and forty-five minute movies. Seriously, it's like I don't have enough time to stay two hours and forty-five minutes. I'm exhausted just saying that twice. I can't stand it" he says.

The new teaser trailer for the film is scheduled to be released sometime in November, likely loosely attached to "Quantum of Solace". Also, despite the talk that no footage was ready, a rough cut of the trailer was shown privately to Simon Pegg by Abrams at Comic-Con in July.

Pommie sex symbol and comedy film director Edgar Wright ("Hot Fuzz," "Shaun of the Dead") left a message on his blog that would seem to indicate that he's seen the film already - "Yesterday I saw a film that does not get released until next summer. I can?Äôt say much more than that, except that it delivers all the goods sorely lacking from a certain trio of prequels. Exciting stuff."

pommie sex symbol Edgar Wright? ? ? he'll kill hinself laughing if he reads that.

cool new photos...

I found some more..

....I'm not sure how I feel about them......  :wacko The look ....cool....I don't know.....I need to look at the uniforms a bit more...   :confused That bridge set is VERY disco...

LOL.. you beat me too it.. I was about to post those as well..

This is a good sign that the trailer is coming out soon.

The pictures are AWESOME.. I love the uniforms...

one more...

....and I was just posting that as well! Although i am not hating the new look and think I can get into it, there are Trek fan's who are going to HATE this look. The unfiroms and the bridge design. The bridge does look a little too Lost in Space for me, I prefer a bit more subdued/moodier look.

OHMYOHMYOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rico has to leave now he is having a geek-gasm!!!

Quote from: Rico on October 15, 2008, 04:31:20 PM
OHMYOHMYOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rico has to leave now he is having a geek-gasm!!!

I'm right there with you Rico.. you should of heard me scream like a little girl when I saw them... luckily I have my office door shut..

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38753 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38753)

Paramount begins to release images from JJ's STAR TREK - pick up new Entertainment Weekly!

Hey folks, Harry here... The cover of the new Entertainment Weekly has Kirk & Spock v.2.0 on the cover doing their best "strike a pose" - but inside the issue is the real treats - actual shots from the film. It is strange, it feels like a million years ago when JJ showed me the brief snippets of STAR TREK that he was willing to share, but looking at the below still of Sylar as SPOCK - I can't help but remember just how perfect he was in the scenes I saw. Quinto nailed the Nimoy thing. Had the eyebrow gymnastics down and the slight wry irony of observing these Humans down perfectly. I just can't wait to see the next trailer which will really give everyone an idea of what this film is. HOWEVER, for you STAR TREK junkies - pick up the new ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, as it's the first step to lifting the veil of secrecy off the direction of this beloved franchise. Click the below image to embiggen...

Ok - I'm a bit more calm now!  This is exactly the way they needed to play it.  Futuristic, but kind of retro too!  FRAK - I can't get over how much I like all the little touches I'm seeing in just these few pictures! 

MAY IS TOO FRAKKING FAR AWAY!  WHERE IS HIRO??

SQUEEE!

Although to be honest, not to keen on the uniforms (they look knitted) but loving the Kirk in the black uniform - according to TrekMovie it's a plot point as the black shirt = captain.

simply amazing.  I am so excited!  GOOD STUFF! 

It is too far away!!!!

Everytime I look at these photos my heart starts to race... I am sooooooo excited about this.

Here is the picture of the cover of the next Entertainment Weekly... gotta pick this up.

Star Trek Cover Story In Entertainment Weekly!  October 15, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

This is what you have been waiting for. Last week we reported that the veil of secrecy is starting to be lifted on the new Star Trek and we noted that some images could come sooner than the November trailer. Well that 'sooner' is this week with Friday's issue of Entertainment Weekly which will be featuring a cover story about JJ Abrams Trek movie. A preview of the cover and more info below.


And so it begins
This weekend's EW (due out Friday) will have an exclusive peek at next Summer's Star Trek, including behind the scenes photos. Here is the cover.

There should be more on the EW website by Thursday or Friday.

About the uniforms
The EW cover preview is the first full color image of the new Star Trek bridge uniforms. You could infer what they were from the promotional posters, but those were 'stylized' and it made it harder to see the uniforms. As reported in the TrekMovie Uniform Spoilers article from July, the new bridge uniform shirts are actually in two parts. There is a grey/black undershirt and a second v-neck shirt over that (red, blue or gold). If you look closely you can see that the over shirt has the delta shield as a repeating pattern in the weave and the undershirt also has a subtle emblem embossed on the chest.

All in all the new uniforms are very much in line with the main Original Series uniforms. From a distance you may not even be able to spot the differences. However these bridge uniforms are just the beginning. Star Trek is said to have more wardrobe than any other Trek film, including Star Trek The Motion Picture. We should expect to see many of the stars in multiple outfits, many of which will be totally new designs.

More to come soon
As noted in our earlier reporting, Paramount is just starting up their campaign for this movie. Right now they are building buzz that will lead up to the trailer coming out next month. This EW story is not the extent of that so you may want to check back with TrekMovie later today.

AWESOME!!!  :biggrin :biggrin :biggrin :biggrin :biggrin

I was going to say "This ain't your father's Star Trek" but then realized it's me that is old school ST. I am looking forward to seeing this and I hope it can develop back into a franchise of films. I say keep it on the big screen. It look very slick and I am ok with that, but it's going to make some folks VERY unhappy.

This REALLY fires me up for the movie!!!!  So far so good!


Will

Hey Bryan - Why am I not at all surprised by some of the negative reaction over on the RPF?  I've about had it with people being so narrow minded.  Like the pictures of not - give the movie a chance.  Geez - louise!

That's why I fired off that comment at Cessna Driver. I mean, boycotting the movie is just silly..

I know - like that will really matter to Paramount.  I mean 5 or 6 pictures and they are ready to write the movie off?  Come on people!  Unreal!  I hate to blow this up to more than it is, but it is one thing the world really can never have enough of --- and that is people keeping an open mind.  If we don't start thinking like that we will never get to the stars.

P.S.  I'm making myself a little promise that I am NOT going to spend much time the next few months trying to convince people otherwise. 

I think the photos are cool but they are just photos.  To me it's the stories that made TOS great.  I hope the movie story is great.  That will make the movie great.  So far I like the look.

Will

I've been wondering how they could take the TOS uniform style and update it for modern sensibilities without loosing the "Trek Feel". I have to say; I'm impressed!

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=814.0;attach=4655;image)

The tunics look great! The texture of the shirts gives them a slick, futuristic sci-fi feel without betraying the design of the TOS tunics. Plus, I like the layering effect. Kind of reminds me of the later TNG uniforms.

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=814.0;attach=4653;image)

I mean look at these things! :) Whoever the costume designer is, he or she is a genius! These look true to the original uniforms without looking dated or hokey. I can't wait to see these on the Big Screen!

Quote from: Rico on October 15, 2008, 06:04:53 PM
I know - like that will really matter to Paramount.  I mean 5 or 6 pictures and they are ready to write the movie off?  Come on people!  Unreal!  I hate to blow this up to more than it is, but it is one thing the world really can never have enough of --- and that is people keeping an open mind.  If we don't start thinking like that we will never get to the stars.

P.S.  I'm making myself a little promise that I am NOT going to spend much time the next few months trying to convince people otherwise. 

Like I just posted on the RPF, Star Trek isn't just Shatner as Kirk....it's Gene's vision. As long as the vision is there, it's Star Trek, and I think he would approve. :)

Oh my goodness!  Those pics were awesome!  I can't wait until May!  As I......pass out.

You know what's freaky?  I really can see "siler" or w/e his name is, (yes, I'm lousy with names) as Spock.  CREEPY

GREAT PICTURES

King

I kind of like the more muted colors of the uniforms as it will look better on the big screen. Nero looks pretty cool and Spock and Kirk look good. I don't really like the bridge set, at least from these pics. I'm looking forward to seeing the trailer and I hope it will show at James Bond because that's likely to be the only film I will see in theater this year!

Kevin

I really like the bridge pic.  It looks very sleek and starship like.  I can't wait!!!!!

The images from the new Star Trek movie look pretty cool to me. I am of course not a "Trek" purist and even rock the political boat in that regard on Star Trek: TCM but I really like the look of the photos except for the bridge.

The bridge looks like something from Galaxy Quest...so far. Now, we don't know what we are looking at. That could be a shot from some "ultra-lighted" scene or something...a dream or some other weird character's perception.

The uniforms looks awesome, they just work. Looking forward to seeing the new phasers and stuff like that.

Of course I will go pick up NewsWeek tomorrow...

-Sebastian

I've just vomited and passed out, followed by a triple heart attack and then lost all control of my nervous system. Thats how i feel about these photo's. They are  AWESOME......... How fracking cool are these, i mean it looks sleek, colourfull very 60's retro but with a modern touch. Oh man this is EXCITING....

*mead explodes*

These looks AMAZING! Love it. At the very least they got this stuff right.

Hmmm, as with some others I'm not yet sold on the ship interior...but I'm sure I'll love it when I see it on the big screen.

I'm one of those for whom it will have to be really, REALLY poor before I get too upset about it. (This is both a good and a bad thing of course)

Just out of curiosity - for those not happy with the bridge look - what would you have made it look like to fit in the era they are in?

I like the new bridge and think that it's a fantastic progression from enterprise. I think that you could splice this movie in after enterprise and if you mentally use the images for TOS, it makes the transition to the later series easier.

Quote from: Rico on October 16, 2008, 04:55:47 AM
Just out of curiosity - for those not happy with the bridge look - what would you have made it look like to fit in the era they are in?

It's just so bright and glitzy. The TOS bridge was a simple affair, and I don't expect that kind of look. The movie era bridge was very cool, more like a military ship. TNG's bridge was brighter but simple and elegant. Voyager was a nice combo of futruristc but still shadowed. Enterprise had a nice combo of old tech/new tech.
This picture is VERY busy and VERY bright. I would have perferred a more Enterprise style, less gadgets evrywhere, darker, more like the general feel I got from the new ship in the dockyards seen in the teaser trailer. I imagined a much more serious look to the bridge. A lot of what I see doesn't seem very functional, it's a lot of eye candy.
Het, I just noticed under the Communications stations, hard wood floors! LOL!

Quote from: Just X on October 16, 2008, 05:02:41 AM
I like the new bridge and think that it's a fantastic progression from enterprise. I think that you could splice this movie in after enterprise and if you mentally use the images for TOS, it makes the transition to the later series easier.

See, now that I don't think I agree with. I don't think we are meant to make any connection/transition to any previous Star Trek series with this movie. With the excpetion of the inclusion of Nimoy, I think this is clearly an entirely new Star Trek.

Quote from: Bryancd on October 16, 2008, 05:06:59 AM

Quote from: Just X on October 16, 2008, 05:02:41 AM
I like the new bridge and think that it's a fantastic progression from enterprise. I think that you could splice this movie in after enterprise and if you mentally use the images for TOS, it makes the transition to the later series easier.

See, now that I don't think I agree with. I don't think we are meant to make any connection/transition to any previous Star Trek series with this movie. With the excpetion of the inclusion of Nimoy, I think this is clearly an entirely new Star Trek.

I don't think that they purposely made any connection, but visually that bridge seems to transition better from Enterprise to the TOS era. Maybe it's because the original TOS bridges used switches and analog displays.

Quote from: Bryancd on October 16, 2008, 05:06:59 AM

Quote from: Just X on October 16, 2008, 05:02:41 AM
I like the new bridge and think that it's a fantastic progression from enterprise. I think that you could splice this movie in after enterprise and if you mentally use the images for TOS, it makes the transition to the later series easier.

See, now that I don't think I agree with. I don't think we are meant to make any connection/transition to any previous Star Trek series with this movie. With the excpetion of the inclusion of Nimoy, I think this is clearly an entirely new Star Trek.

I'd say this trek is to original trek what new BSG is to original BSG. Same basis, same characters, same basic look but updated. Aside from that I doubt it'll be very much the same.

I don't see any physical switches in the pic. I liked the more tactile feel of the bridge from Enterprise and the famous rocker switched and gummy gels of TOS. This pic looks like it's all glass touch controls, like TNG. So it seems they actually skip an era.

Quote from: Bryancd on October 16, 2008, 05:26:16 AM
I don't see any physical switches in the pic. I liked the more tactile feel of the bridge from Enterprise and the famous rocker switched and gummy gels of TOS. This pic looks like it's all glass touch controls, like TNG. So it seems they actually skip an era.

Well it's been made clear this is a reboot. So I'm thinking continuity won't be kept to 100%.

Right, which is why I said above I don't think any connection to previous ST can or should be drawn. My feelings about the look of the bridge aren't entirely based on previous Trek, I just like a different look in general for my serious sci-fi.

I think the "Galaxy Quest" or the remake of "Lost in Space" comparison is valid, that's what it looks like.

Quote from: Bryancd on October 16, 2008, 05:26:16 AM
I don't see any physical switches in the pic. I liked the more tactile feel of the bridge from Enterprise and the famous rocker switched and gummy gels of TOS. This pic looks like it's all glass touch controls, like TNG. So it seems they actually skip an era.

Bryan - I have seen a few other images that showed what looked like raised switches to me.  I think they might even be back in this thread somewhere.  And I even see little things that look like that in the bridge pic here.  So don't give up on buttons and do-dads!  ;)

McCoy best be using some silver salt shakers in sick bay...

I think what I don't like is that there is a lot of superfluous stuff which seems to serve no function but to look cool. Check out all the etched glass partitions behind Uhura and the 2 Ikea lamps and things that look like phasers on her station! It's all very busy. I like form follows function. :)

I'm loving the uniforms, but at first look, the bridge does seem a little bright. Not bad; just different than I was expecting. Of course, it is only a snapshot, so I'm reserving judgement until I see more.

OK, a little random speculation--

I just noticed the call letters in this pic-

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=814.0;attach=4656;image)

"NCC1701"? Do you guys think this is an Enterprise escape pod? A torpedo modified to be an infiltration/insertion unit for a commando-style raid? Any ideas?

I'd say escape pod.

Defiantly from the Enterprise, maybe a stealth/personal insertion pod, too small to be an escape pod.

I've heard rumors that for at least part of the film, Pike is in command of the Enterprise.  Maybe Kirk is taking part in a "cowboy diplomacy" type away mission before he eventually assumes command of the ship?  Seems in character with his hands-on approach to dealing with things..

Quote from: wraith1701 on October 16, 2008, 06:36:53 AM
I've heard rumors that for at least part of the film, Pike is in command of the Enterprise.  Maybe Kirk is taking part in a "cowboy diplomacy" type away mission before he eventually assumes command of the ship?  Seems in character with his hands-on approach to dealing with things..

Correct, Pike is in the movie and hands the key's over to Kirk at some point.

I think Kirk will engage in cowboy diplomacy with the Orions played by Diora Baird and Rachel Nichols.
;)

Quote from: Bryancd on October 16, 2008, 06:38:13 AM

Quote from: wraith1701 on October 16, 2008, 06:36:53 AM
I've heard rumors that for at least part of the film, Pike is in command of the Enterprise.  Maybe Kirk is taking part in a "cowboy diplomacy" type away mission before he eventually assumes command of the ship?  Seems in character with his hands-on approach to dealing with things..

Correct, Pike is in the movie and hands the key's over to Kirk at some point.

Cool!  Do we know who's playing Pike yet?

Quote from: billybob476 on October 16, 2008, 06:38:37 AM
I think Kirk will engage in cowboy diplomacy with the Orions played by Diora Baird and Rachel Nichols.
;)

:ohbaby

Pike is played by Bruce Greenwood as per a discussion over at the RPF.

The EW article is online.. if you can't wait till friday to read the real magazine.. check it out..

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html)

Cool Kenny.  I just got this week's EW in the mail yesterday - and I subscribe to it (so slow)!!  I might have to swing by 7-11 and get this issue early. 

Great article!

Sounds like JJ's already gotten some heat over the bridge! LOL!
''People would joke, 'Where's the Genius Bar?''' says Abrams, somewhat defensively. ''To me, the bridge is so cool, it makes the Apple Store look uncool.''

For what its worth I think the new bridge looks awesome. Its got to look new and flashy, it's got to look different. I love the smooth lines and reflective design. It's bold, and It is very modern.

Quote from: wraith1701 on October 16, 2008, 06:26:56 AM
I'm loving the uniforms, but at first look, the bridge does seem a little bright. Not bad; just different than I was expecting. Of course, it is only a snapshot, so I'm reserving judgement until I see more.

OK, a little random speculation--

I just noticed the call letters in this pic-

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=814.0;attach=4656;image)

"NCC1701"? Do you guys think this is an Enterprise escape pod? A torpedo modified to be an infiltration/insertion unit for a commando-style raid? Any ideas?

Could be a lot of things.  Maybe as simple as a training exercise.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?iid=top25-20081016-%27Star+Trek%27+movie%3A+Inside+scoop%21 (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?iid=top25-20081016-%27Star+Trek%27+movie%3A+Inside+scoop%21)

Nice article online about the new movie!

LOL.. Rick that is the article from this Friday's Entertainment Weekly.. I posted that a few posts up. :) And yes it is a good article.

You know what's really funny?  I read it then.  :)  BRAIN FART!

Woah!  I love the uniforms!  This is looking very exciting!

Ladies and gentelman, I give you the USS Kelvin, the first upside down starship!!!

That looks weird Bryan.  We sure it's all real?  That blue thing on top looks out of place.  Is that the engine?  Maybe some Photoshop work done on this one?

Yep.. this is a real picture.. it's from the EW article.

Quote from: Rico on October 16, 2008, 05:16:26 PM
That looks weird Bryan.  We sure it's all real?  That blue thing on top looks out of place.  Is that the engine?  Maybe some Photoshop work done on this one?

It's the secondary hull on top. So they have kept to the basic idea of a Federation Starship, just inverted it. The engine nacelle is below.

Ahhh - now I see it.  Kind of looks like a Scout class ship from the old Tech Manual.

Quote from: Rico on October 16, 2008, 06:25:11 PM
Ahhh - now I see it.  Kind of looks like a Scout class ship from the old Tech Manual.

Actually, it's a Jeffries based original design but with just one under nacelle. I'm glad at first you thought it looked weird, it's good to be critical sometimes. :)

I said weird because the image looked to have mismatched colors, not because I had any problem with it.  I'm all for seeing other Starfleet ship designs.  And it's hard to tell, but it looks like maybe only one nacelle under the primary hull.

Where's the bridge? Do we assume it's still the bulge on the top of the primary hull (just in fromt of the secondary hull joint)?

I think it's quite a neat design in its balanced top/bottom approach. A similar symmetrical approach to the Stargazer with it's four warp nacelles. My only complaint is that as it's drawn here, the deflector dish looks a little too much like an eye - I keep expecting it to blink!

Here's a little side by side between TOS and the new shots.

(site might be slow right now, it's getting dugg)

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Side-By-Side-Photo-Comparisons-10546.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Side-By-Side-Photo-Comparisons-10546.html)

Quote from: feathers on October 17, 2008, 01:55:51 AM
Where's the bridge? Do we assume it's still the bulge on the top of the primary hull (just in fromt of the secondary hull joint)?

I think it's quite a neat design in its balanced top/bottom approach. A similar symmetrical approach to the Stargazer with it's four warp nacelles. My only complaint is that as it's drawn here, the deflector dish looks a little too much like an eye - I keep expecting it to blink!

There is indeed one warp nacelle below and the secondary hull above, but's it's not a drawing, it's an actual shot from the film, just not very clear and a bit blurred. And yes, the bridge is where the bridge always is.

What's this part?  Another ship?  Part of the Kelvin??

Too big for a runabout.

Oh - I'm noticing something else about the uniforms.  I think those still in the Academy have no rank braid on the end of their uniform sleeves.  Those graduated and in Starfleet already have braid.  I see braid on McCoy, Scotty, and Sulu.

Quote from: billybob476 on October 17, 2008, 04:53:22 AM
Here's a little side by side between TOS and the new shots.

(site might be slow right now, it's getting dugg)

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Side-By-Side-Photo-Comparisons-10546.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Side-By-Side-Photo-Comparisons-10546.html)

I love the comment about McCoy deciding to part his hair on the other side at some point in the future!

Quinto does look a little Sylar like and emotional in one of those shots. Still, as a younger half-vulcan, I'm sure he has more emotional struggles than most.

I guess the fact I don't watch Heroes will help me deal with Spock!

Quote from: billybob476 on October 17, 2008, 05:25:11 AM
I guess the fact I don't watch Heroes will help me deal with Spock!

Quite probably.

Fortunately, I can normally compartmentalise enough to deal with this sort of cross-over - if I can live with Voyager's Doctor running Atlantis, I can live with this!

Well what about Tristan the vet becoming the 5th Doctor, that confused me at first ;)

Quote from: Rico on October 17, 2008, 05:13:21 AM
What's this part?  Another ship?  Part of the Kelvin??

Possibly a secondary explosion, in this pic the Kelvin is under attack from the Romulan base, or something to that effect.

Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on October 17, 2008, 05:31:13 AM
Well what about Tristan the vet becoming the 5th Doctor, that confused me at first ;)

No propblem!

I coped with young 'Mister Farnon' (typed in an appropriate regional accent) donning the cricketing gear without breaking step. (Cue the cloister bell and the loss of the Zero Room...)

Quote from: Bryancd on October 17, 2008, 06:03:24 AM
Possibly a secondary explosion.

Beat me to it!

That's my assessment too.

More pictures

And a few more...

oh found one more...

Awesome! Pine and Quinto look pretty studly!

Wow.... Been offline for a few days and only just managed to see the pictures, in fact I was hearing about them on Twitter before I could see them for myself.

They were worth the wait. At first I didn't like the uniforms and I thought that the pictures looked a little like a fan made movie. But then I thought that perhaps I was letting my feelings about the whole "prequel" thing cloud my judgement. There was always going to be comparisons with TOS and the whole styling of the uniforms and I'm still not totally convinced, I think I need to see moving pictures with a soundtrack before I can say that I like the new look. But I will keep an open mind, I'm skeptical at the moment but I must admit, when I saw those shots I did get a little excited. I guess time will tell

Quote from: Rico on October 17, 2008, 05:13:21 AM
What's this part?  Another ship?  Part of the Kelvin??

The shield thingy, I read that it looks like a bubble when hit rather than glows... I think.

I'm excited that we are getting a Trek reboot, and I'm confident that the film is in good hands with Abrams.  One small thing keeps bugging me though.

Check out the pictures-

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/pine.jpg)(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/krksmll.jpg)

The casting choices seem like they are going to be great, but I can't get over the fact that the new Kirk and old Kirk's eyes don't match!  I was hoping that they'd pop some contacts in or something, but it looks like they are going with a blue eyed Kirk instead of brown.  Am I the only one bugged by this?

Dude....have you SEEN the pictures of the frackin' bridge?! I will never notice his eye color as my own will be so blinded by the light!!!   :roflmao

Quote from: Rico on October 16, 2008, 04:55:47 AM
Just out of curiosity - for those not happy with the bridge look - what would you have made it look like to fit in the era they are in?

I think what bugs e about the bridge look is that it looks too much like a Sharper Image store. Too bright and shiny. I would have preferred something closure to Star Trek: ENT look and feel.

Kevin

your right something about the way they used the lighting in TOS made the show really great. The way the light danced across the crew gave a lot of feeling to the show looks a bit like an apple store but none the less i cant wait for this any more

anyone up for a fanboy style raid on paramount 

Quote from: Data on October 19, 2008, 12:38:05 AM


anyone up for a fanboy style raid on paramount 

I'm with you and will bring the popcorn!  :)

Come on - you guys are all going to love it!  Watch this!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJn2O8xRViI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJn2O8xRViI)

So I am browsing one of the Mortal Kombat forums I go to and they had a Misc. thread about the new Trek movie. Someone took this 'sneak peek' picture, and because John Cho is Sulu, photoshopped it. It made me laugh pretty good so I thought I'd share it..


(http://ultimatemk.com/tempmike/harold_kumar_botany.jpg)

This render of the new Enterprise has been around for a while, but I'm starting to think it might be close to the real deal. I don't THINK either of these are actual film images, the Earth orbit one is beautiful, but the Earth looks like a photo and the ship is CGI. But it does match up with the teaser preview trailer shots of the ship, especially the nacelles. What say you all?

Nope - don't think so.  I kind of like this look, but these images have been around for at least two years.

Quote from: Rico on October 20, 2008, 03:04:51 PM
Nope - don't think so.  I kind of like this look, but these images have been around for at least two years.

I am aware of their vintage as I was the one who first posted them here a while ago and said as much. But the more I look ath these and compare them to the one below, the more I'm not sure what to think. The nacelles are indentical. Notice how the bussard collectors bulge and then taper down, you can see it in all three of these pictures. Can't be a coincidence and now that I have seen some bad pics of the Kelvin, the look is VERY similar. Look at the second bulge of the primary hull beneath the bridge, right above where the hull plating is open to the interior. The curve of the hull steps up to a steeper angle. That matches too. Oh, and it looks like the top of the bridge is indeed a clear/white color. I think these design studies will be very close to what we end up seeing the more I look at the tells.

Oh, it's quite possible they used lots of things for inspiration for what the final look is like.  And I saw those pics quite awhile before they were posted here.  All I was saying is those particular images are too old to be any particular effects work for the film.  The timing doesn't work.

I agree defiantly not effects work but possibly design studies> Do you see what I am looking at? It's not coincidental.

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=814.0;attach=4785;image)
(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=814.0;attach=4786;image)

The nacelles actually look more or less identical, in my opinion.  And the artist, Gabe Koerner, has already established himself by creating the Viper Mk II from the new BSG.  Not only that, but he is something of a legendary Star Trek Fan, having been featured in two Trek fan documentaries- Trekkers and Trekkers 2.  I think that might have put him on Abram's radar.

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the new Connie.

Its going to be a beautifull looking ship, no question about that. And you know what that means,,,,, another master replica ship to buy Rico, with lights. Get saving mate.

Here's an article from Ain't it Cool News from June that sounds more legit with the pics we have seen:

Harry has seen some of JJ Abrams' STAR TREK!!!

I suppose you could call me a lapsed Trekkie.

Ain't It Cool News is 12 years old. There hasn't been much we could say, positive, about STAR TREK in that time. I liked some of DS9, but honestly preferred BABYLON 5. I never cared an ounce for STAR TREK VOYAGER or ENTERPRISE. On the film side, STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT was fun. So was STAR TREK: INSURRECTION, but STAR TREK: NEMESIS was ass...

I'm the sort of STAR TREK fan that has felt that STAR TREK has always been sold short. The one time that STAR TREK was given an A+ Budget was when Robert Wise made STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE on $35 million - 1970's dollars. No other STAR TREK movie looks anything like it, but nearly all of them took notes. The Enterprise finally had a sense of scale. They had spacesuits – they dealt with a threat on an awesome scale. However, the film never really had a sense of urgency and took its time telling the story. As a result, the movie was less successful than the studio wanted – and STAR TREK's budget was affected accordingly.

When they brought in Nicholas Meyer, the budget went to $11 million – and while STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN made less Worldwide than Wise's... it set the economic model. Roddenberry created STAR TREK to be a Western in Space – and by giving Star Trek a B-movie budget – and by having modest economic expectations... STAR TREK was set on a path towards a decaying sense of scale.

Right now – we're all waiting with held breath as J.J. Abrams attempts to relaunch the STAR TREK franchise. He's been given a budget that is at least 3 times the highest previous STAR TREK budget. But he's also been saddled with the absolute toughest task.

Re-Casting the ICONS.

How do you do that? For Classic STAR TREK fans – it is absolutely unthinkable. How on Earth can Chris Pine step in and be William Shatner's James T Kirk? What about all those others? My god – how do you go about recasting those characters which are burnt so indelibly into the collective pop-consciousness of the entire world?

Well, that's just one of the tricks that JJ Abrams is playing with in this new STAR TREK film. Another – and perhaps the tallest task... How do you make STAR TREK cool again for many millions of folks that have become Lapsed Trekkies... or even more importantly... people that have never ever given the franchise a look?

That's the tough part. For this film to be successful, it has to attract a vast audience that has never been a part of the Franchise. Because at the Budget this film has... it will need to make at least $400 million worldwide... and even that might be a disappointment.

Why am I bringing this all up? What got me thinking about JJ's STAR TREK?

Well, recently I went out to Los Angeles – there was business and personal things that were calling me out – and since I was going to be in L.A. I decided to see what sort of trouble I could get myself into.

JJ had given me an open invitation to visit him if I found myself in Los Angeles, so I decided to take him up on it. And secretly – I was nervous as hell. There's about a billion different ways a reboot of STAR TREK could suck – and I wasn't real sure there was a way for it to rule again.

JJ is working on assembling his first cut of STAR TREK. I've never visited an editing room before – it's actually one of the very few aspects of filmmaking that I've never been a party to before. It was a bit of a challenge to get to his editing room, you see... This was just 6 days after surgery and because the editing room is in one of Paramount's older buildings – it was only accessible via a complicated array of staircases and a narrow bridge. Well... it was certainly a test for my post-op condition – but like Pei Mei's steps all those years ago in China... I wasn't about not going to get my ass where it needed to be to see the first images from STAR TREK.

As Yoko and I met JJ – it was interesting... he was all at once nervous and giddy. He wasn't sure what he was going to show me, but he gathered us up to run into the editing room to see... well... whatever I was being shown.

Apparently – nobody had seen anything yet. Not even the execs at Paramount. JJ has a strict policy about not letting folks see anything till he's ready to show it – and I was a bit puzzled as to why he was letting me see something. You see, JJ likes his secrets... you may not know that about him (Click Here To See His TED Talk)

Once in the tiny editing room – where there was nothing of note – just that original STAR TREK teaser poster with the Holiday 2008 date. Speaking of, I asked JJ what he thought of the decision to move the film from X-Mas to the "Iron Man" spot in May – and I could tell it annoyed him. He felt that the film would have ruled this Christmas Season and dominated the box office. However, others at the studio felt that it would play stronger in the Summer... and that it would give them longer to build the campaign to sell the world on STAR TREK.

The first 10-15 minutes in the editing room was watching JJ do a dance, in some ways it reminded me of Woody Allen contemplating how to approach a girl, or a young man purchasing condoms... He genuinely seemed to be deciding right then, whether or not he was actually going to show me something. One of his dilemmas was that JJ doesn't put the film together in order. He works with his editor to assemble sequences of the movie. Working on all the pieces, before putting it together. So it isn't like he just push play, he had to show me things that were most assembled in his mind. But his mind solves jigsaw puzzles by putting like pieces together without assembling the border first. Which is exactly the opposite of how my brain works, so it confounded me a bit.

SO – WHAT DID YOU SEE HARRY?

Not much. Maybe 7 minutes in all. He showed me a scene of Ben Cross (Sarek) & Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson) cradling a baby Spock on the surface of Vulcan. A baby with Spock ears is kind of amazing to look at. But there was no dialogue here, and Vulcan wasn't really there yet – what was there was a great rock formation that kinda reminded me of that wonky mountain/cliff thing from ARENA / BILL & TED. That said, it wasn't the ARENA formation – and JJ said that zero effects had been done on this yet – so the lighting wasn't right, the sky wasn't right and there were no angry volcano type things or structures in the background, but he assured me... it'll all look very Vulcan when it is done.

The next scene was a really nicely completed visual effects pass of a pre-Enterprise Federation ship from about 25 years before the Enterprise. I've no idea how this fits into the larger story, same with the Spock baby stuff. But this effects shot had a completely different space feel than anything I've seen before from STAR TREK or STAR WARS. The shot began on a small part of the ship, then craned back and over to reveal the ship coming into a larger shot of the ship seemingly orbiting a really angry sun. The shot was absolutely dynamic as the star was seemingly raging – and we cut to the interior of the ship – it was very shadowy and very much like that of an old diesel submarine – JJ told me that the look was an evolving look for Star Fleet – so that you could get a sense of the passage of decades here. Once again though – I didn't see the end of the scene or really get a sense for what was going on.

I really like the dynamics and tone of this Space shot – very much not like something I'd seen before – although it was Star Trek, because the ship was a saucer, with a nacelle above and below the saucer. It just felt aggressive and frankly... badass.

After that – He reiterated that the effects were nowhere near done, blah blah blah – but it looked damn good.

After that shot, JJ wrestled with what else he had that he could show. Talking with his partners in the room – he didn't know quite what to show. Yoko and I just looked at each other – we were kinda like deer in the headlights – just waiting to absorb whatever was shown. At this point I was a bit anxious because while I liked the first two clips – they didn't really show anything recognizable to the timeline of Trek that I knew.

That's when JJ had his "EUREKA" moment – he didn't actually say "EUREKA" – but he knew what he wanted to show. He went over to the big Editing computer thingamabob and was trying to get something up, he pulled up a scene that looked like it was shot in an enormous hanger – There looked to be well over a hundred Starfleet graduates standing in the center of the room – with a couple of shuttlecrafts (old school) that looked like they were ready for boarding... the voice over was basically assigning cadets to the ship they would be serving on. The shot was huge, but oddly sparse... that's when the editor said they had a newer version of the scene and then worked with JJ to pull it up.

Oh Wow.

The newer version was much much grander. It feels as though some Intergalactic Pearl Harbor has happened and all the cadets are anxious to get underway. You'd see cadets running to meet their shuttles – and as shuttles filled up, they took off to take their crews to their respective starships. They hold on the long shot – we hear Leonard McCoy being assigned to the Enterprise – You catch Uhura being assigned to a place... not the Enterprise. You see Chris Pine as Kirk demanding to know why his name wasn't called out – apparently Kirk is in trouble. You remember that Kobayashi Maru thing he got a commendation for creative thinking for? Well, he isn't smiling about it here. It seems his entire future career in Starfleet is in jeopardy – and he might miss out on whatever is going on. In a way it plays like the reality of legend. The truth behind the mythology of Kirk's youth. How is Chris Pine? He's young. The scene I saw wasn't a strong KIRK scene, but a proto-KIRK scene. To see a character called Kirk that isn't comfortably calling all the shots is a bit strange, but welcomed at the same time. I can't wait to see how JJ takes the character and thrusts him into "greatness" – which has to happen in this film.

But then there's McCoy – when you see McCoy... you'll realize how metaphysically perfect Karl Urban was for the casting of the character. He's got that right cantankerous, best buddy, ethical, but anything for his friend type of doc attitude – and he has it down pat. He's helping Jim to get onto a ship, but in a million years I wouldn't spoil that. It's funny, without being ridiculous. And it begins to exhibit the early kernels of a classic Bones/Kirk interaction. Best friends with a history – and perhaps this moment is a key moment of that history. The favor that launched a career? Perhaps that is what I saw.

We see Uhura confront Spock regarding her assignment to NOT the Enterprise. Zoe Saldana doesn't look like the Uhura we knew – she looks young and hungry, confident and determined. And Spock... perfect.

It all ended with characters arriving on the bridge, under the command of Captain Pike. Sulu was at the helm – and the bridge. And the uniforms... Classic Trek. Nice. Then for the first time in the history of Star Trek, it looked amazingly functional. It echoes that classic Trek look – but imagine if you handed that design to the folks at APPLE and said... Make it really work. I instantly believed in the functionality of everything. That's hard to quantify, but it is true. Remember when you saw the war room underground on Hoth in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK? How it just felt functional – that's what this looked. And it looked Star Trek, without looking as cheap as Star Trek. It was a tech-fetishists wet dream.

I will say this – I've no idea of what this is going to be, but I got a sense of what JJ is up to. He's very much reinventing it – the way Robert Wise did – and at the same time – he's directing the actors with an energy and an aliveness that we haven't seen. This was exciting, yet strange and it felt somehow... real.

We've got FOREVER till we see this, but it is looking pretty sharp, even in these incredibly premature days. JJ and crew have so much work to do on the film – this isn't like regular Trek where the set moments had very little post work, here – with a grander scope to the Trek Universe – every moment is enhanced to take us into the future. And it's a future based on where our current technology is – and a leap forward from here. I think that's the greatest reason for this. Since STAR TREK, the technology of man has taken some pretty amazing leaps. This is a Trek future more in tune with the present we have and the future that would come from where we are now. That said, I can't wait to see more.

Wow, I am pleased with this. So far we haven't heard anything negative about this. I guess the only caveat on that is there isn't even a first cut yet.

Wow if thats statement doesn't get you salivating into a bowl of geeky soup you may has well go and check that you still have a heart beat. ;)

Here are most of the images again.  All at a nice resolution, with no graphics on top of them, etc...

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie1.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie2.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie3.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie4.jpg)

A few others....

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie5.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie6.jpg)

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/images2/trekmovie7.jpg)

How cool does Eric Bana look, I'm a big fan of his.

Quote from: Rico on October 20, 2008, 03:04:51 PM
Nope - don't think so.  I kind of like this look, but these images have been around for at least two years.

Hey Rico, that guy Carson Dayle over at the RPF who was involved in the production of the movie just basically verified that this render is the basis for new new E:

"I have to say, there are some striking similarities between Gabe's E and the re-design."

And he is under a DND Agreement, so for sure we have a good idea what this ship will look like. I like it!

LOL - yeah I just read that too Bryan.  I like most of what I see in that look so I'm cool if elements are used in what the final look for the big new "E" is.  I do wonder about one liitle thing.  In the movie teaser trailer the lettering is clearly the ST-TMP style lettering on the primary hull.  I sure hope they don't use that.  It should look much more like TOS ship style lettering.

P.S.  Unfortunately it looks like the Kelvin has the TMP letter font too.  Do they not have anyone working on the movie to catch little things like this?

Yep, Gabe's render has classic TOS font whereas the Teaser image and The Kelvin have that TMP font. I agree, I wish they would use the TOS font.

Check this out...


http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1596974&vid=289198 (http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1596974&vid=289198)

Quote from: Rico on October 23, 2008, 11:29:53 AM
Check this out...
http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1596974&vid=289198 (http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1596974&vid=289198)

Rats, no 'Outside US' access.

Quote from: Rico on October 23, 2008, 11:29:53 AM
Check this out...


http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1596974&vid=289198 (http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1596974&vid=289198)

Nice little interview; thanks for the link. 

By the way--
TJ Hooker The Movie?!?

A guy on the Starship Modeler forums posted a link to this picture-

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/enterpriseq.jpg)

Could this be the real McCoy?

The fins on the back of the nacelles are accurate, but I think Gabe's design might be closer as this looks a little to much like TOS.

Everything looks cooler with tail fins!

Is there any other link to the MTV links above (eg are those clips on youtube) as we over here in blighty can't play them.

Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on October 23, 2008, 11:24:07 PM
Is there any other link to the MTV links above (eg are those clips on youtube) as we over here in blighty can't play them.

Indeed, those of us in the Dominion of Canada are also unable to play said video.

Canada's part of the Dominion???

Since when?

(Sorry, too hard to resist that one!)

LOL.

We stopped using the term Dominion officially in 1982. Before that Canada Day was known as Dominion Day. We're jsut nuts out here in the colonies. I can trade you some good fur pelts if you need them though.

:)

You're a mountie aint ya Joe ;)

No but I was a piper for a few years.

306 Wing Pipes and Drums!

I enjoyed quite a few wee drams.

One of my buddies is a mountie though. :D

Ha ha, brilliant. My cousin lives in Canada. Must visit her sometime.

I'd not heard the Dominion reference before. I guess I was only 14 in 1982 but I'd have thought I'd have noticed. Maybe it never got used over here.

It was more of an official name as opposed to a commonly used name.

Anyways now that we've gone completely off-topic...

More new images:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=23519 (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=23519)

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=23522 (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=23522)

(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b64/fendert/newSpock.jpg)
(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b64/fendert/NewKirk.jpg)

Nice find!  :thumbsup

Love the first one - the set is growing on me.

thought this was pretty cool

http://www.empireonline.com/energise/ (http://www.empireonline.com/energise/)

Nice stuff!  Empire Mag's Trek cover...

It is pretty cool that they actually went to the toruble of trying to recreate the original promo shot.

These look great. Is this the American edition of Empire or is it the UK version? Looks like i know what i'm going to be buying.

Meds - I don't think there is an "American version" of the Empire mag.  It's produced in the UK only - I think.  At least when I looked into subscribing and found out how much it cost that's what I found out.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2375/2981473237_1e4763e76a_o.jpg)

Well, they almost get it right but not quite right on.

Kevin

I don't think they intended for it to match perfectly.  Obviously they had the first photo to work off of.  I think it's a great compromise.  A nice little homage to the original while still doing their own thing to a degree.  Which is exactly what the new movie sounds like will be.  So it fits perfectly with the way they are taking this whole thing.

Yeah i think its a great looking photograph. I'll keep my eye out for the new Empire.

Space stud:

OK; the Trek Pic Of the day looks cool!  I'm guessing the main viewscreen of the bridge?

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/wraith1702/trekMovie/2008-10-29-Trek_Movie.jpg)

It sorta looks like it will be an actual viewport with a computer interface built in.  Or I wonder if it it still represents a camera view of the outside of the ship?

Or maybe it's a viewport in one of the conference spaces surrounding the bridge?

My guess is the latter and is based solely on the fact you can see the saucer section and the stars are "flowing" by "sideways" indicating that the Enterprise is at warp.

The stars look staionary.  The streaks are the reflection of the bridge equipment stations at the back of the bridge.  It looks like they have the TMP lettering on the ship; I sure don't like that.


Will

Here's another picture from the Empire Magazine story.

Anyone know whether or not the new trailer is showing before the new James Bond flick? 

That shot is definitely the main view screen, you can see the lettering on the hull outside, so it's looking forward. The streaks are reflections from inside the Apple store. :)

I've just seen the new Bond film and there was no trailer here but that might be because it would get pirated quickly. I think you may get it when Bond is released in two weeks time.

Quote from: Bryancd on November 01, 2008, 05:24:32 AM
That shot is definitely the main view screen, you can see the lettering on the hull outside, so it's looking forward. The streaks are reflections from inside the Apple store. :)

Yeah, I agree that based on the view of the hull graphics, the portal is at the front of deck one.  I was just postulating that the bridge might be located in the center of the deck, with usable space surrounding it (kind of like a donut).  That would allow room for the captain's ready room, the head, and conference room(s). 

Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 01, 2008, 12:40:45 PM
I've just seen the new Bond film and there was no trailer here but that might be because it would get pirated quickly. I think you may get it when Bond is released in two weeks time.

I'll keep my fingers crossed!  I need to see the new trailer NOW.

Some people over a the RPF are speculating that it's a big window on the deck below the bridge, but I don't think they can make the scale work.

Quote from: feek61 on October 29, 2008, 01:51:23 PM
The stars look staionary.  The streaks are the reflection of the bridge equipment stations at the back of the bridge.  It looks like they have the TMP lettering on the ship; I sure don't like that.

I don't think fonts are something important to the film at all. I think that the reason they changed to the TMP font was because it was actually possible to make the font that gene wanted in the first place.

Back in the day, the TMP font would have been a serious pain to work on.

Then again this is also a new movie and I'm not sure the choice of font will make or break the movie in any way what so ever.

I'm afraid fonts aren't even on my radar. A number of things may affect my enjoyment of the film, but fonts aren't one of them.

Quote from: Feathers on November 01, 2008, 03:10:18 PM
I'm afraid fonts aren't even on my radar. A number of things may affect my enjoyment of the film, but fonts aren't one of them.

"Yes, hi, Mr. Feathers? I'm with the Geek Police, I'm afraid you are going to have to come with us for questioning..." ;)

It's a fair cop, guv! :D

"Don't muck us about, sir.." :)

Release the hounds Bryan.

Ok, riddle me this.  If vulcans have the longer life-span, shouldn't the young spock be a little older/younger then kirk ?

Quote from: markinro on November 02, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Ok, riddle me this.  If vulcans have the longer life-span, shouldn't the young spock be a little older/younger then kirk ?

Spock does have a longer life span, but was only born about 3 years before Kirk.  And I just checked this part, Zachary Quinto is 31 and Chris Pine (new Kirk) is 28.  So that works out pretty well although they are both playing younger than their age in the new film.

Quote from: Rico on November 02, 2008, 04:56:28 PM

Quote from: markinro on November 02, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Ok, riddle me this.  If vulcans have the longer life-span, shouldn't the young spock be a little older/younger then kirk ?

Spock does have a longer life span, but was only born about 3 years before Kirk.  And I just checked this part, Zachary Quinto is 31 and Chris Pine (new Kirk) is 28.  So that works out pretty well although they are both playing younger than their age in the new film.

That's a bit of revisionist history. Spoke served for 11 years under Pike, so the 3 year difference is questionable.

Quote from: Bryancd on November 02, 2008, 06:19:22 PM

Quote from: Rico on November 02, 2008, 04:56:28 PM

Quote from: markinro on November 02, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Ok, riddle me this.  If vulcans have the longer life-span, shouldn't the young spock be a little older/younger then kirk ?

Spock does have a longer life span, but was only born about 3 years before Kirk.  And I just checked this part, Zachary Quinto is 31 and Chris Pine (new Kirk) is 28.  So that works out pretty well although they are both playing younger than their age in the new film.

That's a bit of revisionist history. Spoke served for 11 years under Pike, so the 3 year difference is questionable.

Yes - I'm well aware of that and it still works.  Check out the many sources out there.  Kirk also served (on multiple Starships) prior to becoming Captain of the Enterprise with Spock with him.  They just didn't serve together.

Still, it's after TOS revison. Keep in mind, I don't care, but clearly Spock was older than Kirk in TOS by more than 3 years as per what Gene envisioned.

Quote from: markinro on November 02, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Ok, riddle me this.  If vulcans have the longer life-span, shouldn't the young spock be a little older/younger then kirk ?

My point is, as per TOS, this comment is perfectly valid. Lot's of stuff has come since, in TV, books, and movies, that have altered the canon, but in my and Gene's TOS view of canon, Spock is 100% older than Kirk. J.J. can change that, and I am 100% fine with that revision, but Markino is still correct.

What i want to know is didn't Kirk state his age as 35 in the TOS episode when they all get old? If so that would work out right if the TOS series is the first 5 year mission under Kirk. Or am i wrong?

Quote from: Bryancd on November 02, 2008, 07:03:10 PM

Quote from: markinro on November 02, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Ok, riddle me this.  If vulcans have the longer life-span, shouldn't the young spock be a little older/younger then kirk ?

My point is, as per TOS, this comment is perfectly valid. Lot's of stuff has come since, in TV, books, and movies, that have altered the canon, but in my and Gene's TOS view of canon, Spock is 100% older than Kirk. J.J. can change that, and I am 100% fine with that revision, but Markino is still correct.

Kirk is only older by a few years - at most.  Shatner & Nimoy are the same age.  Bryan - you need to back up what say.  You can refer to startrek.com, Memory Alpha or other sources.  Some say three years, some it's down to a little as one year.  Where do you get the idea that just because Spock served with Pike that makes him that much older?  Or that because Vulcans live longer that makes him older?  It only matters when they were born.  And Kirk and Spock were born between 1-3 years apart depending on the source.  JJ Abrams changed nothing.  This has been the case for quite awhile.

And Meds I'm pretty sure Kirk says he is 34 years old in "The Deadly Years."  He was the youngest Starship Captain ever at that point in time.  He rose very quickly through the ranks.

If you accept that Spock served with Pike for 11 years, it would stand to reason that he would have gone through StarFleet Academy well before Kirk. Assuming Kirk went to the academy as a young man, there would have to be a more sizeable difference in their age. In the late 1960's, before MemoryAlpha or StarTrek.com, Gene Roddenberry had Spock serving on the Enterprise when Kirk was only 23 years old, probably just out of the academy. I have seen timelines that have Spock as much as 17 years older than Kirk. Although it was never directly addressed in TOS, I think Spock was meant to be an older character. A lot of TOS fans feel that way. That's all, it's not a big deal.