Star Trek XI

[JasonEvans]

I think it is #11.

JJ Abrams new film. I am really psyched though the trailer was just so-so, I thought.

You can watch a bootleg version of the trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c).

--Jason "I think the HD version of the trailer will be released next week" Evans

[billybreen]

I think it is #11.

JJ Abrams new film. I am really psyched though the trailer was just so-so, I thought.

You can watch a bootleg version of the trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c).

--Jason "I think the HD version of the trailer will be released next week" Evans

There are higher quality versions of the same floating around on some sites that I'm too embarrassed to link (wwtdd.com for one). I'm generally not a fan of most of JJ Abrams' work, and I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I kinda liked the trailer.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Since I reside way high on the geek scale, I'm super psyched for this. I was bummed when they moved it from the usual ST movie November slot, but I can wait. I have no problems with Abrams giving it a shot, I'll be interested to see how he handles it. I can't really judge the casting until I've seen them in a movie's worth of action, but they all seem like fair choices. The two I'm intrigued by are Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as McCoy, mostly because they are the two I'm more familiar with, but would have not thought of either for their roles, not that I disagree with their selections.

Looking forward to one day having another Star Trek movie that is a good movie, not just a good ST movie. There haven't been many, and certainly none recently.

[DukeUsul]

Since I reside way high on the geek scale, I'm super psyched for this. I was bummed when they moved it from the usual ST movie November slot, but I can wait. I have no problems with Abrams giving it a shot, I'll be interested to see how he handles it. I can't really judge the casting until I've seen them in a movie's worth of action, but they all seem like fair choices. The two I'm intrigued by are Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as McCoy, mostly because they are the two I'm more familiar with, but would have not thought of either for their roles, not that I disagree with their selections.

Looking forward to one day having another Star Trek movie that is a good movie, not just a good ST movie. There haven't been many, and certainly none recently.

As a fellow ST fan I'll agree. First Contact was the last ST movie that was just plain a good movie. It's a shame Nemesis didn't live up to the "Even Trek movies are good" plan. I'm hopeful that this one makes up for it. I love all things ST and have enjoyed much of JJ Abrams work, so I'm hopeful. It's going to be very interesting since he's certainly re-imagining the ST universe. There has been a strict consistency throughout everything Trek (story, characters, look, feel and design), and it looks like things are changing up. It's either going to be great or a terrible disappointment. I don't see the chance of a middleground.

SPOILERS:
Take for example the new Enterprise. They've redesigned the original iconic ship (clearly they had to since the 60's design wouldn't totally stand up). But it's interesting to see the response of the fanboys.

New (Old) Enterprise (http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/)

[TillyGalore]

I'm not a ST fan, but after seeing the trailer, I think I'd like to see this movie in the theater vs. DVD.

[bigj4194]

I'm a ST fan and am quite excited for this...partly just because i love SciFi, but also because i think it will be quite good. I thought the trailer was ok, but also its a JJ Abrams film and i think most things that he has done recently (Lost and Fringe just to name a few) are pretty great.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

saw it as a preview for the bond film.

can not wait.

[JasonEvans]

I'm a ST fan and am quite excited for this...partly just because i love SciFi, but also because i think it will be quite good. I thought the trailer was ok, but also its a JJ Abrams film and i think most things that he has done recently (Lost and Fringe just to name a few) are pretty great.

Have you seen Mission Impossible III? I think JJ did a really nice job with it. It did not do as well at the boxoffice as had been hoped because it came out just as Tom Cruise was at the height of his insanity, couch hopping with Oprah and generally thrusting Scientology in the world's face. There was a pretty fair amount of Tom Cruise backlash then and I think it had a real impact.

Anyway, my point is that JJ showed in that film that he is a very strong film director, IMO. I would be eager for this flick simply because of him but adding in the fact that it is a reboot of perhaps the greatest Sci-Fi franchise ever makes it a real must-see!

--Jason "gotta look now to see if the trailer is legally on line somewhere" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Ha! The http://www.startrekmovie.com/ website has a countdown clock to the new trailer. It will be up in 3 hours and 45 minutes.

--Jason "pretty funny" Evans

[bigj4194]

Have you seen Mission Impossible III?

It's one of the few movies that I have downloaded a while ago and never watched...i'll have to go back and watch it. SO EXCITED FOR STXI

[alteran]

I'm trying not to get too amped.

Not everything that JJ Abrams touches turns to gold, but I do think he's cognizant of the dangers of throwing away the Trek "canon" while being aware of the dangers of letting it set his course. It looks like Paramount has cut loose the stale brain trust headed by Rick Berman that slowly drained Trek of its ability to entertain.

The coolest thing to me is Zachary Quinto as Spock. He even looks like Nimoy, and one thing I'm hoping is that they might get into is the dark, threatening aspect of Spock, which Quinto would capture well.

I agree with Jason's sentiment that MI3 was a good action film that probably got torpedoed by Cruise's elevation to whatever Scientology level allows him to control reality but still look like a flaming idiot. Abrams really does know how to make an action flick.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

[CameronBornAndBred]

But I do think he's cognizant of the dangers of throwing away the Trek "canon" while being aware of the dangers of letting it set his course.
Don't get too optimistic on that. Even though Abrams is at the helm on this one, I read in an article he was never too much of a fan of Star Trek himself. Here is an excerpt from this article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502_2,00.html).

"Abrams saw the first Star Trek (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,186996,00.html) film in 1979 with his father, veteran TV-movie producer Gerald Abrams, at a theater on the Paramount lot. But he feels no warm-fuzzy nostalgia about it. In fact, Abrams can sum up his regard for Trek in two words: Galaxy Quest (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,64448,00.html), the 1999 hit starring Tim Allen (http://www.ew.com/ew/allabout/0,,20000651,00.html) that satirized Trek with painful precision. ''It's so ridiculous, so accurate, so sophisticated, it spoils the Star Trek universe,'' he says.
Plus, at heart, Abrams is still more of a Star Wars (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20230807,00.html) guy. ''All my smart friends liked Star Trek,'' he says. ''I preferred a more visceral experience.''

[alteran]

Don't get too optimistic on that. Even though Abrams is at the helm on this one, I read in an article he was never too much of a fan of Star Trek himself. Here is an excerpt from this article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502_2,00.html).

"Abrams saw the first Star Trek (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,186996,00.html) film in 1979 with his father, veteran TV-movie producer Gerald Abrams, at a theater on the Paramount lot. But he feels no warm-fuzzy nostalgia about it. In fact, Abrams can sum up his regard for Trek in two words: Galaxy Quest (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,64448,00.html), the 1999 hit starring Tim Allen (http://www.ew.com/ew/allabout/0,,20000651,00.html) that satirized Trek with painful precision. ''It's so ridiculous, so accurate, so sophisticated, it spoils the Star Trek universe,'' he says.
Plus, at heart, Abrams is still more of a Star Wars (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20230807,00.html) guy. ''All my smart friends liked Star Trek,'' he says. ''I preferred a more visceral experience.''

Yeah, I read that article when it came out and that graf you cited concerned me when I read it. (And I LOVED Galaxy Quest, BTW.) The history of directors who upfront say they "don't have much respect for the Star Trek universe, but" is not great.

One of the funny ironies of the Trek movies, however, is that Trek detracting-directors haven't done much worse than the fanboys, who make a different, but no less irritating, set of errors.

It's the ones that walk BETWEEN those extremes that do the best.

I don't know if you read the whole article, but it also mentions Abrams has a couple of hardcore Trekkers (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502_3,00.html) working in significant positions on his crew (last graf on the linked page).

Abrams has a clear and demonstrated understanding of mythology/canon and the need for consistency, and that gives me hope... but yes, the graf you cited puts the "cautiously" into "cautiously optimistic."

[CameronBornAndBred]

(And I LOVED Galaxy Quest, BTW.)
That movie is in my list of favorites, I laugh every time I watch it.

"I'm not even supposed to be here. I'm just "Crewman Number Six." I'm expendable. I'm the guy in the episode who dies to prove how serious the situation is. I've gotta get outta here."

[billybreen]

That movie is in my list of favorites, I laugh every time I watch it.

"I'm not even supposed to be here. I'm just "Crewman Number Six." I'm expendable. I'm the guy in the episode who dies to prove how serious the situation is. I've gotta get outta here."

Maybe you're the plucky comic relief?

Galaxy Quest is one of the few movies I TiVo every time I notice it's coming up. Mr. Monk is fantastic.

[DukeUsul]

Grignak! Grignak! Grignak! Grignak!

[JasonEvans]

Who gives a !#%^!^ about canon? I want a good movie. Period. End of story. There need be no other criteria.

Heck, wanna know what would be cool? I was thinking earlier today that one of the perils of making a prequel like this is that no amount of danger that Kirk, Spock, Sulu, or anyone else gets in can be real peril because we know their eventual fates. Well, I think it would be friggin' awesome if JJ and Co. killed off one of the established characters. Maybe they could off Checkov about 2/3rds of the way through the film. Just to tell everyone that they mean business and this is not your same old Star Trek.

--Jason "I'd be fine with that, though I am sure purists would go insane" Evans

[-jk]

Who gives a !#%^!^ about canon? I want a good movie. Period. End of story. There need be no other criteria.

Heck, wanna know what would be cool? I was thinking earlier today that one of the perils of making a prequel like this is that no amount of danger that Kirk, Spock, Sulu, or anyone else gets in can be real peril because we know their eventual fates. Well, I think it would be friggin' awesome if JJ and Co. killed off one of the established characters. Maybe they could off Checkov about 2/3rds of the way through the film. Just to tell everyone that they mean business and this is not your same old Star Trek.

--Jason "I'd be fine with that, though I am sure purists would go insane" Evans

They could kill off Spock, but, well, been there, done that.

-jk

[pamtar]

I'm not too amped on the whole new actors for old characters thing. If anything, I think a new Trek movie should be an opportunity to introduce a completely new cast of characters. I'd also like to see one final hurrah for the original or Next Gen crew.

[alteran]

Who gives a !#%^!^ about canon? I want a good movie. Period. End of story. There need be no other criteria.

Heck, wanna know what would be cool? I was thinking earlier today that one of the perils of making a prequel like this is that no amount of danger that Kirk, Spock, Sulu, or anyone else gets in can be real peril because we know their eventual fates. Well, I think it would be friggin' awesome if JJ and Co. killed off one of the established characters. Maybe they could off Checkov about 2/3rds of the way through the film. Just to tell everyone that they mean business and this is not your same old Star Trek.

--Jason "I'd be fine with that, though I am sure purists would go insane" Evans

Since I'm the only one who mentioned canon, I think this is a shot at me. It's a matter of degree. Obviously, if you !#%^!^ with the canon too much, it's not Star Trek anymore. Also, you lose a significant fraction of your audience. The Trekkers might not be the "make or break" box office demo, but you can be !#%^!^ sure Paramount wants them for the DVD sales.

That being said, I find your idea intriguing-- something like the new Battlestar Galactica, maybe. Start with the original characters and general premise, and put new spin on things. I don't think that's where they're going, but I like the idea.

[billybreen]

That being said, I find your idea intriguing-- something like the new Battlestar Galactica, maybe. Start with the original characters and general premise, and put new spin on things. I don't think that's where they're going, but I like the idea.

Weird. I thought the new BSG was practically a shot for shot remake (http://io9.com/5061787/dwight-faces-nerd-torture-of-the-highest-form) of the original.

[bigj4194]

Weird. I thought the new BSG was practically a shot for shot remake (http://io9.com/5061787/dwight-faces-nerd-torture-of-the-highest-form) of the original.

classic

[JasonEvans]

Since I'm the only one who mentioned canon, I think this is a shot at me.

No, it was not a shot at you but a general comment on the notion that I have read here and elsewhere that certain things must happen to preserve the Star Trek storyline. I was not saying you were someone who would flip if things did not go exactly as planned by Gene Roddenberry some 40 years ago.

--Jason "frankly, the fact that Kirk is going to be in the same Starfleet class or whatever as Spock, Checkov, and Sulu seems more than a bit silly to me" Evans

[alteran]

No, it was not a shot at you...

I really, REALLY need to use more smilies. :)

I agree that obsessing over the canon is probably the easiest way to torpedo a good story.

[Olympic Fan]

Count me among those nerds/geeks who would prefer that future films retain at least a passing respect for the "canon".

I'm a big Trek fan -- much prefer it to Star Wars (I was an early fan, but Lukas lost me halfway through III or VI ... anyway, when the Ewoks show up and I could see the price tags for their merchandising camapaign). Not as big a fan of Battlestar Gallactica or Babylon Five.

While I understand that the canon can be restrictive, that's part of the beauty of the series -- how well each succeeding producer/director/writer can shape the artificial Trek characters and universe into a new vision. Look, I'm not obseessive over this -- I loved Galaxy Quest and couldn't help thinking how it would have been even better if they could have done it as a Trek film with Shatner, Nimoy and company as the washed up original cast.

If all you want is a big, spectacular sci-fi shoot-em-up, fine ... just don't try and sell it as a Trek film unless it IS a Trek film.

BTW: Did anybody catch this week's episode of The Big Bang Theory on CBS. The geek/nerds were arguing about the worst Trek film -- the debate was between No. 1 and No. 5 ... then they switched to the best film -- No. 4 or No. 2???

I agree that those are the two top choices in both categories.

Another great sitcom memory ... anybody remember the comedy Cybill? The character Cybill, supposedly a struggling actress, is a guest star on TNG and is asked out on a date by Jonathan Frakes on one episode. She can't understand why her daughter -- a very hot Alicia Witt -- is so excited. The daughter's character is usually so cool and sophisticated and cynical about everything Hollywood. Finally, Cybill asks the daughter why she's so impressed by Frakes. Her answer:

"Don't you understand, mother? If anything happens to the bald guy, he takes over command of the Enterprise!"

I loved it.

[DukeUsul]

Another great sitcom memory ... anybody remember the comedy Cybill? The character Cybill, supposedly a struggling actress, is a guest star on TNG and is asked out on a date by Jonathan Frakes on one episode. She can't understand why her daughter -- a very hot Alicia Witt -- is so excited. The daughter's character is usually so cool and sophisticated and cynical about everything Hollywood. Finally, Cybill asks the daughter why she's so impressed by Frakes. Her answer:

"Don't you understand, mother? If anything happens to the bald guy, he takes over command of the Enterprise!"

I loved it.

Mmmmmm Alicia Witt. Who would have guessed she'd have grown up so nicely!

"For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!"

[billybreen]

"For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!"

Well said, Usul.

[DukeUsul]

Well said, Usul.

It would be a shame if I let anyone else whip that reference out....

I just checked out the trailer. I'm very impressed and very excited. The look and feel is quite different... however the same.

***SPOILERS IF YOU AVOID WATCHING TRAILERS***

ST nerds will be pleased by the scene in the hangar bay (I'm presuming at starfleet headquarters) that was populated by shuttlecraft that bore a striking resemblance to the craft that appeared in the original series.

What appear to be the transporter effects on Spock look pretty slick.

I loved the sound of the old-fashioned red alert siren. Very authentic.

The space battles look pretty intense.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with Spock's emotions. It appears they'll be addressing a lack of control over his emotions (based on the short clip from the trailer). I presume they'll say it's due to conflict between his human and vulcan halves. The movies/shows never really addressed Spock's emotional control except during ST:TMP where we're shown him failing to achieve kolinahr (elimination of all vestiges of emotion) and again during the "retraining" of his mind in STIV:TVH where Amanda reminds him that "as a human, you have them (emotions)." I'm not sure if the books address it much. I think it's a good storyline, and can add a lot of depth to the character.

Simon Pegg will be great. No doubt.

I'm not sure I can believe "Harold" as Sulu. I hear there is a White Castle somewhere near the Mutara Nebula.

Star Trek + sex is a good thing.

[BD80]

Star Trek + sex is a good thing.

Kirk's libido - TV censors = NC-17?

I'll bet Bones has had to often deal with the ramifications of James Tiberius's "first contacts:"


"Dammit Jim, she was green. I'm a doctor, not a plumber."

As to the "canon" debate, lets get some parameters. Was the BSG remake true to the "canon" of the 70s TV show? I didn't feel that it was necessary to have Boxey and his mechanical daggit Muffit in the remake. I was also fine with redrafting Starbuck and Boomer as women.

I am not enough of a nerd to know how much of the original BSG was used in the remake, ie the social markers (cardgames), units of measure, history, planetology etc. But I thought an appropriate deference was paid to the "canon" and would be thrilled by a similar effort in ST XI. Those elements of the original ST series that were the result of a low budget can be left in a galaxy far-far away. Oops, me metaphor slipped.

[CameronBornAndBred]

kirk's libido - tv censors = nc-17?

ncc-1701

[alteran]

As to the "canon" debate, lets get some parameters. Was the BSG remake true to the "canon" of the 70s TV show? I didn't feel that it was necessary to have Boxey and his mechanical daggit Muffit in the remake. I was also fine with redrafting Starbuck and Boomer as women.

I am not enough of a nerd to know how much of the original BSG was used in the remake, ie the social markers (cardgames), units of measure, history, planetology etc. But I thought an appropriate deference was paid to the "canon" and would be thrilled by a similar effort in ST XI. Those elements of the original ST series that were the result of a low budget can be left in a galaxy far-far away. Oops, me metaphor slipped.


I forgot about Boxy and the "dog." Good call there.

I would say that BSG2 is more a "reinvention/reimagining" of the original then true to the canon. The canon IS all there, but it's subverted rather than updated or freshened up. Cylons aren't clunky cans, they're attractive humans with stark personality quirks and their leadership is frequently irrational. Cylons have monotheistic religious beliefs(!). The Colonials were not destroyed by Cylon betrayal, but by internal human betrayal. The original was an adventure looking to the future and the "next planet," the protagonists of BSG2 are inwardly focused, always furtively glancing around looking for traitors.

Everything from the original is there, but twisted and subverted. And very, very cool.

I would be intrigued by the thought of doing something similar with Trek, but we know that's not where they're going. One thing to note is that despite the 60s cheesiness and other significant flaws, Star Trek was never as fundamentally broken as the original BSG.

And I totally agree with dropping the stuff that's clearly dated-- no go-go boots and mini-skirts, please. Ooops, too late (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/10/15/exclusive-new-star-trek-movie-photo-with-kirk-spock-sulu-and-the-uss-enterprise-bridge/).

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Kirk's libido

Here's a poll topic for someone to set up:

Who's libido is bigger?

1. James T. Kirk's

2. Denny Crane's

Although at Shattner's age, it's probably all in his, um, head...

[DukeUsul]

And I totally agree with dropping the stuff that's clearly dated-- no go-go boots and mini-skirts, please. Ooops, too late (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/10/15/exclusive-new-star-trek-movie-photo-with-kirk-spock-sulu-and-the-uss-enterprise-bridge/).

I see absolutely nothing wrong with those uniforms. :D