JJ Abrams: Trek XI NOT a reboot.

You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!

Let me preface a few things before I say this-

I agree that a lot of "canon" is already self-contridictory

I Agree that one should not be so married to canonthat it interfers with good story telling

I agree that this film should be made to expand the audience first and to please trek-nerds second

I agree that hyperventilation over trivialities is silly

I recognize that what i am about to refer to is based on spoiler information much of which I do not KNOW to be true and obviously if something has been reported wrong then some of it would be moot

My criteria here is this-

A. you tell a good story in an entertaining way
B. you do not require non-nonsensical suspension of disbelief (beyond those inherent to the premise like FTL and transporters and such)
C. you do not violate the foundational principles of the universe or the characters (i.e Spock is emotional, Kirk can't fight, McCoy is soft spoken etc)


now....having said what I am NOT saying - this is what I AM saying:

IF the man is going to openly brag that he is mindful of continuity and is loading the film up with Easter eggs for trekkers...he doesn't HAVE to do these things but he seems quite pleased with himself that he has (in his mind) done so, then I have to ask:

WHY would your script include things that are directly non-canon when the story doesn't require it?

I understand, if your script somehow requires you to have Kirk serve under Pike (there's no canon that proves he didn't anyway) or whatever - good storytelling comes first.

But why do cadets have to show up in Iowa? Why is the shipyard in Iowa (if in fact it is)? It's not going to kill me if the Enterprise was built in Iowa instead of San Francisco but why deliberately violate canon on such an irrelevant point IF you profess to be mindful of such things?

That tends to make me think that either:

a. several things we have been told are not, in fact, accurate; or
b. he's not paying as much attention to those details as he woulld have us believe; or
c. whoever's getting paid to catch these detail is doing a piss-poor job.

As a Trek fan, that's what I would've liked to see as well.

The problem is that I don't think a movie featuring any of that stuff would be successful at all.

Casual fans wouldn't see it because it would be too obscure to them ("What the hell are 'Cardassians'? Izzat that Kim Cardassian chick or what?" ) and, unless it was TWOK-level good, Trekdom would nitpick and criticize it to death.


I think it's been too long to pick up "where Trek left off" and going back to the beginning in a new way is probably the only viable option.

Also, folks, remember, the most consistently high-rated Trek film amongst non-fans is 'that one with the whales', which was the movie with the fewest of Trek's trappings.

^
Lose the "d" (: evilpop: )

Still haven't seen where they actually show the Enterprise being built in Iowa.

The correct answer is A.

You will be seeing Kirk as a kid, at various points in his academy career, on his cadet cruise, and as Captain of the Enterprise... Spread out over the appropriate amounts of time.

You know, I just want to be entertained. And if this movie doesn't do it, if this movie doesn't seem to fit in with my personal view of the Star Trek universe, it isn't like JJ Abrams is going to come into my house and take a hammer to my DVDs. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy will still always be able to battle a guy in a white gorilla suit with a horn glued to his head, to fight space hippies that play musical instruments made out of a bicycle wheel, and have every planet they go to populated by styrofoam rocks and pastel skies.

Maybe we should stop worrying about whether this piece of pretend is somehow more real than that piece of pretend and just put our feet up for two hours, eat some popcorn, and enjoy the movie.

And that, right there, is what makes me angry. Why on earth does it have to be Yet Another Time Travel movie? Isn't there a writer out there with at least half a brain that can tell the story about how Kirk came to command the Enterprise without having to use time travel?

Because the fans who care about this still count for a huge chunk of audience, even if they don't ultimately make a majority.

To me it doesn't make sense to piss away millions of dollars from existing fans when all the fanciness and crowd-pleasing bells and whistles this movie has could have been included without fucking with canon.

Exactly. We've been time traveled to death thanks to writers like Brannon Braga in TNG,Voyager,Enterprise,Generations,and First Contact. Enough already.

To get Leonard Nimoy in there somehow?

Anyway, I'm still cautiously optimistic.

Did anyone else notice in the trailer, that while Kirk is looking at the Enterprise, there's some lights that at first appear to be elevators up to the nacelles? But then a few seconds later they move with the camera like they're reflections. Maybe Kirk's not actually there?

^
I think it's more Abrams love of lens flare.

More Flare! Give me more flare damn it!

As I said in my rep comment....

A man with whose spent 2 years with a supes Av supporting an attempt continue an old version of a franchise shouldn't be so ready to mock. Dickhead.

Fair enough comment.

Jesus....you whiny little shit

Jesus fuck, does no-one actually wait until they've SEEN a movie anymore before they start bitching?

Too bad I can't rep a post more than once.

This movie is gonna suck donkey dick.

Except I'm the only one who relishes that thought.

...

The thought that it's gonna suck. Not about the donkey thing.

...

Ask and you shall receive.

When a Star Trek movie is involved? Ha! No way!

You need to calm down, fella. It's just a movie.

Why wait?

I recall voicing similar sentiments prior to NEM and ENT...

From what I seen, heard and read so far, I am not optimistic.

And of course this is a re-boot. You can't violate canon as much as this movie will unless there is a big ol' reset button somewhere. Kirk's backstory is all wrong from what we know from TOS. This nuKirk seems not to have served on the Farragut or the Republic. It doesn't appear that nuKirk came up through the Starfleet ranks in the normal manner, as is assumed in TOS. Just those two points right points to this being a re-boot.

[YT="Tell that to him."]3fu656gGkhI[/YT]

I don't think we'd be missing much if there was a presidential ban on prequels, reboots and "reimaginings."

BSG slipped under the fence there, bring the score up to one-for-a million.

This is just entertainment. It isn't the Bible. No one is going to hell if they don't consider this film, or Star Trek 5, or Spock's Brain, or the entire run of Enterprise as never having happened. It's just make-believe. If anyone is really bothered by anything Abrams puts in this film, just ignore it.

Jesus Christ, this is entertainment, not a fucking religion that requires the viewer to accept all of it without question.