Oh dear... don't mention Number One. Something tells me that somehow Majel Barrett would not rest until she somehow got to play the part again.

I'm thinking it would take a LOT of CGI to young her up enough. Like a Gollum amount....

Yeah, and the whole movie would implode upon itself when Number One came across Nurse Chapel at the Starbase where the Enterprise was exchanging crews. Total galactic collapse.

From startrek.com:

"Over at Paramount Pictures, for example, there is now a question whether J.J. Abrams will direct 'Star Trek XI.' The studio insists that the Lost creator was never officially attached to direct the film, only to produce it. However, in July, upon announcing Abrams' film production pact with Paramount, then-studio president Gail Berman said Abrams was on board to direct the next installment in the sci-fi franchise and that it would be his first project under the new feature deal.


"Although Paramount is hopeful that Abrams will captain the Starship Enterprise, sources said the director likely will make his decision later this week."

It's official—Abrams will direct. From startrek.com:
Abrams Will Direct "Star Trek XI"

It looks like the game of "will-he-or-won't-he" is finally over. The Hollywood Reporter this morning broke the news that J.J. Abrams has officially signed on to direct the eleventh Star Trek feature film.
In a brief article, the Reporter quoted unnamed sources revealing that Abrams finalized the directing deal Friday evening with Paramount Pictures. Abrams' representatives at the William Morris Agency declined comment.
Abrams previously directed "Mission: Impossible III" for Paramount, and is one of Hollywood's most prolific writer/director/producers. He co-created the seminal series Lost among other shows, and even directed an [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=45275%27,%20%27itunes%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]episode of The Office[/url] which aired this past Thursday.


Abrams has been developing "Star Trek XI" — as the project is currently referred to — as a producer and has been working with writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci since April of last year on the story, but has hedged on whether or not he would personally direct the film.


According to the Reporter article, "Star Trek XI" will revolve around a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission.


You can see the original report at [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=45255%27,%20%27_hollywoodreporter%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]HollywoodReporter.com[/url].

From startrek.com:

02.27.2007
Christmas Day 2008 Release for "Star Trek XI"

J.J. ABRAMS TO DIRECT STAR TREK FEATURE FILM FOR PARAMOUNT PICTURES
IN THEATERS CHRISTMAS DAY 2008

HOLLYWOOD, CA, February 26, 2007 — "Star Trek," one of the most popular and successful franchises in the history of movies and television, returns to the big screen under the creative vision of J.J. Abrams, the force behind "Lost," "Alias" and "Mission Impossible III" for Paramount Pictures.

The team behind the film will include Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci ("Mission Impossible III") who wrote the screenplay and will executive produce with Bryan Burk. JJ Abrams and "Lost" co-creator Damon Lindelof will produce. The film will begin shooting this fall for a Christmas Day 2008 release.

One of the most popular film and television franchises of all time, "Star Trek" has encompassed 726 total episodes for television in six different series, beginning with the original 1966-1969 series created by Gene Roddenberry. The 10 "Star Trek" films have grossed in excess of $1 billion at the worldwide box office. The original characters have been named among the 50 greatest TV characters of all time and the Enterprise has lent its name to two proposed spacecraft.

"If there's something I'm dying to see, it's the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry's world brought back to the big screen," said Abrams. "Alex and Bob wrote an amazing script that embraces and respects Trek canon, but charts its own course. Our goal is to make a picture for everyone — life-long fans and the uninitiated. Needless to say, I am honored and excited to be part of this next chapter of Star Trek."

Brad Grey, chairman and CEO, Paramount Pictures, said, "We could not be more thrilled to be back in business with J.J. Abrams. The revival of the 'Star Trek' franchise is an important part of Paramount's turnaround."

About Paramount Pictures
Paramount Pictures Corporation (PPC), a global company that produces and distributes filmed entertainment, is a unit of Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B), a leading entertainment content company with prominent and respected brands including Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks. The company's labels include Paramount Pictures, Paramount Vantage, Paramount Classics, DreamWorks, MTV Films and Nickelodeon Movies. PPC operations also include Paramount Digital Entertainment, Paramount Home Entertainment, Paramount Pictures International, Paramount Licensing Inc., Paramount Studios, and Worldwide Television Distribution.

Fact Sheet

"Star Trek" is one of the most popular film and television franchises of all time:

• 726 total episodes for television spanning six television series
• Original series, created by Gene Roddenberry, aired on NBC from 1966-1969
• 10 movies, grossing in total over $1 billion at the worldwide box office
• Hundreds of novels
• $3.5 billion in consumer products
• 3 million visitors of Las Vegas's "Star Trek: The E xp erience" since 1998
• Over 60 interactive software products since 1991; games in production for current and next generation game platforms

J.J. Abrams is a talent widely admired by audiences and critics alike:

• Winner of two Emmy Awards for "Lost"
• 17 million viewers each week for "Lost"; a top-ten show
• Hailed by the New York Times as "one of the most exhilarating storytellers in television"
• Director of "Mission: Impossible III"
• Creator of "Alias" and "Felicity"

"Star Trek" has influenced the culture:

• NASA's first test shuttle was named "Enterprise"
• The first commercial passenger carrier into space, Virgin Galactic, has announced that the first spacecraft of the line will be named V.S.S. Enterprise
• An episode of the original "Star Trek" featured television's first interracial kiss
• Spock, portrayed by Leonard Nimoy, was named one of TV's "50 Greatest Characters Ever" by TV Guide

[/indent]

I'm glad that Abrams is directing. All indications thus far show that he seems to be the man for the job. Here are some other news that find to be shocking, to say the least. The Matt Damon thing is not new, but the other two major characters certainly are. I completely agree with one choice, and and am struggling very hard to accept the other. I'll comment further once people have read the article, but I can safely say that I was stunned when I read this. Mind you, none of it is fully confirmed yet.



February 26, 2007 - IGN Movies has learned from studio sources which actors may play the Big Three in Paramount's Star Trek XI. By the "Big Three," we mean, of course, Captain James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy.

Confirming rumors that have been making the rounds for some months now, IGN has learned that Oscar winner Matt Damon is indeed in talks with Paramount about playing the role of Jim Kirk, previously immortalized onscreen by Emmy winner William Shatner.

Damon brings star power and an acting pedigree to the role that should convince audiences that this is a serious reboot of the beloved franchise.

For the part of Kirk's Vulcan first officer Mr. Spock, IGN has been told that none other than Oscar winner Adrien Brody (King Kong, The Pianist) is in talks with Paramount to play the role. If cast, Brody would succeed Leonard Nimoy in a role that forever marked Nimoy's career. But with a Best Actor award already under his belt and an eclectic mix of films on his resume, Brody wouldn't have as much to lose by taking on the iconic role as Nimoy had.

IGN has also been told that Oscar nominee Gary Sinise -- currently seen on the small screen in CSI: NY -- is in talks for the role of Dr. McCoy, the ornery and politically incorrect ship's physician aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise. McCoy's prickly relationship with Spock was the basis of much of the humor and humanity of the original 1960s series. The late DeForrest Kelley played "Bones" on TV.


Golden Globe and Emmy winner Sinise is no stranger to films about space flight, having previously appeared in Apollo 13 and Mission to Mars.

Those are the three actors that our studio insider advised us were the closest to being cast, with Damon's talks said to be further along than the rest. We have also heard of an actor being eyed for the role of Enterprise helmsman Lt. Sulu: Daniel Dae Kim ("Jin Kwon" on Lost). Sulu was played on the classic TV series by George Takei, who can now be seen on Heroes. We should stress, however, that Kim's possible casting is at a far earlier stage than that of the aforementioned three.

Lost, of course, was created and is executive produced by J.J. Abrams, who has just signed on to direct and produce Star Trek XI.

Sources also advised IGN that Scottish thesp James McAvoy may indeed be in the mix to play chief engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott in the film.

Neither Damon's reps at Endeavor nor Brody and Sinise's respective reps at CAA had responded to our inquiries for comment at time of publish.

I had just heard about the Adrian Brody rumor, which I assume is the one you're agog at. Considering that Damon is looking very likely as Kirk, I'd have to say "anybody but Affleck" will be fine as Spock. But beyond that, I think Brody is a good actor, and I don't have any qualms about him.

We previously talked about Sinise. I think he's too old for McCoy, at least if they plan to continue with this cast. Other than that, he'd be excellent. McAvoy would be fine as Scotty, too. I'm thinking of how skinny McAvoy was in Narnia, and hoping it will be a while before he puffs up great big like Jimmy Doohan did.

We also discussed, of course, the fact that everything about this movie, other than that it's going to be made and who's making it, is rumor. There may not be a Scotty, McCoy, or Sulu in this movie. We'll see in a little under 2 years!

I hate the Christmas Day release. I'm always at my family home then, and to see the movie would mean a trip into St. Louis, about 50 miles away. Plus, Christmas is a sacred day, not just in the religious sense, but in the sense of family tradition and time spent at home with each other--even though now my family is just my brother and I. So I won't be wanting to see it then, and will have to wait till at least the next day to see it.

I'm fine with Damon and Sinise. The latter may not have the age-wise staying power if they plan this to be a long-running franchise once again, but the other thing to remember is that these guys command respectable paycheques; one of them alone probably gets paid more than the entire TOS crew back in the old movie days, so this movie has to rake in a ton of cash for Paramount to be able to sign this trio again. I do have a problem with Brody though. While I think he is a fine actor and does great work, I simply cannot envision him as Spock. I'm sure he has the range to play the opposite, but I'm too used to seeing Brody in highly emotional roles. His face is also very distinctive, not to mention a very prominent nose that looks nothing like Nimoy's. The problem for me when watching this movie (if this all pans out as is,) is that I can see myself believing Damon as Kirk and Sinise as McCoy, yet when I see Brody, I won't see Spock, I will merely see Brody, and to me that will ruin the immersion and believability of the character.

Scotty and Sulu look like remote possibilities for me, though if the movie takes the plot as far as the Enterprise pre-'Where No Man Has Gone Before,' then one certainly can't argue that they shouldn't be there. At best, they could get cameos. Thougher to e xp lain will be where McCoy was.

I am ok with Damon and Sinise ( i can see sinise as the wise-cracking, smartass mccoy). i am not to keen on Brody tho, i really cant see him as spock.

but this is the first i had heart, but late '08 makes me happy... i was worried they would rush it for early '08, but they have 2 years basically to make a GREAT movie (not to mention december '08 is when i graduate from grad school)

I hear your reservations about Brody. They're essentially my reservations about, say, Tom Cruise in any role in any movie any more. His celebrity is so big he could never disappear into the role and not be Tom Cruise.

For me, however, that would not apply to Adrian Brody. While I know who he is, I don't think he's exactly a household name, and I've seen him in few enough things, all of them different, that for me he could dissolve in the role. And if he usually plays emotional roles, perhaps this is a great opportunity for him to play against type. On the other hand, remember how "emotional" Spock was in "The Cage"? Some people hypothesized that it was because he was young and hadn't mastered his emotions yet. Don't rule out the possibility that this movie will take that path (rather a long shot, since 99.9% of the people who see this will be e xp ecting a serious Spock).

Adrian Brody's nose...well, I hadn't planned on mentioning it, but since you did, Val, I will too. It is indeed prominent, and nothing like Nimoy's. Put another way, it's the most stupendously ginormous nose ever to grace the face of a man considered beautiful by so many adoring fans. Personally, I agree the guy is quite handsome, but only if you see him straight on. If he turns a profile, watch out—he may clobber you with his nose. But barring a nose-clobbering, it may be that the producers felt the movie needed a heart-throb, and since Spock always appealed to women so much, they decided to cast one as him. And if for some reason, Halle Berry were to have a part in the movie, Brody could kiss her again!

Again, we still don't know if any of these guys will actually be in the movie, but speculation is fun, isn't it?

This is a bit tough for a confirmed Next Generation fan and former Kirk-hater to admit, but I'm getting really excited about this movie. For the last several movies under Berman, my anticipation was diluted with concern over how low-key the tone of the movie would be and how lame it might come across. Now that there's new blood behind the camera and behind the scripting pen, not to mention in front of the camera, I'm whetted for something new and exciting. We'll see.... In any case, it caused me to pull out the TOS DVDs this evening and watch "The Doomsday Machine."

if matt damon is kirk, i just hope this is going to be a "star trek movie" and not a "matt damon movie".... i dont want to hear the movie guy voice going "This christmas.... Matt Damon is ..... Captain Kirk!"

This really only relates tangentially to the new movie but I'll post it here anyway. The excitement over the new movie caused me to pull out the DVD of the last time the Star Trek franchise returned from the dead, i.e., "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." I'm not sure what effect I e xp ected watching this to produce, but the one it did was a reminder of what a huge stumble out of the starting gate that theatrical Star Trek took. Let's all hope that JJ Abrams really knows what Star Trek is about, which is something Alan Dean Foster and Robert Wise failed to translate onto the big screen.

Also, I was very disimpressed with how this movie looks visually. The images are soft and not well defined, perhaps partly—but not totally—because of the muted color palette. In spite of the hoopla over the added CGI effects (which are decent), the movie has a clunky look to it. When Paramount releases this movie on BluRay and/or HD-DVD, they are going to have to put major bucks into it to keep it from looking like total crap on those big-screen hi def TVs. For starters, the film elements should probably all be restored. Then, the original effects shots should be digitally recomposited—even on my worn-out 25" TV, you can see lines around the edges of models where they were optically composited with backgrounds. Some effects could probably stand to be outright replaced with CGI, although it would be a mistake to replace all of them.

The big question is, will Paramount be willing to put the money into this movie, a half-baked retread of "The Changeling" from TOS, that most fans are lukewarm about? I doubt it. Paramount has always paid great lip service to Star Trek as its tentpole franchise, but when it actually comes to putting the money where its corporate mouth is, it usually falls short: bare-bones DVD releases, laserdiscs without chapter stops, movies ordered up on a micro-budget and miniscule timeframe, etc.

From startrek.com, HMMMMM.....

"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 — the two screenwriters who also serve as executive producers — 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 e xp ressed 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 [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46175%27,%20%27_mtv%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]this MTV.com link[/url].

Now that does sound interesting. I guess we'll have to wait and find out more.

What do you guys think about a re-imaged Star Trek?

Take that term with a grain a salt, and I will e xp lain why: it's been clarified since that interview was posted that this is not a re-imagining in the terms of something like Battlestar Galactica or Planet of the Apes. The movie is not about to disregard canon and go off on some tangent just to please the audiences of today or some studio exec's wild ideas. The re-imagining in question here has to do with updating the look (as was mentioned,) while maintaining the same feel that we are used to with classic Trek. In other words, the bridge of the old Enterprise for example, will still be quite recognizable, but the retro look of the 60's set might be updated a fair bit. I only hope they don't take it as far as what they did with the NX-01 in 'Enterprise,' for example. Archer's ship looked way more modern, inside and out, than the NCC-1701 which came many years later, and it was very difficult to reconcile one era with being the predecessor of the other. However, some modernization is inevitable. It was unavoidable for the show, but I think they made it look a little toooo modern, considering fans knew what lay ahead.

I know the producers struggled with the look of the NX-01. If they had backdated the look of the NCC-1701, the NX-01 would have had to have looked like a steam locomotive or something. Also, the types of computers etc. that we use now look so much more sophisticated than what was on the Original Series that they felt the credibility of Enterprise would suffer if the ship did not look at least partly like a projection forward from today.

Considering how far things have come technologically in the 40 year history of Star Trek, it's pretty hard to imagine what our technology will really look like 150 years from now, the time frame of Enterprise. I suspect it will be so far beyond the look of Enterprise as to be unrecognizable and unimaginable. As Arthur C. Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.

Of course, the level of technology of Earth in Enterprise would have been impeded by the nuclear war of the mid-21st century. Our own real technological development is likely to be impeded by the very same thing or other things about as drastic (climate change, societal collapse, etc.), so maybe 2150 won't be any more "futuristic" than Enterprise.

In any case, thanks for the clarification, Val. It was reassuring. Ironically, I e xp ected a rant from you over this, but you were one step ahead.

03.12.2007
Abrams Talks about Directorial Decision

J.J. Abrams, the producer of "Star Trek XI" who recently signed with Paramount to also direct, has been talking about the project in a variety of forums, basically saying that after he read the completed script by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, it was so outstanding he couldn't not direct it. Abrams spoke March 2 at the [url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=43376', '_blank'); newWindow.focus()]Cinequest Film Festival[/url] in San Jose, Calif., and then last Friday, March 9, at the Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) Conference in Monterey, Calif. He also visited with Wired magazine for an interview that was published last week.


In each case his talks encompassed a range of topics, and the "Star Trek" project was only a small part of each one, if mentioned at all. The reason: "If I talk about this movie, everyone else who is involved with it knows where I live and will use that and, er, kill me," he [url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46555', '_blank'); newWindow.focus()]joked at Cinequest[/url].
However, he told the festival audience, "I can say that when the script came in it was so well written, it was so emotional, it was fun, and big and I found myself unable to not direct it!"


Double negatives notwithstanding, he continued, "I couldn't give it up. I think it's going to be great. If in my gut I felt there was nothing else to offer, I wouldn't do it. It's not a business decision, I would rather take no money and do something inspiring. I hope it ends up being both a really cool, original, emotional ride and comes from something that we're familiar with."


In the [url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46535', '_wired'); newWindow.focus()]Wired article[/url] Abrams said something similar: "I'd feel like an idiot if I let someone else (direct) it." He also reiterated, "It's a little too early to talk about Star Trek, but I can't tell you how excited I am to do that (project). I'm thrilled."


He said the script is "clearly a fun, emotional and wild adventure," and he couldn't turn down the chance to take the helm. "This is going to be an incredibly fun movie. I can't believe that they're letting us do this," he exclaimed.


He also mentioned, without being specific, that he is getting input for the project from the "science/geek community," as the magazine put it. "I get the use of brilliant minds and futurists and people who are thinking these things through," Abrams said vaguely. "We'd be crazy not to take advantage of the information coming to us."


Also, he hopes to help Star Trek gaming reach its potential. "I love good games," he said, but added that games based on existing properties typically "falter because they're relying on the title and the name recognition instead of relying on game-play and story and content. So I feel like the ideal ... is when form and function come together. We definitely have the form, and the function needs to be better."
He's also supportive of the "fan film" phenomenon in the Star Trek community, and has viewed some of the made-for-the-Web productions. "I've seen some that are done with incredible passion and are really impressive. I love seeing anything that is created by anyone who is not doing it in a pre-existing system where resources and tools are available — the idea that someone is out there using off-the-shelf 3D software or, especially, software that is made by the entrepreneurial coder, who's out there creating their own software. I'm always making stuff, so the idea of people doing that is my favorite thing in the world. I love it."


At the TED Conference, Abrams apparently did not talk about "Star Trek" directly (per the blogs we've seen), but discoursed more generally about "mystery" in storytelling. In his presentation, he brought to the stage a wooden "Mystery Box" that he bought as a kid from a magic store in New York, a box with a big question mark printed on it. He has never opened that box and said he never will. "What I love about this box is that I find myself drawn to infinite possibility. Mystery is the catalyst for imagination. In my work, mystery boxes are everywhere." To illustrate his point, he said that "Jaws" and "Alien" were more compelling by the fact that we hardly ever saw the creature in each case.


To see the full reports/articles, follow the links below.



[url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46555', '_blank'); newWindow.focus()]Cinequest: The Wisdom of JJ Abrams - Friday, March 2nd[/url]
[url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46535', '_wired'); newWindow.focus()]Wired.com: Inside the Mind of JJ Abrams[/url]
[url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46575', '_sfgate'); newWindow.focus()]The Technology Chronicles: TED 2007: "The Mystery Box"[/url]
[url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46576', '_blank'); newWindow.focus()]TED 2007 Conference Blog: "The mystery box"[/url]
[url=javascript:newWindow=window.open('/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=46577', '_blank'); newWindow.focus()]TED 2007 Conference Blog: "JJ Abrams is a maker"[/url]

First casting news: Zachary Quinto, whoever he is, as Spock, with Nimoy appearing also.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/n ... 00803.html

he's been a guest actor on alot of serieses.... but he was a major minor character in the 3rd season of 24... he's a pretty good actor.

From startrek.com:

[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E penwindow%28%27/startrek/mediaview?id=2307153%27,%27mediapopup%27,%27width=348,height=446%27%29][/url] [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E penwindow%28%27/startrek/mediaview?id=2307153%27,%27mediapopup%27,%27width=348,height=446%27%29]Zoe Saldana[/url]





09.17.2007
Zoe Saldana Cast in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" movie

Zoe Saldana is the latest actor set to join the bridge crew of the new J.J. Abrams-directed "Star Trek" movie, according to online trade news posted today. She will be playing Uhura. ([url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=2307043%27,%20%27_variety%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]Variety[/url] claims she has "signed on" for the role, whereas [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=2307073%27,%20%27_hollywoodreporter%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]The Hollywood Reporter[/url] online says she is in "final negotiations.")

Saldana has appeared in a variety of films and TV shows in the past seven years including the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie and the surprise hit "Drumline." In "The Terminal" with Tom Hanks, she played a character who admitted to being a convention-going Trekkie, an airport passport officer named "Torres" (interesting). She was also featured in the short-lived Abrams-produced TV show Six Degrees (2006). Saldana is currently filming the James Cameron sci-fi feature "Avatar," which is scheduled to be in theaters in 2009.

Saldana steps into the shoes of Nichelle Nichols, who originated the part for Gene Roddenberry's show back in 1966. She joins the already-cast Zachary Quinto as Spock and Anton Yelchin as Chekov, with Leonard Nimoy also appearing as the older Spock.

Although the trades go on to report that the Abrams "Star Trek" film will revolve around the crew's early days at Starfleet Academy, STARTREK.COM is unable to confirm any plot details as this time.
Filming is set to commence in November of this year, with the release still slated for Christmas Day 2008.

from startrek.com:

10.09.2007
BREAKING NEWS: Bana Cast as Villain in New Movie

Australian actor Eric Bana, best known for his role in "Munich," will be playing a new villain called "Nero" in the J.J. Abrams-directed "Star Trek" movie, according to inside sources. Little else is known about this character, but based on Bana's past performances the Aussie hunk will make a fine antagonist. Production is slated to begin next month at Paramount, with a release date of Christmas Day 2008.



and



10.10.2007
Chris Pine: A Possible Kirk in the the Works

Hot on the heels of yesterday's announcement here on STARTREK.COM of Eric Bana playing the villain "Nero" in the new "Star Trek" movie, comes news that director J.J. Abrams and his team may be closer to getting their Kirk than ever before. The actor of choice for the highly coveted role is Chris Pine, according to today's Hollywood Reporter. The 27-year-old Pine, whose career has veered from the Lindsay Lohan vehicle "Just My Luck," to the more street cred-worthy "Smokin' Aces," is currently in high demand in Hollywood. The actor, according to the story, can play the Kirk role should he choose. The problem, however, is that he is currently in negotiations to co-star opposite George Clooney in the film "White Jazz." If Pine is unable to do the "Star Trek" movie due to scheduling conflicts, the studio will have to look at other options.

Pine already has a connection to Star Trek through his father. Robert Pine played a Delta Quadrant politico named "Liria" in Voyager's "The Chute," and the emotional Vulcan leader "Tavin" in Enterprise's "Fusion." The elder Pine also co-starred in CHiPs alongside Michael Dorn.
Over the past year plus, several actors have been rumored to play Kirk, as well as the other key parts. So far, none of the rumors have materialized. Actor Mike Vogel, who is starring in the highly guarded and untitled J.J. Abrams project "Cloverfield" (working title) has also been rumored to play Kirk. And in the past several weeks, the New Zealand-born Russell Crowe was rumored to play the "Nero" part now filled by the Australian Bana. Clearly, the Antipodes provide fertile ground for Hollywood villains these days!

Eric Bana is a great choice though Russell Crowe would have been good also. I'm pretty much indifferent now as to who gets cast in the roles of the Enterprise crew since I've never really heard of any of these people, much less seen their work. I like the fact that they have opted to go with lesser-known names, but the flip-side of that is that it really makes me not care about the choices they make since you have little to no point of reference on these people.

I'm terribly disappointed in a number of things that appear to be becoming fact about this movie thus far, and that gives me less and less hope that I will find it a personally enjoyable e xp erience:

1- Writers, director, producers, etc, made no effort to try and incorporate a part for William Shatner as Kirk. You're bringing back Spock. Would it really be so hard, in a fictional universe where anything is possible, to erase the horrible mistake made in Generations and find a way to bring the old Kirk back?

2- Main plot once again revolves around time-travel and changing past events, with the crew racing to preserve the present/future. Please, do we really need this same old and tired plot device once again? We had the Voyage Home, First Contact, and countless episodes of all five series dealing with time-travel. Be original, for a change.

3- The main villains are supposed to be Romulans. Again, can we please come up with something new and original? The Romulans flopped badly in Nemesis, so to see them again so soon is going to dredge up bad memories. They were used extensively in all the other series except maybe Voyager, not to mention the continuity issues raised by Balance of Terror. The only thing worse than having Romulans as the main villains in this movie would be to use Klingons.

Sorry to say, I don't have much faith in this project at the moment.

Valkrist wrote:1- Writers, director, producers, etc, made no effort to try and incorporate a part for William Shatner as Kirk. You're bringing back Spock. Would it really be so hard, in a fictional universe where anything is possible, to erase the horrible mistake made in Generations and find a way to bring the old Kirk back?

While I'm inclined to agree that I'd like to see them resurrect Kirk somehow, it seems like we discussed this and agreed that such a thing could and should be the topic of an entire movie and not just a throw-away element. And I don't think they want to try to relaunch the franchise by resurrecting Kirk, not if the new franchise is going to be set in the early TOS days. Also, the producers have said that although they want a part for Shatner, it has to be significant and worthy of having him in it (such as the part they've written for Nimoy).

2- Main plot once again revolves around time-travel and changing past events, with the crew racing to preserve the present/future. Please, do we really need this same old and tired plot device once again? We had the Voyage Home, First Contact, and countless episodes of all five series dealing with time-travel. Be original, for a change.

Yeah, agreed. You don't have to set movies in space if all you want to do is travel in time. I don't mind that they use that device periodically in the TV shows, but to use it again in the movie would mean that 3/11 (27%) of the movies have had it as a plot device, and I think that officially, statistically, numerically qualifies as overuse.

3- The main villains are supposed to be Romulans. Again, can we please come up with something new and original? The Romulans flopped badly in Nemesis, so to see them again so soon is going to dredge up bad memories. They were used extensively in all the other series except maybe Voyager, not to mention the continuity issues raised by Balance of Terror. The only thing worse than having Romulans as the main villains in this movie would be to use Klingons.

Using the Romulans again does seem an odd choice. However, we have to remember that anything we've read thus far about plot is just rumor or conjecture. The Romulans could have nothing to do with it. And if they do, maybe they'll e xp lain how the Romulans got their forehead ridges in the later series, though they had none in TOS....

Sorry to say, I don't have much faith in this project at the moment.

I think we just have to wait and see. Realistically, if it sucks, will it make the franchise any deader than it is now?

BTW, have you watched any of those fan flicks on the web? I watched the new one with George Takei, "World Enough and Time," and enjoyed it. I found it very true to the spirit of TOS.

I fully agree with your thoughts about bringing back old Kirk, since as you said, we already discussed this. Yet if the old Spock can fit logically into this story (pun purely accidental,) then it shouldn't be too difficult to include the old Kirk, though the time taken to e xp lain his appearance would indeed take attention away from the new crew. Problem is, they seem married to this story they've come up with, and it allows no place for old Kirk to return.

As for time travel, please get over it. With all the convoluted tampering and travelling that's been done over the entire run of Star Trek, not to mention all the stuff that we didn't see but must've occurred given that time travel seems as common as a ham sandwich, it's a miracle anyone can make sense of the current reality and not wonder what things *really* should be like by this point.

I can't fathom either why the Romulans were picked, only perhaps that they are established villains and the writers couldn't be bothered to come up with something new. The leaked story details I read involve a plot by Romulan time travellers going into the past to wipe out Kirk's family and thus prevent his existence. This bears too much similarity with countless other sci-fi stories and is a tired plot. Also, it marks the Romulans again as being obsessed with yet another Starfleet captain and doing the impossible to stop him. Nemesis and Picard anyone? This would e xp lain how the old Spock is in the movie. For one, he has connections with the Romulans post-TNG. Second, it would not make sense for TOS Romulans to engage in such a plot because Kirk would have been virtually unknown to them at the time. Thus it follows that old Spock uncovers this plot somehow, likely goes into the past himself, and enlists the aid of the young TOS crew to foil the would-be Romulan assassins of the future. Sounds like Terminator meets First Contact. Maybe Kirk will just change his name to John Connor and then fight an evil Romulan cyborg instead.

Lastly, and assuming any of this proves true, it beggars the question, why Kirk? The only canon that we have is Balance of Terror and The Enterprise Incident. Granted the latter may have been a setback for the Romulan Star Empire, but it hardly seems cause for them to go to such trouble to eliminate the good captain from history altogether. Is one man really that important? Isn't it enough that the Klingons are similarly fixated on Kirk? Does every race, villain, evil empire, would-be-god, and even the common cold have to have it in for poor Kirk? I supposed they can establish something new that Kirk did in history that really screwed up the Romulans, but whatever it is, it is going to seem very forced and contrived in order to justify a bad story.

Anyhow, these are just internet rumblings, rumours, and speculations. Until the movie comes out, we won't know for sure, but I remain skeptical.

Oh, and as for the forehead ridges, I suspect if they even bother, it will just be some alternate version of what was given to us in ST: Enterprise and the Klingons, with the Romulans trying their own hand at some kind of genetic enhancement like the Augments.

MSN's movie page posted this rather unflattering assessment under the title "Star Trek: Phasers Set to Snooze":

"Star Trek" fans new and old have been trying to get excited about the newest movie incarnation of the venerable series, but director J.J. Abrams hasn't given them a lot to cheer about. Especially since the few plot details about the new movie that have leaked out seem scarily reminiscent of a long-feared "Starfleet Academy" project that executives at Paramount Pictures have been intrigued by for years. One bright spot has been the return of Leonard Nimoy as Spock, but the news this week that Eric Bana would play the movie's villain, Nero, was another example of a "yawn" coming from the Abrams camp -- especially if he's the "big star" fans have been clamoring for to help resurrect the franchise.
Bana broke onto the international scene after a gutsy performance in 2000's "Chopper" and was hailed as the next big thing, nabbing roles in "Troy," "Munich," "Hulk" and "Lucky You." And while many Australians insist Bana was a hilarious comedian before his Hollywood movie career began, the actor has shown about as much on-screen charisma as a piece of driftwood. So, it's hard to believe he'll somehow be compelling as an epic villain.


More distressing is that, with production scheduled to begin next month, "Trek" has gone down to the wire on casting major roles across the board. False rumors of Matt Damon's participation aside, the biggest role to be filled just happens to be the series' hero, Captain James T. Kirk. Mike Vogel, soon to be seen in the Abrams-produced "Cloverfield"/"1-18-08"/"We're Too Cool to Give You a Real Title," seemed to be the front-runner a few months ago, but now The Hollywood Reporter is reporting newcomer Chris Pine is the leading candidate. Yet even this relative unknown may turn down the iconic role to star opposite George Clooney in the thriller "White Jazz" instead. And while the young Spock (Zachary Quinto of "Heroes"), Chekov (Anton Yelchin of "Alpha Dog") and Uhura (Zoe Saldana of "Guess Who") have been found, there hasn't been a peep about who is playing Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy.


Abrams loves to be secretive about his projects, but this ain't "Lost" or "Alias." There are a lot of skeptics out there, and playing possum only makes the seeds of doubt grow. Give the fans and moviegoers in general something to get hyped up about, Mr. Abrams. Based on this cast, your movie is gonna need it.


Update: Breaking news! According to The Hollywood Reporter, Simon Pegg, of "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" fame, has been cast as Scotty and "Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle's" John Cho is set to play Sulu. Is Pegg's presence enough to get excited about? Um ...

From TORn: (hmmm)

Kiwi actor Karl Urban is reportedly in talks to play Dr Leonard 'Bones' McCoy in Lost creator JJ Abrams' new Star Trek movie. Website The Trek Movie Report says that the Lord of the Rings star is in negotiations to play the starship Enterprise's chief medical officer, a role which one of the film's co-writers, Roberto Orci, has confirmed is a substantial part. But according to a source, Urban's involvement with the film is not yet certain, due to a possible scheduleling conflict. Urban is currently busy filming the movie Black Water Transit, as well as being attached to another movie presently pre-production.

It will be interesting to see if he can do an American Southern accent....

All the main roles are now cast, with the exception of Capt. Pike, whose role in the movie has, I believe, only ever been speculated anyway. I made a Word table with cast photos and actor names, but I don't seem to be able to include it in this post. As an attachment, it's too big, and the software won't let me paste it into the post. That's too bad.

But yes, Karl Urban is McCoy, and Chris Pine (someone I've never heard of before, like most of the cast) is Kirk.

From CNN:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The original Capt. Kirk is disheartened he won't get to boldly go anywhere with his old pal Spock in the new "Star Trek" movie.
William Shatner is disappointed there's no place for him in the new "Star Trek" movie.






While Leonard Nimoy is reprising his role as the pointy-eared Vulcan in next year's science-fiction flick, William Shatner is not on board as Kirk.
"I couldn't believe it. I'm not in the movie at all. Leonard, God bless his heart, is in, but not me," Shatner, 76, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "I thought, what a decision to make, since it obviously is a decision not to make use of the popularity I have to ensure the movie has good box office. It didn't seem to be a wise business decision."


Director J.J. Abrams announced last summer that Nimoy would reprise the role he originated opposite Shatner in the 1960s television show and played again in six big-screen adventures.


Abrams said Shatner probably would have a part in the film, which is due in theaters in December 2008. But while Shatner said he had a couple of meetings with Abrams, nothing came of it.


Abrams' "Trek" film, whose plot is being kept under wraps by distributor Paramount, recounts an early adventure for the crew of the starship Enterprise, with Chris Pines as the young Kirk and Zachary Quinto as the young Spock.


The cast includes Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, Simon Pegg as engineer Scott, John Cho as helmsman Sulu, Zoe Saldana as communications officer Uhura and Anton Yelchin as navigator Chekov, roles respectively originated by DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig.


Past "Trek" films presented an obstacle to the revival of Shatner's Kirk, who died at the end of 1994's "Star Trek: Generations."


But in science fiction, you can never truly say die. Spock was killed off in 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" then resurrected in 1984's "Star Trek: The Search for Spock," with Nimoy's Vulcan living on to co-star in three more films, two episodes of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and now Abrams' new movie.


"I've got a lot to do," said Shatner, whose current work includes the TV show "Boston Legal," narration for the Christmas spoof "Stalking Santa" due on DVD on November 6, and the prequel "Star Trek: Academy -- Collision Course," a novel chronicling Kirk and Spock's first meeting.


Shatner says of "Star Trek": "Having been in on the creation of it, I was hoping to be in on the re-creation."

i think thats a load of bullcrap. shatner should be in the movie!

to right a wrong.. captain kirk should have never been killed off, especially the way he did. and as for "he's dead"... dont mean to be rude, but save it, its science fiction. Spock was dead and came back, Captain Picard was actually killed in an episode of TNG and brought back to life by Q... so "death" really has no meaning in science fiction, especially when time travel is established.

not to mention william shatner has a point... if he is in a movie, the box office numbers will increase dramatically... thats all studio cares about... they couldnt give a crap if the movie is good, just as long as it makes money.

How could he not look like Kirk anymore? People age, even in science fiction. Saying William Shatner being in the movie and taking away from the younger actor play the younger kirk is like saying Leonard Nemoy is going to take away from the younger actor playing the younger actor playing Spock.

I never said we shouldnt care if it is good or not...the studio only cares about the box office, not if the movie is good. studios judge success by ticket sales. which if a lot of people are like me, movies wouldnt make money at the theater because i never go... the last movie i went to see at the theater was wedding crashers... since movie success is based on ticket sales, then according to my movie going behavior, all movies in the past two years have sucked, but that is not the case.

and in my opionion, generations needs to be drained... the ONLY significance it has is it is the movie kirk was killed in, which was is and always will be a bad decision.

I do hope this movie is good, the star trek franchise needs a kick start. i would love to see a movie continue the franchise, as in, continue the "current" post-TNG/DS9/Voy era.

I am keeping an open mind so far for this movie, but i still think someone familiar with trek should have wrote/helmed this movie, not J.J. Abrams... hopefully he will prove me wrong

On a brighter note... Simon Pegg is Scotty! Old news I know, but I am now rather thrilled that he will be taking part. Just wondering... but have you guys seen Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead?

At last--some lively discussion on the boards again!

The only point of the movie "Generations" was to pass the torch from the TOS cast to the TNG cast. Paramount felt that was necessary because in their view apparently, nobody who goes to movies also watches TV and therefore wouldn't know who the TNG folks were. And of course, people don't go see movies with characters they don't already know. Whatever. In any case, the purpose was to pass the torch, and the writers ended up deciding that the best, most decisive way to do that was to have Kirk die.

I was ambivalent about that decision at the time. I was very burned out on Kirk then and ready to see him ride off into the sunset, but I just wasn't sure about killing him off. I felt that if they were going to kill him, at least he should be given a great death scene and an emotional funeral, like Spock in STII. What we got instead was Kirk inadvertently sacrificing himself to save a planet we've never seen, populated by people we don't know. His death was witnessed by, and his funeral attended by, one person who knew him only a few minutes, accompanied by some very nondescript, sonic-wallpaper music. So the end of the central character of the Star Trek mythos, instead of being huge, operatic, and highly emotional, was so low-key as to be almost an afterthought. Was it that they thought they'd played the big death scene already in STII and they shouldn't repeat themselves, or was it just Rick Berman's interpretation of Roddenberry's idea that no one in the 24th Century gets all that worked up about anything any more? In any case, it was underwhelming and unsatisfying—a lost opportunity and a big mistake.

For years now, I've wished that they would find some way to "fix" Kirk's death, but that's not very likely. Shatner's Kirk is not going to be an ongoing character in any incarnation of Star Trek any more (and who knows how much longer the 76-year-old Shatner is going to be around and able to perform), so the only point to resurrect him would be just for the sake of resurrecting him. Perhaps he and Spock would then ride off into the sunset? I can't see them resurrecting him just for that. Even the much-fabled Enterprise episode that was to feature Shatner was not going to be about "our" Kirk, but rather the evil mirror-universe Kirk.

The foregoing paragraphs were me agreeing with BladeCollector. This paragraph is me agreeing with Ted Sweeny. That Abrams and Co haven't figured out a way to include him in the new movie implies to me that they intend not to strain credibility past the breaking point by setting the "current" part of the story prior to Kirk's death and e xp ecting the bloated, grizzled 76-year-old Shatner to pass for a 15-years-younger and much trimmer version of himself. I suppose they could digitally "young" him, as the did Stewart and McKellen in X3, but they'd also have to shoot him with a very wide-angle lens.... Cheap shot, I know. And as they've stated they intend to honor canon, at least on big plot points, they can't set it in the current time and have Kirk still be alive. As we've discussed here before, to resurrect Kirk would have to be the focus of an entire movie, not a framing device for another movie, so what are we left with? Flashbacks? The old, fat Shatner problem would still apply, and just seeing Kirk in flashbacks would probably not be very satisfying anyway. Spock goes to the Nexus to consult with Kirk? We'd still have the old fat Shatner problem, plus the Nexus is a plot device probably best left to rest in peace. Ergo, we're probably not going to see the old Kirk, IMHO.

And as far as Simon Pegg for Scotty, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I haven't seen him in anything before. Personally, I was hoping the rumor about James McAvoy ("Tumnus" from Narnia) was going to be true--I thought he was really good.

[quote=""Olorin""]And as far as Simon Pegg for Scotty, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I haven't seen him in anything before. Personally, I was hoping the rumor about James McAvoy ("Tumnus" from Narnia) was going to be true--I thought he was really good.[/quote]

If you enjoy comedy and police films or zombie films... I would highly recommend renting both Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. It is British humour and for whatever reason, neither of these films did very well in the US but very well in Canada and the UK. I think he's the perfect person for the role but James McAvoy would have done a good job as well.

I'll agree with Ted that the current state of movies is dreck. If I'm subjected to that "Fred Clause" trailer one more time, I'm going to hurl. It's unfortunate, Ted, that it sounds like you live somewhere that doesn't get a good selection of movies. Your profile says NY--are you like in way upstate NY far away from NYC or something? Even here amid the cornfields of central Illinois, one of our multiplexes (or maybe it was the art theater) had "Sunshine," though I didn't make it to see it. We do pretty well, though, for a town of just over 100,000--we have about 35 screens (though admittedly there's a lot of repetition). Having a major university in town definitely helps us.

As for Star Trek, I'm forced to conclude that doing a TOS reboot was probably the safest bet to restart the movie franchise. TNG petered out prematurely due to some uninspired scripts, and I don't think Paramount was willing to meet Patrick Stewart's asking price any more for movies that didn't even make back their production cost. And though I liked all the subsequent series (especially DS9), I don't think (at least based on their successively lower ratings) that any of them had the appeal necessary to warrant a movie. Rebooting/reinventing franchises is the name of the game right now, as the Batman movie showed, and thus the long-dreaded "Star Fleet Academy" premise (or some semblance of it) is now going to get its chance. We shall see how it does....

In the end all i want is a good movie to relaunch the series... the fanbase is there. Hopefully Abrams will satisfy the fans and still make the movie enjoyable for the newcomer to the series. Theres countless people who have invested lots of time keeping up with the Trek mythos.

My dream movie was to have the TNG/DS9/Voy casts thrown into a huge 3-movie type deal.

I agree with Olorin.. if they were going to kill kirk off, they should have sent him off with a bang like a 4th of july fireworks show... all he got in generations a little blackcat "poof".

Also on the heels of this next trek movie is Star Trek online... a MMORPG trek game, which i may or may not play... depending on the monthly price... i'm not shelling out 50 bucks a month (a year maybe).

we, as trek fans, need some rejuvination... from the cancellation of enterprise, to the production of this movie was the first time some sort of trek movie or series had not been in production continuously for 25 years.

Speaking of dream movies and guys getting old... i think a movie about Riker and the Titan would be great... i've read the books for Titan and they are great... they could let those writers take care of the script.

sorry about my ramblings.. i'm just having random star trek thoughts.

theres so much that was happening at the end of the "current" trek timeline... i was kinda upset with going back to do a prequel type movie.

such as, whats happening with riker, what happened with Sisko's baby and him becoming a higher being, whats going on with the dominion (yes i know they signed a treaty), etc etc...after you spend a whole series watching these characters, its hard to stop thinking about "whats going on"

the DS9 relaunch novels were really good, but they arent canon, so no matter how good they are, theres always something missing.


on a side note, the Saw movies are great if you are like me (going to school to be a psychologist specializing in criminal behavior) ... Jigsaw is great.. the next hannibal lector when it comes to psychology.

one thing that makes the titan novels cool... is the fact that the majority of the crew is nonhuman... which you can describe all you want in words, but to bring that on the screen would be hard. like i said before, the novels arent canon, but the writers have given the Titan crew a unique feel.

Some of the characters from titan are Troi, Melora Pazlar, and Tuvok. Some of the non-human(oid) characters are the CMO is a Dr. Shenti Yisec Eres Ree, which from his descriptions basically looks like a velociraptor; K'chak'!'op, a computer specialist... i still cant figure out how you say that name tho; theres another one, but i cant think of the name... basically its a fish... has to live in a suit of water.

There are also, cardassian, ferengi, vulcan, andorian, trill, bajoran, etc crew members. They also have an openly gay character.

I havent read many star trek books, but the titan series is very good so far.

the openly gay character was something that Roddenberry always wanted to do because of the "everyone lives in peace and harmony and arent judged" in the Star Trek times.

Other than that, the titan characters are cool, and the K'chak'!'op character is a spider. A lot of the characters are species of peoples that were background characters scene in big federation assemblies or on DS9 coming and going., but werent really described or anythign like that.

As for everyone living in peace and harmony, I have my doubts that most humans would ever be able to be around a large spider, even an intelligent one.

What Star Trek really lacks right now is someone with the vision and courage to reinvent it the way Roddenberry did when he launched TNG. I thought that Berman & Co should have done a new series set a couple hundred years after TNG, instead of doing the Enterprise prequel. That they didn't says to me that they didn't trust themselves to have enough vision to do that. Therefore, they chose the easy route--fill in the dots between the time of ST:First Contact and TOS.

And now Abrams & Co are taking the easy route by remaking TOS. In their defense, I think it would be awfully hard to reinvent and flesh out a new era of Star Trek as a movie. You get two hours every few years, and that would not even approach being adequate. What probably should have happened is that the powers that be should have let Star Trek lie fallow for 10 years or so, then do a new TV show and build an audience for it. Later, they could do movies. Unfortunately, due to the split between CBS and Viacom, Star Trek is now controlled by two different entities: CBS owns the TV stuff and Paramount owns the movie stuff. That's an awkward arrangement that's unlikely to foster a cooperative approach.

yea... me and a giant walking talking spider would have some serious issues... i'd be scared crap-less if you know what i mean.

i am just staying positive and hope this movie gives a jolt to the star trek franchise.

The biggest name cast so far for this movie: Winona Ryder as Spock's mama:

11.09.2007
Winona Ryder Cast as Spock's Mother

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice ... The human half of Spock appears to have a new face. Daily Variety has reported that Oscar-nominated actress Winona Ryder has been cast as "Amanda Grayson," the first human wife of Sarek, in the new "Star Trek XI" movie now in production under the direction of J.J. Abrams.

(Variety.com states that Ryder will play "the Vulcan mother of Spock," but this error was corrected in the print version of Daily Variety this morning.)
"Amanda" was originally introduced in "Journey to Babel," performed by the late Jane Wyatt, who reprised the role in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." Amanda was also portrayed in the animated episode "Yesteryear," where she was voiced by Majel Barrett (it is in that episode where the last name "Grayson" was established).

Winona Ryder is one of Hollywood's golden girls of the last two decades, first stealing hearts as a goth teen in her breakout role in Tim Burton's "Beetle Juice." She continued to establish herself as a movie star in "Heathers," "Edward Scissorhands," "Mermaids" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula." She earned an Academy Award nomination two years in a row, 1994 and 1995, first as a supporting actress in "The Age of Innocence" and then as a lead in "Little Women." She went on to play an android in "Alien: Resurrection," and co-starred with Whoopi Goldberg in "Girl, Interrupted."

Her career e xp erienced a bit of a lull after a touch of legal trouble in 2001-02, but she began making an upswing again with several film roles including "A Scanner Darkly." She recently wrapped filming on a crime drama called "The Informers," and a comedy called "The Last Word." Other upcoming film roles include the dramas "Alpha Numeric" and "The Private Lives of Pippa Lee."

There is no information on how large the role of Amanda will be in the "Trek" movie. Given that Ryder, 36, is only six years older than Zachary Quinto, who plays her son, suggests that either she will be made up to appear older, or perhaps she will be seen in a flashback.

Somehow I overlooked this on the ST site, even though it was posted earlier than the Winona Ryder news.

11.08.2007
Bruce Greenwood Cast as Christopher Pike

Sorry all you fans of Ray Liotta, Tom Cruise, Josh Lucas, yadda yadda ... it looks like Captain Christopher Pike is going to be someone none of us had previously considered! Bruce Greenwood, a prolific working actor who has appeared in "I, Robot," "The Core," and HBO's offbeat drama John from Cincinnati, will be playing Kirk's predecessor in the captain's chair in the 2008 "Star Trek" movie directed by J.J. Abrams, which began production yesterday.

Hailing originally from Quebec, Canada, the 51-year-old Greenwood is one of those faces you've probably seen dozens of times but might not have known his name. For his 25 years in Hollywood he has been building up a thick acting resume in both TV and film since he got his big acting breaks in the first Rambo film "First Blood" and the TV series St. Elsewhere. According to his [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=2311713%27,%20%27_blank%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]fan website[/url], Greenwood first became interested in acting in 1975 when he saw Brad Dourif ("Lon Suder") play Billy Bibbitt in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." He started his career in Canadian theatre in the '70s while working in a chemical factory, and got his first part in a movie, "Bear Island," in 1979. One of this other most recognizable roles was that of the husband of Ashley Judd ("Robin Lefler") who faked his own murder in Paramount's "Double Jeopardy."

The role of authority figure seems to suit Greenwood well — in 2000 he played John F. Kennedy in the historical drama "Thirteen Days" (playing opposite Steven Culp) and this December he will again portray the President of the United States in the Nicolas Cage action sequel "National Treasure: Book of Secrets." In addition, he will appear soon in the Bob Dylan biopic "I'm Not There." He recently lent his voice to the Disney animated feature "Bolt" due out next year, and lately has been filming a Canadian miniseries with Christopher Plummer called "The Summit."

Greenwood is also a prolific singer/songwriter, and as such is scheduled to perform live in his home country on Monday, November 19, at an annual fundraiser benefitting people with HIV/AIDS. It is a concert called "Starry Night" in Vancouver, B.C., sponsored by the Shooting Stars Foundation, and Greenwood in one of about 20 performers. For more information, visit [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:newWindow=window.open%28%27/startrek/page/redirect/external?id=2312343%27,%20%27_blank%27%29;%20newWindow.focus%28%29]www.ShootingStarsFoundation.org[/url]. (At this time there's no indication that his shooting schedule will conflict with this event, but keep checking his fan site and the charity's website for updates.)

Captain Pike, as all fans know, was originally played by the late Jeffrey Hunter (he died in 1969 of a stroke at age 42). Had NBC accepted Gene Roddenberry's first Star Trek pilot "The Cage," Pike would have been the iconic captain of the Enterprise instead of Kirk. But of course, Hunter was replaced by William Shatner for the second pilot, and history unfolded thusly. But the "canonization" of Pike as the prior captain of the NCC-1701 occurred when footage from "The Cage" and the character of Pike himself (then portrayed by Sean Kenney) was incorporated into the two-part episode "The Menagerie" — which, by the way, will be showing in HD in theaters across North America and Europe next week!

Slightly off-topic, but I find the premature death of Jeffrey Hunter as a very strange 'what-if?' scenario for the Star Trek continuum. As we all know, after The Cage was aired, Hunter declined to come back for the second pilot, William Shatner took on the vacant centre seat as Captain Kirk, and the rest is history. However, suppose Hunter had said yes, and had gone on to play the iconic captain in a series that was to become a part of culture. His death in '69 would have still left the first three seasons of TOS complete and the show eventually cancelled and off the air, as it did with Shatner, but consider the future. The subsquent Star Trek movies would have played out very differently, because although the old cast may have been reunited for the big screen, Hunter would have had to be replaced due to being deceased. This brings up interesting possibilities, likely meaning that the first movie would have dealt with bringing a new captain to the Enterprise, possibly William Decker. It's strange, I know, but it almost feels like a novel or episode about a parallel universe where Kirk never existed, Pike went on to command the Enterprise through the five-year mission, and then died in some space fatality. What would Star Trek be like today if Hunter had permanently accepted the role?

I thought about that, although I didn't mentally play out the scenario of how the movies would have been different. Obviously the Kirk/Spock friendship would not have been the central axis of the show. Perhaps Pike and Spock would have developed that sort of rapport during the run of the series. Or perhaps the series would have been canceled after the first season and there would never have been any movies.... Pike didn't exactly exude charisma in what we saw of him in The Cage, after all.

I didn't realize Hunter was only 42 when he died, and that it was of a stroke. I thought he was a tad older, and it was cancer, but then, I had never researched it. All I do know is that the reason he bowed out of Star Trek was due to what proved to be very bad advice from his wife. Of course, given his impending appointment with the Reaper, it wouldn't have mattered for his career anyway.