I know Jeffrey Hunter from back when I was a kid and during easter time watching him as Jesus in "King of Kings"...but a little known fact was he auditioned for the role of "Mike Brady" in the Brady Bunch but was deemed too good looking for the role.

I also read that Hunter's wife at the time was vocal in him turning down the role in Star Trek, because he was a "movie star" and did not do television.

I also remember him from "King of Kings." Though the mere fact that he was in it and I saw it are all I remember about it--I was really little at the time. It's said that playing Jesus is usually a curse for actors' careers--I suppose it was for Hunter's.

Wow, Ben Cross! He's most famous for "Chariots of Fire," but I tend to think of him as Barnabas Collins from the ill-fated 1991 remake of "Dark Shadows." Anyway, from startrek.com:


[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E penwindow%28%27/startrek/mediaview?id=2313443%27,%27mediapopup%27,%27width=348,height=446%27%29][/url] [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E penwindow%28%27/startrek/mediaview?id=2313443%27,%27mediapopup%27,%27width=348,height=446%27%29]Ben Cross[/url]
[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E penwindow%28%27/startrek/mediaview?id=2313443%27,%27mediapopup%27,%27width=348,height=446%27%29][/url]


11.18.2007
Ben Cross to Play "Sarek" in Upcoming Film

Ben Cross has been cast as Sarek, the Vulcan father of Spock in the upcoming "Star Trek" feature film.

Cross, a graduate of London's Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, rose to international stardom with his breakout role as runner Harold Abrahams in the Academy Award-winning 1981 film "Chariots of Fire." He will be seen in the upcoming "Hero Wanted" with Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ray Liotta.

He will be paired with Winona Ryder (related story), portraying Spock's human mother Amanda Grayson. The young Spock will be played by Zachary Quinto.

The film, currently in production under the direction of J.J. Abrams, is scheduled for release on Christmas Day 2008. For related casting news, bookmark this Star Trek Movie News page.

well the cast is seemingly going to be fairly good.

I cant believe its still a year away... i am high in anticipation now... anticipation for this movie is going to be boiling over the top by the time this movie gets released.

I dont know if we have discussed this yet, or danced around it. But how you much do y'all think the fate of star trek lies with this movie? I dont think star trek will ever die off, but i think its going to determine quality of any future movies and and/or any potential television series... this movie has a lot riding on its shoulders in my opinion.

BC, I think you're absolutely right about how important this movie is to the future of Star Trek. In all honesty, I was surprised Paramount ordered a movie so soon after the abysmal failure of Nemesis and the death of Star Trek on TV. On the other hand, they obviously intend to keep going back to the well as long as there's so much as a nano-drop of water left in it.

In any case, Paramount has written off the TNG cast and obviously had no confidence in the earning power of a DS9, VOY, ENT, or mixed-cast movie, and so they went back to what the fans always feared and sometimes even lobbied against—a "Star Fleet Academy" type scenario. I don't necessarily think this movie will be set at the Academy; I simply mean a reboot of TOS with a new, young cast. As far as I know, this time there wasn't much protest from the fan community. I imagine they figured, a recast TOS movie is better than no Star Trek at all.

If this movie tanks, who knows what will happen? Maybe Paramount will grow the good sense necessary to realize that Star Trek needs a nice long vacation and then a re-imagining the way Roddenberry did with TNG. I suppose we're getting the reimagining with the nice long vacation. We'll see how that works out....

at first the whole "prequel"thing gave me a bad taste in my mouth... i guess i am in the mentality that star trek is about the "future" but with these prequels... we keep going into the "past". I guess you could look at it as a revision like Batman Begins... but.. i've said it before and i'll keep saying it... i want to CONTINUE the star trek story... not go back and look at it... Enterprise fullfilled that for me.

i'll post some more tomorrow... its 11pm here and i gotta wake up at 5 am... so its time for bed.

Some early photos of Quinto in Spock makeup. These are not scene photos, but off-camera stuff, obviously. I think he looks good, particularly in the bottom shots where he has a straight face. All the smiling and laughing shots are too un-Spock-like to make a fair comparison, but the serious face ones are spot-on.

http://canadian-turtle.livejournal.com/ ... tml#cutid1

im impressed...very .... impressive... well at least spock looks like spock

Pretty cool! I was wondering when something like this would surface.

Well folks, we now have our first official look at what JJ Abrams is whipping up for us come Christmas. A very "teaserish" teaser trailer is attached to "Cloverfield" (which was pretty intense, by the way). Right now, you can see read a review of the teaser and see a YouTube of a very poor quality filmed-in-theater-on-camcorder rendition of it at http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review- ... r-trailer/

Soon it will be available on the official website for the movie, which is http://www.paramount.com/startrek/

I have to say, there's a HUGE amount of controversy swirling right now because (and if you don't want spoilers, read no further) the trailer apparently shows the Enterprise being constructed on Earth instead of in Earth orbit. The welders working on it are not wearing space suits, smoke is rising, and sparks are falling, which are all pretty good indications of being in a gravity field and an atmosphere.

People are arguing both ways about whether this violates canon and whether it's logical. There's also a lot of debate over the ship's new "look," which is awfully silly to debate because you can't see the thing clearly in the trailer (esp. in the YouTube version). People are sounding off about the color of the ship, which some try to claim should be white yet appears gray in the trailer. Where they're coming from with the white, I don't know. The refit 1701 and the 1701-A were both definitely white, but the original 1701 in TOS was a very light gray, I always thought.

There are pages and pages of posts on various websites about all this, and I have not read (nor to I plan to read) any significant number of them. From the ones I have read, apparently none of them have contemplated a couple of facts. First, they're assuming that what's shown in the trailer will actually appear in the movie, and that's not a given. Terminator 2 had a cool teaser showing terminators being manufactured on an assembly line, and that was never in, nor was it intended to be in, the movie. JJ could simply being showing us this to whet our appetites, which is all a teaser is supposed to do, after all. The NASA and JFK voiceovers in the trailer and the caption "The Future Begins" are meant to tie Star Trek to our tradition of space e xp loration, and showing the Enterprise being built apparently on Earth could simply be part of that. Also, we don't really know what exact time the movie takes place in. If it's about Kirk's first mission on the Enterprise, which began in 2264 according to Paramount-approved sources like StarTrek.com, then the Enterprise is already nearly 20 years old and we wouldn't e xp ect to see it under construction in the movie. But who knows what time this movie is set in? I'm trying to avoid all the wild rumors. I've heard that supposedly someone has obtained a script, but every Star Trek movie is preceded by that rumor, which invariably goes on to cite things that will occur—and the movie never has any resemblance to these rumors. I mean, the rumor I read about "First Contact" was that the Borg successfully assimilated Earth and reassimilated Picard, and at the end, only Beverly's love saves the day. (Ugh.) So I'm just trying to avoid the rumors and keep an open mind.

Final thoughts.... Nimoy's voiceover in the trailer...does he sound like he's just ancient or what?

[quote=""Valkrist""]Some early photos of Quinto in Spock makeup. These are not scene photos, but off-camera stuff, obviously. I think he looks good, particularly in the bottom shots where he has a straight face. All the smiling and laughing shots are too un-Spock-like to make a fair comparison, but the serious face ones are spot-on.

http://canadian-turtle.livejournal.com/ ... tml#cutid1[/quote]

That link is dead now—I wonder if Paramount made them take it down?

And here's an interview that TrekMovie did with Robert Orci, one of the screenwriters:

Interview - Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer January 19, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2008 film) , trackback The first teaser trailer for Star Trek (showing now with Clovefield) may be the biggest thing to hit Trek in years and has sparked quite a bit of interest and even some controversy. TrekMovie.com has conducted a ‘post game interview’ with Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci to help sort it all out. Orci talks about JFK, Nimoy, Earth vs. space construction, the new Trek ‘Supreme Court,’ and more….read below.
TrekMovie.com: How does it feel to finally see something you have done with Star Trek actually on the big screen:
Roberto Orci: It is both wonderful and terrifying at the same time. There is no going back now.
TrekMovie.com: In my review I noted that the trailer seemed to be trying to make the connection from today to the future of Trek…was that the intention?
Roberto Orci: Absolutely. This is us. This is who we are. This is real. This is maybe not so far off in the future as it used to be. In the 60s the cell phone was a fantasy. Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. It is a different millennium for God’s sake. We are literally a century closer than we were before.
TrekMovie.com: You bring up the 60s. The trailer contains voices from the 60s space race, including John F. Kennedy. What was the thinking behind that? And is there some kind of JFK-Kirk link you are trying to make?
Roberto Orci: First of all, it has been written about that Kirk was in a way modeled after JFK. Like being the youngest captain ever, like Kennedy was the youngest President ever. Obviously the space race being kicked off by JFK is very much associated with Star Trek. It was also due to what we just discussed and linking it back to today. If we do indeed have a Federation, I think Kennedy’s words will be inscribed in their someplace. He kicked us off. And on a third level it is a slight nod to Star Trek Enterprise, in that we are not blind to the fact that going back to some of the more historical aspects of Star Trek that haven’t been covered in a while…that that is something that Enterprise tended to do as well.
TrekMovie.com: I have to ask…is the trailer actually going to be part of the movie itself?
Roberto Orci: No comment [laughs]
TrekMovie.com: Is that a new recording of Nimoy’s voice?
Roberto Orci: Yes. He recorded that on set just between takes.
TrekMovie.com: How many takes did it take to get it?
Roberto Orci: Not very many [laughs]
TrekMovie.com: Did you guys realize that when you set the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth that it would spark controversy?
Roberto Orci: Of course.
TrekMovie.com: So what is your guys logic for setting it on land?
Roberto Orci: Besides the thematic stuff we discussed, which is to connect it to today and make it clear. Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is
very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.
TrekMovie.com: Where did that come from?
Roberto Orci: That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.
TrekMovie.com: Did the dedication plaque [which has ‘San Francisco, Calif. written right on it] factor into your thinking?
Roberto Orci: Yes, that is part of where some of the canon, literary and other sources sparks from.
TrekMovie.com: But this does seem to fall into one of those canon grey areas where you guys made a call.
Roberto Orci: Exactly
TrekMovie.com: Looking at the reaction from this one little thing, are you now thinking about what it will be like for all the other judgment calls you made?
Roberto Orci: Not really. The main judgment call is going to be whether or not the theory of the movie works. And the theory sort of encompasses it…either you buy the movie or you don’t. So we aren’t going to sweat every little detail. We are going to sweat whether or not you buy our interpretation of it. But this is not a surprise. When we were constructing the trailer we knew that many were going to criticize it. We have our eyes wide open I think. But again, of course it is terrifying. I think I said on your site that in those times when canon is fuzzy, then we are ‘The Supreme Court’ right now and the court has to rule one way or the other.
TrekMovie.com: So who sits on the court?
Roberto Orci: It is the five of us: me, Alex [Kurtzman], JJ [Abrams], Bryan [Burk], and Damon [Lindelof]
TrekMovie.com: Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.
Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51.
TrekMovie.com: What is being conveyed by the "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" thing?
Roberto Orci: Both the literal interpretation that we are putting the movie together, but also to convey the idea that this is something that this is something that could be coming soon. It is the idea that The Federation may exist may exist. The idea that the future is not nearly as far off as it was in the 60s.
TrekMovie.com: And why isn’t the title "Star Trek" in the trailer prominently?
Roberto Orci: No reason, other than it is our M.O. To make people ask ‘what is it.’ And those who know will say "it’s Star Trek."
TrekMovie.com: While we are on end credits, why are Spock’s parents (Ben Cross and Winona Ryder) listed, but Kirk’s parents (Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison) aren’t?
Roberto Orci: I dunno…I guess they must have better agents.? [laughs]

spocks voice is very ominous sounding... me for one, where they build the ship, either on earth or not... isnt really a huge concern for me.

it was actually e xp lained very well in the interview you later posted, Olorin.

actually my biggest complaint is the fact that Spock (leonard nemoy) is saying "Space, the final frontier" NOT William Shatner... iknow people have butted heads on the if william shatner should or should not be in this movie... but when it comes to this era of trek... that is HIS line. period. if we are talking TNG, then its Patrick Stewart. But for me personally, that should have been uttered by William shatner

Nimoy spoke those lines at least once in ST history, that being at the end of Wrath of Khan over the Genesis planet. At least in that one instance, it was fitting that he voice them. If he spoke them any other time, I don't recall, but perhaps he did it also at the beginning of Search for Spock. They do sound more natural and familiar coming from Shatner though, and I agree that if he is not to be in the movie, then it would have been a small yet fitting tribute that at least his voice be included speaking the iconic lines. Perhaps there were rights issues involved and they would have had to pay Shatner for the use of his voice, or maybe they simply wanted to have Nimoy do it since he is the one in the movie.

As for the trailer content itself, I'm fairly neutral on it. I've seen the high-res pictures of it, and I think that the issues with the colour and look of the Enterprise have to do with its striking similarities to the movie-era 1701 rather than the TOS one. Even the lettering on the saucer section is from the refit Enterprise, not the TOS version. I think we've all been told a million times that the look of the ship would be updated, so this shouldn't come as a surprise, though I was hoping for something a little closer to the TOS version in feel.

The issue of the ship being constructed on Earth or in orbit is another thing that is a strange one for me. My personal belief is that ships of this kind, which are not meant for atmospheric flight, are better off being constructed in space for many practical reasons. Mr. Orci's justifications notwhithstanding, it doesn't make much sense to me to construct the massive framework of a starship on the ground and then have to e xp end huge amounst of energy to lift those pieces into orbit and assemble the finalized parts there. It seems clear that the ship isn't completely assembled on the ground and then makes it into space under its own power; that much is apparent even from what Orci says. Also, generating artificial gravity and a breatheable atmosphere inside a ship in space isn't that difficult a feat by ST standards, so again his arguments don't hold much water, not to mention the fact that the weightlessness of space makes it much easier again in time and energy to move the massive pieces of the ship around as they are being moved into assembly. The only thing he may be right on is the warp nacelles, but they do admit that they are using creative license on this, so who is to say for sure?

Anyhow, it seems to me they decided to show the ship being constructed on Earth because they felt it wold look cool, appear a little closer to our times, and therefore invoke more of a connection with it's gritty, realistic look. I read in more than one source that the scene in the teaser will not, in fact, appear in the actual movie.

I think that had they used Shatner's voice for the narration in the trailer, that would have misled people to e xp ect him to be in the movie, and they didn't want to do that (especially if they have, in fact, secretly connived a way for him to be in it).

Without knowing the plot of the movie, it's tough to know why they couldn't have come up with a role for him. If nothing else, there could have been a scene of him in the Nexus remembering back on the early days. Of course, that would not have been a very meaningful part, so they probably never gave it any serious consideration.

I think the trailer looks pretty cool, tho a few things bother me about it. First, the guy doing the welding, and his welding equipment, do not look very "futuristic" to me. He could as easily have been welding deck plates on the Titanic. Also, Orci's rationalizations aside, I don't really like the idea of the ship being built on Earth, for the reasons Valkrist stated. However, I'm not going to get hung up on that, especially since I really doubt that scene will be in the movie. Also, his comments about us being closer to Star Trek's time now than we were when it started is pretty laughable. Sure, we're 40 years closer, but that future is still 250+ years away. Perhaps I misread and he only meant we are closer to ST technology-wise.

It's suddenly very hard to type, as my cat is draping her tail over the keyboard....

i think he meant technology wise... like he said... cellphones now are more advanced than the communicator from TOS (which I watched something on tv once, the guy who invented the cellphone got the idea from star trek.

I'll just lift this from trekmovie instead of retyping it, but essentially a high-quality version of the teaser is now online at the official site.

The Trek teaser is now available (including HD) at the new official site…GO!. Enterprise Shipyard Online
If you look closely on the offiical site you will see a tiny red dot next to ‘UNDER CONSTRUCTION.’ Click that dot and you are taken to a special new site at ncc-1701.com showing you four ‘webcam’ like images of the Enterprise under construction from the “Shipyard.” Each camera seems to go ‘online’ and ‘offline.’ There are also sliders under each which changes a setting. Go to ncc-1701.com and play around.
UPDATE: Settings for cameras and screenshot
If you don’t want to play around…then the setting are [CAM 1: 564, CAM 2: 125, CAM 3: 955, CAM 4: 289]. Only three seem to be able to be seen at one time so you have to refresh your screen. Below is a shot of all four cams working and set right (click to enlarge) UPDATE2:Secret Image
If you wait long enough the ‘offline’ camera will activate and show you a corridor…check it out

Here's an interesting interview with James Cauley, the maker of the "Star Trek: New Voyages" internet movies. He accidentally met JJ Abrams and got a tour of the set and landed a bit part in the new movie. The essence of the interview is that although as a purist, he'd have made the bridge look exactly like the TV bridge, the set is nonetheless spectacular, the uniforms are perfect, and he's now really excited about the movie. Anyway,

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-c ... #more-1479

TrekMovie.com hosted a live chat with JJ Abrams and the cast and crew today. Read it here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/25/jj-abra ... #more-1491

It's spoiler free but interesting. Also included are 2 photos from the bridge set--you can't see much, tho.

One interesting comment that was made in the message board area but which was not selected for answering by the crew was an idea that struck me as an extremely simple way to resurrect Kirk. At some point in the movie, old Spock draws young Kirk aside and tells him (or better yet, mind-milds) to warn him about his death. Obviously, he would not want to warn him not to go on the maiden voyage of the Enterprise B, since that would result in the destruction of that ship, but the warning could take the form of something like "keep off that bridge when you come out of the Nexus and fight Soran." You would not actually have to hear what Spock tells him in detail--just enough to know that he's warning him. The last scene of the movie could then be Kirk and Spock back in the 24th Century, having a latte or whatever.

Of course, such a scenario would reduce Shatner's part to a cameo, which Shatner has ruled out, and reduce Kirk's return to an afterthought, which might not be satisfying for many people. But it would a very simple way to do it, since this movie apparently features time travel anyway, and if the plot rumor is true that the movie's about a Romulan plot to kill young Kirk,
it would be a clever way to turn the whole concept on its head--not only do the Romulans fail to kill young Kirk, but old Kirk is alive again to boot.

You know, if that rumor is true, that they're trying to kill young Kirk to disrupt the Federation, that pretty much makes this movie...The Terminator! Let's hope it isn't true.

that actually is a simple solution and wouldnt really change much, it was stay with the canon (albeit change Star Trek Generations as not being the "true reality") and you wouldnt need a non-hefty in shape william shatner to play kirk.

you could even draw it out to the old idea someone had, that kirk and spock are reminescing of the past, of their maiden voyage, and how spock went back to tell young kirk about the future.

This whole idea about a plot to kill a young Kirk just makes me see red. To me it just screams unreasonable, illogical, unoriginal, tired, etc. Shall I go on? Unfortunately, early hints indicate this is all but a foregone conclusion, and all the elements are already in place: old Spock, Romulan villains, and time travel.

BIG SIGH.

As for your Kirk-death solution, it is simple and ingenious, but as stated, wouldn't do to pull it off and have him appear in a cameo, and Abrams has mentioned several times lately that they werent' going to shove Shatner into the movie just to please the fans. However, the buzz is that something like what you mentioned could still take place, because if this movie resurrects the movie franchise, hopes are that Shatner's Kirk could yet appear in a sequel with a more substantial role. So, like in Wrath of Khan with Spock, the seed could be laid in this movie to bring old Kirk back.

i am suprised they are putting the romulans in a movie again after the consensus from most was the romulans in nemesis were a dismal failure.

i guess i am just a hopeless "captain kirk should have never been killed by stupid soren in star trek generations, so they need to fix his stupid death" fan, but the solution Olorin found, is great, yet simple... sometimes the largest problems only need the simplest solutions.

I have to clarify one thing that I don't know whether it's clear. I "found" that solution only in the literal sense, as in finding it in someone's post on that TrekMovie site. I didn't think it up myself (though I wish I could take credit!). In any case, if they don't do it in this movie, I doubt it will ever happen. Shatner will be 77 freakin' years old on 22 March. Given the typical Star Trek movie recurrence interval of about 2.5 years, he'd be close to 80 if they do another one, and even older if the interval is longer, as it has been in recent years.

I'm drawing a blank here, but it seems like some other movie or story had a similar plot device to the idea above. Someone has to remember something they've been told in the past in order to save themselves. It's actually probably used fairly often. Of course, one example is Data sending a message to himself that allows him to free the Enterprise in that causality loop episode. But it seems like there was another one that was even closer to the Kirk idea. It'll come to me later.

I don't know that it's been conclusively established that the villains in this new movie are the Romulans. I know that's the rumor, but JJ and Company have not confirmed that yet, or much of anything else for that matter. We know the villain's name and that he's played by Eric Bana, but that's about it. But if it is indeed the Romulans, I agree that it's surprising in light of the failure of Nemesis. Perhaps the writers felt the Romulans deserved another chance. I mean, jeez, the Klingons appeared in 6 of the first 7 movies, were the main villains in two of them, and a secondary villain in one of them. If the Romulans do show up, will they be the typical Next Gen and later Romluans with the pronounced brow ridges, or will they be TOS smooth-headed Romulans? Hmmmm.....

Speaking of Nemesis, I watched it last night and to paraphrase Linus from "A Charlie Brown Christmas," I have to say "I never did think it was such a bad little movie." Its biggest flaw was that the writers were so conscious of the fact that it was the 10th movie and they just tried far too hard to homage Star Treks past, particularly Wrath of Khan. A personal nemesis for the Captain, the emotionless first officer (or first officer to be, in this case) sacrifices his life to save the ship, there's an all-powerful doomsday weapon, etc. The other main problem is that I don't think Stuart Baird did a very good job directing it. The editing should have been tighter to keep the thing moving, and the pacing was way off in places especially near the end, where they stop the battle periodically to have long periods of talking. But the movie did have some very cool things, the collision of the Enterprise with the Scimitar chief among them. It was also neat to get one last glimpse of some of the secondary characters: Guinan, Wesley, and was that Ensign Ro leaning forward for an instant in the wedding reception scene? If so, she was uncredited. Seems like she should be in prison for disobeying orders in that late-season TNG episode about the Maquis. Anyway, as befitting a movie positioned as the last for that cast, it did tie up some very old story ends: Riker and Troi finally get hitched and Riker finally accepts his own command. In spite of its flaws, I think the movie would have done better than it did, but for its wretched release date--sandwiched between Harry Potter and The Two Towers.

As to the plot of the new movie being a plot to kill Kirk, I also hope that's not the case. Not only would it be Terminator, but it would also be First Contact--derailing the future by killing a pivotal player in the past. If JJ and Co want to prove themselves capable of delivering something new, they better not be following Berman's playbook. He's the one who always said it was legitimate to recycle stories as long as you do it in an interesting way (but he then typically redid the story in an inferior way).

Shatner may not be in the movie, but it sounds like it's going to be larded with other cameos: http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/26/more-ca ... #more-1495

Apropos of nothing: only twice in my life have I ever dropped a bag of groceries, and both times it resulted in a broken jar of salsa. What a drag!

My biggest problem with Nemesis remains the credibility of the plot. I know I've ranted about this before, but despite his remarkable career, I cannot accord sufficient importance to Picard for the Romulans to center such a complicated plot around him, especially when you consider that his cloning had to have occurred at a time when Picard was even more insignificant within the multitude of high-profile Starfleet and Federation individuals. I just couldn't buy the story, and when a movie cannot sell itself to me on its most fundamental premise, I consider it a failure immediately. The other stuff you mentioned just adds insult to injury, starting and ending with the oh-so convenient discovery of B-4. Are you kidding me?

As for the new movie, I know there has never been confirmation that the kill-Kirk plot is for real, but too many other little things have surfaced that pave the way for another assinine premise. It's enough to give me pause and have genuine concern for where they are going with this. I did read that Bana (Nero) is playing a Romulan, and that he and his cronies will be from the post-TNG era, which makes perfect sense as to why the old Spock would be involved given the last thing we know of his whereabouts. Also, time-travel (again, not 100%) seems all but a given since Chris Pine, who plays young Kirk, inadvertently revealed in an interview that he has a scene with the elder Spock. Now, given all that we know about the cool, calm, collected, and very logical Vulcan that we know, what but a threat to change the future based on the life of his old friend would ever prompt him to travel in time, given all the risks involved? Nothing wrong with that, I guess. Problem is, what in the universe could be so damn important about Kirk, in any era, that would prompt the Romulans to do this, most especially the ones from Spock's time, when Kirk is nothing more than a memory already?

I just don't get it. I pray this is not the plot of the movie, but it is looking suspiciously enough like it. Kirk did some amazing things in his life and saved Earth more than once, but is the Romulan Star Empire really any worse off for his existence? Isn't it enough that every Klingon in the galaxy has to try and prove himself by killing Kirk, now we have to have the Romulans try the same? Please JJ, dont' go down that road. And if not the Romulans as a people per se, then what contrived personal grievance are they going to pull out of the hat to make it credible for this Nero to go to such lengths to eliminate one man? If they say that he's the son of the Romulan commander from Balance of Terror out to avenge his father, I swear I will positively scream inside the theatre!

Here's my one and only plausible theory in this die-Kirk-die mad universe: suppose the Romulans do go back and managed to kill him. Besides changing a lot of other things along the way, it would eventually mean that Kirk would not be present at the launch of the Enterprise B. Not being there to save it, he would not enter the Nexus. Not being in the Nexus, he would not be able to exit it later and aid Picard in defeating Soran. If Soran succeeds, Veridian 3 dies, and so does Picard and the rest of the Enterprise D crew. With Picard, Riker and the others being dead, there is no Enterprise E as we know it to stop the Borg during their upcoming invasion. Without the E to follow them into the past, the Borg assimilate Earth, and the Federation is forever removed from contention in the quadrant, leaving the Romulans without one of their worst opponents.

Long line of events to follow, but if you need a crazy yet valid reason to kill Kirk in the past, there you have it. Only problem is, I think even the Romulans are not stupid enough to prefer duking it out with the Borg instead of the Federation.

If Kirk is not aboard the Enterprise B, then other events unvolving the maiden voyage might not play out the same way, with the result that the ship is destroyed by the Nexus, or drawn into it. Either way, Soran either dies or is left in the Nexus, and none of the rest of that chain of events would unfold.

I imagine the writers of the various Treks assume the fans will accept a basic premise of "our captain is so important" that eliminating him is a worthy goal for enemy factions. But yes, I also thought about the fact that at the time the Romulans would have had to have gotten Picard's DNA, he would have been much younger.

well if kirk was killed in the TOS days (pre-movies) then who would have saved Earth from the probe in Voyage Home?

I still think they need to revive kirk...and then MOVE FORWARD! leave time travel out of a movie and move forward in the chronology of trek...post Nemesis!

Time travel works sometimes, it gives the actors to portray their characters in a different light, and you get out of the same ol same ol routine. But time travel can become a greatly overused plot device.

not to mention the endless amount of alternate timelines, etc that time travel establishes... again not too mention the inane idea of going to the past to kill someone or stop an event, in which they never go far enough in the past or go to a overly complicated situation. if you want to go back and kill kirk... travel back in time, to his birth, beam him out of the hospital, and there you go!

sorry to double post, but i just realized something in Vals post that i didnt catch earlier... if these were to be post-TNG Romulans.. then Kirk would still be dead, him and Spock couldnt really be sipping a latte`, Kirk would have died naturally long before, or would be extrememly old (a la Bones's cameo in the pilot of TNG), Spock is still alive because Vulcans are longer lived.


hey, i got an idea... we should write our own movie... the UCForums movie of how to fix star trek!

Threats to Earth have often made for the most compelling Treks. As a result, it's a plot device that's used somewhat often. Kirk has directly or indirectly been responsible for saving the world quite a few times. Not only would the absence of Kirk at Veridian III lead to the assimilation of Earth, it could conceivably have led to its destruction many times prior: Gary Mitchell returns to Earth and remakes it according to his liking, the Doomsday Machine reaches Earth and eats it, the vampire cloud comes to Earth and sucks the hemoglobin out of everyone, the giant amoeba reaches Earth and sucks the life out of everybody, Nomad returns to Earth and kills everyone, V'Ger kills everyone, Khan uses the Genesis Device on Earth, the Whale Probe kills everyone, etc. Kirk wasn't solely responsible for preventing each of those catastrophes but it was his crew under his leadership. Thus, taking him out would take out Earth and possibly weaken the Federation.

But if the Romulans have that as a goal, they should travel back in time and take out Archer's Enterprise. Then the Xindi would have destroyed Earth, and Archer would not have been alive to be the catalyst that led to the founding of the Federation.

I'll agree that time travel is an overused plot device in Star Trek. Perhaps the show should have been called "Star (and Time) Trek"! When well done, the time travel or alternate timeline stories have been very compelling: the accidental non-death of Edith Keeler leads to a Nazi victory in WW II, and the accidental propulsion of the Enterprise C into the future creates a future where the Federation is about to be conquered by the Klingon Empire, just to name two. To name two more, ST IV and First Contact are two fan favorites from the movies, and they're both time travel stories.

These stories reach us because they temporarily destroy what we know, either our own past, or characters/situations we've come to love. And then at the end of 60 minutes, all is right with the universe again. During the old cast movie era, Roddenberry kept pitching a story idea where the Enterprise had traveled back to the 20th century and either accidentally or intentionally prevented the assassination of JFK. Of course, this has undesirable consequences (I don't remember what), and the crew has to return history to its original course. Thus, it is Spock on the grassy knoll who kills Kennedy. Roddenberry was no longer in control of Star Trek at that time, and he could never get anybody to buy into his idea. Perhaps that was the only time that time travel was considered and rejected as a plot idea in Star Trek!

Perhaps because of past time travel successes and Star Trek's dire status post-Nemesis, it was decided that only a time travel story would salvage the franchise. Also, after ST V flopped, the powers that were at that time wanted to do a "Star Fleet Academy" movie with young actors playing Kirk & Co. Only a fan protest averted that, and we got The Undiscovered Country instead. Thus, we now are apparently faced with a combination of the two ideas: time travel and Star Fleet Academy.

I'm not thrilled about what the rumored plot of the new movie is, but think of it this way: if it sucks, it's not going to kill ST any deader than it currently is. And if it does well, it will restart the franchise and hopefully lead to a movie whose plot we can be more enthusiastic about.

OK, this is long and rambling, but I don't feel like overhauling it right now, so I'm just going to go ahead and post it.

TrekMovie had another Q&A with screenwriter Roberto Orci. Here are the highlights, followed by a link to the whole transcript:

• The set of the Enterprise bridge will be stored for future use;
• the movie’s script is about 128 pages long (indicating a roughly 2 hour movie)
• the script took about four months to write
• he and co-writer Alex Kurtzman will not be making cameos in the film
• James T. Kirk and the film’s villain (Nero) were the most difficult characters to write;
• the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" and the second, third, fourth and sixth films helped shape the writers’ takes on the characters, as did novels by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.
• Script shoots for many memorable moments akin to the "Never forget the name of the ship…Enterprise" moment in TNG "Yesterday’s Enterprise"
• Film makers have kept with Trek tradition and brought in academic and scientific consultants (more info on this promised)

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/28/more-fa ... #more-1501

Paramount has delayed the movie to May 2009!

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breakin ... #more-1581

so if i am reading correctly, they are moving the movie 6 months later for a bigger box office, not to make the movie better, or add time for filming, i guess i am trying to say, the movie is still on schedule?

Yes, the movie is still on schedule and could release at Christmas if they wanted. From what the TrekMovie site said, Paramount execs are so impressed with the dailies they're seeing that they're putting it into the summer blockbuster time slot. Apparently, they've previously considered Star Trek to be middleweight movies and "dumped" them at the holidays, where they'd do ok but not have a lot of competition (which worked so well for Nemesis...not). However, they are now apparently e xp ecting the new flick to do Star Wars amounts of box office.

One has to wonder if this is all part of JJ's "viral" marketing campaign....

I think it's all a secret plot by Shatner to put himself in the movie by giving them time to adjust the script and shoot new scenes.

Ha ha! But seriously, it occurred to me that since they are delaying it five months, it would certainly give them time to work the Shat in, should an idea strike them. Honestly, though, it couldn't be more than the scenario I pitched a couple of weeks ago, where old Spock tells young Kirk not to go out on that bridge on Veridian III, and the movie ends with old Kirk and old Spock walking along a beach reminiscing.

Pretty much anything more than that would require such major revision that they would never do it, no matter how great an idea they thought it might be. They could always save it for the next movie, after all...assuming the Shat is still alive.

[quote=""Olorin""]...assuming the Shat is still alive.[/quote]

Hey now! Don't be jinxing the poor guy.

By the way, are you making plans to go see the Star Trek Exhibit, headed by Shatner, if it comes to a city near you? They've announced Vancouver as one of the stops for the tour, so I'm going for sure, but unfortunately the only dates scheduled so far and that you can get tickets for are for the opener in California.

Earlier on, I saw a schedule that indicated it will come to Chicago, so I am definitely planning on going. Shatner is not actually going to be touring with the thing, is he?

Interview with Anton Yelchin (Chekov) over at TrekMovie, pretty interesting:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/21/more-ye ... #more-1627

The article I read made it sound like he was indeed touring with it, but it or I could be wrong. His contract on Boston Legal is up, and apparently the series is not being picked up for a fifth season, so he would be free to do this.

And we know he can't bear to sit around and do nothing

Even so, the more I think about it, the more I think it is unlikely he is touring with this thing. With the amount of dates that this event has had on the first two locations alone, I think it would be virtually impossible for him to accompany this thing all over North America for that length of time. More than likely he was there only for the inaugural opening. That kinda sucks as I would have liked to have seen him again. Perhaps other Star Trek names will make appearances in other cities.

Incidentally, I read that Eric Bana shaved his head for his role in ST XI. I don't know if that was to facilitate wearing a wig or makeup, or if his character is just...bald.

I tell you, if I were bald, I'd be insulted at the long list of bald villains in ST movies... General Chang, the Borg Queen, Ruafo, Shinzon, and now this new guy. In fairness, I suppose they've had a number of bald heroes: Picard, Sisko, Kirk (ducking the brickbats now!), the Doctor from Voyager.

In any case, if Nemo is just...bald...it seems rather unimaginative to me.

he better not be a clone!! of anyone.


the evil picard romulan clone #2 sent back in time to defeat captain kirk... ok.. i am scaring myself... because i can actually see that happening!!!

ha ha, scary thought! Seriously, though, if Abrams & Co are even half worth their salt, they will avoid just about any plot element that was depicted in Nemesis. Not that I think Nemesis stank as bad as many people do, but rather, I think Abrams is savvy enough to realize that it was poorly received and therefore not the one to copy from....

Roberto Orci, one of the scriptwriters, spoke at a ST convention this weekend. TrekMovie reports the following as highlights of his appearance:

• The whole project began with a phone call from a Paramount exec to Orci in 2005 (while he, Kurtzman and Abrams were working on Mission: Impossible:III), asking if he had any ideas for Star Trek
• JJ was convinced to direct Star Trek by his wife Katie (who felt the film had strong female characters) and by director Steven Spielberg who was impressed with the script
• Spielberg also visited the set during shooting scenes on the Enterprise and helped JJ Abrams work out a scene to help ‘with the action’
• Ben Stiller visited the set as well (and confirmed previously reported visits from: Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, and Tom Cruise)
• Targeting PG-13 rating
• Orci on the endless fanboy debate on Star Trek vs. Star Wars: “Star Trek was first” (got big applause for that)
• Film will have lots of action, but is still mostly about ‘relationships’ and not just about ’swords with lights on them’ (referring back to earlier Star Trek v Star Wars discussion)
• Star Trek will make the Trek universe ‘feel real in a way it never has before’
• Enterprise having components being built on earth doesn’t preclude it being assembled in space, in fact it ‘probably will be’
• Using the ’supreme court’ constitutional analogy, your view on if the film ‘fits’ within canon will depend on if you are a ’strict constructionist’ or believe in the ’spirit of the law’
• Any changes would be done after much consideration and ‘no differences will be from ignorance’ of Trek lore.
• Of all the female characters, Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is the ‘female lead’ of the film and does a lot more than just ‘answer the space phone’
• Nimoy was the ‘key’ to the script: he was the only way to ‘resolve continuity issues’ of the story and to have an ‘appropriate transfer of the soul’
• Took a risk with the script so reliant on Nimoy after only one preliminary meeting and before he was officially signed on
• Hardest character to cast was Kirk (Chris Pine), easiest was Spock (Zach Quinto)
• Orci and Kurtzman were released from ‘Michael Bay Jail’ (which turns out to be a luxury hotel on the Pacific Coast) on Friday, after finishing the first draft for Transformers 2
• There is at least one Star Trek reference in Transformers 2

i am really getting anxious to see this movie!

i am worried, a little, about the continuity bit.it is possible to deviate from continuity a little, but canon is the law! haha.. hopefully nimoy kept them on track.

Heck, as bad as Enterprise was, anything to set Trek back on the canon track is fine with me, a little deviation will be OK but really it looks like they are going to skip the Robert April and Christopher Pine Captaincies and go straight for the Kirk. this is sad to me because I always thought they should do the April version myself for Enterprise. Still can't figure out where Jonathan Archer came from.

Captain Pike WILL be in the movie. He's being played by Bruce Greenwood, who played JFK in "13 Days," the US Robotics CEO in "I, Robot" and the President in "National Treasure 2." I wouldn't look for Captain April, however.

A recent blurb I read about the movie, based on comments by Nimoy and Quinto, implies one focus of the movie will be Spock's backstory. Remember, he served on the Enterprise for at least 13 years prior the the time of TOS' first season. Some or most of that time was under Captain Pike.

OK, feast your eyes on this, courtesy of Trekmovie.com. First cast images from the new movie! Also note that Eric Bana's (Nero's) ears are NOT pointed. Perhaps he's not a Romulan after all.

Here they are
The first official images of Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoë Saldana), and Nero (Eric Bana). By the way, look closely at the eyes.

Uhura (Zoe Saldana), ready to communicate

…and the villain Nero (Eric Bana), seems angry about something

• Note the background colors, red, gold, blue correspond to the original uniform colors for Uhura, Kirk and Spock
• Nice touch with the reflection of the delta shield logo in the eyes for Kirk, Spock and Uhura. It looks like there is one there for Nero too, but hard to tell.
• Spock’s shirt looks very close to original TOS
• As we knew it would, Quinto looks perfect as Spock
• Pine has the right look of a young, serious, cocky Kirk
• Hard to tell for sure, but it looks like Starfleet pointy sideburns are still in style
• Zoe’s Uhura = HOT
• What is going on with Nero’s ear? He is reportedly a Romulan, did someone chew it off?
• and as TrekMovie.com reported before, no TNG era bumpy headed action on the Romulans…with the new twist of tattoos!…Fascinating