Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

The Question Of Whether Abrams' STAR TREK Is Truly Canon Has Been Answered...Sort Of...

Merrick here...
There's been a great deal of confusion, on a variety of fronts, regarding the nature of J.J. Abrams' STAR TREK. Is it a reboot? A "reimagining"? Is it "prequel" in the literal sense, or figurative sense? Even from the trailer, certain elements of the movie don't jibe with what's been established before...is this reckless oversight? Or, is there a method to the madness? TrekMovie has an interview in which Anthony Pascale, the site's overlord, attempts to corner TREK co-writer/Executive Producer Roberto Orci regarding the new film's approach to, and impact on, established TREK canon/continuity. KNOW THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THE PIECE, but nothing too significant if you've been following the film at all, or seen its trailer (which can be found HERE).
Anthony: OK, now let’s get really into it. From the trailer, and certainly from the four scene preview, there is no doubt that things are different. Pike and Kirk are hanging out in a bar. The ship looks different. Kirk is on the Enterprise and not headed to the Farragut. People are seeing Romulans…things are different. Now it has been revealed in the Entertainment Weekly article that Nero goes back in time and attacks the Kelvin, and JJ also talked about this during his previews. So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different? Bob: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move. Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change? Bob: Right. Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa? Bob: Yes, and yes.
...reveals THIS DISCUSSION at TrekMovie. There's much more explanation (or confusion, depending on how awake you are & how thoroughly you've mastered Quantum Mechanics) in the piece, so be sure to jump over & check out the whole shebang. What I'm, taking away from this is: Orci & Co. approached TREK canon, found a plot device which allowed them to deviate from/reshape expected canon... without really deviating from canon...because said plot device originates from the "normal" TOS/TNG timeline... automatically making both the plot device, and the impact it has (i.e. a reshaped timeline), canon. Or, something like that?


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST

    First

    by henrydalton

    Yes, I'm a cunt.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Who cares if it's canon, as long as they put

    by henrydalton

    Reeeally whiny teens in it.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    deus ex machina

    by vampirepacman

    Time travel is a disturbing plot device. I'm not sure I approve, but I'm looking forward to this movie.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST

    I like star trek

    by nukethefridge

    but I don't love it and as such don't care about canons.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Nerds!

    by loodabagel

    Cannons are for football! Woot woot!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Yes! 5th.

    by Sappers Forward

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Really.

    by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder

    Does it MATTER? <P>No more, I suppose, than the eye-rollers that came out of "Twilight", shaking their heads about "sparkly" vampires... Look, canon-freaks - this obsession of yours is no different than any OTHER religion: It only means as much as you WANT it to mean. And that means EXCLUSIVELY to YOU, not to anybody else. <p>Get a new faith or quit bitching.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Crap...

    by Sappers Forward

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Couldn't they have said this months ago?

    by photoboy

    It might have helped reduce some of the ire. Although the story still sounds like Abrams is trying to make a Star Wars film out of Star Trek (young boy living on a farm who drives fast vehicles and wants to escape his dull life to fight the [Romulan] Empire).

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Trekked out

    by I AM ROCKO

    To be honest, the trailer did nothing for me either. And sixth! Will never be first though, although never say never...

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST

    My brain is kinda hurting from thinking about this...

    by The Dum Guy

    <br><br>We've already had time travel in previous Trek films, now a time travel plot device is changing some of what was to become (happend) in the Trek universe... which means, that possibly the time traveling that happend in the other movies might not have occured at all(which is supposed to happen after this new movie).<br><br>So, would all of this change what happend in The Journey Home... or First Contact, or did them going back in time (those times) not happen, which was supposed to happen in order for that universe's future to happen, as far as what happend in First Contact???<br><br>

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Star Trek never followed its own continuity...

    by Kasch

    ...because that's impossible when you produce a series over the course of 40 years. Things will inevitably look different and minor elements will always get rewritten. It's called progress. And who cares anyway as long as the movie is entertaining? Shouldn't people be obsessing over more important things?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Deanna Troi semi-n00dz

    by the new transported man

    http://tinyurl.com/685q82

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Cannon(ball comin'!)

    by BGDAWES

    This is a hybrid. This is a cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia. The amazing stuff about this is, that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff."

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Christ I just HATE time travel!

    by Kid Z

    ... So... what?... in this new timeline, or whatever, by the time of TNG the Enterprise has an all-glass bridge and Romulans have tatooed faces? Or does it all get undone by the end of the Abrams film? Huh? Damn... I just hate time travel stories!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:35 a.m. CST

    the new transported man

    by Bouncy X

    i knew it was something like that but i still looked anyway, funny stuff. poor kid. lol

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST

    i like LOST

    by zom-bot.com

    but it shouldn't mingle with my TREK. time travel and alternate universes/timelines is just too easy to explain stuff away or answer everything. i admit it takes skill to do it right, but it's an easy sci fi device to build your non-cannon universe around

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Trailer looked fun

    by Oliver Queen

    Been a Star Trek fan practically my whole life, and even I think the franchise could use revitalization, fresh blood with a fresh take. I know it's fashionable to bitch about J.J. Abrams for some reason, but there have been moments of brilliance in both Alias and Lost, which should be enough to buy him some geek cred and the benefit of the doubt. Of course, some will still find things to whine about, as usual.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST

    And you didn't already figure this out?

    by telecomplainer

    My wife and I aren't "fanboys", we just enjoy (some of) the shows and movies. Even we figured this was the case. It's hollywood, not rocket science.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Jesus, I've explained this so many times...

    by Fawst

    It's the greatest time travel gimmick ever used in Trek because everyone KNOWS that time travel will fuck everything up. This time, THAT'S THE POINT. So now we have this tangential universe which is affected by time travel, and the focus is aimed squarely at the TOS portion of this tangent. I thought this was all obvious back when this was first being discussed? :)

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Won't they just get Hiro to go back in time and fix it all?

    by Bob Cryptonight

    Won't they just get Hiro to go back in time and fix it all? OOOPS! Wrong bad show...

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Oliver

    by optimus122

    It fashionable HERE on buttfucked talkback island to bash on JJ as we all know this is a hollywood hater site..all the retart backstabbing talkbackers do their best to make sure we have no actor interviews and mostly indifference towards this site from the hollywood establishment...good job Harry lmao. The talkbackers are douchebags.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:50 a.m. CST

    I'm satisfied with this explanation

    by bravogolfhotel

    I'll admit it, I'm tickled by the idea that the TOS characters are not bound to the past any more, but I think alternate timelines are a perfectly acceptable handwave, and can justify a multitude of differences.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:58 a.m. CST

    see nerds acting too soon

    by BurgerKing

    as per usual, acting like they know everything when they really don't. Obviously big continuity errors weren't oversight. Even I, not a Trekkie, would be able to see them, so I think a fan would you fcking retards

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST

    So the villain in this movie is Old Biff ?

    by SomaShine

    just sayin

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Who cares about canon if the movie is good?

    by Charlie_Allnut

    The movie should be judged on its own merits.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:08 p.m. CST

    EGO

    by MattHooper

    It seems that Abrams might just want to reinvent Trek so that he can have the satisfaction of taking credit for more than he deserves.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Did he explain why there is an Apple store on the bridge?

    by g-ride9000

    is it an Ienterprise?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST

    by g-ride9000

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:10 p.m. CST

    so the future is sin PCs?

    by g-ride9000

    bill gates is cannonized

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:14 p.m. CST

    So does time travel explain why...

    by bobjustbob

    ... Kirk goes to live with his hard-nosed uncle in Iowa instead of Tantoine?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:25 p.m. CST

    I live and work in Iowa

    by name818

    about 8 miles from Riverside. It's seriously the smallest, shittiest, town I have ever been to. It's only got like 2 roads in it, but dont worry because it has 4 bars on main street. I cant bevlieve rodenberry signed off on this hole in the wall town.

  • Pre-CRISIS Superman: Clark Kent grows up fully powered, becomes Superboy, joins the Legion of Super-Heroes, then eventually becomes Superman. <p>Post-CRISIS Superman (John Byrne's THE MAN OF STEEL): Clark Kent gradually absorbs solar radiation and doesn't start getting powers until his later teens. He doesn't become Superboy, doesn't join the Legion, and only becomes Superman after meeting Lois Lane in Metropolis.</p>

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Why Does It Matter?

    by Sean38

    Just make a great Stark Trek movie! Who give a flying fuck about canon other than hardcore weapons grade nerds?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Who cares if its canon? I just want a GOOD Film....

    by j2talk

    Besides....I was under the impression that like Star Wars ONLY the things in the films or TV series was "canon" everything else was just...

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Star Trek 90210

    by JonRD463

    Okay, that video was just awesome. LOL!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Canon is overrated (sarcasm)

    by GeorgieBoy

    Let's just rewrite Lord of the Rings & Star Wars while we're at it.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Want to see FINNEGAN beat "the tar" out of young Kirk.

    by Yotz Von Frelnik

    As long as they give me that continuity, I'm happy. And he has to call him Ol' Jimmy Boy!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST

    For all those Canon nuts What happened to Saaviks&Spocks baby?

    by j2talk

    now that's a storyline that shouldnt have been cut from StarTrek IV or at least followed up on...

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:44 p.m. CST

    How about the fact Orci sucks?

    by RowdyRoddyStriper

    Why is this never addressed. He and his writing partners are terrible writers who have not written one decent thing. Fuck them and this reboot. I despise "creative" people with no creativity.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:50 p.m. CST

    name818 - that's WHY he signed off

    by AdrianVeidt

    I'm from Cedar Rapids. The obscurity of the tiny towns in Iowa is what makes Kirk's background beautiful.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Also...

    by AdrianVeidt

    I lived in Holy Cross, Central City, and Walker, Iowa, too. I'm familiar with the 1 bar: 2 businesses ratio very well.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:57 p.m. CST

    This explanation satisfies me

    by ballyhoo

    Not that I was losing any sleep over the changes anyway.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST

    I FUCKING HATE TIME TRAVEL

    by Bass Bastardson

    I can count the time travel movies I like on one hand - Terminator, Primer, Back to the Future and The (original) Time Machine. Most other time travel stories blow. It is a story device that almost always creates nothing but paradox and confusion.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1 p.m. CST

    The alternate timeline choice is fine

    by reflecto

    And classic for Trek, which has been dealing with them FOREVER. It's just this is the first time we will follow one as the new direction of the franchise. I'm glad Orci hastened to add that the post-TOS universe is not wiped out. That would greatly depress my ex-boyfriend.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1 p.m. CST

    trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing nobody

    by Nasty_Nick

    This has been kinda speculated on Star Trek sites and messages boards as to how they can reinvent it while still claim it to be canon. What I know is that other events of time Travel in the Star Trek timeline that was changed or fixed did not create a new timeline but restored/altered the current one. One wonders what the point would be for Spock to follow Nero back in time if Nero's time travel didn't effect his timeline. Thoughts on this Merrick? Still, an interesting piece but still contradicts what we have seen of time travel in Star Trek and also just isn't as cool or as having one timeline. I just don't care as much about timelines that aren't related to the current one.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST

    I was under the impression....

    by Arcangel2020

    I thought that I heard something to the affect a while back...and maybe this was just rumors or major fanboy/fangirl wishful internet thinking/posting....that Romulan Character "Nero" finds a way to time travel back to when Kirks father was in Star Fleet and that he had a plan to kill Older Kirk so that Younger Kirk would not be born and hence a thorn in the side of the Romulan Empire. Older Spock finds out about this plot since he is the Vulcan Ambassador to Romulus and attempts to enlist the aide of younger Spock to help stop the plot to kill Younger Kirk and that somehow/someway this tampering caused by the Movie Villain causes the Trek Universe that we know of as cannon to be changed in certain ways (thereby allowing for a younger cast and some different things to take place but not be to drastic in changes) That was the initial impression I was under

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Shorter AICN

    by Aquatarkusman

    Abramsabrams! Abrams!!ABRAMS!!!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Time Travel is a copout

    by yodaismyhomie

    Sorry but I just don't think time travel is a good enough excuse to handle changes to canon. I'm not worried about the changes simply because Star Trek contradicts itself from time to time anyway, but I just think that using time travel as a device to change canon is stupid.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:09 p.m. CST

    canon, non-canon and off-canon

    by mrbong

    oh dear! well, whilst you guys are busy making notes about what does and what does not tie in with a throwaway line in TOS S1E12, Act IV ll 12 - 28, i will be sat just watching the film for what it is, and with some luck enjoying it. i can't wait for someone to point out that this new Kirk, whoever the fuck it is, doesn't have the same kind of bulge in his pants as in TOS. well, no one alive on earth has a cock with the might, power and presence of the love volcano Shatner has strapped up, so maybe you will all let that one slide.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Hmmmm

    by DrWhat

    Sounds promising. That and boobs in Star Trek.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:17 p.m. CST

    As I said in the other Talk back, as long as it

    by Ingeld

    has three buttons to push when operating the transporter then it is canon.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:18 p.m. CST

    I don't like the reasoning, but I don't really care anymore.

    by JustyHakubi

    Hollywood doesn't give a shit about what we think. We can only hope and pray that when they get their hands on things they don't totally fuck it up. I'm sure that some hack writer suggested that Spock be turned into a transexual (Starbuck a woman anyone?), Uhura have the hots for Scotty, The Enterprise running on Hydrogen fuel cells... etc, Lex Luthor a Kryptonian. We should just be happy that all they did was screw up the timeline... yet again. They did it with First Contact. So all things being considered the movie should be fine. I am still looking forward to it.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:19 p.m. CST

    I don't care about nit-picky canon complaints

    by geodesigns

    No offense to the Trekkies, er Trekkers out there, but as long as the Enterprise has the general shape of the saucer, nacelles, etc, it's fine for me. And it's great that they now have brought back the TOS characters. The uniforms seem good to me. I had more problems with the SciFi Channel's Flash Gordon (lame/low budget/lack of creative imagination/lack of homage to Alex Raymond and lack of favorite post-Raymond Flash elements) than this upcoming Trek movie. I'm not losing sleep over these little Trek tidbits leaked out to the media- trailer looks cool.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:20 p.m. CST

    I think it's cool...

    by MJohnson

    They've messed with time travel before, but they've never had the balls to actually CHANGE anything. Since it is pretty clear that all forms of Trek preceding this one have run their course and we aren't getting any more of them, why NOT make the gutsy choice and say, "Screw it all. Change the time line, and we can do whatever we want." I'm all for it...AND I am a Trekker from way back. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Who the fuck cares?

    by Spamgelus

    Honestly, does it NEED to be canon? You CAN still watch all the Star Trek stuff that's been out there for years. It's not like a change in the timeline is going to bleed over into reality. I swear, fucking Star Trekker Trekkies are the most OCD freaks out there. NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS AN EXPLANATION.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST

    bad/inconsistent writing = lack of canon

    by awepittance

    not time travel, i find it hilarious when writers will be like 'oh yeah its because of the time travel thats different' what is he actually going to admit 'oh fuck i forgot CHEKOV wasnt on the enterprise for the first year holy crap i made a mistake'

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST

    does marty.....

    by krod

    go back to the future then in part 2 or is it the first time going into the future...i am confused

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST

    'because of the awesome theory that is quantum mechanics'

    by oisin5199

    It seemed odd that Orci kept repeating variations of this phrase. This interview is interesting but brings up so many questions. Ok, so if the creation of parallel universes by time travel does not negate the prime timeline, what's the point? I guess if Nero goes back and creates this new timeline, then he can stay there and take part in a Romulan empire without Kirk as a thorn in its side. But does that mean he can't back to his unchanged prime timeline if he wants to? Also, if the change doesn't affect the prime timeline, what's Spock's motivation for time traveling himself? Unless he refuses to let Kirk die in any timeline. He must really love the guy.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Uh...GeorgieBoy...

    by MJohnson

    Comparison to Star Wars? That's fine. But I KNOW you didn't just put Trek in the same room with Lord of the Rings, since it is WRITTEN literature, and succeeds at things Trek could only dream of.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Awesome

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    So Old Spock travels back in time and changes the timeline... but wouldn't that eliminate his reason for travelling back in time?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:30 p.m. CST

    "You see, whenever you notice these things... it's magic"

    by ricarleite

    Enough said.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Canon Fodder

    by Kauzi Sezso

    Let's see them make a whole Trek movie in the Mirror universe -- then I'll get excited about it....

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:34 p.m. CST

    JJ Abrams doesn't give a fuck about Star Trek Canon!

    by Leafar the Lost

    Only the pathetic Trekkies, who have devoted their pathetic, worthless lives to studying every detail of the Star Trek Universe, care about there the Star Ship Enterprise was built. Abrams could give two fucks about canon. His goal was to make an entertaining movie that would make a lot of money. The Trekkies need to realize that they have wasted their lives, and they need to blame the person responsible for fucking up Star Trek: Rick Berman.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Leafar the Lost

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    JJ is a hack, and if he had any real artistic credibility he'd have created an ORIGINAL sci-fi film. <p> He might be the nicest guy on the planet, but this is creatively bankrupt. </p>

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:39 p.m. CST

    This will be in IMAX

    by USUCK

    So I am, IMAX makes me happy

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:39 p.m. CST

    This interview reminds me ...

    by macheesmo3

    of that Simpsons episode with Lucy Lawless at a Xena convention. Everyone keeps asking her deatiled nerd questions about conitnuity errors and she always responds " Wizard!"

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Leafar the Lost

    by just pillow talk

    Do you need an internet hug? <p>Or perhaps a #2 pencil to stab in a Trekkie's mouth?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Who gives a fuck if its canon.. its a reboot

    by bongo123

    out with the old and in with the new, old trek fucking sucks balls anyways

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST

    GOD, if someone says "canon" ONE more time....

    by kgreene

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST

    If canon doesn't matter..

    by Dotren

    Does that make it anti-matter? <p> Ok sorr, that was bad but I couldn't resist. I'm witholding opinions on the canon thing until I see the movie for myself. It sounds like they put some thought into it and didn't just do it on a whim *cough Enterprise cough*

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:49 p.m. CST

    I have a big CANON in my pants...

    by just pillow talk

    whenever I see Monica Bellucci.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 1:58 p.m. CST

    SO WHEN HE SAYS ITS CAUSED BY TIME TRAVEL-

    by alice 13

    is he just saying that?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:02 p.m. CST

    NNNNEERRRRDSS!!!!!

    by Emperor_was_a_jerk

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:08 p.m. CST

    bongo123

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Yeah, it would've been a lot better if they had flashbacks and Kirk's entire story centred around his daddy issues........ NOT

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:09 p.m. CST

    I don't want to hear about Quantum Mechanics...

    by bobjustbob

    ... from the guy who co-wrote TRANSFORMERS and MI:3. The ability of said author to keep things logically consistent in one timeline seems to be beyond him...<p>Professor Everett is laughing from his grave!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:10 p.m. CST

    So...

    by my liege

    I imagine there's going to be a scene or a throwaway line about having to scrap the original plans for the Enterprise and start from scratch in the wake of the Romulan attack?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Canon? All I want is a GOOD Star Trek film!

    by Powers Boothe

    I haven't liked any of 'em since First Contact.<p> Based on that teaser trailer, I'm VERY excited about this new Star Trek film. Who cares if a bunch of grumpy old fans don't like the changes? I sure don't. All I want is a good Trek film. Looks like JJ was the right guy for the task.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Took the words out of my mouth, Powers

    by MattmanReturns

    That's all I care about.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Damn You Michael Bay

    by MCMLXXVI

    Damn You Michael Bay

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    So its a sequel?

    by jamestewart007

    Thats what happens when a guy from the future changes the past, right?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:44 p.m. CST

    DUDE, YEAH WE KNOW

    by ImJustSaying

    Wasn't this time travel explaination like... the first fucking thing we ever found out about this film? Calm yourself, people. We're going to find out everything eventually. Like, you know, when it opens. I just hope they use black holes for travel, because that's the only way it's ever possible. I hope they play it smart like that.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Time Travel is a weak plot device but at least it is not a holod

    by islander

    Still can't wait to see it

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Time Travel is a weak plot device but...

    by islander

    At least it is not a holodeck, talk about a writers crutch.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST

    To quote Picard, "what sort of meaningless doubletalk is this?!"

    by Cotton McKnight

    I have no idea what I just read. All I know for sure is, Scotty wouldn't do an experiment on a beagle.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 2:56 p.m. CST

    File this under W for Who gives a shit?

    by sott68

    Its a new movie. The other cast is old and they decided to remake the series, just like they do with every other show on TV or film. Reboots usually suck. This will too. No imagination left in hollywood at all.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3 p.m. CST

    Cheesy tribal tat Romulan went back in time

    by Dingbatty

    and mixed in Jake Lloyd's DNA with Kirk's.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:05 p.m. CST

    there comes a point...

    by zom-bot.com

    where we realize the elusiveness of jj and crew is really ass covering, or laziness- making it up as they go along based on what they read people theorize about their work (i'd say the last season of lost was written on the better ideas tossed around at AICN and lost forums)..when pressed about why some things are different, others not, somethings vastly different, the plot itself incongruent, or why even bother going back in time to change something if it only creates a variant universe and does not even effect the one you left from- and you may not even be able to get back to your original universe- the answer is- 'maybe, maybe not. you'll see. it's all about time travel'. <P>well fuck that noise

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:06 p.m. CST

    It's a SPREQUEL

    by chromedome

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:08 p.m. CST

    If you think it's CANON but it's SNOT...

    by chromedome

    ... then Braga had something to do with it.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:10 p.m. CST

    I love...

    by MichaelCorleone

    How the fans scream bloody murder but don't want to own up to the fact that this is what star trek has always been. You're so worried about canon, yet the show, films and ultimately the franchise has done nothing but step on it's own continuity time and again. Don't act like this is some new trend. Trek was never the sacred epic that you want to remember it as. I love watching star trek, but I never fooled myself over what it was or if I had any control over how it was handled. Please stop, no one's going to make some magical difference here. If you don't like it and you think it's any different than it has always been, then it's you that changed, not the show.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Time travel in a Star Trek movie????????

    by disfigurehead

    That is so original. Damn why did I not think of that?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:15 p.m. CST

    PRE-BOOT

    by zom-bot.com

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Well...

    by richievanderlow

    I've always thought of such plot devices as cheap contrivances to ignore canon and manipulate the story and they were overused in the TNG era. So, it's a catch 22. Wtih all new actors, I have no problem with taking these liberties, and I hope the movie doesn't try to explain these plot devices.. because in TNG it felt like what it was.. something sticking out like a sore thumb. Just go with this new version. The truth is, this is what the Enterprise should have fundamentally looked like. Just go with it and make a great movie, you've got the perfect excuse to.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Spock...

    by Stunt Vocalist 709

    While you're at it, please go back and prevent these three movies from ever being made: BOTH Back To The Future sequels and Jurassic Park 2. Thanks!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:39 p.m. CST

    What Mr. Orci is trying to say is...

    by BurnHollywood

    ...That the Trek universe has been dumbed-down and twisted to fit some marketing consultant's notion of what standard demographic moviegoers want and what will generate a nice, big tentpole release.<p> If that means a long, labored explanation of how they've changed everything, but really, scout's honor, changed nothing, than so be it. Expect some pretty-boy vampires in the next one.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:50 p.m. CST

    What are we, five?

    by kesoze4

    Who really gives a rat's ass if anything's "canon" as long as it's a damn entertaining movie? Does anyone out there truly believe that every Star Trek show and movie that has ever been written and ever will be written fits perfectly into some Trek Master Plan that was written decades ago and must be followed for The One True Story to unfold? Jesus, guys, it's a bunch of decent writers trying to cobble together a decent story using familiar characters. Back the f#%& off.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST

    **Spoiler**

    by Embeedeuce

    The Enterprise is being built in the Field of Dreams.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:07 p.m. CST

    If it makes money, the canon changes

    by kabong

    become permanent. <P> If it doesn't get good BO, it's back to the Guardian of Time for another reboot.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Powers Boothe

    by Klytus_I.m_Bored

    The fact that you call yourself Powers Boothe is really making me laugh. Thank you.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:11 p.m. CST

    The difference between a Geek and a Trekkie?

    by Leafar the Lost

    What is the difference between a Geek and a Trekkie? I am a geek. I love good sci-fi TV shows like Lost and Battlestar Galactica. I love going to good sci-fi/fantasy movies like The Day the Earth Stood Still and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I like going online to look at geeky sites like AICN. Now, lets compare me to a typical Trekkie. They don't just watch DVDs of old Star Trek TV shows and movies, they study them. They read Star Trek books and manuals looking for breaks in canon. They go to Star Trek conventions, wearing Starfleet uniforms or Klingon costumes. They debate Star Trek triva with their Trekkie friends, because they are unable to be friends with non-Trekkies. Finally, they are unable to keep a regular job, so they live with their parents or another relative. The difference is that sci-fi stuff is a part of a geek's life; Star Trek IS the life of a Trekkie. Let me quote William Shatner from his infamous skit on SNL. He told the Trekkies to "GET A LIFE!". He was trying to help them; I am trying to help them. Please, let me help you...

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST

    I think I speak for all the Trek fans

    by Sithdan

    when I say this movie will mark the Second Cuming!!!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Translation

    by BackwardGalaxy

    Translation: If it changed: time travel changed it. If it didn't change: See, it's canon!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Orci is DOUBLE HACKED.....

    by conspiracy

    Not only is he a piss poor writer...but from this interview he seems to know even less about Quantum Mechanics than the average NOVA watcher. All he saw was "Multiverse" and "Infinite parallel universes" and said.."HA..Here is our way to fuck with Trek without fucking with Trek. If he is going to try and use hard science for an excuse..he should at least understand what the FUCK he is trying to talk about. As it is..it sounds like he is repeating a Wiki entry or what his $2,000 a week scientific advisor told him. THis movie is going to Blow..and is PRELOADED WITH FAIL!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:54 p.m. CST

    They should cut everything that is not Trek canon

    by kabong

    and paste it into a new movie. <P> Avoid alienating audience, even if they are Trek canon geeks, and make a new movie. You can call it Space Trek.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:56 p.m. CST

    How long did it take to shit out this "explanation"?

    by Drath

    Oy vey, I'm sorry, but this sounds like trying to have their cake and eat it too. So far, the Enterprise looking different isn't an improvement. Kirk having a standard rebel backstory doesn't seem like an improvement either. This is just change for the sake of change to satisfy nimrods who couldn't handle Trek as it was. I maintain that the blatant disregard for continuity and keeping the stories and characters meaningful was what was lost in Trek before. This is more of the same with the former, and while they're obviously trying to Star Wars-ify Trek, we've seen Star Wars itself fail to keep it's own characters meaningful, so only the movie itself can satisfy that concern. This "explanation" sounds more convoluted than old Trek though to be honest, I really don't think it's a good idea.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Why not just make their own movie?

    by Wonderthump

    Rather than reanimate the corpse of Star Trek?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 4:59 p.m. CST

    This is going to be a DISASTER

    by kwisatzhaderach

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:03 p.m. CST

    So there is a canon, non-time travel timeline

    by NoHubris

    ...and a non-canon/time travel timeline where Romulans are not unseen and can be seen?? Does someone whisper "I see Romulans"?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    bravogolfhotel

    by codymr

    I agree with your willingness to accept the time travel plot device... but I still can't say this film is a must see for me. I catch it on video or TV at some point unless the word of mouth is out of this world.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:17 p.m. CST

    I think there are two reasonable responses to this film.

    by rbatty024

    1) Trek is dead. It's not coming back and we might as well enjoy the series that were actually good and forget about the rest. Most people think Trek is hopelessly geeky anyway which means this film will likely bomb. <p> 2) Trek's popularity has plummeted so they might as well try something new. To keep Trek around you need to inject it with new blood and possibly get back to basics. Kudos to them for at least trying to get non-Trekkies to see a Star Trek movie. <p> Most of the unreasonable opinions about this film are based off of strange idiosyncratic geek pedantry. Worrying about crap like canon (Star Trek's canon barely holds together as is, so who cares). Or, those who want a ST:DS9 film even though it would require hours of back story to actually understand it (I would personally love a DS9 film but it is unfeasible). And the million other strange objections. <p> As for where I stand, I think it's with the second response. At least they're trying something new, and if it bombs, well too bad but I'm not going to kill myself over it. My guess is that if this film fails then that's the end of Trek.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:17 p.m. CST

    No Care looks AWESOME!!!

    by FILMFUNK

    Slooged over that trailer and i aint watched Trek since that one with whales in when kirk had a bad perm so i could care less if a knob on a phaser is red when it should be blue !

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:19 p.m. CST

    I dont know about this movie.

    by Omegaman

    The car, Kirk as a kid rebel scene seems so cliche, which makes me wonder about the rest of the writing. But then the Uhura boobs scene gets me interested again. Im tired of time travel in Star Trek movies too. It seems like theyve done that several times. The only time travel story I want to see is if it involves Guardian.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:19 p.m. CST

    I'm going to remake Star Wars but in my version

    by kabong

    Darth Vader is a hot chick Jedi. <P> Yoda is gay. <P> Amidala gets to be a prostitute with a heart of midichlorians.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:25 p.m. CST

    So does this now mean Kirk might survive?

    by Shan

    Because of all of the changes in the past, does this mean Kirk no longer falls off a bridge in Generations? <p> Corollary: Does this mean we get a surprise cameo by William Shatner at the end or will he retaliate and not show up because Leonard Nimoy declined to appear on Boston Legal? <p> Questions, questions ...

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:26 p.m. CST

    It's not canon. Here's why...

    by Freakemovie

    The characters look slightly different.<br><br> The "canon" discussion is as pointless as those "what is art" debates in college. If it works for you, congratulations. If not, sorry.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:37 p.m. CST

    You know Kabong...

    by rbatty024

    If we had a few more prequel quality films I think your reboot idea wouldn't be so bad.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Uhura's still hot...

    by NivekJ

    ...so screw it. Trek on.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 5:41 p.m. CST

    SULU: "EN GARDE!"

    by BringingSexyBack

    Kirk: "What en garde? We don't have swords." <p> Sulu: "Yes we do." <p> *Unzips pants*

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Enterprise...

    by darthwaz1

    that show fucked up cannon so badly it hardly matters...but of course we all know humans shouldn't be seeing romulans face-to-face and all those sorts of things. Klingons cannot have bumpy heads in this new series!!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:18 p.m. CST

    So this is a Vague PreQuel?

    by ThaJackaL

    Like how Superman Returns was a Vague Sequel to Superman 2!? THIS MIGHT SUCK!! The trailer looks alright tho.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Trek is dead...May Trek Live Long and Prosper

    by j2talk

    and now thanks Thanks to JJ it just might.....

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:23 p.m. CST

    BSB: you forgot...

    by MCVamp

    Sulu: Oh my. Hellooooooo.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:33 p.m. CST

    a wizard did it

    by Geekgasm

    That's the best Orci and the other uglier one can come up with. Meh. Who gives a shit about Star Trek anymore? All the tits and Aberzombie casting won't make the general population wake up one morning and say "Wow! I guess that Star Trek was really awesome all along! All they had to do to get me to like it was CHANGE EVERYTHING!"

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:42 p.m. CST

    A majority of these opinions, I predict...

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    ...will go the way of everyone hating the idea of a Heath Ledger Joker once Star Trek finally hits theaters. Fanboys are, by and large, pack animals. One bitches, one counters, sides form up along 'rulz' and 'ghey-sux' lines, movie comes out, everyone loves or hates it equally, months later someone plays the opposite card to feel cool for going against the population, wash-rinse-repeat.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Here's a question I haven't seen asked ...

    by Shan

    ... on this talkback at least. <p> If the original films with the original cast(s) didn't make that much more than $100 million domestically (admittedly needing a huge adjustment for upto 20+ years of inflation), what makes them think this movie at a budget well north of $100 million will actually make any money? Not being sarcastic, genuinely wanting to know.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Deanna Troi's canons...

    by Little Beavis

    Nice caliber, they are....

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Lets get out of here before one of those things kills Guy!

    by MEMEOVORE

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Hope this invalidates

    by Melvin_Pelvis

    Star Trek: Tve Valium Generation<p> Maybe now Picard, his little triangle sandwiches, his EARL! GREY! HOT!, and his touchy feely brand of leadership will never come into existence.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Post-TOS series were made.....

    by geodesigns

    ... because the original Trek cast actors were getting old (and charging too much, not to mention the cringe factor the cast contemplated in tolerating Bill again on a weekly basis.) <br> <br> This is the first Trek cast of characters to have a new cast of actors. We've seen this in Superman, Batman, Bond and BSG. <br> <br> There's many things I like about NextGen, DS9, some things about Voyager (7 of 9!!!!), but they just should have recast the TOS actors for a TOS TV series instead of NextGen, and have TOS characters meet characters that fans enjoy like Data, etc, etc, etc. These characters, the writers could have introduced during TOS, era, and adjust them for Trek continuity. But Keep Kirk, Spock, Mcoy and the TOS crew as the center of the story. <br> <br> By creating brand new franchises they watered down the importance of TOS crew, wore down the interest of core viewers and separated general viewership, likening the Terekies as some odd group of nerds. Hey, I’ll be the first one to say I'm a Trek fan, but I'll admit that there are even more die-hard Trek nerds out there that memorized every nut and bolt screwed into the USS Enterprise-A, B, C, D and whatever, including its manufacturer and packing invoice for the nuts and bolts; I'm not that die-hard a fan, but I got to respect that the nerds kept Trek alive all this time, but the Trek fan community is viewed by the general moviegoers as, quite frankly, oddballs. Ever see the documentary Trekkies? <br> <br> A restart using a young cast seems great, to bring in more young nerds, and Chris Pine will now have life long fans after his Tiger Beat interview. The new Uhura will no doubt be on the young 'n hot spotlight, being chased around by paparazzi like Britney Spears for say, the duration that this new movie is in theatres. <br> <br> So no more new crews, please. I like that they are starting over in a way that should have been done decades ago. This recasting bid is 20 years too late. Paramount execs are slow listeners. They just thought about money and almost killed the franchise. The secret to Trek success is not how many frakkin spin-offs the execs can green light. The secret to Treks success is creating a core set of characters (just one core cast, thank you) that general audiences identify with, combined with an adventure that inspires the minds of moviegoers.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 7:31 p.m. CST

    So GET A LIFE!!!!

    by geodesigns

    Light up a good one and get laid-- move on in life!!! Just kidding!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Why send yourself back in time? Just send nukes DUH!

    by Damien Chowder

    Send lots of nukes to as far back as science allows like every minute a nuke.. See why send yourself back in time to kill somebody? Stupid.. Besides the classics like BTTF and such.. I too find time travel plots flawed. I always refer back to Bill & Ted's method of explaining why time travelling is makes anything obsolete. Remember when all they had to do was say that they did go back in time without having to do so at that moment. The Bill and Ted film made me realise that time travel isn't feasible because it would fuck up all existence if not completely destroy it.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 8:23 p.m. CST

    So Spock is out to save Kirk, again

    by aboriginal

    Does that mean that the Shat will make an appearance at the very end of the film as Spock leaps back to his timeline and has a Tranya and a smoke before heading out into the universe once again? Is this a way to get Kirk out of the Nexus? Would Abrams go that nerdy?

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 8:50 p.m. CST

    People are talking about temporal science as if it was real?

    by Smashing

    Back to the Future was good but it isn't the definitive guide to time travel, its a film using conjecture.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 9:05 p.m. CST

    "time travel...would fuck up all existence"

    by Bill Clay

    Unless you follow the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics and subscribe to the theory of parallel universes.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 9:07 p.m. CST

    "Send lots of nukes to as far back..."

    by Bill Clay

    Unfortunately, according to MWI you would be nuking a parallel universe and the one you currently occupy would remain unchanged.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 9:22 p.m. CST

    So I Guess Kirk is still alive in this new Canon

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    ST: Generations never happened.... cool!

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 9:38 p.m. CST

    so this is a time travel story?

    by bacci40

    hey, its one thing that they used time travel in the voyage home...but to do a reboot using time travel is a fucking cheat...maybe jj wants a gig on heroes

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 9:54 p.m. CST

    They're doing a Donnie Darko

    by Shan

    ... and creating a tangential universe by hurling something back from the future into the past to create a branch point. Though in this case, not a jet engine.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:02 p.m. CST

    They just lost me.

    by Therealumlaut

    I'm out.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Simon Pegg

    by Lashlarue

    Sir, I respect you. Continue on this path of selling out, and you'll lose that respect.<p> I had to kill Bob Orci because he made a mistake. Now it's time to erase that mistake.

  • Dec. 12, 2008, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Damn you MCMLXXVI

    by Lamerz

    Eat a fat dick you stupid motherfuckin prick. You going to keep that shit up for the rest of your life you fat, ugly, no-pussy-gettin geek? What a worthless piece of nut-laden shit.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Here's an idea...

    by FarSky

    FUCK CONTINUITY. If you're going to reboot the franchise (a franchise, I feel, that has always been lame), at least have the balls to ACTUALLY REBOOT THE DAMN THING, not puss out with some half-assed "well, it's continuity" bullshit.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Remapreseuelboot!!!

    by TallBoy66

    A remake (redoing the sets/actors/character differently), a sequel (set after ST: Nemesis & they time travel back), a prequel (shows how the TOS crew came together), and a reboot (destroying previous continuity while giving an in-plot explanation for it and establishing a new timeline). Hey, at least it's better than Mephisto waving his hand. As long as they pay lip service to "how this fits into continuity / makes an alternate timeline", I'm cool with that. Then they can go hog-wild on whatever they want to change because the *plot* of the movie is that Time Is Being Changed.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 1 a.m. CST

    khaaan !

    by Staldo

    could somebody more familiar with star trek canon explain to me whether the genetic supermen takeover and the botany bay launch of 1996 still happened? Realizing that the eight trek movies since II have all been trying to recapture that magic with little success, why not do another storyline involving Khan? put a fake muscle chestpiece on Willem Dafoe and you're ready to rock. One would think they should work in some way for young kirk to scream KHAN. Suppose he's trying to answer his near-deaf military history teacher as to what the descendents of Temujin took as their title.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 1:56 a.m. CST

    From James Cameron, director of ALIENS and T2...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    ...comes the next step in total fucking destruction:<p>AVATAR -- Fucking your eyeballs in 2009!<p>Nothing else matters.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Could MCMLXXVI be ...

    by Shan

    ... a bot? <p> He probably isn't but technically, could it be a bot?

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Who cares when AVATAR will be the worst movie of 2009

    by TOGSolid

    Ah my wiley adversary, do not think that changing your post title will keep me from catching it!<br><br> *twirls his mustache, adjusts his tophat and cues the silent film era villain music*

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 3:33 a.m. CST

    you know there's an old saying

    by Whitemouse

    if you build it...nerds will come!

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 3:35 a.m. CST

    I don't remember...

    by Whitemouse

    what this talkback was about! Something to do with the cannons in star trek? I didn't know they had cannons in star trek!

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Time travel is fucking gay!

    by warghost

    That is one thing that should never be allowed to happen in movies, ever. It can never happen, it will never happen, so we need to get over it.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder

    by warghost

    You might complain about us canon-lovers, but I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed off if, in this movie, Kirk was a woman or Spock was a Klingon. Keep Captain America white, bitches! We've already lost Nick Fury. *sniffle*

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 7:43 a.m. CST

    So then how exactly could we do a "Doctor Who" movie?

    by Shan

    Just asking.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Does Spock die?

    by Smashing

    J.J likes bleak endings, maybe Spock makes the ultimate sacrifice?

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Quantum Mechanics = Studio Excuse

    by adiehardfanwithalethalweapon

    By the end of the interview it was just too obvious they'd found a "loop hole" that would allow them to fuck shit up (e.i. modernize it) while still pandering to us nerdy types. I'm no hater but it just seemed like an exscuse.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Perhaps instead of bringing this to the theaters...

    by rbatty024

    they should have done a similar reboot on television. They don't need as big of an audience if they're on one of those lesser networks. Of course, that didn't save the last series.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Damn you Michael Bay

    by admiraltigger74

    Flames on Sulu! Fabalous

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 10 a.m. CST

    So is Orci trying to say...

    by bobjustbob

    that the MWI interpretation of QM allows timelines to split and then merge again? If so, then he's pulling things out of some mysterious wormhole.<p>On the other hand: Why change timelines when all possible outcomes already exists? Doe's Darth Nero expect to return to his reference timeline and experience the changes he manipulated in a deferent timeline? That is, yhy change the past if the changes you make will never be experienced in the timeline you exist in?<p>As someone posted earlier, sounds like a rather poor excuse of having your cake and eat it too... A best a poor plot device. I'm not a canon purist, I just want a good story told well. And I have a bad feeling about this...<p> Of course in some universes kiddy bikes can keep up with a muscle car Camaro and 6 foot kids can outrun 40 foot robots...

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 10:03 a.m. CST

    And in some universes AICN has an edit function

    by bobjustbob

    Wow... I need to proofread before posting.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 10:13 a.m. CST

    The earlier

    by Lain Of The Net

    ...a director/producer/idea guy starts to hype a film the bigger the turkey they have on their hands. When they try explaining it this early I'd say either they are taking a lot of heat or they have an over budget mess on their hands. This thing could end up looker worse than Nemesis or Sylar's Brain.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Shut up

    by admiraltigger74

    People just shut up and watch the damn movie. This is the first official Trek we will have in four years when it comes out. Just be grateful we are getting this. I wonder how many of the haters regarding this movie were the ones who stopped watching Enterprise. Any new Star Trek is better then no Star Trek.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 11:34 a.m. CST

    young kirk is wearing air jordan 23's

    by Westonian

    which are the current jordans.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 12:10 p.m. CST

    "Quantum mechanics"

    by I Hope You Die

    Says nothing about time travel at all and the MWI interpretation wouldn't resolve "paradoxes." But then there aren't any paradoxes in time travel. If you go back in time to try to kill your grandfather you will fail. That's not a paradox, you just have foreknowledge that your mission will fail because you come from the future. There's nothing paradoxical about that whatsoever.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 12:27 p.m. CST

    "try to kill your grandfather you will fail..."

    by Bill Clay

    I lol'd at how seriously you stated the rules of time travel. As if it actually exists.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 12:54 p.m. CST

    I WOULD HOPE A 23RD CENTURY POLICE CRUISER

    by BringingSexyBack

    could go faster than 80 MPH. Shouldn't they also have tractor beams?

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Just slap a "Star Trek" label on any POS.

    by kabong

    You haters just don't like shit.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Novikov self-consistency principle

    by EverythingEverywhereStinks

    Read it and learn it, bitches. Bob Orci pulled a bunch of MWI (many-worlds interpretation) Quantum Theory junk science out of his own personal black hole (you know, the one he ought to be wiping on a daily basis), slapped a "Trek" label on it and hopes we will all swallow it. The problem is, anyone can play "Scientific Bullshit Bingo," and as such my entry is the Novikov self-consistency principle. Learn it, bitches ;)

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Time travel is a cop out.

    by mrfan

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Time travel is a cop out.?

    by TOGSolid

    It's practically the norm in Star Trek. Time travel and dimension hopping gets whored so much as a plot device that it's practically an inside joke amongst trekkies.<br> "Did you hear about the new episode!?"<br> "No my esteem colleague what grand adventure did the crew embark on last night!?"<br> "TIME TRAVEL!"<br> "OH HO RICK BERMAN YOU CAD!"<br> And a mighty laugh was shared by all.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Can't say...

    by codymr

    that this iteration really peaks my interest... perhaps there are too many 90210 jokes surrounding the project. But the new trailer was kinetic and I chuckled when I heard Bones say: "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence..." I looks like Karl Urban nailed McCoy's cantankerous nature.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 7:42 p.m. CST

    most of ST never happened

    by Staldo

    when you watch episodes of TNG and Voyager and realize how many of them deal with temporal distortion, or stuff getting horribly f&*%ed up and then made to have never happened, you realize this is perfectly consistent with Star Trek. Worf turns into a crab, half the ship is vaporized and the rest of the crew gets gender reversed by an alien spore, somebody fixes the temporal anomaly or pleads with an effeminate god-being to reverse everything, and we're all back to normal and none of it ever happened with the events only existing in the memory of one or two crew members who give knowing winks to each other and carry on. That is a pretty good chunk of Star Trek starting from 1987 right there.

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 9:52 p.m. CST

    The only Canons I care about

    by jackofhearts29

    .. are the cannons on Uhura's chest. Thumbs up boys!!!!

  • Dec. 13, 2008, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Time Travel Can't Explain Chekov

    by Mike Hunt

    TOS established that Chekov was 15 years younger than Kirk (Kirk was 35 in one episode, Chekov told Kirk in another episode that he was 22 at around the same time)..........so why are Chekov and Kirk the same age in the new movie (or at least appear to be)?

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 12:55 a.m. CST

    As others have stated, they should've just

    by Dingbatty

    said, "reboot," and leave it at that. Having Nimoy in it was just a ploy to make it seem like the new version was sanctioned by the makers/fans of the original, so that fan complaints wouldn't put off the new, general audience they hope to lure. I seriously doubt they care about canon.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Given that they're using time travel...

    by bellwether

    ...it's a good thing they settled on the in-universe model for how it's going to work. If you don't know how it's going to work, you end up with Heroes. Besides, some sort of many worlds interpretation is very plausible if one accepts decoherence as the mechanism whereby the wave function *appears* to collapse. Trekgeekmode=ON: you can explain changes to the timeline prior to the destruction of the Kelvin by assuming that subsequent incidents of time travel (Assignment: Earth, for instance) happen differently, or not at all. Hopefully they don't talk about all this too much and just concentrate on bringing the fun: we didn't need to know how Genesis worked to enjoy Khan.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 12:48 p.m. CST

    they're just playing with the star trek nerds

    by punto

    "explain why the enterprise looks different"? how about because they're making a movie 50 fucking years after the original series, and the have money now? also, I doubt interview answers from some hollywood writer would require you to master real quantum mechanics (unless we're talking about _pretend_ quantum mechanics from star trek, then sure).

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 2:46 p.m. CST

    I with you jackofhearts29

    by geodesigns

    Star Trek cannons should have a new meaning now. They should cast a lot of female hotties in skimpy wear. Warp factor 10!!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Scrambled Star Trek

    by Barry_Woodward

    I've enjoyed the original series and some of the movies but as a casual Star Trek fan, I was hoping for a total reboot ala Battlestar Galactica. Take the core of what worked, leave the rest and do something original with it. I'm afriad this Superman Returns-esque middle ground will alienate many Trekkers, casual fans and newcomers alike.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Scrambled Star Trek

    by Barry_Woodward

    I've enjoyed the original series and some of the movies but as a casual Star Trek fan, I was hoping for a total reboot ala Battlestar Galactica. Take the core of what worked, leave the rest and do something original with it. I'm afraid this Superman Returns-esque middle ground will alienate many Trekkers, casual fans and newcomers alike.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 4:38 p.m. CST

    JumpinJehosaphat...The difference is this...

    by conspiracy

    We jumped on the Ledger Joker..mostly for the fun of it. We ALL knew Ledger was a superior actor. and that Nolan was a good director..and deep down we knew it couldn't be THAT bad even if it did screw with the origin story. But HERE..we KNOW Orci has fucked deeply with Trek Lore, and is just a pompous tool in general...and WORSE..WE KNOW ORCI AND JJ ARE HACKS, INCAPABLE OF SPINNING GOLD FROM LEAD...The no clue where it is going, writing it on the fly,lost, "LOST", "My Bad", Pissing Transformers, and the EPIC FAIL that was Cloverfield....All pure shit. Comparing Nolan, Ledger and the rest of that stellar cast...to JJ, Orci and Kurtzman is like comparing Mozart to Vanilla FUCKING Ice.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Time Travel? Excellent!

    by MonkeyLord

    Because Star Trek writers haven't completely beaten that little plot device into the ground just yet. Just kidding... they have. Is it possible to even *make* a star trek movie that doesn't use time travel as a crutch? Ugh.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 6:20 p.m. CST

    i don't have a problem with this explanation

    by smudgewhat

    alternate universe trek is fine with me. maybe we can get a reimagined picard and next gen too? that would be kooky.

  • Dec. 14, 2008, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Don't care

    by Wydok

    I'm not sure if I am going to like it, but I'm not going to let it's continuity affect me.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 2:07 a.m. CST

    MOTOKO KUSANAGI...

    by Shadow Warrior

    is a pathetic nerd/loser.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 7:51 a.m. CST

    Who cares

    by grendel69

    More time travel. YAWWWWWN. I became bored with Trek a long time ago. Star Trek 4...Time tavel, Star Trek 6...Time Travel, Star Trek 8...Time Travel.......Star Trek 10,guess what....Time Travel. Time Travel = LAZY Someone please just let this franchise die already.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 8:05 a.m. CST

    grendel there is no time travel in Star Trek 6.

    by Smashing

    Or 10, if you are going to bitch at least be correct.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Canon aside, it's not faithful to original concept.

    by kabong

    Starfleet was admirable in TOS and next three series. <P> This movie is about TEEEEEEN angst issues. <P> That's because of Hollyweird's obsession with boy teen butt.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 5:29 p.m. CST

    I am glad it is not faithful to the canon

    by Razorback

    The Star Trek canon is stupid anyway. Change it all. Who cares if five Trek fans on the planet get upset?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Razorback Has It Right!

    by Real Deal

    This is a change ST has to go through because it's become jaded. It's been done so much that the precious cannon has painted it into a corner so tight it can't move! As many have pointed out ST has violated cannon many times in the past. This will reenergize the franchise again and make it relevant once more. I welcome this film because it will finally show the general public how great the ST concept can be. If you don't get that you've become jaded yourself and I feel sorry for you.