Kirk - not necessarily Shatner | Report this post to moderator
By: Gir (Odo's file, contact) @ 22:54:26 on Apr 22, 2007

He said "James T. Kirk"..... not William Shatner.

So I don't trust him. I haven't trusted Hollywood since Jon Peters attempted to "re-imagine" Superman.

(Read up on it, it's out there. Giant mechanical spider. Oy.)

Reply

Quote

Huh??? | Report this post to moderator
By: IamKirok!!! (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:35:40 on Apr 20, 2007

This is a revelation???

Reply

Quote

Orci comments | Report this post to moderator
By: Hober Mallow (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:55:53 on Apr 19, 2007

FWIW, Robert Orci had the following to say on the Transformers movie message board on April 5th:

Q: How is the Star Trek project coming? And how is it comprable to Transformers? Is it similar in that you are having to reinvent it to some degree while trying to keep the core elements the same, or are the two projects pretty different in your mind?

A: Trek is going great. Starting to draw up a production schedule, budget, etc. Different in my mind than Transformers, where continuity was less rigid.



--------

"It's fiction. It's not supposed to make sense." --a Trekweb poster defending Brannon Braga's scripts

Reply

Quote

Anything is possible | Report this post to moderator
By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:16:21 on Apr 19, 2007 | (1)

One great thing about the Star Trek universe is that you can pull anything off. Technically, but not ethically, you can mess with any element and still come up with a valid explanation, such as alternate time lines or realities.

Still, any differentiation from the canon we are familiar with, will result in some confusion among the audience. Trekkers will ask WHY did this happen? So, if canon needs to be bent, it needs to be for a good reason.

On the other hand, if Abrams claims that his story takes place in the timeline we are familiar with, then all the details have to be right.

Personally I am mostly concerned with the ethics. You can always come up with a technical explantion. But not an ethical one that holds water. As I've said before, I want the movie to respect canon. What I really mean is that it respects Gene Roddenberry, and is not just a money-making movie.

To respect canon is to respect "what was", which is closely related to respecting Roddenberry, and that is to respect the Star Trek audience.

Reply

Quote

Respect FOR canon, not respecting canon | Report this post to moderator
By: compupc1 (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:26:43 on Apr 18, 2007

There's a difference. All they said is that they personally have respect for existing canon, but that doesn't mean the script will FOLLOW canon. You can respect a thing personally without adhering to it. They're two different things. We shouldn't be making assumptions either way at this point.

--------

-James

Reply

Quote

RE: I believe Abrams is making the right choice. | Report this post to moderator
By: Omne (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:27:01 on Apr 18, 2007

I believe his age is mentioned in the episode where they are exposed to the "virus" that causes them to age prematurely (except Chekov), I might be wrong though.

Reply

Quote

Kirk is back it's offical. Now bring back the Shat!!!! | Report this post to moderator
By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:13:04 on Apr 18, 2007

J.J. do the right thing. Bring back William Shatner + save Kirk from the nexus.

If you can pull that off Star Trek will be back on the map.


William Shatner is James T Kirk. James T Kirk is William Shatner.

Reply

Quote

I believe Abrams is making the right choice. | Report this post to moderator
By: Rational Voice (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:49:20 on Apr 18, 2007

Good idea. While the hope will be to get new fans to see this movie, retaining those fans who hate to see canon messed with will be important. And Abrams does not even need to speak of some obscure reference, just to not interfere with other stories.

Reply

Quote