OK, but will the theater confection counter serve Slusho, or Synthehol? ...
'Star Trek' Trailer Boldly Goes To 'Cloverfield' Audiences
It's been the subject of much speculation, but we can now confirm that the teaser trailer for J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" will in fact be shown in front of certain buzzed-about pic this January.
"Cloverfield" director Matt Reeves has told MTV News that Paramount has picked his monster flick as the venue to unveil the "Trek" trailer. There isn't much more to report on that front, but Reeves did say that he's seen the teaser and that it's "awesome."
----------------
Apple Ad Spoof by Novell: Your Linux is Ready! (video)
:: Part 2 :: Part 3 ::

Ubuntu for Non-Geeks: Guidebook ++ Live CD
What if the events of the film alter the time line in such a way that when old Spock gets back to his natural time, Kirk never died and Shatner gets his part. To make the role more useful than just a Shatner cameo, perhaps the climax happend in the 24th Century and Kirk plays a crucial role in the resolution. Spock and Kirk ride off into the sunset and their younger counterparts go back to the 23rd century with the ability to tell stories that we've never heard because Old Spock screwed with the timeline. Eliminates continuity altogether, but it would be fun to see elements from established continuity be "re-told" in a new film series. The reboot in effect is done by characters from the existing continuity.
Just a thought.
Quote:
When the players don't treat this project as serious business, should the fans?
This project? Methinks so.
--------
"...I don't know. It's going to take a long time, and a lot of soul-searching before I find the answer. But right now we have a mission to complete."
-Benjamin Sisko, Blaze of Glory
Do the Guardian thingie story, (and stop listening to the lies of Ellison) and shatner's "fibs..about NOT being in the movie!!!!????
Yes... he is in the film.
my precious we swears it!!
we/i swears it! ...my love!,
REGARDS..
Smeagol
--------
Ellen: [female gunslinger walks up behind a preoccupied bartender] How about a room?
Horace: Whores next door.
Ellen: [carefully sets her cigar down] Say that again.
Horace: I said whores next door.
Ellen: [kicks the stool out from under him, catches his liquor bottle as he falls, & pours herself a drink] Now, do you have a room available?
Horace: Uh, room and bath, yes, ma'am, coming up!
Since they are calling this eleventh movie simply just "Star Trek," what will they call the next one? They can't call it "Star Trek 2", because that's been done as the Wrath of Khan. They can't call it "Star Trek 12" because they wanted to avoid the coninutation of numbering from the previous ten movies. If they use a subtitle like "Star Trek: Generations", it will be similar to the naming of the Next Gen movies, which I'm sure they would want to avoid. They would still have "Star Trek" in the title, so what should they do?
My guess is some kind of subtitle, but it will be cheesey and be compared to the Next Gen movies.
How people can read so much between the lines and make so many presumptions and judgments about a script they have not seen and a movie that we really know nothing concrete about. We are criticizing writers and producers of a movie over information about the product that is nothing more than rumor and conjecture. I think I will reserve my estimate of this team's competence until I have seen the finished product.
--------
"It's not who I am inside, but what I do that defines me." -Batman
www.gracelockport.com
A place for everyone in Roddenberry's future, but not for our guttersnipe tonight...
Homeless Told Move Out Of Park, Make Way For Star Trek!
The city has rented out and fenced off over half of Lincoln Park for Paramount Studios' filming of the latest Star Trek movie -- displacing homeless people who squat there in this happiest time of the year.
I wonder how we can spare cops to guard movie sets when every politician who runs for public office says that he will hire more cops to battle escalating crime. Maybe they just schedule less crime for the days that Hollywood is in town. I wonder if they keep statistics on how much the crime rate falls when Long Beach cops are busy being paid to guard Hollywood's most essential secrets.
When Santa became just another "red shirt"...

----------------
Star Trek: Alien Spotlight - Orions
Ok, I'm no newbie to Trekweb, been visiting for years, but never created an account to react to news items. This one made me do it, because of certain irritations I have with the creative forces behind this movie. Don't get me wrong, I expect it to be a fun and adventurous film, but there could be so much more to it, the way I see it. They should be broadening their thinking.
You know, I agree on the fact that this whole 'Shatner in or not' thing has taken up quite alot of time already, endless discussions and quoting by actors/writers/producers/etc..
But if they're still pondering on how to bring Kirk into the story, I'm beginning to worry about the lack of creativity here. There's more that one way to have Kirk in it, and not have to do a resurrection of the character that died in 'Generations'.
Old Spock, when being confronted with the news that Romulans are trying to erase Kirk from history, could have a flashback to a time just before Kirk boarded the Enterprise B, his last conversation with him. A conversation in which Kirk could share with Spock his feelings of being unimportant ever since he stopped being the captain of a starship, similar to what Kirk spoke about to Picard. This would fit into the story, since a big driving force of the movie is to show how much of an impact, an importance, Kirk has made and been for the course of history throughout space.
This flashback scene offers a way for old Kirk to be in the movie without having to bring him back from the dead. Voilá, canon respected.
Another way to involve old Kirk is to say: 'What if Kirk isn't dead at all?'
What if the Kirk we saw dying in 'Generations', the Kirk who disappeared into the Nexus, met Picard and saved the day against Soran, wasn't Kirk?
There could have been a swap made by an unknown party before the time of 'Generations', the real Kirk being abducted and replaced by a genetic replica, undistinguishable from the real thing by medical technology in that era. All this time, the real Kirk being locked away somewhere in cryogenic state, waiting to be rescued. A ploy by enemies of the Federation to gain influence in Starfleet and the Federation by using the popularity and sway Kirk has in that society. Unfortunately for them, their clone was a little too perfect, and really believed he was Kirk and wanted to make a difference one last time, be the hero.
This last idea is a stretch since they're never going to use it in this movie, it takes up too much time since it could easily be made into a film on it's own à la 'The Search For Spock'. This film is all about starting over, passing the torch to a new generation of actors to portray the early days of Trek again. No more TOS movie era Trek, but a startover. No more need for old Kirk, except for possible sentimental value this film has in saying goodbye (again) to old beloved characters before they're rebooted/reimagined/reintroduced as younger versions.
And even in bookform it's not needed, since Shatner himself did a Kirk resurrection in one of his novels.
What I'm trying to say here is, if they're still whining over how to involve Kirk in this film, they're on a wrong track. There's so many ways to do it, and still it's not done? Come on, get with the program. Either do it, or don't do it, just quit bringing it up every once in a while. It get's old.
Shatner should have never done Generations. He had a great finale in Undiscovered Country. In my view, his own shortsightedness did him in. He got hoodwinked into getting Kirk slaughtered off for a meaningless death so that the TNG crew could do more movies.
I am sure he regrets it- but what is done is done. He took it too casually- I even heard him comment that it was 'just science fiction' , so you could resurrect him.
Well, there is no good way to resurrect Kirk-no katra, no reincarnation. He just has to move along with his great new persona 'Denny Crane'. If he wanted to be really gracious, he would agree to do have film clips of Kirk throughout the years at the end as a respectful gesture (for perhaps 2 minutes at the end of the movie). He should let the clips end with The Undiscovered Country instead of the putrid and meaningless Generations.
--------
psp1
Quote from Roberto Orci:
We are still hoping to find a way [to put Shatner in the movie]
The Shatner issue continues to be as viral as JJ's Cloverfield PR: it surfaces in ST:XI overviews, in talk about Shat's awards, and on signage in the WGA strike. Brilliant.
Writers' Strike: The Directors' Cut?
As Battlestar Galactica creator Ronald D. Moore walked the Paramount picket line Monday, he articulated the view shared by most writers. Moore waged a protracted battle with NBC Universal last year over delivering unpaid, uncredited webisodes of his show. "That taught me the lesson that the studios thought Internet stuff somehow existed in this magical realm where they didn't have to pay anybody and they could do whatever they want," Moore says. "That experience a year ago lead me to believe we were gonna be in this situation today. It's wearying to be in this sort of limbo state. Now all eyes turn to the DGA."

----------------
The Wrath of Khan - Death of Spock Figures
They've had since the meeting with Shatner (pre-script) to come up with a way to get Shatner's Kirk in.
Does anyone believe that after the strike and JJ saying the script is locked, that Orci's statement that they could still work him in is feesable?
Subterfuge because he is appearing in a surprise ending, or bullshit.
Time will tell. Smells like bull manure tho.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
Well, people wanted to hear Orci (or someone from Abrams team) talk about the Shatner casting controversy. So, there you are.
Gustavo
PS - Boy, it was difficult to write this article.
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
Ok, from page 30. last paragraph, 2nd sentance:
Quote:
Star Trek is their love letter to the fans and franchise and they hope it is expected in that spirit.
First time now, I have felt a little sick about this movie. The last time we got a "valentine" it was like getting crapped on.
And for those of you with short memories, the "valentine" was from Berman and Braga and came in the form of the TNG wraparound to the Enterprise finale.
--------
So, the reason that Shatner is not in the movie is because there is no way that they can explain his coming back from the dead AND focus on REBOOTING the franchise with a new crew. See, Spock is still alive, as far as the Trek franchise go. Kirk is dead. Given that, it would be easy to bring Nimoy (Spock) back for a cameo. Bringing in Shatner (Kirk) for a cameo would be a big problem, considering they'd have to explain how, all of the sudden, he is alive. Doing that, will take too much focus off of the new crew and their storyline.
Over on the message board, I posted an idea that had Kirk showing up at the end of the movie, revealing that he is still alive, ending the movie on that cliffhanger, and then explaining it in a possible sequel. But, my Idea was shot down. A good point was made that even if they did go that route, They would still have to take a lot of time to explain his return in the second movie.
Let us all just finally ACCEPT that Kirk was killed in "Generations" and move on with our lives. Heroes fall, Heroes die, that's the nature of the Universe.
--------
"I can't be President. I mean, I've abused cocaine and I've been arrested. Besides, its completely stupid to believe somebody can be President just because his father was."
--Charlie Sheen (Saturday Night Live 2000)
RE: OK, I get it
by sb2004 @ 15:02:26 on Dec 13
RE: OK, I get it
by TRexx @ 21:18:23 on Dec 13
RE: OK, I get it
by StarFleet Captain @ 21:36:20 on Dec 13
RE: OK, I get it
by TRexx @ 21:53:21 on Dec 13
RE: OK, I get it
by StarFleet Captain @ 08:01:15 on Dec 14
RE: OK, I get it
by TRexx @ 08:26:00 on Dec 14
A Tick In the Fur
by c.p. @ 11:05:56 on Dec 14
It's Incidental, My Dear Spock
by TRexx @ 18:42:46 on Dec 14
RE: It's Incidental, My Dear Spock
by c.p. @ 22:34:29 on Dec 14
RE: It's Incidental, My Dear Spock
by TRexx @ 02:37:20 on Dec 15
RE: It's Incidental, My Dear Spock
by c.p. @ 21:29:27 on Dec 15
RE: OK, I get it
by c.p. @ 18:00:50 on Dec 13
RE: OK, I get it
by StarFleet Captain @ 15:20:39 on Dec 13
Quinto says reimagining
by GustavoLeao @ 15:12:13 on Dec 13
Simple as that.
That's so funny -- the continuity sticklers are stickled by their own sticklerness!
It's funny that the Bring Back Shat crowd are the same bunch that is so anal rententive about canon, and their anality has married them to the "Generations" debacle.
Shat can drone on about he's the "money" star, and "there at the beginning" and all that, but he already closed his own door on future appearances as Kirk, now we're all stuck with it. But even if they did offer him only a cameo, would his Great Big Head settle for that?
--------

GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!.... You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! -- William Shatner on Saturday Night Live (1986)
I thought that was The Cage. On Shatner, if they wanted him in, he'd be in. They don't. Enough already.
I thought that was The Cage. On Shatner, if they wanted him in, he'd be in. They don't. Enough already.