menuBarBack
Beam Up News | Join | Your Account
Home
Advanced Search
boxBottom
News Tribblets
boxBottom
Stardates Calendar
News Story

Features

Abrams Pal Greg Grunberg Attests Star Trek XI To Go Back in Time

Features

By TRexx / 03:42, 6 May 2006 / General Star Trek

Beam This Story to a Friend
Complete the form below to e-mail a link to this story to a friend.

Your Name:
Your E-Mail:
Your Friend's Name:
Your Friend's E-Mail:
Subject:
Message (optional):

Fans of the Alias and Felicity television series should recognize actor Greg Grunberg, who has appeared in numerous onscreen venues directed or written by J.J. Abrams -- including an uncredited scene in Lost, and a cameo in Mission: Impossible 3. Grunberg also made an appearance in The Dead Zone, created by the late Michael Piller.

"Greg, who's my oldest friend since kindergarten, is someone who -- I love working with Greg. He's my good luck charm," hearts J.J. at Zap2It.

The betting odds are in favor of Grunberg gearing up to flesh out the cast of Star Trek XI, an enterprise that has already extracted his exhilaration: "I hope [J.J.] gives me a great role in that," enthuses Grunberg. "I would love it" (story).

Officially, Paramount is saying that the Daily Variety (story) jumped the gun and announced the Trek deal a bit too early, reports IESB. "Before J.J. gets on the phone, journalists are warned not to ask about Star Trek." Undaunted, our peripatetic pen-pals at IESB caught Grunberg at the 2006 Saturn Awards, where their Q&A wormholed from NBC pilot Heroes to ST:XI...

IESB: So, if [Abrams] calls and says he wants you in Star Trek...

Grunberg: I have to see... check my schedule. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?! I'd love to be in that movie.

IESB: Here's a question: Are you a Star Trek fan, originally?

GG: I'm not a Star Trek fanatic, but I sure... I enjoy the series. I mean, you know, I enjoy the show.

IESB: So, you wouldn't object to recasting Kirk and Spock, like that rumor was saying, going around?

GG: Well, they have to -- we're going back in time. I think it's like the beginnings, it's when they were young, so they're going to have to. I just think it's interesting: J.J., you know, here he is, he took the Mission Impossible franchise and humanized it -- and I think he's going to do the same thing, you know, for Star Trek, certainly. And he's writing with Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci], I mean, they all wrote Mission together. It's going to be incredible. You know it's going to be great. I think that's what's going to reinvigorate -- you know, the Star Trek fans are gonna go see it; half of them are going to hate the fact that they're bringing them back, and half are going to love it. But, J.J.'s just going to bring in a whole new audience, you know, to it.

See this exclusive video interview with Greg Grunberg at IESB.net


J.J. Abrams' Saturn Award-winning Lost - The Complete First Season DVD is on sale now in the U.S.A., Canada, United Kingdom, and Deutschland.

 



More Top StoriesComments
Nov 24Cover and Info for Star Trek Movie Adaptation Comic Book2
Nov 24Scott Bakula on Why He Played the Role of Captain Archer in Enterprise6
Nov 24Leonard Nimoy Talks About Star Trek XII and (Not) Watching New Movie with Shatner0
Nov 23J.J. Abrams and Chris Pine Talk How Gratifying That Star Trek was Well Received, Working with Leonard Nimoy and Star Trek XII4
Nov 23Chuck returns to NBC with a special two-hour show on Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, before returning to its regular time slot, Mondays at 8pm on the following night. It's return to prime time television can be attributed to a successful fan renewnal campaign last year. CHUCK is a one-hour, action-comedy series that follows Chuck Bartowski (Zachary Levi, "Less Than Perfect") -- a computer geek who is catapulted into a new career as the government's most vital secret agent. This upcoming season will include some special guest stars, including Brandon Routh of "Superman Returns" who will play CIA agent Daniel Shaw in an episode, and the addition of SUBWAY restaurant as a major advertiser to the show. Chuck averaged a 4.0/6 rating last season, about eight percent better than the recently cancelled "Trauma". Ratings-challenged Heroes moves back an hour when Chuck returns on Monday nights. STAR TREK VOYAGER's Robert Duncan McNeill serves Chuck as a supervising producer and director.0
Story Archives...Browse:   

Talkback

22 comments Post New | Help
View:

Once Again, Trek Plays "Lets copy Star Wars" | Report this post to moderator
By: Bizarro_Batman (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:46:59 on May 09, 2006 | Edit History (1)

I'm one of the biggest TOS fans here, and I don't like this idea. My disgust doesn't stem from the whole "Nobody should play Kirk or Spock other than Shatner and Nimoy" outcry (although I sure as hell don't like the possibility of Ben Afflect as a young Jim Kirk), nor the "This will end up being 90210/Dawson's Creek in space" complaints by fans (although they do have a point).

My indifference is towards Paramount wanting to do a prequel dealing with already famously established characters when they were young in an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. The prequel idea didn't work the first time when Rick Berman and Brannon Braga did it, and I can't help but shake my head that now.....NOW PARAMOUNT PICTURES WANTS TO USE HARVE BENNETT'S ORIGINAL PITCH FOR A STARFLEET ACADEMY MOVIE STARRING THE TOS CREW AS CADETS. Now that Lucas' Star Wars Prequels have proven to be a financial gold mine, now they pull out Bennett's old outlined proposal and dust it off. Why? Because they want to play it safe. They could have taken the initiative back in the early 90's when the idea was fresh, original, and creative. And instead of trying something freash and original this time, they fall back to "the sure thing."

Wow.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
  • RE: Once Again, Trek Plays Lets copy Star Wars | Report this post to moderator
    By: Bizarro_Batman (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:00:58 on May 09, 2006

    Quote:
    I'm one of the biggest TOS fans here, and I don't like this idea. My disgust doesn't stem from the whole "Nobody should play Kirk or Spock other than Shatner and Nimoy" outcry (although I sure as hell don't like the possibility of Ben Afflect as a young Jim Kirk), nor the "This will end up being 90210/Dawson's Creek in space" complaints by fans (although they do have a point).

    My indifference is towards Paramount wanting to do a prequel dealing with already famously established characters when they were young in an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. The prequel idea didn't work the first time when Rick Berman and Brannon Braga did it, and I can't help but shake my head that now.....NOW PARAMOUNT PICTURES WANTS TO USE HARVE BENNETT'S ORIGINAL PITCH FOR A STARFLEET ACADEMY MOVIE STARRING THE TOS CREW AS CADETS. Now that Lucas' Star Wars Prequels have proven to be a financial gold mine, now they pull out Bennett's old outlined proposal and dust it off. Why? Because they want to play it safe. They could have taken the initiative back in the early 90's when the idea was fresh, original, and creative. And instead of trying something freash and original this time, they fall back to "the sure thing."

    Wow.


    Reply
    Reply
    Quote
    Quote

J.J.'s stock | Report this post to moderator
By: vyger (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 21:19:59 on May 06, 2006 | Edit History (1)

Abrams's stock just went up ten points. I saw MI3 tonight, and I left very happy with spending my 9 bucks. Bring on STXI

--------

"I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence."
George W. Bush, 2000

Get busy living, or get busy dying.
Scott's Journal


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote

Prequelize it and they're riffing on Star Trek: New Voyages | Report this post to moderator
By: Michael X. Maelstrom (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 16:57:26 on May 06, 2006


Unless you want to inject the possibility that he was lying or answering through his hat, it looks like he just let slip a confirmation that they're re-casting the seminal Trek roles.

If anyone wants to see for themselves whether re-casting Spock, Kirk and McCoy can be done effectively (or if you prefer, what your personal reaction is to _an_ re-casting) visit www.newvoyages.com and download an ep.

As an Trekkie, I would 'ave to say, that ST:NV displays (to me) that it can be done, in that it was able to surmount my apprehension _against_ an re-casting.

Introspectively, it works primarily because it meets 3 criteria.

1. it's very respectful of the original TOS

2. the (re)cast members are unknowns.

3. It captures the look'n'feel of TOS down to recreations of original sets.

While 3 is not necessary for a new Trek movie, in that an TOS early-years movie need only 'look'n'feel' contextually like TOS (we've seen some excellent art posted here on Trekweb where uniforms look consistent with pre-TOS/post-Naval)

Myself, I would submit that criteria 1 is absolutely essential, and criteria 2 is preferable.

Abrams has vocalized his respect for the original series (and fans) so assuming he's not engaging in a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity, that's one down.

I'm now 'opeful.

Michael X.


--------

Image
--------
Image Michael X. Maelstrom, The Avante Guardian, Tag. Image
--------
M o n t r e a l, Q u e b e c, C a n a d a, E a r t h, S o m e t i m e s.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote

Caution & Hope | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:17:26 on May 06, 2006

First, I don't think we should get in too much of a hissy over the "humanize" comment. He was just speaking off the cuff and I think the real point he was trying to make is that Abrams' Trek will be (still be) character driven. I think from their perspective they want to stave off the notion that this is an effort to take a precious pop icon and turn it into mindless Hollywood junk...again.

It's a lofty, noble goal to resurrect a dead cultural phenomenon in a way that is both popular with today's audiences and respectful of its soul. It's also very hard. Whether they can achieve it of course is way up in the air. But at least they seem to be taking the task seriously for once. As fans, we are right to be cautious, but AS FANS we must be open to new ideas. It's hard to believe now, but some old-timers still can't accept a crew other than the originals manning a ship named Enterprise. TWOK was originally decried by fans as well. The list of misplaced trekkie outrages would reach from San Francisco to Alpha Centauri. But we're dead in the water here people. It's either evolve or die. We should all thank God that someone somewhere had enough sense to rescue our beloved Star Trek from the reaper's clutches in this, her eleventh hour (sniffle). For the first time in 10 years--maybe longer--there's a real sense of hope that Star Trek could finally be realized on the big screen in the way we've always known it could be.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote

Interesting | Report this post to moderator
By: Hunter (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:09:28 on May 06, 2006

Either this guy is being told to say things that lead everyone off the real plot track for XI or he just got caught off-guard here and had no idea what to say. I mean, this director is going to "humanize" Star Trek? It was one of the most cerebral and humanized shows on TV! It seems more likely that Mr. Abrams is going to bring gratuitous explosions and special effects to the franchise.

I still think they are shooting for a new Star Trek audience. They know we (the long-time fans) are all going to come out and see this movie out of curiosity, but I think the big goal is to get a younger generation hooked.

This all should prove interesting but ultimately, if a Kirk character is in the movie and it's not William Shatner...well, it just doesn't seem right.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
  • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
    By: Son of Baba (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:44:53 on May 06, 2006

    This guy sounds like he has no idea what he is talking about. For him to say that Trek needs a new audience and that it needs to be humanized tells me he has probably never sat down to watch very many episodes. What a jerk.

    --------

    "Bean has intercourse with his mother"


    Reply
    Reply
    Quote
    Quote
  • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
    By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 11:37:26 on May 06, 2006

    Could they find actors who resembled Shatner and Nimoy and were good enough to capture their rapport and personalities? Would the audience be willing to accept them? Would the idea meet the same kind of "How dare you go against my preconceptions?" resistance that ENT got? Would a general audience expecting modern, high-tech looking designs find 2250s-era Starfleet turtlenecks and gooseneck viewers rather cheesy-looking? I'm not talking about my own opinions, but about the audience perceptions and reactions that might be faced.

    Gustavo

    --------

    TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor

    gl2000@uol.com.br


    Reply
    Reply
    Quote
    Quote
    • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
      By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:30:23 on May 06, 2006

      I don't think we'll have to worry about gooseneck viewers. Or miniskirts and gogo boots for that matter--unless they're planing to make it retro-chic, which I doubt. We'll all just have to find a way to live with the continuity improbabilities like we did with Klingon foreheads. Or Vulcanians to Vulcans. Or Space Central to Starfleet Command. Etc. Etc. If the movie's good enough, no one will care.

      The rest of your questions are good ones. That will be part of the challenge! It's high stakes poker from here on.


      Reply
      Reply
      Quote
      Quote
      • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
        By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:22:48 on May 06, 2006

        Quote from c.p. to GustavoLeao:
        If the movie's good enough, no one will care.


        You're absolutely right.

        ENT didn't get booed and hissed out of existence because of its clothing or furniture, nor even by misplaced audience preconceptions -- ENT collapsed under incompetent storytelling.

        I'm not the same person today that I was when I was just 17 or 20, so I don't expect young Kirk and Spock to be everything they came to be by the time they serve together aboard NCC-1701. In TOS "Shore Leave," for example, we're shown how much Kirk had changed since his Academy days, when he's confronted by a spunky young Finnegan. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before," Mitchell talks about their Academy shenanigans, and Kirks says "I wasn't that bad, was I?" Gene Roddenberry et al are telling us that the Kirk we see as Captain isn't the Kirk in Starfleet Academy.

        Star Trek is now light-years ahead of where it was under Rick Berman, yet fans who have a myopic agenda will continue to grumble.


        --------------
        Trek Tek Classic 2-in-1 Phaser (Electronic)
        Image


        Reply
        Reply
        Quote
        Quote
        • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
          By: Son of Baba (Odo's file, contact) @ 02:24:51 on May 07, 2006

          Actually everything from DS9 on down lost viewers. Enterprise would not have done well no matter what.....no one wanted to watch it. Ever since DS9 hit the TV Trek has seen a slow steady viewership decline. DS9 viewership was down from TNG, Voyager viewer ship was doen from DS9, and Enterprise viewership was down....way down....from Voyager. Sure you can say how many fans tuned in for the Enterprise launch but they quickly left. It was not just the horrid story telling. It was the acting and the fact that Trek had declined to a point where no one cared. We talk about going back to the roots of Trek. People say to do that we need a TOS re-boot.....sorry but that wont work. Why? Hey lets try a space station....hey lets try a ship lost in space....hey lets try re-booting Star Trek with a whole new ship and a whole new crew we have ever heard of. We already had a re-boot people and it didnt work....sorry. Rather then keep trying to make new things why not focus on whats established.....Picard and Crew....hey I know I say this all the time but they still carry more weight with fans casual and moderate viewers then DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise combine.

          We say if its done right it will work.....hey it might be a good movie but just because its made right does not mean people will go and see it.

          --------

          "Bean has intercourse with his mother"


          Reply
          Reply
          Quote
          Quote
          • Star Trek as Pop-Cult Phenomenon | Report this post to moderator
            By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:59:52 on May 07, 2006 | Edit History (1)

            Quote from joey_d1119:
            It was the acting and the fact that Trek had declined to a point where no one cared.


            The relative success of New Voyages is evidence of how subpar acting can be overlooked by fans, in favor of integrity toward the subject. Abrams claims no intention of subverting the material (quote).

            Thirteen million viewers "cared" to tune in for the premiere of ENT, which underdog UPN had promoted as a prequel. It's what viewers were then dished, onscreen, that caused them to leave. People generally don't flee from a good thing.

            The Nemesis flop effectively sealed the big-screen coffin for Picard and crew, who are also now long in the tooth.

            Yet, Star Trek remains a pop-cult phenomenon: It's part of our casual jargon and recreation; it's the topic of University courses on philosophy and religion. It's a timless force that rides the classic elements from TOS, not TNG or other "modern" Trek.

            Paramount has done everything right since canceling ENT. Now they've appointed a creative (Abrams) who's renowned as a character-oriented storyteller with humor and humanity, to produce a feature film that utilizes the franchise's big-gun icons: Kirk and Spock, the real McCoys.

            If this and a solid story can't sell tickets to Star Trek XI, nothing will.


            --------------
            Johnny Lightning Legends of Star Trek Series 3
            Image


            Reply
            Reply
            Quote
            Quote
            • RE: Star Trek as Pop-Cult Phenomenon | Report this post to moderator
              By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:55:04 on May 08, 2006

              Well said. As I think about it more and more, going back to the original characters with young actors playing them is really the only sensible move to make. It's the only way to move forward with the franchise, by attracting a new generation and reconnecting to the old. It also may be the only way to make a movie that is self-perpetuating. It's a NEW beginning not the last--no no this one's REALLY the last--adventure of one of the established ensembles.

              Believe me, this is all hard for me to announce. It's hard to even entertain the idea of someone other than Shatner playing Kirk. It seems sac religious to even say, which is why it's critical that great artistry and creativity be used in doing it. But my initial uncomfortableness is probably a sign that it's a good idea for the franchise. Trek's gotten so incestuous and so tired over it's long, long life that it hardly appeals to anyone but those who can remember back when it was good. Trek needs fresh talent, behind AND in front of the camera. All the old adventures will still be there for us to relish forever.


              Reply
              Reply
              Quote
              Quote
  • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
    By: The Imagemaster (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:13:45 on May 06, 2006

    "IESB: So, you wouldn't object to recasting Kirk and Spock, like that rumor was saying, going around?

    GG: Well, they have to -- we're going back in time. I think it's like the beginnings, it's when they were young, so they're going to have to. I just think it's interesting: J.J., you know, here he is, he took the Mission Impossible franchise and humanized it --and I think he's going to do the same thing, you know, for Star Trek, certainly. And he's writing with Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci], I mean, they all wrote Mission together. It's going to be incredible. You know it's going to be great. I think that's what's going to reinvigorate -- you know, the Star Trek fans are gonna go see it; half of them are going to hate the fact that they're bringing them back, and half are going to love it. But, J.J.'s just going to bring in a whole new audience, you know, to it."

    GAG!!! GAG!!! GAG!!!

    Won't pay 2 cents to see this. They'd better hope this is just disinformation...

    Again...GAG!!! BLEECH!!!!

    This is going to be Paramount's way of taking a gun and shooting the "golden goose" square in the head!

    Stupid...

    IM


    Reply
    Reply
    Quote
    Quote
  • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
    By: Keoki (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:42:23 on May 06, 2006 | Edit History (1)

    I have never seen Lost or Alias, but I knew they were popular, so I was guardedly optimistic when I learned that Abrams had been chosen for Trek XI. Now that I've seen MI:3, however, I can only hope it's nothing like that disaster. Ridiculous plot, terrible pacing, awful acting - this kind of "humanization" Trek can do without!

    --------

    Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price


    Reply
    Reply
    Quote
    Quote
    • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
      By: Osnard (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:34:55 on May 06, 2006

      Well M:I 3 is a summber blockbuster-action movie (and produced by the film's star) so that dicataes a lot of the explosions (it's no coindicence that the first film, the best, did not feature Ethan Hurt firing a single shot). Everybody is so high about Abrams, but people need to take a trip back to 1979: Star Trek: TMP was the only film directed by an established Hollywood director, and one of the highest order: Robert Wise. His resume at that point is certainly more impressive than Abrams: the sci-fi thriller The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Sand Pebbles, etc. But that pedigree didn't stop TMP from being a flawed (albeit interesting) picture. And you're right, Trek was plenty "humanized," at least when Roddenberry, Piller, and Behr were pulling the strings.

      --------

      "I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books."






      -Bill Maher




      Reply
      Reply
      Quote
      Quote
      • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
        By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 14:08:22 on May 06, 2006

        Again, I disagree. TMP is not a "flawed" picture. It is a great movie, a different type of Star Trek movie, cerebral and epic, very Roddenberry-ish. A much better movie than the recent TNG movies, such as Insurrection and Nemesis.

        Gustavo

        --------

        TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor

        gl2000@uol.com.br


        Reply
        Reply
        Quote
        Quote
      • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
        By: Keoki (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:18:07 on May 06, 2006

        Yeah, I much preferred the first MI, where the explosive climax was shocking. In the later films, there are so many explosions that they lose any effect. Also, the second one made Ethan Hunt into some invincible James Bond figure, and if I want that I'll watch... James Bond. For me the appeal of MI was always the team working together to outwit opponents, not outfight them. Oh well, enough of my ranting.

        --------

        Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price


        Reply
        Reply
        Quote
        Quote
        • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
          By: Osnard (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:44:01 on May 06, 2006

          I recently re-watched the second in preparation to seeing the third today. The slo-mo stuff and the mutliple-angle money shots of Tom in all his glory haven't aged well. While it's nowhere as good as the original, there's enough action to make it watchable. I suspect the third film will fit somewhere in-between the other two in terms of quality.

          --------

          "I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books."






          -Bill Maher




          Reply
          Reply
          Quote
          Quote
          • RE: Interesting | Report this post to moderator
            By: Keoki (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:53:48 on May 06, 2006

            Quote:
            I suspect the third film will fit somewhere in-between the other two in terms of quality.

            I would agree with that - the plot was basically taken from the first film, minus the mole hunt, while the forced love story and insane stunts were definitely from the second. Probably the only good thing I could say about the third is that I liked it better than the second.

            --------

            Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price


            Reply
            Reply
            Quote
            Quote
Promenade










TrekWeb Merchants
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.ca
Amazon.de
Barnes & Noble

Get Firefox!
Privacy Policy | About Us | Legal Notice | Contact Us | | Get Firefox!
© 1996-2009 TrekWeb.com and Steve Krutzler. All rights reserved.