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

Features

Transcript and Video from Comic-Con Star Trek Panel Featuring J.J. Abrams, Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy

Features

By GustavoLeao / 07:55, 27 July 2007 / Star Trek: Nemesis

Trek Movie Report just posted the full transcript and a video about yesterday San Diego Comic-Con Star Trek XI (or simply "Star Trek") panel attended by producer/director J.J. Abrams, star Zachary Quinto and legendary Star Trek star Leonard Nimoy. Here is excerpts from the transcript.


Abrams opening remarks on franchise, script, and why he chose to direct:

"It is an amazing honor to be here talking about Star Trek. We go into production in November. [...] when I read the script I realized I was going to be so damn jealous of anyone directing this movie. It wasn't the movie because I drank the Kool-aid and loved Star Trek, it is because the script was great. It was because characters were amazing and it was alive and funny and scary and an adventure. I showed it to my wife who is the last person who would be into Trek and she read it and said ‘you should direct this movie.' So we went to Paramount and we said this is what we wanted to do and we are just honored to be here and do this. We are obviously a long way away...there is another comic con plus six months before the movie comes out."

Abrams on Shatner and new Kirk casting:

"The thing about casting Trek is how do you possibly top or even match the cast of The Original Series...and that is really where this film takes place. William Shatner...I have met him a number of times and he is the greatest. We are desperately trying to find a way to put him in this movie. The truth is: it needs to be worthy of him - it needs to be worthy of you - it needs to be worthy to the movie. We cannot just shove him in. It would be a disaster. You would hate it, he wouldn't like it...it would be bad. So we are on that. And we are looking for a Kirk, cause that's tough too. So Kirks?...any ideas for Kirks? We are taking Kirk names."


Quinto (on if his performance will be influenced by Nimoy)

"As much as he wants it to be I supposed. It is pretty incredible to be part of something so iconic and to be doing with the support and involvement of the man who created the role is a true honor. I certainly intend to bring my own spin on it and working with these guys I am sure we will find that. But it is really nice to know that he is behind it himself."

Nimoy on Quinto and Script

"People are asking me why I am doing this movie and think the answer is pretty simple. We have a great director and a wonderful actor playing the young Spock. The answer is that it was logical. By the way I should mention this is a fabulous script...this is going to be a great movie. And I mean that, I don't say these things lightly. It is a wonderful script and great team putting it together."

The full transcript can be found here.

A YouTube video featuring the Comic-Con panel can be found here.

UPDATE : A more detailed transcript is up at Star Trek.com.



More Top StoriesComments
Nov 22Exclusive Digital Content Now Available With New Star Trek Movie on iTunes
0
Nov 22Star Trek Online MMORPG Producer Talks Space Combat and Away Missions0
Nov 21Faran Tahir on His 10 Minutes as Captain Robau in J.J. Abrams Star Trek Movie2
Nov 21J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman on Shatner and Nimoy7
Nov 21Roberto Orci on the Status of the Star Trek XII Script and the Possibility of Producing a New Star Trek TV Series16
Story Archives...Browse:   

Talkback

27 comments Post New | Help
View:

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: SciFiPulse (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:59:16 on Jul 29, 2007

Quote:


When Bond was rebooted in Casino Royale, they dumped Q and Moneypenny but kept on Judi Dench as M. Why? Because she was never the problem with James Bond in the first place. On the contrary, she was always a strength, and why fix that which was never broken?


I tried to to call you on this one yesterday but the site seemed to be a tad unpredictable for me yesterday but as soon as we are being honest you better prepare to brace yourself and be educated.

As someone who has seen all 21 bond movies, and even read a few of the books including Casino Royale which was the very first bond novel. I feel it is my duty to point a few things out to you as to why exactly 'Q' and Moneypenny were not in the movie Casino Royale.

For a start it has absolutely nothing to do with the characters being what wrecked the bond movie franchise. What wrecked the movies was all the over the top gedgets as in invisable cars and stuff like that. Also what wrecked it was the over the top CGI sequence in 'Die Another Day' but more on that later.

The main reason 'Q' which stands for Quartermaster wasn't in the movie is because he wasn't in the book Casino Royale and neither was Moneypenny. They didn't introduce us to 'Q' til the second book which was Dr No and even then he only got a quick walk on to show Bond the safety features of his new PPK hand gun. Incidently Q's real name in the books was Major Boothroyde and he was based on a real person who Ian Flemming served with during the second world war when he worked for British intellegence.

Now you may or may not see Q in the next movie, but if you do I should imagine it would be in the same capacity as you have always seen him. Though the hardware will probably be less OTT.

What ruined Bond was the more outragious gadgets such as invisable cars and the like, that's what people had a problem with, not the Q and Moneypenny characters who were there for a bit of comic relief.

Another aspect that ruined bond was the heavy use of CGI in 'Die Another Day'. You know the part where he surfs along the avalance which is created by the satalite type weapon that lal has created. The sequence alone did a hell of a lot of damage to the credabillity of Bond.

You see in all the bond movies up until this point the stunts had always been REAL and performed by REAL people. Hence why Casino Royale went down so well because it brought that aspect of REAL STUNTS back to the movies and as such brought back the grittier aspects of the character.

Now I quite liked Daniel Craigs portrayal. In fact aside from Dalton in the 80s who was ok, Craigs Portrayal is closer to the Bond that you read about in the books. I re read Casino Royale before seeing the movie last year, and having done that I really appreciate Craigs portrayal all the more. The fact is in the Books Bond is a cold blooded killer. No passion, no quippy remark well perhaps a little one. He just goes in does the job and leaves.

As to Star Trek and Shatner. Well am not the worlds biggest Shatner fan either, but appreciate where his fans are coming from.

Am glad to have Nimoy back, and the thing I liked from the original show the most were Spock and Bones arguing. In my oppinion it was DeForest Kelly and Nimoy who were the two class actors on that show.

Though one of the things I do like about Shatner is his abillity to laugh at himself and involve people in that, which is why he won the emmy.

As to new Battlestar, am not even going to go there with you.

The only shows worthy of my attention at present are Lost and Heroes.

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top
RE: Let's be honest. by rico @ 13:22:29 on Jul 29

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: Shadow6283 (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:20:33 on Jul 29, 2007

Excuse me?

Shatner is Star Trek, no bloody A, B, C, OR D.

I could care less about Nimoy's involvement. I want my Captain back for one last ride. If Spock's there in sidekick mode, hey, so much the better.

Abrams may be polite, but he isn't crazy either. You can believe Shatner will be in that movie. If he isn't, I guarantee you, despite what you might want to think, that movie won't go anywhere after people trash it right out of the gate, just like that Berman Era turkey, Nemesis, only worse.

No Shatner?

Please.

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: Ensign Yo! (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:20:22 on Jul 29, 2007

Quote:
Iconic though his performance as Kirk was, he can't really act. We all love the character of Kirk, but Shatner's success in the role owes more to personality than craft. Certainly, you may point out his Emmy nominations and wins for "The Practice," but there he's essentially playing a thinly veiled parody of himself, and Emmy's really don't mean anything. (See the annual omissions of "The Wire" and "Battlestar Galactica.") The man is not talented.

Image

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: HotStove (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 01:54:01 on Jul 29, 2007

Quote:
Shatner does not belong in a Star Trek reboot. It's not only that he's let himself go, aging far worse than Nimoy - can you imagine mountain-climber Kirk putting on that much weight? - but that he represents a part of Star Trek best left in the past.

Sheesh, give the guy a break, he's 70+ years old! I think the Shat deserves an extra slice of cheese on his Whopper every now and then...!

--------

"Let's make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise."
Jean-Luc Picard, Yesterday's Enterprise

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 18:21:50 on Jul 27, 2007

Oh dear.

Gustavo

--------

TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor

gl2000@uol.com.br

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:32:40 on Jul 27, 2007

Like you say, it may well be that Shatner represents a part of Star Trek which, though beloved, is anachronistic and should be laid to rest. But offering your flip assessment that "he has no talent" is lazy and obviously meant to take the shortest route to offensiveness. Yes he may be Superintendent of the David Caruso School of Acting, but to reduce him as you have, to rob him of his Emmys and to declare NOW, forty years later, that the choices he made when portraying Kirk HURT Star Trek is disingenuous in the extreme. It worked for HIM and for the time, and it made an international icon out of him. Indeed there would be no Star Trek to reboot today without his contribution. In so far as Star Trek is Kirk and Spock, and Kirk is Shatner, Star Trek in many ways is Shatner. Honestly.

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top

RE: Let's be honest. | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:14:34 on Jul 27, 2007 | Edit History (1)

Quote from Wanderer01:
Off-screen, while Nimoy quietly dedicates himself to his photography, only occasionally condescending to an advertising gig, Shatner sells his persona as much as possible.


By such reckoning, George Takei can never be seen as a heterosexual conservative character, because of all his public appearances as a gay activist.

Verily, Shat should've stayed in his Shakespearean closet.

"To be, or not to be..."


----------------
Ubuntu Studio Review @ Performance PC

Image

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top
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.