This is from Empire magazine...

Fans around the world whooped for joy last week at news that the Star Trek franchise was being resuscitated with M:I:3 director JJ Abrams at the helm. News that it would adopt the long-mooted concept of Kirk and Spock's youthful adventures at Starfleet Academy provoked a more mixed reaction. Those who thought such a move sacrilege can rest easy though because, as Empire discovered in an interview today with Abrams himself, the story is nothing of the sort.

"The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation," says the director with a hint of regret. "People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumours of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate."

But the million dollar question is, what will it be about? Unsurprisingly, Abrams isn't saying ("We've made a pact not to discuss any specifics") but the Lost creator is a confirmed Original Series fan so don't be surprised if his take on the series does indeed take place around the era of Kirk and co, or if some of the established characters do make a reappearance. "Those characters are so spectacular. I just think that… you know, they could live again."

:cool: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :cool:

Could a STAR TREK movie, actors and ship, be made entirely in CGI?

Could a STAR TREK movie, actors and ship, be made entirely in CGI?
Of course. It's called animation.

Could it be done in a photo-realistic manner? Probably not yet.

Hmmmm. . . Toy Starry? Star Shrek?

I read about a new CGI program that's going to be used in the new X-men movie, it can "de-age" people, it can figure out what someone should have looked like 10, 20, etc years ago and change their appearence accordingly. It's supposed to have been developed for and used heavily in a scene showing Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellen's characters as young man.

So if it does work well, conceivably even Shatner could take the conn again!

I read about a new CGI program that's going to be used in the new X-men movie, it can "de-age" people, it can figure out what someone should have looked like 10, 20, etc years ago and change their appearence accordingly. It's supposed to have been developed for and used heavily in a scene showing Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellen's characters as young man.

So if it does work well, conceivably even Shatner could take the conn again!

Can't they just show the computer a picture from say... 10 or 20 years ago and it will know exactly how they looked instead of guessing?

I'm very glad the the academy story was just a rumor :) BUT I don't like the thought of other actors playing TOS parts.....OOOH, random thought, Maybe a Capt Sulu movie???

Brokeback Galaxy ?
hb

Maybe a Capt Sulu movie???I have never quite understood the enthusiasm among some fans for this idea -- especially now, given that Takei would be 70-something when it could be made. I've never seen anything he's done that would make me particularly confident he could "carry" a movie; maybe he could, but I've never seen evidence of it. And if they did try this, it would be perceived as nothing but a big joke by the public at large. That was true before his recent revelation, and (like it or not) it would be even more true now.

Qapla'

SSB

HEY ! i like George .
hb

I like George too but no one's going to make a $100 million starring him (and I thought the Voyager episode they did with him was terrible).

I saw Mission Impossible 3 last night and I am REALLY stoked about Abrams on Star Trek now. MI3 is the most fun I've had at an action movie in years.

Can't they just show the computer a picture from say... 10 or 20 years ago and it will know exactly how they looked instead of guessing?

According to Premiere it's "groundbreaking de-aging software", but it doesn't really go into detail though, I'd guess it's less work to alter an existing person digitally than making a whooly CGI creation from photographs.

Bet a lot of actresses are excited about it though!

I gotta say, after watching the first two seasons of Alias and Lost since the beginning, Abrams would probably make a great Trek show.

Tom Cruise has so weirded me out I couldn't care less about seeing MI3, even with Philip Seymour Hoffman, who usually does have an good eye for material. Not to mention MI2 REALLY was awfull.

Shatner could shed thirty years (and thirty pounds) if he'd lay off the beer. Of course, then he woudn't be Shatner.

But who needs Kirk? We've got - Denny Crane! He's a lot more fun! LOL!!

Huzz

Shatner could shed thirty years (and thirty pounds) if he'd lay off the beer. Of course, then he woudn't be Shatner.

But who needs Kirk? We've got - Denny Crane! He's a lot more fun! LOL!!

Huzz

AND... Denny is as quick on the trigger as Kirk was with a phaser....some things never change!

MI3 is the most fun I've had at an action movie in years.

I felt much the same way.

Abrams' involvement is the only reason I have any interest in seeing further big screen TREK adventures. He'll take the subject matter seriously without being lofty or heavy-handed.

Paramount's new management understands TREK is one of the studio's greatest assets -- one which was allowed to stagnate under the old regime. By placing Abrams in charge Paramount is sending a clear signal to the industry, to the fans, and to Wall Street that the days of entrusting its most important franchise to a bunch of brain-dead bean counters is over. For the first time since 1978 a TREK project is being treated as a priority by management. This doesn't mean the picture will be any good, but if Abrams can do for TREK what he's done for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE we're in for a treat.

Anybody see yesterday's IMDb's poll?

J.J. Abrams (Felicity, Alias, Lost, MI:3) has been hired to revitalize the Star Trek movie franchise -- what do you think he'll do in the new film to "Abrams"-ize it?

Votes

Create flashbacks for the lives of the Enterprise crew 2119 (19.2%)

Cast Greg Grunberg in a small role 1632 (14.8%)

Promise that he'll "shockingly" kill off cast members at his whim 1443 (13.1%)

Turn it into a vehicle for Tom Cruise 1208 (10.9%)

Cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain 1039 (9.4%)

Crash-land the Enterprise on a remote planet with no contact 1024 (9.3%)

Introduce a new recruit, Yeoman Felicity, who joins the crew because she has a secret crush on Kirk 859 (7.8%)

Lock Kirk and Spock in a mysterious hatch 501 (4.5%)

Constantly refer to the Klingons as "the Others" 493 (4.5%)

Send the Enterprise on a mysterious quest for the "Rambaldi device" 405 (3.7%)

Turn Uhura into a multiple-wig wearing secret agent who works with her father 214 (1.9%)

Make Dr. Bones "call me Jack" McCoy the nominal leader of the crew 98 (0.9%)

A total of 11035 votes were collected.

HEY ! i like George .
hb

Same here, I guess i'm in the minority opinion that I DO think Takei could carry a Trek movie, and not be a joke.

BTW I also think that if the 5th series WAS Excelsior, it would still be in production. And be in the top ten in the ratings.

Cast Greg Grunberg in a small roleThis one is probably a fairly safe bet. Grunberg has been Abrams' best friend since they were both in kindergarten, and I believe he has, in fact, had a role in every one of his projects, or at least those for which Abrams has had enough control to make it happen. Grunberg (Eric Weiss on Alias and the ill-fated pilot of Oceanic 815 on Lost) does have a small part in MI: III -- and one of the reports I heard makes me wonder if he is supposed to be Eric Weiss in the movie. And if anyone knows, I'd personally rather wait and see the movie to find out.

Qapla'

SSB

I DO think Takei could carry a Trek movie, and not be a joke.Maybe he could, but I believe it would be perceived as a joke.

Qapla'

SSB

BTW I also think that if the 5th series WAS Excelsior, it would still be in production. And be in the top ten in the ratings.


Except for the fact that the same idiots would have been in charge I'd agree with you. I believe that the actors on Enterprise were capable of sustaining a much better show, as Manny Coto was trying to do too late. B & B would have mucked up an Excelsior series just as bad.

/\/\/\ I agree. Casting was never an issue for me on the shows after TOS, it was the bad story telling I didn't like. For the most part, all the actors have been quite capable but the material they were given to work with was bad.

Amen.

Maybe a Capt Sulu movie???

:drunk: :rolleyes: :o :freak:

Saw this cartoon commentary on the Web and knew I had to share it! :jest:

http://www.multiplexcomic.com/

If the strip has moved on look for #55: That Would Be Illogical April 24, 2006

Glad that Kirk/Spock idea is false though! :roll:

-Leelan

It's not NECESSARILY false. Abrams is denying that because at this stage there IS NO STORY--the movie could be anything. We'll see what develops over the next few months.

... at this stage there IS NO STORY.

That's not quite accurate.

There is no screenplay, but there is a story treatment.

Bet a lot of actresses are excited about it though!

My guess is that some of us moviegoers will be too... :roll:

José

Okay, Carson--the story treatment! Or I'll never post all my photos of the 5 foot Proteus!

(sticking the neck way out)

1) Why does the story have to center on Kirk and Spock?

2) Why can't it center on the Enterprise herself?

3) Why not have current Enterprise captain for the movie be Captain April?

4) Why can't a young earthling and a Vulcan ambassators son be at Star Fleet the same place.

5) Kirk and Spock don't have to meet just have their lives intertwine with that of the USS Enterprise.

Okay, Carson--the story treatment! Or I'll never post all my photos of the 5 foot Proteus!

Ok, that's just plain cruel.

I haven't read the treatment yet, but I suspect the studio is going to make me sign my life away before I do. Much as I'd like to see those Proteus pix, they're not worth comitting career suicide over.

It may be just a coincidence but check this out from CNN, May 1, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/01/film.nerd.reut/index.html

"Star Trek XI: Revenge of the Nerds?" You've got to admit, it has a very marketable title.

Jim

I posted the following on another thread, but it probably bears repeating here...

I knew Tom Cruise had done a lot to damage his career lately, but I didn't realize how successful his efforts had been until I opened the trades this morning.

"M:I:3" received by far the best reviews the series has garnered to date, but its opening weekend fell far short of expectations. $48 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it ain't the $70 mil B.O. pundits had predicted and Viacom had banked on.

Cruise's problems he brought on himself, but this does not bode well for J.J. Abrams' TREK revival. Nor are things looking rosy for Brad Gray, Paramount's recently appointed chairman. Besides the embarrassment of being caught up in the Anthony Pellicano bugging scandal (the one that's about to send DIE HARD director John McTiernan to jail), Gray is under intense pressure from his bosses at Viacom to reverse Paramount's sagging fortunes. "M:I:3" was to spearhead that reversal, but the numbers are not encouraging.

Just as Jon Favreau's deal do direct "JOHN CARTER OF MARS" for Paramount went south following the failure of "ZATHURA", Abrams' plans to revive "STAR TREK" will most likely go up in smoke if "M:I:3" tanks. And while further TREK adventures are probably inevitable, it would be a shame IMO for the franchise to lose Abrams.

I'm not sure it looks THAT bad. Abrams is signing some incredible power-player deal with Disney and in that coverage they mentioned his deal to direct Star Trek. He seems to be the one player in MI3 (besides maybe Philip Seymour Hoffman) who came out smelling like a rose and his name still carries a lot more clout than Jon Favreau.

I'm not sure it looks THAT bad. Abrams is signing some incredible power-player deal with Disney and in that coverage they mentioned his deal to direct Star Trek.

Just to be clear, Abrams hasn't signed a deal with anyone... yet. Disney apparently regards him as someone with the creative wherewithal to fill the looming void in their live action unit (just as John Lassiter has done in their animation division). It remains to be seen if Paramount wants Abrams as badly as Disney, but the latter is unlikely to shell out a reported $100 million for Abrams only to let him go off and revive another studio's franchise.

The only reason I care about any of this is because I love TREK and believe Abrams would be the ideal candidate to resurrect it. One thing's for sure... wherever the guy lands he's going to be well compensated.

One thing's for sure... wherever the guy lands he's going to be well compensated.Yes, indeed. I just hope he doesn't move away from television work. It seems to me that TV is the ideal venue for the character development Abrams does so well at building into his creations.

I saw Mi:III and enjoyed it very much, but if it had been an Alias movie, where Sydney Bristow had married someone like Will Tippen (and he was still in the dark about Sydney's profession), I would have felt the jeopardy even more. Having watched Alias over the course of five years, I care about what happens to Sydney, Will, Vaughn, Dixon, Jack, Marshall, and even Sloane in a way that a two-hour movie with new characters just cannot match. Similarly, I found it exceeedingly sad last week when Hurley had to watch Libby die on Lost -- I've invested two years into Hurley, and as a result I like the guy and care about what happens to him. If I'd just met him an hour and a half before that scene, there's no way it would have meant as much.

I think it's just a limitation of the format, not the director, writers or actors.

Qapla'

SSB

I just hope he (Abrams -- CD) doesn't move away from television work.

I wouldn't worry about that; ABC (i.e. Disney) is going ahead with THREE J.J. Abrams projects for next fall.

Abrams' future as a feature film director remains up in the air, but given his track record on the small screen it's no surprise Disney would want to secure his exclusive services as a developer of creative material for both TV and feature projects. It's the kind of relationship Jerry Bruckhiemer has enjoyed with Disney, and it's made all of them a fortune. [/QUOTE]

Similarly, I found it exceeedingly sad last week when Hurley had to watch Libby die on Lost -- I've invested two years into Hurley, and as a result I like the guy and care about what happens to him. If I'd just met him an hour and a half before that scene, there's no way it would have meant as much.

Lately I've become an Abrams believer, so my concern is that his TV thing may fall to the wayside as studios pursue his services for feature films. Lost is an incredibly complex project that can easily turn into a complete mess at the hands of someone less competent or with a distracted Abrams.

José

What I've heard also is that the only reason the Trek project is happening at all is because Abrams wanted to do it--that with Paramount happy about how MI3 was going, they asked him what he'd like to do next and he said Star Trek. So hopefully this is something that he is highly motivated to do, and there are people like Damon Lindelof and Abrams pal Greg Grunberg already talking about their involvement with it.

Lately I've become an Abrams believer, so my concern is that his TV thing may fall to the wayside as studios pursue his services for feature films. Lost is an incredibly complex project that can easily turn into a complete mess at the hands of someone less competent or with a distracted Abrams.Actually, his direct hands-on involvement with Lost has been pretty slight since early in the first season, though I believe his approval is granted for what winds up on the air. He is quick to give credit to Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse for much of the show's success. Abrams did apparently have a large hand in shaping the overall mythology of the show, which we're slowly seeing play out, so it is right to give him some of the credit. But for the day-to-day stuff, my impression is that he was too busy shepherding Alias last season and making M:iIII to be as hands-on with Lost. I just wish he'd been able to direct the Alias finale ...

Qapla'

SSB

A couple of things to throw in the mix today ...

From tvguide.com comes this in the latest Ausiello Report:
At ABC's after party yesterday ... [SNIP] ... I ran into my good buddy JJ Abrams — he was on hand pushing his new drama Six Degrees — and I'm relieved to report that all the M:I:III hoopla hasn't gone to his head. He was the same old down-to-earth JJ. He told me that he spent the previous night hashing out the plot of the new Star Trek movie with fellow Lost creator Damon Lindelof, who's producing the flick. "I think it's going to be amazing," he shared. "I can't wait."So make of that what you will.

Second, I note with surprise that The DaVinci Code seems to be getting mostly negative reviews. It's at only 22 percent (!) on RottenTomatoes.com. A sampling of thumbs-down reactions drawn from that site:

"An oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material." -- Todd McCarthy, Variety.com

"Way too long and duller than watching Da Vinci's paint dry...takes away the book's little credibility and makes the flaws more obvious."-- Edward Douglas, COMINGSOON.NET

"A polished affair with moments of interest, but simply far too long, too talky and just not interesting or clever enough to engage let alone entertain." -- Garth Franklin, DARK HORIZONS

"The Da Vinci Code has its moments, but it's unforgivably dull in places and frequently both poorly directed and laughably silly." -- Matthew Turner, VIEWLONDON

"There's no code to decipher. Da Vinci is a dud -- a dreary, droning, dull-witted adaptation of Dan Brown's religioso detective story ..." -- Peter Travers, ROLLING STONE

"... a melodramatic, sometimes lifeless film that is missing the suspense of the popular novel." -- Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

"... The Da Vinci Code may be controversial and even heretical -- but worse, still, it's plodding, tedious, deathly dull." -- Steven Rea, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

"Retarded, ridiculous and crushingly dull." -- Devin Faraci, CHUD

"It’s not often that this thought comes to mind while watching a Tom Hanks movie. But in The Da Vinci Code, the actor is solidly miscast." -- Richard Horgan, FILMSTEW.COM

"Part conspiracy thriller, part religious epic, part family melodrama, but not satisfying on any level, this vastly disappointing film will frustrate viewers who know the book and will bore those who don't due to the rambling and confusing storytelling." -- Emanuel Levy, EMANUELLEVY.COM

Now, I don't always agree with critics, but I find that when the overwhelming majority of them take a similar stance on a film, it often means they're onto something. I don't particularly want this film to fail, but if public reaction is similar to what the critics say, it could extend M:i-III's stay near the top of the box office -- could it not?

Qapla'

SSB

I don't particularly want this film ("DaVinci Code" -- CD) to fail, but if public reaction is similar to what the critics say, it could extend M:i-III's stay near the top of the box office -- could it not?

THE DaVINCI CODE is a pop cultural phenomenon that has sparked a world-wide controversy. Given the hype, I'd be amazed if it didn't have a huge opening weekend. That said, bad word-of-mouth can cause a film's fortunes to decline real fast (just ask the producers of HULK).

For whatever reason, M:I-3 didn't open to the kind of numbers the studio was banking on. Thanks to strong word-of-mouth however the movie is really hanging in there, and should be able to hold it's own against the competition.

With regard to Abrams, there's an interesting little dance playing out in the entertainment press as his agents jockey to get him the best, most lucrative production deal they can. For example, by casually mentioning he's working on the STAR TREK plot for Paramount, Abrams is sending a not-so-subtle message to Disney that if the want him they're going to have to pay for him. I don't mean to suggest Abrams is being disingenuous with regard to his desire to helm the next TREK film, but it is far from being a done deal.

Update from earlier today: RottenTomatoes.com now has the "fresh" rating of The DaVinci Code at just 16 percent. Of 50 reviews they've noted, only eight are positive. Wow. I'm surprised. I figured that between Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, it was a sure bet.

Qapla'

SSB

To be honest, I thought Hanks was miscast. I know the appeal for him to play the leading role: he brings an "everyman" charm to an otherwise stoic, stiff academic character. Still, when I pictured Langdon, I didn't see Hanks.

José

To be honest, I thought Hanks was miscast. I know the appeal for him to play the leading role: he brings an "everyman" charm to an otherwise stoic, stiff academic character. Still, when I pictured Langdon, I didn't see Hanks.

JoséI agree 110%. I also used to look at RT.com, but being utterly bored in SoCal on many occasions, I went and watched a few of the poorly rated ones and didn't think they were that bad. I hope it's good!

In the book, Langdon was described as resembling Harrison Ford.

Update from earlier today: RottenTomatoes.com now has the "fresh" rating of The DaVinci Code at just 16 percent. Of 50 reviews they've noted, only eight are positive. Wow. I'm surprised. I figured that between Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, it was a sure bet.

I had a hunch this movie would be review-proof.

Over the weekend THE DAVINCI CODE brought in $224 million worldwide for the No. 2 kickoff weekend of all time ( M:I-3's worldwide B.O. total to date is $103 million).

I had a hunch this movie would be review-proof.So did I; I wonder how well it will do for here on out.

Qapla'

SSB

THE DAVINCI CODE brought in $224 million worldwide for the No. 2 kickoff weekend of all timeBehind Revenge of the Sith, correct? And I'm curious -- how does that line up with its expected performance?

Qapla'

SSB

Behind Revenge of the Sith, correct? And I'm curious -- how does that line up with its expected performance?

SITH still holds the three day record: $253 million.

The DaVINCI CODE numbers topped everyone's expectations, which I honestly didn't think was possible. After CINDERELLA MAN, Ron Howard must be a very happy man.