This reported today on IMDb.com (http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-01-11/#film3) :

Director J.J. Abrams has confirmed that the script for Star Trek XI has been completed, that it will concern Capt. Kirk and Spock as very young men, that shooting will begin this year, and that the movie is targeted for release in 2008. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Abrams said that the story will satisfy even non-Trekkers. "On the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying, '' he told the magazine. ''For people who've never seen it or know it vaguely, I think they will enjoy it equally, because the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek. I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind."

I'd still bet real money that Matt Damon won't be playing Kirk, though.

This reported today on IMDb.com (http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-01-11/#film3) :

<Snippage>''For people who've never seen it or know it vaguely,</Snippage>What, all three people on the planet? Who hasn't heard of ST?? Dont'now if this bode well. When you try and satisfy everyone, usually no one is happy.Still looking forward to it though.

Looking forward to it. Abrams has hooked me with Lost and I am very interested to see his take on Trek.

Kirk and SPOCK as young men? Spock is like 80 in TOS, so now he's 60.

I'll give it a chance, though I still wished Paramount would've given that drained cash cow a rest. Hopefully in a few decades it manages to replenish itself.

I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind.Oh, sure. They want audience members that don't realize that Shatner and Nimoy are the only actors that can properly portray Kirk and Spock, and that anyone else will be woefully inadequate.

Kirk and SPOCK as young men? Spock is like 80 in TOS, so now he's 60.

Your brain has been poisoned by that Enterprise crap with T'Pol being in her 60s. Spock is only a few years older than Kirk. Kirk was 34 as of "The Deadly Years." Spock was maybe 37. Just because Vulcans CAN be older doesn't mean they SHOULD be older.

Matt Damon already way too old to play a "younger Kirk."

I think anybody that saw MI 3 should have no problems believing JJ Abrams might bring & wring something interesting from the Trek franchise. I'm just as sure the fanboys will be predicting doom & gloom till it actually opens.

Oh, sure. They want audience members that don't realize that Shatner and Nimoy are the only actors that can properly portray Kirk and Spock, and that anyone else will be woefully inadequate.

Right ...and only Basil Rathbone could play Holmes. Give the new boys a chance, they might be as surprisingly strong as Jeremy Brett's or as deeply vulnerable as Nicol Williamson's interpretations of Holmes. A good actor will find the truth in the character, even if it's JT Kirk.

Had Jeff Hunter been available, Shat would still be that guy who was in a few Twilight Zone episodes in between his gigs as a waiter. Same thing for Nimoy. His lucky day was when Martin Landau turned down the part.

Shanter is not Kirk. Kirk is a character he played on a 1960's Sci-fi TV show. Even Shatner has moved on. We should too.

Given my preference: Ian McKellen as Richard III, but that doesn't mean Larry Olivier's performance was anything like weak. The world is full of actors, some are even skilled/tallented. There's got to be some schmuck who can play Kirk as well as Bill Shatner.

John O.

Spock can't be as old as 80 in TOS - viz how young his human mother is.

Your brain has been poisoned by that Enterprise crap with T'Pol being in her 60s. Spock is only a few years older than Kirk. Kirk was 34 as of "The Deadly Years." Spock was maybe 37. Just because Vulcans CAN be older doesn't mean they SHOULD be older.

OK. Who has the animated series on DVD or tape? If I remember correctly, the episode where Spock travels back in time to save his younger self ("Yesteryear"?) gives his exact age. I know TAS isn't considered canon, but that episode was written by D.C. Fontana and it has been referenced in the other series.

And for those who claim that Spock is in his 80's. So you're assuming that in "Journey to Babel" his mother was over 100 years old?

OK. So you're assuming that in "Journey to Babel" his mother was over 100 years old?

Two Words. Time Travel.

I guess you guys are right. I always took it as a given that he was old. But his mother makes that logically impossible.

I personally am looking forward to it, but am worried since none of the usual trek directors and stuff are working on it. Will it still be in star trek style?

Another thing, I think I remember on G4 that he DENIED it being about kirk and spock. I think, that with it being still a year or two away, that we all wait until much closer to the release to make conclusions. There have been so many rumors, whats to say that this isnt another one?

I dont get the whole early kirk/spock idea. I would much rather them try to build up to the Enterprise J, do an Enterprise movie, or cover "The Lost Years" of Enterprise B and C. Thoughts anyone?

Oh, sure. They want audience members that don't realize that Shatner and Nimoy are the only actors that can properly portray Kirk and Spock, and that anyone else will be woefully inadequate.Right ...and only Basil Rathbone could play Holmes. Give the new boys a chance, they might be as surprisingly strong as Jeremy Brett's or as deeply vulnerable as Nicol Williamson's interpretations of Holmes. A good actor will find the truth in the character, even if it's JT Kirk.

Had Jeff Hunter been available, Shat would still be that guy who was in a few Twilight Zone episodes in between his gigs as a waiter. Same thing for Nimoy. His lucky day was when Martin Landau turned down the part.

Shanter is not Kirk. Kirk is a character he played on a 1960's Sci-fi TV show. Even Shatner has moved on. We should too.

Given my preference: Ian McKellen as Richard III, but that doesn't mean Larry Olivier's performance was anything like weak. The world is full of actors, some are even skilled/tallented. There's got to be some schmuck who can play Kirk as well as Bill Shatner.

John O.Valid points. However, as you've pointed out, certain television and/or film characters are very closely associated with the actor who portrayed them. The Frankenstein monster evokes thoughts of Boris Karloff or Glenn Strange; the word "Dracula" brings Bela Lugosi to mind. Even in your example--most moviegoers who appreciate classic films still think of Basil Rathbone whenever Sherlock Holmes is mentioned, though other actors have portrayed the legendary detective.

Have other actors portrayed those characters and done a respectable job of it? Yes. But they offered a different version of the characters we all know. Shatner and Nimoy are not Kirk and Spock, to be sure, but Kirk and Spock are Shatner and Nimoy. Each of those actors have helped to create characters that have certain traits--physical, mental, emotional, verbal--that make those characters who they are, traits that can only be imitated. Other actors/schmucks can play these characters, but they won't be the Kirk and Spock we've all known for the last 40 years.

I hope Paramount has learned from their past mistakes (though I'm highly doubtful) and that this film leads to other Trek films. I just don't see the need to re-invent these characters.

I think the main difference between characters like Kirk and Spock and those like Sherlock Holmes is that Holmes existed as an established, fully-fleshed out character before Rathbone played him. Kirk and Spock were essentially co-created by Shatner and Nimoy. If you look at the early episodes of TOS, the characters are very different than what they developed into. Some of this is of course just the evolution of the show, discovering what worked and what didn't, but part of it is the actors inserting their own personalities into the characters.

I'd still bet real money that Matt Damon won't be playing Kirk, though.

I'll take that bet.

Seriously.

I'll take that bet.

Seriously.
Is that just an educated guess, or do you have some inside information?

Maybe Kirk and Spock are Time Lords (Dr. Who) that can regenerate their bodies. Or maybe they are Trills and have just taken on new hosts (Shatner and Nimoy) by the time of TOS.

...the script for Star Trek XI...will concern Capt. Kirk and Spock as very young men...
Ask me if I would give a dead sewer rats backside, for Wesley Crusher and Friends: The Motion Picture. :rolleyes:

Is that just an educated guess, or do you have some inside information?

Sorry, I'm not in the habbit of tipping my hand.

So how much ya' wanna bet?

Sorry, I'm not in the habbit of tipping my hand.

So how much ya' wanna bet?
Considering that you've demonstrated insider access to the film industry (not to mention that you take your screen name from a movie filled with deception and false identities), I think I'll pass.

Curses, foiled again!

A deal between Damon/ Abrams/ Paramount is by no means a sure thing, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. All parties involved have (via an ongoing campaign of strategically placed quotes in the trades) signaled their desire to work together on this project.

My educated guess is that if the suits at Damon's agency can come to terms with the suits at Paramount over numbers and scheduling the role of Kirk will go to Damon. Deservedly so, IMO.

But hey, it's still early in the game, and anything can happen.

Maybe they can get Ben Affleck for Spock!

Justin Timberlake *IS* James Tiberius Kirk!
Ashton Kutcher *IS* Spock!
Oh yeah. That'd be fun to watch.

Ask me if I would give a dead sewer rats backside, for Wesley Crusher and Friends: The Motion Picture. :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAH!!!! rofl!!! TEE HEE HEE HA HA HA HO!!!

Maybe they can get Ben Affleck for Spock!

Poor Ben.

The last actor who had to withstand this kind of public ridicule was William Shatner back in the T.J. Hooker days.

Look who's laughing now. ;)

Ask me if I would give a dead sewer rats backside, for Wesley Crusher and Friends: The Motion Picture. :rolleyes:
Let's watch the language, folks - even if you're quoting someone. I'm no prude, but Hank's made it pretty clear in the past and, if need be, I'll start giving a Time Out.

So please, no adult language....

I hope they are smart enough to use unknown actors. Using already famous or over famous actors who can only play themselves (like Ben and Matt--that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it) will ruin any chance of believability.

At what point is this film going to take place?.I figure sometime before Where No Man has Gone before.Wouldn't it be a nice to have this film taking place at the time showing Captain Kirk taking over the Captaincy of the Famed Original USS Enterprise.That's when Kirk and Spock should have met.This film may show a different variation of that though.The exterior of the Enterprise should be as it was in WNMHGB.The bridge should appear as it did at the time of Where No Man too.To be accurate,They shouldn't have McCoy on board yet.Any clues as to what the story is that they have written,Guy S.

I hope they are smart enough to use unknown actors. Using already famous or over famous actors who can only play themselves (like Ben and Matt--that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it) will ruin any chance of believability.


Believability for whom?

Not that I have an issue with casting "unknowns" in the leads, but I think it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of those who line up to see the next Trek feature will never have seen a single episode of the original series.

As for Matt Damon's allegedly limited acting chops, I can only conclude you haven't seen The Talented Mr. Ripley, Syriana, or The Departed.

I mean, go see The Good Shepherd (a really good flick, btw) and tell me that's Matt Damon "playing himself."

Jeez, you guys are as bad as the "Daniel Craig Will Destroy the Bond Franchise" crowd.

I personally am looking forward to it, but am worried since none of the usual trek directors and stuff are working on it. Will it still be in star trek style?

Another thing, I think I remember on G4 that he DENIED it being about kirk and spock. I think, that with it being still a year or two away, that we all wait until much closer to the release to make conclusions. There have been so many rumors, whats to say that this isnt another one?

I dont get the whole early kirk/spock idea. I would much rather them try to build up to the Enterprise J, do an Enterprise movie, or cover "The Lost Years" of Enterprise B and C. Thoughts anyone?

I agree, that we should move forward ,not back. So far I'm not impressed with the story idea. I know nothing about Abram's work, but ST needs to move on, not back!

In terms of casting stars vs unknowns, I think using stars is the smart way to go. If they go with unknowns, then most people will look at it as a cheap knock-off made solely for the show's nerdy fans. Cast stars and it will look like a real movie. Look at SERENITY. Do you think it would have done as badly at the boxoffice if it had starred someone people had actually heard of?

I'd like to see an all new crew and ship specifically for feature films and in the current-well, for them, time line. Not a before this or that type story. I doubt that will be the case though. Having said that however, after recently watching MI:III, I've absolutely no doubts as to what J.J. Abrams is capable of doing with the project, even if it is a prequel of sorts. Whether you're a Tom Cruise fan or not (and I happen to be!), MI:III was kick ass! If he can bring that sort of energy and life to a stagnant Trek and liberate the franchise of some of it's washboard stiff characters, I'm all for it.

A breath of fresh air is exactly what Trek needs. Look what it did for Bond. So long as he doesn't totally rewrite everything about the series, I'm sure most of us will be pleased. Besides, no slam against Mr. Abrams, but the Trek series can't get any worse than it's been recently.

The thing about Bond or Batman was that they needed rebooting. The Original Series was perfectly fine however. If they wanted to redo TNG or Enterprise I would say go for it!
But the odds are they won't get the script right. Remember Young Sherlock Holmes? Young Butch and Sundance? Young Dumb and Dumber?

I'll add my 2 cents worth. As long as the story is good, the acting is good, and the effects are good. A Star Trek series or movie will always be welcomed, especially if a good model comes out of it.

Re-tooling or re-booting Star Trek may not necessarily be a good thing as in the Bond movies. Some of the Bond movies were really sorry. When they introduced Jaws, who bit people's neck without a drop of blood showing is really stretching the imagination. What kept Bond movies going in my opinion were the good things that they kept focusing on.

Independent bond
travel to exotic places
beautiful Bond girls
Lots of Action with a very generous helping of good luck on Bond's part
Good use of the 007 stage for climatic scenes

After Connery left the series, the most realistic and believable movie for me was George Lazenby in "Her Majesty's Secret Service". Just pure action, no outer space, submarine cars, unbelievable falls/landings, ships with opening bows, etc. Just pure action to get Blofeld.

Justin Timberlake *IS* James Tiberius Kirk!
Ashton Kutcher *IS* Spock!
Oh yeah. That'd be fun to watch.

That's pretty much how the New Voyages fan series looks! :lol:

This reported today on IMDb.com (http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-01-11/#film3) :

[I]Director J.J. Abrams has confirmed that the script for Star Trek XI has been completed, that it will concern Capt. Kirk and Spock as very young men,
And if true then this movie is already crap.

Yeah, just like Casino Royale.

:rolleyes: :o

Paramount owns Star Trek and thats enough to give me cause for concern since their track record is much less than impressive. I have zero confidence in them hiring the right people in any situation.

And for the record I loathe the MI films so invoking Abbrams' name mean nothing to me.

I freely admit that for me Star Trek is done and it would be a miracle in the extreme to see a new Star Trek project that I'd actually like. My tastes and preferences too often diverge from the current mainstream.

Well, there's hope. As far as I know, B & B are not involved.

Believability for whom?

Not that I have an issue with casting "unknowns" in the leads, but I think it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of those who line up to see the next Trek feature will never have seen a single episode of the original series.

As for Matt Damon's allegedly limited acting chops, I can only conclude you haven't seen The Talented Mr. Ripley, Syriana, or The Departed.

I mean, go see The Good Shepherd (a really good flick, btw) and tell me that's Matt Damon "playing himself."

Jeez, you guys are as bad as the "Daniel Craig Will Destroy the Bond Franchise" crowd.
Yea verily, Brother Rob! Doom & Gloom! Dooooom aaannndd Glooooom!

I'll prolly get rotten fruit thrown at me and kicked while I'm down, but I actually thought that Mr. Damon did a great job in the two Bourne movies. I had no problems buying his character was presented in the movie. And you definitely have it with The Talented Mr. Ripley. I'd also throw his portrayal of Linus Caldwell from the Ocean's Eleven and Ocean's Twelve in there for the believabilty factor, as well. I think he's one of those actor's who isn't give as good a range of roles as he can perform, tho.

I didn't care for the movie "The Brothers Grymm", but found it at least a somewhat humorous romp. As long as I wasn't looking for good acting and a coherent story, it wasn't at all bad. :)

In terms of casting stars vs unknowns, I think using stars is the smart way to go. If they go with unknowns, then most people will look at it as a cheap knock-off made solely for the show's nerdy fans. Cast stars and it will look like a real movie. Look at SERENITY. Do you think it would have done as badly at the boxoffice if it had starred someone people had actually heard of?Serenity (or Firefly, for that matter) could have had big name stars and it still would have failed because nobody knew what it was supposed to be, and the trailer didn't help. For the most part, only fans of Firefly went to see this film and, admittedly, that was a reasonably small fan-base simply because of the way FOX sabotaged the TV series. Everyone I've shown episodes to (from the dvd box set) has thoroughly enjoyed the show, though most had never even heard of it.

I think Star Trek's biggest problem at the moment (aside from Paramount, that is) is over-saturation. Since the late 70's we've had ten theatrical films and four television series. We haven't had time to miss it and/or wish they'd revive it because they keep ramming it down our throats. Paramount needs to stop milking this cash cow and allow us fans the time to forget about how inferior the last few films and series have been so that we can actually look forward to seeing Star Trek again rather than walking into the theater wondering how bad it's gonna be this time.

I think Star Trek's biggest problem at the moment (aside from Paramount, that is) is over-saturation. Since the late 70's we've had ten theatrical films and four television series. We haven't had time to miss it and/or wish they'd revive it because they keep ramming it down our throats. Paramount needs to stop milking this cash cow and allow us fans the time to forget about how inferior the last few films and series have been so that we can actually look forward to seeing Star Trek again rather than walking into the theater wondering how bad it's gonna be this time.

Absolutely correct!

The doom-and-gloomers already hate it, simply because it's revisiting/recasting much beloved characters. I will wait and see.

And for the record I loathe the MI films so invoking Abbrams' name mean nothing to me.


Judging Abrams on the Misiion Impossible films should mean nothing to anybody. Abram's was only involved with the third film, and not with the first two. The important point is MI3 was universally considered a huge improvement over the first two, and might have invigorated the franchise if Tom Cruise hadn't chose to be such a putz shortly before the film's opening.

Abrams is also the guy behind Alias and Lost.

Justin Timberlake *IS* James Tiberius Kirk!
Ashton Kutcher *IS* Spock!
Oh yeah. That'd be fun to watch.

Shoot em now! Shoot em now! - Bugs

I agree, that Paramount will keep cranking out Star Trek, so as to keep up its visibility. Like it or not, it's a business now. But, it is one that is particularly receptive to fan input.

One thing I'd like to see in the movies, is something from the original series period. Another Constitution-class starship, with a whole different crew. None of this younger-anyone silliness; but consistent with the shows spirit, and details.

Personally, I'd stay away from ships whose particulars we know. You could still have the ship come to a bad end, and eliminate the possibility of this cast coming back.

If only paramount was shoving Trek model kits down our throats as fast as they are movies and shows!

Gee, some of you are really rude. The actors list is not even out, the script is not even written and the schooting has not even started that for some of you the XI movie is already scrap. It's totally true that for 2 decades we've had an ST overdose (series after series + movies) but you can decide NOT to watch them. And it's impossible to have an overall fan satisfaction, IMPOSSIBLE. The same goes for Spiderman, Batman, Hulk and Superman resurrection. The producers simply aim at the largest crowd possible, not the hard core ''know everything'' fans (but it seems that they do listen to the big fans). So let's give them a chance and wait 'til 2008 when the movie will be out. I remember very clearly when they were talking about Batman begins. We saw what can be done to give electro shocks to a series. Let's wait and see.................

Steph

I'm intrigued with what this Abrams kid has in mind. Who is to say that the characters of Kirk and Spock did not know each other prior to the original series' time frame?

The idea that Kirk served on the Republic and the Farragut about the same time that Spock was serving with Pike aboard the Enterprise does not negate the possibility of a friendship having been struck between the two prior to those assignments, considering that they are so close to the same age.

Besides, if the story ends up being the first mission of Kirk in command of the Enterprise, it's one that has not been told on screen before, and I would look forward to seeing it.

Besides, if the story ends up being the first mission of Kirk in command of the Enterprise, it's one that has not been told on screen before, and I would look forward to seeing it.I'd be far more interested in seeing a film about Kirk and Spock's first mission together than a film about them at the Academy; it seems more reasonable from a "Star Trek history" standpoint, and it would lend itself to a much more exciting film.