Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Granted, it isn't Star Trek, but that may end up being a good thing in the long run for Paramount. They took the franchise as far as they could with their previous casts and it was time for a new direction. You may not care for the direction, but it's the biggest box office draw for a Star Trek film yet, so "the people" are against you

Agreed. I dont view this new film the same way that I view the other films. I just view it for what it is and I found it to be very solid.

I am curious who the next Trek actor they try to find a way to place in the film. It would be awesome if they used a character like Sisko.


But then again maybe not. Nevertheless, I would like to see DS9 get some big screen love.

[DenonCI]

DS9, while the best Star Trek show (IMO), doesn't have enough of a following to have a big screen debut.

[Jeff Kleist]

It's not really comperable since this film had about 10x the marketing of any previous Trek film, got to play the Kirk/Spock nostalgia card, and a $200 million budget (the other movies were $20-70 million budgets). That goes a long way toward stoking interest. Plus this was the first time a Trek film was heavily marketed in many major international territories. For example, Voyager is hugely popular in Europe, despite the fact it's goddawful because it was the first Trek to air on first run television in many countries.

So lacking an even playing field, it's impossible to make valid comparisons. The question to be asked is this:

"Would making a proper, faithful and accurate Star Trek film with the same level of marketing and talent support have generated LESS money"?

The answer is that there would likely be very little difference in the take. You can have your cake and eat it too. That's why the Beeb is raking it in on Doctor Who. They made it modern, they hired good writers, and great casts, and kept it Doctor Who. TNG went into the future. New Ship, new crew, but it was Star Trek for the 80s. Sure there will always be the unreachable 5%, but if you satisfy the other 95 you're gold.

I think you'd have a hard time gettin Avery Brooks back in a Sisko suit let alone anything else.

[spartanstew]

It's discussions like this that make me glad I'm not a geek. I watch movies on their own merit, not to look for inconsistencies or issues regarding other fictionalized works.

Reminds me of my dad who's a gun dealer. Can't watch any time period movies with him, because all he does is talk about the fact that the guns they're using weren't invented for 10 years after the movie supposedly takes place.

I just watch movies to enjoy them. I don't care how many decks a ship is supposed to have (based on a previous fictional movie) or if there's inconsistencies based on those same movies. They could have made Spock a romulan and I wouldn't have cared as long as I thought the movie was good as a standalone entity.

[FourToedStatue]

I think it always depends. I am very happy They rebooted Batman rather than keep 3 and 4 in continuity. Same with Casino Royale. On the other hand I loved that Superman Returns was a sequel rather than a remake of Superman 1. I am a big Trek fan and I was at first disappointed to hear Abrams was rebooting it but the butterfly effect plot device sold me on it and assumed most Trekkies would.

[Jeff Kleist]

It's discussions like this that make me glad I'm not a geek. I watch movies on their own merit, not to look for inconsistencies or issues regarding other fictionalized works.

It's not another fictionalized work. It's claiming to represent the same work. That's the difference. As long as you're going to call it "Star Trek", it needs to be Star Trek,Otherwise go off and do your own thing, which JJ Abrahms and crew have demonstrated time and again they are more than capable of succeeding at.

Wars have been fought over interpretation of stories that the people who hear them find holy and important. While I would hope we've grown beyond killing each other over it, the creative process should remain holy, and the original creator the final word whether it be Battlefield Earth or Citizen Kane. And that's where I'm going to leave it. Anyone who wants it further rewind 5 months.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

It's not another fictionalized work. It's claiming to represent the same work. That's the difference. As long as you're going to call it "Star Trek", it needs to be Star Trek,Otherwise go off and do your own thing, which JJ Abrahms and crew have demonstrated time and again they are more than capable of succeeding at.

Wars have been fought over interpretation of stories that the people who hear them find holy and important. While I would hope we've grown beyond killing each other over it, the creative process should remain holy, and the original creator the final word whether it be Battlefield Earth or Citizen Kane. And that's where I'm going to leave it. Anyone who wants it further rewind 5 months.

Jeff,

I'd assume that Roddenberry's son and other heirs get a piece of the action on this film, right? I wonder how they feel about it?

[DenonCI]

Man I love Google: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/hero...las-vegas.html

"I began very apprehensive. Someone new was coming in, and they were gonna do my dad’s “Star Trek.” And they even put a commercial out saying, “This is not your father’s ‘Star Trek.’” Which concerned me for two reasons. My love, my respect for my father. What that name means to fans, and the fans’ expectations. I really wanted to make sure they were protected. A lot of them look to the Roddenberrys to make sure this doesn’t go down the wrong road. So, scared, apprehensive. But I’m also not a problem starter, so I wasn’t going to go stomping my feet and knocking on doors and saying, “You’d better do this right.” Uh, when I sat in the theater and saw it, I have to say I was blown away. Bottom line, I was very impressed, very happy. J.J. and [Alex] Kurtzman and [Roberto] Orci, the two writers, did a fantastic job. I think they’re a great team. I’m guessing that Kurtzman and Orci, being fans of “Star Trek,” kept it true to the philosophy, kept it true to the time line and they were able to take their own time line to make changes. And J.J. made it a roller-coaster ride for everyone to enjoy. They brought it out of the old and into the new. They made “Star Trek” cool again."

I guess I just answered my own question. Jeff, maybe if you could prove you were a "love child" of Gene's, you could file a formal protest (I hope you know I'm kidding and this is all in jest...sometimes the typed word can be taken litterally.)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

It's not another fictionalized work. It's claiming to represent the same work. That's the difference. As long as you're going to call it "Star Trek", it needs to be Star Trek,Otherwise go off and do your own thing, which JJ Abrahms and crew have demonstrated time and again they are more than capable of succeeding at.

Still not sure why you don't think it's not Star Trek.

For one thing ST:TMP & STII:TWOK had wildly different tone and looks.

TOS & TNG are also wildly different, yet they're both TREK.

[Jeff Kleist]

TNG was created by Gene Roddenberry
TMP was supervised by Gene Roddenberry
TWOK does not violate any continuity that came before aside from the the minor Chekov issue

I've already explained all this. Everything was addressed back in May

being fans of “Star Trek,” kept it true to the philosophy, kept it true to the time line and they were able to take their own time line to make changes.

He contradicts himself. You can't be true to the time line and make your own. Pick one.
How is it true to Gene Roddenberry's philosophy to make Starfleet a military operation as the Abrahms film specifically states, and Gene specifically forbade?

Eugene Roddenberry is no more authorized than I am to make creative decisions on Trek, because he is not his father. Listen to his commentary on Earth Final Conflict some time, and you'll see why you shouldn't consider giving him that kind of power on anything He sure sounds like a wonderful, passionate guy, but I never got the impression that he inherited his father's talents

[Cinema Squid]

Jeff,

I was wondering about this a bit recently and hopefully it's not too off-the-wall or impertinent, but what is your perspective on the value of continuing to review DVDs at this point in time?

Clearly there are still a large number of titles that will show up on DVD that will not have a BD equivalent and this will hold for some time to come, so the exercise certainly has merit in those cases. However, for new day-and-date cross-format titles, the exercise of producing an A/V quality evaluation of a DVD seems to me entirely pointless given that the BD is guaranteed to outshine the DVD in every respect and thus anyone who cares about quality at all will be looking to the BD review and not be the least bit concerned about the DVD.

Maybe I am living too much in the world of "if it's not on Blu-ray it doesn't exist" most days, so I am curious as to your perspective on this given your long-standing and well-established readership, some of whom may still be in the process of transition.

[Jeff Kleist]

I think there's plenty of value in reviewing DVD, when that's all that's available. If it's cross-platform then my default would always be the Blu-ray

I don't remember if Bill ever put up my My Best Friend is a Vampire review. That disc was a grand dissapointment. Waiting 12 years for the thing and it's 4:3, obviously sourced form the same tape that they wore out on Comedy Central in the 90s, coupled with a trivia track that gives you multiple choice questions.

At least the movie is still awesome, and better than my decade old EP VHS tape

Reviewing DVD within to confines of what the format is capable of is still fine. but when there's a companion, the review should be blu.

[NL197]

Why are there "fans" who are arrogant to decide what is and what isn't "Star Trek"? As if anyone has that kind of authority to decide what is, what isn't, and who makes for a true fan?

A whole universe built on this idea of tolerating and embracing diversity, as long as no one does anything diverse with that universe. Deep Space Nine falls into this just as much as the new movie in the eyes of many "fans". Count some of the TOS actors and even the late Majel Barrett among those who looked down on DS9.

Under a lot of those fans who have a specific view of what Trek is, I am not considered a true fan of Star Trek since I don't give a damn about TOS. Never did, but I loved the TOS movies. The new movie has helped to make me give a damn about it and I'll actually be checking it out as it airs locally. If it gets people like me who aren't considered true fans to actually watch that show, then that must be a successful movie beyond its box office take.

[NL197]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

How is it true to Gene Roddenberry's philosophy to make Starfleet a military operation as the Abrahms film specifically states, and Gene specifically forbade?

and Nick Meyer initially brought into what Starfleet is with Wrath of Khan, so it goes far beyond Abrams' film. That film has direct homages to Wrath Oh Khan in it, even down to the 'loading the cannons' scene.

[MerrickG]

And there are people like me who think that DS9 was the best Trek series.

[GORT]

Jeff /Bill with the new V series out do you know if the original will find it's way to blu anytime soon.

[Jeff Kleist]

I find the ratings encouraging for that to happen, but soon would be defined as whenever season 2 would start at the earliest, assuming the show survives. There was an HD transfer done for the DVD, but that's probably not aged well (and I shudder thinking about the airbrush smoke trail in HD )

I like it personally, it's a modernized version of V, and it certainly looks like all the important bits are firmly in place. I don't understand the need for all the gender changes however, isn't the girl getting pregnant with the alien baby more horrific than a boy helping to make one? The mostly new characters that parallel the archetypes in the original. I just wish they hadn't felt they needed to move so FAST with it.

I've exchanged a bunch of emails with Kenneth Johnson after reading the script, and he seemed satisfied with the hands it's in, though he still wants to bring it to the big screen. He also didn't rule out writing some scripts or otherwise getting involved with it down the road (though I wouldn't say that's a statement of intent either)

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The mostly new characters that parallel the archetypes in the original. I just wish they hadn't felt they needed to move so FAST with it.

I agree 100% with the speed of the premiere. I've never seen the original V series, but from watching the new one I hope to see it one day on Blu. Unfortunately I feel like they spilled almost everything in the very first episode of V, there wasn't any building up to them being aliens hiding under skin or anything. I feel almost like I was gyped with not being able to have it seem innocent for longer and then build up over a few more episodes.

I would have loved to see it all unfold over a few more episodes so it's more of a shock to me to find out what they truly are. I guess though they assumed most people watching it knew the original series.

[DenonCI]

V's on my TiVo and I just haven't had time to watch it yet. I'll let 3 or 4 episodes get loaded up and then give it a chance. I really liked the original.

Merrick...I'm with you...as a whole, DS9 is the best Trek series, although I've always enjoyed TNG.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well that might be all there is. They finished 4 episodes then ABC stopped production. If they keep doing well, I'd say we're sure to get the back 9. It's whether people still care 4 months later (march) that's the question

Anyone remember when this strategy almost sunk Lost?