'Star Trek XI' No Reboot Says Abrams

TrekToday · November 19 2008, 05:33 AM

Star Trek XI is a "re-introduction," not a reboot, says J.J. Abrams.

As reported by Seenit.co.uk, the goal of Abrams was to "re-introduce these characters in a different way." Abrams insisted that "They are the characters from the original 'Star Trek.'" He added that Star Trek XI was "not a complete re-imagining...I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else."

As Abrams has said in previous interviews, he wanted to reach out to potential new fans. "I think the idea was really to show this movie as an origin story and be as connected to reality as possible," he said, "not just this inside joke that people who have seen the other ten movies will get."

Abrams explained why the trailer was set up the way it was. "I wanted to begin the trailer in a way that was earthbound and fun, relatable and real, and not necessarily 'Star Trek' at all," he said. "Just something that was curious. And hopefully draw people in not because of the spaceship flying across the camera but because there’s this young boy crashing a classic car with a futuristic cop pulling him over. All you have to be is a fan of movies, of action, adventure, comedy, romance, and you'll like this movie."

Like Roddenberry, Abrams thinks that Star Trek is optimistic and hopeful. "I feel like the thing about 'Star Trek,' which is kind of a relief in a way, is that it completely embraces optimism. It is undeniably, just intrinsically, the very root of optimism," said Abrams. "That humans will not only survive but actually thrive and collaborate with other species. The notion of the final frontier in space exploration is so silly and clichéd in so many people's minds, but when you actually stop to consider that 'Star Trek' is, whilst a fantasy, our future."

To read more, head to the article located here.

Captain Robert April · November 19 2008, 06:26 AM

Cue Penn Jilette:

BULLSHIT!

A lobotomized goose can see this is nothing BUT a reboot, from stem to stern.

James Bond · November 19 2008, 06:30 AM

Captain Robert April wrote:

Cue Penn Jilette:

BULLSHIT!

A lobotomized goose can see this is nothing BUT a reboot, from stem to stern.

I'll take what the word of the guy who actually made the movie over what some whiny fanboy on a Star Trek internet message board thinks any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Star Treks · November 19 2008, 07:25 AM

I guess it all depends on the definition of "reboot".

I for one plan to enjoy it immensely, and after the fact find some way to reconcile everything in it with my own personal canon.

JoeRalat · November 19 2008, 07:35 AM

Like I have said in another thread, I will wait a week to two after it opens and read all the spoilers. If I see that it not true what he says and its a reboot. then he is not getting my money. People have to face fact...you show very little and hype up the movie so people will go see it..At the end of the day is all about making money. Once you paid, they got you. If the movie is bad...then too bad.. we got your money. That was a studio os about. Damn look at transformers..you can tell me that was a well written movie or the acting was good. The effects was SUPER SWEEEEET! But the movie sucked soooo bad, but what happen..they trick tons of people to go see it. They got your money and a lot of it..and you know what..Transformers2.

I am with cool effects..I love them, but I a well written movie too..its that too much to ask. That is why I say wait a week or two and if you are ok with spoilers then read them and ask people who did go and pay money about it..If it sould good then go pay and see it...if not then let then hear your voice and not pay them...

Ok my rant is now over.. now is time for bed...

Captain Fine · November 19 2008, 07:57 AM

I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else.

He must be reading this board, because some here have said basically this.

nx1701g · November 19 2008, 08:20 AM

JoeRalat wrote:

Once you paid, they got you. If the movie is bad...then too bad.. we got your money.

Actually, not many people know this, if you dislike a movie you can demand your money back and legally they have to return it to you. When Resident Evil: Extinction came out there was a woman in the theatre who absolutely hated the movie. She stayed through to the end credits and left very angry. When I left the theatre they were refunding her her money for the film ticket. I asked her about it when she left and she basically told anyone who would listen that they would return your money if you complained about it, but you couldn't leave the theatre before making the demand. If you left then there was nothing that could be done.

ByrdMan · November 19 2008, 08:45 AM

^Depends on the theater. Back in my movie theater days, our policy was to only allow refunds if the person left before the half-way point of the movie. Anyone else was SOL.

Python Trek · November 19 2008, 09:50 AM

When I worked at a pizza joint as a kid, we had a policy: If you hate the first slice, you get the money back, but if you sit there and eat damn near the whole pie, we ain't giving you a refund.

The only times that I ever really wanted my money back at the theater was when (a) the projector broke down and ate 10 minutes of the film, and (b) another time when three little kids cried and screamed through the entire film, and the owners refused to toss them and their parents out.

RJDiogenes · November 19 2008, 10:49 AM

This is the sort of thing I find encouraging.

JoeRalat wrote:

People have to face fact...you show very little and hype up the movie so people will go see it..At the end of the day is all about making money. Once you paid, they got you. If the movie is bad...then too bad.. we got your money.

Any movie like this, especially one with such an inflated budget, is going to depend on repeat business and strong DVD sales. And they've already committed to a sequel. If they "trick" us, we won't go back and they will lose money.

Hardin · November 19 2008, 11:17 AM

this is marginally comforting. Not the part about the reboot, I don't care if it's a reboot or not, but the part about Trek being a hopeful and optimistic vision of the future. That's Star Trek to me, the utopia. And that's the thing I couldn't stand see taken away from it. So, here's hoping JJ really means it and won't sacrifice it.

Procutus · November 19 2008, 11:34 AM

Star Treks wrote:

I for one plan to enjoy it immensely, and after the fact find some way to reconcile everything in it with my own personal canon.

That's a good way to look at it, and I intend to do much the same. I know there's going to be big changes, but knowing that going in, I think I can enjoy it nonetheless.

RJDiogenes · November 19 2008, 11:57 AM

Hardin wrote:

this is marginally comforting. Not the part about the reboot, I don't care if it's a reboot or not, but the part about Trek being a hopeful and optimistic vision of the future. That's Star Trek to me, the utopia. And that's the thing I couldn't stand see taken away from it. So, here's hoping JJ really means it and won't sacrifice it.

Very much agreed, although I also care about the Reboot part.

Mr. Adventure · November 19 2008, 02:17 PM

I think Abrams should include the word silly in some way in every interview.

Kpnuts · November 19 2008, 02:22 PM

James Bond wrote:

Captain Robert April wrote:

Cue Penn Jilette:

BULLSHIT!

A lobotomized goose can see this is nothing BUT a reboot, from stem to stern.

I'll take what the word of the guy who actually made the movie over what some whiny fanboy on a Star Trek internet message board thinks any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Brilliant, nicely said