Erik Jendressen's script

Why I "think" Berman was placed there has nothing to do with the discussion. You have no idea under what circumstances Berman was hired any more than nearly anyone else who posts here.

Fine. That's your opinion. We don't know about any "directive" that was handed out to Abrams and you have yet to even prove that there is one. If Abrams goes on record saying "Paramount wanted x,y, z" that's one thing. Berman certainly said as much during the production of some of his films. For all we know Paramount gave Abrams the keys and let him drive the Jag. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, but you're not Paramount and you are presenting opinions as fact.

That's very different from what said in your previous post, but at least what you said has been documented by reputable sources.

You aren't in the "Business." You write a sci-fi blog. The fact that any of these people would even talk to you about any inside info is a testament to your success with your endeavours, but don't kid yourself.

Again..a very solid opinion, but as far as we've been told Abrams stint at the helm is a one shot and it's success will indicate whether or not more films get made in the immediate future. According to all sources, Paramount had no immediate plans to trot out any more Trek, until Abrams pitched his idea and that pitch was part of his deal to produce other films for Paramount.

[/QUOTE]

And even with your blustering about how important you think you are there still is nothing to suggest that the directive you insist on even exists.

 

The quotes from the post seem to be messed up, so I apologize for not quoting and responding.

I don't know what any of the other people's backgrounds are that post on this board, so I can't compare conclusively what my knowledge is versus everyone else.

All I can say is that based on the people I talk to on a somewhat regular basis at Paramount that is the case. Take it or leave it, it doesn't bother me. I am simply here like everyone else sharing my insight and the little bit that I know (or have been told). If being snarky about it entertains you, go for it. I'm all for snarky!

I discussed Berman's involvement at the beginning of Trek as more of a counter to what you implied was J.J. Abrams getting a blank slate and carte blanche to do what he likes on Star Trek. If I misread your implication, please forgive me. I did infer that from your statement of "J.J. Abrams signed his picture deal with the provision that he would get to make his Trek movie."

And just as an aside, I don't have the time to look it up, so I might be wrong, but I don't remember any reports out there that tied Abrams' current picture deal with Paramount to Star Trek or involving Star Trek. But maybe it's something I forgot about.

I think stating opinion is what the message boards are about, isn't it?

I made a statement. Take it or leave it. I am not reporting here right now. I am being friendly and sharing some insight. I see you taking every single detail I shared about "Star Trek: The Beginning" as if it were gospel, without question and without having to prove anything. Yet a throwaway line where I stated there was a directive that goes contrary to your belief (no matter where it is based) that Abrams is the world's No. 1 Star Trek fan, and he's so powerful that he can create anything he wants, is wrong.

If Paramount was willing to give someone carte blanche, why are they accepting and rejecting scripts then? They had their "dream team" together two years ago with the likes of Jendresen and several others, but even they didn't get carte blanche.

And I like J.J. and all, but the only real commercial success he has had has been in television. He is still quite unproven when it comes to movies (see: Mission: Impossible III), so I would be utterly shocked if Paramount was going to give him the same freedoms they would give to someone like a Steven Spielberg (who, by the way, is probably the only director Paramount uses that can do whatever he wants).

You talked about J.J.'s studio contract -- something I have never seen -- would you care to share more details about it? Or is this "proving" thing and discussing opinions and insights as if they're fact only go one way?

Oh, I see. So, you're all about it not being real until Paramount brands it as real. Not sure why you're hanging around news sites like this then ... you can be completely satisfied reading the Paramount press release wire.

Care to share some examples? If Rick Berman was so upfront about things when he was running the franchise ... then why is he writing a book being billed as a "tell-all"? Haven't we already been told all?

Maybe he did. No one has ever reflected that much to me from Paramount, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

But I highly, highly, highly doubt it. That might be a fan's dream, but it's not how business -- especially Hollywood business -- works.

Am I? Might it be because it IS fact?

I'm sorry ... in what way? I just looked back at my previous post (I assume you are talking about this one: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8004266#Post8004266) but I don't see anything that contradicts what you quoted above. Could you please elaborate? Thanks!

Well, I don't know how you define "business" in Number6-Land, but in my world, "business" is defined as an action which generates income.

SyFy Portal is owned by an incorporated entity. We have advertising revenue that generates decent flows of income into said business. To me, that would qualify as a business. I certainly don't do the site for my health.

Hate to hear what your opinion is of TrekToday. I would count them as a news site "in the business," but then again, that's how I look at us.

Told by who?

Oh that's right, because Paramount conditionally looking at expanding the franchise into future films isn't the same as Paramount looking to possibly expand the franchise into a long-term concept.

All? I'm sorry, you just spent this entire post trying to deride not only me but my "blog" as you call it ... yet you are providing absolute quantities? "All" means there are zero others ... can you show me how you came to that conclusion, because that would state not only a fact, but a fact that cannot be disputed.

I might just run a "blog," but in journalism, we would consider that a big no-no.

I am curious to who "all" these sources are. And like I said above, I can't remember when Abrams signed his new development deal, and I have not seen the development deal, so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it.

But since I don't want to leave you hanging, I found out that Abrams signed his deal both with Paramount and Warner Bros. in June 2006. In Wikipedia's listing of the information, it cites as its source CTV:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st...b=Entertainment

Nothing there indicates any Trek connection at all. Wouldn't that automatically discount "all sources," or is CTV not a source?

But who knows. Maybe Wikipedia is wrong. I mean, they also say that Abrams was announced as part of the Trek movie team in April 2006, three months before he signed a new production deal with Paramount, which would make your statements of Abrams saying "This is my movie, and I want it my way" as part of the deal to be unlikely.

Nor is there anything to suggest that I am "blustering about how important" I am.

If you want to be rude, go somewhere else. There were some questions in this thread dating back a month or so, and since I was the main reporter covering that incarnation of Star Trek and armed with answers to questions, I came here.

But if me adding to the discussion is going to be met with rudeness, then I won't bother to do it again.

There is one thing to question information I provide. I was fine with that. What I am NOT fine with is personally attacking me ("blustering" about my importance? Referring to our news operation as a "sci-fi blog"?) That was not needed.

 

[/QUOTE]

These were your replies to me simply asking for proof of your statements.

If you had responded without the 'tude, I may have had a nice conversation with you.
If anyone started off snarky it was you.

As far as Trek Today, Trek Movie and other Trek related sites, They seem to be getting all getting their facts the same way you do, by talking to people, attending press conferences and repeating bits of information published elsewhere. Do I consider them part of "The Biz??" They are independent websites, not "news organizations," which now you are claiming to be.

After your Trekunited witch hunt, and your continued sensationalized commentary and exaggerated article headlines (i.e.,"Braga admits he screwed up big time"), I am sure you could earn a great living writing for the Sun or possibly Fox News, but right now you write a blog on a sci-fi website. Ever wonder why?

I wish you continued success with your website. Having read your work, we'll just have to agree to disagree on your definition of "journalism."

 

Tons of Thanks for that, I had not read any of these details on the story. Have you read the script? How did you get the story details?

 

These were your replies to me simply asking for proof of your statements.

If you had responded without the 'tude, I may have had a nice conversation with you.
If anyone started off snarky it was you.

[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, you are never at fault, are you?

And please show me where I got personal with you? Where I attacked you, or the things that you did. I'm waiting. Because what you are implying is that I "deserved" to get those personal attacks ... yet, I'm not seeing how that works.

And you are the authority to make those decisions how? Because you post on a board and attack people who wander by trying to help answer questions in a thread?

The entire BASIS of being a "news organization" is by doing EXACTLY what you describe above. What are your credentials to make such determinations?

In my "real-life" job as I like to call it, I talk to people, attend press conferences, repeat bits of information published elsewhere. Yet, I think if you referred to the corporation and news organization I work for as not being a "news organization," then you have some serious issues.

The true essence of "reporting" is exactly what you described above, and doing it in an organized group setting -- just like SyFy Portal does with its staff of a dozen people -- would be considered a "news organization."

I have been a journalist long before I did side work on the Web like SyFy Portal. I would hope that I have enough experience to be able to tell the difference between what is a news operation and what isn't.

Well, that answers a lot of questions then. I was wondering why you are attacking me. I guess you're one of THOSE.

Ha! I don't think I was the one who came in with a 'tude as you say, as it seems that you already had your mind made up before I posted a single word.

You are obviously being disingenuous, and have some other agenda, so I am done talking to you.

 

You're welcome, Saul!

Erik himself shared many of these script details in an interview we posted back in 2006 when Paramount moved on to J.J. Abrams. I also believe that parts of the script were eventually leaked, and I had an opportunity to see some of what was leaked.

I would have to go back and look at notes, but if there are any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

 

Thanks Michael. Do you have a link to the interview from 2006? I can't seem to find it on your site. Also any place where I could find parts of the leaked script? Did Jendrensen ever mention the cliffhanger or what the second film would involve?

 

Very interesing....thanks for posting this.



Admiral Young

 

I am not sure if they were available online. I had a couple of contacts e-mail me portions of it, and I believe I actually had a full script at one time. But to be honest, I'm amazed I remembered as much of the story as I did (not that it was forgettable -- I really liked it, and Erik is a great writer, just that I've moved on).

And here you go: http://www.syfyportal.com/news422489.html

We're going to get our search function back up soon.

As far as the second film, from what I remember, Chase was able to blow up some key facility the Romulans had to coordinate the attack. In the explosion, the warp engines get damaged, and they are stuck going at a lower warp speed (I don't think they lost warp, just the fast warp that would get them back to Earth in a matter of days instead of a matter of months).

I believe the second part would get more into the exploratory aspect of Trek, but with an overall storyline that either included a new enemy, or continued with the Romulans.

 

That's fascinating stuff Michael. Thanks again. I had wanted to know details on this for a long time. It reminds me a little of Crusade with a dash of Firefly thrown in.

It's an interesting concept and I like the addition of Col. Green group. Were the Remans in it? What new enemy might we have seen in the second part? Would the story have spanned over a few years. Would we see Romulans take on Earth Starfleet head to head?

 

As far as I know, the Romulans and the actual Starfleet don't battle in the first film. It was supposed to be just Chase's ship and some Romulan base. Although I think Chase's actions will slow down the Romulans, not stop them.

I've told Erik a few times in the past that he should novelize the story (or let someone novelize the story), but I think he is too busy with other work.

I know that Band of Brothers is good, but if you want to see something real good he's done, look for a DVD called "Sublime." It was direct-to-DVD, but it's part of Warner Bros. new direct-to-DVD product line. And it's REAL good.

 

I'm with you on that one, Therin.

 

Well there is a Romulan War Trilogy coming out from Pocket books too so I imagine it would be difficult to have two different Romulan War books unless they both decided to mix and match with each other to make one book.

Maybe the script will be re-written into another Sci-Fi film.