Star Trek XI FAQ 1.01

[PowderedToastMan]

In light of the recent IMDB thread I took a look at the IMBD listing and realised that some jackass(es) have been making changes that arent accurate so here is a new entry for the FAQ. I will be submitting a full update to Reaperman by the end of the week

Is the IMDB listing for Star Trek XI Accurate?
Yes and no, parts are based on reliable sources, others either conjecture or rumor
...the following would be more accurate [corrections noted]

Directed by
J.J. Abrams (option) [yet to commit]








Writing credits (in alphabetical order)
Alex Kurtzman screenplay
Roberto Orci screenplay
J.J. Abrams screenplay [Abrams is confirmed as writer]
Gene Roddenberry characters [writers say they will use old characters so probably true]









Cast (in alphabetical order)
[Damon is rumor, Kirk is (probable) rumor, Kirk as captain is rumor]








Produced by
J.J. Abrams .... executive producer[unclear which of the 3 are EP or just Producer...left alone]
Bryan Burk .... executive producer
Damon Lindelof .... executive producer
[Orci and Kurtzman are only confirmed as writers]







Original Music by
[Regular Abrams colaborator Michael Giacchino may be the composer but not confirmed]







Production Companies
* Paramount Pictures







Distributors
* Paramount Studios (2008) (worldwide) (theatrical)
* Paramount Pictures (2008) (USA) (theatrical)







Special Effects
[Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) have worked on Trek films before but are not confirmed to be working on STXI]



Budget
[ $100,000,000 (estimated) budget is probably close but pure conjecture]








Plot Summary
Reliable reports and comments indicate: a prequel to the Original Series Star Trek (1966) probably including the characters of Kirk and Spock.

[Matt Damon, Kirk being captain, Mc Coy and Starfleet Academy inclusions are all based on rumor]

 

[Scatter]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

AlexR said:
All the aired evidence seems still to point to the idea that StarFleet Academy is still the equivalent of, say, Annapolis or West Point, rather than high school. In fact, IIRC, The Making of Star Trek spec'd that the minimum age to enter in the 2250s or so was 17, and by the 2360s, an episode of TNG ("Coming of Age", IIRC) suggests that the age had been lowered to 16.

i did a fair bit of research on the matter for my fan-fic and i have to say this is the conclusion i came to as well.

entry at 16 for well performed high school students seems to fit.

 

[Guest]

I’m not to sure about a prequel to the original Trek, in my view there is but one man who can play Kirk and that man is William Shatner. I would rather it be about another ship set in the TOS time period.

 

[Akira Class]

I take issue with this:

Will it fit with Star Trek History?
Yes, Star Trek XI will not be a 'reboot' of canon. Abrams has said
that he will be 'respectful' of the fans and Trek History. The writers have
been more explicit saying they see no need to 'reinvent everything'.

PTM, you don't know for sure that it will not be a reboot of canon. Being respectful of canon is possible while rebooting. It depends on perspective. Perhaps "respectul" does not necessarily mean "strongly adhering to". And, the writers saying that the will not "reinvent everything" does not mean that they will reinvent NOTHING.

So, until you actually get a statement from someone high up that actually says "This is not a reboot", I think your q/a is in error.

 

[Vigilance]

^^^ Yes and of course changing ANYTHING is the definition of "reboot" now right? What if the women in the movie don't wear miniskirts and gogo boots but it's in the TOS era?

That apparently qualifies as a reboot now.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

I know that some want to think that this film will be a 'reboot' and therefore use that to attack it. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have said over and over that they will respect trek history and canon (even using the word 'canon')

when most around here talk about 'reboots' they are referring to BSG style rewriting of history and canon.Based on statements given (as noted and sourced in the faq) that is not the plan. Notice I did not say 'it is not a reboot' because of the many defintions of that word, but as far as we know they will honor canon, therefore it wont a 'reboot canon'

it may be a 'reboot of the franchise' in terms of getting it going again, it may even 'reboot the look'...but those are not 'reboot of canon'

 

[Akira Class]

I get what you're saying, PTM. You need to put that in the FAQ though, in order to clarify.

To Vigilance: There are many definitions of "reboot". It's all perspective.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

I am working on a new version, but I was actually trying to make it briefer...I will see what I can do

 

[Vigilance]

To Vigilance: There are many definitions of "reboot". It's all perspective.

And using the standard of "they didn't say nothing would be new! something will be new?!?!? STINO! STINO!" definition of reboot is a little silly.

Personally, I would LIKE the movie to "reinvent" *something* so it can freakin surprise me.

Wouldn't that be neat? Or is Trek just tooooo much of a security blanket for some folks.

 

[Akira Class]

Vigilance said:

To Vigilance: There are many definitions of "reboot". It's all perspective.

And using the standard of "they didn't say nothing would be new! something will be new?!?!? STINO! STINO!" definition of reboot is a little silly.

Silly? Yeah, I agree. But the perception is there. Although it's not one that I share. My whole point in bringing this up was just for clarification purposes. There are a lot of factions out there and the line that will signify a reboot is drawn in a different place for each one of them. I just think it's best to spell out what has been said and what hasn't been said on the issue.
]

 

[Vigilance]

^^^ It seems like that line is "nothing must be new". And I think Paramount might have been listening to the fans. Insurrection and Nemesis? Nothing new.

Thanks guys.

Personally, I like to be SURPRISED in a movie on occasion.

 

[Franklin]

I like the idea of seeing Kirk and Spock in their primes again. By the time of the TOS cast movies, a big theme was aging and the winding down of their careers. Given there were over 170 episodes of TNG, VOY, and DS9, and only 79 of TOS, there should actually be a lot left to tell of the making of the legend of Kirk and Spock. It was the 24th century "Trek" that saturated the market, not the 23rd.
Maybe someone already mentioned this possibility, but there's no reason why the movie can't be set sometime during the historic five-year mission AFTER "Turnabout Intruder." It picks up Kirk's story after its rather abrupt TV ending, and it can fill in a lot of blanks without messing too much with canon because so little is known about the final years of the five-year mission.

 

[ancient]

Vigilance said:
^^^ It seems like that line is "nothing must be new". And I think Paramount might have been listening to the fans. Insurrection and Nemesis? Nothing new.

Thanks guys.

Personally, I like to be SURPRISED in a movie on occasion.

But...Argo! Remens! Phaser Oozie!

 

[Duane]

Mark Wahlberg for Captain Kirk!

He is a more talented actor than Matt Damon. Maybe we can get a poll started??

 

[Captain Craig]

Good summary of what we do/don't know at this point.
Nice to see it got pinned.
I look forward to following this thread as updates are announced over the coming 24 months.

 

[mug]

The whole Matt Damon thing seems highly unlikely. I guess that's kind of an obvious thing to say but consider the fact that Damon is already older than Shatner was when he began playing Kirk in '66! (Damon is 36, Shatner was 35.)

I'm sure they could find some capable unknowns to play young Kirk and Spock, especially if they were going to do something surrounding the Academy years or the years shortly thereafter.

 

[StarMan]

Kegan said:
I’m not to sure about a prequel to the original Trek, in my view there is but one man who can play Kirk and that man is William Shatner. I would rather it be about another ship set in the TOS time period.

If it were set on another ship in the TOS time period, everyone watching would be asking why they're watching another ship in the TOS time period instead of Kirk and Spock.

 

[TheSeeker]

mug said:
The whole Matt Damon thing seems highly unlikely. I guess that's kind of an obvious thing to say but consider the fact that Damon is already older than Shatner was when he began playing Kirk in '66! (Damon is 36, Shatner was 35.)

I'm sure they could find some capable unknowns to play young Kirk and Spock, especially if they were going to do something surrounding the Academy years or the years shortly thereafter.

I think Matt Damon is sufficiently boyish enough that he could easily play the role of a younger Kirk. Even if they did want to make him look younger it wouldn't be very hard. Just look at what they did for Patrick Stewart in X3.

 

[Ferengi Admiral]

Great FAQ, PowderedToastMan! I haven't been following the rumor mill too closely yet. But from time to time I pop over here to check up, and this thread was just the recap I was looking for!

 

[Udat]

Besides my dumb ass remarks I posted yesterday, (I did not read this thread,) I have to say I`m really starting to enjoy this board, the only worries I have is the movie going to live up to my expectations?