Gene Roddenberry, wife to spend eternity in space

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The creator of "Star Trek" and his wife will spend
eternity together in space.
Celestis Inc., a company that specializes in "memorial spaceflights, "
said Monday that it will ship the remains of Gene Roddenberry and
Majel Barrett Roddenberry into space next year.
The couple's cremated remains will be sealed into specially made
capsules designed to withstand the rigors of space travel. A rocket-
launched spacecraft will carry the capsules, along with digitized
tributes from fans. The Roddenberrys' remains — and the spacecraft —
will travel ever deeper into space and will not return to earth,
company spokeswoman Susan Schonfeld said.
After Gene Roddenberry died in 1991, his wife commissioned Celestis
to launch a part of his remains into space in 1997. She died Dec. 18,
2008.
___
On the Net:
www.celestis.com
Back to top

the thread is pinned now!



https://boldlygo.intel.com


barbies for the new movie

toys based on the new movie

next gen returns to syndication

star trek the experance to reopen in may!

the story at wired.com

and trek today

and sci-fi wire

Ahh, go Trek Yourself.

Go on. Just ignore the Cheez-its ad at the beginning.

=^[.]^=

Hailing frequencies open... finally
Posted by: "Mark Seeley"
Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:22 pm (PDT)


(Little or no spoilers here)

This just in: J.J. Abrams just shat on the childhood of some narrow-minded
moron who sat two seats to my left tonight. Excuse me while I shed no tears
for the bereaved.

I just got home from a preview screening of the new movie, Star Trek. And
when I say "new," I mean "new." This is not your father's Star Trek, but
there's nothing wrong with that.

Narrow-minded moron boy wanted a safe movie, to be sure. The history of
Star Trek is a long one with decades of material to sift through and
decipher a multitude of incidental tiny facets. It's a rich tapestry that
took shape slowly and was woven by masters of science fiction, many toiling
on it long before my own birth. It's a wholly respectable body of work with
heart, drama, and laughter.

It was just re-imagined brilliantly. That's right, brilliantly.

Star Trek opens on May 8th everywhere, but tonight it previewed at Loew's in
the Waterfront of Pittsburgh's Homestead community.

It stars:

Bruce Greenwood as Christopher Pike (the President from National Treasure:
Book of Secrets)

Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov (new to me)

John Cho as Hikaro Sulu (DUUUDE Harold from White Castle!)

Wynona Ryder as Heather, I mean Amanda Grayson (please don't pretend you
don't know who that is)

Eric Bana as Nero (Dr. Banner, anyone? The crappy Ang Lee version, but
still.)

Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhuru (pirate chick from Pirates of the Caribbean: The
Curse of the Black Pearl)

Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott (Shaun of Shaun of the Dead - no I didn't
stutter)

Karl Urban as Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Eomer from Middle Earth)

Zachary Quinto as Spock (Sylar in the hizzie)

Chris Pine as James Tiberius Kirk (bunches of stuff I never saw - apparently
he's like a young Danny Crane)

And some old Jewish dude named Leonard Nimoy as an old Vulcan dude named
Spock (I think he has a hit single about Bilbo Baggins once)

The premise: "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the
Starship Enterprise. Her new mission: to explore strange, newly re-imagined
worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, again; to boldly go
where it already went before, just differently - and with a few more balls."

Ok, let me sum up what this movie is about for you. You know all those Star
Trek episodes where the crew travels through time to the past and someone
mentions the temporal version of the Prime Directive and attempts to return
to their own time while not altering the timeline and/or repairing damage
done by someone else? Well, imagine if one of those episodes happened, and
whoever went was unable to correct the changes. Cue Abrams.

The very first shot of the movie is the very point in the Star Trek timeline
that begins a chain reaction, a butterfly effect, which greatly re-writes
Trek history. Seriously, if there's something you know about the past of
the universe and its characters, be prepared to see it either recalled
sideways, or discarded. How some certain things have been affected is
sometimes unorthodox.

Narrow-minded moron reacted as if these were mistakes or disrespectful
edits. They are not. I urge the future audience of this film to keep that
in mind. The changes are merely that, changes. It's sparked an incredibly
interesting parallel universe, one I hope we get to visit again.

Of course, for the devout Trek fan, certain things are still the same -
things that happened before the first shot of the movie. Jonathon Archer
still commanded a previous ship named Enterprise before the formation of the
United Federation of Planets, contributing to his earning the rank of
Admiral some time later. Humpback whales are still extinct and no longer in
contact with a mysterious alien probe from afar. Edith Keeler still died in
1930something, preventing a chain of events leading to Nazi Germany winning
World War II. And Kahn Noonian Singh still lies cryogenically frozen on
board the Botany Bay, launched at the end of the Eugenics War. The great
thing is how we can now theorize to ourselves and friends how this new
version of the same crew and universe deals with all of that.

My one complaint: this is definitely the Cloverfield version of Star trek.
When action begins, the visuals get out-of-focus just enough to make it
disorienting. Some of the action sequences were less easy to follow than
the Trek we know. I'm not saying all the shots should have been either
static or slow sweeping views, but sci-fi like Firefly and Battlestar
Galactica have shown that you can introduce the spirit of imperfect camera
work into special effects shots without loosing any of the detail and
character.

This movie's greatest weakness is also its greatest strength = familiarity
of portrayal. Think of Bones, Spock, and Kirk and you conjure a very
specific set of attributes, attitudes, and mannerisms. Urban, Quinto, and
Pine effectively channeled Kelley, Nimoy, and Shatner to pretty much nail
all of those. It was downright uncanny.

Not to slight the other actors, especially Pegg and Cho, who are absolutely
delightful to watch bring the rest of the crew to life. Seriously, when
Sulu first begins to show his fighting ability, it's a cheer moment. And
when Scotty says ANYTHING, you want to applaud.

This movie did something else very nice - it reminded me of the 8th crew
member: the USS Enterprise. There is a shot of the Enterprise arriving to
save the day which blew my mind. This is why you go see a Star Trek movie:
to see the Enterprise garner a hearty fist pump in the air. Suh-weet! Of
course, this led to one of moron boy's post movie comments "this is Star
Trek for Star Wars fans." So, what's wrong with that, you F'n back birth?

Oh yeah, and watch closely when Kirk has to switch his phaser from kill to
stun and back again. Very interesting stuff.

If you are at all a fan of Star Trek, even a casual fan, go see this movie.
If I have to give it one of those "star" ratings, I'm going with one
thousand, seven hundred and one stars. If you get that, do not let this
movie pass you by.

Live long enough to see this movie, and prosper.

Mark

Ahh, go Trek Yourself.

Go on. Just ignore the Cheez-its ad at the beginning.

=^[.]^=

George Takei, Mark Hamill, and Ed Wasser (Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5, respectively) provide voices as IR-2 and the robot crew take a look at the Great Attractor, a massive hidden object that is pulling in every nearby galaxy in the local Universe (including our own).

A New Direction for 'Star Trek'
by Matt McDaniel    May 7th, 2009

Star Trek Director J.J. Abrams put himself in a perilous position when he agreed to direct a new movie version of "Star Trek." On one side, he had the fans. They had embraced a short-lived science fiction television show from the 1960s and, through sheer affection and determination, turned it into a worldwide institution. But in addition to being fiercely loyal, Trekkies can be finicky (for example, if you call them that, rather than "Trekkers"). The television shows, movies, books, graphic novels and video games have weaved together a dense history, or canon, and the hardcore fans reject any attempt to violate the already established continuity.

On the other side of the equation, Abrams had a public that had grown increasingly disinterested in the "Trek" universe. The last movie, 2002's "Star Trek: Nemesis," was the least successful of the 10-film series, bringing in only $43 million in the U.S. And with the cancellation of "Star Trek: Enterprise" in 2005, TV screens were without an ongoing series for the first time in nearly 20 years.

For Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who also wrote "Transformers"), the goal was to find that elusive middle ground that would bring a mass audience to "Star Trek" without offending the faithful. And it was a big bet, too, with a budget estimated at $150 million -- about one-and-a-half times the gross of the most successful of the previous films. So to create a blockbuster from the franchise that had basically defined the term "cult classic," the creators of this new movie knew they had to shake up the formula of what went into a "Trek" movie. Here are five things they did differently than previous "Star Trek" adventures.
Star Trek

1. Start at the BeginningThe first episode of "Star Trek" that aired on TV already had the chain of command aboard the USS Enterprise pretty well established. Kirk was captain, Spock was his number two, and their friendship was already firm. The writers decided that the untold story of how the crew came together could not only show fans something they haven't seen before, but give audiences who were unfamiliar with "Trek" a fresh starting point.
Star Trek

2. Skew younger William Shatner was 35 years old when he first sat in the captain's chair on the original series. But that made him 48 when he returned to the role in the first movie, and 63 during his final appearance in "Star Trek: Generations." Chris Pine, the new Captain Kirk, is only 28. Along with the other younger actors (except for John Cho, who is actually older than George Takei was when he first played Sulu), this cast brings a freshness and vitality that the movies never had.
Star Trek

3. Pick up the pace Following the pattern of the original show, the "Trek" movies often had long stretches of dialogue and discussion between action scenes. In fact, the first movie was derisively called "Star Trek: The Slow-Motion Picture" by some critics. Abrams says that as a kid he was more a fan of "Star Wars," and he credits the faster and more intense tempo of that series as the reason. So for his version, he has taken the space battles, fist fights, and even slapstick moments that have been part of "Trek" from the beginning, but speeds them up and packs them together to make his film a more thrilling ride.
Star Trek

4. Update the look For the new film, the exterior of the Enterprise looks very familiar, albeit rendered in the most advanced digital special effects available. But inside, everything has been updated. From the bridge to the engine room, the ship is bright, sleek, and modern. The transporter and the viewscreen have been enhanced (though many of the classic sound effects can still be heard). Moreover, the visual texture of the movie is different. The camera sweeps and shakes to create a greater sense of immediacy, putting you right in the action.
Star Trek

5. Break away from the past With all these changes, it seemed like Abrams and company were setting themselves up to be hated by the original fans. But with a bit of storytelling sleight-of-hand, they've been able to chart their own course without violating the series' long and well-documented history. How? The same way Kirk and Spock saved the Earth in "Star Trek IV" -- time travel. When the Romulan villain Nero, played by Eric Bana, is accidentally thrust backwards in time, he resets the past. By shifting the course of time, events play out in new and unexpected ways. Rather than the standard prequel, where the audience knows how the story turns out, this movie creates its own history without violating the established one the fans have loved.
Star Trek

What's important to note, though, is one element from Gene Roddenberry's original creation that still carries through into J.J. Abrams' new vision. And that is a sense of optimism for the future. So many science fiction epics take place in dystopian wastelands where technology only leads to destruction. "Star Trek" envisions a better outcome for humanity, where the Earth has united to explore the final frontier. And that's a dream that is as important to embrace and celebrate now as it's ever been.

The Shatner Scene You Never Saw In Abrams' Star Trek
By Meredith Woerner, 3:02 PM on Mon May 11 2009, 80,750 views

You've heard why Shatner's Kirk wasn't included in Star Trek. (He was dead, for one thing.) But Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman tried to write him in, and they walked us through their Shatner scene.

In our exclusive interview with Star Trek writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, we managed to pick their brain as to what landed on the cutting-room floor during rewrites. The most shocking was the actual Shatner scene.

Alex Kurtzman: We had a scene with Shatner, and that ended up going.

Roberto Orci: Right, we had a scene with Shatner.

Did that even get tossed around at all?

Orci: We wrote it, it was in the script.

Kurtzman: The very last scene when Spock and Spock meet each other, finally. And elder Spock is convincing young Spock that he couldn't interfere, because it would have diverted [Kirk and Spock] away from their friendship. And that their friendship is the key to the whole sort of shebang.

Orci: He gave him a recorded message from Kirk.

Kurtzman: He [elder Spock] said, "Don't take my word for it." And he handed him [younger Spock] a little holographic device and it projected Shatner. It was basically a Happy Birthday wish knowing that Spock was going to go off to Romulus, and Kirk would probably be dead by the time...

Orci: It turned into a voiceover, at the end of the movie.

Kurtzman: So It was a nod too, but it ultimately felt like a cameo, in a way that wasn't.

Orci: I still liked it [Laughs].

Wow, I really wouldn't have had a problem with this scene as described. I'm sad Shatner wasn't in the final version, I could have done with a little less Nimoy by the conclusion in any case. Oh well, maybe Shatner will appear in the next one. But that's not the only thing that was cut from the script. According to the writers, they had a scene of Spock playing the Vulcan lute, and his mother, that got axed. And they had written a young love Kirk moment. We would have met the lovely Carol Marcus, who actually had Kirk's son David in the original series, as a child.

Orcir described it as, "this whole Forrest Gump, young Kirk growing up near Carol Marcus, thing." Which would have been very sweet, I'm sure, but then ruined the whole, "I'm a drunk jerk" image for twenty-something Kirk years later.

Here's a surprising piece about the new Trek film:

It might have worked, but it might also have seemed a bit forced, the way they describe it. Plus, they'd have had to pay Shatner, and that wouldn't have been pretty =^[.]~=.

The movie was good, in that it restarted the Star Trek cannon and got rid of most of the history of the series, which IMO was a good thing, a clean slate means that there isn't much continuity to get in the way of new stories.

But why does it matter? Continuity is for sissies.

Are you saying Trekkies are sissies? =0[.]o=

:shit-eating grin:

Here's another interactive online site, which allows detailed views of the Enterprise Bridge.

=^[.]^=