Star Trek 2009 deleted scene - mini Klingons

[LazarusRemains]

"I've never met [JJ Abrams]. I am not a member of his fan club or anti-fan club. I disliked Cloverfield a very great deal. I disliked Star Trek intensely. I thought it was terrible. And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging - sort of cynical. I taste contempt in the air. ... there's something about [JJ's projects] that makes me particularly uncomfortable." - China Mieville

[LazarusRemains]

The reason people say "it isn't Star Trek", is because it is thematically alien to the original.

On a very superficial level, they resemble each other, but the philosophy is completely different.

Star Trek was an optimistic show about how rationality, determination and professionalism can overcome any challenge. It showed a future in which prejudice had been banished.  It was idealistic.

The new one is just a juvenile 'man with a destiny' romp, like much tripe that comes out of Hollywood.

[xiaojay888]

Well, I'm a TOS trekkie and I quite enjoyed this reboot. I think it was great introduction to the franchise for non trekkies, and I appreciate that.

[jetpoweredgriffin]

Generally speaking,

most Trekkies didn't like it,

most non-Trekkies did.

Sounds like Trek was space-jacked to me.

It's future is likely going to become more fodder for the failing movie industry to repetitiously regurgitate unto ruin-

as they seem to do so predictably.

[PeachWookiee]

I have to disagree with all of you who say this isn't Star Trek. It is. We're seeing our characters with different things shaping who they were. James Kirk didn't grow up with both George and Winona, but he did grow up with abuse in the house. That would affect any kid. And in an alternate timeline/reality/universe, the game changes. And in this timeline... Spock's dad admitted that he loved his son. "I am grateful for this... and for you." That made me cry.

[TheRhinehart86]

Take away Star Trek and this would have just been another big-budget generic Hollywood sci-fi. Apart from the names this movie goes as far out of its way as possible to change the story line

[Actionguy1]

Leave it to Abrams to hire "mini actors". It's so that his insignifigant, talentless ass feels like a big man!

[LazarusRemains]

@Actionguy1 Abrams and the two writers have a talent for making things look superficially professional - but under the veneer, there is nothing of substance. A great filmaker is also an intellectual or an artist - they convey eternal truths, not empty form.

[Spionsilver]

i think they killed the star trek universe a little bit with this movie..

allright it is fun to watch and its action is hot..

but we already had the "archer enterprise - confusing our history books;)

and now that a white painted bridge with glass displays..?=wtf..

ok i like it when u realize you visions but next time do it -the star trek way..or dont call it star trek!!

[LazarusRemains]

@Spionsilver I'm completely fine with a reboot / re-imagining of Star Trek.

The show had already been killed.

It's just that the new movie wasn't even a reboot, or a loving attempt to revive the philosophy of the original - it was just a cynical, commercialised cash-in that had nothing to do with the deeper themes of the original.

I'm fine with re-casting Kirk as a black woman, and changing the shape of the Enterprise - as long as the things that made Star Trek exceptional are intact.

[jerico641]

I'll say it again: this film fucked up the francise! JJ Abrahms setting it all in a "parallel timeline" just to avoid having to deal with canon, and then making the excuse of "wanting to express his own vision of Star Trek without all the continuity constraints". Total bullshit. I'm not even a screenwirter (I'm a public works director), and I wrote a 40 page outline of a better ST movie and STILL stayed within the established history of the show. Abrahms is a lazy tool~~

[CalamityM]

Awwwww

And now I wanna see Mini-StarTrek! the series! XD

[walmartpimp2]

That's a smart idea, we should let Hollywood run the government.

[BondFreek]

@walmartpimp2 "we should let Hollywood run the government" Let's see... The government is preachy, so is Hollywood. The Government wants’ to make us live their way, so does Hollywood. The Government thinks we are mindless zombies and will like anything they do, Hollywood thinks the same way about the rest of the country. Are you sure Hollywood is not running the Government right now?

[walmartpimp2]

@BondFreek Yeah I'm sure, because Hollywood isn't insolvent and is ran pretty damn effeciently. I was in the Army for four years, and now work in "Hollywood", and I can tell you first hand Hollywood does it better. The government is ran my corrupt closed minded fascist, and operated by rude mindless sheep who couldn't make it in the private sector, Hollywood is ran my revolutionaries and operated by people with ambition who believe in free speech and defy the status quo.

[BondFreek]

@walmartpimp2 "The government is ran my corrupt closed minded fascist, and operated by rude mindless sheep" so is Hollywood. Oh ya it has freedom of speech just as long as you agree with their point of view. The scary thing is your right about Hollywood’s efficiency and ambitions. There was a political party just like that and we all know what happened when they gained power. The ideal government would be one that stays out of our lives till someone does something Despicable...

[BondFreek]

@walmartpimp2 The ideal government only works part time hours and are volunteers (like in 1775). They would only do a flat 10% tax on everyone and no loop holes to get out of paying it. They would only spend money needed to for our defenses, foreign aid, policing regulations on human rights issues in business, and protecting the sitting President. (No more aid to those who are no longer targets). Making the "rich" work as slaves for the government kills jobs.

[walmartpimp2]

@BondFreek For the most part, I agree.

[rasererrshorts]

Haha I love how J.J. handles the kids.

"I can do.... one more." "See,... I like that attitude."

Makes me lol.

[bennysupertramp2]

lmfao kid kirk is hilarious

[AndythePervert]

Oompa-Loompah kippety-keth,

I will stab you with my bat'leth...

So that's how you deal with an angry Klingon- give them a time-out.

[Norrabeth]

No!!

[Ribeyeangus]

Child slavery.

[Unreal786]

JJ: One or two more is that ok?

Kid1: Yeh.

Kid2: Noooo.....

LOL

[admiralandy1983]

is that true they really use kids that way?

[BondFreek]

@admiralandy1983 No. Actually they used living Chimps from the Planet of the Apes, while shrinking their star down to size using Duke Nukem's shrink ray. Also the world is flat, and light-sabers are real.

[admiralandy1983]

@BondFreek oh to only be as mental as you would be nice

[BondFreek]

@admiralandy1983 It's easy, just let your sarcasm flow. Or to put it into people who love the new movie "Let the sarcasm (force) flow through you!"

You must remember when you ask a stupid question you will get a stupid answer.

[admiralandy1983]

@BondFreek so if you ask a stupid question (which i didn't ask) you'll get a stupid answer from a stupid person?

[BondFreek]

@admiralandy1983 you asked "is that true they really use kids that way?" After viewing this video. Now any intelligent person would know that is a stupid question. It's as bad as asking someone on a plane to Dallas "Are you going to Dallas?" or asking an accountant "Can you really balance my financial books?" Even smart people can ask stupid questions.

[BondFreek]

@admiralandy1983 Here's your sign.

[Nufuhsus]

I trully enjoy this movie. I think it is cool that JJ is rekindling this series and with a cool way. Not just a re-hash (which Ep1-3 of Star wars are...Though I like Star Wars). I cannot wait till the next New trek Film comes out.

[BondFreek]

@Nufuhsus It is not a "rekindling". It's an out and out arson of a classic series. Paramount & Jar Jar Abrams KILLED STAR TREK! Now it's Star Wars meats 90210 with Star Trek names & title. It's not only a movie that is Star Trek in title only, but it's not even a good movie! 1,The plot is lame. 2,The # of plot holes is a world record. 3,The dialog is campy & rehashed from old Trek (especially Wrath of Kahn) 4,The ending makes no sense. 5,New Kirk is such an ass hole I kept wishing he would die.

[TheACRainey]

That was really well done on J.J. Abrams part, and he worked really great with the kids good for him

[Allen2saint]

What a crappy director. It's obvious he has no connection with these kids. Yuck. 

[Nufuhsus]

@Allen2saint

Gee..did yo not watch the extra features. He was really good with the kids...The kids on the other hand...

[madhatterfilmcompany]

And here I thought child labor was illegal.

[megainsomniac]

those guards look like little miniature ranger veterins from fallout new vegas

[Trekfreek]

I agree with Actionguy1 “the entire film should be deleted!” It’s worst than Plan 9 From Outer Space!

[robodik]

@Trekfreek Between the two, I thought Plan 9 had better character development than Star Trek 2009 but the latter had way better special effects. Both movies are really shitty though and are devoid of any story, plot, characters and enjoyment. Hmm I take that back, Plan 9 was funnier so there was some enjoyment whereas Star Trek 2009 just plain sucked.

[darkwhitedirewolf]

were the lollipop guild, the lolli pop guild.

[JarodRussell]

Pathetic. He already wasted money on so many scenes that were cut anyway and then this.

[Actionguy1]

The entire film should be deleted!

[mikiroony]

Star Trek XII. Attack of the Midget Klingons

[britticus1232]

aww cute little klingons

[scarhunter92]

I shat bricks. Never saw this coming.

[MoonarEclipse]

WHAT

THERE WAS A KID

RUNNING... INTO..... THE CAVE...

WTF

[rabbitwho]

@MoonarEclipse i'm gonna see him every time now

[MoonarEclipse]

@rabbitwho

so will i ;_;

[krisc1973]

werent these supposed to be romulans not klingons?

[MovieMaker1302]

I call it: Child labour

[TheLydianRocks]

@MovieMaker1302 child labor is when children or forced to work for little or no money, if you wanna call it anything call it child exploitation on behalf of the parents, cant blame the biz, lots of kids even younger do enjoy working in acting

[nextgeneration456]

why didnt they use them like that

[Austindude3954]

....... -_-

[fmscribs]

Think about it. If your not going to use a 'green screen' just build the damn set to full scale.

You have to pay the union carpenters at Paramount the same rate anyways. The carpenter doesn't care if a wall is 6' tall or 10' tall. So what if there's 20 to 30% more cost in material. It's the cheapest part of the set.

Now you have to hire inexperienced child actors, more wardrobes, & waste time trying to get them to do what you want. I don't see how it saves money in the end.

[JahobesDaGreatest]

@fmscribs

Bro leave it to the professionals.

If they say it saves money... and they are willing to do it in such a major film... then they really are saving money.

[fmscribs]

@JahobesDaGreatest

Doesn't "common sense" tell you that...

One: they didn't use this scene in the movie so how could it save money ?

Two: it looks fake and ridiculous.

Three: see my comments below, again.

And finally...why do you care about my opinions regarding this movie? The movie wasn't true to Trek lore & cannon. And Jar Jar Abrams is an overblown Hollywood pimp.

[BondFreek]

This trick was used in Alian and the engenroom in Star Trek The Motion Pcture. Back then it was nesasary today we have digital sets that cost less then real ones. Jar Jar is wasting money.

[StoneKnivesBearskins]

@BondFreek LOL Jar Jar Abrams. It would fit except for the fact that I like Jar Jar Binks, partly because I have a soft spot for wierd characters. LOL

[BondFreek]

@StoneKnivesBearskins I like Jar Jar also, the reason I call him jar Jar is because he is just as stupid as Jar Jar. He may not be as clumsy as Jar Jar, but he is just as stubborn and stupid as Jar Jar.

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - Who cares. As least with real sets the actors can relate to something more than a green wall.

[BondFreek]

@koalabrownie Profesional GOOD actrors can react to nothing and make it look real.

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - So is Ewan McGregor and Samuel L Jackson not "good actors". Because all of the acting in the SW prequels was shit.

[BondFreek]

@koalabrownie So when Samuel L Jackson and Ewan McGregor was talking to Yoda You never felt that Yoda was actually there? The acting in the Star Wars Prequels was very good. You might think the story and dialog was bad but the actors pulled it of brilliantly, unlike the actors in the new Trek film. The only good performance I saw in that was young Kirk scared of the big slime monster. (I say slime because it lacked fur, which is not logical.)

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - Have you seen the special features? When Ewan McGregor refers to interacting with a CG character as a "nightmare" I don't think he's putting that in a positive light.

And quite honestly, I cringed at every line of dialogue Jackson delivered. Mace Windu is the worst character in pretty much all of Star Wars.

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - And on another note. The 2009 Star Trek is probably my favourite movie of the past 5 years at least. With the strongest opening since probably saving private ryan. This is the first I've heard about anyone even mentioning bad acting with the movie. So I'm not sure where you guys get your opinions, but they're new to me and probably in the complete minority. I can't wait for the next trek movie to come out.

[BondFreek]

@koalabrownie Brain washing lensflares.

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - I don't need to be brainwashed to like this movie dude. People who like the SW prequels on the other hand . . . well they need to watch the red letter media reviews

[BondFreek]

@koalabrownie "I don't need to be brainwashed to like this movie dude" but it helps. As for Star Wars, Remember it takes place in another galaxy and another time. Our morals and our universe's laws of physics do not apply. So, yes someone could murder an entire village and get away with it. As for Padme forgiving Anakin and telling him “to be angry is to be human.”Love is blind. The point is Star Wars is based on Greek mythology; Real Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future.

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - Physics and morality having nothing to do with the fact that the prequels are just bad, boring, emotionless movies. I felt more emotion in the first 10 minutes of Trek2009 than in 6 hours of star wars prequels. I like classic trek too. I have the TOS and would like to pick up the movies sometime. But that doesn't mean I can't like the new movie as well. It's just well done. And all the people badmouth JJ's directing obviously don't know much about movie making.

[BondFreek]

@koalabrownie. "bad, boring, emotionless" is from your perspective, I made an emotional connection to the new characters. As for ST 2009, good for you. However, I had no connection with the characters in the beginning of the film. It just looked to me like a shot by shot remake of the tragedy in lame ass Armageddon only with a new born baby in it. Plus, that baby was born very fast or the Kelvin is the slowest ship in the federation. I have studied and made short films for over 25 years.

[koalabrownie]

@BondFreek - To each their own. I have no need to argue. You can waste time watching the prequels, I'll waste time watching Trek2009 and Tron.

[Bladerunner93]

@BondFreek Digital sets are unrealistic

[BondFreek]

@Bladerunner93 When is the last time you watched "Sanctuary", Star Wars Episode 1-3 and THOR? They were all shot using blue screen stages, a huge portion of the sets were all digital. I bet you can't tell which ones.

[Bladerunner93]

@BondFreek Actually, I can. I don't know how I do it, but I just seem to have some kind of sixth sense for digital effects. They don't work on me.

[BondFreek]

@Bladerunner93 I bet you can't. Did you know that the entire first season of Sanctuary was done on digital sets, even the lab? If I can find it I will post two existing pictures one of the original digital Yoda with a digital swamp and the exact shot it was copied from in The Empire Strikes Back and you would not be able to tell them apart.

[Bladerunner93]

@BondFreek I haven't seen Sanctuary. Is it any good?

[BondFreek]

@Bladerunner93. It's very entertaining, however it is a soap-opera and you have to which it from the very beginning to get what is happening. I lost track when I missed the second half of the first season. I tried catching up but it was too late for me. I just stopped watching all together.

[shagoosty]

@BondFreek I'll chose real sets over digital ones any day.

[BondFreek]

@shagoosty Real sets are good but only if your stars can fit in them. Instead he has his stars acting in a beer factory with a digital back drop. Jar Jar did such a bad job. I could have shot the whole movie on real freshly built sets for half the budget he spent using local bars and beer factories. And I would have achieved the feel of an action packed future without lens flares or magic swards or magicgoo.

[shagoosty]

@BondFreek It still wouldn't feel like Star Wars to me. The first Star Wars feels real and gritty because they can touch everything and interact with their enviroment (much like the 2009 Star Trek). The prequels (all digital sets) looks fake and boring. They don't touch anything and they just keep shoving more stuff in your face to distract you. But I agree, if possible they should build bigger sets, not use kids. But using kids is much better than making an entire movie with blue screen.

[BondFreek]

@shagoosty Normally I would agree with you regarding your interaction comment but I just saw The Green Lantern which proves that, thanks to modern tech and lots of money, the actors can interact with digital environments. As far as not touching anything in the Star Wars prequels, how about the time Obi wan hugged a digital creature or the actors riding digital animals. There were no flesh covered mechanical creatures in Ep 1-3. It’s all on the “Making of” extras discs in the DVD sets.

[BondFreek]

@shagoosty Out of curiosity. Do you hate the new Star Trek movie as much as I do?

[shagoosty]

@BondFreek I actually quite enjoyed it. It didn't feel like Star Trek, but it was a fun adventure.

[VictorLepanto]

@BondFreek: I rather think it is physically impossible to hate anything more then I hate the Jar Jar Abrams Star Drek.

I concluded that the main difference between this movie & hardcore porn is that there is a deeper more developed plot connecting the interesting bits in most porn compared the "plot" that connects the interesting bits (the explosions) in this movie.

[BondFreek]

@VictorLepanto Thank you. Check out my Star Trek Channel "Trekfreek". William Shatner apparently agrees with us. He did not accept my friendship invitation till I changed the background of "Trekfreek" to what it is now.

[MrSchultzstaffel]

@VictorLepanto No, you're totally wrong here.Hard-core porn at least has some degree of social value to it. Hard core porn at least has a point, a purpose, something of a plot, and it stays true to it's roots. It dosen't openly state that it has a rather seething contempt for it's established fan base; and as such, "re-invents the wheel" in an attempt to attract a newer audience of rather greasy-hippies into an unwanted personal "take" of an established formula. Abrams is an intellectual insult

[NJRocks281]

I knew that didn't look like kirk running into the cave, wtf was so hard about making a 1/2 times larger set?

[left4deadzombiessss]

no it still wasnt the kid thats why its called deleted scenes

[Willy105]

@NJRocks281 It would be a waste of money and time.

[Urko2005]

more money needed

[TheDarkFrontier]

@NJRocks281

Ermm .... money perhaps?

[ODOMAN123]

@NJRocks281 1/2 more expensive or even more..

[XberardX]

@NJRocks281 takes more money and more time, which also costs more money which they needed for effects and other stuff.

[OhGawDuhhh]

@NJRocks281 Budget my friend.

[intermender]

thats quite a good idea. save money, more to spend later. kids seem a litte bored but thats kids i guess lol

[zenrarity]

Whoa, that's fucking sick!

[BorgHub]

no wonder it was deleted.

Nero's head would look disproportionately large for his body.

kids don't have the same body structure as adults

[TerranGuy93]

@BorgHub It worked fine when Kirk was running into the Cave on Delta Vega. I couldn't tell until I looked at it. 

[The8thDOCTOR]

@zenrarity

nothing new

Star Trek 1

had children in the background of the engineering scenes on the Enterprise

[xvorpsm]

why is that bitch kid complaining? he is making money for his mom and dady. fucking dumb kid.

[stoopidinak]

welcome to America!

[shletten]

Living miniatures! ;)

[shaggy9522]

they weren't meant to be mini, its basically suppose to be a camera trick to make small sets look a lot bigger by using kids. its a shame they didnt keep the klingons in the finished product but it was still good none the less

[samuriazombie]

huh never knew about that trick but now I think im sn idiot for not thinking about that. I will have to watch the movie again and see them.

[shaggy9522]

you'll have to see the bluray version to get that particular scene

[samuriazombie]

damit! o well at least i have you tube

[left4deadzombiessss]

I have blue ray but havent watched it yet