This story from the Daily Mail would have you believe that Zack Quinto is one of those people who can’t make the Vulcan salute, and he had to have his fingers glued together when essaying the gesture during filming of the new Star Trek movie. (Quinto plays young Spock — does he ever.) While it’s a great story, the truthfulness of it is somewhat undercut by the photos accompanying it which show Quinto making the gesture just fine. So…what is going on here??? We need answers…and fast.


  1. Zack Quinto, when interviewed by Sky News on the London Red Carpet, said that he strapped the fingers together before filming started and basically ‘trained’ his fingers.

    as usual the Daily Mail has massaged the truth somewhat

  2. I heard JJ Abrams say in an interview that Quinto could do the salute just fine but that on the day he needed to do it on camera he just couldn’t and they had to use glue.
    If anyone wants to check it, it’s on the Hamish and Andy podcast for the 9th of April.

  3. It’s not easy… while both my hands can do “Mack the Knife” (see Steve Martin), only my right hand can do the Vulcan salute (never use it, not that big a nerd). The arched eyebrow, yeah…

    The movie was pretty good, just a few quibbles (Iowa is NOT flat, the police officer should have used either an EMP on the car or a tractor (HAH!) beam, how close was that black hole to Earth, Uhura should have spoken Vulcan to Spock in the turbolift), but it restarts the franchise without worrying about canon.

    BIG QUESTION: Since Spock comes from 2387 (the current end of Star Trek’s timeline), how much information will he reveal to Federation scientists, since his new timeline won’t affect his original timeline?

  4. I have no problems doing that stuff with my hands. Probably because I’ve been doing it for like forever along with every hand pose that Spider-man has used throughout the years when shooting a web…I stretch my hands before and in between drawing to keep my hands loose. It’s good exercise to avoid the carpal tunnel that artists can face…

  5. You probably will only like it in spots if you’re an old school Trekkie. I guess I’m one though I’ve always liked Star Wars more growing up. I looked at my iPod and see that I have for the last 6 years or so, 66 Trek audio books, plus all of Shatner and Nimoy’s biographies, records they released which they ‘sing’, and even Gene Roddenberry’s 1976 ‘Inside Star Trek’ record. So I guess I’m a hardcore fan…

    My answer to anyone who fears for the worse is that this new movie is really nothing more than ‘Ultimate Spider-Man’. I have my classic Spider-man that I grew up with in ‘Amazing Spider-man’ who remains basically untouched, and then there’s this other Spider-man book called ‘Ultimate Spider-man’ in which everything is kinda different. Marvel started the Ultimate line of books in the late 90’s for new fans to jump on so that they could not have to worry about 30 years of backstory. I don’t think of it as ‘real’ Spider-man, just it’s on another Earth or it’s in another timeline or existance, so it’s writer Brian Bendis’ Spider-man or ‘that other Spider-man’.

    Like DC Comics, the Shatner/Nimoy stuff would be Earth 1 or Prime (or whatever DC is callling it this week) and the new movie would be Earth 2. So you still have all the great classic Trek that has been unfucked with. If you go into it thinking this, you’ll enjoy the new one for the popcorn movie it is a lot more…but fear not, Shatner still rules!

    I liked the new movie in spots, but I had little issues with it. Nero’s motive and basic premise had holes through it. The bridge is crap, and the costumes are lame (does EVERY designer have to use that same fabric pattern that was used on Spider-man’s and Superman’s costumes for everything???) It was still Star Trek 90210 with the beautiful people to me, and they threw in Star Wars speed and visuals. But now that it’s up and running, they can do a straight away adventure with no set up and forget this movie and how they all magically all wind up on the same bridge. The second one should be a better movie.

    Plus, J.J. Abrams doesn’t just like these things we call lens flares…HE LOVES THEM!

  6. I hereby dub the old continuity (which ends with Spock going through the black hole) as “Classic Trek” and the continuity starting with Nero’s appearance as “New Trek”. Diet Trek, Trek Zero, and Trek Raspberry may or may not exist.

    Classic Trekkers can still debate and ponder the variations in the timelines (what happened to Capt. April?).

    I just hope there are more female characters in the next movie.

  7. As time travel stories go, the time travel in STAR TREK appears, from what I’ve read, to have been pretty straightforward. Spock travels to an alternate timeline, which already has an alternate version of himself, and helps people in that timeline deal with disaster. There’s no danger of a paradox or any other time travel-related problems.

    There would be a risk of distorting the natural rate of technological progress if Spock were to tell people and provide information about technology that didn’t exist yet, but the benefits could outweigh the drawbacks.

    The timeline could be different from the original in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. If one wanted to think ahead, the alternate timeline might not have Organians, which wouldn’t be a bad thing.

    Star Trek IV was written as a single-timeline time travel story, but one could argue that the crew, in traveling to the past, actually created a new, divergent timeline in which the Earth was saved, while, in the timeline they left, the Earth was destroyed by the probe.


  8. As one of my friends said today, “why does Star Trek always have to do time travel these days? Can’t we just have a straightforward fight vs the Klingons or Romulans?”

  9. In this case, a STAR TREK prequel could very well have been a one-time thing, if writers were constrained by events in ST: TOS. It’s fine to say that this is a reboot and things will be different, but writers, whether they were developing scripts for TV, movies, movie-length TV shows, whatever, would still have had to take old episodes into consideration whenever they had characters using novel tactics or discovering things. There are advantages to stating bluntly that this is an alternate timeline and things *will* be different here. People might be less likely to dismiss future efforts as remakes of the old series.


  10. scandal?!!!

    Ha ha ha ha. fans are the silliest humans.

    They should have gotten a jew to play the part – i can do the blessing with both hands! Someone named Cohen or Cantor would have been prefect probably. :P


    I’ve been avoiding reading much about the film so far, plan to enjoy it as the fun popcorn fluff Trek always was at hart to me.

  11. “I have my classic Spider-man that I grew up with in ‘Amazing Spider-man’ who remains basically untouched”

    What book have you been reading?

    “Spock travels to an alternate timeline, which already has an alternate version of himself, and helps people in that timeline deal with disaster.”

    Spock caused the alternate timeline.

    I will miss the crew from The Next Generation. That’s really the only problem I see with this new film for me.

  12. Spock caused the alternate timeline.

    There are differing perspectives on alternate timelines/alternate universes. If a story’s written from the perspective of a time traveler who’s assumed that there is only one timeline, his trip will create another; whether there’s another version of himself in that timeline depends on several factors.

    The scientific perspective is that there are an unknown number, perhaps infinitely many, timelines/universes, which can be radically different from this universe. A story about a trip to one of those universes will probably emphasize the differences, but there could be universes very similar to the original. It remains to be seen which approach Abrams, et al., chose.

    BTW, time travel, except for time dilation, could be physically impossible. The fact that no time travelers have existed argues against the existence of the technology, or, at the very least, against the possibility of traveling to or from the “future.”