It's time for a paltry Star Trek update -- I think a new tidbit surfaces about once a month. A scan through Cinematical's archives reveals the last one was on August 15th, so we're right on schedule.

This time, J.J. Abrams finally breaks his silence to SciFi Scanner about the original (and to many, the only) Captain Kirk. William Shatner has been pretty vocal about not being asked for so much as a cameo, particularly since Leonard Nimoy got one. Rumors tell us that just about all the surviving cast members might be popping up, too.

Well, it sounds as though Shatner has only himself to blame. According to Abrams, "It was very tricky. We actually had written a scene with him in it that was a flashback kind of thing, but the truth is, it didn't quite feel right. The bigger thing was that he was very vocal that he didn't want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly, which, frankly, he deserves. The truth is, the story that we were telling required a certain adherence to the Trek canon and consistency of storytelling. It's funny -- a lot of the people who were proclaiming that he must be in this movie were the same people saying it must adhere to canon. Well, his character died on screen. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that."

Now, given the intense secrecy surrounding the film, we may all walk into the theater and find Shatner beaming back at us. Oh, the head shaking and bemusement that would ensue! But I think the rift is pretty real on this one.

Those attending VegasCon '08 saw four new character posters for J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, which give us our first look at the reborn versions of Sulu, Chekov, Scotty and McCoy. The image above shows Karl Urban as Leonard McCoy and Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov; you'll have to go to TrekMovie.com, which had the first photo of the posters, to see Simon Pegg as Scotty and John Cho as Sulu. It should surprise no one that these Starfleet officers are much more photogenic than their original counterparts, and not, I think, merely because they're younger. (I mean, look at this guy.)

This comes on the heels of the first screening of the complete film for Paramount execs, which apparently went very well, though since the source for that could really only be from inside Paramount, I'd take that with a huge grain of salt.

I came to Star Trek late, which led to oddball results like my liking Star Trek: Voyager. (I think that asking "What would Janeway do?" is a good way to lead your life.) So I'm likely to be less offended by canon alterations than die-hard fans of the original series. Thoughts on the new versions of these characters?

Last Thursday, the New York Times ran an unassuming little human interest piece in its Home & Garden section called "Mystery on Fifth Avenue". It described an elaborate trick played by an architectural designer on a wealthy Manhattan couple who hired him to redo their opulent Upper East Side co-op.

Unbeknownst to the family, the architect hardwired an elaborate, National Treasure-like scavenger hunt into the apartment, building clues into the walls and the furniture, enlisting other talents to write a book and music to accompany the adventure -- which the family did not discover until months after they moved in.

There is no way I can start this news with anything but the song, so get that puppy playing and continue reading. The Hollywood Reporter posts that J. J. Abrams is teaming up with Paramount to give us Jay Dyer's new spec, one that has a name that jumps back to the '80s -- Hot for Teacher.

Aptly, the film is said to be "a Superbad-like story of a high school senior who sets out to have sex with his teacher before he graduates." He's got it bad, he's got it bad, he's hot for teacher! My expectations have soared through the roof for this project, so I hope it's at least half as good as I imagine it could be. Yes, I have a long-standing appreciation for Diamond Dave.

If this is already being compared to Superbad, I'm expecting that there will be the classic "Hot for Teacher" dance in tuxes with the head clutch, the heart grab, and then crotch clasp. A verrrrrry long guitar solo library shot would be cool too. Part of Superbad's charm was merging current kids with old-school music, and this new project is based on a Van Halen song, so hopefully there are at least a few nods to the old days.

Those of us who saw Cloverfield in theaters this past January watched the monster movie in the wrong way. According to a new Reuters article, the movie's producer, J.J. Abrams, says it's really meant for home viewing: "The thing about this movie -- probably more than any I think -- is that it is better on DVD than in the theater," Abrams told Reuters. "Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor."

Interesting. Wait, so does that mean I was correct when I wrote in my column, "The Exhibitionist", about Cloverfield being "theatrically inappropriate"? I went so far as to say that it had no business being shown in theaters at all, which I'm sure Abrams doesn't agree with, and I also said that it was most appropriately viewed in a YouTube window. I received some of my harshest criticism ever for that column, yet I don't mean to now jump around bragging that I was right and the commenters were wrong. Anytime a post on Cinematical can get 42 responses (or more), in which movie fans get into a heated discussion about films, formats and fun (as in the adjective used to describe the experience of seeing Cloverfield in a theater), is 100% a good thing. Yes, even when I'm said to be "misguided" or "having an off day".

Simon Pegg is going to be in trouble! Even he says so. When asked about Star Trek by AICN, he was extremely wary. "There is very little I can say, because there is a Paramount sniper trained on the back of my head as I speak. He's on a building and I'm not going to look, because he will know I know he is there."

But he talked anyway. You need to head over to read (and listen to!) the entire interview, where Pegg talks about everything from Run Fatboy Run, to Spaced, to Hot Fuzz, and, of course, Star Trek. I will post the best bits here, though, because I know you're dying to read them.

Pegg elaborated on taking on the iconic role and stressed how conscientious he was to play the part with the utmost respect. "One thing I didn't want to do is an impression of James Doohan, because I wouldn't want anyone to think I was making fun of him, you know? If I started doing an impersonation of the actor that played Scotty, that would be doing the part and the actor a disservice, so my intention was to take it as James did when he first picked up the script, and just say 'Okay, he's a physics genius, he's an engineer, he's from Scotland ...' and approach the character like that and to have my interpretation of it."

Is this breaking news? I don't know. Variety thinks it's breaking news, so I guess it's breaking news -- but, to me, breaking news would be, "Star Trek Not Happening Because J.J. Abrams Crapped Himself and Hates Life." Star Trek's release date being pushed back to May 8, 2009, from December 25, 2008? News, definitely. Breaking news? Not so much. Why the move? Some feel the film has more box office potential in May than in December (which I certainly believe, to some degree), but I'd bet the cattle ranch J.J. wanted to fine-tune that script a bit now that the writer's strike is over, and he'd like that much more time to do so. We know he had problems with the script they're shooting with now; minor problems, probably, but I could see him wanting to change it up now that he's able to.

Anyway, yeah, Star Trek will now arrive in theaters on May 8, 2009. Its competition will come from X-Men Origins: Wolverine (due out May 1, 2009) and Angels & Demons (due out May 19, 2009). Also of note, Variety says Dreamworks pushed the Tropic Thunder (Ben Stiller comedy) release date back to August 15 from July 11. What do you think about the release date shift? Does it mean a whole lot to have those extra few months?

Aussie thespian Eric Bana was on hand at today's junket for The Other Boleyn Girl in Manhattan, and no surprise -- he was peppered with questions about his recent, confusing comments regarding his role in the upcoming J.J. Abrams film adaptation of Star Trek. Bana was recently quoted in an Australian newspaper as speaking of the part of Nero -- thought to be the film's main villain -- as only a "cameo," so after a few polite questions about TOBG were tossed around today, I broached the subject with Bana. Isn't Nero the main villain in this movie, I asked? To which he replied: "Well, I guess he kind of is, but I guess what I mean is that in the context of the roles I usually do, the weight is firmly on other areas, you know what I mean? It's not one of those roles where you're carrying the movie, is what I'm saying. I feel like I'm very much in a supporting role, not one of the main guys. So 'cameo' is a way of saying I don't feel like, as I am in this film or some other films, where you're clearly carrying a lot of the film. It's a luxury to not be in that position. It's nice to be offered a part like that."

Bana went on to say that he had not filmed his part yet. "They started shooting quite a while ago," he said. "I've got the plum gig on that film, I've gotta say. I haven't even started yet. I just go in at the very end and do my cameo." When asked if he was a 'Trekkie,' he responded thusly: "I like the show, I liked the original as a kid. I loved it. I haven't seen a lot of the movies since, but I was a fan of the original series. But that wouldn't have been enough, even if I was crazy about the original series it wouldn't have been enough to make me sign on to a film I didn't want to do. I just read the script and I went 'that is an awesome script' and it's J.J. and it'd be a good time, to play a character like that. It was a very easy decision."

The first 'reality blockbuster' is a winner. Cloverfield is a lean, brisk roller-coaster of a monster movie, buoyed by the lack of story gimmicks and absurd characterizations that weigh down most movies of this ilk, no offense to you personally Mr. Broderick. In the aftermath, it will dawn on you that it's actually quite traditional -- every character has an arc -- but it doesn't feel that way. Nor does it feel like 'found footage', but something in between. Watch the prologue carefully, as our narrator/cameraman, whose point of view we'll share, is trying to make a standard going-away party commemoration tape interesting by sniffing out some sex gossip and self-consciously creating his own drama with a girl who wishes he'd get lost. This guy has filmmaking instincts, and when circumstances change and he becomes a 'character' in a disaster movie, he goes with it. He's not just pointing a camera -- he's making Cloverfield: The Movie. Ten years ago, we would have said 'it's not realistic that this guy would keep the camera rolling,' but those days are long gone.

Again, there's no pretense of reality here -- the 20-something party people who we meet and whose lives are flipped by the arrival of the monster are all as pretty and as vapid as anyone on Laguna Beach and they never become less glamorous as the movie goes on -- no one is caught in need of a snot-rag, ala Blair Witch. Among the main characters are Rob (Michael Stahl-David), the guest of honor at the party who is leaving for a new job in Japan, Beth (Odette Yustman) his ex-girlfriend who he still has feelings for but would only admit it if, say, her life were in mortal danger or something, and Marlena (Lizzy Caplan) whose quiet, wide-eyed demeanor and gruff sarcasm make her a bad candidate for 'Survivor Girl.' As the advertising will tell you, some characters will live and some will die but you never know when and where and one death is so shocking and inexplicable I wish very much that I hadn't already seen it a hundred times in the movie's 'give everything away' advertising.

Oh yes, that's exactly what you think it is. Moviefone snatched the first Star Trek photo, and though it's a tad dark, you can clearly see the new Enterprise ship coming together. Ever since it was announced that J.J. Abrams would be directing a brand new take on the Star Trek franchise, folks have been itching to see what he's come up with. Starring Zachary Quinto (as a young Spock), Chris Pine (as a young Kirk), Karl Urban (as Bones), Simon Pegg (as Scotty), John Cho (as Sulu), Anton Yelchin (as Checkov) and Zoe Saldana (as Uhuru), this latest Star Trek installment apparently follows the original crew during their early days at Starfleet Academy up through their first mission together. Eric Bana will be playing a villain named Nero, while Bruce Greenwood will also make an appearance as the original Captain, Christopher Pike. And for those longing for some old school Trek, you'll be happy to know that Leonard Nimoy will also be showing up as his old Spock self. Head to Moviefone to see a larger Star Trek photo, as well as a gallery of the cast. Star Trek is set to touch down on December 25.

Additionally, you can spot the first trailer for Star Trek this weekend in front of Cloverfield, and the film's official site has now gone live.