Trek XI Adds Additional Producer – Continues To Head Towards Greenlight |
jump to navigation

Trek XI Adds Additional Producer – Continues To Head Towards Greenlight December 12, 2006

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Rumor,STXI Status , trackback has learned that J.J. Abrams and Paramount have added Stratton Leopold to the growing list of Executive Producers for Star Trek XI. Leopold has a career that dates back to the 70s and worked with Abrams on Mission Impossible III. His other recent Paramount projects include The Sum of All Fears and Paycheck. Like with MI:III, Leopold will also function as the Unit Production Manager, who has the primary task of overseeing the budget. Leopold was not available for comment, but a studio source indicates he is expected to start working in January and his first task will be to help put together the budget. Budgeting is the last step before the official green light and usually requires a finalized script. has learned that the script is still not complete but apparently the first draft has been finished. Production is still believed to be going ahead in 2007 with a 2008 release, but it is possible that it will not be in Summer.


1. StarTrekkie - December 12, 2006

So, what do you think the budget will be? Wasn’t Nemesis 40 mil? I’m hoping for something more sizable around 60-80.

2. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk - December 12, 2006

The power of Kirk compells you.

Isn’t this just a Jim Dandy to be anticipating a brand spanking new Star Trek adventure on the horizon?

I tell ya, it’s comparable to Christmas.

Regardless of what anyone says about the plot or specifics, it is CLEARLY obvious Paramount is treating this particular voyage with the utmost TLC, and not merely grandstanding.

The team that is being assembled for this picture sounds nothing short of epic.

I don’t know what the hell happened insides the hallowed halls of Paramount Pictures, but this year for Star Trek in direct contrast to just a few years ago has been absolutely fantastic.

The Animated Series released on DVD.
The Remastered Project and the love and care behind it.
This new film adventure with a strong creative team driving it.

It’s almost like the world turned and someone inside Paramount “remembered” a little entertainment franchise they have ownership of called “Star Trek.”

I think this is should serve as a powerful lesson to people what can be done when an endeavor is in the right hands, versus when it is in the wrong hands ahem *cough* Berminator.

I can easily envision years from now conversations reflecting on the dark period Trek has been forced to endure….”hey, remember way back when Star Trek sucked for awhile? Wasn’t that sad?”

Kudos to the mysterious Paramount entity that woke the hell up finally.

3. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk - December 12, 2006

Trekkie I’m anticipating at bare minimum a 65 million budget.
Abrams isn’t cheap, and if we are to assume Damon is on board, he isn’t cheap either. To say nothing of the Shat and Leonard “join us for ‘In search’ of ” Nimoy.

It’s very possible this adventure like Wrath of Khan will be a “bottle episode” taking place primarily inside the ship to cut costs.
However, even that being the case all of the original sets will have to be reconstructed to at least some degree, and that isn’t factoring in any contemporary embellishments to the sets.

There is still thankfully a great deal to speculate about.

4. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk - December 12, 2006

I am still hedging my bets that the story will feature young Damon Kirk actually meeting face to face Old the power of Shat Kirk.

You heard it here first.

Star Trek XI: A tale of two Kirks.

5. Jim J - December 12, 2006

Whatever it is, I do hope the Shat and Spocko (original recipe) will be in it, even if briefly. Perhaps they can somehow bring back Kirk (the old hefty one) and a very young Kirk and Co. can play the key role. I have no idea where they are going to go with this, but the talk of TOS characters is so exhilirating after all these years!!!! TOS will always be the best (original recipe), TNG close behind (extra crispy), DS9 is probably next (hot wings), Enterprise (mashed potatoes and gravy), and then Voyager (no comment-although two things on that show interested me-remember, the Shat is my hero…hint, hint).

Geez, it it time to eat yet? hee, hee

6. Dustin - December 12, 2006

Does this mean we could have a greenlight in the next few months?

7. Dom - December 12, 2006

The budget will depend very much on Paramount’s long-term plans. If the film ***is*** set in the TOS era, then the preliminary USS Enterprise design work is already done and is simply in need of modification, for example!

They’ll have to decide whether they want sets that can last for years or just for one film and worry about something more permanent if STXI is successful.

Another factor will be whether they want big name actors or not. Marketing will be vital: the first Trek movie with a young cast . . . there’s a big chance of pulling in a younger audience – the key 18-35 demographic.

I would certainly anticipate a substantially bigger budget than Nemesis. This is the crucial moment where Paramount needs to get behind its SF franchise and get it out into the public domain again! There’ve been too many years of drifting.

8. Lao3D - December 12, 2006

Star salaries aside, if they budget for much less than $120-150 mil, they’re not going to do justice to what this film needs to be: a spectacular cinematic experience, not just a warmed up TV show on the big screen. Its a bigger gamble in terms of recouping costs at the box office, but cheaping out won’t do anyone any good either. Heck, average budgets for non-effects laden films these days are in the $65 million range.

9. Doug - December 12, 2006

re budgets…

…and yet week after week BSG delivers 50 minutes of sci-fi with top notch effects that blow me away for much less. Surely quality and the dollar aren’t married as closely as we think. Quality and good craftsmanship are tho.

Budget notwithstanding, I think Abrams & co will do a good job with Trek. I liked his MI3. I think he understands character and plot development… provides a payoff at the end, and will do it all with a little style.

I’m looking forward to it. – doug

10. Adam Cohen - December 12, 2006

Recent “tentpole” pics at Paramount had the following budgets:

Lemony Snicket: Budget- $140 million. Gross- $115 million
The Manchurian Candidate: Budget- $80 million. Gross- $65 million
The Stepford Wives: Budget- $90 million. Gross- $59 million

War of the Worlds: Budget- $132 million. Gross- $234 million
The Longest Yard: Budget- $82 million. Gross- $158 million
Sahara: Budget- $130 million. Gross- $68 million

Mission: Impossible III: Budget- $150 million. Gross: $133 million

Paramount has not had a lot of luck in the past three years, except for War of the Worlds and The Longest Yard. The ceiling for Paramount is apparently the $150 million it spent just this year on MI-III. Despite Trek XI being called a tentpole, I would be surprised of the go far above $100 million for the budget. Nemesis (2003) cost $60 million, and as many of you know, $14 million of that went directly to line Pat Stewart’s pockets. Does J.J. Abrams have the clout to pull the purse strings open? I don’t know. And how far does he want to go with the budget? Presumably, Star Trek is not going to try and outdo Star Wars with space battles and theatrics.

But then there is this idea that Paramount’s brass might be itching to blow $130 million like they have on projects of lesser caliber (Sahara & Lemony Snicket). My worry here is that Star Trek XI doesn’t live up to the executives’ expectations once its released. In another discussion I posted the adjusted-for-inflation trend of Star Trek movie performances. Basically, ST: TMP would have grossed $230 million in todays dollars, ST: IV would have grossed $130 million and Star Trek: First Contact would have grossed $110 million. I think the gross for First Conact is an important indicator. Sure, it was a TNG movie, but it was a crowd-pleasing action flick with a little “Star Trek” sprinkled througout. To be honest, I don’t expect this new Trek film to drastically outdo First Contact. At most, Trek XI will rake in $125 million or so (give or take 5-10 million either way). I would cite as evidence 1) the overall diminishing trend for the franchise’s performance at the box office, 2) the general decline in movie-going (or “repeat visists” to the movies), 3) the decline of the franchise in recent years (Enterprise’s cancellation, the lackluster box office performance of Star Trek: Insurrection and the flop performance of Star Trek: Nemesis).

I’m not saying Trek XI cannot beat $125 million, but for it to do so, something extraordinary would have to take place. Therefore, if Paramount did their homework, they would be wise not to spend more than $100 million on this project. People, that’s still a ton of money. Probably too much to be honest.

11. Starscream - December 12, 2006

IThe budget will be close to MI3 more than likely….What was the budget for MI3?

12. Adam Cohen - December 12, 2006

#11, read my comment above yours (#10).

13. DB - December 12, 2006

Paramount has promotional and distribution capabilities equal to that of the other majors.

Therefore, the box office “ceiling” is entirely a matter of the film in question rather than a fixed attribute of the studio which is producing/distributing it.

If the folks running the studio now thought for a moment that 150 million dollars domestic gross was the best they should shoot for because, well, it’s Paramount, they’d be looking for work with other studios as fast as they could. In fact, the reason that a whole new studio management team has been moved into place at Paramount over the last several years has been to improve the performance of their movies (as well as their relationships with talent).

14. Agent69 - December 12, 2006

If they could afford to pay 14 million to Stewart and at least 5 million to Brent Spiner (that’s how much he got for Insurrection) for Nemesis (budget was 60 mil.), I think they can make a spectacular movie with Matt Damon for no more than 100 million.
Matt gets about 10 million per movie, that will probably increase with third Bourn and third Oceans movie coming out.
Besides remember even Star Wars III was made for “only” 113 mil.

And #10 Star Trek IV adjusted in 2006 $ would have made around 190 mil not 130.

15. Adam Cohen - December 12, 2006

DB, I think you misread what I wrote- I said that there is a $150 million ceiling on what Paramount is willing to *spend* on a movie (not what the studio expected a movie to gross). That’s why I listed the movies above. MIssion: Impossible III was their most expensive movie over the last three years. And they also spent $140 million on Lemony Snicket and $130 on Sahara.

16. Adam Cohen - December 12, 2006

#14, I stand corrected re: ST: IV’s gross adjusted for inflation. I wrote the correct number in the other discussion ($188 million) in fact.

As for the Star Wars budget, I don’t think they should be applied here because George Lucas owns the FX shop he used for those movies. Lucas can make whatever budget he wants, and I guarantee you that if an outside studio came to ILM and asked for over two thousand FX shots in a movie, he would quote them an absurdly higher price than what he charged himself for each prequel. And Lucasfilm doesn’t pay for distribution costs (printing the movies on film, which can cost an extra $20 million), 20th Century Fox got to pay that fee.

17. StephenMartin - December 12, 2006

7. Dom

” I would certainly anticipate a substantially bigger budget than Nemesis. This is the crucial moment where Paramount needs to get behind its SF franchise and get it out into the public domain again! There’ve been too many years of drifting.”

I agree, Dom. It’s beginning to sound like these guys are serious about making a good Star Trek film. Here’s hoping.

18. Phaser1 - December 12, 2006

I would rather watch an ordinary 60s Star Trek episode made on a 60s budget with 60s effects on a 9″ black and white screen than whatever they will come up with for their 100+ million. I just can’t get excited about the whole idea of this project. I don’t need it. I don’t wish it ill or well; I just don’t believe in it. I don’ t want to see new actors with new interpretations of the classic roles, so all this debate about who will play Kirk, etc. just doesn’t matter to me. Shatner IS Kirk. Nimoy IS Spock. Kelley IS McCoy.
So, they can go ahead and make their movie, but I will not be waiting in line for it.

19. Kyle - December 12, 2006

Wow, Stratton Leopold!! That is a HUGE name folks! In Hollywood, huge names matter, and with JJ Abrams and Stratton Leopold behind this thing, it’s looking to me like this movie is definitly going to happen, and there’s going to be BIG hype of it in a year or so.

Honestly, this is exciting stuff. It shows that Paramount is looking to boost itself as a film studio, knows that Trek is its biggest franchise, and is finally willing to put the money into it.

Will it be a good movie? Who knows? But you never know for sure if a movie will be good until it’s released.

One more thing though…I sure hope they pick a good release weekend this time. Part of the reason that Nemesis did poorly at the box office was because it was going up against Return of the King a week later, and there were other movies that reached all the other demographics.

20. Orbitalic - December 12, 2006

#18 Phaser…

Forgive me, but I have to ask this… What made you come to this site if you have no interest in a new Trek movie? You aren’t the first person I’ve seen come through the door and make this kind of statement.
Mind you, I am not on your case or trying to make you feel bad. I respect your opinion, but if the name of the site is why come in if you feel this way?

21. Orbitalic - December 12, 2006

#2,3,4 Josh T

Congrats on the new nome de plume. It fits.

22. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk - December 12, 2006


Jim J, don’t you mean-

TOS- Double Quarter Pounder plain with cheese mmmmm

TNG- Double cheeseburger

DS9- a taco

Voyager- Jack in the Box menu items

Enterprise- Greasy pork sammich served in a dirty ashtray

23. senya cartel - December 12, 2006

I’m not Phaser1 nor am I as upset as Phaser1 apparently is about the direction of the new movie. But from the perspective of someone that just found this site 3 weeks ago, I agree with some of that person’s dismay.

I think there are other fans like myself that are concerned that in the rush to make this film a financial success there is the potential for it to become typical one-shot, big name, big budget, shallow Hollywood crap. For me personally, ST-V TFF was mostly crap too, but at least it was crap made in hope of pleasing Trek fans.

Some of you seem to think that big name actors are critical to the success of Star Trek…um..what? To date, only Scott Bakula had a major pre-Trek career and I don’t think he ‘saved’ Trek. If ever there were a “reboot”, it was ENT. My personal opinion is that ENT failed for several reasons but acting wasn’t one of them – IMO because of the problems with UPN & because it was a prequel.

Trek has always been special to me and I not only don’t want to see it perverted for a quick buck, but I guess I’m shocked to see so many (I suppose longtime) fans here have such D-R-A-S-T-I-C-ally different interpretations of what Trek was in the first place. Personally, I liked every series on it’s own merits. I expected personal preference for some over others, but not haters of everything produced over the past 20 years!

I want the inside scoop on the new movie so I’ll keep reading – and yes, I’ll still go see it (whatever it is), but the commentary here in the meantime is certainly not what I expected…

24. Darth Ballz - December 13, 2006


I like Matt Damon, the Bourne movies are great and his acting, action, etc. are great but if he plays Kirk he might be very well boarder on being a parody. Shatner made kirk so iconic that if a big name actor tries to play him it’s either straight which people will think “he’s not kirk” or if they try to take his manerisms (spelling?) then he will be a joke or parody………

If there is a problem with the budget then split it into 2 movies. 150 million for 2 pictures. That way you have a bigger story to work with, more character development, and best for Paramount they have 2 DVD’s to make a crapload of money on. The story arc for II, II, and IV made for good storytelling and it sure as hell worked for LOTR, Back to the Future II,III etc.

I agree that a re-make is pointless, you can do it with the Brady Bunch but Star Trek has a whole diffrent level to it. I wish them luck but the odd’s are not in there favor?

Darth “I have a bad feeling about this” Ballz

25. jonny481 - December 13, 2006


26. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

There have been some interesting observations and salient points given by Adam Cohen, Doug and others about budgets and cast but ultimately it is “much ado about nothing.” And I don’t mean that in a dismissive or condescending way at all.

The budget will be the budget and the cast will be the cast… Paramount and the producers will finance the picture at a level they feel will give them the maximum return. They’ll serve the script financially in a manner they choose. Whether below the line or above the line, hopefully… And I am hopeful, J.J. & Company will make the right choices to make Star Trek experience a true renaissance.

In a previous thread, I mentioned that it is ALL about the story… the tale… the narrative… THE WORDS that take us on this new/old voyage.

If all the rumors are true, i.e., Shatner & Nimoy will be attached, the TOS Universe will be re-visited, Star Trek Canon will be respected, and there may be “A List” talent aboard to reprise some very iconic characters…


I don’t mean just a tall order to satisfy Star Trek’s fan base (which will be nearly impossible.) It is a tall order to make a great film that invites… No, compels people to want to see this movie.

THE STORY IS EVERYTHING! If it is a good solid piece with drama, action and the right sprinkling of humor, the “buzz” will begin, the reviews will be favorable but more than anything… word of mouth will explode.

There is NOTHING more powerful than friends telling friends or family or associates or acquaintances, “You have got to see this movie! Yeah, I know you aren’t a big Star Trek fan but it is more than what you remember. It just a good f**king movie! And you gotta see it. NOW! Don’t wait for it on DVD.”

If the story is good… the budget and the cast will fall into place, perfectly or imperfectly depending on one’s expectations of an effect or an alien planet or a face that occupies a character we love. But at the end of the show when you walk out of the theater if you want to see it again… and again… and that energy affects others… WOW!

Star Trek is back, baby! And in a big way.

27. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006

#26 Herbert Eyes Wide Open,

You’re right that it’s all about the story. However, the budget will have an effect on the story. As will the actors that get cast. And the budget also will determine the studio’s financial expectations for this movie and therefore factor into any future Trek movies with J.J. Abrams or anyone else for that matter. I mean the whole reason we’re sitting here talking about a “new direction” for Star Trek is because Star Trek Nemesis was a complete flop, making only half of its budget back at the box office. I know some folks didn’t like Star Trek II, but for the majority of us, that story thrived amidst tight budget constraints. Whereas Star Trek TMP, a movie most of us didn’t love (except our respected friend Daren Dochterman) had all the money in the world thrown at it and failed to please audiences. There’s no perfect formula. A great story, a snappy script a smart director are all essentials. But then a studio with realistic expectations and actors with a real dedication to the franchise are also essentials when it comes to Star Trek being a success.

28. Picardsucks - December 13, 2006

The Next Generation floped because ultimately it was a flawed concept. It peaked in the early to mid 90’s with it’s technobabel driven episodes during the technology boom. First Contact was good because it followed the Star Trek NOT the Next Generation formula. Picard was acting decidedly Kirk-like in his swashbuckling, there was real palitable danger, sacrifice and action wrapped up in a social allegory. That is Star Trek. Please stop using The Next Generation as examples of Star Trek’s shortcomings. They were not Star Trek (other than First Contact which stuck to it’s formula) they are the Next Generation. Star Trek never failed save The Final Frontier which still turned a very minor profit and has since made the studio loads of cash in home video distribution. Star Trek never failed , it may have faded away for a time as some times legends do, but the legends are never far from our hearts and always storm back proudly

29. Jim J - December 13, 2006

Health warning: This post contains quite a few capital letters in it. My apologies to anyone that may become injured-

#22: You said, “don’t you mean”:

DS9- a taco

Voyager- Jack in the Box menu items

Enterprise- Greasy pork sammich served in a dirty ashtray

I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone can enjoy Voyager more than Enterprise. I think Enterprise got a bum rap because of Berman & Braga…everyone was SO SICK of them by then. But that cast could act circles around the Voyager cast (except maybe Anthony M., though Garret W. was bad, too). There were only two reasons to watch that show, but enough about “the girls.” Anyway, my point was that TOS is THE SHOW, Shat is THE MAN, and Star Trek IS BACK!!!! (I hope)

30. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006

#22, #29

What in blazes are you two going on about? Chicken nuggets? Tacos? Tighten up, mates. Remember why we’re here…

“Risk. Risk is our business. That’s what this starship is all about. That’s why we’re aboard her.” – James T. Kirk

No tacos! Well, considering Taco Bell’s recent e coli problems, maybe tacos are indeed a risk, but an “unwarrented” one at that ;)

31. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

#27. Adam Cohen

But that’s exactly my point about the importance of story…

Star Trek has ALWAYS been constrained from a budgetary standpoint. If you look at Box Office receipts (specifically US grosses which often drive foreign dollars with respect to revenue and additional advertising and marketing by the studios) you will see, for the most part, the features that have performed the best have one thing in common… terrific stories. (That and the magic of Kirk, Spock and the Gang.)

TMP, while visually spectacular, stumbled a bit with story. Granted, it cost more than it should have but Paramount rolled all the development costs from it’s Star Trek “fits and starts” over the previous five years. Still, it was profitable at a nearly 2.5 to 1 return.

STII… great story… great performance at nearly a 7 to 1 return.

STIII… good story… solid performance at an over 4 to 1 return.

STIV… terrific story… solid performance, again at over a 4.5 to 1 return.

STV… mediocre story (but great character moments)… nearly 2 to 1 return.

STVI… terrific story… nearly 3 to 1 return.

Generations… lousy story… a 2 to 1 return (one reason it got that… Kirk Magic!)

First Contact… terrific story… a 2 to 1 return (as good a movie as it was, it begs the question, “Does TNG resonate and have legs?”)

Insurrection… god awful story… pretty much a wash between budget and US return.

Nemesis… mediocre story… grossed 43M domestically and it cost 60M… Ouch!

Now the above are admittedly thumbnail snapshots regarding my opinion of the feature outings and I chose US grosses because that has a huge impact on foreign and all the other ancillary markets of revenue. I’m very aware of the ever escalating cost of filmmaking and diminishing attendance at exhibition, both through competition, ticket prices and apathy. So, yeah… making tent-pole pictures is a risky business.

(I just had this weird image pop in my head of a bunch of “suits” sitting around a big conference table at Paramount as one young flamboyant exec recites Kirk’s legendary “Risk” speech from “Return To Tomorrow.”)

Don’t get me wrong Paramount has made lots and lots of money from Star Trek and they have nothing to cry about except for the fact that the last couple of outings they forgot about telling great stories. And that’s on them…. The least expensive part of filmmaking is… writing.

Star Trek XI will have the budget it gets… and the cast it gets… and certainly they will both have an impact on it’s success… But nothing will have an impact on the future of Star Trek like the story that J.J. Abrams & Company will tell.

If it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage.

And again, I really wasn’t being dismissive or condescending and I’m sorry if anyone took it that way…

I enjoy most people’s posts here and especially yours, Adam. However, the thing that haunts me is not the budget… or the cast… the thing that makes me awake in a cold sweat at night and pray these words, “Please Mr. Abrams, don’t f**k it up!” is the story.

32. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

#30. Adam Cohen

God, that was freaky! I just used the “Risk” reference in my post and then i saw your post.

Too funny :)

33. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006

Herbert Eyes Wide Open, I appreciate your posts a lot as well.

I agree with what you’ve said, and I don’t think you and I are at odds in our concerns here. It just so happens that this is a dicey situation for Star Trek in many respects- 1) Trek XI is basically a prequel, which in itself has limitations on the story and character development, 2) The Trek franchise is attempting to come back from it’s lowest point since 1969, which may involve a lot of “capital investment” from the studio (which makes me nervous!) and 3) what comes next? Do we revisit TOS with this “new” crew (and drag out those old TMP uniforms at some point)? Are we going to get a new show? (a spinoff set in TOS period, or a post TNG show in the distant future?) Star Trek is at a critical moment. I hope there are smart, concerned individuals thinking ahead and making wise decisions.

I think Orci and Kurtzman (and Abrams) have a lot cut out for them.

34. Anthony Pascale - December 13, 2006

well Abrams has often stated that what matters most is story and drama. Just look at what Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams did for MI3…they threw away the useless action and added depth to the characters.

it is true that the Trek XI team have a tough task ahead, but remember that they are the ones that are responsible for making Trek XI happened. They talked Paramount into doing this…they have a strong vision of what they want to do…this isnt just an assignment to them…it is something they are very passionate about

35. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

#34. Anthony Pascale

From your mouth to God’s ears, as they say.

And I wasn’t kidding about that bottle of wine for your meritorious service and commendations… your call, bubala!

36. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006

Mission: Impossible III was easily the best of the trilogy. Unfortunately, studio politics, media backlash against its star, (and a large budget) made the powers that be frown upon its performance. The example of M:I-III illustrates exaclty what my concers are for Trek XI. Here is a movie with a great story, a solid box office performance ($130 million) and *still* the studio and media discredit it for being an underperformer. It seems that the larger the budget for Trek XI, the bigger the bullseye on its back. I too have faith in the creative team, but the pressures from outside are large (and perhaps unfair). But, like Anthony said, Abrams & Co. talked Paramount into doing this project, so its their burden to bear.

37. Dom - December 13, 2006

I agree that story and performances are vital.

But persuading people to go to see the film in the first place is the big issue. Remember how Casino Royale, which had a rocky public start, gradually built up a buzz down the months. Trek needs to do the same.

Unlike Bond, Trek is suffering from a major dose of public and fan ennui, with a dash of derision. The marketing people are going to have to throw a fair wadge of cash at this film to sell the project. In a sense, ‘From the makers of Lost and M:I:III’ can’t do too much harm to the publicity, so they’re on the road, as long as Tom Cruise doesn’t start jumping up and down on Oprah’s sofa to attempt to persuade people to see it!!! ;)

The right mix of known actors, stars (there’s a difference!) and unknown actors will also be a draw. One of the reasons I like Damon as a choice for Kirk is that I still think of him as an actor more than a star! He’s also kept himself out of the damaging paparazzi swim better than his mate Ben Affleck, who is better known for being himself now than as an actor!

Once those initial hurdles are got over, we have to hope critics at advance screenings like the film. Additionally, like ’em or loathe ’em, sites such as Ain’t It Cool, Dark Horizons and CHUD will have an impact on the 18-35 demographic. I suspect websites such as this one will have an indirect mainstream impact as well, since mainstream film sites might well link to as a source of info!

I’m crossing my fingers. This film can be great or awful. What little I’ve heard so far is making me positive!

38. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

On a side note and (sorry) for being off thread, I watched “The Corbomite Maneuver” last night… the Remastered version… finally.

Moving quickly past the well-deserved accolades to CBS/Digital, the thing that struck me is… This episode IS Star Trek.

I’ve seen the episode more times than I can count but when I watched it last night… It was like it was the first time. It was the beginning…

The beginning of Kirk’s command… the Kirk that is on the precipice of legend… His first test as a leader. His realization that I’m in deep doo-doo and I am responsible for all these people and the future of human exploration.

Then to see the realization of the poker bluff as it played across his face… a chance for survival… the notion that I don’t want to fight but the stakes are just too high for my ship… my crew… and for all those trailblazing behind me. So, dammit, if you are gonna take me out you’re gonna pay a price… even if it is a bluff. And in the end, I’m still going to be compassionate because that’s what defines us as human beings.

The beginning of Spock… the Spock we know and love… the Spock that serves honor and duty in a way like no other… the Spock that “sees” in this man in the center seat all that is the best in humankind… nobility… curiosity… tenacity… generosity… and never wants to let him down. And, even without knowing it, this man will be the defining factor in who I am to be.

The beginning of McCoy… the McCoy that wrestles with what it is to remain human against the exigencies of space travel and exploration… the McCoy that knows just how frail we all are… And yet knows, that recognizing what is worst about us makes us stronger than we ever thought… because in the end, “You can’t keep a good man down.”

The beginning… that’s what I want from Star Trek XI… from J.J. & Company… I want this movie to make me feel young again and that it is ALL possible, once again.

And even though I’ve heard the tales so many times, when you speak of legends and if you tell the story well… it is like the first time… like the beginning.

39. TOSTrekkie - December 13, 2006

Dont get me wrong- I’m more excited to see new ST adventures than anyone I know, BUT…
Shat and crew can’t be duplicated. TOS was what it was because of the forward thinking in its creation. While it is sad that it can’t be continued as it was, or we can’t find an archive of lost episodes, Going back to that time is a death sentance to the franchise for the following reasons:
A) Been there, done that. No one is Kirk but Shat- same goes for the rest of TOS cast. If re-casting, just give us something new.
B) Where can it go? New series based on old timeline in polester uniforms? Enterprise showed us that a prequel with more advanced effects than TOS is NOT what we yearn for. So why the hell restart the franchise with a movie that CAN’T go anywhere (the small screen).
C) No big name actor would follow this role to the small screen, so what , do we re-cast again? Nope. Just another new series watered down with techno-babble and hotties in lycra…not that that’s ALL bad…
D) The modern ST viewer (Trekkers as opposed to us Trekkies) are too saavy technically, and have grown to expect much more than TOS era effects, but old Trekkies don’t want TOS sets/ new cast / new effects.
E) No matter the budget, the next movie will not be a blockbuster. Its still another incarnation of Star Trek, which has been been critically panned from the beginning. The (morons) who write the reviews pretty much pan any sci-fi movie without exception anyway, but they seem to have some special hatred for the ST franchise.

SO… I hate to suggest they go back to the drawing board, because I like the team assembled so far (with the exception of Damon-yuck!). I also am tired already of not having any new ST fix on a weekly basis. But they aren’t thinking long-term here. Let’s move forward, not try to recapture the magic of TOS. Bring back Kirk? HELL YES. But only Shatner will do- he doesn’t have to carry the movie, but he deserves better than he got in Genrations.
By the way – burgers and tacos aside- your INSANE ranking system needs adjusting. it should read as follows:
1- TOS
2- TNG
3- Voyager
4- Enterprise
5- DS9- that show really sucked…

40. TOSTrekkie - December 13, 2006

“The beginning… that’s what I want from Star Trek XI… from J.J. & Company… I want this movie to make me feel young again and that it is ALL possible, once again.

And even though I’ve heard the tales so many times, when you speak of legends and if you tell the story well… it is like the first time… like the beginning. ”

YES. I couldn’t agree more- but that is done through character driven, socially relavent story lines- Not technology, Lycra, Make-up, Etc.
TOS was so far ahead of its’ time – I don’t know if enough social innocence still exists to recreate the magic of TOS.

41. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006

You guys are getting all romantic about this stuff.

I haven’t heard Trek fans talk like this for a long time. Amen, brothers and sisters.

42. senya cartel - December 13, 2006

For the record and since I commented above…

1. TNG
2. TOS
3. DS9
4. VOY
5. ENT
6. TAS


1. II – TWOK
2. VI – TUDC
3. First Contact
5. IV – TVH
6. Insurrection
7. TMP
8. Generations
9. V – TFF
10. Nemesis

43. JON - December 13, 2006

Do the second five year mission.Post TOS pre-ST;TMP.The characters are already established.The origin of Kirk and Spock is a minuche.

44. Jim J - December 13, 2006

For the record where I stand:
1. TOS
2. TNG
3. DS9
4. ENT
5. TAS
6. VOY

1. TVH
2. TUC
3. FC
6. TMP
7. INS
8. NEM
9. GEN
10. TFF

45. JON - December 13, 2006

Sorry.But and origin story of Kirk and Spock seems more like backpedaling to me.Like “Star Trek begins”.I don’t think the general public cares.My position is go with whta the original series established and let it FLY.

46. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

#43. JON

I’m not sure but I think the second five-year mission happened after TMP.

47. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 13, 2006

#43. JON

Besides, I was waxing romantic and speaking somewhat metaphorically.

48. acb - December 13, 2006

hey! what happened to the new animated trek story that was just posted today! It disappeared already……….and i just finished typing up a real opinionated piece on it too!

49. JON - December 13, 2006

Herbert.There was a first 5 year mission which would have lasted from 1966 to 1971 .then the Enterprise would have been called back and re-fitted for a second 5 year mission( 1972?-1977-our years) which was always the original plan .BUT. BUT! the actors got too old so they jumped over telling the story of the second 5 year mission.During the (end?)of the second 5 year mission many of the crewmembers left in some sort of dissalusionment.Remember.Kirk had to beg Mc Coy to come back and Spock was on Vulcan because of some personal identity crisis.They had a second 5 year mission but something really shook them up.after all the movies were all about them rediscovering their bonds.didn’t anyone notice the personal distance between the principles in ST;TMP.C’mon think outside the box!Now look at the poster art.It speaks of conflict between the gold and blue shirt with the enterprise logo sreving as a rift between the two.

50. acb - December 13, 2006

um…JON, some of that is accurate some of it is not completely.

51. JON - December 13, 2006

ACB.i’m not talking about star Trek novels and games canon just TV and movies which is all the general audience cares about.

52. JON - December 13, 2006

They can’t be so hamstrung by”canon”( of novels games etc)that their forced to do a goosestepping origin story .C’mon that’s so plodding.

53. acb - December 13, 2006

Actually a 2nd 5 yr mission was only assumed, never actually established in either movies or tv. The only reason it was assumed was because there was going to be a tv series originally done based on a 2nd 5 yr mission, nothing actually story oriented.

They jumped over the story too because partially yes the actors were older, so out of respect for an audience and our visual perception they were not going to go down the idiotic route of trying to attempt at making us believe that a 50 yr+ old Shatner, Kelley or Nimoy could pass for their 35-38 depictions.

And ST: TMP (which the last time i checked was a movie and not a game or novel) was set only 3-4 yrs after the original 5yr mission. Not 10. TMP was supposed to be the beginning of the new 5yr mission. Watch the TMP dvd again or look up the encyclopedia or any number of sites that list the chronology.

And as for the poster, come on now. THere is about as much depiction of conflict in that as there is in the notion that the poster for Happy Feet makes me think i am watching a film about Penguins being for to walk their own “Trail of Tears”. It is obvious that the poster is simply harking back to establish what era the film is to be set in and conjur up the image of the gold/blue to equate to Kirk/Spock.

And there is PLENTY of room for an origin story line of Kirk and Spock. U could easily base a trilogy within the 15yr gap between the academy and Kirk becoming captain of the enterprise, that way we see the characters grow into the friends they later become and allow for the TOS series and films to stand alone.

54. Old School Trek Nerd - December 13, 2006

AS I reall, ST:TMP ignored the time issue, whereas ST:TWoK was placed 15 years after Space Seed (basically “real time”), which gave them enough time to change out of their pajama uniforms, anyway.

55. Dom - December 13, 2006

First off, this film isn’t strictly a prequel. It’s technically a ‘continuity plug-in’ – a follow on from ST: Enterprise and ST: The Cage, as well as possibly some other TV show episodes. We’ve accepted hundreds of novels and comics that do this. Now we have to get used a film doing it as well! And Enterprise didn’t fail because it was a prequel – it failed because it wasn’t very good! It was a serviceable prequel to TNG-era Trek, but had little to do with TOS conceptually or stylistically, except, perhaps, for its last year!!

No one’s said that this film will definitely be Kirk’s and Spock’s first meeting. That’s a hangover from the Starfleet Academy rumour back when Abrams’ involvement was first announced.

If we’re going to be pernickety about it, the teaser poster’s use of the TOS logo and beige and blue colours show the film to be possibly a good couple of years into the five year mission.

When Kirk and Spock had been on the Enterprise for a year or so, in Where No Man Has Gone Before, they were both wearing beige costumes with a different version of the Enterprise insignia. The ship design also has a number of differences.

I suppose that if a flashback structure were used in the film to show the pair’s first meeting, the differences in ship design and uniform design could be to the filmmakers’ advantage.

Since Abrams has said on many occasions that he likes the sinister Treks where the ship is in the middle of nowhere facing . . . something . . . mysterious and dangerous, maybe we’ll get a structure where Shatner’s Kirk, mysteriously resurrected, and Spock journey to a final reckoning with . . . something . . . they encountered in their past. As they travel there, we could flash back to their earlier days on the Enterprise and their previous meeting(s) with . . . something! ;)

Shatner’s and Nimoy’s presence is the one thing that could truly make this ‘handover’ work, as far as I’m concerned!!! I have no issues with recasting though. As long as the person can convey the character, I’m fine with that! I certainly don’t wan’t to see Star Trek: The Nth Generation with another diluted crew in a diluted ‘future future of the previous future’ era.

I would hope that another Trek spin-off series would be set in the new film series’ era, perhaps featuring one or two minor characters from the new films off on another ship. There’s no reason to assume that the crews of the other ships didn’t have thrilling adventures, too!

How about a TV series set on the Reliant, while looking for a Genesis planet, building up the characters of her crew, making their fate all the more potentially tragic? (I know Khan was supposed to have marooned them on Ceti Alpha V, but if he killed the Regula scientists, who’s to say he didn’t kill the Reliant’s crew as well? We never found out for certain what became of them!)

We’d have Chekov on board for certain and it’s possible that other Enterprise crewmembers worked on there too pre-TWOK. Kirk, as a Rear-Admiral was overseeing the Reliant’s role in the Genesis project in some capacity, leaving things open for cameo appearances.

We know that, by TWOK, the Enterprise was a training ship and that a lot of the regular characters on board the ship in TWOK were on the Enterprise as guests for a training cruise rather than there on regular duty.

Who knows where the characters went after TOS season 3? If we count the cartoon series (and I get the impression that people are moving in that direction, in spite of Roddenberry’s latter-day remarks), Chekov had already left by the time of TAS.

Anyway, we’ll see. What I do love about STXI is that it’s generated so much discussion. ST might not be pushing out new TV episodes at the moment, but there can’t have been this much positive heated debate on Trek in years.

This isn’t the old negative ‘get rid of Berman’ discussion that must have become de rigeur. People are now taking about the countless possibilities for Trek, the potential directions in which it could go. It’s a great time to be a Star Trek fan (particularly for a TOS fan, but even fans of the other shows must at least be intruiged!) :)

56. JON - December 13, 2006

ACB .C’mon.If ST;TMP was set 3-5 years after the first 5 year mission why are the actors 10 plus years older!They had to disregard a second 5 year mission because no-one would buy an older Shatner/Nimoy playing a second 5 year mission Kirk/Spock.ACB… this opens a whole new creative field on the further adventure of the crew of the starship enterprise.A whole 10 plus years worth of stories and could possibly connect TOS Trek to ST;TMP by depicting the lost years inbetween.

57. acb - December 13, 2006

actually in TMP Scotty makes mention of refitting the enterprise for 18 months, Kirk mentions having been an admiral at the academy for about 3-4 yrs, and the official encyclopedia list the date of TMP 3-4 yrs after the original 5 yr mission. TWOK was only the first entry to actually claim a specific date for the story. Now if i am wrong to take into account actual film dialogue and officially published detailing from those who work on the show as to time frame….well then we are all doomed…..dun dun dun.

and #55, shatner, nimoy and abrams have only hinted at the first meeting of Kirk and Spock yes, but the poster does not have anything to do with the notion of “accurate” depiction of when and where the story will take place (since it was made well before the script was even finished yet) the image is merely to tell the Trek audience what time frame it is in and to manipulate emotions that we all feel to TOS in comparison to later Trek incarnations. Thank you, and good night!

58. acb - December 13, 2006

JON they are 10 yrs older because it the studio came around…let me see…10 YRS AFTER THE TOS SERIES to do a follow up. With the success of Star Wars and the early phases of Phase II (which would have aired in ’78 as the second 5 year mission with the costumes from TMP because TMP had to use Phase II costumes due to saving on budget) the studio wanted to present it on the big screen for hopes of a blockbuster. The age of the actors has nothing to do with the time period of the story line. I mean, technically ST II, III, IV, and V are all supposed to be a few months apart in time yet it they were all made about 2-3 yrs apart. And i dont know about everyone else, but Shatner does not look exactly the same as he did in ST V when compared to ST II.

Like i said, go to the Encyclopedia and look at the dates they have set out and look at the specific dialogue used in TMP.

59. Dom - December 13, 2006

Hey acb! My post was very tongue in cheek. I even used the word ‘pernickety!’ ;) Hell, I could’ve been more fussy and said they should’ve used the ‘ship’s sciences’ symbol on the blue variant poster!!! ;)

I always had the impression that TMP was two to three years max after the end of TOS. I’m pretty sure Decker remarks that Kirk hasn’t logged a single star hour in two years (I’m on a late shift at work, so can’t check the DVD!) Scott has spent 18 months refitting the Enterprise – it could have taken 18 months to plan the refit, before the refit started, I suppose, unless the designs were in prepartion during the latter part of the five-year mission!

There could be other issues not yet addressed as well. Did all of the crew stay aboard for the full five years? We don’t know how long it took for the animosity to grow between the leads, but did they fall out before or after the mission ended? Did they all fall out at the same time or separately? If they were all getting on that badly, did Spock or McCoy transfer off the ship early?

Shatner commented that the cast all had to lose wait and had to be carefully lit for all shots in TMP to make them appear a lot younger, as if the five-year mission hadn’t ended that long before.

The practical difficulties in lighting and filming the actors, not to mention the sterile, desaturated, ‘gauzed’ look it created in TMP, was a major reason why they decided to tackle the aging process head-on in TWOK.

So, to my reckoning, TWOK was about a decade after TMP, which was two years after the five-year mission, assuming Space Seed was during the third year of the five-year mission.

Please don’t shoot me!!! ;)

60. JON - December 13, 2006

ACB#57.throw out your fanzine describing ST;TMP as taking place 3-4 years after the first 5 year mission!I’m not talking about some hack fan book.just the TV and film representations of Trek.If Kirk mentions being in the academy for 3 years THAT COULD EASILY TRANSLATE INTO THE YEARS AFTER THE SENCOND 5 YEAR MISSION.Same thing for scotty’s statement about refitting the e for 18 mos prior to ST;TMP.

61. acb - December 13, 2006

#59 I know dom, I was just responding in kind to the poster response is all. Everything else was meant for…….


Who is not looking at the dialogue when taking account his responses. Kirk is supposed to have retired pre-TWOK for a few years as they state in Generations when he is talking about first meeting Antonia 11-13 yrs prior to Enter B incident and coming out of retirement circa 8-9 yrs prior to the Enterprise B incident which was in the same year as ST VI was to have taken place. Now ST VI was supposed to be about 7 years after the events of II, III, IV and V so even though he and the others mention they are in Retirement in the beginning of Generations, they only just went in to retirement there and because he knew Antonia during a number of YEARS while in retirement that means that the retirement he refrencies is pre- TWOK. Now all of that leaves us with about 5 years prior to TWOK where Kirk is in retirement.

Decker was chosen by Kirk to succeed him, though Decker had been Captain of the Enterprise for only the refit and not for any established missions, which to tear a ship apart and refit it would take some time. And as Scotty mentioned they had been refitting the Enterprise for 18 months total, and as Dom pointed out that does not take into account preparation time either so there is additional time added there as well. Now, TWOK is listed as about 10 yrs after TMP. Now if Kirk is in retirement for 5 of those years, that leaves us with a remaining 5 post TMP.

Now, Khan mentions that it was 15 years prior to TWOK that Space Seed occurred. Now taking into account the 10 years between TMP and TWOK, that leaves 5 years prior to the events of TMP for the incident of Space Seed to have occurred. Now with only 5 yrs prior to TMP and Kirk having done a mission on the Enterprise for 5yrs that leaves us with = Kirks 1st, and ONLY, 5 yr mission pre TMP.

and all of that is from dialogue contained in, and ONLY in the films!

THANK U and GOOD night!

62. acb - December 13, 2006

…oh and the post TMP 5 yrs thus aquates to the rumored 2nd 5 yr mission to have occurred after TMP, thus meaning Kirk retires after that and any rifts between the crew occur at the end of the FIRST 5 yr mission.

THANK U, i will be here all week.

63. JON - December 13, 2006

Uh ACB.Kirk retired, uncommittedly so,after ST;TMP.He was an admiral inST;TMP.And Khan .well lets just say Khan could never get his dates right because he was a prince on earth in the late 20th century so just throw out the Khan stuff with your hack fanzine chronogy.They just publish that stuff to sell books.

64. acb - December 13, 2006

ok, u need to look at my previous posting. I already said Kirk retired after TMP. But it was not for at least 5 yrs after and met Antonia while retired.

And as for the Khan statement, there is nothing in his character that would suggest he was poor with dates. If he knows where to hit the Enterprise and cripple her just by reading a series of tech manuals, as he did in Space Seed, I am pretty sure he read something about what year it was and kept track from then on. Everything i presented was actual moments of DIALOGUE from the films themselves, no outside sources. It adds up, u just dont want to admit.

65. JON - December 13, 2006

there’s no mention of a second 5 year mission after ST;TMP.Spock was promoted to captain( a mere change in rank) and he took cadets out on a training mission in the beginning of TWOK.The second 5 year mission therefore was some time after the first and was never depicted or referenced.this makes it an ideal timeline for a new series of Trek films with a 38 year old Kirk(around Damon’s age which Shatner never could have played back in 1978 circa ST;TMP )This forced producers to ignore the 2nd five year mission in favor of a post second 5 year mission timeline movie(ST;TMP).

66. acb - December 13, 2006

And by the way, Kirk is 50 yrs old in TWOK. Why? Because he and McCoy say it in DIALOGUE in the film. So……if Kirk was about 35 in season one when Space seed aired………

67. JON - December 13, 2006

Dude !!! Antonia! Kirk retired after Trek vi .that’s when he met Antonia! Like I even care.I just remeber because I saw that dog of a movie!

68. JON - December 13, 2006

Somebody HELP!This goes all the way back to #49.I can’t take it anymore!

69. acb - December 13, 2006

Yeah, some time after the First 5 yr mission, like about 4 yrs after the first 5 yr mission. Like, right after TMP. LIke, wow i am right again. There was no physical time for there to be a 2nd 5 yr mission post TOS and pre TMP. I already laid out why it would not work using only incidents described in the films.

And since TMP; which had newly refitted Enterprise; was originally supposed to be Phase II where in that Kirk took a refited Enterprise (uh oh, coincidence) on a new 5 yr mission. And since TMP’s script was originally the pilot for Phase II it seems pretty obvious that said 2nd 5 yr mission thus occurred after the Enterprise was refit and since we are following only TOS and the movies (and since the did say “REFIT” in TMP) i think everything……once again….and again……points to the 2nd 5 yr mission AFTER TMP.

70. acb - December 13, 2006

Yeah, somebody please explain this to JON. I feel bad for him. He needs our help.

71. JON - December 13, 2006

Not YOU smartass.

72. acb - December 13, 2006

I love u Jon.

73. acb - December 13, 2006

……….oh and the star date from Generations with the ENT B is the same from ST VI so actually he could not meet Antonia then. it is within the same year, and as i said in Generations he states that he knew Antonia for YEARS (that is a plural). Its all in the dialogue and the movies man.

74. Dom - December 13, 2006

Yeah. I always figured a second mission took place after TMP. Kirk states to Decker at the start of TMP that he was restored to command of the Enterprise because he’d spent ‘five years, out there facing unknowns’ like Vejur, his ‘experience with the ship, her crew,’ meaning that most of the crew were on extended leave after the five-year mission or at the end of their contracts, which are reactivated when the Vejur crisis begins.

Any longer than that and the crew would no longer have been ‘familiar,’ as one assumes they’d have taken new jobs or transferred to other ships!

Also, it would be a bit strange if Spock became Captain of the training ship Enterprise right after TMP. Why would Starfleet overhaul the ship to that extend, then make it a training vessel?

One error I made earlier was that Kirk was actually a Rear Admiral in ***TMP***. I’m assuming that the use of the title ‘Captain’ in TMP is due to anyone from Lt to Admiral being addressed as such when in command of a vessel.

He became Vice Admiral Kirk in time for TWOK. Presumably the higher rank was part of his enticement to leave Antonia and return to Starfleet!

The Enterprise was, presumably retired from active service after the second five-year mission, when Spock was made her Captain and assigned to the academy. Also, one assumes Kirk’s depression in TWOK could be related to his doubts over returning to Starfleet and leaving Antonia, as he faces his 52nd birthday alone.

It’s only when these discussions take place that it becomes clear how little we all know about these characters beyond what we’ve seen in the films!

75. JON - December 13, 2006

For the purposes of Star Trek xi…The re-fit for ST;TMP was the Enterprises second re-fit after the second 5 year mission.Abrams can make use of a refitted second five year mission enterprise to explain updated cinematic scale TOS inspired sets.

76. JON - December 13, 2006

Dom.The possibility of exploring a second 5 year mission opens up SO MUCH room for a 35-ish Kirk (new actor)in a TOS style series of films.I think you guys are splitting hairs.Besides if You don’t mind me saying ,there’s no precedent /evidence of a second 5 yr. mission after ST;TMP.The average audience doesn’t care .they just want to see Kirk at his best.The movies already did the retirement years and established their own look and a “when Kirk met Spock” movie idea just appeals to a few trekkies.

77. acb - December 13, 2006

JON, Dom and i have already shown how it is not possible to have a 2nd 5 year mission after TOS and before TMP. And if it had two refits, that would make even less sense because u would then need to fit both a second 5 year mission and additional refit process into a 4 YR gap!

It does not fit to have such a story element added when there is a very obvious pre established set of events in “movie” and “tos” canon for the events to not take place in that way. Now unless we want to go and throw away the movie and tos canon and just give up on Trek, then a 2nd 5 year mission could fit in after the original 5 yr one in TOS. Though i think that would be an issue to many fans of the show…….that and i would like to think that the creators of ST XI would

1. have more respect for the material
2. Be much more creative in their approach

now, there is a 15yr gap between kirk at the academy and getting the enterprise command which would be much better suited to place the new film within due to the larger possibilities while being able to reveal new aspects to the characters that we already know. Like DOM said:


78. acb - December 13, 2006

………….there is even less evidence for a 2nd one pre TMP. I would point out that many chronological depictions already assume one after TMP, including the Encyclopedia of ST. But since we are only dealing with what was “in the movies and tos” i believe i have made it clear between the stories written that there is no physical way for your 2nd mission to occur.

and i would as for splitting hairs, would u rather have a surgeon use a scaple or a butchers knife as his tool of choice. Personally, i would like him to be as concentrated and careful as possible.

79. acb - December 13, 2006

……………………..and besides the arguement u are making in many ways has already been done. it was called Enterprise. NO it was not Kirk, but it was a set of events that did not fit aspects of canon already established and was very loose in matching TOS, their films and TNG. But we all saw how well Enterprise did to restore our faith in Trek now didnt we.

80. Kyle - December 13, 2006

So many things are up in the air for this movie. Obviously big names don’t mean good movie, but for directors and producers? I think it’s a good thing. In the words of John Lasseter, “Story is king”, and that’s what I’ve always thought with Star Trek.

I think sometimes we fans get caught up too much in “cannon”, ships, and technology, and forget that the only reason we ever started watching the show was because we liked the stories. In many ways I hope that JJ Abrams’ story is not bogged down by all of the cannon–I’m willing to let him bend (even break?) a few rules from some random episode that only 2% of all people remember, in favor of a good movie.

I’m being optimistic for now about ST: XI, cause I’m very curious to see what Abrams can do in the director’s chair. So many unknowns have to come together for a good movie…good story, good directors, good actors. But I’ll be at the theatre to see if it happens ;)

81. JON - December 13, 2006

If Star Trek began in 1966 and the movie premiered in 1979 (really almost1980)that leaves plenty of room for a 2nd 5 yr. mission.!# years.They can make it happen.ACB’s just stuck in his encyclopedia

82. JON - December 13, 2006

13 years.

83. JON - December 13, 2006

No 11 .Sorry, because they didn’t finish the 4th and 5th year of the original 5 year mission

84. acb - December 13, 2006

ok JON, i did not think that i would have to give this talk but i see u missed it somewhere along the line in the public school system. Movies are fake. They are not real. Just because in our physical world the TOS show began in 1966 and the movie premiered in 1979 did not mean that 13 yrs went by in the story of the characters. The DO NOT EXIST outside of the movie screen. Geez, do u even listen to the dialogue in the films or are u just watching the pretty pictures.

#80 and Kyle i agree that not all of canon needs to be adhered to. I just think, and this may be the writer/actor in me who does this sort of think quite often, that when u are developing or creating a story u dont go and start changing important aspects of the storyline. This is were many films that are dealing with stories that have history too them fail, they decide that they have the “freedom” to step outside of set limits and do what they wish and honestly that just is not true. Thats not to say that with those limits either a story will be hurt or can not be done because that is just limited thinking as well. What limits do is just ask for more creativity to be implemented is all.

85. JON - December 13, 2006

You mean…You mean ….Movies are are fake!

86. Scott of the Morgites - December 13, 2006

JON, et al

What the hell are you smoking or snorting? And can I have some? Please?!? Pretty please???

87. acb - December 13, 2006

I am sorry i had to break it to u but…yes. Yes they are. It is not 2 years later in Picard’s world as we speak. It is not December 13 for Peter Parker either. To say because a film came out 13 years after TOS is one of the most simplistic ill thought out responses I think i have ever recieved here.

88. JON - December 13, 2006

Scott.Go back to my post #49 and you’ll see all the trouble I’m having presenting a story idea to someone who is hung up with all kinds of canon on a”fake” movie timeline.

89. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006


You’ve made me dust off my Star Trek Chronology, by Mike and Denise Okuda. Now you’ve asked for it!

Ok, Kirk’s original 5 year mission commanding the Enterprise ran from 2265-2269.

Star Trek: TMP took place during 2271.

In 2276, the Chronology states: “Starship Enterprise returns from Kirk’s second five-year mission of exploration.” Source is of course “conjecture.”

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan takes place in 2285. So, between 2276 and 2285, James Kirk allegedly takes some time off from active duty and meets Antonia (boo hiss!) and returns to Starfleet as a member of Starfleet Academy’s faculty (probably an adjunct as he still wears his Admiral’s bars and is given mad respect from Admiral Morrow in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, which incidentally took place in…

2285 as well!

FYI, Star Trek IV: The Voyage home took place in 2286, where he is given a new starship Enterprise, registry NCC-1701-A.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier takes place months later, in 2287.

In 2290, Commander Sulu is promoted to Captain and takes command of the Starship Excelsior (probably had to beat Captain Styles over the head with that silly little stick of his too!).

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country takes place in 2293. Scotty buys a boat around this time as well!

Now, backtracking a bit here, when Kirk gets the Enterprise-A in 2286, it is presumed that he as a third “five-year mission” which in reality runs over to about 8 years, but that’s because he probably had to take that clunker of a ship back to Spacedock after Star Trek V in order to work out the bugs and give her a proper shakedown cruise, as its Chief Engineer had been whining about throughout 2287.

I hope that helps clear things up, but its probably “fixing the barn door after the horses have come home.”

Needless to say, I love you guys and I love the discussion.

90. acb - December 13, 2006

Ok, Scott go back to #49 and see all the trouble I AM HAVING with someone who said that the only canon that matters is “movie and TOS series” canon and attempted to promote an idea of a 2nd 5 yr mission IMMEDIATELY after the 1st Kirk 5 yr mission. Yet, when i blew hole the size of Russia in his idea using only the prized “movie and TOS series” canon to support my arguement he denounced it because it did not fit his preconvinced idea of what he wants. U tell me if the canon elements i presented were “fake” or if JON is just in some magical fairy land were story, plot, originality and substance do not matter.

Now that i think about it, Jon are u a film producer?

91. acb - December 13, 2006

Adam Cohen all i can say is – SWEET Coca-Cola THANK U! That is what i have been telling him this hole time………………Adam u are my hero.

92. Dom - December 13, 2006


Arguably, Turnabout Intruder was the end of the five-year mission. The stardate fits (for once!) as the end of five years. Remember that Where No Man . . . was set a good year into the mission.

TOS is set a while after, when the Enterprise has had an overhaul, presumably following the damage caused in Where No Man . . . and several new crewmembers have come aboard: McCoy, Uhura, Chekov (offscreen!) along with the departure of Dr Piper. Kirk has also had time to get over killing his best friend.

I understand what you mean about the opportunity for another mission, based on the actors’ ages, but it simply wouldn’t make sense in terms of everything we’ve seen or been told before. In TMP, the cast were all pretending to be a decade younger.

If you add another mission where there can’t be one, you might as well go the whole hog and reboot the series, as the resulting film would connect with established Trek about as well as Prime Directive or Federation (which I quite liked!)

When the films and TV shows were made has no bearing on what happened in the shows and films.

Plus, and I know they are strictly ‘deuterocanonical,’ the majority of novels and other spin-offs (some of which JJ Abrams feels have some worth in official Trek continuity!) have always accepted a second mission after TMP.

I mean, TMP is a remake of the pilot script, In Thy Image, from Star Trek Phase II. Looked at critically, you can see it’s still a pilot: y’know, big bad brings the old characters back together so they can settle their old scores, then go back into space and have new adventures at the end.

At this point, useable material from all media and incarnations of Trek is up for consideration, I suspect!

The post-TMP era is something I reckon they’ll keep back for when the new cast get a bit older. If they still want to make movies with them they can be set in the Phase II era. Setting STXI in a second mission would use up a valuable resource.

I’ve said before that I reckon they’ll go for a trilogy structure with the new film (Hollywood likes its trilogies, after all!)

It seems to me to be obvious to set three films during TOS, so we get to see the beginning and end of the five year mission.

A fourth film could then ‘relauch’ the series, allowing the actors to get a bit older!

93. JON - December 13, 2006

Adam .Please consider putting aside the Okuda book with has Kirk( the actor’s appearance during our own time line of 10 years) aging 10 years in one year(okuda’s2269-end of 1st 5 year mission to 2271 ST;TMP).I know You guys like that book ,but most fans and certainly the general audience doesn’t care.We shouldn’t go by that book it’s just a fan book.I mean 1 year ! And Spock was doing Kolinar in one year,Mc Coy was in private practice etc.Just forget the Okuda book

94. Adam Cohen - December 13, 2006

#93 JON

Is the Okuda book perfect? No, he and his wife did the best with the material provided. It’s utility is in mapping out large spaces of continuity left open by gaps between TOS and inbetween the movies. I think a lot of this back-and-forth won’t matter because TREK XI is probably going to be set during the original 5-year mission, based on rumors, etc. But JON, this is us having fun, so let’s not get too down on eachother for disagreeing about some seriously minute minutiae.

P.S. Be nice to Okuda, he’s helping with Star Trek: Remastered!

95. acb - December 13, 2006

Yeah. Ok, I figure at this point JON is just pulling are leg and those aren’t actual counter arguements he is trying to present………………either that or he is just some monkey hitting random keys………and JON how many times do i have to tell u *holds up 4 fingers* Four! Four!……..stupid monkey.

wait a minute he said “most fans dont care…..”! HE IS A FILM PRODUCER!……………..A MONKEY FILM PRODUCER!

96. Dom - December 13, 2006


As has been commented on earlier, we don’t know that Spock and McCoy didn’t leave the Enterprise early!

What has been said by Adam and acb doesn’t even need to relate to the Okuda book – it’s established onscreen.

By your rationale, the Enterprise must have taken two years to get back from the Genesis planet after TWOK, the crew spent two years on Vulcan after rescuing Spock and three years trying to get the Enterprise out of the Solar System after the Whalesong Crisis. STVI, which is clearly several years later can only have taken place two years after!

And anyway, what does Michael Okuda know? He’s only a consultant on most of the series and several films, one of the main graphic artists, writer of the commentary tracks on the DVDs, consultant on Trek Remastered. Nothing he says can carry any weight can it? Clearly Michael Okuda knows sh!t!!

As has been said here ad nauseum: TMP was shot through gauze in a vain attempt to pretend the actors were younger. It failed. There’s ample evidence for there not to be a second mission before TMP and none whatsoever for your opinion.

Rather than telling people to stop reading Okuda’s book, perhaps you should go back and look at theTV shows and films again.

Jeez! I’m usually the one who says to screw continuity, but there are limits!!

97. acb - December 13, 2006

#94 i hope it is not in the 5 year mission though. There is very solid story possibilities that can be done in the 15 yrs up to the first 5 yr mission that can help the new possible trilogy stand alone while at the same time serve as a bookend in:

new trek trilogy —–original trilogy——-St I -VI

98. acb - December 13, 2006


99. Darth Ballz - December 13, 2006

Star Trek the beginning, 2nd five year mission, who said what and when?
Bla! Bla! Bla! and Bla!

If this is a re-boot then this is for the people who are NOT into Star Trek. If you think this is for the fans then you are kidding yourself. I would like to watch a Trek movie with a crew that i don’t know or that have had so much history already. Part of the problem is this nit picking B.S. with the history of Star Trek. If the new Kirk was gay, Spock a mexican, Scotty a Drag Queen I could give a rats ass as long as the story was great but the so called “fans” would bitch to no end because of the change in “history”

Star Trek lost alot of fans because it can’t stop doing the same thing over and over again. Start over from scratch insted of a re-boot if this has to happen so I will be suprised what the crew does. I already know that Kirk is a hero so I don’t need to know that he was a hero in a timeline not covered in the books, movies, etc.

There is not enough Star Trek fans to keep making movies for them, Please, please, please lets get a new crew from the start that I can enjoy and ALSO have the old memories of the original Not another re-hash…..

Darth ” no nitpick ” Ballz

100. Orbitalic - December 13, 2006

ZzzzZZZzZZZz… um?… ohhh… Yawn… is it over?
Love you guys but wow…. that was thick…

101. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk - December 13, 2006

I think the film should take place prior to Kirk’s 5 year mission during the never before seen adventures of his 87 day mission , it takes work becoming a double axe handle chop wielding, womanizing, smirking, phaser-toting living legend dammit.

Remember Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade and the 20 minute depiction of how Indy becomes Indy? Bingo.

On a mission to Bohemius Flimflamus VII, Young Jimmy Kirk as brilliantly portrayed by Matt Damon, is given first hand instruction on double axe handle chops, drop kicks, proper smiling, and making a brand of your name by a band of Bustian renegades from Bustia IV. Bam, within 20 minutes he learns every Kirkism possible and smirks his way through the film winking at us the audience at the end.

I’d buy that for a dollar.

102. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 14, 2006

This thread wins the award for being the most bizarre thread I have ever read :)

103. Dom - December 14, 2006

Orbitalic. if you don’t like this threat and are bored, sod off and find a thread that does interest you!

I’m sat here, dog tired, having just worked 23 hours and very much enjoyed the discussions that went on through the (UK) night. They were something to participate in every so often when I stepped away from my work!

I’m sat here having now been awake some 30 hours, tired but still interested in what people have to say. If I’m nored, I’ll simply move on somewhere else.

I certainly wouldn’t go for the cynical attention-seeking you’re demonstrating. Or maybe you’d rather we didn’t have a discussion forum at all and just sat here blandly agreeing with each other!!

104. Orbitalic - December 14, 2006

Dom, my apologies to you… it was minor attempt at humour that apparently didn’t fly.
But, please admit the parties involved, after several go-rounds, never made their point to the other, although they tried. (And if they did… sorry, I didn’t see it).
I won’t apologize for you working 23 hours…. that’s your deal, not mine.

105. JON - December 14, 2006

OK guys .thanks for the exchange.

106. JON - December 14, 2006

Um,You know what?…TOS era ended when KIrk was taken from the nexus in Generations.He’s still alive in the nexus (like the phantom zone from superman 2).The Kirk that Picard encountered was nexus generated(not the real Kirk).So Kirk isn’t dead.Right?

107. JON - December 14, 2006

Sorry. TOS ear ended when Kirk was taken from the Enterprise B BY the nexus in generations.He’s still alive in the nexus(like the phantom zone from superman 2)The Kirk that Picard encountered in the nexus was nexus generated(not the real kirk).So Kirk isn’t dead .Right?

108. acb - December 14, 2006

If we were to look at it they way it is depicted in Generations then yeah, some form of Kirk is still alive. It seemed more like (now this is going to get metaphysical) that the loose translation i can make is that “existence” is not something limited to the notion of a physical form. So because his body went into the nexus, his existence is now on multiple frames or planes if u will of time, space etc.

I actually wish they ended generations on that note. Could u imagine a shot (probably at the end credits) were it fades from black to a camera panning left back outside Kirk’s home and we see him outside chopping wood still. Leave it on that note of possiblity, kind of like the ending to Menagerie where Pike went back to Talos IV.

……………u know we could still do that, someone get Shatner on the phone!

109. Adam Cohen - December 14, 2006

I think we’re best to leave Generations in the past. That movie offends me. I would rather watch Nemesis. Daily. Without bathroom breaks.

110. acb - December 14, 2006

oh man, i dont know. I can watch generations and at least see some of the characters i came to enjoy with TNG. Nemesis is just bad…….i mean really bad. Just looking at the story, its arch, the character structure, the production conception, script, ………….i mean they missed the mark on everything in that one. At least with Generations i feel like i am not being completely raped of what i loved about TOS and TNG.

111. JON - December 14, 2006

ACB.Kirk did’nt necessarily have to be killed by the nexus when it hit Enterprise B.He could still be in it.Sorry to say-locked in it alive,for all eternity .Perhaps the Nexus used it’s knowledge of Kirk to hook Picard.since the nexus is some kind of a drugged state with a form of intelligence that holds people captive.

112. Adam Cohen - December 14, 2006

acb, and JON

I am glad to ignor all Kirk-continuity with respect to Generations. I will recognize there is a Nexus and that Picard let Riker break his ship, but Kirk and Picard never met in my opinion. Picard hallucinated the whole movie, from beginning to end.

113. acb - December 14, 2006

well, i never meant to imply that Kirk actually died. What i meant to say is that i think it can be seen as a breach in space and time where the concept of a physical existence no longer implies. Kirk is alive in that he technically never died, but it is not in the living capacity as the rest of us obviously.

I actually like that one aspect of Generations, the notion and idea of thought that they produced (really by accident) about that form of existence. It is an actually scientific theory, but the notion of existing but existing outside of any denouncement of time or physical space.

114. JON - December 14, 2006

ACB.the nexus produced all sorts of familiar people to nexus captives in all sorts of scenarios.They weren’t necessarily the ACTUAL people.As a matter of fact some of them were purely imaginary(Picard’s kids).I’m trying to support the fact that the Kirk that was killed on veridian 3 wasn’t the real Kirk or was it?I guess I’ll have to watch that movie again to be sure.Wait! It was the real Kirk wasn’t it? because they were on a planet-veridian 3 WAITING for the nexus with Picard,Kirk and Malcolm McDowell.Right.So that means KIrk is really dead.Buried under rocks too.Really ,Really dead.Crap

115. Grant - December 14, 2006

Ok, I’ve just spent the better part of an hour and a half reading this. Did we forget the original topic? Personally, I loved Nemesis, but I am much more a fan of TOS and the original movies than TNG and their trip into the Cinema system. As far as the budget goes, Paramount should revisit what they did in ST:II. Harve Bennett was assigned the film. He came from Paramount Television dept. He used many of his money-scrimping skills he learned in television on this film, thus making an amazing film with exccellent fx on a relatively meager budget. Yes, I’m thrilled about JJ Abrams taking the helm, as I’ve heard he’s a huge fan of TOS. If this is a Kirk/Spock story, I welcome Mr. Damon as Kirk. He is a very talented actor, and he has a star quality, so he has plenty of clout on both sides of the hollywood actor scene. Now, I’ll throw this out there…Josh Hartnet as Spock…anyone?

116. JON - December 15, 2006

89 quatloos that the newcomer will have to be destroyed.

117. acb - December 15, 2006

Grant, i thought Hartnett resembles Nimoy but i do not feel he could bring the gravity and control an actor needs to the role of Spock. Now it may just be my acting training/analysis in that opinion but i have not seen Hartnett display the level of capability needed for it. And I do think Damon is a good actor, but i dont think he is the right actor to play Jim Kirk. Just because someone is good and has star quality does not mean they are qualified to fill every role out there.

And u have the right to love Nemesis, I just feel that with the material that they produced in TNG series it was a major step down in almost every way.

118. acb - December 15, 2006

#112. And i agree Adam that the notion of Kirk could actually be seen as something brought about by Picard’s own conscious as well. I could write a long, detailed metaphysical explanation to how it would work but over all…………it was all just poor writing on the hands of Brannon and Braga in the piece.

119. JON - December 15, 2006

I’m going to have to rent that movie again (someday)and hold you guys up to canon.(joke)

120. RolandDeschain - December 15, 2006

I think they could save lots of money on sets and make the movie better if they just used some of the New Voyages cast , sets and MAX REM’s special effects (He does sweet work on BSG) look at the demographics…thirty Million Downloaders cant be wrong.

121. Dom - December 16, 2006

Actually, given all the buggering around of the timeline in Generations (and, indeed, most of post-1987 Trek, there’s every reason to assume Kirk didn’t die and the timeline snapped back into place after Soran’s defeat!

On the other hand, the Nexus does offer the perfect opportunity to bring Kirk back in any era. Maybe Kirk (and Picard) are always partly tied to the Nexus. Effectively immortal, Kirk can wander out of the Nexus whenever he feels like it and lend a hand. Imagine opening Trek XI with Spock in trouble on Romulus. Kirk turns up from the Nexus and rescues him. Within the Nexus they observe a relevant story with the new cast!

Or something . . . my head’s spinning!

122. acb - December 16, 2006

30 million can be wrong if they are doing it for free, I pick up or watch lots of pure crap if it is free. Mtv anyone

123. Grant - December 16, 2006

The New Voyages (I confess I haven’t actually seen any of the webisodes) seem like they’re more or a spoof or parody (though probably extremely respectful of TOS) than a serious extention of the series, but I could certainly be wrong. I do think Damon’s a good actor, but I also think he’d be good in the role. I’ll confess, he wasn’t my first choice either, but I confess he’s grown on me. I think Josh Hartnett may surprise us. I do think there’s a depth to him that he hasn’t been able to explore yet. Remember, too, that Nimoy was still fairly fresh in the biz when he signed on. But that does raise an interesting question. Who do y’all think would be a good Spock? For that matter, who would you want to step into the original characters? is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.