Trek XI Adds Additional Producer – Continues To Head Towards Greenlight 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.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
December 12, 2006 12:06 pm

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

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk
December 12, 2006 12:08 pm

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.

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk
December 12, 2006 12:17 pm

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.

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk
December 12, 2006 12:24 pm

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.

Jim J
December 12, 2006 12:39 pm

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

December 12, 2006 1:37 pm

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

December 12, 2006 1:50 pm

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.

December 12, 2006 2:41 pm

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.

December 12, 2006 3:05 pm

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

Adam Cohen
December 12, 2006 3:27 pm
Recent “tentpole” pics at Paramount had the following budgets: 2004 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 2005 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 2006 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… Read more »
December 12, 2006 3:47 pm

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

Adam Cohen
December 12, 2006 3:49 pm

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

December 12, 2006 3:49 pm

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).

December 12, 2006 3:56 pm

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.

Adam Cohen
December 12, 2006 3:59 pm

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.

Adam Cohen
December 12, 2006 4:06 pm

#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.

December 12, 2006 5:13 pm

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.

December 12, 2006 8:04 pm

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.

December 12, 2006 8:55 pm

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.

December 12, 2006 9:01 pm

#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?

December 12, 2006 9:04 pm

#2,3,4 Josh T

Congrats on the new nome de plume. It fits.

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk
December 12, 2006 9:48 pm


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

senya cartel
December 12, 2006 10:59 pm
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… Read more »
Darth Ballz
December 13, 2006 1:23 am


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

December 13, 2006 4:32 am


Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 6:28 am
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… HOLY CRAP AND MY GOD! THAT IS A TALL ORDER!!! 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,… Read more »
Adam Cohen
December 13, 2006 7:40 am

#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.

December 13, 2006 8:49 am

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

Jim J
December 13, 2006 8:51 am

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)

Adam Cohen
December 13, 2006 9:50 am

#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 ;)

Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 10:06 am
#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!… Read more »
Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 10:11 am

#30. Adam Cohen

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

Too funny :)

Adam Cohen
December 13, 2006 10:21 am

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.

Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 10:53 am

#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!

Adam Cohen
December 13, 2006 10:57 am

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.

December 13, 2006 11:11 am
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… Read more »
Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 1:35 pm
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… Read more »
December 13, 2006 1:44 pm
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… Read more »
December 13, 2006 1:51 pm

“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.

Adam Cohen
December 13, 2006 2:21 pm

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.

senya cartel
December 13, 2006 2:27 pm

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

December 13, 2006 3:15 pm

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.

Jim J
December 13, 2006 3:18 pm

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

December 13, 2006 3:21 pm

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.

Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 3:22 pm

#43. JON

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

Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 13, 2006 3:24 pm

#43. JON

Besides, I was waxing romantic and speaking somewhat metaphorically.

December 13, 2006 3:46 pm

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!

December 13, 2006 3:46 pm

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.

December 13, 2006 3:50 pm

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