Star Trek XI Update |
jump to navigation

Star Trek XI Update January 3, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Rumor,ST09 Cast,Star Trek (2009 film),STXI Plot,STXI Status , trackback

For Star Trek XI news, 2006 was both exciting and frustrating. In April and May we first learned about the project and got some public statements from producer JJ Abrams and his cohorts, then the cone of silence descended and it became almost impossible to learn anything about the film. This is actually quite normal for a film this far out. Paramount know that Trek is an important franchise and that there is really no upside to talking a lot about a film at this very early stage. For 2007, some of that will change…and it promises to be a big year for Trek XI. This article is to summarize where we are now (Much of the following has been reported before, but some is new)

First things first: Star Trek XI is set in the pre-TOS era and will feature Kirk and Spock
Although this does not seem like ‘news’, will no longer consider this to be ‘rumor’ or say this is ‘probably’ true. Although the studio has yet to say this officially, have spoken to enough sources to say that either everyone is being lied to…or we are going to see Kirk and Spock back in action in 2008.

Film Status…moving forward towards Winter 2008 (sorry not Summer anymore)
Star Trek XI continues to move forward and Paramount still continue to assume it will be in their 2008 lineup. However it appears that Abrams has got his way and the film will most likely end up closer to the end of the year, giving the team more time. Here is we have learned from our sources:

Crew & Creative…little bit of ‘insider’ hiring, more soon
Due to the film still being in development, no real hiring has happened (except for Abrams and the writers who are part of the ‘development’ deal). However, some people are being ‘tapped’ to be part of the film (told to clear schedules, etc). This includes Abrams inner circle people (like Michael Giacchino as composer and Scott Chambliss as Production Designer) as well as others he worked with on M:I:III. It is worth noting that none of those being tapped are  technically hired, because there is still no budget. The studio has brought in Stratton Leopold, a Paramount veteran who worked with Abrams on M:I:III. Leopold is an Exec. Producer and Unit Production Manager who will be handling the budget as well as much of the hiring of behind the scenes types. Once the film gets an approved budget and opens a production office, expect more announcements and leaks in February and March. It is possible at this time Abrams may start reaching out beyond ‘the circle of trust’. As for if Abrams will direct, this still will probably not be known until after the script and budget are approved.

Casting…we got nothing!
Last we heard Abrams has done some auditions already, but have heard nothing new since. Things are tight as a drum around this. On Shatner and Nimoy, all we know is that they have some kind of contract with Paramount for Trek XI related to promotion and/or consulting. We know that Shatner wants in and Nimoy is open to it. We know that various actors are interested (like Quinto, Grunberg, Weisman and others). And all that is known about Matt Damon as Kirk is that Abrams expressed interest once and that Damon is open to it if the script is good, but no contact has been made. Like with the crew, most real casting cannot truly start until there is a final script and budget (although the leads could be an exception to this). The announcement of the new Kirk and Spock will be a big event and Paramount want to be sure they control that. Due to concerns over leaks they will likely announce as soon as a decision is made.

Typical meeting on Star Trek at Paramount

Plot & Setting & Characters…is this movie ‘Kirk Begins’?
Like with casting, the story is something that is a very closely guarded secret. One could almost describe the level of secrecy at Paramount paranoid. The writers (Orci & Kurtzman) have been rather chatty on Transformers, but did get burned with an early script draft being leaked. A source at Paramount tells us not to expect the same level of openness on Star Trek XI (which is typical for how Paramount deal with Trek films). All that being said, TrekMovie has picked up pieces here and there, some of which are possibly conflicting. This may be due to bad information and/or out of date information due to changes between the story treatment and script drafts. Here is what we think we know. (unlike the pre-TOS setting and the inclusion of Kirk and Spock, everything that follows is considered rumor by…grains of salt please)

NOTE: the above lists of locations and characters is by no means complete and by no means concrete…there are sure to be tons more. Also some of these locations and characters may just appear briefly. 

Things to look forward to in 2007
2007 is shaping up to be a huge year for Trek. Almost all the hiring will be done. The film will move from development, to pre-production, through the entire fim shoot, and begin pre-production. Also on the promotional side Paramount will probably start to do a few things

Thoughts: Cadet? Captain? Lieutenant?
Since the first leak in Variety one of the biggest questions around Trek XI is…where in Kirk’s life is it set. There is a lot of time before the Original Series caught up to him during his 5 year mission as Captain of the Enterprise. Much of the early speculation (sparked by Variety) was that the film would focus on Kirk’s Academy years. This site reported that the film would cover the other end of the spectrum…Kirk’s first mission as Captain of the Enteprise. Now we are hearing there are scenes at other times in his life, most interestingly as a Lieutenant on the USS Farragut. As we know the writers for Trek XI are steeped in Trek lore, and Trek history states that 7 years before Kirk was on the Enterprise he was a young officer on the USS Farragut. It was on this ship that Kirk met with a crisis and lost his captain and half his crew, and he also blamed himself for hesitating to fire phasers on a ‘vampire cloud creature’ that was attacking the ship. This was all covered in the episode ‘Obsession’, when Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise re-confronts the creature and goes a little nuts…or gets ‘obsessive’. This, probably more than the fabled ‘Kobyashi Maru Starfleet Academy scenario discussed in Star Trek II’, is a key moment in Kirk’s life. The big unknown is how much of the film covers these early times in Kirk’s life. It may be that it quickly goes over them and gets us to the Enterprise, or perhaps we can see Kirk’s journey. This is speculation now, but it would be interesting to see how James T. Kirk went from a young officer who lost his crew and blamed himself, to being the youngest captain in Starfleet…in 7 years. How did he pull that off? That sounds like an interesting movie.

So does the film get to the Enterprise early on…or does it show the journey to it (in the same way that Star Wars: Episode III showed how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader). Only time will tell, but rest assured will be looking out. Info Section

Remember that has a complete Star Trek XI Info Section

you can always find updated info on the status, cast, crew, etc. This section will be regularly updated and expanded as the film progresses. This section also includes detailed FAQs, which are also updated. 

Remember…things change

As stated in our last Trek XI update…things change. This is a summary of what we think we know now. Nothing is really written in stone. Trek XI may never get a greenlight, or may never get made. Films further along that Trek XI (remember ‘Watchmen’) have run aground. And we fully admit we can be misinformed on some of the above details, it isn’t like Paramount are handing out press releases on Trek XI. Right now it seems like it is easier to get nuclear secrets thand get people to talk about Star Trek XI. Paramount would probably prefer everyone to just sit tight until the first teaser is released…but we just can’t do that. So we will remain vigilant, and remind you to be open minded.



1. Greg Stamper - January 3, 2007

Gary Mitchell … interested to see if someone so close to Kirk will be in the story. He saved Kirk’s life (poison dart) after all.

2. Greg Stamper - January 3, 2007

Ooops! Thanks much Anthony for the very much detailed Editorial “Reset” — well done.

3. Sci-Fi Bri - January 3, 2007

it will be interesting to see how they solve the design issue in 2007. do they stick with the vacuum tubes and 1960s colors, or does this movie look more like ENT? remember that the enterprise is supposed to look futuristic and the old constitution did look futuristic … 40 years ago.

i like the “plenty of letters” version of the constitution by Gabrial Koerner, that would be a nice design for the new film, IMO.

4. Dom - January 3, 2007

Brilliant Anthony!

The debates have been getting a bit ‘snipe-y’ on the forums of late as a mix of paranoia and expectation have merged confirmation with supposition.

I hope we get to a point now where people accept that this is the film we’re going to get and move on, rather than discussing whether this film ***should*** be made in preference to any other incarnation!

Between this film, and ST: Remastered, I’m a happy Trekker! :)

5. Dustin - January 3, 2007

Interesting to have all this information from 2006 in one place now, and makes for some interesting reading.

Thanks for all the scoop over 2006.

6. Adam Cohen - January 3, 2007

Fantastic reporting, Anthony. Thank you for your hard work.

I’m very very interested in this “Kirk Begins” framework for the movie. It’s got a ton of potential and is infinitely more interesting than a story limited to “Starfleet Academy.”

7. Ralph F - January 3, 2007

Movie gets a name? How about “STAR TREK”. That’s it.

8. Jason L - January 3, 2007

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So far this is sounding pretty much exactly like what I was hoping for. I wanted to see a character-oriented film focused on Kirk and his journey from starry-eyed cadet to seasoned captain, not a buddy movie about Kirk and Spock galivanting around the galaxy. Not that I have anything against Spock or any of the other supporting characters, but Trek has done the ensemble thing and focusing on a single character is one more way to add some freshness and originality, and I also tend to think it would be more popular with today’s general audiences.

9. Stanky McFibberich - January 3, 2007

When they don’t stick to the original design concepts for the TV series I will not be interested in seeing it. This includes using the original theme and background music. I will also not be interested in seeing different people playing Kirk and Spock or anyone else, even if they are in the movie as older versions of themselves. I just think it is a bad idea all around. Of course, I realize that they will do it anyway, so thankfully I can watch the series any time I want and I have no need for new adventures.

10. Dom - January 3, 2007

I like it!

Some one should have used it before! ;)

I agree that the best thing would be for a Star Trek film to use just the title and not ‘Star Trek: the something something.’

Fantastic way to relaunch the series!

All fans should bow down to you Ralph!

It’s one of those bleeding obvious things that everyone else will wish they’d thought of before!!

11. T Negative - January 3, 2007

Excellent report!!

Very exciting. There is a HUGE gap in Star Trek where we don’t know how Kirk became Captain of the Enterprise. This is a story that needs to be told!! I hope this is the type of story we get to see.

12. dalek - January 3, 2007


This article includes info not mentioned in previous articles nice work if true.

It doesnt include reports from Shatner and Nimoy that JJ wants the older characters involved too.

13. KDoug - January 3, 2007

Sci-Fi Bri, what’s this “plenty of letters” version of the Constitution class that you mention?

14. Captain Pike - January 3, 2007

As Greg said: Gary Mitchell. We know from WNMHGB that Mitchell and Kirk were best friends and had been so since the academy. Any story set pre-TOS has got to include Gary Mitchell. If it does not, I’d see it as a serious flaw.

15. Jim J - January 3, 2007

Potential, I say…potential!!!

16. Dom - January 3, 2007

When you think how much detail was put into the backgrounds of of TNG-era Trek characters, it’s shocking when you realise how little we actually, ‘canonically-speaking’, know about the TOS characters.

We know where Chris Pike was born, but we don’t know where Jim Kirk was, for example. Uhura has at least three possible first names. Sulu finally got a first name in STVI.

It says a lot about the writing and acting down the years that no one really worried about it much!

More than any of the generations, TOS’s background has been built up by often-contradictory, non-canon books and comics. The story of Kirk and Spock first meeting works very nicely either way for Paramount. If the film succeeds, the series has been successfully rebuilt from the foundations upwards. If it fails, a line has neatly been drawn under the franchise, bringing it full circle!

As for the design work, I’ve speculated that we’ll see the familiar interior and exterior ship designs enhanced for 21st century 2.35:1 cinema screens rather than reworked from the ground up. Lighting, colour and textures maybe be less theatrical and more naturalistic, although, given the possibilities of the film being set in different periods, I suspect useage of different colours schemes and uniform styles will never be more essential!

17. Sam Belil - January 3, 2007

Like I have been saying all along Gary Mitchell HAS TO BE in the film. In that one episode only “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, we see just how close bond is with him and Kirk. You want to leave out Pike — FINE, You want to leave out Carol Marcus — FINE, You want to leave out Garrovick — FINE. Just DO NOT leave out Gary Mitchell!!!!

18. Orbitalic - January 3, 2007

#16 Dom,
Kirk has origins… “I’m from Iowa. I only work in outer space.” – Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
Riverside, Iowa has “claimed the fame” to his future birthplace, although it’s not canon. It was mentioned in a ST novel as Riverside. But should JJ want a nice, real Iowa locale, I have a few places in mind and for a small fee or a line in the movie (How much IS a SAG card?) I’ll be happy to guide the production. I am sure I can get time off.
JimJ, y’all come up… what size uniform you need?

#9 Stanky,
Shatner can’t play the part anymore if this takes place outside a retirement home. Youth will be served at least through part of the flick. I guess you’ll miss the movie. We’ll let you know what happened. Maybe.

Anthony… thanks for the recap.


19. SithMenace - January 3, 2007

I’m so thankful they’re going back to the TOS era with this film, and with a great director/writer/producer leading the way. I saw Generations in the theater and was so disappointed that it became the last one for me. It took several people telling me how great FC was for me to rent it, and it was definitely an improvement over Generations, but then with the last two I didn’t even bother. I tried to hang on but I just couldn’t take anymore TNG, so Trek has been dead to me for years.

When I heard the news about Abrams going back to the TOS era, I got excited about Trek for the first time in over a decade. The more I hear about this movie, the more excited I get. I can’t help but think this one is going to be the best post TWOK movie, and possibly the best one yet.

There is so much untapped potential for everything in TOS Star Trek, from character development to visual effects to truly exciting and epic space exploration, the possibilities for this movie are endless. After the creative slump the films have been in, this series needs someone like Abrams to come in and do the things that few people have been able to imagine, to boldly take the series where no one has gone before. To me, the news of Abrams doing this movie is up there with the “what could have been” of Spielberg directing Return of the Jedi, except this time we won’t have to wonder what could have been. New blood indeed, bring it on.

20. mikeg - January 3, 2007

No matter what gets posted, or said, or rumored, or whatever, I am simply going to wait patiently to see what the “new blood” comes up with. Sure, I have all sorts of ideas of what the film could be, or might be, but none of that amounts to anything more than self-indulgent speculation. Let’s give Abrams & Co. a chance to show us what they think Star Trek is. Let’s give the new cast (whoever they turn out to be) a chance to show what they can do with the characters. Of course, it is going to be near impossible to separate Shatner from Kirk, or Nimoy from Spock, but these actors have already let go… perhaps the fans should, as well — at least enough to allow the new movie to stand on its own.

Everything in our whole damned lives informs us that CHANGE is the only constant in the universe (someone else said that too, eh?) Let the changes happen… they are inevitable anyway.

A little aside: I remember hearing that Michael Keaton was cast as Batman when that film series began. My immediate reaction was “MICHAEL KEATON?????” In the end, I think he was the best Bruce/Batman of that entire series. Just goes to show that sometimes you can think something is gonna stink to high heaven, but then it turns out to be something worthwhile.

I think Abrams made a good decision in bringing Shatner and Nimoy on board (to whatever degree they are on board). Even meeting with them shows the man has integrity, I think. I think he’s gonna make a great Star Trek movie.

21. SithMenace - January 3, 2007

I think based on what was done with MI:3 we have a pretty good idea of what the look and feel of this film is going to be. Sure, it could be completely different in tone and style, but so far there’s no reason to think it will be.

22. scott - January 3, 2007

Thank you for the Cone of Silence.

23. Sci-Fi Bri - January 3, 2007

13. KDoug :

the only web based image i can find is on check the back of the calender on the lower left, theres a greyish enterprise that sorty looks like kirk’s enterprise.

and here’s a page more about the image including a like to the image.

to be honest, i’ve just found these images now, i like what i see. imo it’d be an exciting change.

24. Picardsucks - January 3, 2007

JJ knows his shat!!!! This will be a great year for us Trek fans indeed. Doomsday machine and Ultimate Computer are coming, Our new Kirk and Spock are coming and hopefully Gary Sinise as Dr. McCoy, There are new Babylon 5 movies coming, More Shatner being Shatner, More Nimoy chasing after nude models with his camera, Starship Exter Act III and beyond??, More George Takei on Howard Stern and now apparently on Heroes, Of Gods and Men, more bitching and sniping from the Next Gen crew of the USS SourGrapes, more Lost episodes from JJ, no more Rick Berman!!! very exciting times indeed

25. Stanky McFibberich - January 3, 2007

re: 18. Orbitalic – January 3, 2007
I’m not asking for Shatner to play the part of the young Kirk. I am just stating that no one else should play the part of Kirk even if they allow Shatner to play an older version. I realize that would scrap this movie concept, but that’s A.O.K. since I know my opinion means very little to the producers or anyone else for that matter. It’s all about M O N E Y.

26. New Horizon - January 3, 2007

-9. Stanky McFibberich-

Pfff, and you call yourself a Trek Fan. Come on off it, give it a chance to succeed at least. The original series was more than just the actors, it was an idea almost fully realized. So long as the new production crew stay true to the spirt of Gene’s vision, it WILL be the characters we love on the screen. Sure, they may look and sound a bit different, but IF they are true to Star Trek…why would we not want to see it thrive? I don’t want to see new actors give a bad Kirk/ Spock performance, anymore than I want to see Shatner and Nimoy hand in another hammy, half baked caricature piece like the original series movies decayed into. Sure, they were the same actors…but the writing wasn’t completely true to Trek or their characters. When I was younger, I could never fully put my finger on what bothered me about every Trek after The Search For Spock. Yes, I know the Voyage Home is a beloved film…heck, even I love it, but it was Ham….and the beginning of the end really.

Lets give this new team a chance. I doubtful it can get worse than Nemesis.

27. Stanky McFibberHitch1969 - January 3, 2007

re: 26. New Horizon – January 3, 2007
Just to clarify, actually, I call myself a fan of the 1960s Star Trek TV Series. To me, Shatner/Kirk and Nimoy/Spock can’t be separated. I’m sure there are plenty of others that feel this way. But, I will just shut up and let the “true” Star Trek fans rule the roost. Now there’s a saying you don’t hear that much any more.

Koowl Roowl Droowl and all very much ants in the McPants.



28. trekmaster - January 3, 2007

I love the classic movies because they really contain a development of the characters that fits to the aging crew of the ship. The TNG movies did not have that, so they have been a disappointment related to the absolutely character based TNG series itself. In addition TNG either was a too intellectual concept for the common audience.

29. VOODOO - January 3, 2007

The author of the above article left out the biggest piece of news in regards to Star Trek XI.

He failed to mention that Shatner + Nimoy have been asked to be in the film.

30. JGG1701 - January 3, 2007

What about Finnegan??? ;-)

31. John N - January 3, 2007

Why is it that enough Bond fans can get past an “ugly, blonde” actor replacing the previously beloved Pierce Brosnan to become the highest grossing Bond film ever (and currently the 47th biggest international gross of all time according to IMDB), but there are STILL a very vocal group of closed-minded Trek fans that ‘cling for dear life’ to Shatner and Nimoy playing Kirk and Spock?

A while back, a regular poster to this site went on record and stated that he wouldn’t waste his hard-earned $10 on what he felt was a terrible casting choice. That’s his choice, and he’s more than entitled to make it. He is obviously a very passionate Bond fan, with a certain type of Bond that he can tolerate, and another kind (I believe he mentioned Bourne Identity as a comparison) that he cannot. I think that the recasting of Bond is a fair comparison to the recasting of Kirk.

If the makers of the new Trek are paying attention to the casting courage of the new Bond, and feel that they can appeal to a larger audience at the risk of losing some of their hardcore fan base, I seriously doubt that they’ll hesitate for a moment to do so. After all, the ticket sales of the many, outweigh the ticket sales of the few… or the one… ;)

For those who have seen it, the general consensus is that Casino Royale was exciting, fresh, and dynamic… and obviously enough other people did too, as this type of gross depends heavily on word of mouth. We should be so lucky to have a Trek film in the top 50 highest international grossers of all-time. With those hopes, I say to JJ, cast the best damn actors that you can find, regardless of fanboy backlash!


32. trekmaster - January 3, 2007

@John N
Shatner and Nimoy played their roles for decades and not just for a few years in a fistful of films.

33. JON - January 3, 2007

I’m with you #31.Star Trek needs exciting,fresh and dynamic.All the the Shatner/Nimoy features were about the characters either coming out of retirement or coming back from the dead

34. Scott Gammans - January 3, 2007

As always, an exhaustive and informative article, Anthony. My compliments to the chef. :) It’s interesting that they’re now saying fall/winter 2008… that’s pretty much what I had assumed all along–in fact, the Star Trek XI countdown clock on my website has been assuming a premiere date of Friday, December 5, 2008 ever since the movie was announced last April! It will be interesting to see if my prediction turns out to be correct. :)

35. trekworld - January 3, 2007

so my post being #1 got deleted. Thats nice

36. JON - January 3, 2007

Additionally.I feel alot of Trek fans are resisting the reboot and holding on to “canon” because it makes THEM feel old and obsolete.

37. Sam Belil - January 3, 2007

John N — I could not agree with you more regarding Casino Royale. In addition to being a MAJOR Star Trek fan since it first came out 40 years ago — I’m also a big Bond fan, and for me Casino Royale was the best Bond movie since From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Daniel Craig was nothing less than superb (really playing Ian Fleming’s character according to his original novels).

38. Still Kirok - January 3, 2007

As important as the origins is to make sure the crowd has something to look forward to–hence including Shatner and Nimoy as a POST-Generations Kirk and Spock.

39. Anthony Pascale - January 3, 2007

re 47
the author of the above did not forget to mention ‘Shatner and Nimoy being asked to be in Trek XI’ because there is no confirmation from any sources that they have been. only speculation

40. jonboc - January 3, 2007

#31-since you asked…
Mind you, I am very excited to see a new Star Trek movie, but I have to admit the idea of recasting these two icons is somewhat bothersome. Why? Because Bond was based on fiction while Kirk and Spock were based on Shatner and Nimoy. For over 40 years we have seen Shatner and ONLY Shatner as Kirk. In the 60’s we saw a young energetic 30-something Shatner as Kirk. Then the 70’s gave us an animated series and movie with Shatner as an older Kirk. Then the 80’s gave us a middle aged Kirk, portrayed my Shatner. Then the 90’s gave us Kirk’s retirement and swan song..again played by Shatner. Every incarnation of Kirk from books to comics to parodies has been solely based on the voice given to Kirk by Shatner. The same applies to Nimoy’s Spock. Almost 100 hours hours of TV, almost 20 hours of movies, countless audio books and video games…all these things create a very solid image of who Kirk and Spock are. It’s not just that Kirk loves his ship….its the mannerisms Shatner breathed into Kirk that makes Kirk who he is. It’s the wry smile and the boyish charm and the strong commanding presence that Shatner brough to Kirk that influences writers that are trying to find a “voice” for Kirk…not the fact that that, according to the writer’s bible, Kirk has a brother named Sam.
The overused comparrison to Bond and Batman are so out of place it isn’t even funny. There is a difference…a big difference…Shatner is, and has been, the one..the ONLY Kirk the world has seen continously for over 40 years and it will be very hard to find the right actor to convincingly pull off a younger Shatner, which honestly, is what they will need to accomplish unless it’s a total mind wipe and reboot. Naturally I’ll be there on day one, and may God help the new actors and the inevitable comparrisons with 40 years worth of precedeent set by Shatner as Kirk and NImoy as Spock, but I truly wish them luck, TOS IS Star Trek in my book and I’m jazzed to see that era finally given some respect on the silver screen…but as far as recasting these iconic characters go…I’m cautiously optimistic. I hope when those lights dim I will see and believe I’m witnessing Kirk and Spock on that screen and not some imposter walking around familiar looking sets. It’s an uphill climb, and I really do want them to suceed, but to think anyone can just be dropped into the role of Kirk or Spock or McCoy is not being very realistic.

41. John N - January 3, 2007

#32 – trekmaster

While that is a point to consider, it by no means invalidates my point. To each successive generation that grew up with them, Connery/Moore/Brosnan WAS Bond.

Even to those who accepted mulitple actors, only a charming, martini drinking, ultra-cool, uber-suave Bond WAS Bond.

Only an audience with an open mind as to how the character can be portrayed was willing to embrace this new Bond.

Star Trek fans should pay attention.

42. John N - January 3, 2007

#40 – jonboc

Agreed… it is unrealistic to think that it would be a cake-walk for the new actors. Fortunately, I never suggested that it would be… ;)

Like you, I’m cautiously optimistic. But Cautiously optimistic is a far cry better than close-minded premature rejection.

43. jonboc - January 3, 2007

#42 Thinking it over, I think one thing that is in the new actor’s favor is the fact that the youngest of the movie going audience will not be that well versed in TOS, aside from a few pop culture references. And if Berman’s 24th century hasn’t soured them (assuming they have even watched it) and if JJ can make it “cool” and as aceptable as LOST, Trek might lose the stigma attached, find a new audience and succeed.
If the comparrisons are left to film critics and old school Trek fans then maybe, just maybe, that new, mainstream, fan base that Paramount wants to attract will come into the fold with no pre-conceived notions and make the movie a success. That is the studio’s objective, after all. In the end, I might not like it, but if it brings a new crop of fans into the TOS universe I can’t complain too much!

44. VOODOO - January 3, 2007

All the TOS fans who left the series after Kirk’s death. Need to see him alive post nexus in order to get back on the Star Trek bandwagon.

45. JON - January 3, 2007

The movie going audience for a Trek reboot will be a young crowd.Probably not tht different in age from Transformers appeal (my guess,8 years to 18yrs).The new Trek will be made for them.They don’t care about canon and they re not loyal to Shatner’s interpretation of Kirk.

46. KDoug - January 3, 2007

Thanks for the links, Sci-Fi Bri! I agree that Gabriel’s re-imagining would be an interesting choice for a Star Trek movie, but I don’t think they should do it unless it’s going to be a reboot or if it’s supposed to represent a previously unseen class. If they’re going to show us the original Enterprise in the established continuity, it should remain true to the original design.

47. Agent69 - January 3, 2007

With every new info I get more and more excited about STXI. The only thing I’m worried about is release date.
As #34 I think Dec.5 is most likely.

48. ChuckAmuck - January 3, 2007

Thanks for the excellent recap, Anthony. It definitely helped clear some things up. It also helped me in completing the overhaul of the STXI article at Memory Alpha to include all available information. Proper credit is given in the sources, of course. ;)

I think this movie has great potential. I know many fans will have trouble accepting different actors in the iconic roles of Kirk and Spock, but as long as the RIGHT people are cast in the roles, I don’t see a problem with it. Besides, as someone else stated above, Shatner and Nimoy have let go and have given their consent to have their character recast (so long as they have a voice in who plays them), so we should also let go and accept it. Let’s give Abrams and his team a chance.

#24: Can we also look forward to no further bitching and sniping from Picardsucks, or would that be asking too much. :)

49. Buckaroohawk - January 4, 2007

I love the idea that the film simply be titled “Star Trek.” That is so freakin’ fabulous! Not “Star Trek: Blah Blah Blah.” No bloody A, B, C, or D. And it’s a fantastic promotional idea, too. “You want ‘Star Trek,’ well, here it is!” I really hope they have the courage to do this. It would be so damn cool.

Re: Gabriel Koerner’s Enterprise. I’ve seen this design before. The hi-res photos from the third link are excellent. As a CGI artist myself, I love the design. Mr. Koerner did a great job of retaining the ship’s wonderful design elements while upgrading the overall look. However, I don’t want to see any of the Constitution class ship that may appear in Trek XI look like that. It’s too close to the new Battlestar Galactica (which Koerner has also worked on) and too far from Trek. The ships in Star Trek have a clean, graceful, modular design that sets them apart from anything else in science fiction. I think that aesthetic should be maintained. Koerner’s design is artistically wonderful, but a little too busy for Star Trek.

Anyway, I doubt that CBS Paramount would go through all the trouble of doing TOS Remastered if they were just going to create entiely new designs for the ships in Trek XI. That would be begging Trek fans to go on a rampage.

Finally, a word on recasting Kirk, Spock, et al. Yes, it may be difficult to imagine other actors playing these parts since the same people have played them for so long. But the fact that Shatner, Nimoy, and the others got to play those parts for so long is the exception rather than the rule in Hollywood. Outside of soap operas, very few actors get to remain with a character for so long. That’s why we’ve had six James Bonds, five Supermen, umpteen Tarzans, etc. If a character is to last more than one or two generations in film, than eventually another actor will have to take up that mantle. For me, seeing James T. Kirk onscreen in Trek XI is more important than seeing William Shatner. If they can make me believe that the new guy (whoever he might be) is Kirk, then I’ll go along for the ride. It won’t be easy, that’s for sure. But it’s a long way from impossible.

Happy New Year, everyone!

50. ChuckAmuck - January 4, 2007


I, too, think just naming the film “Star Trek” would be a great idea. In fact, the day the teaser poster was released, I figured that would become the title. Based on what Abrams and his crew intend on doing with this film, I don’t think a sub-title will be necessary.

That said, however, if they DO choose a sub-title… I hope it’s not something simple like “Star Trek: Origins,” “Star Trek: Beginnings,” or “Star Trek: The Beginning” (which was the tentative title for the abandoned Rick Berman / Erik Jendressen “Trek” project). Also, I hope it’s not something cheesy like “Star Trek: Warp One,” “Star Trek: To Boldly Go…,” or “Star Trek: First Voyage.” Based on the rumored story, it might be something like “Star Trek: Republic,” which I could live with, but I’d much prefer just plain “Star Trek.”

Actually, now that I think about it, I could probably live with “Star Trek: Origins”… but, yeah, whatever.

Also, I agree with your conclusions regarding recasting. However, a counter-argument might be that the characters don’t need to be recast in order to survive over the next few generations and that their iconic status will endure throughout. I agree with that, too, but recasting the roles (with the RIGHT actors) for new adventures certainly couldn’t hurt.

51. Don Corleone - January 4, 2007

This film needs Shatner + Nimoy as Kirk and Spock for the general public to take notice of it.

52. Dom - January 4, 2007

Hi Orbitalic (18).

Yeah, I know the bit about Iowa, but Pike specified his birth in Mojave and Kirk never said ***where*** in Iowa.

By the way, I saw Casino Royale finally last night and absolutely loved. Best Bond film I’ve seen in years. if Bond can survive such a radical revamp, then Star Trek can certainly survive a mere recasting!!!

53. RB - January 4, 2007

Very good write up of what has come to date, thanks!

My 2 slips of gold press latinum:

There is also a potential for a cameo of Kirk’s service aboard the USS Republic, along side Ben Finney — referenced in the episode, “Court Martial”.

54. Dom - January 4, 2007

Anyone reckon Guinan or Boothby will make a cameo?!! ;)

55. Don Corleone - January 4, 2007

Jon #45

I don’t think this is going to be a reboot.

56. John N - January 4, 2007

#55 – Don Corleone

Regardless of whether it’s a reboot or not, the studio will still want to attract an audience outside of the fan base, which I believe was Jon’s primary point.

Whether they can live without Shatner is anyone’s guess, and I emphasize guess as I don’t believe that anyone on this site has the ability to see into the future. If you DO have that ability, please contact me and we’ll talk about the stock market for a couple of hours… ;)

Having said that, I find it highly improbable that the mainstream audience would care about canon.

57. Anthony Pascale - January 4, 2007

there have been some comments here and on other sites linking to this article that I want to address.

1. Trek XI is not a ‘Galactica’ Reboot of canon
Abrams and the writers have made it clear they will respect canon. This is not to say they will be dogmatic, nor does it mean that they will also ahdere to ‘fanon’ (eg: things that people believe about Trek history but were never specifically stated on way or the other). In addition Trek XI is being made for the ‘Trekkie’ fans and for the mainstream audience. Paramount cannot ignore the fans, but they cannot rely entirely on them for success. Lets not forget that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are fans…real fans who love the show and know the show and the characters.

2. Rumor v not Rumor
Yes there are some things in the above article that are ‘rumor’…specifically the some details on the plot and characters. What IS NOT rumor anymore (from’s view) are those who are named as part of the film and the pre-TOS setting with Kirk and Spock. These are things that has learned from multiple sources and consider firm. Of course things can change, but the chances that Star Trek XI will see a return to the TNG era are nil. (I dont say this because of anything against that era or those shows…it is just the way things are).

3. Bias of
To those claiming this is some kind of ‘bias’ of this site, yes this site is biased towards reality. If there were a TNG or crossover film in the works, then we would be happily reporting that.

58. Sam Belil - January 4, 2007

Just having fun…what about..
Ariel Shaw???? Court Martial
Finnegan????? Court Martial
Ruth????????? Shoreleave
Dr. Wallace???? (was Janet her name???) The Deadly Years
Kodos the Executioner????? Conscience of the King

59. John N - January 4, 2007

Just to clarify my own point, when I said that it’s “improbable that the mainstream audience would care about canon”, I wasn’t suggesting a reboot… simply that the mainstrain probably could care less about canon.

Hell… I’d love to do a random survey on the street corner and ask random people to name off the main crew of the original Star Trek television show.

I’m guessing that the average response would be:

“Captain Kirk… ummm… that funny-looking guy… Mr. Spock… the Doctor guy… was there a Scottish guy? Anyone else? That young guy from the Monkees?”


60. Orbitalic - January 4, 2007

Why do certain posters feel the need to blame TNG and the other sister series for the problems of the Trek world? If it’s a post regarding them, I certainly would expect the usual suspects to come in with their opinions. The Marina Sirtis story was a good example. But this thread is ABOUT a TOS movie and yet the mud-slinging continues.
I am a fan of the Trek Universe.. not just one series. ALL series had their moments of good story-telling and poor releases, including TOS. I am sorely tempted to take on a second that is always trashing TOS as much as the BS we all read for the other series, just so others can see what it feels like to have something they like regularly degraded.
But I won’t.
Trekmovie isn’t a battleground for the Trek Vs. Trek “war” that seems to be waged on a one-sided basis (in here… I don’t know of other sites comments…I don’t have time.) Anthony and HIS crew give us a very nice and informative site to find out more about our show of shows and they and the site deserve our respect.
I ask politely that the level of trash talk and condemation be tempered down with regard to all tastes and opinions of readers and posters.

61. badboy1230 - January 4, 2007

Well said, Orbitalic. I never understood the venom some fans have for the later Trek shows. I’ve been a fan of Trek since the early 70’s, and I’ve enjoyed every incarnation of the show, including Voyager and Enterprise. They are all the same universe:

62. Trevok - January 4, 2007

Yet another excellent article. But just for the heck off it , and being happy to be shot down in flames, It is all supisition. The film could still be killed off by Paramount . Also there is nothing to say all that has been reported so far could be the greatest con trick of all time.
None of which I believe but needs to be stated as until the film is actually given a budget nothing can be taken forgranted.
As for recasting Kirk , Spock, etc Nimoy himself stated years ago he believed this would eventually happen. He beliaved Trek characters had become iconic, the likes of Holms, Tarzan and so on. When you think about it they have been being played by other people for years in both fan preductions and paradies so maybe the time has finally come from them to become true icons and portrayed by other actors in a Hollywood film.
In any case it matters not what we think, because what will happen, will happen.

63. Dom - January 4, 2007

I think the venom for the later Trek shows that some people possess stems from the fact that, to many TOS fans, the shows don’t ***feel*** like Star Trek, the television series or the TWOK-onwards incarnation. Strip away the Trek iconography from TNG and they see a completely different sci-fi series.

I don’t hate TNG – indeed I watched all but one episode of it – but I was ultimately disappointed with it because it was lacking so much of what I liked in the original Star Trek. I view TNG more as a spin-off-cum-remake of ST:TMP and The Cage than a spin-off of Star Trek TOS and its subsequent films. And one of the criticisms of TMP was that it missed so much of what people liked in TOS.

It’s not to say that that’s bad, but some people were definitely disappointed – unfortunately some people take this further than others. For all we know, TNG will have a resurgence in popularity in years to come. But I’m afraid it’s horses for courses: there’ll always be someone who likes one or other show better, because in a sense they’re different fans of utterly different shows that happen to have a shared heritage.

To some, after all Berman’s years running the franchise, there’s a kind of feeling like a liberating army has come in and overthrown a dictator. That’ll pass in a while and things will probably level out. And if you’ve been reading mainstream sites across the web the last few years, you’ll know there’s been a lot of dissatisfaction, anger and betrayal felt by a lot of fans towards Berman and Braga and their ilk for a long time.

The abuse will probably stop, but to me, it’s like fandom’s in the process of lancing a boil. Rather than gripe about it, maybe it’s better to let certain people get the bile out of their system (which I kinda have the last few weeks!!)

64. Orbitalic - January 4, 2007

I understand the “why” of the venom…
Berman and Braga made few friends in fandom.. Trek was over-exposed. I am not blind to that.
TNG wasn’t TOS… but what besides TOS itself could be?… It was a different time in the series sense and the timeline sense. Our reality changes, so should the Trek reality.
I have the problem with people’s sense of timing. This is a TOS movie thread and that is the subject (even though I am now off-topic, dam…) But the hate continues… save it for the Spiner/Berman/Sirtis thread.
The spew gets thick sometimes and I come here to enjoy… not to listen to the continued whine of “Why I hate everything but TOS”
Pardon the off-topic..
…kicks the soapbox aside, and sets it aflame…


65. Norm - January 12, 2007

If it jumps around in time I sure hope they update the future Kirk & Spock uniforms & not use those crappy red/brown ones used in the prevous movies. Make them retro or close to TNG.

66. fascinoma - January 14, 2007

I hope that everything will be consistent with TOS rather than the later Treks.

What I mean:
I don’t want to see Vulcans or Romulans with those Neanderthal brow ridges, and I hope we don’t see Klingons, unless we see them in the original series makeup. Seeing “New” Klingons in an “Old” Trek will just hurt my poor little brain.

67. Resistance_is_futile - January 18, 2007

Perhaps im not a true star trek fan, although i like to think i am. I think the movie should have been based on a more liner format…Perhaps following what happened after the return of Voyager to the Alpha quadrant.

TOS was good but i think ENT showed that you just can’t go backwards! Let Kirk rest in peace….

My first guess of what the new movie would have been about or perhaps i was kinda wishing was the the cast of VOY and TNG get together and fight out an all on assult of the Borg on the Alpha quadrant. With the help of the United Federation of Planets they once and for all defeat the Borg.

I will probably watch Star Trek XI but like ENT probalby wont enjoy it as much as the other series.

68. Just Make it GOOD!!! - January 23, 2007

It seems to me that nobody has mentioned the fact that the original poster is both gold and blue.

Everyone seems to think XI is going to be all about Kirk’s beginnings and life up to becoming captain of the Enterprise. But, if the blue is any indication, wouldn’t that also point to a beginning for Spock, and, perhaps, McCoy?

Everyone from TOS had a history that abruptly began on the show. I wouldn’t mind seeing a movie that showed all of these tangents (Scott’s and Uhura’s also maybe?) coming to a final “nexus” (sorry) aboard the Enterprise as Captain Kirk takes the helm from Captain Pike in a change of command ceremony.

You think?

69. William A. Deiker - January 24, 2007

I agree with the Gary Mitchell comment! Star Trek XI MUST draw on ALL things established in the original series if it’s to work. Any deviation will alienate diehard fans.

That’s not to say Star Trek XI needs to be so straight forward that it lacks creativity and flexibility key to a good storyline.

However, realistically (and fortunately for the prospective screenwriter(s)) TOS provides a roadmap to a potentially great back story.

The biggest mistake would be not only to ignore characterization, but common sense elements like costume, props andsetting.

However, I think it’s okay to ignore Spock smiling in the early incarnations of TOS because his lack of emotion had yet to be established…I can’t wait to see how this all turns out!

70. stevesf - May 22, 2007

Wasn’t Kirk’s brother named “Sam?” I don’t remember George.

71. Devon - January 2, 2009

Happy 2nd Birthday to this article. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.