Abrams Confirmed To Direct Star Trek XI – Expected To Be Out Christmas 2008 | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams Confirmed To Direct Star Trek XI – Expected To Be Out Christmas 2008 February 23, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,STXI Status , trackback

For weeks TrekMovie.com has been telling you not to believe everything you hear and to be patient…well now that patience has paid off. According to the Hollywood Reporter J.J. Abrams finalized his deal to direct Star Trek XI on Friday. TrekMovie.com also learned earlier this week that Paramount have slated Christmas 2008 for the release of Star Trek XI. It is also likely that Abrams and the studio have agreed on a script. When we last spoke to him, Abrams told TrekMovie.com that his decision to direct would not be made until the script was finalized and he felt he was the right man for the job. The director deal is one of the last steps before an official greenlight and it may be that this has happened as well.

One Man’s Vision
Star Trek XI will be Abrams second time in the directors chair after Mission: Impossible III, which was the film that got Paramount’s attention focused on Abrams. When Paramount CEO Brad Grey signed Abrams to a multi-picture deal last summer he described JJ as ‘a triple threat’. Apparently for Trek XI he is going to make good on that, acting as (co-)Producer, (co-)Writer and Director. One of the reasons Abrams chose Paramount over other studios courting him was because Paramount had something no other studio had…Star Trek. It was Abrams clout with the studio that got them to bring the somewhat troubled franchise back to the front burner and this deal shows that he plans to see it through all the way. It is worth noting that Abrams’ deal with Paramount gives him final cut. Past Trek films have often suffered from too many cooks and corporate interference. It appears that for Star Trek XI we will see how the franchise can be handled by a new team (Lindelof, Burk, Orci, Kurtzman, Chambliss, etc) with a leader with a clear vision.  

…oh and about the plot
The brief article in the trade paper also repeats the summary of the film first reported in Variety almost a year ago: "a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission." It is unclear if Hollywood Reporter is confirming this or just repeating Variety’s summary. TrekMovie.com have been told that the film will jump around time within Kirk’s life and may include scenes at the Academy (and earlier) but will also deal with events later in Kirk’s life like (such as his time on the USS Farragut and possibly his first mission in the USS Enterprise).  

It is too late to get any more info out of Paramount, but next week TrekMovie.com should have more on the next steps for Star Trek’s return to the big screen 


1. stallion - February 23, 2007

Hell yeah first one to comment!!!!

2. stallion - February 23, 2007

Come on was there any really doubt if Abram was going to direct or not? I bet the studio wanted a big name director and producer to be involve with this project and that is probably one reason Abram was able to get this project. I can still kind of see Matt Damon playing Kirk.

3. Anthony Pascale - February 23, 2007

by the way folks even though I qm on a cruise ship I just had a hint that this was coming down so I logged in (at obscene rates) to check. woulld just like to say that I am pleased all the rumors are over and we have our team and are ready to move forward for Trek XI. I loved MI3 and think that the man should see his vision through

Trek is back baby!

4. Twilightsol - February 23, 2007

Wow, Its really going to happen!!!!! I think I am starting to get excited now!!!

5. Michael Appleton - February 23, 2007

Oh, yeah baby!! Let the Trekfest begin!! If it’s great, then a fresh reboot. If, by chance, it’s not, c’est la vie!! (I love that line from STIII!)

6. Jeff Bond - February 23, 2007

Excellent news…behind every revolution, there’s one man with a vision! :)

7. Canonista the Cultist - February 23, 2007

Still not excited about the Prequel….

But, if his script is going to be used, I’m glad he’s directing it.

8. Kevin - February 23, 2007

I was really excited about there being the possibility of another Star Trek feature film, but I got even more excited when I heard that J.J. Abrams might direct. I have been hoping for months that he would, and now the day has finally come. I couldn’t be more excited and it is so awesome to know that this bold new vision of Star Trek finally has its captain. J.J., you are the man!

9. Cranston - February 23, 2007

Good news. I’m encouraged by a lot of what I’ve heard so far, and kind of like the idea of “jumping around” chronologically. That could be done lots of ways, from a few flashback scenes to an all-out “Citizen Kirk” format. The latter, actually, might be the only way that Shatner as the older Kirk could make sense without stretching cheesiness to the breaking point. Either way, I’m glad Trek is finally going forward by returning to the core (Kirk, Spock), and that it’s apparently in solid, professional hands rather than the last gasp of the TV franchise.

10. Sleeper Agent X - February 23, 2007

Awesome news! I look forward to all the details we can expect to leak in the coming months! Trek really IS back!!!

11. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 23, 2007

Star Trek XI will own you.

Captain Kirk and Mister Spock are back Baby, let the merchandising commence.

12. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 23, 2007

I think in honor of this glorious news I’m going to bust out the K’tinga model and work on it some more.

Now we just need to get those corporate bastards at RC2 Ertl to renew their AMT Trek model license instead of CANCELLING it as was recently announced, the peice of shit corporate hacks.

Why don’t some of you guys send them an E-mail? The AMT Trek model property has been a staple of model shops for 30 plus years, and now on the fricking EVE of a new Trek film, and the resurgent Remastered series, these redneck, farm machine loving trisby 21 chromosome lacking inbreds in redneck middle America cancel the Trek property to focus on Nascar. Nascar.

I’m perturbed to the Nth degree.

13. Stanky McFibberich - February 23, 2007

I am not at all excited by the new movie, but I will join Josh T. in being perturbed by Nascar.

14. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 23, 2007

It’s just like comfort food Stanky, I’m 33, and all of my life regardless of where I was or what I was doing, I could always go into a hobby shop and grab an AMT Trek model kit. To non-modelers I guess it isn’t a big deal but, it’s the principle of the thing. NOW they cancel the damn thing.

15. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 23, 2007

These morons need to go on Ebay 5 minutes and see what AMT Trek kits are going for, such is the HIGH demand.

16. big E - February 24, 2007

It’s about time! I was beginning to get worried. Let hope casting news will follow soon…

17. Cygnus-X1 - February 24, 2007

Has JJ Abrams directed any GOOD movies? MI:3 was a cheesy action flick, yes?

And, if they really are going with the young Kirk/Spock pre-quel story, whomever they get to play Kirk will have his work cut out for him, as has already been said. I’d give that actor – Damon, or whomever – a one-in-ten shot at not delivering an insta-camp performance.

I can almost hear Damon slipping into that great Boston accent of his, whilst serving up his best honey-cue-ad She-atna.

P.S. – Nascar sucks.

18. Trevok - February 24, 2007

Glad to finally get some actual news about XI rather than romur and speculation. It’s nice to see JJ will be directing the film, it means his vision is what we’ll get to see.
Now all we need is an official green light from Paramount and a cast list.
It’s truely a good time to be a Trek fan.
In fact for a change its a good time to be a SF fan with the amount of good Sf around these days.
Live Long and Prosper.

19. Trevok - February 24, 2007

Also just checked out both startrek.com and trektoday niether have this news up yet.
Trekmovie.com rules.

20. Lets hate Paramount - February 24, 2007

I’ll be excited by this when the script gets out, until then its just another Berman/ Braga co production to me

21. SpellcheckNazi - February 24, 2007

Hey Lois Lane!
Like rapist, triple only has ONE “p”.

22. Michael - February 24, 2007

Young Kirk and Spock,FFS!! this is utter crap

23. trekmaster - February 24, 2007

Abrams is the chosen one, the chosen one, the chosen one… :-P

24. David - February 24, 2007

see the movie first, then decide wether or not you think its crap…

25. Cervantes - February 24, 2007

Which is great…IF the Movie proves to be great.

26. TrekLog » Blog Archive » Star Trek XI - Ein Mann, eine Vision - February 24, 2007

[…] Es wurde jetzt nicht nur bestätigt, dass J. J. Abrams letztendlich doch noch Regie führen wird, sondern auch, dass Star Trek XI zu Weihnachten 2008 in die US-Kinos kommt! Tatsache ist, dass das Franchise zuletzt nur durch Gene Roddenberry derart mit einer Person verknüpft gewesen ist. Abrams hat in seiner Position als Produzent, Autor und Regisseur quasi die umfassende Macht und zudem noch die Rechte des Final Cuts inne, wodurch das Endprodukt kaum durch andere Faktoren negativ beinträchtigt werden dürfte. Man sagt ja nicht umsonst, dass zuviele Köche den Brei verderben… J. J. Abrams – ein Mann, und hoffentlich jemand mit einer klaren Vision wie einst Gene Roddenberry. Im übrigen müsste nach der geklärten Regiefrage, die eng an ein fertiges Drehbuch geknüpft ist, jetzt bald das GO, das green light, seitens Paramount kommen, womit das Projekt Star Trek XI offiziell in Produktion sein dürfte. Ich bin jedenfalls gespannt aiuf die Ankündigungen der nächsten Wochen… […]

27. Cervantes - February 24, 2007

Lets just hope he can deliver an E-P-I-C come Christmas 2008 with a hopefully excellent cast, very high production values, and a satisfyingly involving storyline…. And a strong soundtrack score as inventive as the late great Jerry Goldsmith’s for the first Star Trek Movie would be welcome too.

28. Greg Stamper - February 24, 2007

“Past Trek films have often suffered from too many cooks and corporate inteferance.”

This passage is the key one for me because it’s very true. Unlike Lucas’s Star Wars, Trek has suffered at times from a lack of one single individual who could proclaim “the buck stops here”. – – Thanks, as always, Anthony for the info.

29. Bryan - February 24, 2007

As an original 1966 Trekker…this news is exciting if Shatner, Nimoy and any references to the old Star Fleet Academy acquaintences are utilized (Gary Lockwood (MITCHELL), Bruce Mars (FINNEGAN), Shirley Bonne (RUTH). I hate it when writers start inventing too many new characters. Tie in known Trek canon and weave a story into the characters that has some references to the original personalities of these established characters.
It is funny to have loved this show for better than 40 years and it just keeps going and going. A great association.
I’m proud to be a TREKKER dammit!

30. AJ - February 24, 2007

You can all bet that Trek XI will be just as corporate as the others. Abrams on board simply means some more creative leeway for a known quantity in the director’s chair. I really hope that this gives our show a longer-term future, i.e. back on TV, where it belongs. By the way, I have yet to see anyone call the film “Star Trek XI: LOST in Space” (groan), so I guess I have just done it.

31. Doug - February 24, 2007

re 17

The thing about MI III, is that the franchise was chopped up with the first two movies. Abrams actually brought back the feel and character of the original series. I sat through that movie and said, “now this is more like it!”

I also thought he brought a nice balance between character and action. I think he “gets it”. Star Trek is in good hands.


32. Dom - February 24, 2007

I’m delighted at this news. This will hopefully be the fresh start that Trek’s been needing since the late 80s (it was mostly downhill after STIV:TVH in my opinion!)

And as for the model kits . . . let’s not get too steamed up. With a resurgent Trek franchise, someone’s guaranteed to pick up the licence. I’ve bought the old model kits before and they’ve been in the shop for so long that they’ve warped (excuse the pun!!) into uselessness!

I guess cast and crew announcements will be turning up in the next coupla months.

Exciting times! :)

33. Lao3D - February 24, 2007

I think this is great news. MI: III was a solid, enjoyable action flick, and considering it was his feature film debut as a director, proved he can cut it in the “big leagues.”

And say what you will about where Alias and Lost started to unravel, the pilots, which I think he directed, were taut, intriguing and fun enough to launch two hit series.

I just hope we don’t see anybody tied to a chair and tortured in ST:XI. I begin to fear JJ has a bit of a bondage fetish…

34. Craig - February 24, 2007

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! It’s a bad idea! It’s stinks worst than my 3 week old under pants! I hoped and prayed that this would never happen! I think I want to cry!

People in Hollywood must be on drugs or least need to be on some kind mental health watch for there own safety.

For Gods sakes don’t do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35. Craig - February 24, 2007

If this is true Star Trek is dead :( :( :( :(

36. Redshirt - February 24, 2007

Im beginning to wonder if people who can’t live without Lost or think MI 3 was a academy award winning movie are going to follow Trek XI no matter what. Granted Abrams is Paramount golden boy (the only asset they have left to make any money).
If this film looks like nothing but space battles and things that blow up or things we’ve seen in past trek films or a script that nobody even the writers know whats going on. Its just going to be the same utter garbage. I would think people were a little more smarter than that..
Im beginning to wonder if your not a fan of the mans work will people bother?
I’ll bother if a trailer looks halfway decent and not a MI 3 ripoff.

37. Mike - February 24, 2007

Craig – Trek is dead now (at least new Trek) so what do we have to lose by giving J. J. a try? I think this is the only way to give the franchise some much needed “buzz” otherwise if it was an unknown team or the same old bland Berman-Trek then I would envision a bigger box office failure than Nemisis.

38. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007

“these redneck, farm machine loving trisby 21 chromosome lacking inbreds in redneck middle America cancel the Trek property to focus on Nascar. Nascar.”

Don’t mince words, tell us what you really think about those of us who also enjoy NASCAR :)

I’m certain that those ‘inbreds’ would have something cute to say about Trek fans, the assumed locations of their bedrooms and preferred form of coffee, worrying about the digital recreation of nacelle caps from a 40 year old television series… LOL

/Can’t we all just accept that not everyone is a Trek fan?

39. Cheat Code » Abrams Confirmed To Direct Trek - Expected To Be Out Christmas 2008 - February 24, 2007

[…] Original post by Anthony Pascale and plugin by Elliott Back […]

40. Jon - February 24, 2007

I’m glad Abrams and Paramount finally came around to see my way of doing things(humor).I ‘m glad Abrams is doing it all.That way we’ll get a clear vision.It shows he’s passionate.Considering that fact that there are so many muddleheaded ideas about where Trek should go(too many cooks spoiling the pot) makes it all the more important that just one man see a singular vision through.Gentlemen…may the wind be at your backs.

41. Flake - February 24, 2007

Glad this has been cleared up. Christmas is a good time to release a movie – Rick Berman was right about there being room for Nemesis at Christmas, but unfortunately Nemesis was piss poor and no one wanted to see it. If XI is good people will see it – oh and no Lord of the Rings this time.

42. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007

Of course, although not ‘inbred’, I will acknowledge suffering from being one generation removed from a Middle America family that was providing food to our ‘betters’ on the coasts, the child of a career military officer who became the first head of NASA’s Astronaut training program (1958) and the Mercury project lead r/d officer, was born in “the South” (VA), and is a professional civil engineer in her own right.

43. steve - February 24, 2007

Historically, it’s also quite cool that the same man is directing two movie franchises that are based on TV shows that were “sister” series at Desilu over forty years ago. What are the chances of THAT?

44. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007


Nor, a “Harry Potter” movie coming out shortly before.

45. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007


Hadn’t thought about that… only needs a “Mannix: The Motion Picture” to make it a trifecta! :)

46. Mike - February 24, 2007

I’m disappointed. I was really hoping for a “director” to helm the movie. Once again, as in the past, a TREK film is being lead by television personnel, actors and novelist, and not people with cinematic sensibilities. 11 movies and only one director–Robert Wise, leading the charge. I was hoping the new film would get away from the TV series look and feel. Not going to happen with Abrams at the helm. He’s just not a stylist. Good luck!

47. Jon - February 24, 2007

Now the announcements will be coming faster re;the creative team….Anybody else think Abrams is gonna make his buddy ,Tom Cruise,our next Spock?I’m expecting it.I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t happen.

48. Androide - February 24, 2007

It doesn’t matter, what the release date will be. There is always big competition in the winter season. But for now, Harry Potter 6 will be released on the 21th of november, enough time until christmas…

49. steve - February 24, 2007

Did you not see M:I:III? Very well done, and that whole Vatican sequence was a great piece of “cinema”, I thought.

What do you expect? Neither Spielberg nor Oliver Stone will ever direct a Star Trek movie, sorry.

As for “TV people” directing movies, let me remind you that Richard Donner directed Gilligan’s Island before his movie career.

50. Clinton - February 24, 2007

Confirmed? Suddenly, I can’t wait! Bring it on!

51. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007

I don’t know, Mike, that is a such a bad thing.

ST:TMP was like throwing food to a starving population. I’ll acknowledge that — perhaps — some of the disappointment in the production was simply the production capabilities of the time, the on-again/off-again nature of Phase II and the need to (from a budget standpoint) reuse a LOT of the set design and costuming (into which, RW would otherwise have been able to provide his directorial input), and the dust-ups with RA&Assoc., rather than a ‘movie’ director’s ability to carry the franchise from the small screen to the large. But, I can also see that the TNG movies were, for the most part (I exclude FC), great episodes of the TNG, but not great ‘movies’.

Perhaps we are also part of the problem, however. IMHO, we do create ( through our own expectations) some of the limitations through our legitimate insistence (some would say obsession) on established canon. It is going to be the rare director who is going to be able to bring ‘sweeping’ movie Trek if there is going to be our “looking over his shoulder”.

Jackson did well with bringing fans of LOTR into the fold, and made a better product of LOTR than might have otherwise have been from another director, but, then again, aside from animation (or quasi-animation, iirc), there hadn’t been a TV/film version of LOTR against which to establish an expectation. He also had a s_it-load of funding from TWO studios, years to put the work together, and was far enough removed from the H’wood ‘suit’ establishment to put his mark on the production.

And, I don’t know the comparison between the number of hard-core “Trek” fans versus hard-core “LOTR” fans. Too, LOTR: FOTR also benefiting from coming out right after (within months) an event when people wanted to see something about ordinary people (Hobbits: the most-easily relatable of the characters in Middle Earth, by design from JRRT)initial struggle against a faceless malevolence.


52. The NCC Factor - February 24, 2007

This is certainly exciting news! Abrams knows exactly what he’s doing and seems to have solid ideas for Trek XI. I cannot wait!

53. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007

pimf: “people… and their initial struggle…”

54. Adam Cohen - February 24, 2007

Okay, so we really are going to see “a J.J. Abrams film.” I have high hopes for the man doing a good job. Abrams has a pulp-mentality to his storytelling– the plot twists, the shocking reveals, etc. I think there are scenes in Mission: Impossible III that really sizzle with good energy. That’s the sort of thing that will kick Star Trek into a higher speed. Is Abrams the most experienced guy available? No, but he’s probably the most passionate person to be involved in this project. He will bring an energy and excitement to the show that will hopefully trickle down throughout the production. I don’t think its wishful thinking to hope for that to happen. I’m relying on Abrams to be a solid geek advocate throughout this production, making choices based on quality where they matter the most. Additionally, I want to see Abrams let loose and amp up the franchise with some truly thrilling action and adventure. Based on his (albeit brief) track record, I think we’re in good hands.

55. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007

Based on his (albeit brief) track record, I think we’re in good hands.

“Brief” may turn out to be a huge asset, IMHO.

56. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - February 24, 2007

I think it is great that J.J. has FINALLY committed, if for one reason only… to continue the ground swell that is beginning again for Trek.

Star Trek has been a ubiquitous entity for many years. In some ways occupying our cultural zeitgeist has served it well. However, for some time “being everywhere” has turned the sword to the flat, as it were. Star Trek had lost it’s edge… it’s focus… it’s ability to buzz with the Hollywood Big Boys.

Certainly, the Remastered Project has re-invigorated Trek but really only to a small degree. Trek needs to get BIG again like in the Eighties and early Nineties. Whatever weight J.J. has in LA-LA Land I want him to bring it to bear with all the strength he can muster, mister!

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t genuflect at MI:III… nor do I think LOST is found… but looking at all of J.J.’s efforts from Alias to Armageddon… from Felicity to Forever Young… from Six Degrees to… well, Star Trek XI… this is a guy who understands story and character in a variety of genres and mediums.

The biggest asset I see him bringing is respect and access to the re-birth of Star Trek. Whether you like everything he’s done, J.J. has for the most part experienced that strange combination of critical success and the invitation to a mainstream audience.

Granted, it is a long way between now and the twenty-two months before Star Trek XI hits the screen and there are a myriad of miss-steps that may happen… but J.J. & Company have a mission and it is a daunting one.

At the core of that mission is the fact that J.J. loves Star Trek… He grew up on it!… He has great respect for what it has been and what it could be… In many ways, he is the perfect choice… He is an accomplished writer-producer-director who is sizzling hot and he happens to be a fan-boy.

Maybe I’m overly optimistic but I have a feeling that I might be genuflecting come Christmas 2008.

57. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007


And he had better get the nacelle caps and the big E’s [nacelle] balls, right, dammit!

/JJ — we’re WATCHING!


58. The Artist Formerly Known As Picardsucks - February 24, 2007

F-yeah!!!! Now let’s cast this baby!!!!

59. Stanky McFibberich - February 24, 2007

re:#44 Mike
“I was hoping the new film would get away from the TV series look and feel. ”

Don’t worry, it will.

60. Major Carrales - February 24, 2007

I hope this is not the latest meshegas to come down. I so want to approach this with an open mind.

In any case, let me say this…

I will be extremely pleased if this leads to a new series that takes place during TOS. If done correctly, it should create a renaissance for Trek.

I would alos like for it to remain in the “canon,” Tie up loose ends, concentrate on the characters and solidify canon…not replace it.

It can be done effectively.

61. Crazy Hazy - February 24, 2007

Trek has had some God awful ideas in the past, but doing a TOS prequel is the worst. As usual Paramount is far behind the curve as prequel were cool in 2001. They might as well call this Star Trek: Jumping the Shark.

62. Doug - February 24, 2007

re 35 and some others…

I really can’t stand it when people completely denounce a project and a director with little or no ground for it. You’re practically blaming past Trek failures on the new director.

Maybe Trek XI will be awful…, but writers/ directors usually don’t develop a solid fan base based on producing crap. I’ve never seen Lost once and have no big allegiance to J.J. Abrams, … the one thing by Abrams that I have seen (MI III) was in my mind a huge improvement over the first two MI movies and generally fun, well paced, and smart.

Rather than forming camps of “The future of Trek is dead” and “the only good trek is classic trek”, or whatever…, let’s appreciate that we have a fresh start for a series that we all obviously like, and go from there.

I enjoy coming to this site to read insightful and interesting comments about something I enjoy, I’d like it to stay that way.


63. AJ - February 24, 2007

Everyone: This will be big sh*t for Paramount/CBS. Nice to have big names like Brad Gray and JJ Abrams around it. Neither is a stranger to good character-based fiction. The challenge is to take the Shatner-Nimoy-Kelley on-screen relationship and re-create it with new people. Grrrr. Never, ever, ever can it be done. Ever. This is an issue of chemistry amongst actors who have had time together as colleagues. How to recreate?

64. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 24, 2007


Ah yes Tigress, the fundamental difference being however, Trek doesn’t exercise it’s particular art and influence much to the detriment of Nascar, the reverse not being the case unfortunately,

as to the South/West, I refer more to the inherent prevalent mentality rather specific Geographic location, which just happens to be Dyersville Iowa for the parties commiting the offense.

I myself domecile in good ole Louisville Kentucky.

65. Sleeper Agent X - February 24, 2007

60 – Hear, hear.

66. Sam Belil - February 24, 2007

#28 — I could not agree with you more. I’m 45 years old and have been a fan since 1966. This is GREAT news!!!! Yes — Gary Mitchell needs to be a “major player” in this movie, as well as Finnegan and Garrovick! If this indeed a reboot (and I hope it is) — I don’t think that is critical to include McCoy, especially since he was no where to be seen in “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. I also believe that there is a place for Carol Marcus in this film. I’m VERY EXCITED – it just sucks that we will have to wait until X-Mas 2008. I can’t wait to start reading about the actual script!

67. Michael Appleton - February 24, 2007

What we want, and need, is a great and compelling STORY, STORY, STORY…nacelle caps be damned!!!

68. Thomas Jensen - February 24, 2007

It would be a lot easier for the guy if he ignores all the other incarnations and only uses elements from the original series and first six and a 1/4 movies. In that way it would be easier to integrate elements from these and not contradict established conventions.

69. Al - February 24, 2007

Does this mean we have the red nacelles with the spires back?

70. Stanky McFibberich - February 24, 2007

I would not doubt that somehow nascar will be worked into the movie.

71. FlyingTigress - February 24, 2007

OMG. I didn’t realize that it had such power! Taking away kits is more critical to civilization than I previously imagined, or, taking potential adherents away from the one true Church — of Trek.

“Bless us, oh Lord, for these, thy kits, which we are about to receive…”


72. Craig - February 24, 2007

This is not Star Trek this is an abomination If they were just taking the Star Trek Universe forward I’d be 100% behind the project but as it is… It’s wrong it’s going backwards rewriting history … recasting icons.

If I’d had to choose between this turd or letting Star Trek rest, I’d whole heartedly choose to let it rest because the former is a unequivical death sentence for what we currently call Star Trek

73. Logan - February 24, 2007

I think these are good news. I still missing a last TNG-Movie. But, I think… hope, Abrams will make a worthily STAR TREK-film, still based on GENE RODDENBERRY’S vision. If he fails, I believe, STAR TREK will die for ever…


74. steve623 - February 24, 2007

I just hope there isn’t a scene of somebody outrunning fire in slow motion :-)

75. Craig - February 24, 2007

I hope there isn’t scene with someone getting shot then going xx hours/day/month earlier

God… Flashbacks = Epic FAIL

76. Jon - February 24, 2007

#12,#37,#62#69.Sounds like Josh misses fondeling his little Enterprise model.

77. Major Carrales - February 24, 2007

I think the best angle for film like this woudl be similar to a story I read in the now defunct “Star Trek Unlimited” comic (which I think was the best of that series in that it tackled everything)

The plot was something like this…

The Shat is at some graduation or like circumstance (first command, wedding, visit) of Peter Kirk long prior to the “Nexus Thing”.

Peter asks about various things and the Shat starts to spill it.

1) George Samuel Kirk and an Academy aged Jim on thier parents farm the day before Jim Kirt leaves for the Academy. A mention of George getting married and heading to space a different route (colonization)

2) Meeting Gary Mitchell en route to the Academy

3) Having Matt Decker as a profession that Kirk makes a bad impression on, but who later grows to be a friend

4) Meeting Carol Marcus…the…uh…union?

From there one could flash forward to Kirk’s fist command…or one could retell “Where No Man has gone before.” The Mitchell Story Arc is more meaningful.

Everyone wins… 1) We see a Kirk Origin Story, of which we have been robbed in the past, 2) done in modern style it could finally brige the gap between “old school” and “new” trek 3) Redoing elements of “Where No Man Has Gone Before” brings in Spock just where he need to be. No earlier. 4) it becomes about characters, not so much effect (and, yes, finally the ENTERPRISE is not the ONLY SHIP in the QUADRANT facing some overwhelming odds)

That is the movie I would pay to see. If they re-boot it and try to reimagine it (like War of the Worlds) I may pay people not to see it.

The biggest problem with films these days is that nothing is original, nor when remade, does it stay true to the original.

Please…PLEASE…PLEASE…don’t mess it up for me and millions of fans!!!

78. Larry Nemecek - February 24, 2007

Good news indeed–if not for the expectation of both a unified vision and clout to see it through. In late 2005 I wrote in my Titan column about three outcomes for Trek’s future–assuming a movie before a series–and having the best be a closet Trek fan who also happens to be “hot” and asks to rebirth Trek himself/herself…and voila –that is what we have. Thank your lucky stars that a “hot” but non-fan, ego-driven producer/writer/director did not get it (ie, “canon be damned,” per Stuart Baird dir. “Nemesis”) not a low-key honcho with good intentions but no clout to see it through. Remember, the infamous interfering and “too many cooks” issues have also stemmed not just from suits but from “seniorty” input clauses in various actors’ ever-denser contracts. Even with a stellar movie-level cast, let’s hope JJ has no on-set turf, ego or insecurities to deal with re: script.

79. Craig - February 24, 2007

I feel I cannot state in words how against this I am… Previous to this the only situation I remember was the Remake of the Italian Job which, I still refuse to watch and that doesn’t come close to this monstrosity

80. Hacom - February 24, 2007

You Mean Richard Arnold…..Is….Wrong…..?

81. Not In Cardiff » Trek XI finally moving forward - February 24, 2007

[…] Well, it looks like JJ Abrams has finally committed to directing Trek XI. I’m exited – you should be too. […]

82. David Geg - February 24, 2007

this is the best news i heard all year!

83. Anthony Pascale - February 24, 2007

yes it does appear that R. Arnold was misinformed, as we stated.

RE: Spelling Nazi
I am disappointed in your, there were actually 3 typos in the article I rushed out from an internet cafe on a cruise ship. If you are going to do your job properly please catch all the errors next time!

RE: Craig
ok we get it…you have decided you wont like a movie that no one has seen yet. Your powers of precognition are truly amazing, but you don’t need to spam this thread with them, we are already impressed enough.

RE: Larry Nemecek
thanks for your wise words

RE: Jeff Bond
well said my friend

84. Dom - February 24, 2007

Yes, Craig, we get the idea: you don’t think the new Trek movie is a good idea, civilisation will fall because of it, the four horsemen will march and a great war will be fought twixt the giants Abrams and Whedon.

You’re judging a project based on virtually no information. You’re wielding a sword in ignorance. You clearly haven’t read any of the articles or discussions about it on this site.

That makes you either a troll or an attention-seeking idiot. Congratulations, you’ve got my attention. Now go away!

85. Ted P. - February 24, 2007

Good news indeed.

But I really hope the plot doesn’t “jump around” between timeframes. I really don’t mind if there is a flashback or two, but I hope the story telling is mostly linear.

I can see two occasions when flashbacks might be necessary – 1) after Tycho IV, when Kirk is depressed and probably re-thinking his choice of careers., and 2) after he meets spock in space, he may flashback to their first academy meeting.

Also, I am cautiously optomistic that this film will do well. I’m optomistic enough that I think they should save the “Kirk takes command of the Enterprise” setting for the next film.

86. Trevok - February 24, 2007

To all who hate the idea of a prequal I have but one thing to say… PPPFFFF!

87. Dr. Image - February 24, 2007

#78 Larry-
Took the words right outta my mouth.
Ego and politics destroyed whatever Nemesis could have been; now let’s see a well-written script, wise casting, and some spikey nacelles!
(Not to mention “hand LASERS!”)

88. =A= - February 24, 2007

ahhhh about time and go for it… but next year dec. 2008 ohhhh too long wait. oh well i watch u.s.s. farragut this morning. that so cool..

89. Mike - February 24, 2007

49. steve wrote:

Did you not see M:I:III? Very well done, and that whole Vatican sequence was a great piece of “cinema”, I thought.

What do you expect? Neither Spielberg nor Oliver Stone will ever direct a Star Trek movie, sorry.

As for “TV people” directing movies, let me remind you that Richard Donner directed Gilligan’s Island before his movie career.
I don’t know, Mike, that is a such a bad thing.

Saw bits and pieces of MI3 and wasn’t impressed. Let me explain my take on the subject of stylistic directors and TREK films. I think TREK films are NOT 150 million dollar productions and will never gross the kind of numbers in the 007/STAR WARS area. If Paramount spends 150 million on this film it is going to crash, I don’t care who directs! Paramount’s handling of the TREK film series in the past is all wrong. TREK films are small personal productions that concentrate on theme and character, not just plot, and they SHOULD be directed by stylist, because a stylist can take a moderately budgeted movie and make it look like art or or at the very least a film and not a TV show. Just don’t think Abrams can do that. MI3 looked like a film because of the 175 million plus spent on it, not because of Abrams. THE WRATH OF KHAN is still the best TREK film, but it looks like a TV movie. Imagine if a stylist had directed it! You’d have a great story and a terrific looking cinematic film, too. This is what Paramount needs to think when they do TREK movies. Continually hiring actors, novelist, producers to direct is a mistake! To answer your question, no, I don’t want Spielberg or Stone (are you kidding me?! Both are over-rated.). I want a director, who can give the film a cinematic feel and look without needing 175 million to do it. This is what TREK films have always needed in the director’s chair. Sure, Abrams, like a lot of other directors, can handle the technical sequences, but can he put a style on the film to make it special , interesting, good and his own and do it cheaply. Just don’t think so, because he hasn’t directed enough to make me feel he can. His multiple storyline approach–as seen in a lot of his work–will help the film look different, but will it make it look cinematic without boring a vast number of film goers, who are going to get antsy when he starts switching and jumping from story-line to story-line? That’s the question.

Also, Richard Donner directed more than Gilligan’s Island. He directed many TV series, including some of the best TWILIGHT ZONE episodes of all time!!! He had plenty of directorial productions under his belt before movies, not so Abrams.

90. Kev - February 24, 2007

I’m keeping my fingers crossed. If it’s a Lost-type flashback story that just tells us why Kirk is Kirk, that’s OK, but I’d like to see a coherent tale, also. The Kirk ground is pretty well covered, though. STV, of all movies, kind of revealed a lot about Kirk when he refused to reveal his “pain”. Fine to do that, along with some fun action and story. I’m looking forward to the movie.

91. Kev - February 24, 2007

Almost forgot, the key Kirk “pain” episodes are Naked Time and And the Children Shall Lead Them (Kirk’s fear of losing command).

92. TrekNerd - February 24, 2007

I have only three words to say about Star Trek being directed by J.J.:

Dy – No – MITE!!!

— #2. I can still kind of see Matt Damon playing Kirk. —

You know, just the other day I landed on an Internet site that had an advertisement with a picture of Matt Damon in shadow, and for a moment I thought it was TOS-era William Shatner. I’m not so opposed to Matt Damon as Kirk anymore.

As for the purported “jumping around different times in JTK’s life” storyline, that reminds me of the film Wyatt Earp starring Kevin Costner. If J.J. can make a JTK film as good as that one, I’ll be impressed.

By the way, has anyone noticed that this might be the first Star Trek film to focus more on a single character instead of a trifecta or ensemble?

In fact, this is sounding more like James T. Kirk: The Motion Picture than Star Trek.

93. steve623 - February 24, 2007

Re: #78 and Larry’s comment about “‘seniorty’ input clauses in various actors’ ever-denser contracts” – I will be very pleased to not hear any cast-performed Gilbert & Sullivan or Irving Berlin tunes in XI.

I also am pleased at the very early word on the storyline does not sound like an attempt to do a Muppet Babies version of TOS, with young versions of Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Chapel, and Rand shoehorned into a story solely for the sake of featuring all the regular characters from TOS. Absolutely focus the film on Kirk and Spock, but use different supporting characters – Mitchell, Pike, Captain Garrovick, Carol Marcus, Finnegan, Ruth, et cetera – to really shake up the dynamics of the characters and the expectations of the general audience, who grew tired of 2 hours of people sitting around pushing buttons and looking out a window, crawling around acres of scaffolding in sweaty tanktops, and performing musical theater numbers.

94. VOODOO - February 24, 2007

I’m glad that after years of taking the cheap route Paramont finally is treating Star Trek (and it’s fans) with respect + bringing in some talented people to run the show.

95. Lt. Arex - February 24, 2007

I’ll reserve judgment on JJ… however, since this is a strong indication of a Greenlight..


and Josh… you never answered my love letter… a pity. I am sure you were…busy…. there in KY.

96. orbitalic - February 24, 2007

I hope this finally greenlights soon and we get a cast list, etc so that portion of the bickering can begin.

97. Xai - February 24, 2007

I’ll bet any of you XI haters right now that you WILL see the film.
Perhaps in disguise?

98. Vifx Twokay - February 24, 2007

Take That- latinoreview.com!

99. Craig - February 24, 2007

The paradox with this prequel idea is that

A. I fear it’ll too much like TOS (Too Cheesy)
B.I fear it’ll won’t be anything like TOS (Recasting, ignoring etablished facts, redesigning established sets and equipment)

It’s a No win Scenario, a Kobayashi Maru situation. I respect that some of you can be optimistic but I feel that this hasn’t been thought through…

Recasting is awful… without fundamentally changing the character it never works… just smacks of lack of imagination.

I mean even if this film is sucessful how will it impact on the franchise? More Recasted Films? Will Kirk become a Bond like character, recast after every few films? If they go for big names how much will it cost for them to return? Would this end any hope of a return to the 24th century? If there is a sequel will it stick to canon? Is there scope for a sequel?

Lots of questions little in the way of answers

100. Agent69 - February 24, 2007

Damn, I’m 2 days late for the news, but that doesn’t make it any less sweet.
Now I know the movie will be great.

101. MichaelJohn - February 24, 2007

I think this annoucement was anything but a surprise. I bet JJ Abrams wanted to direct all along and was playing hardball to get the best deal possible.

I just hope all the money he’s going to be paid is money well spent, as far as the Star Trek franchise is concerned.

Mike :o

PS: I often wonder what will happen to Star Trek if this movie is a big budget flop. hmmmmm

102. Captain Pike - February 24, 2007

#73 “But, I think… hope, Abrams will make a worthily STAR TREK-film, still based on GENE RODDENBERRY’S vision.”

Umm. We had that. it was called Star Trek: The Motion Picture and it, well, it blew. We all went to see it but most of us thought it was a poor interpretation of Trek.

103. Dom - February 24, 2007

Craig (99), it sounds like you don’t even like Star Trek!!!

Twenty years ago, people said a Star Trek series set a century(-ish) after Kirk was a terrible idea. I didn’t greatly like the series that resulted, but a helluva a lot of people did!

Will recasting work? I dunno, but can it hurt to try? Star Trek is otherwise dead in the water, associated with evermore faceless ‘new’ crews. It’s about 13 years since Kirk last appeared on screen and about 16 since Spock did! Like it or not, people’s first thought when they hear about Trek is about those characters and they’re a great selling point!

Just condemning the exercise because of f*cking, sodding, bloody, irritating canon (dear God, I hate hate HATE that word!) is like saying no one should play Henry V or Richard III in a film adaptation because Olivier already did it!

So this film might fundamentally alter the way we look at Trek! Good! Bring it on! Star Trek was a show that courted controversy from the outset! The last twenty years or so, Berman Trek has been associated with playing it safe and holding back other, possibly better SF.

Do you really think for one second that they haven’t planned for sequels to this film? Do you really think for one second that they will cast actors who won’t have sequel options written into their contracts?

Frankly, it’s not that complicated to fit in new stories in the TOS era because there’s so little known about the characters in that period. There was never that much revealed about the pasts of many of the TOS characters.

It says a lot for the performances and writing of the show and movies that people could overlook that. But that lack of information is a gift to someone brave enough to revive the franchise. It allows Abrams and his team to set the film in Spock’s and Kirk’s youth and literally ‘build’ the characters the main stars will play, making the actors completely acceptable in their roles!

No, Kirk, Spock and McCoy won’t be Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. Yes, the chemistry will probably be different. That’s surely a good thing, bringing a different perspective to these icons.

I hope different actors periodically can play these characters down the years, keeping Star Trek alive as a concept.

Get used to the fact that Trek novels will start featuring the new actors and the modified Enterprise on the covers of the (pre-)TOS novels. Get used to the fact that Kirk, Spock and McCoy will be relevant 21st century characters, not historical figures. Get used to the fact that the Enterprise, suitably updated for the 21st century big screen, will once more be the present day ship!

If you can’t cope with change, I strongly recommend you visit danielcraigisnotbond.com as soon as possible. That site is full of close-minded bigots who are out to condemn a film they apparently refuse to watch, so you should get on very well with them!

104. dirwuf - February 24, 2007

I’m excited cause the only thing worse than bad Trek is no Trek…

105. dirwuf - February 24, 2007

Think about it, the ONLY way this could work as a new film series is to throw out the canon. Otherwise there could never be any drama about Kirk, etc. in danger.

I don’t know if fans will accept this premise, but it’s the only way the franchise will survive.

106. Willam - February 24, 2007

And John Williams scored music for Gilligan’s Island. Wouldn’t that be cool to have a Williams score for Trek IX.

107. Dom - February 24, 2007

dirwuf. Are yow seriously telling me that you tuned into the various Star Trek incarnations week in, week out and thought any of the major characters would die? We knew months in advance when anyone did get killed off!

With established franchises, we know the characters (usually) survive. It ***how*** they survive that gets the blood rushing! It’s also the question of whether other, guest characters survive that creates tension.

Unless you’re the sort of whack job that takes the Star Trek Chronology and a torch into the cinema with you, there’s not much to worry about!

108. Dom - February 24, 2007

Willam, we’ll be getting a Michael Giacchino score for STXI. That’s a good thing!

109. Xai - February 24, 2007


It’s an easy cure for you… and your continued concerns that you have spammed all over this thread.

Don’t Go See It.
It WILL be recast.
It WILL offend you.

“lots of questions little in the way of answers”
…You are kidding, right?
You expect the producers of a movie to come to you and say “Hey Craig, we’ve got this movie idea and here’s the premise and the script. Is it ok with you if we do this? And also, here’s our thoughts about sequels and long term character development, storyboards and casting thoughts too.”

Don’t go see it…. I don’t want you muttering in the row behind while I am enjoying the film.


110. Willam - February 24, 2007

Speaking as someone with a Bachelors in Music who has studied film scoring, I still vote for Williams. The only reason Goldsmith’s Star Trek scores are as good as they are is because the producers of TMP told Goldsmith that they wanted a score that was like William’s Star Wars. William reinvented film scoring with rich harmonies that scream adventure.

111. Driver - February 24, 2007

We also need a movie we can watch over and over. And, yes, bring back the TOS music updated. Abrams had some music from the original M.I. in M.I.3 which made me smile.

J.J., make us laugh, make us cry, make us smile, make us like wide-eyed kids.

112. Willam - February 24, 2007

Being wide-eyed, I think, is part of being a Trek fan. We need more of that. We’ve not had much lately.

113. hwoshe - February 24, 2007

I don’t mind Abrams, and I don’t mind prequels.

However, this movie sounds like dog-doo on a stick.

Hey, the most popular on-going movie series is set at a school, so we’ll put our heros at a school too. And Star Wars made a lot of money doing prequel movies about Anikin Skywalker, so lets make a prequel set in Starfleet Academy. And since baby boomers are into nostalgia, we’ll make a TOS prequel so they can fondly remember their childhood.

That isn’t a recipe for a good movie. It’s me-too-ism on an epic never-before seen scale. If the premise was pitched as a scifi other than Trek or Wars, the whole concept would be laughed at.

James Kirk and the Chamber of Secrets?
James Kirk and the Philosopher’s Stone?

I loved the early stuff (TOS and TNG). I want to see Trek be great scifi. That isn’t going to happen with a “Harry Potter in Spaaace” concept. It’s supposed to be scifi — do a scifi, or let the series go.

114. dirwuf - February 24, 2007

Dom (107) …I was just using “Kirk in danger” as an example. We also know too much about the ‘future’ of the Klingons, Romulans, etc. to make them major players…

And for those who still don’t like what Abrams is doing, it’s really a no-brainer. Paramount had 3 realistic options…

1) Bring in another new ship/cast…WHO WANTS THAT?

2) Make another “Next Generation” film…EVEN IF IT WAS GREAT, IT WOULD BOMB!

3) Recast the most popular version of the franchise…RISKY, BUT LOTS OF POTENTIAL.

115. Craig - February 24, 2007

I don’t understand why my legitimate concerns are being concidered Spam. …

Dom (103) “it sounds like you don’t even like Star Trek!!!” I love Star Trek I’ve seen every episode of TNG,DS9 and VOY and I own loads of VOY VHS’s and quite abit of DS9 too for that matter. I own 1-9 movies on VHS and went to the cinema on the last 4 Trek movies. When it comes to Ent I saw the whole 1 season skipped most the second but returned to watch the whole of S3 and S4. Thats not even counting DVD’s which I have many Paramount would do well not to alienate fans like me

116. Dennis Bailey - February 24, 2007

#110: I don’t know where or what you “studied,” but the offering of such credentials doesn’t validate the silly notion that Jerry Goldsmith somehow owes something creatively to John Williams.

I mean, really.

117. Xai - February 24, 2007

#115 Craig….
It’s because you are repeating yourself.
We got it…you want nothing to change and while it worked for Peter Pan, It won’t work here. There will be another film. It will have a new cast. It’s likely to be early TOS.
As I said in #109… and apparently I need to repeat MYself.

“lots of questions little in the way of answers”
…You are kidding, right?
You expect the producers of a movie to come to you and say “Hey Craig, we’ve got this movie idea and here’s the premise and the script. Is it ok with you if we do this? And also, here’s our thoughts about sequels and long term character development, storyboards and casting thoughts too.”
My advice is..if you cannot take change, don’t go to the movie.


118. Xai - February 24, 2007

#113 hwosh,
have you seen the script? We have all heard the rumours and possibilities, but you can already predict the future with your “dog-doo on a stick”?
The best critics wait until they have complete information.

I am curious what you normally do with pooch droppings… this involve a local game or cuisine?

119. Xai - February 24, 2007

#116 Thanks for saying that DB.

120. Jon - February 24, 2007

The script?Yeah.Britney Spears plays Decker and Ilea’s love child

121. Stanky McFibberich - February 24, 2007

re: 110 and 116
Goldsmith’s score for Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the big reasons I watch that movie frequently. I have no degree in music, but it doesn’t seem to me to be any kind of a copycat to Williams’s Star Wars soundtrack (which I also think is great). I’m quite sure Mr. Goldsmith was quite capable of standing on his own two feet.

re: Xai
I think it is perfectly fine that some of us are not all gaga over the new movie. There is nothing wrong with being against the roles being recast. Not all change is good. I’m sure we realize that by having this opinion it is not going to change anything, but there is nothing wrong with expressing it any more than it is wrong for others to speculate and suggest which actors should be in it or what the script should be about.
This is not like James Bond or any other property where it has been common to switch actors over the years. Only Shatner and Nimoy have played those characters over a very long period of time, and I personally think that I cannot accept anyone else in the roles. I don’t care for the idea of them being in the movie as older versions of the characters either, so I’m not asking that they be included. To me, that era of Star Trek has been done, and done well and is in no need of re-interpretation.

122. Litenbug - February 24, 2007

Star Track XI: The Search for Britney’s Panties.
Star Track XI: The Undiscovered Father of Anna Nicole’s Baby

Sorry, could resist

123. Xai - February 24, 2007

121, Stanky
I have no problems with differing opinions, I have a problem with them being said over and over again.
I also think that many of the questions put forth in #99 cannot be answered right now, thus my response in 109 and 117.

124. Willam - February 24, 2007

#121, #116 and #119. I do agree that score to TMP is very good and I too enjoy it. I think that Goldsmith is a fine composer and I do in fact enjoy most of his scores. However, not only Goldsmith but any film composer using chords and harmonies with upper extensions such as Major 9th and Major 11th chords does owe something to Williams. #121 (may I call you Stanky?) while you are correct that the melodies in Star Wars and TMP are different in nature, the thick harmonies which we now so easily associate with adventure film blockbusters such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the future, Superman, etc… in fact were first employed in film by Williams. Williams was trained as a jazz musician and such think harmonies are an essential element of jazzs. In conclusion, I know that I will enjoy this film regardless of who scores it. All I was saying is that if I could, I would pick Johnny Williams.

125. Tim Handrahan - February 24, 2007

Abrams directing! Shatner and Nimoy involved in the film! ALL IS RIGHT ONCE AGAIN IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.


126. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 24, 2007

#95 Arex

What letter? Did you send me an E-mail?

127. Josh T. (The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 24, 2007


No actually JON you smartass redneck prick I enjoy the meticulous detailing of fine craftmanship found in fine scale modeling. Here’s an idea moron, when you can contribute something constructive to the discussion then open your pie hole, until then I don’t recall asking for your pedantic obtuse opinion , if I need it next time I’ll give it to you.
Evidently the redneck comment was too close to home eh boy?

ADD suffering infantile minds such as yours is the reason modeling is going under, here’s an idea, get a HOBBY pal.

128. Lt. Arex - February 24, 2007

#126 Josh,
I was referring to a post on the Amok Time images thread that I made in response to your …thoughts. I actually thought that you’d come back around a little bit to discuss your references to me as a “Nazi” and to others in the thread as “cattle”.

If you care to read it…it’s still there. But even if you don’t, I expect as least as much respect as I gave you in my first post that sparked your acid tongue. You don’t have to agree with me on a single subject, but you will not stoop to childish name-calling with me or attempt to put words in my mouth.
Are we clear? A simple “yes” will do.

129. Josh T.( The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 24, 2007

Evidently we aren’t so clear Mein stooge, what in Gods name are you rattling on about?

Whatever it is in reference too it sounds to me like the lady doth protest a bit too much, I wasn’t aware you have been losing sleep to such a degree.

Maybe you should try sending me yet another E-mail if you wish to discuss the matter in depth as you say spunky. Just leave the gestapo mentality at the door.

130. Josh T.( The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 24, 2007

Ah yes now I recall, the message in response to your little diatribe attempting to silence my opinion simply because it disagrees with yours about my posts related to non TOS Trek incarnations.

Oh I can unequivocally assure you, for the sake of posterity, you can guarantee being reffered to as a Nazi when invoking the obstruction of freedom of opinion on a given subject.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If I want to say I despise Deep Space Nine or Voyager, or Next generation, I can assure you I WILL say it.
As I said before, this is a Star Trek message board concerning the subject of Star Trek, and again if people can post non-stop for 3 months that nacelle spinning dome caps look wrong in every post in every forum subject, I’ll damn well express my views as well.

131. Buckaroohawk - February 25, 2007

Astonishing. Simply astonishing.

One little announcement from Paramount and the bickering starts up anew. “Canon should be followed strictly!” “Canon should be thrown out!” “They must not recast these characters!” “This movie is going to bomb!”

Lurkers come out of the woodwork, bleat their little voices of disdain, which they then copy and paste onto a dozen other websites about other films. All the do is change the name: “(insert film name here) is going to SUCK!” Then they scurry back into their holes and watch the rest of us fume.

All the while, we’re still fighting over Star Trek like it’s our toy and no one else can play with it unless we give them permission. Listen to us! No wonder no one else takes us seriously when we discuss Trek. We sound like spoiled little children.

Josh T., whining about AMT cancelling the Trek line of models in favor of a contract with NASCAR. The Trek model line has been dying on the vine for years. NASCAR has a huge and growing following. AMT is a business. Their goal is to be profitable, not cater to Trek fans. Someone else will pick up the license. Don’t sweat it. Oh, and way to go with that verbal tirade against JON in your post #127. Resorting to name calling and verbal abuse, a true hallmark of higher mentality. You sounded so much like those NASCAR “rednecks” you dislike, someone might just confuse you for one. As usual, you manage to perfectly exemplify everything that is wrong with Trek fandom.

Craig, repeating over and over again that the news of Abrams directing Trek XI foreshadows the apocalypse for the franchsie. I have news for you. It’s already happened. The franchise is already dead. If Abrams and Co. are successful, then Trek rises like a Phoenix from it’s own ashes. If not, the franchise will be no worse off than it is now. Give it a rest, or at least contribute something new in each of your posts.

Mike, disappointed that a “director” or a “stylist” won’t be helming the new film. J.J. Abrams IS a director, and he has a very distinctive style. He’s in the chair now. Accept it.

hwoshe, arguing that Trek XI is going to be a bad cocktail of Harry Potter, Star Wars and Trek Lite. Amazing precognition, and probably better applied to hitting the lottery than knowing what kind of film Trek XI is going to be.

Stanky, unwilling to give new actors a chance to breathe new life into Trek characters. “This is not like James Bond…” he says. Well, hiring a new actor to play Bond didn’t happen until George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery. We won’t know if it’s going to work until we see it, will we?

These are just a few examples, but they shine a big, bright spotlight on what we’ve become, not fans but FANATICS. People so constrained by our own notions of what Trek is or should be that we cannot accept any other interpretation and we doom it to failure before even one frame of film has been shot.

I ask all of you, why? Why are we doing this to ourselves, and why are we doing it to Trek? Why can’t we just keep an open mind and simply wait and see? Maybe the film won’t be very good, but right now it isn’t ANYTHING at all! How can you be so damn certain it is going to fail? What divine providence has shown you that Trek XI will not work?

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to post it here, but why does it have to be such a negative one? Why can’t you say “The things I’m hearing about the film don’t really excite me right now, but we’ll see what happens when it hits theaters.”? Why are your minds so closed?

I’ll finish with a quote that sums all of this up. Read it, then take a good look at what you’ve said in this forum, and at yourself and your place in Trek fandom:

“Have we two, you and I, become so old, so inflexible, that we have outlived our usefulness?”

What is your honest answer to that?

132. Josh T.( The Undiscovered Wrath of Spock Voyage The Motion Picture) Kirk Esquire' - February 25, 2007

My answer is keep your friends close, keep your enemies even closer.

133. Trevok - February 25, 2007

I must admit I also have a problem with all these people knocking a film they in fact no nothing about. Everything we’ve seen sofar is little more than rumor. So far about all we know for sure is who’s writing, doing design work and now directing.

134. Logan - February 25, 2007

From: #102/Captain Pike

“Umm. We had that. it was called Star Trek: The Motion Picture and it, well, it blew. We all went to see it but most of us thought it was a poor interpretation of Trek.”

RODDENBERRY was on STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE the producer, right? It was a overtaxing job for him. This is why it was the first and the last time Producer-Job for him. The only outstanding thing on ST:TMP was in fact the visual effects of that periode and the majestically music by JERRY GOLDSMITH. The rest, like story and mood, was a cold thing.

Greetings: Logan

135. SithMenace - February 25, 2007

I’ve been hearing people trash this movie and JJ Abrams since April. It’s immature and closed minded for anyone to even think they know what to expect from this movie.

So complain all you want, but the fact is you’re not getting your 33rd century Janeway meets Archer on Riker’s Enterprise Z bridge during a Borg war that Q started movie. Deal with it.

136. SithMenace - February 25, 2007

Oh and for all of the “fans” that say TOS had it’s time, please think about what you are saying. With the exception of Enterprise, TOS has had the least amount of screentime, including the movies, even though it started it all. I think it works out to around 90 hours, whereas TNG had roughly 176 hours of screentime including the movies and Voy and DS9 had about 168 each.

137. Dom - February 25, 2007

Finally, a few people speak sanity again!! Nice one Buckaroohawk (131)!

Goldsmith’s score was nicely done in TMP, but his music is VERY American, drawing particularly heavily on Copland. Frankly, as a European, Goldsmith’s Trek work sounds pompous! As the years and movies went by, the Copland ‘borrowing’ got more and more pronounced, pushing TOS’s international flavour out the window in favour of a very America-centric one.

To be honest the only good stuff in First Contact was contributed by Joel Goldsmith and the last two movies had utterly forgettable scores. And STV:TFF also blatantly reworked the cues from TMP, helping make it seem even more of a cut-price jobbie!

I’ll admit to being a big fan of Horner’s two film scores in the series. I know he’s pretty much ripped off everything from Prokofiev, notably Alexander Nevsky, and rips off himself in films like Aliens (not to mention the ‘dry run’ that is the Battle Beyond the Stars score.) But Horner captured the adventure of space travel better for me. In TWOK, we had the high seas battle themes. In TSFS, Horner adapted his themes in a different direction for a more intimate story.

But John Williams is no different from Horner or Goldsmith in his borrowings: Star Wars borrows heavily from a number of composers: Gustav Holst is the most obvious. And Indiana Jones’s main theme is swiped from Prokofiev. And how about the fact that Star Wars, Superman and ET all derive from the same melody?

The major cinema scores of recent years haven’t been great works of originality: they’ve been effectively-produced cut-and-paste jobs; the aural equivalent of a Tarantino screenplay. What I’m hoping is that Michael Giacchino, who is 99.9 per cent certain to be the guy writing the score looks beyond the narrow focus of Goldsmith’s scores and revisits of the themes from TOS as well as pushing the envelope in a less nationalistic direction.

138. Craig - February 25, 2007

OK Acusations of spam have made I clear to me that I need to layout what I’ve actually said:

34 & 35: Quick intial reaction to the news, No justification just my feelings

Mike(37) Then responded with “Trek is dead now”

72: My post intend is to sooo my feeling are directed not at JJ but the Prequel idea and that I’d prefer Trek to rest then to Die in this way

steve623(74) Made a comedic post

75: I made another in the same light based on how Alias often used the Flashback technique that I’m not overly fond of or though I do have Alias 1-5 on DVD

79: I tryed to think of a time I was this offended by a movie proposal and I came up with “The Italian Job”

Anthony Pascal(83) Accuses me of Spam
Dom(84) Says I have No infomation to base my dislike and labels me a “troll or an attention-seeking idiot.”

99:Based on these accusations I had to respond With a more thoughtout Post on my worries

Dom(103) Now says “it sounds like you don’t even like Star Trek!!!”

115: With such a comment for Dom which I must say offended me slighly I felt the need to state my Trek credentials and show how religiously I followed the shows

Xai(117) Responds with “you want nothing to change” and telling me not to watch it (telling Star Trek fans not to watch a Star Trek film sound a guaranteed way to make the film a sucess[/sarcasm])

Since I haven’t responded to this accusation I think that very far from the mark what I’d like to see is a series of TV movies chronicalling different asspects of the Trek Universe creating a window to launch a new series.
As I said in I think post 72 “If they were just taking the Star Trek Universe forward I’d be 100% behind the project” but they’re not they are going to recast Kirk and Spock.
Personally I like the 1st 2 of dirwuf(114) suggestions but disagree entirely with his predictions of failure.

If I could have a wish it would for us to return to the 24th century or go futher into the future again in post (72) it feels like we are going backward

Buckaroohawk(131) makes a comment about me repeating myself but misses my point that it’s the concept I see fundamentally flawed and not JJ himself, He wanted to direct a proper Trek(No Recast) as I said before I’d be 100% behind him.
Buckaroohawk(131) also says “at least contribute something new in each of your posts.” I hope it’s clear in this post that I have or at least the intent was there. Also that most of my posts are answers or responses to direct responses to my previous posts.

139. Dom - February 25, 2007

My God, Craig! How many times are you going to repeat yourself? The new Trek film is what it is. Put your rattle back in your cradle and deal with it! The discussion here is about what we want from the film, not whether it shouldn’t be made or (bleat bleat) it should be Star Trek: the Next, Next Generation.

This website is called ‘trekmovie.com,’ in case you hadn’t noticed. The site’s dedicated to the new film, whatever cast or crew it features. Endlessly moaning that the movie isn’t what you want is not the purpose of this site: that’s the sort of thing danielcraigisnotbond.com does.

If you have something relevant to contribute to the discussion please feel free to do so. But endlessly kicking up a shit-stink like a two-year-old who’s had its favourite potty taken away is puerile and a waste of bandwidth.

140. Craig - February 25, 2007

Dom(139) The whole post(138) is intended to show I’m not repeating myself I cannot appologise for the tone of my posts as the reflect my genuine fear and dislike for the current stated project. Just because your happy with these current events doesn’t mean that everyone is or should be. I feel that alot of fans probally feel the way I do about this project and the studio should be worried about losing thier support.

141. Dom - February 25, 2007

Craig. If you’re attempting to show that you aren’t repeating yourself, you’re failing miserably.

You know squat about the new film. People who come to this site are mostly playing wait and see and keeping open-minded about the film.

A lot of ‘fans’ might feel the same as you. Well tough! I’ve got news for you buddy: this isn’t some anal trawl through a Star Trek concordance. This is a film that can appeal to fans and to people who’ve never seen Star Trek before.

If a few close-minded fanatics don’t like the concept of the new film, I doubt Paramount are losing much sleep over it. Those sort of morons have condemned Trek to the self-referential geek ghetto for the last 15 years and driven many real fans away from Star Trek. STXI is about getting new fans and hopefully keeping the open-minded old-school fans aboard as well.

Star Trek is about exploring the unknown. Your ‘genuine fear and dislike for the current stated project,’ based on almost ZERO knowledge of the film, demonstrates exactly the kind of ignorant bigotry Star Trek was about overcoming!

If you’ve read the countless reactions to your remarks here by countless number of posters, you’ll realise your remarks represent a tiny minority opinion here and, given you have no information to back your fears, it’s an irrelevant opinion.

Your ‘views’ are on a par with someone who straps TNT explosives around their waist and blows up a bus of civilians because there might be a few people with a slightly different view on religion from you!

My suggestion is that you start your own website where you can bitch to your heart’s content. Meanwhile, those of us who want to discuss what we’d like to see in the new film can get on with doing so!

142. Craig - February 25, 2007

My Views are based on Shatners statement that the film involves a young Kirk the movies poster showing the Enterprise insignia on a a background of gold and and blue and a few other tidbits that we keep getting thrown… exactly the same as you… If you can say that you look forward to it, good for you. For me it’s like watching runaway Train that you know will crash but you can’t do anything to stop it.

143. Dom - February 25, 2007

Sorry, Craig, but if you decide a film will suck based on so little evidence you must be a few sandwiches short of a picnic!

The teaser poster uses iconic Star Trek imagery (surely something to inspire confidence!) and Shatner’s remarks are (usually) more than a little tongue-in-cheek.

I’m open-minded; you’re a bigot. You don’t have views: you have prejudices. And repeating yourself over and over on this site really is nothing more than trolling.

144. jonboc - February 25, 2007

Dom “No, Kirk, Spock and McCoy won’t be Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. Yes, the chemistry will probably be different. That’s surely a good thing, bringing a different perspective to these icons.”

While I’m cautiously optimistic about re-casting, you surely realize that it is that very chemistry, between those three actros, that people love. That’s what sets it apart and makes it so engaging. Had 3 other actors been cast, and they had no on-sreen chemistry between them -think Janeway, Chakotay and Harry Kim in a room together- we wouldn’t be having this discussion today because Trek would have been canceled in 1966. People really enjoy watching these characters because of the way they are played by these actors. Yes, casting is very important…but how those actors, that are cast, interact with each other is even more important.

Having said all that, I have to admit, I feel secure that JJ, who is no stranger to effective chemistry on screen, understands this and knows what to look for as he is casting the movie. Add to that the fact that JJ respects his source material…just witness MI-3…he knew and UNDERSTOOD the original series….resulting in best Mission Impossible movie to date. While re-casting is very scary, it calms me to know the project is in more than capable hands.

and Craig, you wrote:

Dom (103) “it sounds like you don’t even like Star Trek!!!” I love Star Trek I’ve seen every episode of TNG,DS9 and VOY and I own loads of VOY VHS’s and quite abit of DS9 too for that matter. I own 1-9 movies on VHS and went to the cinema on the last 4 Trek movies. When it comes to Ent I saw the whole 1 season skipped most the second but returned to watch the whole of S3 and S4. Thats not even counting DVD’s which I have many Paramount would do well not to alienate fans like me

First you have to realize that you aren’t really the type of fan Paramount is reaching out for. You have watched almost every episode of everything EXCEPT TOS. SInce TOS is the focus of the new movie, I can understand your apprehension. The Trek you like is being abandoned and I’m sure you feel a loss, but for many, this is a much welcomed return to what brought us into fandom to begin with. For many, that same feeling of abandonment came about in 1991 becuase if was the end of 23rd century Trek. This movie, for many, is a big hovering rescue helicopter…just waiting to land and whisk away those abandoned in 1991. It is about TOS and is being made by a fan of TOS…who just happens to be very capable in all areas of fim making. So while I understand the modern Trek fan’s sense of loss….for this fan of TOS, these are exciting times.

Exciting times indeed.

145. Dom - February 25, 2007

Hi jonboc. I agree with you about the caution with recasting. But I’ll stay open to see what we get with the new film. I’ve liked a lot of Abrams’ past output, be it Regarding Henry, Armageddon, Alias, Lost or whatever, so I’m intrigued, to put it mildly!

I’m certainly a Trek fan who felt abandoned after STVI. To my mind, Roddenberry couldn’t get anything on the screen without the Star Trek name, so, in 1986, he created a series that was fundamentally at odds with what Star Trek was about, then appropriated the Star Trek name and some of the terminology to get it on the air.

Watching the later Trek shows and movies was torture, because they weren’t Star Trek spin-offs: they were TNG spin-offs that were dragging Star Trek’s name through the mud!

It’s not to say that TNG was a bad show per se. But, for all the use of the Star Trek name and a bits of TOS lore, it was another science fiction show and not a Star Trek show!

146. Doug - February 25, 2007

re: this thread

I’m flabbergasted – Doug

147. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - February 25, 2007

#146. Doug

re:this thread

To borrow from our friends from across the pond… “I’m gobsmacked”

148. Willam - February 25, 2007

Dom post#137. Juging by your post, you appear to be a person who has studied composition techniques (either formally or informally). It is nice to have the opportunity to discuss film score with someone who has a deeper understanding of the art. (My comments here are not meant as a slight to anyone else in the forum but Dom did a nice job citing specific composers and styles)
Dom, I agree with nearly everything you wrote regarding the music. As someone who studied composition (including film scoring) at University, the composer in me agrees with you that many, many films do have an overblown score. I have seen many films that would befit from the simplicity of an Impressionist influenced score. One of my all time favourite “simple” scores is Mark Isham’s “Fly Away Home”. It’s mostly cello and a few other strings. But the film goer in me wants a score that is going to reflect the film. Let’s face it, a space adventure calls for a big score. It needs a score that has thick harmonies, rich textures and complex orchestration. I want big fanfares, sweeping love themes and I want to hear cannons in the music. O.k., not literally cannons, I’ll leave that to Tchaikovsky, but you get the idea. In my humble opinion, Williams, Horner and even Goldmsmith got it right. Williams borrowing harmonies from Jazz and elements from Copland helped redefine what an adventure film score should be. On the subject of borrowing from other composers and genres… that’s what film composers do. The whole purpose of a score is to evoke emotion. The best way to do that is use elements recognized (consciously or sub consciously) by the collective (I know, wrong Trek era). For example, a film composer might use a (French) horn to suggest something outdoors or robust because the horn’s ancestry finds it roots in hunting. Of course our film composers are not the first to do this. Composers were doing this back when “films” was called opera. (man, I hate long posts, sorry.)

With respect, thank you for any comments.

149. Dom - February 25, 2007

Hi Willam. Without Richard Wagner, I’m not sure we’d have have the sort of film scores we have today!! When you listen to Wagner”s use of leitmotif in the likes of Der Ring Des Nibelungen you understand how much he contributed to the language of film.

And what’s wrong with firing some cannon in the score for the new film. it might drown out people moaning about canon!!! ;)

Wouldn’t be great to have Kirk battling the lead villain to the strains of the immolation scene in Götterdämmerung?!!!

At the same time, I’d be all for a TOS futuristic barfight scene with Alison Goldfrapp in alien make-up singing on the stage!!! :)

150. Willam - February 25, 2007

#149 Dom, Nice reference. May I ask if you have studied formally?

151. Willam - February 25, 2007

Dom, I guess the right composer could pull off cannonade : ). I take your point about Wagner. All I can say is that If I were composing for the new Trek, I’d have to, somewhere subtly sneak in the classic Kirk-Spock fight music, even if just using the chord progression.

152. Dom - February 25, 2007

Hi Willam.

I’m an ex-film degree student, currently working as a video editor and have been a very-small-time producer. I worked for a UK arts TV channel for a few years, mastering their programming, as well as writing and editing some of their onscreen promotional material.

So, I’ve watched just about every opera, ballet and Shakespeare play ever created at least once in at least one version, not to mention loads of programming dealing with painters, writers, art movements, composers and just about anything else you can think of that’s arts-related.

After so many thousands of hours of arts programming went into my head, even I’m not sure how extensive my knowledge is: bits of information tend to pop out unexpectedly!!

I voraciously read books of all types – high-quality literature to utter trash and absorb it all. My dad is also a massive collector of classical music and plays the BBC’s classical music radio station (Radio Three) at top volume all day long in the house and in the car. End of the day, I’ve been so immersed in the arts all my life (32 years), that it’s part of who I am.

I guess from all that I have a strong taste for operatic archetypes, hence my love of TOS (especially the operatic TWOK!) and my relative disappointment with the rather low-key, mundane, stereotypical TNG and beyond!

153. Willam - February 25, 2007

Dom, I am impressed. That level of exposure to such a wide variety of arts is pretty rare. I appreciate you sharing your opinion and background. I agree with you about TWOK, definitely one my favourites. I used to compare it with a WWII submarine drama but after watching more seafaring films set during late 18th/early 19th centuries, I see that the sub movies were in large part copying those earlier films. I guess that there is very little new under the sun. But as one of my music profs used to say, “If you are going to borrow, borrow from the best.”

154. Dom - February 25, 2007

Hi Willam.

Another great ship/submarine film with Moby Dick overtones was The Bedford Incident. Never fails to remind me of TWOK!

155. Willam - February 25, 2007


I’ll look for it.
I know it is more recent but have you seen Master and Commander? The plot and character development are not so great but I remember coming out the theater thinking how incredible the sound was. The splintering of the hull as the cannon ball ripped through, the sound of the water lapping on the side, the echo of the music as the captain and doctor play the Mozart violin concerto.

156. Willam - February 25, 2007


I’m signing off now. Thanks for the conversation. It was a pleasure.


157. Dom - February 25, 2007

Hey Willam!

You too. Master and Commander was a great Trek movie!!!

Take care. :)

158. Robert April - February 25, 2007

Regarding Wagner and Trek.

Perhaps the score for the new movie needs a “Lord of the TOS Rings Cycle” treatment.

Yeah, that’s it! an 18 hour long Trek Movie with no intermission!

It would be like when you were a kid and sat through five viewings of Star Wars in a row at the local cinema. From dawn ’till dusk, home for dinner then back the next day to start all over again!


BTW, The grand, sweeping scores from Trek films do try to capture the vastness of space and the pioneering spirit we associate with space travel. No wonder film “composers” often borrow from Copland.

His more accessible works evoke in listeners both a familiar “down home, folksy” feeling and a sense of grandeur reminiscent of 19th century American settlers heading west towards their “final frontier.”

And what about Charles Ives??????

159. Craig - February 25, 2007

Dom(143)”I’m open-minded”… Yet you seem to reject legitimate criticisms with put downs and labels like…
You’re judging a project based on virtually no information. You’re wielding a sword in ignorance

“It sounds like you don’t even like Star Trek!!!”

“close-minded bigots”

“whack job”

“kicking up a shit-stink like a two-year-old who’s had its favourite potty taken away is puerile and a waste of bandwidth.”

“a few sandwiches short of a picnic!”

You know as much about the film as me yet you feel the need attack me with such vitriol as stated above in post (138) I don’t see myself repeated but responding to others comments as a counterpoint to those who think like you that any Trek is better than no Trek.

I agree with jonboc(144) “First you have to realize that you aren’t really the type of fan Paramount is reaching out for. You have watched almost every episode of everything EXCEPT TOS. SInce TOS is the focus of the new movie, I can understand your apprehension. The Trek you like is being abandoned and I’m sure you feel a loss” thats exactly what I’m thinking

160. Jon - February 25, 2007

Josh T …Whah whah whah.Grow up.Get a life.Attacking a whole bunch of people because a silly little model was discontinued doesn’t justify racism.

161. Dom - February 25, 2007

Craig, to quote you:

Post 34: It’s a bad idea! It’s stinks worst than my 3 week old under pants! (where ‘shit stink’ comes from!)

Post 35: If this is true Star Trek is dead

Post 72: This is not Star Trek this is an abomination

Post 75: God… Flashbacks = Epic FAIL

Post 79: I feel I cannot state in words how against this I am… Previous to this the only situation I remember was the Remake of the Italian Job which, I still refuse to watch and that doesn’t come close to this monstrosity. (Hmm, so you hate a film you haven’t seen. Is a pattern emerging?)

Post 99: I fear it’ll too much like TOS – Too Cheesy . . . I fear it’ll won’t be anything like TOS (Recasting, ignoring etablished facts, redesigning established sets and equipment) . . .Recasting is awful . . . If there is a sequel will it stick to canon? (vomit!)

Post 115: I don’t understand why my legitimate concerns are being concidered (sic) Spam . . . I love Star Trek I’ve seen every episode of TNG,DS9 and VOY and I own loads of VOY VHS’s and quite abit (sic) of DS9 too for that matter. (ha ha! say no more!) . . . Paramount would do well not to alienate fans like me (I’m sure they’d be very glad to lose you if they gain several thousand new ones to replace you!)

Post 138: blah blah blah same old same old same old!

Post 140: I cannot appologise (sic) for the tone of my posts as the reflect my genuine fear and dislike for the current stated project . . . I feel that alot of fans probally (sic) feel the way I do about this project and the studio should be worried about losing thier (sic) support. (A few less narrow-minded nerds in this world won’t do any harm, if they get new fans!)

Post 142: For me it’s like watching runaway Train that you know will crash but you can’t do anything to stop it. (Then take some sedatives and go watch Star Trek: Nemesis)

So there we go. A double-figured number of posts coming out with inane, barely-literate crap that hasn’t even been run by a spell-checker saying essentially that you hate the new Trek film, because you don’t like it, even though you know as much about it as anyone else does.

You’re a spammer, Craig: the sort of lowlife who walks in on a successful party and turns off the music. Your ignorance disgusts me and everyone here. Your drek is taking up other people’s time better spent elsewhere.

You’re pathetic. Go away!

162. Sleeper Agent X - February 25, 2007

157 – I remember hearing a review of Master and Commander comparing Aubrey and Maturin to Kirk and Spock, and I can only hope Trek XI approaches that level of meaningful storytelling.

Like your posts in general, Dom! Keep up the good fight against the naysayers! This next movie could be awesome!

163. Lt. Arex - February 25, 2007

#129, 130 Josh,
I only would have been surprised had you apologized. You are consistant with your abusive name -calling for those that you feel have it coming. I’ve seen “morons”, Nazi’s” and calling many posters “cattle” in the last few threads. At least I know I am not in the minority here. No one but Anthony will shut you up and you do seem to listen to him, even if you feel that you are the one being wronged.
I really have to feel bad for any man or woman in your life.
It’s time to grow up, maybe people would respect your opinion more if it wasn’t always tainted with two things. You are always right and everyone else is wrong.

164. Xai - February 25, 2007

Yeah, Josh goes off again. I see Arex is getting trashed too. It seems to be a common thing.

He called us cattle?

#161 Dom.
yea, it got old.

165. Craig - February 25, 2007

Dom(161) I feel it’s very revealing of your inner doubts about this project that, you have to resort to personal insults.

I’m ok with you liking this approach but as you’ve stated, I don’t think it’s a good course of action for the franchise and carries more risk than I think sensible.

166. Anthony Pascale - February 25, 2007

guys I dont have time to read all this, but I will say that anyone who has made up their mind about the film does not have an open mind.

anyone who is here solely to post that they have decided they hate the movie over and over is going to wear out their welcome very quickly.

this site has a variety of views and a variety of topics (stxi, tosr, comics, etc). If you are here to just hammer some one issue then i consider that trolling…and if you do it over and over with little variation…that is spamming

I dont need to agree with everyones opinion…and those who follow the site know that I do not agree with you all. But lets see some variety

lastly…no more name calling.

now I am off to have another fruity cocktail

– on the high seas

167. Dom - February 25, 2007

Craig, dude, you’ve so buried yourself that I haven’t had to resort to personal insults. You’ve condemned yourself with your words (and your smelly underpants!) The whole ‘Oooh! Dom made me look like an idiot so I’d better say he’s insecure!’ act is lame and smacks of utter, futile desperation to get a rise out of me (I’ll leave that to the girlfriend!) You show about as much legitimate psychological insight as Deanna Troi!!!

When I heard JJ Abrams, one of my absolute favourite TV and movie writer/director/producers had bagged a Star Trek film, I was thrilled. I would have been thrilled if he was going to make a TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise (or post 24th century) movie, even though I don’t hold those shows in that high esteem.

I was jumping up and down with glee when I heard that Kirk and Spock were being brought back. I was just blown away by the teaser poster. I was thrilled when Shatner and Nimoy got signed to ‘work’ on the film. I’m delighted that Abrams is directing the film

So, I guess that means, deep inside, I’m riddled with doubts and insecurities. ;)

You on the other hand are sulking on a forum that is hopeful for the future of Trek and willing to give Abrams a chance. You are trying to bring down the party. I’m sorry you don’t like the ideas for this new film. You made that obvious back in post 34. Now, every time you get your hand off your ____ for five seconds you repost the same thing!

You don’t like the idea of the film! WAHEY!! Sing choirs of angels, rain fire and brimstone, announce on every tannoy on the planet ‘Craig doesn’t like the sound of the new Star Trek film!’

We heard you, pal! You think the film’s going to suck! Contribute something else, or for f*%&’s sake, shut up and stop spamming the boards!!

168. Dom - February 25, 2007

You posted 166 while I was writing, Anthony. Sorry. Enjoy the cocktails. You deserve it. When the news starts rolling in for this film over the next few months, you won’t be having a quiet life!! :)

169. Stanky McFibberich - February 25, 2007

How about you guys agree to disagree and quit trying to one-up each other?
Maybe just quit responding to each other’s posts. Just an idea.

170. Craig - February 25, 2007

Ant(166) I advise you to read post 138 for a summary of my previous posts that I understand you don’t have time to read the whole thread but as you can see most if not all of my posts have reason and add to the the topic of the movie StarTrek XI … enjoy your Holiday

171. Dom - February 25, 2007

Stanky! Where would the fun be in that? You’ll notice I’ve had a very enjoyable discussion about Trek music in this thread while sparring with Craig.

Anyway, I’ve called it a day on this thread. I’m over on the TNG 20th anniversary thread now.

Goodbye Craig. It was . . . fun!

172. Stanky McFibberich - February 25, 2007

re: 171
ok then :)

173. Craig - February 25, 2007

In regards to Dom(171)… Ditto

174. Tim Handrahan - February 25, 2007

Enough of the bickering over the film! It is moving forward! Abrams is directing. There has to be a solid story idea for Shatner and Nimoy to even CONSIDER being in the film. Abrams has done solid work. Paramount has remastered the effects from THE ORIGINAL (AND BEST) SERIES. They could have cut it off completely and said ” Thanks for the memories” , but they are trying to make it work. In all my posts, I have extolled the virtues of Shatner and Nimoy being in the film. My meaning on this is I do not expect them to play Kirk and Spock forever, but as long as they are still alive and vital, there is no reason why they cannot SUIT UP! one more time to help revitalize the series. No original series fan worth their salt can tell they haven’t wished for the possibilty of this happening. I, for one, cannot wait and anyone is welcome to disagree with me on this, but I will not change my opinion because;


175. Lt. Arex - February 25, 2007

174 Tim,
I didn’t see anyone arguing with you having an opinion. Don’t you think that Shatner and Nimoy are both too long in the tooth to do an early TOS film? Your comments aren’t addressing a need for recasting that I can see.

176. Buckaroohawk - February 25, 2007

Josh (way back in post #132): Rampant, incessant mudslinging, then a quick dodge of criticism, and finally a deflection to keep from responding to the issue. If you haven’t considered it before, please think about going into politics. You’re a natural.

177. Jon - February 26, 2007

Going into politics?He needs to go into the army so someone can make something of him imnstead of a whiney bed wetter.

178. Tim Handrahan - February 26, 2007

The bickering that I mentioned was not about my posts. It was about all the people who say this movie is going to suck before it is even made. And Shatner and Nimoy will never be too “long in the tooth” for anything Star Trek! I am also aware that there will be younger versions of tyhe characters in the movie. If this is going to be a film that spans several time periods in their lives, then they should be in. In a Trek film that is going to have a budget the size of this film, the appearance of shatner and Nimoy will boost box office and also give the fans a chance to see them one more time. A reboot or recast is fine with me as long as all isa done respectfully to what has gone before.

179. Cervantes - February 26, 2007

To anyone interested in the possible music for this entry:

JOHN WILLIAMS actually HAS done a magnificent re-orchestration of the excellent Star Trek:Original Series Main Theme by Alexander Courage in the past, using his BOSTON POPS ORCHESTRA, and I can assure everyone here that it is a tremendous version. If only this re-imagined, approximately 3 MINUTES and 40 SECONDS of brilliance could feature in the upcoming Movie… I hope that proposed composer Michael Giacchino can match this, and would love him to referrence some of the other wonderful and dramatic cues heard throughout the original Star Trek show. The music was one of the show’s successes.

180. Jon - February 26, 2007

Cervantes .I’d love to hear it.Do You know how that would be possible?

181. Cervantes - February 27, 2007

Well Jon, I found this version on a 1997 compilation CD called “The no. 1 sci-fi album” which has various composers/themes on it. However I also see that it is available on ANOTHER CD called “Out of this world”, of which there is a SHORT intro snippet on the fine site Startreksoundtracks.com. I’ve put the link to it below for you. Unfortunately, this brief burst of the beginning of the track does not do the whole version justice, as there are very dramatic twists and swells throughout the whole piece. I urge you to try to source either of these CDs for the FULL version, as you won’t be disappointed. Enjoy.

182. Cervantes - February 27, 2007

Sorry Jon, but this comment board is not accepting the link for some reason. I’ve tried several times to no avail.

So just go to http://www.startreksoundtracks.com then click on “Star Trek”, then scroll down to “Re-recordings” heading and click on “Out of this world(1983)” underneath it, then click on “Star Trek:Main Theme 3:42 MP3″ for the snippet.

Good huntin’

183. Jon - February 27, 2007

Thanks Cervantes for taking the time and effort to post the link about John William’s re-recording of Star Trek’s main theme.I’ve always been a John Williams fan.As a kid I considered it a privilage to actually be able to purchase music(soundtracks) from motion pictures.I caught the “snippets” you instructed .Thanks again.Hope to hear the full arrangement some day.It would be cool to hear if they rework the elements of the main theme for the new movie on a more dramatic scale.I’m looking forward to the soundtrack as much as the film!

184. Dread - March 1, 2007

Is his an attempt to kill Trek once and for all? If even the die hard fans that post here cannot get a clear majority of agreement that they like the direction, how do you think the regular people will react?
Paramount needs to make a movie that either stays at the timeline of DS9 and STNG or go further forward. I for one would have loved a movie that bought together the Enterprise, Defiant and Voyager. Its a shame they don’t use the Established assets instead of trying to create new uncertain one’s.

185. STXI Sammelpost Production - SciFi-Forum - November 24, 2007

[…] […]

186. Star Trek XI: Fakten, Gerchte, Infos - Seite 69 - SciFi-Forum - January 12, 2008

[…] Zitat von endar Nee, der hat noch nie was zu dem Film gesagt. Der hat noch nichtmal ffentlich besttigt, dass er der Regisseur ist. For the Record: Doch hat er. Schon vor Ewigkeiten. Link aus dem Sammelpost: Abrams Confirmed To Direct Star Trek XI – Expected To Be Out Christmas 2008 | TrekMovie.com __________________ Mein Projekt: Star Trek: The Dominion War Kommentare, Fragen, Anregungen, Lob und konstruktive Kritik sind willkommen… Star Trek XI: Fakten, Gerchte und Infos – der Sammelpost ! aktueller & bunter als Memory Alpha ! Die deutsche Zusammenfassung zum neuem Star Trek Film im Scifi-Forum – Mitarbeit ist erwnscht… […]

187. STXI Sammelpost Production - SciFi-Forum - February 15, 2008

[…] 25.12.2007: Release Trekkies have a new leader – Entertainment News, Front Page, Media – Variety Abrams Confirmed To Direct Star Trek XI – Expected To Be Out Christmas 2008 | TrekMovie.com Trek XI Update: Still Writing, Budgeting and Casting | TrekMovie.com Variety: Star Trek Starts […]

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.