Trek XI Still Has No Name – Still Not An ‘Academy Movie’ |
jump to navigation

Trek XI Still Has No Name – Still Not An ‘Academy Movie’ March 2, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: STXI Plot , trackback

One thing is fairly certain, it is unlikely that Star Trek XI will actually be titled "Star Trek XI" when it hits theaters on Christmas Day 2008. Some have speculated that Paramount have already picked the simple name "Star Trek", which is how the film is listed at Box Office Mojo. has confirmed this is not the title and that no title has been selected. "That will be a big decision that will go through a lot of debate," said a studio source. The suggestion of the simple "Star Trek" however does seem to be picking up more and more support amongst fans. One issue is how Paramount plan on marketing the film as a new and different kind of Trek film. Perhaps Paramount may take a page from Bond and Batman (the next film to be titled "The Dark Knight") and not even us "Star Trek" in the title at all. It is certainly something to debate. 

and again with the Academy thing
Since last August has been reporting that Star Trek XI will not be an ‘Academy Movie.’ The rumor started last April when it was mentioned in Variety, and came back to life when the Hollywood Reporter lifted Variety’s description of ‘a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission’ for their article confirming Abrams directing deal. still stand by our many previous stories saying the film will cover the ground before and between the Academy and Kirk’s time on the Enterprise (and possibly on the Enterprise). IGN are now reporting the same thing. Possibly they realized that their rumor about 30 and 40 something actors playing Kirk, Spock and McCoy wouldn’t add up if it were an Academy movie. IGN states a source claiming the film will focus on Kirk and Spock’s ‘first adventure’ which is similar to the rumor we reported last August that the film would focus on Kirk’s ‘first mission on the Enterprise.’ However has also reported that the film will have scenes before that time (possibly as flashbacks) including Kirk’s time on the Farragut as a lieutenant and as early as Kirk before the Academy in Iowa. IGN is also reporting that McCoy will have a lesser role in the film, something can confirm. In addition to being the first site to report McCoy would be in the film, we have also reported the film will include Pike, Scotty, Capt. Garrovick and George Kirk. As more reports and details emerge, the will be reported here. 

VOTE in the current poll

So should Trek XI be just  ‘Star Trek’ or no Trek in the title at all? Vote in the current poll (see right column)


1. mars396 - March 2, 2007

first ?

2. Stanky McFibberich - March 2, 2007

Not using “Star Trek” in the title might be appropriate since it will not be.

3. Greg Stamper - March 2, 2007

Reading these speculative reports you can certainly get the impression that the character of Gary Mitchell (Ron Livingston?? — a casting rumor started early here at may either be a minor one or ignored altogether. The writers probably regard him as a stumbling block between the Kirk/Spock relationship. I certainly hope not, we already know how important Mitchell was to Kirk personally/professionally.

4. Montreal Paul - March 2, 2007

Personally, I like just “STAR TREK”. Or maybe:

“To Boldly Go…”
“The Final Frontier” would have been great.

5. Naib Michael - March 2, 2007

#2 **sigh**

In any event, I don’t care what it’s called just so long as it is good.

6. StillKirok - March 2, 2007

They tried that with Enterprise. It didn’t work. If the name Star Trek is seen as a detriment, they shouldn’t make the movie. That said, I would think it will have those words in the title. They need to embrace Star Trek, not hide from it.

7. TomBot2007 - March 2, 2007

*off key* Star Trekkinnng, across the universe…

8. Darren Baker - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: Electric Boogaloo! Yes!

9. badboy1230 - March 2, 2007

If it’s Kirk’s first mission, how about:

Star Trek: Shakedown
Star Trek: Captaincy

10. Anthony Pascale - March 2, 2007

ok guys…this isnt AICN….I dont mind a ‘first’ but at least say something instead of just that….show some imagination!

11. Aaron R - March 2, 2007

# 2 You should not be on this site if you are just going to be so negative toward this movie. After all the site name is trekmovie if you don’t think the movie will be Trek why be here? I think the title needs to have Star Trek in it as always. I think if they can’t come up with a very simple very catchy movie title they need to just call it Star Trek… Sounds great and better than something like “the early years” or “first mission”


12. Magic_Al - March 2, 2007

Ignoring the history of Mitchell and Piper, or advancing Kirk and Spock’s relationship beyond what we see in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” would be a mistake. The market may want Kirk/Spock/McCoy but if they’re going to claim to respect canon they’d best not undermine the premise of one of the best episodes of the series.

They need to make a film that’s good and successful enough to start a new franchise, and a sequel can get into post-TOS/pre-TMP territory, where this new film series could park itself indefinitely.

13. Kelvington - March 2, 2007

Ok the perfect titles should be…
Star Trek – The Adventure Begins

Which will shorten down to ST-TAB which will be ahead of ST-TOS.

Of course the film’s title should be Star Trek XI – The Apology.

14. Rick Hunter - March 2, 2007

This is also is not a place where anyone involved with the film will come to look for titles so why bother. Not only is is a waste of time, but the suggestions are horrible. I mean, Star trek: Shakedown??? What is this a video game or a film?

15. Tim Handrahan - March 2, 2007


16. badboy1230 - March 2, 2007

to #14 Shakedown as in “shakedown cruise.”

17. CmdrR - March 2, 2007

14 It’ll be both. Of course.
Any short, sweet title will do. There’s nothing magical about “Batman Begins,” which is a truly great film. There’s nothing inherantly wrong with “Superman Returns,” which is a bloated excuse for showing the six-figure super suit more than the actor.
Must Trek XI respect canon? No, not if it’s good.
Must Trek XI be all things to all people? No, not if it’s good.
Must Trek XI obey its own rules while tipping its fedora to TOS? Yes, most likely.
But folks, let’s let JJ have his shot. Don’t put magnetic boots on the man. If he’s ready to Boldly Go Where No Trek Has Gone Before… great. Let’s beam on and go with him.
Let’s show support as fans, until and unless he blows it.

18. Father Rob - March 2, 2007

“Star Trek: Shakedown” (PG) – Money-hungry Paramount executives visit a Star Trek convention with new and improved copies of all ten feature films.

19. Dip Thong - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: “Insert funny subtitle here”

20. Rick Hunter - March 2, 2007

To #16… No kidding. I understood the reference to “shakedown cruise..” It’s still a terrible title for any film, including a Star Trek film. I just thank the gods that you’re not involved in the creative process. Now, in the immortal words of the Shat, Get a Life! Have you ever kissed a girl?

21. JohnnyMoo - March 2, 2007

I like the title someone jokingly suggested on here the other day, “Star Trek: Lost in Space”. :D

Seriously, I think “Star Trek” would do fine. This film looks like it’s going back to the franchise’s roots, so why not reflect that in the title? No suffix is necessary.

22. Captain Pike - March 2, 2007

STAR TREK: It can’t be as bad as Nemesis.

STAR TREK: You might as well see it since there’s no Orlando Bloom Movie Opening this Weekend.

STAR TREK: It’s this or ReRuns of Voyager….

STAR TREK: NOW 99.9% Berman-Free

23. Rick Hunter - March 2, 2007

To # 17. I’m not speaking ill of the film before it even gets made. I have an open mind. I’m all for giving Abrams and his team a shot. I’m thrilled to see what they come up with. I was referring to the people how post here, coming up with uninspired titles and ideas for what the film “should” be about. Star Trek 11 should be about what JJ Abrams wants it to be about. It should be the movie he wants to make. And nothing more.

24. CmdrR - March 2, 2007

23 – Agreed. JJ is carrying the mantel Roddenberry forged. What he does with it… We’ll see in less than 20 months. OH Crap, I have to live with Voyager for 20 months? Please, somebody remaster some TOS episodes. Oh, they are.

25. Levois - March 2, 2007

It needs to be called Star Trek!!!!

26. Karanadon - March 2, 2007

What about Star Trek: The Beginning? I know it’s simple and I get the feeling that’s been mentioned before here but…that’s basically what it is – a back to basics approach, in the vein of what Batman Begins and Casino Royale have done for reinventing franchises. Not to the detriment of Enterprise or Capt. Pike, of course, but Kirk is where it all really began and captured our hearts and minds in ’66…

Oh, and d’you think there’s room for Finnegan and his practical jokes in XI? Just an idea…

27. Michael Appleton - March 2, 2007

How about simply STAR TREK: CHAPTER ONE? If it’s to be the start of a trilogy, maybe even more, than wouldn’t this suffice? If we’re lucky enough to get four or five films out of this, then have it segue over to WNMHGB, why not have it be Chapters 1 through 5, like the beginning of a good series of books a la the Hornblower series?

28. Ralph F - March 2, 2007

How about just “STAR TREK”, as others have suggested.

STAR TREK: THE BEGINNING has a certain charm. Easy taglines include “Go Boldly”, “The Beginning of the Final Frontier”, “The Voyages Begin”, “The Mission Begins”…

29. badboy1230 - March 2, 2007

#20- Rick, if you don’t like my suggestion that’s fine. An opinion is just that-an opinion. But there’s no reason to hurl insults.
(And I’ve been married for almost 18 years.)

30. Mark Lynch - March 2, 2007

How about….

STAR TREK – Rebooted
STAR TREk – Reloaded (sure I’ve seen that somewhere before)
STAR TREK – The End (if it’s a pants film)
STAR TREK – A Brand New Day
STAR TREK – No Bloody A B C or D

All the above to be taken with a large tongue in cheek please :)

I think that a simple title of perhaps STAR TREK will do very nicely, thank you.

31. TheVamp - March 2, 2007

How about “Star Trek: Finally Cutting Canon Loose to Make a Better Movie?”

I’d see that Trek film!

32. Rick Hunter - March 2, 2007

How about we let the filmmaker decide what HE wants to call HIS movie? Personally, all of these suggestions are terrible, pedestrian, and adolescent at best. Whatever next Star Trek movie is, it’s JJ Abram’s picture. Just chill out and let the man and his screenwriter’s worry about all of this. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to pay to park your fat ass into the movie theatre seat and watch. If you think you have a grand idea, or title for Star Trek, become a filmmaker and pitch your idea to Paramount like all the other filmmakers in Hollywood.

33. Mark Lynch - March 2, 2007

And as much as I like Mr. Frakes as an actor and director, I really hope we do not end up with something like Thunderbirds as a ST XI

34. TheVamp - March 2, 2007

Hey, #32, how much do you charge to cross your bridges?

35. The Lensman - March 2, 2007

You’re not getting it. Star Trek has moved on from you. As it should. It’s time for Trek to dump the aging fanboys and worry about new fans. If the original show could start out with zero fans and build fandom as we know it, then a new Trek can and should strive to do the same. Fans didn’t make the last movie, in fact the fans have NEVER made a Trek movie. Nor will upset fanboys break this movie. Only bad writing will. Your time is over. You have your DVD’s, your novels and so on. Move on to something new. Trek has.

Enterprise didn’t fail, in any way shape or form, because it didn’t have “Star Trek” in the title. It failed due to piss poor writing and the sameness and blandness of Berman Trek. Had they started with “Star Trek” in the title, the outcome would’ve only been different in that we wouldn’t be wasting time talking about how eight letters can make a difference as to whether a show or movie can succeed without them.

36. Dennis Bailey - March 2, 2007

“Star Trek” will certainly be in the title.

37. Dennis Bailey - March 2, 2007

And I’m hanging with:

“Star Trek: You Can’t Kill It With A Stick!”

38. Clinton - March 2, 2007

I wouldn’t worry to much about it at this point. I’m assuming the title will flow out of the major plotline.

39. Garth of Izor - March 2, 2007

Star trek: Lord Garth Rising…formerly of Izor. Anything else would be Lies!!! Alll Lies!!!

40. dirwuf - March 2, 2007

“Wagon Train To The Stars”

41. Anthony S - March 2, 2007

i wonder what kind of look the movie will have? uniforms, technology, gadgets… THE BIG E….
i doubt they’ll have the same uniforms as TOS. what about the bridge of the Enterprise? could they possibly just go with a bunch of lighted buttons?

as far as canon is concerned, they can ignore Enterprise. that whole series was a complete waste.

nice job braga/berman.

42. Craig - March 2, 2007

I don’t know about you guys but seriously concidered Hypnotism in order to forget the original Star Wars Trilogy because I was finding it so difficult to see Ewan Mcgregor as a much younger Obi-Wan… how am I supposed to cope with a different Kirk thats almost the same age as the TOS Kirk?

43. William - March 2, 2007

I hate to sound superficial but I’m really looking to see just what the art direction is going to be on this film.
How close to the original is it going to be,and are the uniforms going to be reminiscent of”Where No man has Gone Before”?

44. trekmaster - March 2, 2007

I guess “Trek XI” will be something like “Captain Horatio Hornblower”…

45. Trek Defense League - March 2, 2007

My suggestion: KIRK AND SPOCK

46. JPH - March 2, 2007

Make it a trilogy and concentrate each film on one of the big three characters.

1. Star Trek: Kirk
2. Star Trek: Spock
3. Star Trek: McCoy

Close enough titles. In fact, who really cares about the title? If its a good movie they can call it Star Trek: Projectile Vomiting and people will still go see it.

47. Driver - March 2, 2007

tag line – “The Adventure Begins…Again!”
Simply Star Trek in big bold font and maybe substitute the “a” in Star for the uniform insignia.

48. svw - March 2, 2007


49. GOOSENECK VIEWER™ - March 2, 2007

I prefer STAR TRACK.

And they should change Spock’s name to Doctor Spock.

Then everyone will always get the names correct.


50. Stanky McFibberich - March 2, 2007

re: 11. Aaron R – March 2, 2007

“# 2 You should not be on this site if you are just going to be so negative toward this movie.”

Well, I have to have something to do since there is no new remastered episode or articles this week.

And you should be embracing my comment if you are a true proponent of IDIC. ;)

51. Dr. Image - March 2, 2007

I’ve always hoped for a film (or a series!) centered around the Pike era. Capt. Pike rules. (can’t believe I actually said that…)
Casting him’s gonna be a bitch. Let’s hope they don’t end up with someone as lame as the New Voyages version of him.

52. ozy - March 2, 2007

Must trek XI respect canon? MUST!!!!

I hate reboots!!!
Trek XI must be part of excisting canon!!!!
Muste have title Star trek- Someting Somenting!!!

53. AssimilatedGorn - March 2, 2007

STAR TREK: Yes, we know that the nacelle caps are from the 2nd model, sit back and enjoy the film.

54. Stanky McFibberich - March 2, 2007

re: 35. The Lensman – March 2, 2007

” #2
You’re not getting it. Star Trek has moved on from you…”

Maybe I don’t have the same point-of-view about this as you, but I do have an opinion. I’m not asking you or anyone else to share that opinion. If you don’t like my opinion, that is O.K., but to suggest that Star Trek has moved on from me just because my focus of interest is on the 60s series is false.
Go ahead and be excited about the movie. That is fine with me, but what does it hurt to know that maybe not everyone shares your enthusiasm?
Your opinion that Star Trek is NOT about the 1960’s series and is only about starting over for new fans is no more valid than the opinion that it IS about the 1960’s series and that set of actors playing that set of characters.
I don’t think I’ve slandered or attacked anyone on this subject. I just like to occasionally state my opinion to get it off my chest.
Have a nice day. :)

55. steve623 - March 2, 2007

I just want to echo something Greg said up in #3 – *if* the movie has a “first adventure” plot and *if* the movie is being made to “fit in” with the established history of the show, why not avail themselves of pre-existing characters like Mitchell, Piper, Kelso, Alden, et cetera? They are all essentially blank slates, so why not write them as real characters, development into unique personalities who can change the crew dynamic and interaction, rather than just delivering more of the same – or worse, populating the crew with Ensign Sulu, Ensign Uhura, and on-his-first-training-mission Cadet Chekov. Play up the differences between Spock and Mitchell. Have Kirk take Mitchell’s advice over Spock’s at a key moment, see that it was a mistake, and dramatize Kirk’s realization that while Mitchell may have been his best friend, that doesn’t follow that he gives the best advice. Show McCoy working under Piper and really draw a contrast between McCoy’s cranky humanism and Piper’s approach to the same job. There’s a lot of gold to be mined there.

56. StillKirok - March 2, 2007

There were several books that take place in the Mitchell era of Kirk’s life, and one book, called Enterprise the First Adventure, that also is a similar plotline to what we are going to get in Trek XI.

I forget which book, but in one, shortly after Kirk took over the Enterprise, and there was a portion of the book that dealt with Kirk’s early relationship with Spock. At first, Kirk rarely listened to Spock, because obviously, he valued Mitchell’s opinion more. It got to the point where Spock requested a transfer off the ship because he wasn’t really fulfilling his 1st officer role properly. Kirk actually took this as a potential defeat and a reflection on him, and eventually made a more concerted effort to listen to Spock.

I could see that at first, neither Kirk nor Spock would like each other, but something could happen to make the two of them develop that level of trust that was so vital to their friendship.

Kirk and Spock truly were great as a team. McCoy only enhanced that.

Obviously, stuff happened.

57. Jeffrey S. Nelson - March 2, 2007

I agree that STAR TREK is a great title by itself.
And, yes, it will be interesting to see how the Kirk/Spock relationship will be handled, since it was clearly in its infancy in “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” Good point.

58. StarTrekkie - March 2, 2007

I really like the idea of just calling it “The Final Frontier” I think that’s perfect. Everyone knows that’s a star trek phrase

59. The Fan Formerly Known As Kirksucks - March 2, 2007

“Star Trek: The Beginning” is illogical and just isn’t right. I know that a lot of people here would rather forget “Enterprise” (I’m not one of them – I thought it was OK) but the fact is that it’s now part of canon and can’t be simply ignored and forgotten. It was the real “beginning” of Star Trek.

I don’t see anything wrong with taking the lead from the exceptionally successful reboot of the James Bond series and simply giving the movie a name which reflects the storyline, and forget about prefixing it with “Star Trek”.

60. Jay - March 2, 2007

hmmm just STAR TREK or how about….

STAR TREK: Genesis
STAR TREK: Initiated
STAR TREK: Make it so!
STAR TREK: Engage!

ahhh yea!!!

61. doubleofive - March 2, 2007

I can’t believe that not one person has suggested the most obvious title:

Star Trek: Episode I

62. DaveM - March 2, 2007

STAR TREK: The one about the thing that caused that stuff and they had to fix it…

63. Rick Hunter - March 2, 2007

#55 – Go write that screenplay.

64. ObiWanCon - March 2, 2007

Star Trek Begins
Star Trek Returns
Star Trek Forever
Star Trek Kirk & Spock

No seriously just call it “STAR TREK”

65. Larry Nemecek - March 2, 2007

Anthony is right. The past movies all had an incredible marketing committee-style studio comment period on titles, so don’t totally blame Rick Berman on those–especially Insurrection. While we hope a new day and a new corporate cast and the clout of Abrams can hold that down, there will still be a bit of it going on. As for “Beginnings,” sorry–the Kirk era is still 200 years ahead of us, and whatever you think about “Enterprise,” there are still plenty of “beginning” niche points to posit a feature or a series.

Lastly, if JJ and the guys are half the fans I think they are, they will see it as the ultimate challenge to keep canon AND tell a great story by doing it “in the cracks”–where there are plenty of maddening background gaps left to fill. Then agaion, to real fanboys who are also gifted storytellers and writers, it should be pretty easy.

66. Rick Hunter - March 2, 2007

#61 has almost got it right.

Star Trek: Episode 1 – The Fan Menance

67. Mr. Mike - March 2, 2007

I think just “Star Trek” would suffice because it is a return to the original, at least in terms of the characters and era. I think adding something like “The Beginning” would be redundant. When you say “Star Trek” it is usually brings to mind images of the Enterprise, Kirk, and Spock. Let’s not forget transporters, phasers, and tricorders! All began with TOS.

I’m hoping beyond hope that this movie will be STAR TREK the way it was intended to be. So far they’ve got the teaser poster right! It will be interesting to see who they cast.

68. Josh T. ( The direct to video TNG films) Kirk Esquire' - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: All your Kirks are belong to us

69. steve623 - March 2, 2007

Josh T. – Thank you for not suggesting “Star Trek: Kirk Gotta Eat!”

70. Josh T. ( The direct to video TNG films) Kirk Esquire' - March 2, 2007

How about

Star Trek: No William Shatner = flames on Optimus Prime = Nipples on Batman ;)

71. Josh T. ( The direct to video TNG films) Kirk Esquire' - March 2, 2007

Star Trek : The wrath of Vaders Nooooooooooooo

72. Trevok - March 2, 2007

Star Trek would be fine as far as I’m concerned.
But just for the hellof it.
Star TrekXI – To Boldly Go…
Or Star Trek – To Boldly Go…
What about simply To Boldly Go!
How about The Adventures of James T. Kirk.
Or Kirk and Spock’s Adventures in Outer Space.
I think it will proberly be something like Star Trek – To Boldly Go. It embraces the feel of TOS which I beleive is the way Paramount will want the film to be seen.

73. Andy - March 2, 2007

Do more polls! Somebody at Paramount has got to be watching — I’m sure they want to find a happy medium between pleasing the fans and pleasing the general public.

74. Michael Appleton - March 2, 2007

“IDIC and IDIC! What is IDIC??” To some it would seem to be Interesting Discussion Is Commendable, and to others it seems to be If Different It’s Crap! As Rodney King once opined, “Can’t we all just get along?”

75. MiamiTrek - March 2, 2007

Star Trek alone just works fine for me.

I know for some of you, canon is very important and very relevant.

But for a movie that will suppposedly embrace canon and still be a draw to the casual viewer, is so much of a focus on Mitchell and other characters that only appeared once early in the series absolutely necessary? How essential to the movie will it be as we don’t even know what the exact story scenario will entail.

I want to see Kirk and Spock…and a good Trek Movie. Anything more than that would be icing on the cake.

If these characters were alluded to, briefly seen or maybe even play some minor part in the movie – would that be enough to quell so many of you who believe that this movie won’t work unless these plot points are met for it to qualify as a true blue “Star Trek” movie?

It just seems to me that so many are already making demands on a movie that is more than a year away.

76. Josh T. ( The direct to video TNG films) Kirk Esquire' - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: Kirk and Spocks most excellent bogus adventure

77. TyrannicalFascist - March 2, 2007

Leaving “Star Trek” out of Enterprise was a bad, and confusing move. Doing the same to a return to Classic Trek would be an even bigger mistake.

78. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - March 2, 2007

How about the adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle in the 23rd Century?

Ok, admittedly the title has nothing to do with Star Trek but neither did Enterprise… ;)

79. Zenith - March 2, 2007

STAR TREK – Resurrection
STAR TREK – Return to Glory
STAR TREK – Timeless
STAR TREK – The First Generation

And some funny ones for the heck of it…

STAR TREK – “If I became Captain…Here’s how it happened…”
STAR TREK – Because prequels are all the rage now
STAR TREK – Now with more Orion Slave Girls!

80. steve - March 2, 2007

Just so long as the tag line ISN’T “The Battle for Peace/Paradise/Whatever Has Begun”…

81. MiamiTrek - March 2, 2007



Star Trek: In Canon We Trust

Star Trek: In Search Of Cash

Star Trek: Rick Berman Don’t Live Here Anymore

82. Cox of Seagulls - March 2, 2007

I’m rather bummed by the thought that McCoy might not have a big role. He was my fav Original Series character by a long way. And I always thought the trio of Spock/Kirk/McCoy was the series’ main strength. Still no Academy certainly sounds like a good thing to me. And if Gary Sinise plays McCoy, i’ll be over the moon.

83. An olde timey fan - March 2, 2007

I hope they call it “Star Trek” and I hope that’s what it is.

“No bloody A, B, C orrrr D!”

Also, am I the only one who cringes when I hear Star Trek called a “franchise”? Not only is that definitionally incorrect, it is insulting to us who fund their insane profits.

Olde Timey, MBA

84. Woulfe - March 2, 2007

How about…..

Star Trek : We don’t need no stinking subtitle, people aren’t that dumb !


– W –
* Tongue planted firmly in cheek *

85. Pizza Hotdog - March 2, 2007

Why not something simple, every trek fan can identify.

Call the movie


86. Pizza Hotdog - March 2, 2007

Leave out the “Star TreK”

87. MiamiTrek - March 2, 2007


Hold your tongue.

Please tell me you aren’t serious.

Enterprise was a bad(ish) show, let’s not give that label to a movie that hasn’t even been filmed yet.

88. GOOSENECK VIEWER™ - March 2, 2007

Canon Track

89. steve623 - March 2, 2007

“But for a movie that will suppposedly embrace canon and still be a draw to the casual viewer, is so much of a focus on Mitchell and other characters that only appeared once early in the series absolutely necessary? How essential to the movie will it be as we don’t even know what the exact story scenario will entail.”

Well, (a) since we don’t know what the exact story scenario will be, some harmless speculation can’t hurt, and (b) assuming Kirk and Spock won’t be the only characters in the movie, why not flesh out and expand upon some pre-existing but completely undeveloped characters? The hardcore people will appreciate the nod (some of them anyway) and the casual viewer won’t know the difference. If you’re going to have a helmsman in the movie, why not call him “Lee Kelso” and write him however you like rather than calling him “John Smith” and basically writing him the same way anyway? I’m not so myopic that I think the story should be twisted around to slavishly adhere to the canon, but I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with throwing in some canonical characters and references where it isn’t going to interfere with the story. Its not any different than using Alfred Pennyworth or James Gordon in the Batman movies or Moneypenny and Felix Liter in the Bond films. Bond could friendly up with a different CIA operative in every film, or Bruce Wayne could have a different police contact, but why bother if it isn’t integral to the plot? There’s a cast of characters available, so why not write for some of them and throw in some new ones as well?

90. Bobby - March 2, 2007

yikes! can’t we all just get along?

91. steve623 - March 2, 2007

The answer is clearly “no” – lol

92. Fidgit - March 2, 2007

We could continue the whole Shakespeare trend. Here’s a couple off the top of my head, depending on what the movie is about, of course:

Star Trek: The Quality of Mercy
(from Merchant of Venice, in a trial scene where Portia puts forth the notion that mercy benefits the person who grants it as much as the person it is extended to)

“The quality of mercy is not strain’d.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”

Star Trek: Fortune’s Fool
(from Romeo and Juliet, in the scene where Romeo realizes the deep doo-doo he is in because of who he just killed)

But without knowing the plot, it is almost pointless to speculate, isn’t it?

“Star Trek” it is then. And anyway, what’s in a name, right?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.”

93. MiamiTrek - March 2, 2007


Thank you – excellent points and if it is handled as such then I don’t see an issue at all.

I guess there are so many that are insisting that any story that involves Kirk at such an age MUST include such and such character and they must play an integral part. Which I have no problem with as long as they don’t detract for the main plot of the story otherwise we end up with a bunch of people in the movie who only the diehard will appreciate.

Thanks for answering.

94. Duane Boda - March 2, 2007

This may totally a totally off subject but I hope the lighting director or whatever hes called sticks to the original color patterns that we use to see in the OS.
They were never afraid to have green – blue – purple – whatever all within the same corridor only separated by some sort of small wall or something.
Then again….I’m most likely wrong. I just think it added a nice effect overall.

95. Michael Appleton - March 2, 2007

How about an American Pie version of Jim Kirk’s teenage years? Maybe the first time he has sex with his virgin girlfriend? The title of the movie would then be, of course, STAR TREK: Where No Man Has Gone Before.

96. Redshirt - March 2, 2007

Well my little jab at titles

Star Trek Yeah I know another one

Star Trek Were not kidding its better than Nemesis

Star Trek: Trek Fans Gone Wild!

Star Trek The Search for More of the fans money

Star Trek Attack of the Red shirts

Star Trek The Franchise Strikes Back

Star Trek The lack of Berman’s involment

Star Trek We don’t need no Stinking titles

Star Trek The Wrath of the canon-nites

Seriously as long as it’s worth the price of admission and sounds good without the overboard PR I’ll go. Wouldnt Mark Piper be the ships Doctor? Not McCoy if this would be Enterprise’s first mission.

97. Michael Appleton - March 2, 2007

How about STAR TREK: This Time We’re Serious!

98. Sybok - March 2, 2007

Hey, Anthony, great stuff but who’s doing visual effects? I’d opt for Weta Digital before ILM!

Good luck to J.J. and crew ;)

99. Admiraldeem - March 2, 2007

How about:

Star Trek – It’s Not Dead, Jim!

100. Kelvington - March 2, 2007

Top Ten Star Trek Film Rejected Titles!
Number Ten – Star Trek: The Wrath Of Aint It Cool News
Number Nine – Star Trek: The Search For Shatner’s Hair Line
Number Eight – Star Trek: The Motion Picture Lucas Edition, The Gorn Shoots First!
Number Seven – Star Trek: We’re So Very Sorry…
Number Six – Star Trek: And The Aliens Who Couldn’t Scrap Rust Of A Name Plate.
Number Five – Star Trek: We Promise Shatner Won’t Direct
Number Four – Star Trek: Because There’s A Nickel To Be Had!
Number Three – Star Trek: And The Attempt To Forget Enterprise.
Number Two – Star Trek: The Search For Tricia Tanaka
And the Number One
Rejected Star Trek Film Title – Star Trek: Richard Gere And The Tribble Of Pain

101. Viking - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: The Musical.

They’ve tried everything else. WTF. :-)

102. MichaelJohn - March 2, 2007

Episode XI….Return of the Shat!

Mik :o

103. Driver - March 2, 2007

With all the overhaul New Trek will have; actors, uniforms, ships, don’t forget about Stardates. This will have to be modified as well.

104. Orbitalic - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: Legends Born

… And I am still pushing for the movie intro as I mentioned in the other thread.

105. Stuart - March 2, 2007

It’s gonna have to depend on what the movie is all about… I’d like to go back to numbering, although it could confuse the timeline for newbies I suppose… erg… and I don’t… have… the time.

I’d go for Star Trek XI: Prime Directive

or some darn thing.

Failing that I’d go with just plain Star Trek but what do they call the following movies? a follow up “Star Trek 2″ will confuse Trekkers everywhere. And if they go back to named movies after that it’s gonna look out of place.

106. Driver - March 2, 2007

Come to think, the new E should be 1701-A.

107. Orbitalic - March 2, 2007

If this one is StarTrek… which I prefer, what will be the next one called? It’s seems Star Trek 2 (II) is taken.

108. Orbitalic - March 2, 2007

#105 Stu… that was almost simultaneous.

Great minds….

109. Navigator NCC-2120 - March 2, 2007

I just read the credits of “Star Trek IX” at the IMDB webpage (Link:, which list

Non-Original Music by
Alexander Courage (theme “Star Trek”)
Jerry Goldsmith (themes)

so for the movie title how about:

“Star Trek: The Motion Picture – The day after the V’ger incident!”


“Star Trek: The Motion Picture Continued”

Only kidding about the title. However TMP is still my favorite Trek film.

Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente

110. Orbitalic - March 2, 2007

Star Trek: Voyages

111. Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente - March 2, 2007

Correction to my post , #109

“I just read the credits of “Star Trek IX” at the IMDB webpage…”

Should read:
“I just read the credits of “Star Trek XI” (“Star Trek 11″) at the IMDB webpage…”

Damn those Roman Numerals!

Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente

112. steve623 - March 2, 2007

“Failing that I’d go with just plain Star Trek but what do they call the following movies? a follow up “Star Trek 2″ will confuse Trekkers everywhere.”

Sort of like what to call the “Superman Returns” sequel, which prior to the title semi-announcement, I liked to call “Superman Returns Again” :-

And #93, thanks for that response and for taking my remarks in the good spirit they were intended. I genuinely appreciate that.

My impression is that Mr. Abrams, et al, know their Trek, and if (as has been suggested) they care enough to include Pike, the Farragut, and Captain Garrovick into the story, then they may be looking forward to putting a little flesh on the fictional bones of characters like Gary Mitchell, Lee Kelso, Mark Piper and others. They may be looking at it as an opportunity and as a writing challenge. I don’t think its a necessity for a successful film by any means, but using characters like that to some degree is certainly going to resonate with a segment of the audience. Its not unlike the use of Khan in Star Trek 2 instead of some stock generic villain, or the use of Sarek and Amanda in Star Treks 3 and 4. Spock’s aunt or grandfather or cousin could have filled the same function in those scripts, but the fact that the screenwriters bothered to include the original characters (and in that era, the original actors were available and viable as well), it just made the stories a little sweeter and a little more involving for a portion of the audience. If that can be done without causing problems for the story that Mr. Abrams wants to tell, I don’t think it hurts to incorporate some of those kinds of characters, and it helps a little bit with what I suppose could be called the “the core audience” .

I now await a post by Dennis Bailey to tell me that I’m completely full of shit and that a more incorrect post has never appeared on :)

113. Greg Stamper - March 2, 2007

#112 steve623 – –
Well reasoned and logical – –

114. Pcumby - March 2, 2007

Call it: Star Trek Lives

115. Driver - March 2, 2007

The new Trek movie will certainly have a unique font. That may be enough to differentiate itself from the other movies. Baring that then it should be XI or no : between Star Trek and the subtitle.

116. billhardin22 - March 2, 2007

Love to visit the site. Lots of fun for a 40 year Trek fan.

I enjoy reading the diverse comments and varied opinions.

However, I agree with #29. No need for some posters to hurl insults. The site doesn’t appear to be about this.

And sure the film is Abram’s baby. Does this mean fans shouldn’t care about how he handles it concerning its storyline, casting, title, etc.? Hey, if the fans shouldn’t care, good luck with the box office. See Nemesis and forget this incarnation of Trek altogether if the fans are not an intergral part. And, somehow, I think Abrams and company may be more than a little aware of what the posters on this site think and say. If not, he should be.

The very nature of the task of reviving/revitalizing/rebooting Trek demands that Abrams makes some very careful, considerate decisions on a number of issues. What this Trek will be, who will play the iconic characters, what the film will be called, all of this is critical to how the film will ultimately play and be received. At least on this site fans have a chance to speak their mind. And some have some very good opinions, points, and insights.

And why can’t this Trek be Trek? As a longtime fan, I am open to changes that may not necessarily be canon, but can still be Trek. No one will be Kirk, Spock, and McCoy like Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley. But for Trek to live, someone will have to be those characters. Either we give it a chance or or forget it all together.

117. billhardin22 - March 2, 2007

#89 and #112.

Couldn’t agree more!

Great comments!

118. Robert April - March 2, 2007

Star Trek:Crossover

A young Kirk, after a one night stand with a green skinned Orion slave girl, must go back in time to seek the legal advice of 21st Century superstar lawyer Denny Crane.

Followed up by a TV episode called
Denny Crane: “Treks” are for Kids
However, just plain Star Trek would be fine…

119. yo - March 2, 2007

“Star Trek: Initiation”
“Star Trek: Exordium”
“Star Trek: Incipience”
“Star Trek: Start Again”

120. Anthony Pascale - March 2, 2007

hi from worldcon

looks like just ‘star trek’ is winning the poll

I have noticed that this poll has got a lot more votes than most, but perhaps nobody noticed that we added polls a few weeks ago

121. Gary Seven - March 2, 2007

I’m bummed too about the minimalization of McCoy’s role in the upcoming movie. I love McCoy, and furthermore this downgrading of McCoy doesn’t even make sense to me. First of all Star Trek is very much about the blend and interactions of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy and the different aspects of personality that they represent and bring together.
It also doesn’t make sense to me because except for Dr. Piper in WNMHGB, there’s nothing to indicate Kirk and McCoy weren’t already good friends. In WNMHGB clearly Spock and Kirk are still getting used to each other, so to have a movie in which they are already close friends wouldn’t be consistent. But what about McCoy? It just feels right to me that Kirk and McCoy were friends for a looooong time by the time Star Trek starts. Look how they talk to each other in Corbomite Maneuver- it’s clear they have known each other awhile. So what gives about downgrading McCoy?

122. Robert April - March 2, 2007

If not Star Trek, then Federation, or Starfleet in the title? They both have a bold name to them that could indicate a new direction for a reboot. Gary Sinise would be perfect for McCoy with his tone and sense of humor. I’d see the movie just to see that. I don’t see McCoy being a big role if this is the start of the 5 year mission. Maybe Star Trek: 5 Year Mission could be a title? Anyway, maybe McCoy makes such an impression on Kirk and he realizes how much McCoy irritates Spock that he brings him onboard when Piper retires? McCoy could be a big role in this movie, but not in the next one or two sequels. I don’t want to see a character conveniently come back as Worf did in First Contact. It would also be great to play up Mitchell or Kelso. There’s a lot of character history there that can be explored. A transition from a Pike command to Kirk would be interesting seeing characters adapt in crisis to a different style or unknown style of command. As to continuity / cannon – don’t forget the gooseneck monitors at all the bridge stations, just make a reason for them! :) Honestly though, I wouldn’t mind a similar exterior to the NCC-1701, but with an updated interior. A movie that’s full of little details like Back to the Future that you can catch something new each time you watch would make for a box office hit.

123. Robert April - March 2, 2007

#122 – didn’t realize there’s another Robert April, /Robert April now known as /Captain Robert April :)

124. Robert April - March 2, 2007



125. Josh T. ( The direct to video TNG films) Kirk Esquire' - March 2, 2007

Well, since this is in essence a reboot/earlier era/apology , I think we should lobby for a regurgimitated title anyhoo

Star Trek- used

Galaxy Quest- used

Space Sojourn

Cosmos voyage

Stellar cruise

Universal odyssey

Galactic adventure

Quantum vacuum exodus

Huge self-sustaining nuclear furnace expedition

Mix n’ match!

My vote goes to Cosmological Odyssey- The Motion Picture

126. TrekNerd - March 2, 2007

— #101.

Star Trek: The Musical.

They’ve tried everything else. WTF. —

Actually, a Star Trek opera starring Luciano Pavarotti was in the works for the 20th anniversary of TOS.

127. freezejeans - March 2, 2007

Forget Damon. I should play Kirk! Check the posture: Confident, yet not completely egotistical :)

128. Josh T. ( The direct to video TNG films) Kirk Esquire' - March 2, 2007

But, But, I’mmmmmmmmmmm Captain Kirrrrrrrrrrrk!!!!!!!!!

129. EvilDrPuma - March 2, 2007

Hmmm. How about “Star Trek: Enterprise Rising?” It says optimism, it says start of a legend, it says we can do better than some TV series I could mention…

130. Jon - March 2, 2007

Piss off the fanboys and make a great movie.Call it Star Trek because after it comes out people won’t even remember the old stuff.Make everything new yet recognizable.

131. Mark - March 2, 2007

How about Star Trek: Enough Already. Oh, wait, that’s Law and Order.

Or Star Trek: Plan 11 From Outer Space. Oh, wait, that’s if Berman did it.

As Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.”

132. Josh T. ( The 24th century's not so tough) Kirk Esquire' - March 3, 2007

Star Trek 11: The non-subtitled voyage.

Star Trek 11: Canon Fodder

Star Trek 11: Abrams 1, Berman 0

Star Trek 11: Get a life, buy a ticket

Star Trek 11: Please love us again

Star Trek 11: Or how I learned to stop worrying and take it like a man

Star Trek 11: Neck pinches R’ Us

Star Trek 11: Fall of the Berminator

Star Trek 11: What 24th century??

Star Trek 11: It’s been a long road, gettin’ from there to here

Star Trek 11: Wrath of the raped childhoods

Star Trek 11: A drop kick a day keeps Berman away

133. David - March 3, 2007

My first post

Star Trek: Where no one has gone before

Star Trek: First Mission

Star Trek: A New Frontier

Star Trek: A Captain’s Journey

Star Trek: Destiny

Star Trek: A New Captain

or just Star Trek
which works fine for the first new film but then we get two Star Trek 2s for the second

134. yo - March 3, 2007

Hey JJ, if you are still in need of a title, look no further.

From the 1958 presidential report, “Introduction to Outer Space”:
> “… the compelling urge of man to explore and to discover,
> the thrust of curiosity that leads men to try to go
> where no one has gone before.”

Time Magazine (April ’58) quoted that excerpt:,9171,863218,00.html
> “Compelling Urge:
> For the whys and wherefores of the new ‘national space program’ …
> … the scientists gave top billing to the one overpowering drive:
> the ‘compelling urge of man to explore and to discover, the thrust of
> curiosity that leads men to try to go where no one has gone before.'”

Dwayne Day brought attention to the Star Trek connection
in his 2005 essay:
> “The Star Trek line is better, slightly more polished —
> going boldly is more powerful than trying to go
> (or, … as Yoda said, “Do, or do not. There is no try”).
> Of course, Hollywood gets better writers than the White House.”

Perhaps Sam Peeples may have derived the title
“Where no man has gone before” from the 1958 report,
as Day suggests. But “The Compelling Urge”
never made it into Trek … until now:

So, JJ, your trilogy:

1. “Star Trek: The Compelling Urge”
2. “Star Trek: To Explore and Discover”
3. “Star Trek: The Thrust of Curiosity”

Glad to help ;-)

135. Doug - March 3, 2007

Star Trek and the Temple of Doom ;)

re 43: William.

I totally am with you on that. I’m dying to see the Art direction for the movie. Lots of questions about how they will handle sets, costumes, effects. What will be seen and what won’t.

Eagerly awaiting the first pics!!


136. Bryan - March 3, 2007

I believe we not only need nods to the Pike and Academy years but it IS IMPERATIVE we get an ENTERPRISE with nacelle spikes and large deflector dish. Please JJ don’t re-invent and the Enterprise as the Enterprise series did! We know what the ship looked like under Pike and Spock when Kirk took command. For God’s sake the big E doesn’t need to be redone…she’s a beauty as is. The story should not be hampered during its unfolding by JOLTS to the system when a new E makes its screen debut. You just want to see an old friend.
Personnally they should not…OKAY HERE IT COMES…use a CGI ship.
Get back to the scale of filming a 12′ model with the fine details only accomplished by live filming. THERE I SAID IT!!!!!!!!!!!I’m an original 1966 trekker. CGI is okay for TV, but even the remastered series as good as it has become still falls short on grandeur.
Hell, look what 20th Century did to the Jupiter 2 in that forgettable movie.
As for titles:
STAR TREK: Boldly Go!
STAR TREK: To Boldly Go!
STAR TREK: Encounters

137. Adam Cohen - March 3, 2007


138. Jon - March 3, 2007

I’d be very dissapointed if they didn’t change the enterprise design.I say change it but make it recognizable.Trek needs to get up to speed.

139. jonboc - March 3, 2007

Star Trek: The Original Recipe

140. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007

“I believe we not only need nods to the Pike and Academy years but it IS IMPERATIVE we get an ENTERPRISE with nacelle spikes and large deflector dish. Please JJ don’t re-invent and the Enterprise as the Enterprise series did! We know what the ship looked like under Pike and Spock when Kirk took command”

True. One pilot episode. In just one pilot episode with, for example, communicators with recognizable rotary switches and discrete electronic components (resistors, etc.), a CRT-type TV set in Capt. Pike’s quarters. Does JJ slavishly match those, too, and cause the non-fanboys to laugh their collective asses off in the theater? It’d be canon, right? Or was there one bitch of a technological reversal (WW3 was a helluva lot worse than current thought, and it took more than one century to recover) and a determination that all of ST:Enterprise is “apocryphal, at best”?

(sorry. “reality” isn’t like playing PS2/XBox/Playstation — it doesn’t have a ‘reset’ button)

A hypothetical question.

Let’s suppose, for the moment, that Gene Roddenberry was, today, the age he was when he actually pitched ST. We’re operating in a scenario where there was no ST:TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. The slate was wiped clean. Matt Jeffries? Same thing. Entire production staff: Rugg, Feinberg, Wah Chang, et al., ditto. There would still be hand-held communicators. Hand-held weapons. What would this new proposal, something called “Star Trek” look like? What would the props look like? Assuming that they came up with the same general ship layout (primary hull, secondary hull, warp nacelles), what would they make Big “E” (and, assuming that they still decided to honor the Big “E” of WW2 fame, and the first nuclear-powered US Navy aircraft carrier — although not the first nuclear-powered naval vessel or even the first US Navy nuclear-powered surface combatant, iirc) look like?

One constraint. It has to be marketable and attract enough people from a wide spectrum (even, the evil NASCAR fans) of society, and get them to either tune-in from a 500+/- channel selection on cable, or (2) fork-over an average of $10-20/adult (ticket, snacks, etc.), sufficient to justify a substantial investment of capital: sets, salaries, advertising, for FX houses, utilities, studio staff, talent, caterers, union carpenters and electricians, etc.

Would it be closer to the ‘spiky nacelle, ‘extra-large dish’ deflector dish’ Enterprise, or, something closer to the TOS production vessel, or, even the movie-era ship?

141. Michael Appleton - March 3, 2007


142. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007

and remember… it is still 2007 in my hypothetical: notebook PCs/Macs, miniture cell phones, Blackberry PDAs, fingernail-sized flash drives, fiber-optic datalines, processor chips, GPS units small enough to carry with you, LEDs, LCD and plasma displays, exist, and are in common use — sufficiently so that one has to be fairly-isolated (and, unlikely therefore, to be accessing this show/movie called “Star Trek”).

And, no mixing of technological sophistication is allowed. That is, with a (this scientifically-hypothetical technology) warp-capable space craft capable of multiples of the speed of light (effectively), you can’t use the dodge of “well, WW3/Colonel Green’s war, caused……”.

You can argue that the increase of sophistication has allowed some stylistic reversals: a communicator with enough power to, without a repeater, have the range necessary to have real-time communication with your orbiting starship has to be larger than your circa 2007 Motorola RAZR. The data disc that looks all the world like a small piece of plastic (because it was), has 1000000x the storage capacity of your 2007 SanCruiser flash drive. The ____ (fill in the blank) ….

143. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007

pimf/Google spell-check imf… miniature

144. Stanky McFibberich - March 3, 2007

Then Why Do a Movie Based On That Era?
If you people want to see different actors, different ship, different whatever, why in the world do you want a movie about Kirk and Spock in the pre-series era?
Just make up some new characters and set it in some other time period.
Then there are those who would throw out the show’s history altogether, ignore everything about canon, etc. Why even do Star Trek at all then? Do some other science fiction movie.
As I have stated before, I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion, but I do question those opinions.

145. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007

I, personally, don’t envy the position that JJA is in.

He has to either blow-off the marketability of the product (that’s professional suicide) to the non-fanboys and slavishly follow 40 year-old production values, or, hack-off the nit-pickers who will insist that a 42-year old design to a ‘proof of concept’ movie be followed down to the nth degree.

However, apparently, he believes he can navigate between the demands of the nit-picking among the fan base and the demands of producing a movie that will have sufficient appeal outside we fans to actually not have Paramount decide — after spending $60, $70 million — that the Munchkinland coroner has declared Trek to be certifiably, undeniably, and reliably dead.

Don’t get me wrong. I do like the Pike-era Enterprise. But, I believe that it is appropriate to be sufficiently pragmatic to understand that insisting upon the retention of the design elements (even those abandoned within a year/two for production of TOS) is problematic.

Perhaps I — personally –even believe that B&B made the problem worse by some aspects of the production design (and/or storyline) for ST:ENT

(although, given what has happened between 1965 and 2007 in terms of technological development, and ‘consumer expectations’ — in terms of both real-world items and Trek-fan expectations of production capabilities, would probably have led to having to go that route — although, perhaps, in the ST universe, several decades closer to the TOS era — /0.02)

But, it is going to be difficult, or, will require reliance on the classic/infamous “Bobby Ewing shower scene” to explain-away four seasons production of Trek-based story-telling. Or, we can always send the ST:ENT storyline into the “Minitrue” where it can be filed with the fact that Oceania had been at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia.

146. Michael Appleton - March 3, 2007


147. FredCFO - March 3, 2007

Star Trek: Not Just a TV Show, but an Industry…

It’s going to be difficult handling iconic characters. Matt Damon as Kirk, hmmmm. Gene Roddenberry joked when he was touring colleges back in the ’70s about getting Paul Newman to play Kirk and Robert Redford to play Spock. This almost seems like that. Time marches on and so will Star Trek.


148. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007


MOJAVE (optical to be added)



(camera pullback from shower door. PIKE is seen showering)



“I had the strangest nightmare…The first Enterprise had a captain named Archer, and it was 2156…”

149. EvilDrPuma - March 3, 2007

FlyingTigress at 144:
“But, it is going to be difficult, or, will require reliance on the classic/infamous “Bobby Ewing shower scene” to explain-away four seasons production of Trek-based story-telling. Or, we can always send the ST:ENT storyline into the “Minitrue” where it can be filed with the fact that Oceania had been at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia.”

Well, first off, I’m prepared to ignore many of the anachronistic details in “The Cage” as reflections of an infant stage of production. As for any discontinuities with “Enterprise,” if I were in Abrams’ position, I would feel no duty to reference the series. Actually, I think the focus needs to be on an updated production design that remains faithful to the look and feel of TOS, not an updated production design that reflects anything seen in series set in the 22nd or 24th centuries.

150. sigh - March 3, 2007

*sigh*. Remakes, remakes, remakes.
This is why the “new” latest francise fails miserably.

Quit trying to relive past glory – Shatner was Kirk, Nimoy was Spock,
Kelley was McCoy. They were great, their time was great. Now, back
to the “Present”: Janeway is back from her jaunt with Voyager in the
Delta Quadrant, Picard is retiring from Enterprise-E. How about…..
The adventures of the USS Titan ? or how about someone takes over for
Picard, aka a whole new crew, a whole new adventure into the
*PRESENT DAY* unknown of the 24th century? [it would make for an inexpensive budget for actors anyhow] give up the flashbacks,
come on, you can do it…..if you’re out of ideas of where to explore, in the 24th century, give em slipstream drive and go exploring…….civilize the
Kazon, go see Neelix, etc.

let’s quit going backward to the “good ole days” and go forward instead.
It would be MUCH better. Make a comparison between then and today’s antics. It’ll be fun, really!

Ahhhh, JJ. How could ya ?

hey, hee it’s da Jimmy T. he’s a major part of the trek fam-il-eee
everybody wants to bee da Jimmy T. hee hee ha ha ho ho hee.
but let’s face facts here, Kirk’s da Shat’ner woo ha woo haa……

151. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007

The problem is that what you or I might call an anachronistic production detail is another person’s ‘canon’.

Were the spiky-tipped nacelles, for example, a detail to be overlooked since, presumably, that was changed within a few production episodes? Or, is there a ‘Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise”-type (re: the difference to explain-away the ‘white/grey/weathered’ production Enterprise versus Aztec pattern) techno-explanation?

For example: In (date), the early pre-(TOS) warp engines were outwardly evidenced by a spire that served as the mounting point for the field generator for the Bussard collector.

The power efficiency of deflectors were substantially enhanced by the Langtonics system, which allowed equivalent Fd levels with a smaller dish.

These upgrades came during the ca. 2230 “Constitution”-class SLEP, during which time external hardpoints were added for hull-mounted energy weapons (to explain why “Number One” couldn’t simply blast the top of the Talosian elevator knoll from orbit) and up-rated targeting scanners which rendered obsolete the previous need for LASER field artillery.

(heh! this is fun!)

152. =A= - March 3, 2007

i think better “STAR TREK FOREVER”

153. Jimtibkirk - March 3, 2007

Star Trek.

Or perhaps … Star Trek Genesis.

Genesis? Yes, Genesis. How can you be deaf with ears like that?

154. Orbitalic - March 3, 2007

#150… Fun?

LOL… some of you will have ulcers before the premier date.

Whatever happens, some of us will adapt, some of us will cry, some of us will laugh and some of us will die.

I recognize that some of this is just discussion and playing “what if”… but some of you are taking the potential for change far too hard.
Kick back and enjoy the ride. JJ’s got the hard part… making it good so we like it.

Oh,.. and plan on a few trial balloon titles from the Paramounties.

155. Doug - March 3, 2007

re 153… Soooo true. I’ll be the first to admit my disgust when something I love is chopped up and served in poor fashion. But this movie is barely in development and people are up in arms about every scrap of minutae they can imagine.

re 148… Yes. This is the obvious answer. I doubt it was intended that the Enterprise changed that much, rather they had more money and time to enhance the Enterprise to the vision the model builders and producers wanted as the fledgling series progressed…. Unlike ST TMP where it was clearly a story element that the ship had been refurbished.

I want to see the Enterprise all lit up with flying colors. I think it was a little silly that the ST remastered people opted to reflect the earlier version of the model for the early episodes. It would have a better flow and lead in to the movie if they were consistent with one vision of the Big E.

oh well. my two cents. Doug

156. AssimilatedGorn - March 3, 2007

If they include anything about the Farragut, I feel they should have something in there with the USS Republic – Kirk’s first ship along side other academy star Ben Finney….

157. Doug - March 3, 2007

I think a lot of us, would love to be the producers :)

158. FlyingTigress - March 3, 2007


I was being a little sarcastic. Read my #144.

I wouldn’t have a particular problem with them jumping right to the TOS production-period Enterprise (christmas lights and nacelle balls, no goose-neck viewers, Samsung 16:9 format (LOL) viewscreen, and — OMG — red doors and bridge rails) — “The Cage” and “WNMHGB” notwithstanding.

But, heh, JJA doesn’t ask my opinion, nor do I have a financial stake in the production. I’ve got some $$$ for attending the movie, and will — in all likelihood — purchase it on DVD even if it turns out to be a dog, unless I have advance information that it has REALLY been scr_wed-up.

My only concern is this “What will be the reaction of someone here on be if they substitute a bunch of NASCAR kits in lieu of the “Big “E”” model kit”?


159. Londo - March 3, 2007

I’d like “Star Trek: The Adventure Begins”. It shouldn’t be numbered: not only is it not the eleventh chronologically, but none of the movies have been numbered since Star Trek VI anyway.

As for the production design, that’s where they’ll have to get sneaky. Keep the same layout but make subtle changes: tone down the brightly coloured doors/pipes/rails and bring up the colour of the pastel-blue walls, change the instrument buttons to make them less plasticky, change the communicator design in slight ways to make it less obviously dated. The ship exterior is also doable: I’ve seen images someone’s made of a “modern” original Enterprise that still keep the same design but look kickass. With the uniforms, it’s lucky that they’ll have to use the uniforms from the pilot (which look more professional than the series’ ones) but even they can be changed slightly to make them look better: subtly changing the colours (i.e. a darker blue, the command shirts more green and the engineering shirts more brown), adding shoulder pads, etc.

Changes like that would make the movie infinitely better, yet are small enough for them to get away with it. And they really won’t annoy anyone other than anal-retentive TOSophiles.

160. Lost Trek Fan - March 3, 2007

I think they should call it LOST. And they should find Kirk on the LOST island because that’s where that stupid energy ribbon from Generations dumps people. There could be a tie in episode with the LOST TV show. It could be cool, man. That’s how they get around that whole Kirk’s dead thing – see.. he is not really dead. He’s on LOST. He’s with the OTHERS.

161. Robert April - March 3, 2007

Remember “Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins?”

No, of course you don’t.

Stick with just plain “Star Trek.”

162. Robert April - March 3, 2007

OK, here is one.

“Star Trek: To Infinityyyyyy and Beyoond!!!!!!!!”

163. TomBot2007 - March 3, 2007

How about STAR TREK: Kirk Vs. Spock ?
How about STAR TREK 2.0?

164. Thorny - March 3, 2007

I’d steal an idea from the Batman reboot: Call it “STAR TREK: YEAR ONE”, as in the first year of the Five Year Mission. Sequels could be set in each of the subsequent four years.

165. Litenbug - March 3, 2007

To steal from Bond….

The Man in the Golden Shirt
From Vulcan with Love
Live and Let die, again
Dilithium is Forever
Latinum finger
Froam a viewscreen to a Kill
For your sensors only
The Space Indian who loved me
You only live twice, Spock
Today is a good day to die another day

166. Josh T. ( The 24th century's not so tough) Kirk Esquire' - March 3, 2007

# 157

Your continued baiting overtures are a wasted, useless gesture I assure you.

If they replace any potential U.S.S. Enterprise model kits with peice of shit Nascar , I shall be forced to no doubt hunt down and identify each and every Nascar fan, and kill them. Magnificently, and with all due enjoyment.

“LOL” indeed.

167. Ron Beatty - March 4, 2007

I think it would be prudent to wait until a little more is known about the plot before we start tossing around a title. In any case the title doesnt make or break the movie. I just hope they make a good movie and really revive the franchise. And for gods sake dont use a ballad for the opening theme like Enterprise did! What the hell was that all about?

168. Dot23 - March 4, 2007

Seeing as no-one actually knows what the film is about, how about

Star Trek: The Unknown


Also, having seen “Team America” I don’t think I can take Matt Damon seriously as Kirk (mind you, it was quite hard to take Shatner seriously too!).

I do like Genesis as a title, but that may be too reminiscent of ST2:WOK’s Genesis device.

Still think ST, at least on TV (if it has a future there) needs to grow up a little. Audience tastes have matured since the 90s, and I think there needs to be both a reality check on the franchise (e.g. people have actual emotions, psychological dificulties with protracted periods away from home, and that characters shouldn’t be spun out based on their contracts!) and take more risks when it comes to the SciFi aspect – SF ideas have moved on since the sixties, but ST still revolves around the same basic themes.

Mind you, I could just watch Firefly again ;-)

169. Trevok - March 4, 2007

To all the ‘I don’t want any changes’ fans out there all I can say is rewatch early episodes of Trek. They changed things all the time without any rime or reason. Also very few “normal” people careless about about Chunky comunicators and such. In fact most non Trek fans would think it a total joke if they saw that kind of thing.
The simple fact is, it’s 2007 not 1966 technology has moved on and XI will have to reflect that or run the risk of being laughed off the screen.
Some hard core fans will no doubt hate the idea of Trek being updated, heck to some extent so am I. But the film needs to be relivent and not just catering to the whim of a small group of Trek fans.

Oh on a lighter note a couple of titles for the next film.

Star Trek XI – Paramounts New Hope

Star Trek XI – The Redshirts Strike Back

Star Trek XI – Return of the Enterprise


170. Lets hate Paramount - March 4, 2007

I think they should’ve just had a new Enterprise show in the 25th century. That was actually what Roddenberry wanted, but that was before Berman and Paramount sent Star Trek off into spin off hell.

171. Stanky McFibberich - March 4, 2007

re: 167
“Still think ST, at least on TV (if it has a future there) needs to grow up a little. Audience tastes have matured since the 90s”

THAT is maturing? There is no taste anymore.

172. William - March 4, 2007

First of all, if this has already been said, I appologize in advance. I tired to read all of the posts but there are soooo many.

Isn’t it a little silly to be trying to pick a name for film when we don’t even know the plot. Yes, we do know that it will be early Kirk/Spock but I certainly hope there is some sort of struggle in the film. What would Star Trek (or any adventure film) be without a baddie and a diobolical plot. The only Star Trek Film with a tag line that didn’t refer to the plot was TMP. Personally, I can’t see something like that working here.

173. William - March 4, 2007

#166 , Ron, My appologies. I was reading more posts and I saw yours. I agree with you 100%. If there is a tagline it should be connected to the plot in some way.

174. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - March 4, 2007

I agree with #158 — It is possible to keep the same basic design of the ship interior and exterior, and the uniforms, etc., but spruce it up to today’s standards. Look at the movie poster as it currently stands. It is recognizably the old insignia, design-wise, but done with modern tools. Or the remastered TOS Enterprise — no design changes, just corrected perspectives, corrected lighting (shadows where there should be shadows), and some added surface detail to make it look like a big spaceship, not a model. I’ll be looking at the personal devices that the characters use, and hope that it’s recognizably 60s vintage in design, but looking like it’s an actual device that does stuff and not a prop with cheesy lights in it.

As to the title, I’d say it should come down to what is dictated by the script. But it definitely must have “Star Trek” in the title, and it cannot just be “Star Trek”. I think it’s silly for people who don’t actually know what the story will really be in concrete terms (like all of us here) to speculate on a good title. Before they wrote the script to First Contact, do you think they were worrying about what to call it?

175. JohnnyMoo - March 4, 2007

Heh, the poll right now has 47% saying the title should just be “Star Trek”.

176. FlyingTigress - March 4, 2007

I wonder if it is a FIJAGDH vs. FIAWOL issue…

177. Jay - March 4, 2007

i actually like Nemesis :S……. bought it on DVD…. ill hide now

178. FlyingTigress - March 4, 2007


That’s okay, Jay. I didn’t hate the theme music for ST: ENT (I didn’t like the change for the fourth season, but…), nor did I despise ST:VOY.

/ducks and runs back to the cover of the witness protection program

179. Sam Belil - March 4, 2007

#55, #135 and #155 — You are 100% RIGHT!!!! I have been screaming for this all along. The argument can be made that McCoy should not even be a “major player” in this film. I love the idea of a Gary Mitchell/Spock and that is certainly consistent with canon. Yes the look of any starships featured in the film must have “The Cage look” (monochrome colors and all). My suggestions for the title: Star Trek, Where No Man Has Gone Before (why not, there now have been 2 James Bond movies titled “Casino Royale”.

180. ozy - March 4, 2007

Just Star trek is stupid title.

181. Jay - March 4, 2007

#178 not being picky or anything but there arnt 2 James Bond films called Casino Royale… the first film, due to complications was changed into a James Bond spoof and not an actual ‘James Bond Movie’ in an official sense.

moving on…

i hate the way Trekkies/Trekkers or just people that enjoy Star Trek slate the ‘franchise’ aswell. TOS was unique and f***ing amazing excuse my french and had a ream of films after it (probably due to its cancellation) all those films were pretty good (with the exception of one!! the god one V is it??) although even that film is watchable and i have to say i like the soundtrack…. anyway TNG is also bloody good, it moves the franchise forwards and gives us a new ‘family’ also the series, 7 seasons of it was rounded up very nicely in “All good things” love those episodes, the films that followed, i thought were wicked for the whole story, Generations finally ended Kirk in a damn good place, admittidly i wished he would have died cooler and the film was, well, poor but hey its trek, the films that followed had every right to follow the TNG crew. DS9 and VOY were spin offs really call them cousins to TNG they basically introduced new technologies new aliens and for me gave Trek a huge canon, it was really cool and refreshing, with loads of Borg/Cardassian/Ferangi, Klingon and Dominion as well as other Delta creatures, bloody awesome!! VOY ended as expected and End Game was a wicked episode!! DS9 is bloody wicked aswell, i even know non star trek fans that love abit of DS9 and VOY for that matter… surely thats a bonus?? DS9 had a wicked ending too!!

This is the point where i tred a little dangerously…. i like Nemesis…. for me its a great film that finally ends TNG as we know it, it does the job! why oh why cant we continue from that period, with Captain Riker of the Titan, it would introduce a new crew, it could even bring back some other members of the Star Trek world, here’s my list for the Titan!

Captain: Riker
1st Officer: Someone unknown any ideas? i was thinking B4?
2nd Officer: Tuvok
Engineer: O’Brian
Helm: Nog
Doctor: The Doctor
Counsellor: Troy ‘Mrs Riker’ lol

there could be a film about the Federation uniting with the Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans etc to take on the Cardassians, Breen, Dominion and Borg defeating them and there being peace love and harmony etc etc… cameos from Picard, Janeway, Worf, DS9??, Captain Chakotay hehe and some hardcore full scale wars!!

AHHHH yea!!

why take trek back in time again?? Enterprise tried and was not given the proper oportunity to promote itself due to shite writing and lousy story lines…. Trek must go forward!!!

on a final note for you all to consider…. Nemesis failed because it was on when Pirates of the Carribean was on, quite frankly how can Star Trek compare with Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom?? the chicks dig it… film fans dig it… hell it was a good film!! also has it ever occured to people, and i cry when i say this but Trek is no longer ‘cool’ i am 19 years old and i live in the UK, all the people i know who love Star Trek like me are either Nerds/Geeks or Middle age men or oldies……….. kids my age laugh in the face of Trek people!! it is NICH COOL!! and i say Shizer!! something has to be done!! the new film is debatable whether it will deliver… however it is promising!! yes thats right i dont hate Trek XI at all i just think as a real fan of ST that it should go forward not back…. HOWEVER things are looking promising for Trek with XI, JJ is directing, thats good he has ‘street cred’ people are ‘down’ with Lost and stuff soooo…. trek may get a new/old audience annnnd if we can get Matt Damon *does spack impression, Team America style* hehe and other well known actors with some actual awards, trek may suddenly become cool again!!



182. EvilDrPuma - March 4, 2007

@179: “Just Star trek is stupid title.”

Yeah, God knows that title didn’t go anywhere for Roddenberry. (I didn’t take a blow to the head, right? I DID read that with my own eyes?)

183. Kazuo-Boys Number 6 - March 4, 2007

To be honest from working at a movie theater, it doesn’t matter what you call it, i cant count how many people come up and asked for a ticket to “Casino Royale” by saying “Bond”, or my fav, “Medea” for “Diary Of a Mad Black Woman”. It really Doesn’t matter, what matters is that its good, and i think JJ can do it. Basically call it whatever, people will still ask for “Star Trek”, and the idiots will ask for “Star Track”

184. THEETrekMaster - March 4, 2007

I like Star Trek: The Adventure Begins…


185. Michael Appleton - March 4, 2007

#176+177 “like Nemesis” and “music from Enterprise”.
Hey, what the…that does it! Better have a good hidin’ spot boys, because I’se a’comin’!! (Three Stooges sound) Whooo, whooo, whooo…..

186. Litenbug - March 4, 2007

#157 Flying Tigress, how about a redneck NASCAR-version Enterprise model?
Add some sponsor logos, dump the UFP pendant. Add a huge 1701 in Italics (red with black outline) 12 decks tall on both sides of the secondary hull. Blue nacelles with red trim and the primary saucer section can be one huge Target logo.
I’d be a huge hit in the south… Kentucky and Mason Dixon way.

y’all beam me up now, ya hear?

187. Robogeek - March 4, 2007

The smartest thing Paramount can do is call it STAR TREK.

The dumbest thing Paramount can do is _not_ call it STAR TREK.

(And I’m sorry, but “Star Trek: The Adventure Begins” just sounds inanely juvenile and cloyingly fanboyish to me — and certainly doesn’t sound like the name of a real movie that real people would pay to go see.)

STAR TREK — nothing sends a clearer, better message about this project returning the franchise to its roots, and getting back to basics after having gone so painfully off-track for so very long.

As Scotty once said, “no bloody A, B, C or D.”

It’s STAR TREK, dammit!

Make it so. ;-)

188. Litenbug - March 4, 2007

#186 Robo, re: Adventure in the title….. it was his OPINION. Just like yours.

189. General Urko - March 4, 2007

Star Trek: *A* Beginning

Star Trek: Maiden Voyage

Star Trek: Potential Earnings For Make Benefit Glorious Franchise of Paramount

Star Trek: Life, The Universe and Everything

Star Trek: Phase I

190. FlyingTigress - March 4, 2007


I’ll presume the question is asked because of some my posts made in reaction to the comments made a few days ago by someone here at

I’ll answer, since the question might be raised by a perception, but, in short, the answer is “Because, Trek is Trek. It has a rich and unique fictional “universe” manifested in books, archetypal characters screenplays, fan fiction, replicas, collectibles, people, etc., and, it doesn’t require another interest (or interest group) merged into it to make it viable and special.

It also sufficiently special that other persons’ interests in “things that aren’t Trek” don’t take away from it.”

In a strictly ‘me’ statement — my own interests in other areas: certain types of artwork (tihu — aka Kachina sculptures — made by artists from the Hopi people in Arizona), reading (including, outside of sci-fi), my professional interests, restoring the structure and gardens of a, now, 93-year old Arts and Crafts-era home to its original condition, and, yes, a more recent interest in NASCAR racing, don’t take away from that 35+-year passion for that Trek universe: the series (including remastered eps of TOS), the movies (and, how that is manifested in upcoming Trek XI), the books (non-canon stories and reference works, and works on the production of the aforementioned series and movies), the stories/screenplays, one-of-a-kind collectibles (more than a casual relationship between myself and Lightspeed Fine Arts — to the tune of, about, $6000-$7000 over the past few years), the people whom I’ve been able to meet: both “in” the fan-base and “out” (limited interactions with production staff and talent), and, yes, even scale replicas of the ships

(although I haven’t made the financial ‘jump’, YET (LOL), to the Master Replicas “Enterprise” — I recall, and managed to dodge, the trainwreck that was the Unobtainium, Ltd. attempt at marketing a pricey large-scale replica)

from that fictional universe. Nor, does it — nor do I let it — take away from those other interests.” The worst that could be argued is that a few minutes taken ‘here’ isn’t being used ‘there’, or a dollar spent on that interest isn’t being spent on ‘this’… but, there have been a lot of those minutes in my nearly 49 years, and enough of those dollars — varying, depending upon which period in my life we’re talking about…(smile… now, more so than in college and high school) — to do the things I wanted, purchase those ‘things’ that I wanted, to the extent that my interests took me.

Some might call that the mark of being a (using a slight pejorative, and Merriam-Websters second definition) dilettante.

So be it. There’s a universe of potential interests out there. Some are practical. Some are wickedly self-indulgent.

After after 35+ years of being a Trek fan (well, the 35-years when it became extended outside the confines of the living room and the Zenith B&W TV set, anyway) in meeting other Trek fans at cons, Star Trek Association for Revival meetings (back during college in the mid-late 70s), or just being among friends who were friends for other reasons, but who were — to differing levels — Trek fans, my experience is that most of us appear to also maintain a degree of separation in our various hobbies/interests without either (a) believing that we have to maintain exclusivity to one interest (outside of family, career, home, etc.) to the detriment of others (b) having to merge those interests to the potential detriment of all, or (c) feeling that an interest in Trek is so important that someone else’s primary interests (non-Trek) somehow takes away from our interest in Trek — and requires a condescending/intolerant/ insulting/ abusive attitude towards those whose ‘fan'[aticism] runs in a different direction.

There were the others who didn’t/don’t fall into that group — and that’s fine for them.


191. Josh T. ( The 24th century's not so tough) Kirk Esquire' - March 5, 2007


How insipidly self-presumptuous can one possibly be Tigress? Enjoy reading thy own inflated notions much?

You speak of condescending and intolerance, yet you surreptitiously indulge in personal character assassinations simply because you are either too obtuse to infact practise the art of what one preaches, or too egocentric to care.

My initial post pertaining to redneck Nascar fans was a generalization about the entirely unacceptable lowest common denominator mentality that only serves to perpetuate the Wal-Marts and death of mom and Pop shops, and with it specialized hobby interests. The ignorance factor running rampant in this society is a prime example of shit running down hill from the top.
The fact you singled out that post and somehow took personal offense to it indicates to me the truth hit a little bit close to home and you either A. Feel yourself to be a redneck low intellect southerner, or B. Assume to champion the cause of redneck low intellect southerners everywhere, in which case, that is certainly your perogative but I can unequivocally assure you to do so is enabling the degradation of American society and culture.
You missed the entire point of my post.
Oh yes, to you modeling is but playing with toys evidently, and that is certainly fine, however before you knock something accumulate the necessary skill and indulge in the hobby before condemning it outright.
As I said previously, the interest in Star Trek to my knowledge has not impeded on the industry of Nascar, but what SHOULD be a concern to you, is that conglomerate corporate giants such as Wal-Mart, etc. are phasing out more specialized hobbies and interests and relegating them to the status of non-entity in favor of more mundane pursuits such as Nascar. Sure, people like Nascar, that’s fine. But you would be a little pissy as well I suspect if a life long pursuit and hobby, assuming you possess the patience and skill for hobbies, were eliminated to appease a crowd that celebrates mediocrity.
The issue I was referring to is bigger than God damn models. It’s the end of an era and cessation of a many a childs afternoon ,diligently hammering away on something they could be proud of and display.
So chug your beer and wax poetic on the intrinsic value of driving in a circle for 2 hours, some of us require a little more challenge in our avocations, and YES, because of NASCAR, that is no longer possible.
You can continue to think it’s cute and funny, but it most certainly isn’t.
Eventually, something you value will be terminated in favor of something you could remotely care about, then you will achieve personal enlightenment. Or not.

192. Stanky McFibberich - March 5, 2007

Nascar. Ick.

193. Josh T. ( Tiberius) Kirk Esquire' - March 5, 2007

I should actually say the inherent problem isn’t infact Nascar, but rather an audience that finds that “entertaining” , and the mentality that caters and bows to that form of entertainment such as RC2 ERTL and Wal-Mart.

194. andrea - March 5, 2007

but mccoy there wasn’t in the first episodes of TOS, there was another much more old Doc on board, abrahams will respect this canon? i hope so, i will love if they respect the canon so well to think to reborn kirk. they must put the old good Shatner in it and nimoy too of course.
i prefer they don’t use great star for the main characters, i prefer unknown actors that look similar to the original cast…much more strenght to the characters instead the actors.

STAR TREK: the Lost Years

195. FlyingTigress - March 5, 2007

One doesn’t have to meet either stated (A) or (B) criteria to raise the issue of the use of perjoratives of a third party.

“The issue I was referring to is bigger than God damn models. It’s the end of an era and cessation of a many a childs afternoon ,diligently hammering away on something they could be proud of and display.”

And there are a range of channels for exercising creative energy within an interest. Some of them pre-date the mass-marketing of someone else’s creativity. Some, notwithstanding “Wal-Mart”, still have their enthusiasts. Some “Mom and Pops”, in a reaction to the oft-repeated ’cause of death’ are, from my own experience, resurging simply because people do seek alternatives to what you are identifying. Some have adapted, and become more “special” to potential patrons than they were before.

“Eventually, something you value will be terminated in favor of something you could remotely care about, then you will achieve personal enlightenment. Or not.”

And then I can choose among, at least, the options of

create my own ‘thing’ of value — rather than relying upon someone else doing so, or

find something new — and respect (the level of which depends upon the value the ‘something’ had in my life — “people” would get more than ‘things’) the enjoyment that I had with that ‘terminated’ thing,

…and move on with my life. I suppose that constitutes the stated “personal enlightenment.”

196. oy - March 5, 2007

McAvoy update?
(from end of article)
> Will he be spending Christmas 2008 aboard the U.S.S Enterprise
> in JJ Abrams Star Trek XI? “No. There’s no truth in the Star Trek
> rumours. I am a Trekkie, but no – absolutely not.” And if he was
> offered a part…any part? “Hmmm [smiling]…I’d have to see.”

197. Doug - March 5, 2007

re Josh T and Flying Tigress,

can you guys finish your book length conversation on a Nascar site…


198. Jay - March 5, 2007

does anyone know a website where i can watch Star Trek films or episodes???

199. GOOSENECK VIEWER™ - March 5, 2007

Star Trek: The Gooseneck™ Years

200. Stanky McFibberich - March 5, 2007

Star Trek: Enterprise Takes Indy 500!

201. Bully - March 5, 2007

Star Trek: The Phantom Menace

202. Josh T. (The One True Shatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 5, 2007

Tigress simply needs to bow before the flaming tits of the one true Shatner and his most glorious and high girth and swollen, bloated, red faced countenance.
Humbling oneself before the UberShatner is the only true solace in life, as well as path to greater redemption and salvation from the land of driving in circles for 2 hours for beer.

203. Xai - March 5, 2007

#190, 191, 193, 195.

I think it’s love.

Seriously, just email each other and let us know who wins.

204. Michael Appleton - March 6, 2007

Flying Tigress+Josh T.
Sheesh, get a room, will ya? Or maybe a boxing ring would be more appropriate!

205. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 6, 2007

I don’t think the significant other Josh unit would appreciate such an action myself.

206. Michael Appleton - March 7, 2007

#205 “Josh unit”.
I love it! Haven’t thought of the phrase “Kirk Unit” in years! No wonder, hated ST:TMP, but still smile at that phrase!

207. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 7, 2007

No No Micheal it’s “Kulk Unit, Diss-close the In-full-mation!”

208. Michael Appleton - March 7, 2007

Hey, whoa…we’re not talking Schwarzenneger here. Persis may have been without talent, but we’re talking about someone who’s deceased. A little respect please. As McCoy would say, “she’s dead, Jim!”.

209. oy - March 8, 2007


Mr. Orci reportedly said the movie’s “intended” title is just “Star Trek”.

Reported by MTV:
> “… Kurtzman and Orci told MTV that their film is titled, quite simply,
> ‘Star Trek.’ That’s the intended title. I don’t think we want to put any
> colons or anything on it,” Orci said.

210. Hundai - February 18, 2008

“(And I’m sorry, but “Star Trek: The Adventure Begins” just sounds inanely juvenile and cloyingly fanboyish to me — and certainly doesn’t sound like the name of a real movie that real people would pay to go see.)”

How adultist… “real people”… *rolls eyes*
You make young people sound like they have no merit in this World, and use their word to mean something negative.

211. Johnny McD - September 24, 2008

What a bag of s*** this is going to be is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.