Roberto Orci Talks ‘Star Trek’ and Fandom with |
jump to navigation

Roberto Orci Talks ‘Star Trek’ and Fandom with June 16, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback had a chance to sit down with the co-writer of the new Star Trek film Robert Orci at a promotional event for his latest film Transformers. The event was mainly for Transformers, but I was able to ask some Trek questions. Regarding his and (writing partner) Alex Kurtzman being fans of the franchise Orci stated “obviously we have been fans of Trek forever." The writer said he couldn’t really talk about the plot for the new Trek film, except to joke “we trek through the stars…and it’s in the future.” (I guess that rules out another Star Trek IV style time travel plot). He did mention that the character of Kirk is in the film (which was already announced by Abrams last month). When asked if Kirk had a big part in the film he wryly smiled and said "maybe." Orci (who also shares an Executive producer credit) did offer a status report saying that they are currently in pre-production and casting with shooting planned for November (which is a month later than previously reported). He also confirmed that the working title for the film is just ‘Star Trek’ and that he is "pretty sure" the simple title will end up to be the final title, saying "how do you deny it?…they might pretend it is not the official title but what else is it going to be?” 

…on ‘The Island’ and action movies
Transformers is unashamedly an action movie. I have seen the film and it is a complete success at being a summer blockbuster popcorn movie thrill ride (will provide a full review here and at Geek closer to release). Orci and Kurtzman’s previous collaboration with Michael Bay was The Island, which came to mixed reviews. Many felt The Island was disjointed between a slower paced cerebral sci-fi Logans Run kind of first half with a fast paced mindless action movie second half. Apparently Orci agrees, saying "If that movie had cost $75 million it would have been OK. I personally still like that movie. The action seemed to be too big for that movie, it wanted to have less of that spectacle." Last summer’s M:I:III (also written by Orci and Kurtzman) was more successful in mixing character stories into an action film (it actually toned down the mindless action from previous MI films).

…on fandom
Being that it was a Transformers event most of the discussion was about that film, but some of his answers are telling about his process and views of fandom. When asked who he wrote the film for he stated "we wrote it for ourselves, for [director Michael] Bay, and [Executive Producer Steven] Spielberg trusting that if we hit all three it would be for the audience.” However he also acknowledged that during the process he felt it was important to reach out to the Tranformers fanbase for feedback. Apparently they made changes to the script based on comments from his regular chats with fans on Tranformers sites. I asked him what he learned from his experiences dealing with fans and he said "I learned that we are going to continue to engage the fans, that closing them out is a mistake…don’t be afraid of the fans, don’t be afraid to engage, don’t be afraid to defend your paradigm.” Orci also acknowledged that at times it can get quite heated on the net. He joked that his writing partner Alex Kurtzman has trouble with it, saying "it effects him and he can’t sleep..anytime someone says that we ‘raped their childhood’ it is hard to hear.”

No more ‘Star Trek XI’
Based on Orci’s confirmation of just ‘Star Trek’ we at will try to no longer refer to the new film as Star Trek XI or Trek XI. We have been told by a studio insider that director JJ Abrams actually does not like to hear the film referred to as ‘Star Trek 11′ and everyone on the lot just calls it ‘Star Trek’ so we might as well get in the habit too. (it makes sense, Star Trek stopped using roman numerals in 1991 with Star Trek VI) For now is going to go with ‘Star Trek (2008)’ or ‘Star Trek (2008 film)’ or ‘Star Trek (film)’ to differentiate it from TOS or any other Trek film or TV show. Technically Star Trek is still just the working title, but it appears that this one will stick. Personally I think it is a smart move to go with just simple ‘Star Trek’ as it signals a restart for the franchise. After Orci said the film was probably going to be just named ‘Star Trek’ I noted back to him that colons (in movie titles) are uncool now – to which he replied "exactly."

UPDATE: Memory Alpha (based on this article I assume) have changed their listing to ‘Star Trek (film)’. Wikipedia have been doing the same thing for a while. IMDB use ‘Star Trek (2008)’ 

NOTE: Orci’s writing partner Alex Kurtzman could not attend the Transformers event due to a new baby in his family. So congrats Alex for bringing a new Trekkie into the world!

VOTE: what do you think the title should be?
We know it won’t have a roman numeral but do you like the simple title or prefer one with something else (like they did with Batman Begins or Superman Returns) or a title with no ‘Star Trek’ in it like the Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight or recent Bond prequel Casino Royale. Poll in right column.

Transformers opens July 4 (although it will open a day earlier in some places) 

Image courtesy of 


1. Mark - June 16, 2007

Not much to comment on, but I guess I’m first!

2. Xai - June 16, 2007

“He also acknowledged that at times it can get quite heated with some fans and that. Orci joked that his writing partner Alex Kurtzman has trouble with it “it effects him and he can’t sleep..anytime someone says that we ‘raped their childhood’ it is hard to hear.”..

Ok, which of you has been leaning hard on the writers?

3. german fool - June 16, 2007

Call it “Star Trek Zero”!

4. Anthony Pascale - June 16, 2007

Xai, bear in mind he was talking about Transformers fans.

of course some trek fans will be far worse

5. Trekdude - June 16, 2007

no i like Star Trek 0.1 so you can have 0.2 and 0.3 and so on….. :)

6. trekmaster - June 16, 2007

Hmm…”trek through the stars”!? Maybe several trek “all/ old stars” will appear in this movie….and “maybe” they are still dealing with shatner…
For me it’s still “Trek XI”, because it’s the eleventh movie, whatever the final title might be…

7. german fool - June 16, 2007

Yeah, Zero-One, Zero-Two, Zero-Three… would be the Zero-Trilogy

and of course, zero is the only number where it makes sense to write it in letters

Star Trek – ZERO
the perfect name for a (hopefully) perfect movie

8. John Cocktoastin - June 16, 2007

The more I read about this, the more it sounds just awful. As if by somehow denying that this technically the 11th film and simply calling it ‘Star Trek’ is going to make it a success. Gee why didn’t they do that before? Although we know nothing about the story, I fail to see how they can recapture the magic with a reboot and new cast. This isn’t Bond, there’s no literary greatness to base this from from scratch.

9. Still Kirok - June 16, 2007

It’s Star Trek XI, no matter what they call it.

10. Admiral James T. Kirk - June 16, 2007

Come, come, Mr. Scott (and John Cocktoastin).Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!

11. Lou - June 16, 2007

The Character Kirk is in it… hmm… has it been OFFICIALLY announced that this is to be PRE-TOS? if not, post TOS, pre-TMP is a possibility as well.

12. Buckaroohawk - June 16, 2007

John Cocktoastin,

Have you read Ian Fleming’s Bond novels? I love them, but they’re hardly what I’d call “literary greatness.” In fact, I’ll wager that if it were not for the film series, Bond would have been forgotten as a literary character long ago.

If Paramount is in fact going to call the new film “Star Trek”, that will be fine with me. The new film isn’t “technically the 11th film” any more than “Batman Begins” was the fifth Batman film. It was, for lack of a better term, a NEW FIRST Batman film. This will be a NEW FIRST Star Trek film. In fact, I never really thought of the TNG films as an extension of the TOS film franchise. There are SIX films in the TOS series and FOUR in the TNG series. The new one will be the FIRST in the…oh, what to call it…Star Trek Movie (STM) series (?). If they’d like us to just refer to it as Star Trek, or Trek 2008, or “the new Trek movie,” then I’m cool with that.

Finally, saying “I fail to see how they can recapture the magic with a reboot and a new cast” sounds an awful lot like what people said about TNG before it premiered. It’s not about “recapturing the magic,” it’s about creating new magic within a familiar realm.

I’ve maintained from the get-go that there is a very good chance that this can be done successfully, and nothing that has been said or confirmed so far has changed my mind. Unless or until I see some awful casting choices, terrible plot points, or crappy FX shots, I’m giving everyone involved with this project the benefit of the doubt.

13. ety3 - June 16, 2007

Actually, “The Island” was a near total ripoff of the lame 70s film “parts: the clonus horror.” It was done as an episode of MST3K in the show’s eighth season.

See here:

14. Kyle Nin - June 16, 2007

“Mission: Impossible III” has a colon in the title.

15. Demode - June 16, 2007

They can call it whatever they want, so long as Shatner is in the film :)

16. yo - June 16, 2007

>> colons (in movie titles) are uncool now

14: > “Mission: Impossible III” has a colon in the title

That colon is from the original show’s title.
It’d be uncool to take it out.

The abbreviation “M:i:III” (two colons) was questionable.

Aren’t Roman numerals uncool yet?

17. Kyle Nin - June 16, 2007


I was just making a joke.

18. Adam Castle - June 16, 2007

Watch them use the original Star Trek logo for the new remake and simply give it a dirty tarnished metal look like they did for Transformers and Battlestar Galactica. Just watch. Because tarnished metal somehow conveys that something is new. :D

19. Thomas Jensen - June 16, 2007

Very well said Buckaroohawk….. I love the original 79 episodes and six movies. But, for me, it’s all about the original actors playing their parts. As a young boy, I admired the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And I was convinced to attend to the drama because of their performances. As an older person, I see the morality tales in the episodes. I appreciate the way the drama unfolds in the play of the week.

So many things to admire about that series…. The guys who made that show, made it all come together more so they could even recognize at the time.

But, because of time, the original actors aren’t available as a set, anymore. So, I’ll be glad to see a new version of Star Trek where they aren’t necessarily literal with everything which has come before.

I hope the new version holds to some of the main ideals of the show. I hope they’ll strike a balance between changing it so much it won’t be fundamentally Star Trek, or by keeping every historical theatrical aspect of the original show.

I see the stories with the original cast as a ‘body of work’ exclusive unto it’s self.

It’s quite possible someone wants to do it another way. That certainly doesn’t invalidate the original Star Trek if the concept is given a fresh start. They can recognize what was done before or start again and do it in a new way.

I’m looking forward to being in the theater for a new Star Trek movie (it would be the first time in quite a while…).

I wish them complete success with cool new actors.

20. Trekkie84 - June 16, 2007

While I’ll still see this movie, It sounds worst and worst to me, especialy as they are simply calling it “Star Trek” and saying things like “It’s not Star Trek XI!” *sighs*….

21. RandyYeoman - June 16, 2007

why are you made because he doesnt want his movie called star trek XI….after the crapfest that was star trek 10 (nemesis) who would want to come after that? anyway they havent numbered them in years.

they call it ‘star trek’ so I guess we all should just get used to it.

22. James Heaney - June 16, 2007

#16: Not to go completely off-topic, but Wikipedia seems to think that that M:i:III is indeed the proper abbreviation. Anthony’s grammar is rarely perfect (no offense), but I think he’s got the bases covered here.

23. Josh T. ( The essence of spockulescence ) Kirk Esquire' - June 16, 2007

They haven’t used roman numerals for Star Trek titles since Trek VI, so that’s nothing new.

Rick Berman was a minimalist. Rather than operatic, powerful verb and proper noun titles such as “THE Wrath of KHAN,” or ” The SEARCH for SPOCK”, we got Generations ( I won’t go there, some know the story), Insurrection, Nemesis. How minimalist can you be?

It’s entirely plausible these films may have made more of a splash had they used engaging, powerful titles that summed up the essence of the plot in an operatic and theatrical way. Star Trek was always bigger than life, not a Discovery Channel documentary. Give the films Star Wars like titles the way they used to be.

Star Trek VII – The El-Aurian Strikes Back, or Return of the Aye-aye, or The Phantom Nexus


But seriously, more bombastic titles engage an audience,

Star Trek VII – Christmas with the Picards

STar Trek VIII – Assimilate this

Star Trek IX – When Botox goes wrong

Star Trek X – A clone by any other name

24. Redshirt - June 16, 2007

Orci stated “obviously we have been fans of Trek forever.”
So was John Logan (Nemesis)and screenwriter David Loughery (Star Trek V)
Yes I feel I so comforted now….

25. Jeff - June 17, 2007

James Heaney – You trust Wikipedia for anything? Hahahahaha!

I think I’ll pop over there right now and “update” the entry for TOS to indicate that it starred Ernest Borgnine (where do you think they got the idea for the Borg?) and ran longer than Bonanza.

26. ENGLISH TREKKER - June 17, 2007

Just so long as the new film isn’t called Star Trek Rebooted, and if I hear the words ‘re-imagined’ then I’ll be worried. I hope that the new film has a proper SF content like the Motion Picture did and that it is not just an FX / Action flick like First Contact and Nemesis, for all its flaws at least Insurrection had a SF concept at its heart.

27. TrekLog » Blog Archive » Trek XI - Autor gibt weitere Hinweise - June 17, 2007

[…] 1.) der Arbeitstitel des Filmes lautet Star Trek und wird wahrscheinlich auch der finale Titel sein. Die Bezeichnung Trek XI gilt im Produktionsstab als unerwünscht (bekannt, wenngleich dieses ‘unerwünscht’ neu ist. nennt den Film daher nur noch ‘Star Trek’ [2008 film], ich werde bei Trek XI und dergleichen bleiben) […]

28. pat - June 17, 2007

Good lord, people. The last numbered movie was VI. And that wassixteen years ago!!

Call it whatever you want, but I don’t see why we should be worried about this being XI when VII, VIII, IX and X didn’t have numbers.

Give Orci a break.

29. Kev - June 17, 2007

What does it mean Kirk will be in the movie? Isn’t that a given?

30. trekmaster - June 17, 2007

I can’t get behind that… ;-)

31. Great_Pretender - June 17, 2007

I wish they’d just make a new series. But one that is more akin to TNG, DS9 and VOY in terms of the way it’s made, and how the characters interact. ENT is way too modern, and Americanized.

I can see it now : Huge colony ship destined for another galaxy through transwarp, with a joint Federation/Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian escort.

And then, like, something goes wrong, or something.

32. William - June 17, 2007

An argument can be made that movies STMP – VI were reboots or reimaginings of the orginal series. The sets, the uniforms, the consoles, the Captain’s chair, even the ship were significantly altered from the original series. Yes, the cast and characters were the same but pretty much the look of everything else had changed. Obviously this was done because what looked futurisic in 1966 didn’t look so futuristic in 1979. Regardless of why it was done though, it was still a drastic change. What looked futuristic in 1991 (STVI) doesn’t necessarily look futuristic now. As long as they are faithful to the general story of Star Trek and can put together a decent plot in a well made move, I am really looking forward to the new picture.

33. trekmaster - June 17, 2007

I always thought that star trek could be much bigger than it was presented to us in the last movies or series. Just read the novels behind the movies and compare this written stuff to the filmed versions. So there’s a big discrepance between the written and the finally filmed stuff. I could really be satisfied if the new star trek would go much more into the direction of the novels. And wasn’t it Abrams in one of the first interviews who praised the literature around star trek!? I guess he was, and it’s that epical dimension that I expect for the eleventh or for the following movies.

34. Stanky "Red Bridge Railing" McFibberich - June 17, 2007

re: 18. Adam Castle

Star Trek is not about tarnished metal.

35. Christian - June 17, 2007

Colons are uncool. Words are uncool, too. We shouldn’t name it after all… ;)

I call it Star Trek XI like Star Trek X, IX, VIII, VII…;)

Besides: I don’t care what the studio says and “it will be the greatest Star Trek of all times”. They said those things often before… I judge the movie AFTER it’s start and not before. And they shouldn’t do it, either!

36. Ozy - June 17, 2007

Just ”Star trek” is stupid title.
It’s sounds every time more and more like hard core reboot. ( like movie with no connection to other star trek shows and movies ).

37. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 17, 2007

Stankamania….. Yes no dingy Galactica crap. Works in their world not in ours. Red God Damned railings on the bridge!!!!!

38. Will - June 17, 2007

Did he say anything about the Strieber adaption he’s co-producing, 2012?

Synopsis is “Strieber’s story centers on an academic researcher who discovers that multiple versions of Earth co-exist in different dimensions, but all are threatened by an apocalypse to occur in 2012 prophesied by the ancient Mayans. By opening a portal into a parallel universe, he makes contact with his double to stop the prophecy from being fulfilled.”

39. trekmaster - June 17, 2007

That remembers me on an early script of ST:TMP about Mayans and dinosaurs… But who is coproducing it? Orci or Abrams?

40. Anthony Pascale - June 17, 2007

guys…i have added a poll on the title

RE: 2012
nope….hard enough to get him to talk about 2008!
Trekmaster…he is referring to this
it is another project with Michael Bay for after Trek08

41. Stanky "Please Announce Stuff to End Speculation" McFibberich - June 17, 2007

I wish:

They would announce the official title.
They would announce who is in it and what roles they are playing.
They would announce details about the design of the ship inside and out.

42. The Realist - June 17, 2007

2. Xai – June 16, 2007 – I have no doubts fans will lean hard on the writers. I must say and I may get alot of abuse because of this, but I would hate to be writing a Trek movie, no matter how hard you work or how hard you try and how great the movie would be and how much money it would make, there would still be some fans that would just be down right nasty or derogetory, I have no doubt that there would be massive support, but there would be a few, who instead of saying “the movie was weak because….” would say something like “the arrogant a#@ lick, f#$%%#d MY Star Trek” the fans want Star Trek to survive, and so do I, I want a new Generation of fans to come in and put their spin/interpretation of Trek on the TV and Movie screen, so we need to get behind the Production Team of Star Trek, and any new series that comes out, and be constructive in our critisism and Vocal with our praise/

43. Xai - June 17, 2007

#41 Stanky
… and when they did you’s sum it up in an “I don’t care, it’s all fake anyway” type of statement.

As for naming it…. DOES IT MATTER? It could be called Star Trek: The Bombing of Lexington… But would it matter as along as it’s good?

IMO…Really tired of people critiquing a movie that has not had one frame of film shot or a cast. Some you would write it, cast it, act it, direct it, edit and distribute it… and then still bitch about it.
Some posts here are truly “I wonder if or a genuine opinion. Others?….. you get the drift.

My apologies for the negativism… I felt it needed to be said.

44. Xai - June 17, 2007

#42 Realist.
I agree fully.
My post that you refered to was slightly tongue-in-cheek. I have seen the “raped childhood” phrase used in here before regarding TOS remastered and agree with you about us ALL being “constructive in our critisism and Vocal with our praise”… to quote you.

45. Stanky "Just Get it Over With" McFibberich - June 17, 2007

re: 43. Xai
Thank you for understanding. :)

I will, however, analyze each element separately for its degree of fakeness.

46. last o' the timelords - June 17, 2007

“The Island”!! They wrote that, too? Can’t these guys write an original script sometime instead making a career picking the bones of other people’s ideas?

BTW I hope it gets a real title based on the story it tells.

47. trektacular - June 17, 2007

I will miss hearing it called Trek IX

48. Robert Simmons A.K.A Vice Rear Admiral Nerd ( TOS Trek Purist / SFB Gaming Dude ) - June 17, 2007

My recommended Title….Star Trek Dawn.

Emphasises….a beginning

49. Xai (Just the facts, ma'am) - June 17, 2007

Dam, what’s up with this “duplicate comment thing”?

50. Xai - June 17, 2007

Anthony, why can’t I post

51. trektacular - June 17, 2007

Its gonna be hard for this movie not to seem derivative since theres been 10 movies and like 6000 episodes made

52. Tassieboy - June 17, 2007

The potential issue with calling it ‘Star Trek’ that I see is that it makes naming a potential sequel quite difficult. They couldn’t call it Star Trek 2, as that would become too confusing with The Wrath of Khan.

53. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2007

I can just see the day they hand Shatner his payment for appearing in the new movie. He’ll stare at the cheque, look up and grin, and say, “I haven’t seen this many zeroes since I appeared at my last Star Trek convention!!”

54. Admiraldeem - June 17, 2007

Star Wars was just Star Wars when it came out. It wasn’t (and still isn’t) known as A New Hope–that came with the first video release. Technically, all other films were Star Wars: Whatever but no one calls them that.

Star Trek works just fine with me as an opening title. Sequels will have to be more imaginative (and certainly less boneheaded than the list of titles which appeared earlier in this thread).

55. The Realist - June 17, 2007

Star Trek is just fine with me, I can see where naming future movies may be hard, but remember numbers have not been used since TUC.

But on the sequal front, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, let’s just see how this movie fairs, there may not be another movie for a while, CBS may decide to launch a new series, maybe a prequal maybe something set after the Dominion war, who knows what might happen, a couple of years ago it seemed that trek was literaly dead, now filming is beginning on a new movie! And if there is a sequal and Abrams is not involved I hope they ask Manny Cotto to come on board! That is all I want from a possible sequal, but for now, lets give Abrams and his team all the support we can.

56. snake - June 18, 2007

just “Star Trek” is fine….cause

a) its a film based on the original ‘star trek’ series…like Mission: Impossible was

b) its never been used on its own b4 for a movie.

I imagine a sequel would be called star trek -…. then something else (like the TNG films)..i doubt they use numbers as that would confuse with TOS films.

57. Big E - June 18, 2007

Regarding names for a sequels; maybe they should go the “dark knight” and “man of steel” route and name it something other then “star trek”

58. snake - June 18, 2007

what like “Starfleet Command” or ‘Federation” ?

doubt it…

itd be like taking star wars off the title for a SW movie

59. snake - June 18, 2007

wonder just whos gonna be cast eh?

What about Jim Cavizal as Pike? (think about it) but i get the feeling it’ll be unknowns as Kirk etc…i just can not see Damon doing star trek…unless he’s like the biggest fan ever.

Hope Rands gonna be in it…i wanna see some nice hot blond in a mini skirt please…

60. Cervantes - June 18, 2007

I for one like well-designed, cinematic Movie titles (i.e. Star Wars, Alien, Terminator) which can really set the mood for what’s to come, rather than some basic font with no thought put in.

As I wasn’t keen on the change of font design for TMP and it’s sequels, if I had my way I’d keep the original TOS logo this time, perhaps slowly coming towards us and engulfing our view.

I just like a lot of that ol’ time TOS imagery I guess… ;)

61. nleditor - June 18, 2007

Couple of things:

1) If I was gonna cast Pike, I’d cast Ray Liotta. He’s got that steely blue-eyed Pike look about him (watch “Field Of Dreams” for example) – plus, I get the sense if Pike was gonna be in this movie, he wouldn’t be in it for long, just long enough to pass the torch.

2) As far as the title, I’m OK with “Star Trek.” And yes, I’d do the old typeface for the titles, too – in fact, the fanboy in me says “duplicate the entire opening sequence of the series,” but that might be a little much because even casual fans are aware of how TOS begins. Might seem too much like just another TV episode. But there should be something similar.

3) DON”T MESS WITH THE ENTERPRISE! I don’t care if they cast Rebecca Romaijn as Capt. Kirk, the Enterprise should remain as is. That ship is the true star of the show, in my book.

62. snake - June 18, 2007

check this out:

its not too much of a difference?

yeah keep the series font – like Starsky and Hutch did..(actually maybe it’ll be similar too that film – dont mean a comedy – but the way it was a proper prequel/origin as we never saw S&H hook up in the series)

Actually Abrams might adhere to TOS style (pre titles sequence…tv intro..non main theme music cues from the series) as he did for MI 3….

63. snake - June 18, 2007

Regarding The Shat appearing in the new film..

What about if he just has a voice over cameo? say just at the end he does the ‘space the final frontier’ speech…

that would avoid the problems associated with him appearing when hes supposed to be dead (unless they do that X3 thing with the de ageing CGI)

64. Stanky McFibberich - June 18, 2007

re: 62. snake – June 18, 2007
“check this out:
its not too much of a difference? ”

but fully expected…probably won’t even be this close…

65. snake - June 18, 2007


gosh some folk are hard to please..

66. Stanky McFibberich - June 18, 2007

re: 65
not saying it is horribly done…just a horrible idea…
the changes made to the Enterprise are very noticeable and unnecessary…

67. COMPASSIONATE GOD - June 18, 2007

Eh. I just have the sneaking suspicion this may turn out to be another reimagined nightmare—like the steaming pile of Tim Burton freak nonsense called “Planet of the Apes.”

I just hope the new film actally captures the spirit of TOS…and stay as far away from ANYTHING suggesting TNG series/movies/DS9.VOY and ENT.

68. trekmaster - June 18, 2007

That’s the Gabriel Koener Enterprise, it’s his personal design project and nothing official. His version is a mixture between 1701 and 1701-A. It’s not a bad version or at least no that bad you might think it is. The first refit was an idea of Roddenberry and Co., don’t forget this…

69. Lord Edzo - June 18, 2007

Simply going with “Star Trek” is the *wrong* idea. “Star Trek” now represents “The Franchise” as a Whole. We even clarify “TOS” or “TAS” when referring to the first two television series.

I’m not down with the Roman numeral thing, particularly since the four TNG movies abandoned it, so that’s OK.

But I feel you *must* clarify the movie titles, colon or not, with a subtitle. If they go with simply “Star Trek,” then people will always have to ask, “What do you mean? TOS or that 2008 movie?”

And what happens if the movie is a hit? What’s the next one going to be titled? Won’t it need a colon and a subtitle to distinguish it from TOS and the 2008 movie? Surely, Paramount has learned its lesson from the “Enterprise” TV series that it’s better to have “Star Trek” as the main title.

So subtitle the 11th movie! Think about the future! Lord Edzo has spoken! ;)

70. EnvoyPV - June 18, 2007

Star Trek : Engage I guess that only works for a TNG related story, though.

Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Star Trek: Warp Core Initialized

71. thx-1138 - June 18, 2007

Personally, I really do like Star Trek: The Bombing of Lexington.

People, we must do whatever it takes to ensure that this becomes the title for the new Star Trek XI reboot.

72. The Realist - June 18, 2007

65. snake – June 18, 2007 – I like the design of that re-imagined Enterprise, it retains enough of the original design, while cleary making it look leaner and a bit meaner, it also show the transition from Enterprise NX – 01 to 1701, and even though some don’t want to admit it, there is a good chance that Abrams may take ENT into account with his designs for this movie.

Keep in mind that Rodenberry himself admitted that TOS no longer looked futuristic when creating TNG and the movies, thats why 1701 got a big make over in TMP, he new that the original ship would not pass the test, I love the design of the 1701 and the big buttons etc (though) I have never been keen on the colour scheme.

I can live with Star Trek as just been the title, it does iritate me a bit I will admitt, but this is not my movie or script so it is up to the people putting in the HARD yards in writing and producing the movie, they have earnt the right to name, if I ever write a Star Trek Movie I will earn the right to name it.

73. Tim Thomason - June 18, 2007

“Star Trek Begins” and “Star Trek Returns” if they want to plagiarize the two superhero movies (Begins might be good for a prequel, Returns wouldn’t).

They might go for a non-Star Trek title (although that didn’t work for the Enterprise series), such as:
* “Wagon Train to the Stars” (heh)
* “Starfleet”
* “Starfleet Academy” (hopefully not that)
* “Kirk” or “James Kirk” or “Jim Kirk” or “James T. Kirk” or “Captain Kirk”
* “Trek” (totally minimalist)
* “Starship” (the title of one of Roddenberry’s ’70s TV pilots)
* “To Boldly Go” (like EnvoyPV partially suggested above)
* “The Final Frontier” (no way, José [Tyler], not if they really are fans)

Of course, it also depends on the plot, which nobody knows (except for a few hundred people in and related to Hollywood) and I’m sure whatever it may be, it will be snappy.

“Star Trek” itself is snappy, but I’m not a huge fan.

(BTW, are you going to change the /star-trek-xi/ links and all the other STXI mentions on the site?)

74. Robert Simmons A.K.A Vice Rear Admiral Nerd (TOS Purist / SFB Gaming Dude ) - June 18, 2007

They changee……I no watchee!!! ( wagging finger..)

Hands off changing the appearance from TOS and canon.

Anyone saying they prefer a blank slate starting over, is blatantly saying that they cannot work creatively in a confined space. I thought that was what TOS Trek was all about.

Challenge us…and yourself!!! Keep it interesting.

75. Xai - June 18, 2007

Threats never work when you have nothing to threaten them with.

Open minds will be entertained, closed minds…. well they just blew their ticket money.

76. The Realist - June 18, 2007

75. Xai – June 18, 2007 – I agree on the vein of thought you have indicated, some one once said to me “An open mind is like a flower, beautiful in it’s ways, and powerful with it’s knowledge it will grow beyond any order, while a closed mind, is bitter in it’s outlook, hard as steel in it’s thought and as blak as coal at it’s heart.” It is a given that everyone has their own opinion and this should be respected, like everything in life one should approach differences, new things and new ideas with an open mind, nothing has ever come of closing your mind to a new view of things, does this not sound like the ideals that Rodenberry based this show on?

Some people seem to have already pronounced this film a failure, just on the small bits of information we have, this is not a “logical” approach, they may slightly alter the look of the Enterprise both inside and out to make it look more futuristic, Rodenberry did this himself with ST:TMP and TNG, he even contradicted ‘Cannon’ himself in both instances. We need to keep in mind the movie has yet to start filming and some people seem to be already boycotting it. Keep you minds open, and you may be surprised, look beyond what you already know and you will be astonished!

77. Stanky McFibberich - June 18, 2007

Funny how the “open minded” have closed their minds to the “closed minded” point of view. That just might be a violation of the Prime Directive. :)

78. The Realist - June 18, 2007

77. Stanky McFibberich – June 18, 2007 – The mind is always open to the closed minded “everyone has their own opinion and this should be respected” to quote myself, wow that sounds realy up myself!!! :-)

Violation of the Prime Directive hmmm, maybe! Have I interfered with your mind?

79. Cygnus-X1 - June 19, 2007

What struck me most in this article was Robert Orci’s regretful tone regarding the excessive “mindless action” in Transformers and M:I:III, as though the blocking, setting-up, and filming of those costly, time-consuming action sequences happens more or less by inertia.

“Oh, man, I’m sooo burned out…I don’t care any more…just arrange for a bunch of cars to chase our star through the streets at high speeds, and rig everything to be shot upon, blown up and incinerated…I can’t be bothered to think up some compelling drama, philosophical premise or psychologically thrilling plot twist…just blow everything up, and let’s call it a day, shall we?”

How many times do we have to tell these people that a good idea is as thrilling as hundred special FX, a thousand action scenes and will pack the punch of a hundred million $ in the budget, if not more? Case in point: our far-and-away favorite, TWOK, which had a budget of $11. It wasn’t the special effects and action that we loved most about TWOK; it was the story, theme, drama, acting and dialogue. And, there was just enough action and special FX in there to draw us in, and keep us in anticipation.

Christ Almighty, I feel like someone who’s complaining to his shrink that all I ever really wanted from my Dad was for him to spend more time with me, but what I usually got, in lieu of quality time, was expensive presents.

At any rate…please, Orci & Kurtzman….please, at least, strive for a good story, with FX and action in supporting roles, or, even, as the icing on the cake. Telling a story is, after all, the main purpose of your film.

As for the title, I’m not crazy about “Star Trek.” It might be alright, but, what it conveys to me is a lack of imagination, or, that they’re trying to somewhat divorce this film from the previous 10, as though they’re starting from scratch…kinda.

“Star Trek: Sophisticated, Career-Oriented Divorcées in Space”

“Star Trek: Abortion Averted”

80. The Realist - June 19, 2007

79. Cygnus-X1 – June 19, 2007 – Well said on the budget! Trek ironicaly was most succesful when it was on a small budget, 11mil would gross 80 or 90 mill, the TNG movies grossed over 100mil on about 20 – 30mill, but then Nemisis got 60-70 and barely broke even.

Big budgets do not instantly mean big profit, nor does small budget equal crappy film. This movie will be a success probably mainly because of who is creating it and the hype already built up, I am also confident that it will be a good film, that is true to what has been done before, while been different enough to bring new blood to the franchise.

81. Xai - June 19, 2007

#77 Stanky..

Funny that I just complimented you in a different thread.
My only complaint with the closed-minded point of view you are speaking of is that it is repeated … often. I say that in friendly and respectful terms, dear friend.


82. Stanky McFibberich - June 19, 2007

re: 81

Well, I have tried hard of late to avoid directly restating my position regarding the idea of having characters from the series being portrayed by new actors. I’m sure it’s hard not to read that into anything I write, but you should realize the vast number of times I have been able to “bite my tongue.” :)

I suppose somewhere deep down inside, I have some kind of hope that this will turn out to be something I will like, but I have absolutely no confidence in that happening. Time will tell.

83. Xai - June 19, 2007

#82 Stanky

Then I admire your… restraint. I still think you need to add a short, concise comment to your handle.
But that’s your baby.

84. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2007

How about Stanky needs a spanky? Or Stanky can be cranky? Or Stanky’s blunt, but not skanky? Or Skanky’s into hanky-panky? The list goes on…..

85. Stanky McFibberich - June 20, 2007

84. Harry
Having fun with the rhymability of my name? Shame.

86. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2007

#85 You’re right Stanky! With a monicker like Harry Ballz who am I to talk??

87. Dennis - June 23, 2007

Star Trek Starts? Yuk. Star Trek: The Rise of Kirk. (or, in Bermanesque “Kirkrise”)

Star Trek.

One the one hand, it says to me that it is Star Trek, the old way. It says to me, this is a beginning story, and origin for something familiar. So I like it for that.

On the other hand, we have a LOT of Star Trek out there. Yes, I agree, very confusing, and what then of the next movie?

Here are some other thoughts… When I watched it as a child, the computers were incredible. As I watch it today, the computers are relics. Enterprise did try to remain balanced, but the technology already outstrips even that series in many ways.

New actors playing known characters? I grew up with Doctor Who. Not so much a problem. Is the story good? Do I laugh? Do I cry? Do I get so involved with the characters I don’t care about the FX?

In a universe as detailed and full as the Star Trek Universe, there are still countless stories to tell. I have enjoyed the stories told so far. I look forward to the next. I hope for more after that.

For those who say we had “too much Trek” when there were two series and the movies I can only ask, did you watch them? I did. I would have watched more. How many CSI’s and Law and Order’s are there? (Too many for me, since I don’t like the genre).

I would still love to see Captain Sulu adventures. The little taste we got on Voyager thrilled me, but I want more. How about some interesting twists? The Return of Christopher Pike is one I always wanted to see. I would also love to see Captain Ryker in action. Or how about a series based in the far future, where the Time War rages and everything can change in an instant. When do the giant multi-limbed beings from Andromeda arrive? What would happen if Spock became the new Romulan Emperor? Did Chekov ever become a starship captain?

Ok, I digress… no point intended. I love SF in general. Star Trek has been fun. I tolerate the complaints, but I really do not understand most of them. Are you worried there will never be another Trek movie if this one fails? Look around you. Too much history, too many fans, too much potential. If this one fails, there will be another. And another. People who love it will keep trying, won’t we?

88. Akira - June 24, 2007

Each movie came with cast everyone was already familiar with and for the most part excepted. I think it will be tough to pull this off with a brand new crew, captain and ship. Tough, but not impossible. I wish the directors a lot of luck. They’ll need it. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.