Kurtzman Sees Parallels Between New ‘Star Trek’ and Wrath of Khan | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Kurtzman Sees Parallels Between New ‘Star Trek’ and Wrath of Khan June 29, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,STXI Plot , trackback

Adam Wills of the Jewish Journal recently interviewed Star Trek 2008 writer Alex Kurtzman and has put up part an interesting Star Trek tidbit from that interview on their GeekHeeb Blog. Kurtzman says that for their new Star Trek  they drew inspiration and hoped to replicate the experience the classic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

For the “Trek” script a lot of it was what “Trek” meant to us as kids. We’ve been enormous fans of “Trek” since we were little kids. And what it felt like to be in the theater and watch “Wrath of Khan” for the first time was what we wanted people to experience … [want to recapture] that kind of an emotional ride. An incredibly great bad guy against an incredibly high-stakes story that’s just emotional. “Trek” for us is about family and friendship.

A bad guy and maybe Carol Marcus?
This is the first time we have had any reference to the film’s villain. Kurtzman seems to confirm that it will be a ‘bad guy’ like Khan so it looks like it won’t be an ‘entity’ like we have had in some other Trek films. That is probably a good thing since it is a lot easier to have good character drama with a person instead of a ‘probe’ of some sort. Kurtzman wouldn’t specifically answer a question on if the film was a ‘reboot’ or not, but when asked if the Trek II parallels may mean that Carol Marcus might show up he didn’t deny it and just said "you’ll have to see." 

Adam was kind enough to send over the audio, so take a listen and see if you think he is hinting that Marcus may show up:

Full Transcript at GeekHeeb.


More from the writers:

Of course there are even more interviews with the Trek writers out there today. Nothing major but here a couple of highlights



Super Hero Hype


NOTE: when I talked to Orci and Kurtzman last week they said that they use the Okuda Trek books and Memory Alpha regularly for their research.

My thoughts
I like the notion of trying to recapture the spirit and adventure and experience of Star Trek II. I think the team really want Trek to do for kids today what it did for them (and many of us) when we were kids. I think the inclusion of Carol Marcus is interesting. She was a very strong female character and we know that these writers (of Alias and MI3) like strong female characters. Even if Marcus is not in the film I do expect there to be some love connection. Regarding the villain I think this again is a smart move. General audiences will probably like a bad guy and not a nebulous entity. From what I know about these guys I think the comments about a ‘ high-stakes story’ are quite possibly to to do with personal high stakes for the characters and not just a ‘save the world’ kind of thing. Getting back to Star Trek II I do not read the above to imagine they are ‘copying’ STII (like Nemesis did in a way), but trying to recreate experience, the event of STII and what it did for the franchise…and that is a good thing.    



1. doubleofive - June 29, 2007

Holy crap, Memory-Alpha is being used as canon. That’s pretty darn impressive.

Like I said earlier, every news article gets me more pumped!

2. brady - June 29, 2007


3. brady - June 29, 2007


4. Capt. Medeiros - June 29, 2007

First! Does anyone else think Nimoy may play Sarek?

5. Capt. Medeiros - June 29, 2007


6. Anthony Pascale - June 29, 2007

OK this first crap is really getting out of hand. have something to say please

7. CmdrR. - June 29, 2007

It’s great news that there’s a villain. I am actively trying not to read too much into “incredibly high-stakes story.” Please, no Galaxy in peril stories. Let’s focus on characters in peril. “family and freindship” is an encouraging phrase. As for Carol Marcus, Bebe was a MILF. Young Bebe-esque would be babe-a-licious. And maybe mini and go-go boots??? Can’t wait.

brady — if you just hadn’t wasted time on that last T, you really would have been first. so sad.

8. OneBuckFilms - June 29, 2007


Excellent, we’ll have good drama at the core. I LIKE that !!!

9. Capt. Medeiros - June 29, 2007

Anthony, I apologize if this is off-subject, do you know if there is any more news about Paramount looking to do straight to video stuff?

10. CmdrR. - June 29, 2007

I hear Anthony’s posting a 50,000 quatloo prize for the FIRST poster on the next thread.
Anthony, you could create a sub-thread and dump all the “Firsters” and politicos into it. Not deleted, just sorted. Just a thought. Although the threads in here are much livelier than GeekMonthly.com (which I like, BTW, it just needs to get more rabid fans like this site.)

11. Tim Handrahan - June 29, 2007

This could mean an appearance by Gary Mitchell. After all, it was he who set up Kirk with the “little blonde lab tech” that Kirk almost married.


12. Capt. Medeiros - June 29, 2007

Great point Tim.

13. Gavin Harris - June 29, 2007

Leonard Nimoy as Future Guy perhaps? Im Gavin Harris.

14. Craig - June 29, 2007

Cool. You do search other sites for Trek XI articles. I can just come to this one site for all my Trek XI and hopefully new series info. One thing I’m not sure about. Wasn’t Nemesis an attempt to be like Trek II and that failed. I hope that is nothing to worry about with Trek XI?

15. THX-1138 - June 29, 2007

This has to be taken as good news. I like everything I hear so far from these guys. Let the nay-sayers say their nay, but I think we could be in for something really special when all is said and done.

I’m Fred Garvin, male prostitute.

16. Kev - June 29, 2007

I wonder if they mean they all watched everything Trek. I can’t believe I did and that took years. They’d go blind halfway through Voyager if they did it all at once. I’m neutral on a black hat heavy but it’s way too early to judge this thing.
Might work and with Star Trek any outcome from a new movie series to a TV show of TOS is possible.

17. Ryan - June 29, 2007


18. Cranston - June 29, 2007

This is the first news about the new production that disappoints me a little bit. Main reason: the need for a “bad guy,” even if he is “incredibly great.” Yes, Khan was a great villain. But the over-emphasis on “villains” in the TOS movies gets pretty tiresome, namely because “villains” were never the big focus on TOS as a series. Yes, you had some great ones, but a lot of the best stories didn’t have them. Can’t we do a great adventure story about exploration without having some guy to cross swords with and kill at the end? Unnecessary and, after a while, boring. ESPECIALLY if they insist on using TWOK as a template. TWOK was good, but please, there’s more to Trek than that.

I’m still looking forward to hearing more, but this news makes me a little bit sad.

19. Joe - June 29, 2007

If they capture the feeling of Wrath of Khan…..thats fine….but if they copy the plot thats a whole different story.

They tried that with Star Trek Nemesis and it sucked. Seriously, bad guy had a past with the captain, bad guy wants to blow up planets, massive space battle in a nebula…….

20. Craig P - June 29, 2007

I hope by describing TWOK as a template they are refering to Nicholas Meyer’s emphasis on Trek as plain having fun, exploring the human condition, action/adventure “Wagon Train to the Stars” / “Horatio Hornblower in space” with some big themes in the background (i.e. Genesis, revenge, etc) thrown into the background as opposed to the Nemesis “let’s try to duplicate the plot” effort and in vast contrast to the TNG/Berman Trek exploration of utopianism.

Ironically Nemesis I felt didn’t work because it was totally out of step with TNG – I think Kirk and company would have been more comfortable in a Romulan civil war story.

21. Craig P - June 29, 2007

Carol Marcus was a babe IMHO – smart, sexy and stubborn, totally bring her back. Hell, get Bibi’s daughter to play her, she’s a hottie in her own right (she was in Broken Arrow, right?).

22. Anthony Pascale - June 29, 2007

Samantha Mathis is a babe, but she is 37…too old to play a ‘young Carol Marcus’

23. Gummy - June 29, 2007

There is no way that I won’t be in line to see this movie on its Opening Day.
Every little interview gets me more excited by the second.

24. THX-1138 - June 29, 2007

Jessica Simpson as Carol Marcus!!

You do know I am joking.

Jessica Simpson as Janice Rand!!

Whatever, just get Jessica Simpson in a mini skirt. And don’t let her talk. Just have her test a sonic shower.
Signing off from fantasy land.

25. Crusade2267 - June 29, 2007

I remember reading a comic book back in the 90’s about Kirk, Carol Marcus, and Gary Mitchell at the academy. In it, they showed the famous “reprogramming of the Kobayashi Maru.” Maybe the test will show up somewhere? Just wild speculation.

There is the sense in TWOK that Dr. Marcus has met Spock before she beams up to the Enterprise. Maybe this’ll be the backstory to the Carol, Kirk, and David plot?

26. Lao3D - June 29, 2007

I agree with Cranston, having too much emphasis on a “bad guy” is not what worked best for Trek. Obviously a story needs an antagonist, but hopefully not the “arch-villian” variety. Khan worked well, especially for Trek fans, because of his inherent history and a degree of pathos.

I certainly don’t want to see it swing into the “mysterious unknown force” camp either, just give me a conflict that has as much human drama as shoot-em-up and we’ll be in bidness.

27. Craig P - June 29, 2007

Yeah, that DC comic book was great however completely set at the Academy. That being said I’m hoping we can get Axanar, Kirk,Carol and Mitchell on a deep space mission so we get some exploration thrown into it.

Hell, steal the FASA Axanar plot; perhaps the Klingons are working with some traitors/nationalists within to destabilize the world, steal some new advanced technology and the Federation itself and some Academy mission or young grads get caught in the middle.

28. Duane Boda - June 29, 2007

Its good to know that the producers are and will be well versed in all aspects of what was Star Trek. I can’t recall…(not that it matters much) but what recent producer (the last one?) had no clue to what Star Trek was about?
The next film can’t help but be heads and tails above (much better) then perhaps all others – maybe even the Wrath Of Khan. Lets all hope that they combine the best of the 2nd film with the better qualities of the 7th film – First Contact. I hope no matter what they decide to allocate in $$ for this film that they put equal time into the story. Just as a side-note….I wonder how much time they put into Star Wars from start to finish? Does anyone know?
Wasn’t it about 2 1/2 to to 2 years or something like that? Have a nice weekend.

29. Mark 2000 - June 29, 2007

Does every movie have to try to recapture TWOK? Does a trek movie even need a super villain? I’d love to see something that broke all these molds. Something really new. I just hope they aren’t saving the Earth *again*.

30. Joe - June 29, 2007

I agree,
I just hope the movie has a sense of grandness, a sense of being in space and traveling far across the galaxy….like the feeling you get when you watch the original movies, 2001, and movies of that caliber.

31. Michael Hall - June 29, 2007

#18 and #26, word. I personally had a great time watching TWOK, but don’t understand why anyone who’s gotten the keys to this franchise should automatically assume it’s the gold standard to shoot for. Of the original 79 episodes produced, I’d venture that at least twenty or so were at least as captivating and entertaining, as full of fun and adventure and a sense of wonder. . . and a number of those didn’t need a scenery-chewing bad guy to pull it off.

I’m looking forward to seeing what they have in mind, regardless. . . but I’m starting to hear my Hollywood Bullshit Detector’s warning buzzer go off.

32. Redshirt - June 29, 2007

I would agree with #18 to some degree. Frankly an over the top villain is what hurt allot of films and I would agree its tiresome. Much like Earth being attacked in every other Star Trek film.Gimme a break.
For Trek Films though its gotten alot worse. They are drawn like over the top James Bond Villians…Star Trek 2 is great originally by itself but trying to copy the depth of that film is just lazy. One copy of a film was enough and it wasn’t a good one..

33. Xai - June 29, 2007

#15 THX-1138

OMG…. I am still rolling, Mr. Garvin.


34. Lou - June 29, 2007

kirk said that the last time he saw david was when he was 5. Could this story be THAT far back? if so, would this be Kirk’s first REAL “adventure”? And if so, would it likely not (or VERY little) involve Spock?

35. THEETrekMaster - June 29, 2007

#31 I agree.

Again, I am reminded of what John Logan said during production of Nemesis — references to The Wrath of Khan, family…being a fan…I am getting bigtime deja vu.

BUT: Having said that, I HOPE this team can pull it off…otherwise, next team that comes along and mentions Wrath of Khan and “family” again is just going to have ZERO credibility with me. And what’s with this “family” stuff anyway…if one wants to get back to the essence of TOS, then we would need to get back to high-concept storytelling (more like Doomsday Machine or, hell, even TMP) that DEMAND strong character interactions rising from the STORY. I don’t really wnat to watch The Waltons in space.

Star Trek V was all about “Family” and look at the crapfest that turned out to be! Same for Nemesis….did anyone really care about the characters in either case? I’d say not…and for me, personally, I didn’t care because I didn’t buy into the story premises.

In both cases, it was crap.

Anyway, I am more a fan of the EXPLORATION stories…which the Trek films after TMP got away from, sadly. I enjoy Treks II-IV and then VI, but the one thing I never cared for about these films is they aren’t exactly high-drawer sci-fi. Wrath of Khan worked as well as it did, in part, because they had Space Seed as a base to build it off off. Khan had a history! We KNEW he was a badass at the mention of his name. Plus, we knew he had cause to have a grudge against Kirk.

Any writer-fabrication for the the sole purpose of this film isn’t going to work. There’s no vested interest. On the other hand, if this is about Kirk’s first encounter with the vampire cloud, then THAT could resonate…again, history….vested interest…


36. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 29, 2007

CmdrR I see your 50,000 quatloos and raise you 30,000 more that Beyonce gets mentioned for Kirk’s love interest. Seems every genre film has Beyonce rumors why not start ours…

Anthony, As far as the whole first thing goes (which originated over at Aintitcool.com) Take it as a compliment. It means that your site and Original Star Trek is getting so hot casual fans are getting on board. You know the Aintitcool genre fanboys that Paramount is shooting for with this film.

37. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - June 29, 2007

I’ll see the movie in theaters no matter what – probably twice or three times – but honestly, I’d prefer Star Trek XI not being villain-oriented. That was one of the main things that ruined Nemesis for me, and it’s the reason The Wrath of Khan is not among my favorites.

Villain oriented brings back images of Flash Gordon’s evil Ming for me. It might as well be set in the Stone Age, the characters dressed in furs and throwing rocks at each other, with everyone motivated by a primal sense of honor and driven by raw bloodlust.

To my mind, Science Fiction generally excels when our more modern and elevated sensibilities are brought out – no villains or heroes, but anti-heroes and anti-villains, not black and white, but gray.

Ultimately, if the villain is the object of the film, then the *science* in Science Fiction gets sidelined.

38. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - June 29, 2007

(Note: Not to suggest that Flash Gordon had anything to do with the Stone Age. My apologies for the poor writing there. I just mean that Flash Gordon and the 1930s and 1940s serials in general were “Science Fiction” only incidentally, insofar as there were space ships and death rays, but not at their core. Star Trek, on the other hand, shines when it portrays humankind facing and coping with the future and its problems.)

39. Ron - June 29, 2007

I’m getting a bad feeling about this. So far we’ve heard the “using TWOK as our template” cliche, the “themes of family” cliche, and the “it’ll be a movie both Trek fans and the masses can enjoy” bit, all of which being the exact same hype we heard ahead of time about Nemesis. Now I didn’t hate Nemesis as much as many people here but it certainly was not a successful movie in box office terms. If this one craps out it’ll be a *long* time before we see another Trek movie.

Along with the TWOK template I hope they also jettison the Klingons, as well as the hoary “you’re the only ship in range to save Earth” cliche. High-concept sci-fi is the way to go with this one.

40. John CT - June 29, 2007

One word.


If they couldn’t replicate the greatness of Khan with an established cast then they havn’t a hope in hell of doing it with new people.


41. IrishTrekkie - June 29, 2007

yes i agree with what alot of people are saying , does it always have to be one guy who is evil ! ( i mean nemesis. i looking forward to seeing the romulans , but no , instead i get one guy who is pissed off , and what more he is human , and please no more , lets destory the federation by attacking earth !!! , jesus are we the only planet , and if they do attack , can they please take more then one bloody ship, its o.k. if your the borg and your uber hard , or even if your looking for whales or your creator , but by the time it got to a big ship with a new weapon that can destory the hole planet ( nemesis) its like watching a star wars , they might as well call it the death star. so from now on if you want to attack the federation and starfleet and your not one of the above you better have a large fleet or a really well thought out plan .

and i do hope they put money on sets and speical effects as well , as a good script , but please people dont forget make up ! can we have some aliens at starfleet , i know the enterprise was built in the sol sector , but there has to be some aliens on it ! ( all else the klingons well make fun of us again )

and agreeing with people above , it should not always be the enterprise doing all the work ( only ship in range stuff) , i would like to get a feel of the federation and starfleet actually being this hugh organization that it is)

thats my all rant lol.

42. Darren Baker - June 29, 2007

I would just like to confirm here for everyone a rumour that has been going around about this… It is, in fact, spelled c-o-n-f-i-r-m, not conform.

And… Yay!

43. DJT - June 29, 2007

I gotta chime in here.
If this movie has the scope and vision of “Batman Begins” and is a pre-prequel to TWOK, I’ll be the first dude in line.

This is an opportunity to show the latent family bonds between the characters in TWOK and enhance our appreciation for TWOK. But, it would have to be visceral enough for todays audience to be blown away by it and contain enough trek elements of the original to keep the old school fans in the seats.

That is *if* it involved Carol Marcus and that whole early Kirk scenario.

44. Ralph - June 29, 2007

I agree #34. Lou. If they are doing a welcome home to the trekkies and trekkers, then this might be it. What better way than have Kirk holding his 5 year old child. Hmm.. thats why I have stayed away. I want to be suprised. Knowing the plot ruins it.

45. THEETrekMaster - June 29, 2007

Unfortunately, so much time has passed I wonder if anyone would get the ties to TWOK. Sure, Trek fans would…I would…but what about that “new audience” they are supposedly trying to get?

I am not sure the tie-ins to TWOK would work with them.

With regard to this new film, I am cautiously optimistic but for me it’s going to all hinge on the premise and the story…if those suck again (as they did in Star Trek V, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis), then they will have lost me — and I would venture to say a good chunk of the audience as well.

What is needed is something that evokes a sense of wonder (and not “I wonder why I wasted good money and two hours to sit through this?”) and is fun at the same time. In early interviews with JJ, he mentioned The Twilight Zone as an inspiration. Well, JJ, let’s SEE a story that Serling would be proud of! Let’s see something on the level of the first Planet of the Apes (the original script written by Serling) for example…

Let’s see some solid science fiction, that is at the same time fun to watch and with those characters we all know and love at their best renditions.

46. Robert Simmons A.K.A Vice Rear Admiral Nerd (TOS Purist / SFB Gaming Dude ) - June 29, 2007

They should just write the movie looking to TOS and “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before” and ignore anthing that came after TOS. IF they want to come home to the basics of how Trek started out and tease with the prospects of returning to the TOS era or near pre-TOS era, all this talk about trying to emulate success from the Trek movies is sending the wrong signal and needs to be jettisoned. Loose the Carol Marcus thing as well since she is a construct that is a product f ST II from someone else who wasn’t writing TOS. Keep all other later Trek out of this so as to NOT POLLUTE IT. Alot of this recent talk is not sending me any encouraging signs, and jsut confrims my suspicions that this film will repeat the hype and tease and not deliver as advertised. The franchise has a history of looking what has been established and then instead of taking the next progressive step withthe Trek universe and instead making a radical trun just so to keep everyone “guessing”. If all of the hype has been deliberately teasing with a TOS film, and then swerves into instead into something that more emulates the post – TOS Trek movies…then count me out of expecting to go pay to see this. ( I feel like my chain has been yanked as a cruel tease…..)

Pure to TOS indistinguishable from TOS canon, in writing and universe….or I’m out! Period! No games please. I have no desire to waste my time being led to believe this film to be something that it ultimately will not be. The franchise has too much of an established history doing this in the past like when it made efforts to allay fears when TNG began airing. That is why I turned my back on Trek many years ago.

For once I would like the end product to live upto the hype coming out of the gate. It really tested my patience for over 2 years before TNG really showed some semblance of getting “really good”.

Not trying to be a spoiler. I like rooting for and pointing to really cool stuff, and wonder why anyone doesn’t make it anymore and wonder why people avoid any suggestions to do so like the plague or asking the impossible.

Try not to pollute the TOS timeframe with other later Trek related stuff, and I seriously believe that you will have a bigger draw in ticket buyers. Anytime Tos is waved in front for all to see in recent Trek productions like “Tribbles and Tribulations”, “Relics”, the talk is of a ratings boost. Is not why this is understood? Why keep toying with it ,and be brave and make a committed leap of faith knowing if TOS era Trek is resumed that it will have a stronger attraction for those who grew up with it and identify with it. Especially for those who normally woundn’t identify themselves normally as”Trek Fans”. TOS has been engrained in the culture over the past 40 years, and makes an easier connection cause more people recognize it and it is easier to digest and understand for non-fan who grew up with it in constant re-runs. You couldn’t claim that 40 years ago prior to TOS since it was all new and had it’s narrow market. But it’s propsects to those who grew up with it even in background I think are more primed to watch it than those who were not origionally part of TOS’s target audience. After the cancellation of Enterprise and the lower ratings, what have you got to loose? When you hit bottom, anything above that is an improvement if it has a bigger draw in ticket sales and in later sereis ratings if this property ever sees a TV series. And I bet that if it was done to resume the TOS timeline even if it was a different ship or crew, that it would have a strong draw atthe box office and strong early draw in ratings if this new movie became the platform for a new sereie based off of it.

What have you got to loose? Either you trust in the appeal of Roddenbury’s work guiding and developing TOS, and bank on it’s draw as interesting material despite TOS itself being ran into the ground in countless re-runs…..or you don’t. Do new material that weaves to blend into TOS in a way that is indistinguishable fromTOS that offers a continuation of what all was going on in TOS, and I’ll bet you could justify the effrot and expense. After all the production design in the look and costumes was paid for 40 years ago, and effects technology is dirt cheap now with CGI. So all you need is a strong story conforming to TOS writing, matching sets and costumes and hair from the period, and some cheap digital editing. So the production costs could potentailly be held down to avoid hitting the studio with a higher price tag designing everything from the ground up with all new designs like they do with EVERY NEW TREK PRODUCTION. And you would more than likely draw those who haven’t bothered with watching Trek for a long time due to it hasn’t looked like Trek to them when they were growing up.

Take a chance. After all…that’s what you are supposed to do anyway. I tihnk that this would make the risk much more doable.

Trying to be an encouragement here and not sour grapes. Don’t read it like that. I would like to think that there is SOMEONE who may be reading thise posts. And as well how can they know if someone doesn’t speak up before the film is “locked in”.

(Waving Pom – Poms….”Go Go Go…..Be Brave! When No Man Has Gone Before!….Well not in the last 40 years that is……)

47. Xai - June 29, 2007

This thread is one excellent reason why I think the directors and writers of any Star Trek production should not be interviewed. Every fanboy and girl reads what they want or fears most into the words from their mouths and the rumors start to fly.

48. Olde Timey Fan - June 29, 2007

EGADS!!!!! Carol Marcus as “babe” and “MILF”????? Saltpeter could do no better.

So long as we’re in to retro for Star Trek 2k8, I hope TPTB think about Anne Francis, Diana Rigg, or any number of the truly beautiful Power Babes of Trek (ca 1966-1969) — starting with Susan Oliver.

These babe-a-licious starlets were all *feminine* and not a weakling among them. Besides, smouldering femininity is back in style — not that it was ever “out” to begin with.

49. Olde Timey Fan - June 29, 2007

^34 Lou

Carol Marcus was only a bad dream. She never existed. She was nothing more than Kirk’s fears, stresses, guilt and intense situational pressure acting on his subconscious mind in the most horrible expression of angst this side of the Monsters of the Id.

Say it with me, There is no Carol Marcus; there was no Carol Marcus; there never will be a Carol Marcus.

Then you must say, Jim Kirk has no bastard son; Jim Kirk had no bastard son; Jim Kirk will have no bastard son.

Now don’t you feel a whole lot better?!!!

50. Olde Timey Fan - June 29, 2007

^38. 4 8 15 16 23 42

A cult deprogrammer’s work is never done…

Say it with me — you can do it! There is no such thing as “humankind”; there is no such thing as “humankind”; there is no such thing as “humankind”.

Speak aloud in a firm, clear voice, Mankind; mankind; mankind.

and you may now take great pride in not mangling the English, German and Latin tongues simulataneously. Thank you for your scholarly attention to linguistic integrity!

51. toddk - June 29, 2007

Well as far as batman begins, it was the last movie that I had went to see. Nothing since, I’m getting old or something. After the movie i w walked with my son to the car and we both agreed that it wasnt a very good movie, especially as far as canon. I guess if you pretended that the first two tim burton movies never existed, then it might have been okay.

I will say that the idea of carol marcus is wonderful.

Also would anyone think differently of nemesis if patrick stewart had played shinzon? I would of, I would have had tom hardy play the new commanding oficer instead. Chow

52. Twilightsol - June 29, 2007

Ah Toddk Batman Begins was a restart not a prequel to the burton films.

53. Jeff - June 30, 2007


54. Josh T. ( The undiscovered cowbell ) Kirk Esquire - June 30, 2007

I think I should be the villain of Trek XI.

I can be made of ice since they are filming in Iceland. It would be potent with maximum carnage.

I can overact and steal scenes. My backstory can be it’s very cold where I live and the Federation has solar energy so it makes me a bit fiesty and cantankerous. Call me S’ now- B-a’ lls – cha’ n’ ce! Make me toasty federation bastards or I’ll freeze your starships with my Quantum phase molecular inhibitor anti-molecule exciter mega-weapon.

The finale can be me and Kirk fighting in a snow cave to control the Uridium P-36 explosive space modulator.

Isn’t that lovely?

55. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - June 30, 2007

The Wrarth of Kahn worked because it was a story that anyone out of TREK could come in on and that those in Trek would love because it respected TREK History…(the Chekov thing aside…ha!)

What did that movie have…

1) Characters facing “age.” Kirk’s Birthday…the McCoy/Kirk Talk.
2) Human characters facing the duality of their existance. Kirk Cheats death and Death Cheats Kirk via the Death of Spock.
3) Human Characters have to deal with regrets…Carol Marcus and David.
4) Death…Spock’s Death scene could move a non-Treker to tears and Shatter the Trekker’s world, while making a puntuated end to the story.

Simply put…a story of LIFE and DEATH. Modern Literature.

What do we have in subsequent films? All out attempts to capture a new audience. Whimsy?

That said, I don’t dislike “Generations,” “Insurrection” or even “Nemesis.” They are part of the overall story…not what I would like to see. I think we really need to fill a lot of GAPs in Trek History. And, in doing so, tell damn good stories about the human condition.

“Nemesis” failed, if it did, likely because it was a “reboot” of TNG. It tried to redefine the characters, it took them from their world and tried to put them in a TOS feel….action heros.

Now, if we are going to to a TOS style film, it will have to be a TOS style film. You can update the sets…but must keep the “style.” You can make the story more “complex…”but it has to be about characterizations. But, most of all, it has to be compatiable with the rest of Trek History. If not, is it not a Star Trek movie…but another SCI-FI film.

I believe “John Gill” said not to sell out to fans we don’t have. TWOK had the element of a reboot…see the first few paragraphs of this post for the answer.

56. toddk - June 30, 2007

I would like to see keaton and burton do it again

57. Ben - June 30, 2007

Strange how some anti canonists have gone silent when the makers say they will follow canon. Guess the rebooters who think they have a Hollywood movie makers mind have gone back into their little holes and will come out later proclaiming how great Canon is.

Hi Dennis.

58. Cervantes - June 30, 2007

#47 Xai

Naysayer! ;)

…”An incredibly great bad guy against an incredibly high-stakes story that’s just emotional”…

Mmmm…two of the things I personally feared to appear in this this latest Movie, purely for my own selfish preferences, MAY…I speculatively repeat MAY, come to pass…

1. “An incredibly great bad guy” – I just hope this isn’t going to be yet another bumpy-headed “Klingon” fella, as we’ve seen plenty of them on screen so far. Keep a horde of ’em for a FUTURE sequel if they must, just not THIS outing. Surely there’s enough folk on the good ship Enterprise crew to wring out “good character drama” if well thought out and written, whether it’s a person as an adversary, OR a “probe”…or Salt Vampire, Horta, Gorn, or mysterious, all-powerful and unknown Alien Entity…you get the idea.

2. “that’s just emotional” – What, like “Love Story” or “Titanic” were emotional?…like you know, “kissing and whatnot” emotional?…with Carol Marcus emotional?…please, no. I don’t care what my girlfriend says…if it turns out that this features the biggest romance than “Dirty Dancing”, then I really WILL cry. Kirk should never have got involved with her in the first place (and the writers of a post TOS era Movie shouldn’t have made him either). Canon smanon, I want a kiss ass Kirk in a kick ass Movie.

with no Klingons. Thankyou.

59. THEETrekMaster - June 30, 2007

#47 Xai.

WORDS are said and printed for a REASON. Not to just be blown off. So, apparently, according to you, we are to either a.) just be happy with whatever his tossed our way and shut up or b.) blindly accept what these writers and producers say.

Both are unacceptable.

I guess you just loved Voyager and the first two seasons of Enterprise.

*rolls eyes*

For you fans who have an OPINION and want to criticize the current direction of Trek, I say GOOD ON YOU!!! Keep it up! Don’t let people like Xai try to make us look like “fanboys” (how did that word become a negative anyway? LOL) or unreasonable just because we don’t kiss the arse of every piece of tripe Paramount tries to throw at us disguised as Star Trek.

60. THEETrekMaster - June 30, 2007

If it were up to me, this Trek film would be a near complete period piece. I would *moderately* upgrade the sets (add some details to walls, animated station screens, goose neck viewers, minor changes) from Where No Man Has Gone Before. Have the girls in mini-skirts and go-go boots.

But most of all, I would have the story be very similar in tone to TOS episodes — EXPLORATION stories where something goes wrong during the exploration — hostile aliens (NOT Klingons!) — etc. No threats to Earth or the galaxy/universe…just a threat to the characters we love and let the characterizations develop from that.

Not sure if I would have Carol Marcus either. Only because I always felt Kirk had kind of a thing going on with Janice Rand, personally. So, if anything I would have someone cast as Rand and develop that more. Either that or have “Ruth” in there. But….I still would not have that angle be the focus of the plot (see previous paragraph for that).

This is a formula that — I guarantee — CANNOT LOSE. No way.

People would eat it up. Fans and non-fans alike.

61. Kyle Nin - June 30, 2007

#51: “Batman Begins wasnt a very good movie, especially as far as canon. I guess if you pretended that the first two tim burton movies never existed, then it might have been okay.”

Obviously you didn’t understand that “Batman Begins” was STARTING OVER the movie series. It wasn’t a prequel. It was a REBOOT. Just like “Casino Royale”. You are SUPPOSED to think that the Tim Burton movies never existed, because NOW, they don’t. “Batman Begins” and the upcoming “The Dark Knight” are the NEW Batman movie series. Totally separate from the OLD Batman movie series.

And, frankly, I think I’m going to enjoy the new Batman movie series more than the old one.

62. Kyle Nin - June 30, 2007

#59: “We are to just be happy with whatever his tossed our way and shut up.”

That’s worked pretty well for me for the past fifteen years. It’s not like they listen to what the fans want.

63. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - June 30, 2007

I still hold to the idea that the characters from the series should never be played by anyone else (for example, a fake Kirk).
Even if they can do the movie like #60 THEETrekMaster says (an idea which I like) it still will have that element of fakeness.
Call it what you want: reboot, reimagining, rewhatever. It all amounts to the same thing.

64. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 30, 2007

Bruce Campbell for Chainsaw wielding Sarek!!!!!!

Patrick Stewart for ship’s janitor and flute player!!!!!

Hulk Hogan for Security chief Hogan!!!!! – Phasers on kill Brother!!!!!!

James Franco for young Kirk!!!!

Lighten up you buttheads sounds like were getting something really special!!!!

65. Nelson - June 30, 2007

Many have already said it, the memory of John Logan and his idea that Nemesis draws from Wrath of Khan still lingers and we hope that what is being said today by the new Star Trek 2008 writers is not simply a repeat of that.

More so, I have said before on other forums that Star Trek is an entity that began life as a television entity. It had a weekly forum to tell stories and give characters opportunities to breath and grow. The problem with making Star Trek and any other property that was a TV show is that you essentially cut it off at the knees. Sure, it’s great fun to see a high budget version with cool effects and action, but it often short changes the premise. To boldly go where no man has gone before, that’s a fun thing to look forward to every week. Every 2 years and it loses momentum, actors age, opportunities for continuity of a story arc, character arcs. You sort of start over with every film. The last 4 seasons of DS9 is a good example of a great way to do Star Trek.

Perhaps they reset the idea of a series of films that you actually commit the actors and producers to do 2 or 3 or 4 per year? I’m just ruminating here, in the early days before TV, they did have series of films that worked okay, Blonde, The Thin Man, Tarzan.

66. Nelson - June 30, 2007

Oh yeah, maybe Samantha Mathis could play Carol Marcus’s mother. How’s that for a time warp paradox.

67. THEETrekMaster - June 30, 2007

“Lighten up you buttheads sounds like were getting something really special!!!!”

Put as only “Lord Garth” could…lol!!!

Hey, I hope your right! But, as Scotty said “Fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice shame on me.”

68. Anthony Pascale - June 30, 2007

although the tone is a bit much…I have to agree with the sentiment of Garth

in the last two weeks we have seen the writers
– show they are as geek as we are
– express their love for Trek
– pledge to stay within the ‘precious’ canon
– let us know they use Memory alpha and the Okuda books for reference
– say that they want to recreate the ‘experience’ of STII (a film that rekindled the franchise)

To date every single thing coming from Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman and Lindelf has been positive. They keep saying the right things, but that is just not enough. It is clear that some Trekkies will just take anything they hear and immediately try and figure out how it is bad and twist it around. To try and say that this film is looking to shape up like Nemesis because they say they like STII is just stupid, completely ignoring that this is a whole new team. This time we have Damon Lindelof and not Rick Berman and JJ Abrams and not Stuar Baird. We have a new team at Paramount who are giving the new team total freedom and final cut. It is completely apples and oranges. But like battered children some trekkies just assume the worst over and over

69. THEETrekMaster - June 30, 2007

Well, Anthony, apparently you either a) weren’t around for Logan’s diatribes on the production of Nemesis or b) your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

What I and some others have done is draw a parallel between the COMMENTS of both the current writers and Logan. Of course, there is no guarantee that the new film will end up as crap as Nemesis did…and neither have I implied or even stated that.

It could be great — and I HOPE IT IS!

Damn, dude…you need to get off your high and mighty condescending pedestal (that’s how your posts read, in case you didn’t know)…is this a forum for free debate of ideas or not? And if not, then what is the point?

If you don’t like what we have to say here, then you can go sit in front of a mirror and try to convince yourself of how “great” you are by talking to yourself and exchanging your own “brilliance” with yourself.

I am so sick of forum moderators, etc…who act like they are the final authority on the topic of their site. You aren’t any better than any one of us here….Anthony.

Get over yourself.

70. Harry Ballz - June 30, 2007

#69 “Get over yourself.”
Uh, oh….NOW you’ve done it! Anthony’s going to be pissed! Quick, everybody try to look BUSY!!

71. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - June 30, 2007

re:68. Anthony Pascale

“They keep saying the right things, but that is just not enough.”

No. It is not enough. There are no details. Anyone can spit out blather that sounds good. I can’t believe how some people can be so easily taken in by vague statements. So the statements are positive. Well, what would you expect them to say?

Yes, a number of people do take those statements and twist them to their own desires or fears. I am not one of them. I take them as what they are: meaningless statements. They may some day gain some meaning, but for now they have none.

I’m not saying they aren’t sincere in making these statements, but the proof is in the pudding. And we are a long ways from pudding, me buccos.

72. Harry Ballz - June 30, 2007

Very clever Stanky, having us read a meaningless statement to prove your point!

73. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - June 30, 2007

re: 72. Harry
Sooooooo….. you are beginning to understand. Excccccellent. Exccccccellent.

74. Kyle Nin - June 30, 2007

#68: “In the last two weeks we have seen the writers:

– show they are as geek as we are
– express their love for Trek
– pledge to stay within the canon
– let us know they use Memory Alpha and the Okuda books for reference
– say that they want to recreate the ‘experience’ of The Wrath of Khan”

So why is everyone being so negative? That sounds like a lot of great stuff there.

75. Harry Ballz - June 30, 2007

#73 “Excccccellent”
Is that your best Mr. Burns impression? If so, I’ll have to “release the hounds!”

76. THX-1138--Fred Garvin M.P. - June 30, 2007

Star Trek fans are like a little slice of reality. Some are intelligent and you agree with what they have to say. Some are intelligent and you tend not to agree with them. And some are just dick-heads, plain and simple. Being negative about something that doesn’t exist doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I CHOOSE to be hopeful at the prospect of a new Trek movie that every day, to me, shows more promise. My glass would seem to be half full. But nay-sayers spout away and say your nay anyway.

-TheeDickhead Fred Garvin

77. Xai - June 30, 2007

#59 The trekmaster

You protest too much.
Rather than me saying things over again, I’ll redirect you back to Anthony on #68. You know…the site owner that you trashed. He said it better than I.

I will be blunt… people that wish to comment… opinions are free and I can’t and would never say someone shouldn’t express their opinion. However, I would advise that to be taken seriously, have an imformed opinion. My point? As an example someone thinks they see the word “reboot” in an interview and they spout off about it. That’s a waste.
I won’t promise to always be correct on what I say, but I try.
Next time you decide to test me… stay on subject.


78. Xai - June 30, 2007

#76 THX


79. RandyYeoman - June 30, 2007

i agree that a lot of trek fans are always on the lookout for the negative. Imagine if this movie was being made by people who were not fans or who didnt have the respect we see the new guys have. Imagine if they were treating the franchise like some 1960s silly tv show that needs to be updated. The movie is still a year and a half away and others seem to be demanding total inforation access now…how much do we know about Indy 4 and that is coming out in 10 months. I look at some of the posts above and I wonder if it is really worth paying any attention to the fans. They cannot agree on anything and so many of them have their lists of demands like this is some kind of hostage negotation.

its just a movie for gods sake….lets at least see some actual bad information and give these guys the benefit of the doubt until jumping on them.

80. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - June 30, 2007

79. RandyYeoman – June 30, 2007

The film comes out never-theless, but fans have to add their input. Plus, it is pretty certain that someone “up there” reads this place and people have to point out about everything.

Oops…did I type that last part out loud?

81. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 30, 2007


Lord Garth -Universal voice of reason!!!!

82. THEETrekMaster - June 30, 2007

#78 Xai

I HOPE you aren’t trying to say I do not have an informed opinion. I certainly do…and in fact, it’s BECAUSE of that information that makes supports my opinion I have a legitimate *concern* about what is being said by these writers. Unlike you and Anthony, I apparently have a longer memory than the two of you. What do I remember? The comments from Logan practically verbatim.

A challenge? I neither issued to challenge to either you or Anthony. However, if it’s “challenges” you want — then I challenge you to disprove the similarities between the comments of these writers pre-production!

Tell me these comments from Orci and Kurtzman do not mirror those of John Logan! That’s all I have said…except to add that I hope the results are not the same. Underscore the word HOPE!

I haven’t trashed ANYONE! Not Anthony, not you…and not the writers. If holding the OFFICIAL records of commentary from these writers is considered “trashing” and “negative” — well, I guess I am guilty. But as I said, THEIR words are presumably for a reason…either they know what they are talking about and are sincere or they are not. It’s a matter of record — not a fabrication of mine out some imagined wish for failure on my behalf for the next film weirdly projected by you or anyone else!

Logan was either tragically circumvented by the director and producer or he was woefully inept at doing what he SAID he intended to do with the script for Nemesis. For WHATEVER reason, he was unable to deliver…and only an idiot or a blind man would disagree…

Either way, let’s HOPE that does not occur with the next film.

That’s all I am saying. I know some of you don’t want to accept the possibility of another Trek bungle, but it would be foolish and pollyanna-esque to NOT consider it (especially after two previous thumping FAILURES at the box office!) — and it’s ramifications on the future of Trek should it be construed as a failure as Insurrection and Nemesis SURELY were!

Tell me how you think Trek (as a franchise) could survive another botched film? Tell me! I am all ears! Or eyes in this case…

Damn…I refuse to fall into the “all Trek is good Trek” camp. Frankly, some of it sucks….sucks donkey. I am a fan, but even the most staunch and ardent fan should be able to accept that ugly truth. Insurrection and Nemesis — and Star Trek V before that….sucked donkey. I am sorry and it pains me to say it…but it’s true. Yes, they sucked.

And I don’t want the next one to suck, because I know if it does it will be twenty years or more before anyone wants to touch Trek again! So sue me if I am little more discriminating than some of you.


83. Mark 2000 - June 30, 2007

Lets look at this from an intelligent perspective. Until the movies Star Trek rarely had a villain so evil he had to die. Even Kahn was respectful of his fate and both Kirk and he appreciated one another. Kor, Kang, Anon 7, Maab. All these men where vicious in there own right, but not unreachable.

A good villain often can be a friend by the end or at least understandable and human. He doesn’t have to be evil incarnate. That’s how smart narratives work. Kahn, Kruge, Chang, The Borg, Picard Clone, they all were juggernauts of badness. STV may have been el sucko, but at least Sybok had some sort of depth and ability to see his mistakes. I don’t WANT to admit that, but I have to. And STV had that exploratory feeling as well. Its such a shame they botched it so badly. But its a better attempt at its heart than First Contact or Nemesis.

84. Xai - June 30, 2007

#82 TheTrekmaster

I don’t know what your problem is.

Fine, point by point just to calm the flames.

I did not state or imply that you have an uninformed opinion. If you misunderstood that to be specifically aimed at you, I apologize.
As for Logan’s comments… I was not part of that conversation and don’t care if they match or come close to those of the current production team.

I did not issue a challenge to you and didn’t use that word. If you are referring to my comment of “Next time you decide to test me… stay on subject.” I meant that. You took me to task on earlier comments I made that you didn’t like and then implied a lot more about me that you know nothing about.
I agree with you on the “Hope” part of you last post. I want it to go well, but I will NOT delve into the possible similarities of comments of past and current production teams or indulge in meaningless mental gyrations over how bad it could be. That is completely pointless because the script, actors and other details are not known to us. It’s a waste of time at this point. And the fact that I said that does not indicate more than it’s my opinion, got it?
As for trashing Anthony.. Look at the reactions in posts after your #69. … and a couple of your quotes from same.
..you said” Well, Anthony, apparently you either a) weren’t around for Logan’s diatribes on the production of Nemesis or b) your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.”
.. additionally, you wrote “Damn, dude…you need to get off your high and mighty condescending pedestal (that’s how your posts read, in case you didn’t know)…is this a forum for free debate of ideas or not? And if not, then what is the point?

If you don’t like what we have to say here, then you can go sit in front of a mirror and try to convince yourself of how “great” you are by talking to yourself and exchanging your own “brilliance” with yourself.

I am so sick of forum moderators, etc…who act like they are the final authority on the topic of their site. You aren’t any better than any one of us here….Anthony.”

Wow, I know what I’d do….but Anthony can take care of himself.

The rest of your opinions of Nemesis, Insurrection and ST:V I don’t disagree with. I dislike the manner in which you presented them… wrapped up in a bow of confrontation. I have not insisted you like a dam thing and frankly, if I did before I certainly don’t now.
You are completely overboard with your concerns over this “discussion” over a movie that has not been filmed yet.

And the “Biotches” sign-off…. very elegant.
I don’t know if you are 12 or just act the age, but either way grow up and get over it.

In my opinion.


85. Xai - June 30, 2007

Anthony and fellow posters

My post in #84 does nothing to help this site or move the conversation along on-topic. I apologize to you all, bar one.
I had something to get off my chest and if you feel the need to address what I said Anthony, I won’t be surprised.

86. TomBot2007 - June 30, 2007

Mark2000; I like the way you think… Enough already about ST:TWOK!!! Let’s have some fresh meat instead of the Soylent Star Trek we’ve been given for a long time… A new villian that is bested, and perhaps, befriended at the end? That would be at least a new angle to try, and for heaven’s sake, let’s have something a little out of the box this time?

87. Vifx Twokay - June 30, 2007

Mr Kurtzman, I just wanted to chime in on the misguidedness of trying to top or equate with Khan. That proved disatrous for Nemesis. Please stick with the Batman Begins-style reinvention angle. That sounds potentially awesome.

88. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 30, 2007

Xai- Dude???? You ok????

89. Josh T. ( The Chief Indian ) Kirk Esquire' - July 1, 2007

There’s too many chiefs and not enough indians in this here forum!

90. trektacular - July 1, 2007

The villain will be introduced as Kirks buddy in the prologue who is wronged in his mind by Kirk, who will then will seek revenge later on, hence Twok 3.0 is born.

91. THEETrekMaster - July 1, 2007

#84 Xai,

I guess at this point I am somewhat baffled that you addressed me at all since my point all along has been about how the comments of Orci and Kurtzman mirror those of John Logan prior to Nemesis.

If you meant no ill will, then please accept my apologies…you were badly used. Of late, I have become bizarre and unproductive.


Peace out, homie. Let’s just keep our fingers crossed the next film is as GOOD AS TWOK…

92. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 1, 2007

Has Montalban been signed for the film yet? I can’t see anyone else playing the Khan role.

93. THEETrekMaster - July 1, 2007

Say what? LOL

94. Xai - July 1, 2007

Thetrekmaster, I made a comment to the room and you answered me by name, thus the response.
I don’t have ill will toward anyone here as long as there’s none toward me. I have a wait and see attitude toward all of this. Conjecture is fun, but ALL of us, have to keep in mind to not read too much into what’s said or reported yet. It seems too easy for some to assume bad things about this film, even before it’s filmed.


95. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 1, 2007

re: 94 X-Meister

So I should NOT assume that Montalban will appear as Khan in the movie?

96. Harry Ballz - July 1, 2007

Okay, group hug…EVERYBODY!!!

97. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2007

I am sorry if anyone took what I said personally. I dont post my opinions much but do feel I have a right as much as anybody. People can talk about what they want…but sometimes I feel the need to vent. If I was targeting anyone it was the post by John CT…someone who has never posted before and ‘dive bombs’ his ‘one word Nemesis’ as if that proves that ST08=suck.

I just find that ignorant…I am sorry, especially if you actually listen to what Kurtzman said and undestand the context. He is talking about replicating the experience for the viewers…not replicating the movie (as the tried in Nem). These people are not stupid….they have their own idea I and it not going to involve a genetic superman. They know Nemesis was bad.

But the idea of reinvigorating the franchise like STII did is exactly what this franchise needs. That film reaffirmed my love of Trek and I would love to see kids come and see it and fall in love with it and create a whole new generation of Trekkies.

Does this mean I think all trek is good? no…of course not…in fact i would call less than half of Trek really good. But I still contend that Paramount and the new team are doing and saying all the right things and have a track record to back it up. You can assume the worst if you like, I will assume for now that they are on the right track

98. Xai - July 1, 2007

#95 Stanky,

After all that bs from above….I hate to quash anyone’s hopes, but…..

I spoke to Ricardo this morning, both of us sipping iced coffee on a rich Corinthian leather couch on his veranda.

He’s far to busy promoting the reamastered Fantasy Island DVD coming out and the Taco Bell voice-overs and can not commit to the project.

That kills THAT rumor… dam.


99. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 1, 2007

re: 98. Xailaphone

Thanks for clearing that up. But we can still hope for Ceti eels and the fake Kirk burping David and Spock instructing a young Saavik how to make plomeek soup without the Romulan spices.
What a great idea making this movie a prequel to Space Seed and Wrath of khan!!

100. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 1, 2007

# 100

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

101. THEETrekMaster - July 1, 2007

#97 Fuhgetaboutiiit…I think some wires got crossed and I misread some things and just reacted…so, please…find it in your heart to forgive me…

Xai…you too? :-)


102. Vejur - July 3, 2007

ohh nooo not again wannabe bad guy Kahn movie

103. Jeri Thormina - April 21, 2011

I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and was wondering what all is required to get setup? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very internet savvy so I’m not 100% certain. Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

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