Paramount Updates Star Trek Credits & Official Synopsis + Adds Production Partner |
jump to navigation

Paramount Updates Star Trek Credits & Official Synopsis + Adds Production Partner December 5, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Today Paramount issued their 2008 preview to the press and it includes a very brief entry for Star Trek. Unfortunately the only artwork included was the same poster released at Comic-Con. The biggest news is in relation to some new producer names and a new production partner. Plus there is an official (yet very generic) synopsis as well.

The official synopsis for Star Trek:

From director J.J. Abrams (“Mission: Impossible III,” “Lost” and “Alias”) and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci (“TRANSFORMERS,” “MI: III”) comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, “Star Trek,” featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before.

New Producers and Production Partner
Based on the latest update, Star Trek has four new new executive producers: Jeffrey Chernov, Bill Todman, Jr. Edward Milstein, and Paul Schwake. has been told that Chernov has replaced Stratton Leopold on the project and he is handling the nuts and bolds of the production. Chernov has film credits going back to 1976 and was a production executive on the recent The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy film.

Milstein, Schwake and Todman are all executives with Level 1 Entertainment which is now a production partner on the project (possibly they are providing additional financing). Todman is CEO of Level 1 and has many production credits to his name including this year’s Rendition as well as the first X-Men movie. He is also the son of famed game show producer Bill Todman. The new Star Trek will be the first film in the franchise that has a production partner. In fact Star Trek will have two partners, since it also has a ‘produced by’ credit for Bad Robot, which is J.J. Abrams production company.

Full text of the official Paramount Star Trek press preview


Paramount Pictures and Level 1 Entertainment Present
A Bad Robot Production
A J.J. Abrams Film
“Star Trek”
Executive Producers Bryan Burk, Jeffrey Chernov, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Bill Todman, Jr., Edward Milstein, Paul Schwake
Produced by J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof
Based upon “Star Trek” Created by Gene Roddenberry
Written by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci
Directed by J.J. Abrams

Cast: John Cho, Ben Cross, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Winona Ryder, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, with Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy

Synopsis: From director J.J. Abrams (“Mission: Impossible III,” “Lost” and “Alias”) and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci (“TRANSFORMERS,” “MI: III”) comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, “Star Trek,” featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before.

Release: December 25, 2008

This film has not yet been rated.


“Star Trek” is a Paramount Pictures Release

Who gets top billing?
One of the big questions about Star Trek is related to which actors get top billing. So far they are listing most of the credits in alphabetical order, but Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy were separated and got the ‘with’ credit. It isn’t known why they have not listed Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), Clifton Collins, Jr. (General Ayel), Rachel Nichols (unknown), and Jennifer Morrison (unknown) in the cast, but that does not mean they are not in the film. It could be that details on their deals are still being worked out or they just didn’t make the cut for the release.


1. bubba - December 5, 2007


2. Sean4000 - December 5, 2007

Here we go

3. Mike - December 5, 2007

“General” Ayel? O_o

4. Tony - December 5, 2007

Ensign Lefler’s Rules

Rule #147

Anyone who posts “first” just to post “first” is actually saying “I am a frack-tard”

5. Cranston - December 5, 2007

That’s a lot of executive producers!

One thing that I like about the cast list — is Leonard Nimoy’s name at the very end. It’ll be loads of fun watching the opening credits and seeing the cast list end with:

and Leonard Nimoy

Fun for all.

6. Ed - December 5, 2007

Now we wait for the trailer…

7. David (Enterprise should have wings AND flames on the hull) - December 5, 2007


Exec Producer credits are given out like candy. In most cases, it’s a meaningless title.

8. Michael Foote - December 5, 2007

54 weeks 6 days

9. Bart - December 5, 2007

Were no MAN has gone before?? I thought we had passed the macho, human centric from the sixties! Hasn’t Star Trek evolved into Were No ONE had gone before?

And don’t give me the “but it was like that in the Original series so it has to remain like that” crap.

10. Mike - December 5, 2007

Cool, I’m looking forward to this.

Bart, human centric? We’re humans, what do you expect? Are we supposed to elevate fictional species to our level? I mean seriously?

11. Clinton - December 5, 2007


Please calm down. It’s just a show. You should really just relax.

12. VanEdge - December 5, 2007

why does anyone give a fart about being “first?”
instead, just type “i have nothing to do so I’m on this site all day looking for recognition”

anyway…. great to see more tidbits flowing in here and there. really looking forward to the movie… i just hope the story is compelling and the characters are true to canon.

13. Pat - December 5, 2007

Okay, seriously, they don’t “announce” every person that gets cast in the film when they announce the production. Plus, I don’t think Paramount has officially copped to Morrison being in the film yet.

14. BrandonR - December 5, 2007

#9 I’m actually glad they referred to it as “where no man has gone before”, and I hope they keep it that way for the film. Although their intentions were correct, I never liked how they changed it to “where no one has gone before”. The original saying was something that I always thought shouldn’t have been tampered why. Why? I honestly have no idea.

“One of the big questions about Star Trek is related to which actors get top billing.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up going in this order for the main parts (this assumes that Pike has a major part):

Bruce Greenwood
Zachary Quinto
Chris Pine
Karl Urban
Simon Pegg
John Cho
Zoe Saldana
Anton Yelchin

Eric Bana

Leonard Nimoy as

Also Starring:
And then here it would continue on with parts like Kirk Sr., Winona, Sarek, Amanda, etc.

That’s just my assumption based on the way that this story is beginning to turn out.

15. Dr. Image - December 5, 2007

Special Guest Star: Jonathan Harris.
Oh, the pain…
Thirteenth (warrior.)

16. Tim Handrahan - December 5, 2007

How about the credits at the end of the film…

Willaim Shatner

It happened it Star Trek III

17. New Horizon - December 5, 2007

9. Bart –

Man is Mankind, it’s all interpretation. I don’t think we need to go pussy footing around things like this in literature. It’s annoying. Political Correctness is far too anal. Lighten up.

18. Jay (The Real Jim Kirk) - December 5, 2007

hmmm dunno what to make of this new news….

why has Stratton Leopold been replaced???

remember he was the guy involved earlier in trying to get Shatner on trek XI… hmmm

19. NCC-73515 - December 5, 2007

re 9, bart:
actually the new line “where no ONE has gone…” is stupid.
wherever the men (humans) of starfleet go, someone has already been there (borg, vulcans, klingons, romulans, dominion, etc.).
if they went to places where no one has gone before, they would not find any life there, would they?

20. angry but i'll get over it - December 5, 2007

Where No Man Has Gone Before…works just fine…obviously does mean mankind….humanity… the Enterprise 1701 has plenty of men and women aboard, and for Star Trek XI, Uhura is included on venture where no man has gone before

21. Anthony Pascale - December 5, 2007

If they had changed it to ‘no one’ surely there would be screams of outrage and indignation. It would be PROOF that they are rebooting trek and about to rape everyone’s child hood.

…they stuck with the classic line as is…now move on

22. Ali - December 5, 2007

and Leonard Nimoy as wrinkly old Spock

23. OneBuckFilms - December 5, 2007

9 – “but it was like that in the Original series so it has to remain like that”

No crap though. Sorry ;-)

24. Jay (The Real Jim Kirk) - December 5, 2007

Anthony… why has Stratton Leopold been chucked off the crew?

25. OneBuckFilms - December 5, 2007

Other credits:

Music by Michael Giacchino

Theme from “Star Trek” by Alexander Courage

26. last o' the timelords - December 5, 2007

So….so….difficult to not just jump into the ol’ Tardis and pop in in on Xmas next year. But where would the suspense be in that?

Hmmmm, on the other pseudopod, maybe I’ll go a bit further and nick the DVD.

27. Alex - December 5, 2007

Many execs is usually a good sign ’cause it equals more money for the production. Independents usually have a shitload of executive producers and the first 5 minutes usually consist of all the logos of the different companies funding the movie.
Strange however that they picked this one. They haven’t done much at all and seem to be a fairly new company. I wonder what’s the reason for Paramount getting them into the boat…

28. Woulfe - December 5, 2007


Someone forgot to put in good ol’ ILM’s credit among all the credits.

Lotsa exec producers, like LOST, LOST has a ton of exec producers on it.

29. Tiberius Mudd - December 5, 2007

Back in a previous job, I “encountered” Level 1 during a script deal. They were looking for material to produce because they had, in the words of one of their junior exec/development people “a shitload of money.” But they got into a situation where they would buy scripts and not do anything with them. They may not have the wherewithal to mount a production, but they certainly have the money. That’s probably the key thing in this whole deal. Paramount and Bad Robot can do the physical production, but they can get a percentage stake in a potentially lucrative film property for the first time.

30. Izbot - December 5, 2007

Don’t know why everyone’s getting upset of this “where no man…” jazz. Its just some cutesy b.s. a Paramount press release writer typed up.

And yes, the “first” thing has *got* to end…

31. Craig - December 5, 2007

Anthony will you get a set tour once they are finished? Or will be the only place for set and production tours?

32. Dennis Bailey - December 5, 2007

About the “No Man…” business.

First (sorry), Izbot is right that marketing copy is a silly thing to fret over. Before the studio is finished hyping this thing, someone’s likely to do the thing where they confuse solar systems, stars and galaxies. If people take that as reflective of the actual film, someone will have a coronary.

Secondly (and not entirely seriously), the paraphrase shows a little respect for canon – it’s established within the Trek universe that Zefram Cochrane coined the phrase and used the word “man.” We never heard it altered to “one” until the end of Star Trek 6. So of course at the point in the 23rd century that this movie mainly takes place, they’d quote it as “man.” :lol:

33. Bald is Beautiful - Picard for President! - December 5, 2007

^9 Bart

The 1970s/1980s are gone along with gender neurtal language. It always did sound awkward and contrived.

Have you read the Psalms in the Episcopal prayerbook? “Blessed is the man” becomes “Happy are they”. Just silly!

This movie is retro so it fits to use the old standard English. It’s what I learned and it sounds a lot better to correctly conjugate verbs, nouns and adjectives!

34. Kirk, James T. - December 5, 2007

Sounds cool!

Im just waiting for Shatner to be at the end of this film doing the famed Captains monolog;

Space the final frontier, these are the voyages of the starship enterprise, her… mission to seak out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no MAN has been before – and anyone who says that MAN isn’t the correct term to use nowerdays should be ashamed, Political Correctness gone mad!!

35. Craig - December 5, 2007

#34 I think if they did that wouldn’t it be said by Chris Pine?

36. Spock's Brain - December 5, 2007

#14 (BradonR) I think he’s got it! Except I would put Winona with Bana.

37. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - December 5, 2007

Love The NO MAN !!!!!! Enough with the PC , man refers to mankind.

38. Jupiter1701 - December 5, 2007

Regarding “No Man” vs. “No One”:

Word is they changed it back to “No Man” in order to be politically correct.

Yes, yes, you heard that right.

Because when you specifically glorify those people who are called “One” it upsets all the people who aren’t Number One. It makes them feel smaller, or incomplete in some way. Left out, to be precise.

I mean it’s bad enough to be Number Two, but to insinuate that only those people who are called One can explore space is just very politically incorrect! It offends a lot of second place finishers.

In fact, there have been a lot of people out there demonstrating, holding up signs and chanting:

“We’re Number Two . . . WE WANT TO GO TO SPACE TOO!”

There’s a lot more people who aren’t number one, versus people who aren’t a part of mankind. It’s a numbers thing. Also, saying, “Where no member of mankind has gone before” is a tongue-twister, so it got shortened to Man. So it was the lesser of two evils.


(The answers are so simple, when you stop to think about it)

39. steve adams - December 5, 2007

Yeah get over it #34, Chris Pines the new Captain Kirk!!!!

40. Oregon Trek Geek - December 5, 2007

I believe “man” is a shortened version of “human.” When the term “man” came into use, females were referred to as “womb man.” That was then shortened and combined into “woman.”

41. AJ - December 5, 2007

I think “No One” was so 1986.

And Dennis, the phrase was coined on TNG before ST VI came out in 1991.

42. MiniKirk - December 5, 2007

41 posts, and most of them about the whole “…where no man has gone before.” bit. The whole thing is just some stupid little thing written by some underpaid monkey, in a small dimly lit room, and is not actually represenitive of the movie itself. To be fair to Paramount, at least they’re giving the movie some respect, a big budget, and quite a lot of talent. Before we all have a coronary, let’s just take a deep breath, and wait for the damned movie to come out. One last thing: at least we’ve got a NEW Star Trek to watch. Some new adventure that we haven’t seen before. Something we can’t quote line for line in our parent’s basements. Chill, and enjoy it for what it is, not what you -think- it should be.
-The Doc

43. Dennis Bailey - December 5, 2007

#41: “And Dennis, the phrase was coined on TNG before ST VI came out in 1991.”

You miss the point of the whole “canonicity/continuity” thing. The phrase was first used in TNG, but the first person we hear *within* “Star Trek” use the updated phrase is Kirk in his log entry at the end of “The Undiscovered Country.” That’s during the 23rd century; Picard’s recitation is in the 24th.

BTW, “Humanity” is a more accurate and intelligent way to refer to all human beings and it’s just as traditional as “mankind.” You know, American society is just not going to go back to the way it was prior to the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, nor do most people want it to. So, there you are. :)

44. Star Quack - December 5, 2007

About the “Where No Man…” controversy:

I’m actually more upset about the split infinitive. “To Boldly Go” should be “To go boldly”! ;)

45. Penitent Pete - December 5, 2007

Just PLEASE put the women in miniskirts. In the end, that’s all I really care about.

46. Xai - December 5, 2007

This MAN…this ONE MAN..

…is tired of something not worth debating…move ON, man!

47. CmdrR - December 5, 2007

Amen, Pete. Thank goodness somebody’s got his priorities straight. If there are no mini-skirt and go-go boots, this MAN will boldly go to the MEN’s room halfway thru this flick.

48. BrandonR - December 5, 2007

36. I would have put her in my assumption for the credits, but I did that assuming that Amanda would have a smaller part and would look awkward with Bana under “With”.

44. Cochrane actually said “to go boldy” in ENT: Broken Bow, so they have used both in canon.

49. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - December 5, 2007

The minute Picard said “where no one” in the opening credits of the first TNG episode, they lost me. I still liked some of the episodes, but they were mostly flaccid. #9 must be spoiling for a fight.

Gender neutral crapola. Coon would never approve! Brain and brain, what is brain?!

50. EdDR - December 5, 2007

to #10 it all depends on what fictional character Bart is #9. Just let Bart rant and rave all he wants until his spikey hair goes flaccid.

51. Charles Trotter - December 5, 2007

Ryder may be a bigger name but she has not been quite as active in recent times and she also isn’t as popular as she was during the 1990s. In addition, it all depends on the size of her role in the film, which may not be very large.

I’ve always wondered how the actors would be credited in the film, and listing them alphabetically (with the exception of villain Bana and ‘special guest star’ Nimoy) is the best way to go, I think. It shows that no one actor/character is as important as the other.

Executive producer is not a title that is “handed out like candy.” If a person was not directly involved with the creative aspects of the film but still helped pay for its production, they get an executive producer title. In this case, a production studio is helping to finance the film, so that studio’s executives get executive producer credits. They don’t get the title for doing nothing. Even when people who did not partake in the film’s production, they still did something to allow the production to be possible, like if someone created something on which the film is based. For example, Robert Ludlum wrote The Bourne Identity and was thus credited as an exec producer on the film of the same name.

I agree, seven exec producers are a lot, but I have seen movies with more. The recent Hairspray movie, for example, had 10 exec producers!

52. EdDR - December 5, 2007

Man, Woman, One, Monkey, Caterpiller, Who Cares! I prefer Wombat

53. Penitent Pete - December 5, 2007

#49 – Just because they had Picard say “no one” you gave up on the show? That’s kind of sad, really. If that’s all it takes to spoil ST for you, you’re definitely not gonna like the new movie.

54. GaryS - December 5, 2007

You just gotta love the explicit plot details in that synopsis.

55. Daoud - December 5, 2007

Linguistic notes:
Splitting infinitives in English is completely okay and is the way to always go. It was in Latin that it was impossible to easily split infinitives. Latin-educated grammar extremists ignored that Germanic languages need split infinitives in order to effectively shade meanings of the verbs. ;)

Man was originally gender-neutral in English and just meant ‘person’, the word closest to that original meaning. (Person comes from Latin by way of Etruscan.) English man is not short for or even related to Latin human. Latin human’s only cognate in English is the groom part of bridegroom. And it really should be ‘bridegoom’, as it’s ‘goom’ from ‘guma’=’homo’.

The female was called a wif-man (wif meaning… well, female: it also became ‘wife’). That became woman.

Sorry, #40, but you might want to do some research on etymology sometime. is a good starting point.

56. Harry Ballz - December 5, 2007

How can I put this diplomatically…………if Winona Ryder were to……oh, I dunno……maybe take her top off during her short screen time……….and provide us with that much needed NUDE SCENE………..that would increase the box office right there!

As Spock would say, “who can argue with logic like that?” :)

57. Stanky McFibberich - December 5, 2007

re:9. Bart

It’s “Man”
“One” is lame.

58. Aragorn189 - December 5, 2007

I believe that if their going to list the credits, they should list them similarly to the original films, the actor for Kirk being first , then Spock, McCoy, etc. It would be a little more traditional and hearken back to the elder days of the franchise.

59. BrandonR - December 5, 2007

58. The only issue with that is that this seems to be a story (and this is, obviously, an assumption based upon the rumors we’ve been given thus far) revolving more around Spock and Pike having to save Kirk, with Kirk not coming in until about halfway through the movie or whatever. Even though he’s Kirk, that really doesn’t deserve first billing. If and when they make movies where Kirk is the captain and the main star, then giving Pine first billing would make more sense.

60. jfh100970 - December 5, 2007

#54 Are you kidding me? The plot details make me want to see the movie right now!!!

61. Bart - December 5, 2007

Isn’t Starfleet more than just mankind? I believe it’s called the United Federation of Planets, not the United Federations of Humans.

62. trektacular - December 5, 2007

Maybe the recast crew will be overdubbed by Shatner, Nimoy, and whoever else is still alive in the original crew.

63. Warlock - December 5, 2007

Isn’t anyone worried that they replace Leopold with Chernov. I mean this is the guy that did The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. If I had to choose the worst movie in the last 20 years it would be The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.

64. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 5, 2007

I just thought about the plot and what we know from rumours so far.
The rumours say that the Romulans travel back in time to kill Captain Kirk which we find somewhat strange.
But what if the movie opens with the unification of Vulcans and Romulans. Nero and his gang are not pleased by this, they want their Empire back – preferably with them in the lead. So they travel back in time NOT to kill Captain Kirk, but to destroy Vulcan so that the unification can never happen and the Romulans of the future would easily be able to enslave the remaining/surviving Vulcans…

65. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 6, 2007

… so when the timeline is altered there is no unification attempt at all. Spock has no reason to not go to the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B. With his help, Kirk survives and is still alive! :)

So he and Spock can travel back in time together to stop Nero! :)

66. STOGAMAP - December 6, 2007

The simple fact that anyone at all has enough to say about a monologue written forty years ago enough to fill almost 70 posts is ridiculous in itself.

67. CaptainRickover - December 6, 2007

I’m more concerned about the official press release (don’t care for where no man (or no one) has gone before). “A new vision…” That not sounds right or good. Now I’m very pessimistic again. Why they don’t say “a new Star Trek adventure” ? I think we old-style fans must fear the worse.

68. Iowagirl - December 6, 2007

The man-ologue lives!

To boldly go where no man, no woman has gone before.

After all, it’s a re-imagination…

69. Dom - December 6, 2007

What controversy is there about ‘Where no man?’

From reading the thread, only number 9 has got in a snit about it!

70. J.D. Lee - December 6, 2007

me want cast pictures! Please!

71. Bart - December 6, 2007

If the time travel story is true its becoming quite dull. Well, we can’t get what we want, let’s just travel back in time to change history :S.

72. Moonwatcher - December 6, 2007

Hey, did people jump all over Neil Armstrong when he said, “that ‘s one small step for man…one giant leap for mankind”? When he should have said “one small step for A man”. No!!! It’s part of our historical vernacular. Get over it!

73. Bart - December 6, 2007

No, by man he meant himself (the small step), the giant leap referred to mankind. And in Starfleets era it’s not only mankind on the starships. On the Apollo there were no Vulcans or Andorians on board. So it is quite logical Armstrong only referred to mankind…

74. Bart - December 6, 2007

Everybody was so upset and shocked when TNG came out and after a while it became a huge succes!

It will be the same with the new cast and movie.

75. Charles Trotter - December 6, 2007

#63 Warlock — Hithhiker’s Guide would not even be in my top 500 of the Worst Movies of the past 20 years. Personally, I’d be more worried about the fact that Chernov was a producer on The Country Bears. ;)

76. TB - December 6, 2007

Changing the subject, did anyone see the last episode of “Boston Legal?” Denny Crane was arrested in a men’s room for soicitation & when he opened his flip phone to call James Spader it had the sound effect of a communicator. Pretty funny. Also, Denny decided to fight the charges because even if he lost, he wanted to go out fighting “like Denny Crane.” Perhaps this was Shatner’s subtle appeal to Abrams to be in the new film.

77. Mr Red - December 6, 2007

Seriously? There are some of you bitching about the tag line? Seriously?
I mean come on people, i know this is the internet and all so its you’re god given right to blast whatever you want, but still, Who Cares?? GET OVER IT! I’ve read through the posts and seen some pretty level headed and excited posts, im one of them. This film has the potential to rock, so how about we think like that. If someone has a massive problem with the story or a casting, fine, but the tag line? Come on!

78. Diabolik - December 6, 2007

Since Kirk is THE MAN, having this be where no MAN has gone before is appropriate.

79. Marc - December 6, 2007

In Germany we don’t have the “man vs. one” problem. Here the intro of TOS ends like: “Wo nie ein Mensch zuvor gewesen ist”. Which means “Where no human has gone before”. So females have been included from the beginning.

But what the heck…I am going to see a movie on dec. 25 2008… not just the intro :-)

80. JL - December 6, 2007

“That’s one small step for man… one giant leap for mankind.”

Anyone upset over that historic phrase?

Stick with the authentic original. WHERE NO MAN has gone before.

And geez, get a grip people.

81. Tarkus - December 6, 2007

If they change the Enterprise (Constitution Class) again, I am walking out of the film!!!!

82. BrandonR - December 6, 2007

61. Star Trek is a Human drama, hence the tagline. It doesn’t matter what the Federation is.

83. Star Quack - December 6, 2007


Actually Armstrong now insists that he DID say “for A man” and that the audio didn’t pick it up.

But I was just teasing about the split infiinitive. I like it better the way it is.

84. Star Quack - December 6, 2007

Oops! and apparently I can’t read! I meant #72!!!

85. Moonwatcher - December 6, 2007

#83…I heard that as well. :)

86. Dr. Greg House - December 6, 2007


You idiot!!!!

87. billy billy - December 6, 2007


88. PBBBBBBth - December 6, 2007

…to explore unfamiliar locations…
…to seek out previously unknown lifeforms and previously unencountered civilizations presumably by lifeforms that we are familiar with…

…to boldly go where no entity that we know yet has gone before.

89. Kev-1 - December 6, 2007

The human adventure is just beginning.

90. Captain Hackett - December 6, 2007

Keep the political correctness out!

91. acb - December 6, 2007

It always sends up a red flag for me when the first thing out of the advertising for a film is “young and new”…………….

92. Iowagirl - December 6, 2007


Space, the (until further notice) ultimate borderline,
these are, were, will be the trips of the spacecraft Enterprise
Its quinquennial deployment…

93. Jay (The Real Jim Kirk) - December 6, 2007

I think the film credits will be like earlier films, done by rank for example:

William Shatner Chris Pine
Leonard Nimoy Zachary Quinto
DeForest Kelley Karl Urban
James Doohan Simon Pegg
Walter Keonig Anton Yelchin
George Takei John Cho
Nicolle Nichells Zoe Saltana

then they’ll follow on with Bana and Nimoy etc

94. Aragorn189 - December 6, 2007


That’s exactly what I was saying earlier. If they do that, it might make the film seem a little more traditional. If there is any way to do the credits, its this way.

95. Jay - December 6, 2007

Wow! A lot of producers on this one. Sure beats the day when there was one producer and one executive producer. I think before this, VI had the most with I believe it was 4 credited producers (two producers, one executive and one co), and then I think Nick Meyer served as a 5th, but was never credited. Now we’ve got 9 in total (I’m hoping that the aforementioned Nick Meyer might come in and serve as the 10th). Also, it’s interesting to see that it now has Paramount and Level 1 presenting the film. I think on the final film the titles (which will be at the start of the film- another stupid Nemesis move that’ll be reversed) should and probably will read “a Bad Robot/ Level 1 production” and I remember reading somewhere that Paramount is using the DreamWorks in some regions, so it might actually say “Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Pictures present” (and could easily add another studio logo to the start).
As for cast, I think it’ll stick with the same order the old films had, but right now it’s just listed there in alphabetical order.

96. Charles Trotter - December 6, 2007

#95 Jay

I think the final credits will read “Paramount Pictures presents In Association with Level 1 Entertainment A Bad Robot Production”. But that’s just a guess.

The credit should still read “Paramount Pictures presents”, at least in the US.

97. The Vulcanista - December 6, 2007

#95, Charles,

As I’m totally ignorant about how such things work and just curious: So Exec VP credits are listed in order of whose company invested the most moola in the production?


Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

98. mike aka the alchemical dragon - December 7, 2007

Five Things:
1. The phrase, where no man has gone before was always appropriate because trek was the story of hu-MAN-ity or MAN-kind stepping out onto a larger stage.
2. Didn’t we have enough of this prequal nonsense with Enterprise. They didn’t even have the decency or good sense to call it star trek: enterprise until their butts were in a sling because of bad ratings. Ent left a bad taste in everyones mouth because of their disregard for established trek history, and their desecration of much the star trek continuum, and this “new vision” seems like a fancy way of saying throw the classic story out the window .
3. No one, ever, in any time, in any reality will ever come close to William Shatner as James Tiberius Kirk, Period. End of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200. The Same goes for Nimoy, Kelly, Doohan, Nichols, Koenig, and Takei.
4. When is everyone going to realize that JJ Abrams is a whack job who can’t right the end of a TV series. Anyone remember how pointless, confused and painfully drawn out the last three seasons of Alias were. They had a great start, but they had no idea what the h@!! the were doing by the end, because they never thought it through. The same is rapidly becoming apparent with Lost. Also, why isn’t Abrams doing hard time for the greatest travesty of all TV: Felicity.
5. Maybe the next one will be called what STXII was called on the Simpsons, So Very Tired. Don’t get me wrong, I love Star Trek, I’ve watched all the movies, even Nemesis and Final Frontier, multiple times, as well as having seen every episode of every series, even the animated one, at least once, but there is one thing I realized by the end of Enterprise: Their current production team is out of ideas. They said “These are the Voyages” was a love letter to the fans, I would call it a drunk dial at best. They reduced what was supposed to be the culmination of all of enteprise into an aged and decrepit Riker and Troi watching a movie. They need to forget about Star Treks established and hallowed past and engage in the true final frontier, that nebulous entity called the future.

99. Charles Trotter - December 7, 2007

#97 The Vulcanista,

I’m not entirely sure, actually. I think they are listed in order of who has more authority on the project, or who contributed the most to the project. In this case, however, the exec producers appear to be listed in ABC order until they get to the three guys from Level 1. Since Todman is apparently the head of Level 1, he gets top-billing above his partners.

The final exec producer credits will likely separate the first four from the last three, so one credit will read “Executive Producers: Bryan Burk, Jeffrey Chernov, Alex Kurtzman, Orberto Orci”, which will be followed by the credit “Executive Producers: Bill Todman, Jr., Edward Milstein, Paul Schwake.”

100. trektacular - December 7, 2007

98. I totally agree, Trek has been dead to me for at least 10 years might as well just enjoy the postmortem thrashing.

101. Fanbois are lame - December 7, 2007

I don’t know what is more pathetic- some of the things people in this thread are arguing passionatly over even though this is JUST A FREAKIN’ SHOW or the fact that I just read the whole thread.

Let’s all move out of Mom’s basement, take a shower, and spend a little time in the sunlight talking to real, live people about things non-Geek for oh, say, 30 minutes and see if we feel more sane.

102. IrishTrekkie - December 7, 2007

# 101 cut back on the coffee , and ligthen up a bit .

yes where “no man ” makes sense it give it the classic feel , and as someone already said it’s established within the Trek universe that Zefram Cochrane coined the phrase , so it would be used in the 23th century,

go trek !

103. Fanbois are lame - December 7, 2007

Dude- you just told me to lighten up and then referenced Zefram Cochrane like he was a real guy.

Again- TV shows and movies. Not real. F-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Here is how fiction works: someone thinks up some good stuff for a story. Later on, perhaps someone thinks up more to that story. Sometimes, the new story dovetails perfectly with the old version. Sometimes, the new version is different. Either way is OK because unlike non-fiction, continuity in a fiction franchise takes a back-seat to entertainment value.

I mean really- would it be so band if Trek took the same approach as James Bond or most super-hero franchise and just freshened itself up now and again without freaking out over continuity?

104. DesiluTrek - December 7, 2007

If Trek is about humans more evolved than us 250-300 years from now, it’s fair to assume they would not be offended by the use of either “man” or “one.” However, other sentient aliens could rightfully say “man” is rather human-centric, so “one” would be used as a respectful courtesy in mixed company. Universal translators would interpret “man” as such.

“Where no man has gone before” is fine in the 23rd century for the same reasons as, for instance, many female crew wear miniskirts — because, being more accepting/tolarant of others’ differences, we are more comfortable with ourselves.

(Of course, the previous is an attempt to Trek-fit what can be seen as 1966 and 1987 anachronisms.)

105. Anthony Pascale - December 7, 2007


warning for trolling, and pick a new name
comments to

106. spock - March 3, 2008

They put so much work into changing it from Man to One.

It doesn’t look good for the new movie – if they don’t care about Cannon. Star Trek is different from Superman were they seem to re-imagine it every time. I could only enjoy a story that has good continuity in it. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.